Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/10/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA OCTOBER 23, 2017 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Fire Station #1 (3750 Wooddale Ave. S.) Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 13, 2017 2. 6:35 p.m. Annual TIF District Management Report 3. 7:20 p.m. Via (Place) Project 4. 7:50 p.m. 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations 8:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 8:40 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. September 2017 Monthly Financial Report 6. Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2017) 7. Westwood Hills Nature Center Project 8. Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report 9. Walker Building and Historical Society Updates 10. SWLRT Update 11. Proposed Property Acquisition: 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning November 13, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Regular Study Session on November 13. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the Regular Study Session on November 13, 2017. Also attached to this report is the Study Session Prioritizaton & Tentative Discussion Timeline. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – November 13, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 13, 2017 November 13, 2017 6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Location TBD (Councilmember Sanger Absent) Tentative Discussion Items 1.Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2.SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning (Session 4 of 4) – Police (120 minutes) Review of critical incident: officer-involved shooting. Discussion of how investigation of an officer-involved shooting is conducted and the role of elected officials, including interacting with the media. Chief Harcey and staff will present. Jacque Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager and consultant Bob McNaney, Senior Vice President, Padilla will lead a discussion and provide information on communication. 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. End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 13, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date Scheduled 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 1 of 4 (held on 8/14/17) Ongoing 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 2 of 4 (held on 9/25/17) Ongoing 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 3 of 4 (held on 10/16/18) Ongoing 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 4 of 4 November 13, 2017 4 Preserving the Walker Building Combined w/Walker Lake Branding Discussion (held on 8/28/17) Ongoing; November 27, 2017 4 Race Equity Communication to HRC on Outreach & Next Steps Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing 4 Race Equity/Inclusion Courageous Conversations Most recently discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing 4 Affordable Housing Preservation Policies/Ordinance Discussed 9/25/17; Work Group being formed. Ongoing 4 Flavored Tobacco Ordinance Discussed on 10/2/17 1st Reading 11/20/17 4 Climate Action Plan Consultant updating draft. Review by E&S Commission & staff before council-ready. 4th Qtr 2017 3 Revitalization of Walker/Lake Area Part of Preserving Walker Building Report (held on 8/28/17; report also provided 9/25) Ongoing 3 Utilization of DBE Vendors Discussed on 9/11/17 Ongoing 3 Ranked Choice Voting Sent to Charter Commission on 10/2/17 Ongoing 3 Policy for Funding Non-Profits Part of 2018 Budget item 10/9/17 Ongoing 3 Field Imprvmts/Girls Fastpitch Softball Council discussion on 10/9/17 Ongoing 3 Historical Society Space Part of Preserving Walker Building report November 27, 2017 3 Living Streets Policy After Vision 3.0 work is completed 4th Qtr 2017 3 The Nest Postponed to 2018 per their request. January 2018 3 Develop a Youth Advisory Commission 1st Qtr 2018 2 Bird Friendly Glass 2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution) 2 Community Center Project ? Overview of Crime Free Ordinance Priority not yet determined. Fall 2018? ? SEED’s Community Green House / Resiliant Cities Initiative Priority not yet determined ? TH 169 Mobility Study Direction provided on 9/11/17 3 Property Tax Relief for Seniors Part of 2018 Budget item (Councilmember Brausen: "No further study needed.") October 9, 2017 2 Sidewalk Snow Removal Part of 2018 Budget item (Majority of council determined no need to discuss further at this time.) October 9, 2017 2 Active Space Matching Grants w/ Multi- Family Communities Part of 2018 Budget item (Will be included in 2018 Budget Proposal.) October 9, 2017 Priority Key 5 = High priority/discuss ASAP 4 = Discuss sooner than later 3 = Discuss when time allows 2 = Low priority/no rush 1 = No need to discuss Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Annual TIF District Management Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This is an annual update. 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? •What other information would be helpful for the City Council/EDA regarding the City’s TIF Districts? SUMMARY: Beginning in 2000, staff along with representatives from Ehlers (the City and EDA’s Municipal Advisor) have presented the City Council/EDA with an annual report regarding the status and recommendations regarding the City’s TIF Districts. Stacie Kvilvang with Ehlers, and staff will be discussing the Management Review & Analysis – Tax Increment Financing Districts report with the City Council/EDA at a high level. The purpose of the report is to review the status, financial condition, debt management, and future value of the City’s tax increment districts. The report also describes the revenues generated from each TIF district and presents recommendations. Information contained in this report is obtained from various sources, including, but not limited to: the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, Office of the State Auditor and Ehlers. Portions of the information in the report are used by staff throughout the year to provide a quick reference guide when performing analyses and making recommendations to the City Council/EDA. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: By updating the information contained in the report, staff is able to have an excellent resource when analyzing data or preparing financial information to ensure a comprehensive picture for the City Council, EDA or end users of information. VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Management Review and Analysis – TIF Districts Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer, Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director October 23, 2017 Management Review & Analysis Tax Increment Financing Districts City of St Louis Park, Minnesota Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 2 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 2 Table of Contents Management Review and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 TIF District Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Obligations of the TIF Districts .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Administrative Expenses .................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Tax Increment Financing Districts ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Victoria Ponds ................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Park Center Housing ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 Mill City ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Park Commons .................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Edgewood ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Wolfe Lake Commercial Redevelopment ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Aquila Commons .............................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Elmwood Village .............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Highway 7 Corporate Center ............................................................................................................................................................ 84 West End ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Ellipse on Excelsior ........................................................................................................................................................................ 102 Hardcoat .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Eliot Park ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 117 The Shoreham ................................................................................................................................................................................. 123 4900Excelsior ................................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Wayzata Boulevard ......................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Elmwood Apartments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Wooddale Station ............................................................................................................................................................................ 137 City Map of the TIF Districts.......................................................................................................................................................... 141 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 142 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 3 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 3 Management Review and Analysis Overview Revenue from tax increment financing (TIF) districts is a financial asset of the City of St Louis Park. This revenue tool allows the City to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within 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) The factors that produce tax increment revenues change every year. At the same time, the state property tax laws have changed significantly since 1997, including the major reforms enacted in 2001. Despite reductions in revenue due to the reform, the City has more than adequate cash flow to pay for all outstanding general obligation tax increment bonds. A few of the TIF districts for which project costs were paid through a developer financed PAYGO note are not meeting scheduled principal and interest payments. However, the interest rates on these notes is much higher than what is seen in today’s market. Overall, the City has no obligation to make up shortfalls for these PAYGO notes, since they are revenue based notes and the risk is borne by the developer. In addition to property tax reform, significant changes enacted by the Legislature in 1990 have changed the way that cities can utilize TIF for development. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has a TIF division which is mandated by state law to collect annual reporting forms and, if necessary, audit the use of TIF. Such audits could result in a letter to the county attorney or attorney general for enforcement actions. To date the City has not been audited. Due to legislative and market changes and oversight of TIF districts by the OSA, the management of the City’s TIF districts is an ongoing activity. Ehlers worked with City staff to create the following plan for the management of its TIF districts and their related obligations. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 4 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 4 TIF District Summary Currently the City has one inactive (Victoria Ponds) and nineteen active TIF districts, and one HSTI District (Hwy 7 Corporate Center). Overall the makeup of the types of districts is as follows: Type of DistrictNumberEconomic Development1Housing2HSTI Sub District1Redevelopment14Renovation and Revewal1Soils1TOTAL20* Actual number is 19 districts as the HSTI district is a subdistrict These districts are outlined in the charts that follow on the next two pages. A more detailed explanation of each district can be found starting on page 18. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 5 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 5 VictoriaParkZarthan/ MillParkAquilaElmwoodHighway 7 CorporatePondsCenter16th AvenueCityCommonsCommonsVillageCenter & HSTIDistrict TypeRedevelopment HousingRedevelopmentRedevelopment Redevelopment Soils Condition RedevelopmentHousingRenewal and RenovationRedevelopment and Hazardous Substance SubdistrictProject/Costs Financed72 twin home units and part of the Hutchinson Spur trail. Financed $760,000 soil corrections and remediation and $700,000 of City costs for trail improvements91 units of senior assisted living rental housing. Financed $500,000 land acquisitionTwo hotels developed by CSM and 86 townhome units build by Rottlund. Financed $3,945,000 land acquisition and site improvements200 rental housing units developed by MSP Real Estated. Financed $3,531,900 developer site costs.Excelsior and Grand retail, office and rental housing and condos developed by TOLD. Financed $3.5M in public improvements and $15.55M in site and parking ramp costs79,000 s.f. office warehouse facility developed by Real Estate Recycling (CPD Edgewood Investors). Financed $600,000 soils and clean‐up costsTwo office/commercial buildings consisting of 65,000 s.f. developed by Beltline Industrial Park, Inc. Financed $996,000 soils and site condition costs.122 unit limited equity senior cooperative developed by Stonebridge. Financed approximately $1,000,000 land acquisition costs.Rottlund ‐ 224 townhomes and condos near Wooddale and Highway 7. Financed approximately $790,000 in site and land costs.    Hoigaards ‐ 74 condos over 25,000 sq/ft of retail, 220 apartments.  Financed $3,495,000 and $935,000 in 2010 TIF revenue bonds for site and land costs.  100 sr. apartmenst and 22 town homes.  Financed $1.020 in site and land costs.    Grecco ‐ 115 senior rental units over 10,000 sq/ft of retail.  Financed $490,000 in site and land costs.Created to provide funding to clean up contaminated land and the subsequent construction of a 78,000 s.f. faciltiyApproved4/1/199610/7/199612/20/19993/20/20001/16/20019/15/20037/7/20039/7/20048/2/20045/15/2006Legal max term12/31/2023 12/31/202312/31/202612/31/202612/31/202712/31/202512/31/203112/31/203212/31/202912/31/2032Anticipated termDecertified12/31/202312/31/202112/31/202212/31/202712/31/201912/31/201912/31/201812/31/202512/31/2027First Increment1998199820012001200220052006200720072007Current ObligationsNone None$1,101,362PAYGO Note 1     $1,448,088 PAYGO Note 2 and                        $1,395,547 PAYGO Note 3$3,531,853 PAYGO Note$3,145,046interfund 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 Note$600,000 PAYGO Note$996,000 PAYGO Note$1,050,000 PAYGO NoteHoigaards ‐ 2010A TIF Revenue Bonds ‐ $3,495,000, 2010B TIF Revenue Bonds ‐ $935,000, Adagio-$820,000 PAYGO Note, and Medley- $200,000 PAYGO Note                            Grecco - $490,000 PAYGO Note   IFL ‐ $3,298,200 PAYGO Notes - Note A $2,100,000 Note B $360,000 Note C $72,000 and Note D $23,000Other Obligations$400,000 for ERV's garage redevelopment$500,000 Loan to Lousisana Ct to buy down bondsNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneContruction 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)NoneNone$70,000 to CKJ Properties (former Bikemasters property)NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone2017 Est TIF RevenueN/A$166,343$461,982$527,513$2,701,796$62,571$128,466$181,698$1,846,756$154,462Fiscal DisparitiesA (outside) A (outside) B (inside) B (inside) A (outside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside)County Number130313041305/13061307130813091310131113121313CategoryEdgewood Wolfe Lake Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 6 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 6 Ellipse on ExcelsiorDistrict TypeRedevelopmentRedevelopment Economic Development Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment RedevelopmentProject/Costs Financed1.5M s.f. office, retail, hotel, theater complex developed by Duke Realty. Financed $21,100,000 site costs and up to $5,000,000 City public improvements 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 Bally's site into 164 apartments with 10% of the units affordable at 60% of AMI and a 28,000 sq/ft grocery storeRedevelopment of 2 parcels into a hotel, apartment and/or office building with structured parkingRedevelopment of 1 parcel into 70 apartment units and 4,400 sq/ft of retailRedevelopment of 10 parcels into a 110-room hotel, 299 apartment units and 16,261 sq/ft retial, 10,800 sq/ft e-generation facility and structured parkingApproved11/19/20072/2/200912/20/20105/6/20138/17/201511/16/20153/21/20165/15/20175/1/2017Legal max term12/31/203612/31/203612/31/202212/31/204112/31/204312/31/204312/31/204512/31/204412/31/2044Anticipated term12/31/203112/31/202012/31/202212/31/202112/31/202212/31/2024TBD12/31/202612/31/2029First Increment201120112014201620182018202020192019Current Obligations$5,490,000 2008A GO TIF Bonds and Duke Realty $21.1 M PAYGO Note$1,230,000 Note A - PAYGO and $220,000 Note B ‐ PAYGO       $686k Ellipse II Paygo Interfund Loan from Development Fund$115,000 Interfund Loan from Victoria Ponds TIF District$1.1 Million PAYGO Note$1.2 Million PAYGO Note$2.6 Million PAYGO NoteNone at this time$950,000 PAYGO Note$5,660,000 PAYGO NoteOther ObligationsNone None None None None None None None NoneContruction Assistance Program (CAP) FundingNone None None None None None None None None2017 Est TIF Revenue$2,140,757$575,358$20,498$342,022N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AFiscal DisparitiesB (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)B (inside)County Number1314131513161318/131913201321132213231324Elmwood Apts Wooddale StationHardcoatWest EndCategoryEliot Park The Shoreham 4900 Excelsior Wayzata Blvd Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 7 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 7 Obligations of the TIF Districts The revenues from these districts are largely site specific, meaning that the revenues are restricted by law and by contract with the developers. The revenues must be used primarily to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within a specified period of time. The City has the following obligations outstanding (after the August 1, 2017 actual bond and PAYGO payments were made): Summary of Outstanding Obligations (after the 8/1/2017 payment) DistrictNoteOutstanding After 8/1/2017Total By TIF DistrictNote A 1,049,782$            Note B 179,963$               Note C 78,776$                  Note D 25,165$                  Aquila CommonsStonebridge119,725$               119,725$ EdgewoodEdgewood108,325$               108,325$ Wolfe LakeBeltline255,277$               255,277$ Excelsior & Grand 3,792,973$            Phase NE 4,748,150$            Phase E 3,990,718$            Phase NW 4,608,745$            Mill CitySLP Apts 3,748,461$            3,748,461$ CSM Note 1 1,218,476$            CSM Note 2 1,750,836$            Rottlund Note 3 696,261$               Adagio 387,400$               Medley 115,246$               West EndDuke20,909,528$          20,909,528$ Bader Note A345,611$               Bader Note B84,494$                  Ellipse II LLC429,669$               Eliot ParkWeidner1,082,180$            1,082,180$ The ShorehamBader1,200,000$            1,200,000$ 4900 ExcelsiorWeidner2,800,000$            2,800,000$ Wazata BoulevardN/A‐$                             -$ Wooddale StationPLACE5,660,000$            5,660,000$ Elmwood Apartments36th Street LLC950,000$               950,000$ TOTAL 60,335,759$ Elmwood 502,646$ Ellipse on Excelsior 859,773$ Pay As You Go ObligationsHwy 7 Corporate Center $ 1,333,686 Park Commons 17,140,586$ Zarthan 3,665,573$ Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 8 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 8 IssueAmount Paying District Term2008B GO Tax Increment Bonds3,410,000$ West End2/1/20242010A Tax Increment Revenue Bonds - H1,895,000$ Elmwood2/1/20232010B Tax Increment Revenue Bonds - H80,635$ Elmwood2/1/2018TOTAL5,385,635$ N/AN/ABonds as of 8/1/2017 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 allows cities to utilize cash balances in existing TIF district (not needed to pay debt service on outstanding obligations) to spur new construction or substantial rehabilitation of private buildings and ancillary facilities, if construction commences by July 1, 2012 and the dollars are 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 have available funding for CAP are:  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 at this time – 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 9 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 9 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 has been emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and code deficiencies were addressed. 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 a new 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 to renovate the existing Bikemasters property within the City. The existing building is approximately 18,000 square feet and was constructed in 1950. The building 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 included 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 $70,000 in funding for this project came from the Mill City TIF district. The City provided $25,000 to CAR Properties LLC. to renovate the former Home Hardware Store. The building is located in the Lenox neighborhood near the intersection of Wooddale and West Lake Street. It was originally constructed in the 1950’s within a strip of commercial buildings and has 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 so as 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 10 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 10 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 goals of the City has strengthened the overall diversity of housing options, land uses and tax base, while increasing employment opportunities and cleaning up contaminated sites. One immediate benchmark of the benefit in 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 City’s overall market value has increased in the various TIF districts by over 900%: DistrictCounty District Number Original Market Value Pay 2017 Market Value Percent Increase in ValuePark Center1304$493,000$11,375,0002307.30%Zarthan1305 and 1306$4,053,600$38,531,900950.56%Mill City1307$708,700$34,966,0004933.82%Park Commons1308$6,688,000 $197,191,0002948.43%Edgewood1309$1,000,000$4,852,000485.20%Wolfe Lake1310$1,717,300$9,663,500562.71%Aquila1311$1,900,000$19,760,7001040.04%Elmwood1312$10,864,500 $154,623,9001423.20%Highway 7 Business Center1313$2,792,700$9,464,800338.91%West End 1314$43,051,000 $202,249,000469.79%Ellipse 1315$1,931,800$44,557,0002306.50%Hardcoat1316$1,184,700$2,400,000102.58%Eliot Park 1318/1319$2,143,200$24,318,3001134.67%The Shoreham 1320$2,476,200$2,384,00096.28%4900 Excelsior 1321$2,759,580$3,026,000109.65%Wayzata Boulevard (No Construction Yet)1322$2,331,000$2,331,0000.00%Elmwood Apartments (No Construction Yet)1323$1,100,000$1,100,0000.00%Wooddale Station (No Consturction Yet)1324$7,100,000$7,100,0000.00%TOTALN/A$94,295,280 $769,894,100906.55%Note:  % increase in value excludes the 3 districts where no construction has commenced yet 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. On the following page is a chart which demonstrates St. Louis Park’s current and projected tax base which is captured in TIF districts with similar cities. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 11 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 11 City of St. Louis ParkProjected Captured TIF Tax Capacity and Comparison with Other CitiesCity of St. Louis ParkAcutal2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Excelsior Blvd HSTI-1301 950,066 980,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Victoria Ponds-1303 330,709 333,565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Park Center-1304 86,053 94,015 99,703 116,765 133,828 135,166 136,518 137,883 139,262 140,655Zarthan-1305/1306 292,934 299,459 312,209 366,255 377,405 381,179 384,991 388,841 392,729 0Mill City-1307 237,326 287,326 337,326 362,326 424,401 428,645 432,931 437,261 441,633 446,050Park Commons-1308 1,438,880 1,552,224 1,756,934 1,883,220 2,277,376 2,300,150 2,323,151 2,346,383 2,369,847 2,393,545Edgewood-1309 36,812 40,528 48,720 54,178 51,923 52,442 52,967 0 0 0Wolfe Lake-1310 101,516 102,960 100,192 110,708 106,605 107,671 108,748 0 0 0Aquila Commons-1311 137,278 133,298 139,367 146,560 159,581 161,177 0 0 0 0Elmwood-1312 832,408 1,018,196 1,412,891 1,524,465 1,621,959 1,638,179 1,654,560 1,671,106 1,687,817 1,704,695Highway 7 Business Center-1313 85,065 85,739 83,955 94,441 91,015 91,925 92,844 93,773 94,711 95,658Highway 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 803,793 885,303 1,117,854 1,572,217 2,084,801 2,105,649 2,126,706 2,147,973 2,169,452 2,191,147Ellipse on Excelsior-1315 201,265 247,501 415,572 444,092 535,561 540,917 546,326 551,78900Hardcoat-13160 16,234 15,798 17,093 16,887 17,056 17,226 17,399 17,573 17,748Eliot Park-1318/1319000 52,201 277,040 279,810 282,609 285,435 288,2890The Shoreham - 13200000313,742 374,577 378,323 382,10604900 Excelsior - 132100000 408,015 487,130 492,001 496,921 501,890Wayzata Blvd - 132200000 37,703 445,625 450,081 454,582 459,128Elmwood Apartments - 1323000000 47,218 188,863 190,752 192,659Wooddale Station - 13240000000 215,830 504,858 509,906Captured TIF Tax Capacity5,587,609 6,130,118 5,894,025 6,798,025 8,211,886 9,053,465 9,568,706 9,858,064 9,686,208 8,709,315Total Tax Capacity (Gross)61,908,294 62,645,169 66,206,866 71,733,485 77,974,751 82,362,759 83,186,387 84,018,250 84,858,433 85,707,017Percentage of Tax Base in TIF9.0% 9.8% 8.9% 9.5% 10.5% 11.0% 11.5% 11.7% 11.4% 10.2%Assumes 1% annual increae in tax base and TIF beginning in payable 2018ComparableFinal Pay 2017CityCityCity Tax RateBond Rating28Golden Valley0.1%56.109%Aaa24Brooklyn Park2.1%54.365%AA+34Minnetonka2.2%36.378%Aaa48Edina2.6%28.189%Aaa/AAA1Bloomington3.3%40.926%Aaa/AAA46Minneapolis7.5%61.129%Aaa/AAA30Hopkins9.5%62.985%AA20St. Louis Park10.5%46.200%AAA42Richfield10.7%56.850%Aa2New Brighton12.3%40.867%AAFinal Pay 2017Captured TIF as a % of Tax BaseProjected Today, the City’s use of TIF is about average compared to similar cities that are undertaking significant redevelopment. This use is expected given that the community is fully developed and portion are therefore in need of redevelopment. 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 12 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 12 maintaining St Louis Park’s AAA bond rating. Following is a table which demonstrates the historical market value growth of the City of St. Louis Park. Tax YearTaxable Percent ChangePayable Market Value From Prior Year20176,138,955,694 8.47%20165,659,666,031 7.95%2015 5,242,685,184 6.68%2014 4,914,404,312 0.48%2013 4,891,018,550 -2.54%2012 5,018,306,562 -5.61%2011 5,316,617,000 -4.40%2010 5,561,557,200 -1.39%2009 5,639,683,900 1.49%2008 5,556,997,200 7.23%2007 5,182,504,700 10.67%2006 4,682,796,400 12.04%2005 4,179,671,600 10.42%2004 3,785,184,300 9.11% Tax YearCity Percent ChangePayableTax Rate From Prior Year201746.2000.01%201646.195-3.26%201547.754-1.68%201448.5700.71%201348.2285.60%201245.6725.54%201143.27611.44%201038.8341.06%200938.4266.43%200836.1030.08%200736.074-0.74%200636.344-2.77%200537.381-5.06%200439.3728.19% The above two tables show the history for the City’s taxable market value and the City’s tax rate. 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. Administrative Expenses Minnesota TIF law defines certain costs to administer and maintain the district as allowable costs that can be paid for from tax increment revenues. These generally include City staff time, legal expenses, financial advisory expenses and publication and reporting expenses. This allows a City to defray documented staff time that is most likely a General Fund expense, such as staff time in Finance, Community Development, Assessing and Administration. Time spent can be paid for from TIF revenues rather than general property tax or other revenues. The two (2) tables below compare the statutorily calculated percent of administrative costs used to date with the maximum allowable statutory admin. The tables also include an estimate of the yearly amount of documented admin that can be charged to the district without exceeding this limit. The Hardcoat TIF district currently exceeds the maximum limit and we would recommend that an adjustment to previously coded administrative costs be made in order to bring this district into line with the limit. We also recommend that no further admin is charged to this District. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 13 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 13 DistrictTIF Admin Budget$200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $7,500,000 $167,000 $129,000 $727,712 $500,000Statutory Limit10%10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%10%Actual Admin Used to Date$129,953 $145,192 $82,820 $122,859 $38,011 $43,471 $47,412 $226,465Yearly Admin Estimate$4,990 $13,859 $22,419 $81,054 $7,700 $3,854 $5,451$500Statutory % Used to Date7.70% 3.20% 2.30% 0.70% 6.50% 3.20% 3.40% 4.30%Park CenterZarthan/16th AvenueMill CityPark CommonsAquila CommonsEdgewood Wolfe Lake Victoria Ponds DistrictTIF Admin Budget $4,410,000 $418,105 $14,391,490$1,105,830 $167,000 $37,619 $982,537Statutory Limit 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%Actual Admin Used to Date $332,232$56,975 $160,269 $43,099 $38,011 $45,020 $27,912Yearly Admin Estimate$25,000$6,500 $64,223 $17,261 $7,700 $0 $10,261Statutory % Used to Date3.10%4.00% 2.70% 2.70% 6.50% 75.40% 42.80%Eliot ParkWest End HardcoatElmwood VillageHighway 7 Corporate Center & HSTIEllipse on ExcelsiorEdgewood Assumptions Before discussing the recommendations of the current TIF analysis, it is important to understand the assumptions used in making these projections. 1. Fund Balances. Fund balances shown for debt service funds are based on actual audited amounts for December 31, 2016. 2. Tax Increment. Pay 2017 tax increment revenues are based upon Hennepin County reports. 3. Projected Revenues. Projected revenues do not account for additional development (except the developments under a development agreement) or inflation/decrease of existing values. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 14 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 14 Recommendations The updated financial analysis of the City’s TIF Districts offers the following recommendations: 1. Pooling. Four (4) of the redevelopment districts have cash balances within them due to funds not being utilized for administration or other projects within or outside the district. Following is a chart outlining six (6) districts that have some cash balances available for pooling as of September1, 2017. Please note that the cash balances under redevelopment could be utilized to pay for public infrastructure costs associated with SWLRT. TIF District Cash Balances Currently Available for Legal Pooling DistrictSeptember 1, 2017 Cash BalanceType of Project EligibleAfter 8/1 PmtsPark Center Housing **280,128$                        Aquila Commons24,127$                           Total Affordable Housing304,255$ Zarthan423,031$                        Victoria Ponds270,380$                        Mill City125,700$                        West End328,991$                         Total Redevelopment1,148,102$ **-City Council has directed that available increment from the Park Center districtbe allocated to the Housing Rehab fund for eligible housing projectsRedevelopmentAffordable Housing The balances in the chart on the following page are based on the projections, which include all obligations that have been issued and any current projects. The balances will change as future projects are identified and funded. Following is a chart outlining various districts projected to have some cash balances available for pooling at the end of their term: Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 15 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 15 TIF Balances Available For Legal Pooling at End of District, If Current Available Pooling Is Not Used DistrictEnd Date of ObligationCumulative Pooling AvailableType of Project EligibleVictoria Ponds2013 395,245$     RedevelopmentZarthan2023 765,049$    RedevelopmentMill City 2019 129,124$    RedevelopmentPark Commons 2028 1,532,504$ RedevelopmentWolfe Lake 2020 55,420$       RedevelopmentEllipse 2022 849,841$    RedevelopmentAquila Commons2018 162,224$    Affordable HousingWest End2031 926,260$    RedevelopmentHwy 7 Corporate Center 2027 164,791$    RedevelopmentEliot Park2021 354,363$    Redevelopment As noted, several of the TIF districts will have significant cash balances at the end of their term. In general, tax increment may be used outside the boundaries of a TIF district in accordance with applicable law, which governs the amount and the purpose for which it can be used. The allowable amount and use are restricted based on TIF district type. In the detailed discussions of each TIF district that follows, there is a general description regarding the percent and the use allowable. We recommend completing a pooling analysis for the Zarthan, Park Commons, Ellipse and West End districts to determine how much will be available for use and what strategies can be implemented to secure the use of these funds if deemed appropriate by the City. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 16 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 16 2. Five Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 3 requires that, within five years from certification date, funds must have been expended or obligated for projects within the TIF district. The State Legislature amended the five year rule to increase it to ten years for districts that were certified on or after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The five-year rule extension timeframe has passed for Wolfe Lake, Ellipse, Aquila, Elmwood Village, Highway 7 Corporate Center and Hardcoat. However, the following TIF districts have not yet reached their five year rule deadline and should be tracked to avoid a lost opportunity for new projects within those district’s boundaries. District5 Year DeadlineWest End 7/9/2018Eliot Park 7/16/2018The Shoreham 4/18/2021Wayzata Boulevard 7/1/20214900 Excelsior 7/1/2021Wooddale Station 6/30/2022Elmwood Apartments 6/30/2022 3. Six Year Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize a statutorily prescribed percent of the tax increment generated to pay obligations. For redevelopment districts, the in-district amount is 75% and for all other types of districts, the in-district percent is 80%. We recommend completing a year six rule analysis for the Zarthan, Park Commons, Ellipse, and West End TIF Districts to determine if they should be decertified prior to the end of their legal term. 4. Use of Park Commons TIF after Interfund Loan (IFL) and Excelsior and Grand Notes are repaid. It is anticipated that the IFL will be repaid on February 1, 2021. Approximately $279,000/year was being applied to repayment on this obligation. Starting with the August 1, 2022 payment, this amount will be utilized on a prorated basis to repay the Phase Notes. In addition, it is anticipated that the Excelsior and Grand Note will be repaid on February 1, 2022. Approximately $1.08 million/year was being applied to repayment on this obligation. Starting with the August 1, 2022 payment, this amount will be utilized on a prorated basis to repay the Phase Notes. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 17 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 17 5. Elmwood Village Use of increment from increased pooling authority. In 2017 the City obtained special legislation that increased the legal pooling amount from 20% to 30% for the district, starting with second half pay 2017 TIF receipts. Since we are now past the 5-year rule date of May 31, 2015, any future expenditures need to be under a new interfund loan (IFL) and would be paid from the new 30% pooling available. Based upon our analysis, there is approximately $6.589 million in future pooling available to the City through 2024. The bulk of this increment has been designated to fund several projects within the Capital Improvement Plan. We recommend that the City adopt a new IFL for up to $7 million to cover any future costs inside and outside of the district (the cash flow shown on page 79 includes expenditures for the Hwy 7/Wooddale Avenue bridge in 2018 and W 36th Street and Wooddale reconstruction in 2019 which total approximately $6.5 million). 6. Early Decertification of Aquila Commons District. This district will need to be decertified when the Note is paid, which is estimated to be August 1, 2018. Remaining fund balance estimated at $162,000 can be transferred to the City’s housing rehab fund. 7. Reimbursement of administrative funds in the Hardcoat TIF District. This district has exceeded its allowable admin amount. In order to bring it into compliance, we would recommend that the City transfer a total of $27,000 from another source and to refrain from charging any additional administrative costs to the District. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 18 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 18 Tax Increment Financing Districts Victoria Ponds Description: Victoria Ponds TIF District (County #1303) is a redevelopment district established on April 1, 1996 and is located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Originally, the district encompassed four parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of 74 owner occupied townhomes. The first 10% of annual increment is retained by the City’s EDA for administrative and legal pooling costs. The remaining 90% of increment is 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. In the end, increment from the Elmwood District was used for these projects. This District was decertified for pay 2014. There is currently a $270,400 cash balance, which the City can retain for legal pooling. To date a total of $1,766,247 has been returned to the County for redistribution to the City, County and School District. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 19 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 19 Victoria Ponds Continued Adopted…………………………. 04/01/1996 Requested Date………………….. 06/19/1996 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: 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. Recommendations: Use of Legal Pooling Funds. When the interfund loan due from Hardcoat is paid, there will be approximately fund balance of $395,200 that will be available for legal pooling. 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 20 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 20 Victoria Ponds Continued City of St. Louis ParkVictoria PondsORIGINALInterest 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: for year 2017 4.3%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1303Frozen RateUTA #1 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal TermExpected Term Tax IncrementIFLInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectJobs BillPaygotAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget1998 4/1/1996 6/19/1996 6/28/1996 12/31/2023 11/1/2013‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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            131,680               5,871,573           734,300               525,000                 1,807,053            229,965               3,048                   410,715               1,766,247            5,476,328           5,476,328           Under / (Over) Budget360,107               68,320                 428,427               3,280,700            (525,000)                (1,007,053)          270,035               (3,048)                  (410,715)              (1,766,247)          (161,328)             (161,328)             Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCaptured Tax IncrementIFLInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Jobs Bill PaygotAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE19 2016‐                ‐                       ‐               ‐               128.561%‐                          8,555                     8,555                     ‐                          ‐                          455                         ‐                          248,100                 248,555                 387,026                 20 2017‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               124.745%‐                          1,935                     1,935                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         388,461                 21 2018‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,942                     1,942                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         389,903                 22 2019‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,950                     1,950                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         391,353                 23 2020‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,957                     1,957                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         392,810                 24 2021‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,964                     1,964                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         394,274                 25 2022‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,971                     1,971                     ‐                          ‐                          500                         ‐                          ‐                          500                         395,745                 26 2023‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                        ‐                        500                       ‐                        ‐                        500                       395,245                5,739,893            ‐                131,680               5,871,573            734,300               525,000                 1,807,053            229,965               3,048                   410,715               1,766,247            5,476,328             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetIDID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 21 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 21 Victoria Ponds Continued City of St. Louis ParkVictoria PondsPursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $500,000NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $481,500Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan$4,815,000YTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $524,636Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $5,246,363NDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $481,500Certification Request Date: 6/19/1996Actual Admin Expenses $229,965 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin$251,535If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage4.4%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative19 2016226,465                 5,246,363              4.3%‐                          5,739,893              226,465                 1,208,508              ‐                          410,715                 387,026                 20 2017226,965                 5,246,363              4.3%‐                          5,739,893              226,965                 1,208,008              ‐                          410,715                 388,461                 21 2018227,465                 5,246,363              4.3%‐                          5,739,893              227,465                 1,207,508              ‐                          410,715                 389,903                 22 2019227,965                 5,246,363              4.3%‐                          5,739,893              227,965                 1,207,008              ‐                          410,715                 391,353                 23 2020228,465                 5,246,363              4.4%‐                          5,739,893              228,465                 1,206,508              ‐                          410,715                 392,810                 24 2021228,965                 5,246,363              4.4%‐                          5,739,893              228,965                 1,206,008              ‐                          410,715                 394,274                 25 2022229,465                 5,246,363              4.4%‐                          5,739,893              229,465                 1,205,508              ‐                          410,715                 395,745                 26 2023229,965                 5,246,363              4.4%‐                        5,739,893            229,965               1,205,008             ‐                        410,715               395,245               ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 22 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 22 Park Center Housing Description: Park Center TIF District (County #1304) is a housing district established on October 7, 1996 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No. 1. 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 Louisianan 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. 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. An additional $144,000 was used for affordable housing in 2016, bringing the total transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to $829,400. Adopted…………………………. 10/07/1996 Requested Date………………….. 12/19/1996 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 23 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 23 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 Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Park Center Housing District met the requirement when the City issued an interfund loan from the Development Fund for the Park Shores Assisted Living project. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 Park Center Housing four-year rule was May 2001 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. Former PID # New PID #New Use06-028-24-33-001706-028-24-33-002006-028-24-33-0022Park Shores Assisted LivingStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 24 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 24 Park Center Housing Continued Five Year Rule: At least 80% of tax increment revenues generated within Park Center Housing must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. However, 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. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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. This timeline has passed for Park Center which was May 2002. 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. Use of Increment. As of December 31, 2016, this District had a fund balance of approximately $841,400, and continues to generate approximately $166,000 annually. This increment may be used to pay eligible costs for “housing projects” as defined by MS 469.174, Subd. 11, 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). Owner Occupied: Assistance to homeowner’s 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. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 25 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 25 Park Center Housing Continued Typically TIF is utilized for capital expenditures, but may be used for non-capital expenditures on a limited basis. Examples of potential rental housing projects would include: 1. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election) 2. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election) 3. 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: 1. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction 2. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers 3. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners) 4. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers In order for the City to continue to utilize these funds for housing projects, the development is required to continue to meet income guidelines and report them annually to the City. There were three possible tenant income requirements for this rental housing: (i) 20% of the units affordable to persons at or below 50% of the AMI; (ii) 40% of the units affordable to persons at or below 60% of the AMI; or (iii) 50% of the units affordable to persons at or below 80% of the AMI. The Development Agreement did not specify which of these requirements must be met. This means that the Developer has some flexibility as to income requirements, but must meet at least one of these income requirements on an annual basis for the duration of the TIF District. The City needs to annually monitor the income verification to assure that one of the above referenced requirements is met. If the income requirements are not met on any given year, then the City will need to return that year’s increment to the County for redistribution. 2. Plan for Use of Increment. The City has determined to transfer annual TIF to its housing development account to fund income qualified housing programs. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 26 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 26 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: for year 2017 7.7%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1304Frozen RateUTA #1 126.247%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectAffordable HousingInterest 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 Total3,202,126            195,414               450,000                 3,847,540           713,583               1,991,400              ‐                        136,718        164,885               8,412                   ‐                        ‐                        3,014,998           3,014,998            Under / (Over) Budget2,547,874            54,586                 (450,000)               2,152,460           2,986,417            (1,991,400)            2,550,000            (136,718)      35,115                 (8,412)                  ‐                        ‐                        3,435,002           3,435,002            YearBaseCurrentiscal 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                 841,359                 20 20178,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,207                     ‐                           170,550                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 840,118                 21 20188,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,201                     ‐                           170,543                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 838,871                 22 20198,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,194                     ‐                           170,537                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 837,618                 23 20208,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,188                     ‐                           170,531                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 836,359                 24 20218,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,182                     ‐                           170,525                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 835,093                 25 20228,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 4,175                     ‐                           170,518                 166,000                 4,990                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          171,790                 833,821                 26 20238,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343               4,169                   ‐                         170,512               166,000                 4,990                   800                       ‐                        ‐                        171,790               832,542                3,202,126            195,414               450,000                 3,847,540            713,583               1,991,400              ‐                        136,718        164,885               8,412                   ‐                        ‐                        3,014,998             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 27 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 27 Park Center Housing Continued Park Center HousingPursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $200,000YTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $625,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan$6,250,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $285,011Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project$2,850,113NDistrict Type:HousingDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Admin per TIF Plan $200,000Certification Request Date: 12/19/1996Actual Admin Expenses$164,885 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$35,115If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage5.8%Total Pooling %:100%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative19 2016129,953                 1,682,513              7.7%146,882                 2,037,727              129,953                 1,907,774              ‐                          ‐                          841,359                 202017134,943                 1,849,313              7.3%166,343                 2,204,070              134,943                 2,069,126              ‐                          ‐                          840,118                 21 2018139,934                 2,016,113              6.9%166,343                 2,370,412              139,934                 2,230,479              ‐                          ‐                          838,871                 22 2019144,924                 2,182,913              6.6%166,343                 2,536,755              144,924                 2,391,831              ‐                          ‐                          837,618                 23 2020149,914                 2,349,713              6.4%166,343                 2,703,098              149,914                 2,553,184              ‐                          ‐                          836,359                 24 2021154,904                 2,516,513              6.2%166,343                 2,869,441              154,904                 2,714,536              ‐                          ‐                          835,093                 25 2022159,895                 2,683,313              6.0%166,343                 3,035,783              159,895                 2,875,889              ‐                          ‐                          833,821                 26 2023164,885                 2,850,113              5.8%166,343               3,202,126            164,885               3,037,241             ‐                        ‐                        832,542               ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (100% Outside of District)Tax Increment100% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 28 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 28 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Description: Zarthan Avenue/16th Street TIF District (County #1305 and #1306) is a redevelopment district established on December 20, 1999 and located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. 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% back 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. Adopted………………………. 12/20/1999 Requested Date……………….. 01/28/2000 Certified Date………………… 05/09/2000 First Increment………………… 07/2001 Anticipated Decertification…... 12/31/2021 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 29 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 29 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued 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 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% Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 30 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 30 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street 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 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) 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 Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Zarthan district met the requirement when the City authorized the issuance of the notes in 2000. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel within the TIF district. The four-year deadline was May 2004 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 31 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 31 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street 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 actually be paid for activities, bonds issued, contracts entered into in order for revenues to be considered to have been spent. The five-year deadline was May 2005. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. 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. This district may not be enlarged after May 2005. Recommendations: 1. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. Currently there is approximately cash balance $423,000 in the District for use on redevelopment projects, which represents the actual cash balance at September 1, 2017 after the obligation payments were made. It is estimated that there will be approximately $765,000 available for use when the obligations are paid in February 2022. We recommend that the City update its pooling analysis and develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will have to be returned either when the district expires or when the obligation is paid. 2. Year Six Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax increment generated to pay obligations. We recommend completing a year six rule analysis for the District to determine if it should be decertified prior to the end of the legal term. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 32 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 32 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued City of St. Louis ParkZarthan Ave ‐ 16th StORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense3.00%2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently:for year 20173.2%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1305, 1306Frozen RateUTA #1 143.769%UTA #2 144.294%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectAdmin Expense County AdminOutside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2001 12/20/1999 1/28/2000 5/9/2000 12/31/2026 12/31/2021‐                        ‐                        ‐                        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 Total7,573,742            52,223                 7,625,966           34,070                 1,491,076            1,870,757             3,223,362             228,349               13,303                  ‐                         ‐                        6,860,916           6,860,916           Under / (Over) Budget5,926,258            57,777                 5,984,034           5,875,930            5,293,924            (1,870,757)           (3,223,362)           771,651               (13,303)                 ‐                         ‐                        6,834,084           6,834,084           Year Base Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject CSM‐Town Place CSM‐Spring Hill CSM‐RottlundAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE16 201672,212              498,627             60,160         366,255            128.561% 465,522                 3,061                     468,583                 ‐                          84,358                   102,098                 206,919                 6,721                     1,456                     ‐                          ‐                          401,552                 637,513                 17 201772,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            124.745% 461,982                 3,188                     465,170                 ‐                          89,502                   108,658                 216,547                 13,859                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          430,066                 672,617                 18 201872,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            124.745% 461,982                 3,363                     465,345                 ‐                          89,262                   107,842                 237,761                 13,859                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          450,225                 687,737                 19 201972,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            124.745% 461,982                 3,439                     465,421                 ‐                          89,262                   107,842                 237,761                 13,859                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          450,225                 702,933                 20 202072,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            124.745% 461,982                 3,515                     465,497                 ‐                          89,262                   107,842                 237,761                 13,859                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          450,225                 718,204                 21 202172,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            124.745% 461,982                 3,591                     465,573                 ‐                          89,262                   107,842                 98,218                   13,859                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          310,682                 873,095                 22 202272,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            0.000%‐                          4,365                     4,365                     ‐                          44,631                   53,921                   13,859                   ‐                          ‐                          112,412                 765,049                 23 202372,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          765,049                 24 202472,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          765,049                 25 202572,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          765,049                 26 202672,212              517,412             70,992         374,208            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          765,049                 7,573,742            52,223                 7,625,966            34,070                 1,491,076            1,870,757             3,223,362             228,349               13,303                 ‐                        ‐                        6,860,916             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local   Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetPaygoID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 33 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 33 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $1,000,000NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,269,500Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan $12,695,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $663,257Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project$6,632,568YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $663,257Certification Request Date: 1/28/2000Actual Admin Expenses$228,349 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$434,908If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.4%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative16 2016145,192                 4,511,890              3.2%465,522                 5,263,832              145,192                 1,170,766              ‐                          ‐                   637,513                 17 2017159,051                 4,928,097              3.2%461,982                 5,725,814              159,051                 1,272,402              ‐                          ‐                   672,617                 18 2018172,911                 5,364,462              3.2%461,982                 6,187,796              172,911                 1,374,038              ‐                          ‐                   687,737                 19 2019186,770                 5,800,827              3.2%461,982                 6,649,778              186,770                 1,475,674              ‐                          ‐                   702,933                 20 2020200,630                 6,237,193              3.2%461,982                 7,111,760              200,630                 1,577,310              ‐                          ‐                   718,204                 21 2021214,489                 6,534,016              3.3%461,982                 7,573,742              214,489                 1,678,946              ‐                          ‐                   873,095                 22 2022228,349                 6,632,568              3.4%‐                          7,573,742              228,349                 1,665,087              ‐                          ‐                   765,049                 23 2023228,349                 6,632,568              3.4%‐                          7,573,742              228,349                 1,665,087              ‐                          ‐                   765,049                 24 2024228,349                 6,632,568              3.4%‐                          7,573,742              228,349                 1,665,087              ‐                          ‐                   765,049                 25 2025228,349                 6,632,568              3.4%‐                          7,573,742              228,349                 1,665,087              ‐                          ‐                   765,049                 26 2026228,349                 6,632,568              3.4%‐                          7,573,742              228,349                 1,665,087              ‐                          ‐                   765,049                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 34 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 34 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount1,101,362$ Interest Rate8.00%PID 04-117-21-32-0089Note Issue Date 10/25/2000Final Payment2/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDate Interest Due Available 89.75% Paid Note Balance2/1/2016 49,822.14 43,429.57 38,978.04 954,514.14 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/201649,280.59 50,564.38 45,381.54 999,895.68 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/201749,822.14 49,994.73 44,870.27 1,044,765.95 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/201749,009.82 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,089,397.18 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/201849,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,134,028.41 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/201849,009.82 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,178,659.64 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/201949,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,223,290.87 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/201949,009.82 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,267,922.10 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/202049,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,312,553.33 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/202049,280.59 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,357,184.56 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/202149,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,401,815.79 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/202149,009.82 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,446,447.02 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/202249,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,491,078.25 1,218,476.17$ TOTAL2,071,121.94 1,661,078.12 1,491,078.25 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 1CSM - Town Place Suites Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 35 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 35 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount1,448,088$ Interest Rate8.00%PID 04-117-21-32-0088Note Issue Date 10/25/2000Final Payment Date 2/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available 89.75%PaidNote Balance2/1/201671,589.75 52,768.85 47,360.04 1,222,073.85 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/201670,811.60 60,988.15 54,736.86 1,276,810.71 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/201771,589.75 60,988.15 54,736.86 1,331,547.57 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/201770,422.52 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,385,468.50 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/201871,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,439,389.43 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/201870,422.52 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,493,310.36 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/201971,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,547,231.29 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/201970,422.52 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,601,152.22 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/202071,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,655,073.15 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/202070,811.60 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,708,994.08 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/202171,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,762,915.01 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/202170,422.52 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,816,835.94 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/202271,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,870,756.87 1,750,836.21$ TOTAL2,951,814.78 2,078,096.00 1,870,756.87 Economic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 2CSM - Spring Hill Suites Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 36 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 36 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount1,395,547$ Interest Rate8.00%Note Issue Date 11/6/2000Last Payment 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available89.75%PaidNote Balance2/1/201639,922.10 104,479.72 93,770.55 2,094,457.16 922,507.36$ 8/1/201637,310.30 126,070.18 113,147.98 2,207,605.14 846,669.67$ 2/1/201734,619.38 108,820.79 97,666.66 2,305,271.80 783,622.40$ 8/1/201731,519.03 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,424,152.38 696,260.85$ 2/1/201828,469.33 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,543,032.96 605,849.61$ 8/1/201824,368.62 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,661,913.54 511,337.64$ 2/1/201920,908.03 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,780,794.12 413,365.09$ 8/1/201916,626.46 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,899,674.69 311,110.98$ 2/1/202012,720.98 132,457.47 118,880.58 3,018,555.27 204,951.38$ 8/1/20208,289.14 132,457.47 118,880.58 3,137,435.85 94,359.94$ 2/1/20213,858.27 132,457.47 98,218.22 3,235,654.07 (0.00)$ TOTAL1,813,436.61 3,629,355.30 3,235,654.07 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 3Rottlund - 86 Town Homes/Condos Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 37 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 37 Mill City Description: Mill City TIF District (County #1307) is a redevelopment district established on March 20, 2000, and is located within the Redevelopment Project No. 1. 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 drop in increment also means a drop 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. Adopted…………………..….…. 03/20/2000 Requested Date…………….….... 06/08/2000 Certified Date……………………06/19/2000 First Increment……..……….…… 07/2001 Anticipated Decertification...……12/31/2022 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 38 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 38 Mill City 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: 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 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 8/1/2017 payment, the current balance is $3,748,461 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. 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. 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 39 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 39 Mill City Continued Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. Mill City met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with MSP SLP Apartments LLC on April 3, 2000. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 was June 2004 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the Mill City district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The five-year deadline was June 2005. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 2005. Recommendations: 1. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. Currently there is approximately $125,700 of cash available for projects and it is estimated that there will be approximately $129,100 available at the end of the District. We recommend that the City update its pooling analysis and develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will have to be returned either when the district expires or when the obligation is paid. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 40 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 40 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: for year 2017 2.6%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1307Frozen RateUTA #1 144.294%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First 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 12/31/2022‐                        ‐                        ‐                        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 Total7,132,302            62,345                 7,194,647           8,981                   6,736,473             70,000                239,755               10,313                 ‐                        ‐                        7,065,523           7,065,523           Under / (Over) Budget4,367,698            37,655                 4,405,353           7,991,019            (2,436,473)           (70,000)               760,245               (10,313)                ‐                        ‐                        6,234,477           6,234,477           YearBaseCurrentFiscal DisparitieCapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Jobs BillAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE16 201612,674                   375,000                 ‐                  362,326               128.561% 464,132                 694                         464,826                 ‐                          426,962                 ‐                       6,187                     1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          434,315                 333,572                 17 201712,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,668                     529,181                 ‐                          469,792                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          493,377                 369,376                 18 201812,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,847                     529,360                 ‐                          499,819                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          523,404                 375,332                 19 201912,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,877                     529,390                 ‐                          499,819                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          523,404                 381,318                 20 202012,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,907                     529,420                 ‐                          499,819                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          523,404                 387,333                 21 202112,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,937                     529,450                 ‐                          499,819                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          523,404                 393,379                 22 202212,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               124.745% 527,513                 1,967                     529,480                 ‐                          499,819                 ‐                       22,419                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          523,404                 399,455                 23 202312,674                   437,075                 ‐                  424,401               0.000%‐                          1,997                     1,997                     ‐                          249,909                 ‐                       22,419                   ‐                          ‐                          272,329                 129,124                 7,132,302            62,345                 7,194,647            8,981                   6,736,473             70,000                239,755               10,313                 ‐                        ‐                        7,065,523             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local     Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 41 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 41 Mill City Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $1,000,000NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,230,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan $12,300,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $682,577Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $6,825,767YDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $682,577Certification Request Date: 6/8/2000Actual Admin Expenses $239,755 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $442,822If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage3.5%Total Pooling %: 25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside Cumulative16 2016 82,820                   3,599,977              2.3% 464,132                 3,967,223              82,820                   908,986                  ‐                          ‐                          333,572                 17 2017105,239                 4,070,935              2.6%527,513                 4,494,736              105,239                 1,018,445              ‐                          ‐                          369,376                 18 2018127,659                 4,571,919              2.8%527,513                 5,022,249              127,659                 1,127,904              ‐                          ‐                          375,332                 19 2019150,078                 5,072,904              3.0%527,513                 5,549,762              150,078                 1,237,363              ‐                          ‐                          381,318                 20 2020172,497                 5,573,889              3.1%527,513                 6,077,275              172,497                 1,346,822              ‐                          ‐                          387,333                 21 2021194,917                 6,074,873              3.2%527,513                 6,604,789              194,917                 1,456,281              ‐                          ‐                          393,379                 22 2022217,336                 6,575,858              3.3%527,513                 7,132,302              217,336                 1,565,740              ‐                          ‐                          399,455                 23 2023239,755                 6,825,767              3.5%‐                          7,132,302              239,755                 1,543,320              ‐                          ‐                          129,124                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 42 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 42 Mill City Continued Maximum amount 3,431,137.00$ Interest Rate 8.75%Note Issued Date 11/20/2000Final Payment 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CumualtiveIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available94.75%PaidNote Balance2/1/2016173,362.88 218,553.22 207,079.49 3,297,787.52 3,928,863.40$ 8/1/2016171,887.77 232,065.86 219,882.40 3,517,669.92 3,880,868.78$ 2/1/2017169,788.01 232,065.86 219,882.40 3,737,552.32 3,830,774.39$ 8/1/2017167,596.38 263,756.56 249,909.34 3,987,461.66 3,748,461.43$ 2/1/2018163,995.19 263,756.56 249,909.34 4,237,371.00 3,662,547.27$ 8/1/2018160,236.44 263,756.56 249,909.34 4,487,280.34 3,572,874.38$ 2/1/2019156,313.25 263,756.56 249,909.34 4,737,189.68 3,479,278.29$ 8/1/2019152,218.43 263,756.56 249,909.34 4,987,099.02 3,381,587.38$ 2/1/2020147,944.45 263,756.56 249,909.34 5,237,008.36 3,279,622.48$ 8/1/2020143,483.48 263,756.56 249,909.34 5,486,917.70 3,173,196.63$ 2/1/2021138,827.35 263,756.56 249,909.34 5,736,827.04 3,062,114.64$ 8/1/2021133,967.52 263,756.56 249,909.34 5,986,736.38 2,946,172.82$ 2/1/2022128,895.06 263,756.56 249,909.34 6,236,645.72 2,825,158.54$ 8/1/2022123,600.69 263,756.56 249,909.34 6,486,555.06 2,698,849.88$ 2/1/2023118,074.68 263,756.56 249,909.34 6,736,464.40 2,567,015.22$ TOTAL7,311,794.61 7,113,565.22 6,736,464.39 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - MSP SLP Apartments, LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 43 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 43 Park Commons Description: Park Commons TIF District (County #1308) is a redevelopment district established on January 16, 2001 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 has 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 rate 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 Secti 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). 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 44 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 44 Park Commons Continued 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 Requested Date………………….…….03/08/2001 Certified Date………………….……...06/07/2001 First Increment…………………………...07/2002 Decertifies………………………..…...12/31/2027 Former and Current PID Numbers: 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 45 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 45 Park Commons Continued Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from outside (A election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 119.0650% 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 five obligations in this district as follows:  $3,145,046 Interfund loan at 4.53%. This Loan was used to finance the initial public improvements and has a priority on TIF generated from the District.  $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 after a deduction is made for payment of the Interfund Loan above.  $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. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 46 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 46 Park Commons Continued Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. Park Commons met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with Meridian Properties on January 16, 2001. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 was June 2005 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within Park Commons must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The five-year deadline was June 2006. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 2006. Recommendations: 1. Use of TIF after Interfund Loan (IFL) and Excelsior and Grand Notes are repaid. It is anticipated that the IFL will be repaid on February 1, 2021. Approximately $279,000/year was being applied to repayment on this obligation. Starting with the August 1, 2022 payment, this amount will be utilized on a prorated basis to repay the Phase Notes. In addition, it is anticipated that the Excelsior and Grand Note will be repaid on February 1, 2022. Approximately $1.08 million/year was being applied to repayment on this obligation. Starting with the August 1, 2022 payment, this amount will be utilized on a prorated basis to repay the Phase Notes. 2. Year Six Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax increment generated to pay obligations. We recommend completing a year six rule analysis for the District to determine if it should be decertified prior to the end of the legal term. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 47 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 47 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:for year 2017 1.0%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1308Frozen RateUTA #1 119.065%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax IncrementOther RevenuesInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectInterest ExpenseBondsAdmin 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 Total48,737,422           89,704                 48,827,126         7,396                   4,733,317            9,551,604            7,885,051         12,120,492       11,299,275       279,317        1,095,506            90,655                 232,010                ‐            47,294,622         47,294,622         Under / (Over) Budget26,262,578           160,296               29,672,874         49,742,604         40,266,683         (9,551,604)          (7,885,051)        (12,120,492)      (11,299,275)      (279,317)       6,404,494            (90,655)                (232,010)              ‐            54,955,378         54,955,378         YearBase Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectTOLD Excel and Grand Phase E Phase NE Phase NW Bonds 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% 2,701,796              4,633                     2,706,429             ‐                          279,317                 881,761                 278,355               442,129             475,217               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,443,899             1,189,097             17 201872,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              5,945                     2,707,742             ‐                          279,317                 1,083,749              298,252               458,453             437,949               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,644,840             1,251,999             18 201972,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              6,260                     2,708,056             ‐                          279,317                 1,083,749              301,146               483,630             483,279               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,718,242             1,241,813             19 202072,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              6,209                     2,708,005             ‐                          279,317                 1,083,749              301,146               483,630             483,279               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,718,242             1,231,576             20 202172,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              6,158                     2,707,954             ‐                          161,073                 1,083,749              301,146               483,630             483,279               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,599,998             1,339,533             21 202272,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              6,698                     2,708,494             ‐                          264,758                 462,893               743,389             742,849               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,301,008             1,747,018             22 202372,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              8,735                     2,710,531             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,717,325             1,740,224             23 202472,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              8,701                     2,710,497             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,717,325             1,733,396             24 202572,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              8,667                     2,710,463             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,717,325             1,726,534             25 202672,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              8,633                     2,710,429             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,717,325             1,719,638             26202772,035            2,349,411         ‐                2,277,376     124.745% 2,701,796              8,598                     2,710,394             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         765,985               ‐                   81,054                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,480,891             1,949,141             27 2028‐                  ‐                      ‐                ‐                  0.000%‐                          9,746                     9,746                     ‐                          312,320               33,010               ‐                       ‐                   81,054                   ‐                          ‐              426,383                 1,532,504             48,737,422           89,704                 48,827,126         7,396                   4,733,317            9,551,604            7,885,051         12,120,492       11,299,275       279,317        1,095,506            90,655                 232,010               ‐            47,294,622         Paygo Notes DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local     Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 48 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 48 Park Commons Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $7,500,000NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $9,475,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan $94,750,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $4,619,912Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $46,199,117YDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$4,619,912Certification Request Date:3/8/2001Actual Admin Expenses$1,095,506 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$3,524,406If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage2.4%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative15 2016122,859                 17,968,960           0.7%2,226,110              19,017,665           122,859                 4,631,557              ‐                          232,010                 926,567                 16 2017203,913                 20,331,805           1.0%2,701,796              21,719,461           203,913                 5,225,952              ‐                          232,010                 1,189,097              17 2018284,967                 22,895,591           1.2%2,701,796              24,421,257           284,967                 5,820,348              ‐                          232,010                 1,251,999              18 2019366,021                 25,532,779           1.4%2,701,796              27,123,053           366,021                 6,414,743              ‐                          232,010                 1,241,813              19 2020447,075                 28,169,967           1.6%2,701,796              29,824,850           447,075                 7,009,138              ‐                          232,010                 1,231,576              20 2021528,128                 30,688,911           1.7%2,701,796              32,526,646           528,128                 7,603,533              ‐                          232,010                 1,339,533              21 2022609,182                 32,908,865           1.9%2,701,796              35,228,442           609,182                 8,197,928              ‐                          232,010                 1,747,018              22 2023690,236                 35,545,136           1.9%2,701,796              37,930,238           690,236                 8,792,323              ‐                          232,010                 1,740,224              23 2024771,290                 38,181,408           2.0%2,701,796              40,632,034           771,290                 9,386,718              ‐                          232,010                 1,733,396              24 2025852,344                 40,817,679           2.1%2,701,796              43,333,830           852,344                 9,981,114              ‐                          232,010                 1,726,534              25 2026933,398                 43,453,951           2.1%2,701,796              46,035,626           933,398                 10,575,509           ‐                          232,010                 1,719,638              26 2027 1,014,452              45,853,787           2.2%2,701,796              48,737,422           1,014,452              11,169,904           ‐                          232,010                 1,949,141              27 2028 1,095,506              46,199,117           2.4%‐                          48,737,422           1,095,506              11,088,850           ‐                          232,010                 1,532,504              ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 49 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 49 Park Commons Continued City of St Louis Park, MNTOLD Internal Loan for Public Improvements4.53%Date Payment Principal Interest Note BalanceProject Costs 3,145,046.07Net Cap I 116,502.14 3,261,548.218/1/2002 0.00 3,261,548.212/1/2003 0.00 3,261,548.218/1/2003 0.00 3,261,548.212/1/2004 0.00 3,261,548.218/1/2004 128,243.90 54,369.83 73,874.07 3,207,178.382/1/2005 114,587.37 41,944.78 72,642.59 3,165,233.608/1/2005 139,658.56 67,966.02 71,692.54 3,097,267.582/1/2006 139,658.56 69,505.45 70,153.11 3,027,762.138/1/2006 139,658.56 71,079.75 68,578.81 2,956,682.382/1/2007 139,658.56 72,689.70 66,968.86 2,883,992.688/1/2007 139,658.56 74,336.13 65,322.43 2,809,656.552/1/2008 139,658.56 76,019.84 63,638.72 2,733,636.718/1/2008 139,658.56 77,741.69 61,916.87 2,655,895.022/1/2009 139,658.56 79,502.54 60,156.02 2,576,392.488/1/2009 139,658.56 81,303.27 58,355.29 2,495,089.212/1/2010 139,658.56 83,144.79 56,513.77 2,411,944.428/1/2010 139,658.56 85,028.02 54,630.54 2,326,916.402/1/2011 139,658.56 86,953.90 52,704.66 2,239,962.508/1/2011 139,658.56 88,923.41 50,735.15 2,151,039.092/1/2012 139,658.56 90,937.52 48,721.04 2,060,101.578/1/2012 139,658.56 92,997.26 46,661.30 1,967,104.312/1/2013 139,658.56 95,103.65 44,554.91 1,872,000.668/1/2013 139,658.56 97,257.75 42,400.81 1,774,742.912/1/2014 139,658.56 99,460.63 40,197.93 1,675,282.288/1/2014 139,658.56 101,713.42 37,945.14 1,573,568.862/1/2015 139,658.56 104,017.23 35,641.33 1,469,551.638/1/2015 139,658.56 106,373.22 33,285.34 1,363,178.412/1/2016 139,658.56 108,782.57 30,875.99 1,254,395.848/1/2016 139,658.56 111,246.49 28,412.07 1,143,149.352/1/2017 139,658.56 113,766.23 25,892.33 1,029,383.128/1/2017 139,658.56 116,343.03 23,315.53 913,040.092/1/2018 139,658.56 118,978.20 20,680.36 794,061.898/1/2018 139,658.56 121,673.06 17,985.50 672,388.832/1/2019 139,658.56 124,428.95 15,229.61 547,959.888/1/2019 139,658.56 127,247.27 12,411.29 420,712.612/1/2020 139,658.56 130,129.42 9,529.14 290,583.198/1/2020 139,658.56 133,076.85 6,581.71 157,506.342/1/2021 161,073.86 157,506.34 3,567.52(0.00) Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 50 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 50 Park Commons Continued Maximum amount3,500,000.00$ Interest Rate8.50%Note Issued Date7/1/2003Last payment date2/1/2026TIF will be applied first to internal loan, then iffunds remain, to TOLD per this schedule!Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeSend letter to Roger for TIF applied to internal loan.Increment9Available at Tax IncrmentDate Interest Due Available 97.00% Paid Note Balance2/1/2015 206,416.16 276,290.87 268,002.14 2,995,385.36 4,795,264.86$ 8/1/2015203,798.76 347,810.25 337,375.94 3,332,761.30 4,661,687.67$ 2/1/2016198,121.73 348,857.48 338,391.76 3,671,153.06 4,521,417.64$ 8/1/2016192,160.25 411,275.01 398,936.76 4,070,089.82 4,314,641.13$ 2/1/2017183,372.25 350,398.53 339,886.57 4,409,976.39 4,158,126.81$ 8/1/2017176,720.39 558,633.56 541,874.55 4,951,850.94 3,792,972.64$ 2/1/2018161,201.34 558,633.56 541,874.55 5,493,725.50 3,412,299.43$ 8/1/2018145,022.73 558,633.56 541,874.55 6,035,600.05 3,015,447.60$ 2/1/2019128,156.52 558,633.56 541,874.55 6,577,474.60 2,601,729.57$ 8/1/2019110,573.51 558,633.56 541,874.55 7,119,349.16 2,170,428.52$ 2/1/202092,243.21 558,633.56 541,874.55 7,661,223.71 1,720,797.18$ 8/1/202073,133.88 558,633.56 541,874.55 8,203,098.26 1,252,056.51$ 2/1/202153,212.40 558,633.56 541,874.55 8,744,972.82 763,394.36$ 8/1/202132,444.26 558,633.56 541,874.55 9,286,847.37 253,964.07$ 2/1/202210,793.47 558,633.56 264,757.54 9,551,604.91 (0.00)$ TOTAL6,051,604.91$ 14,615,870.89$ 9,551,604.91$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Excelsior and Grand Tax Increment District Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 51 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 51 Park Commons Continued Maximum amount 3,300,715$ Interest Rate 8.50%Note Issued Date 6/5/2006Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDate Interest Due Available 97.00% Paid Note Balance2/1/2015161,038.81 116,900.30 113,393.29 2,108,937.24 3,836,793.92$ 8/1/2015163,063.74 131,479.38 127,535.00 2,236,472.24 3,872,322.66$ 2/1/2016164,573.71 130,105.85 126,202.67 2,362,674.91 3,910,693.70$ 8/1/2016166,204.48 148,375.65 143,924.38 2,506,599.30 3,932,973.80$ 2/1/2017167,151.39 128,749.60 124,887.11 2,631,486.41 3,975,238.08$ 8/1/2017168,947.62 158,214.12 153,467.70 2,784,954.11 3,990,718.00$ 2/1/2018169,605.51 152,245.88 147,678.50 2,932,632.61 4,012,645.01$ 8/1/2018170,537.41 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,083,205.71 4,032,609.32$ 2/1/2019171,385.90 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,233,778.81 4,053,422.12$ 8/1/2019172,270.44 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,384,351.91 4,075,119.46$ 2/1/2020173,192.58 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,534,925.01 4,097,738.93$ 8/1/2020174,153.90 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,685,498.11 4,121,319.74$ 2/1/2021175,156.09 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,836,071.21 4,145,902.73$ 8/1/2021176,200.87 155,230.00 150,573.10 3,986,644.31 4,171,530.49$ 2/1/2022177,290.05 155,230.00 150,573.10 4,137,217.41 4,198,247.44$ 8/1/2022178,425.52 321,979.00 312,319.63 4,449,537.04 4,064,353.33$ 2/1/2023172,735.02 321,979.00 312,319.63 4,761,856.67 3,924,768.71$ 8/1/2023166,802.67 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,074,176.30 3,779,251.75$ 2/1/2024160,618.20 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,386,495.93 3,627,550.32$ 8/1/2024154,170.89 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,698,815.56 3,469,401.58$ 2/1/2025147,449.57 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,011,135.19 3,304,531.52$ 8/1/2025140,442.59 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,323,454.82 3,132,654.48$ 2/1/2026133,137.82 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,635,774.45 2,953,472.66$ 8/1/2026125,522.59 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,948,094.08 2,766,675.62$ 2/1/2027117,583.71 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,260,413.71 2,571,939.71$ 8/1/2027109,307.44 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,572,733.34 2,368,927.51$ 2/1/2028100,679.42 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,885,052.97 2,157,287.30$ TOTAL6,741,625.27 8,130,602.74 7,885,052.97 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase E Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 52 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 52 Park Commons Continued Maximum amount4,668,633$ Interest Rate8.50%Note Issued Date 6/5/2006Last Payment DateTotal Tax Tax Increment Tax IncrementIncrement Available atPaidDateInterest Due Available97.00%Note Balance2/1/2015203,537.08 167,049.76 162,038.26 162,038.26 4,830,606.62$ 8/1/2015205,300.78 227,296.36 220,477.47 220,477.47 4,815,429.93$ 2/1/2016204,655.77 196,835.95 190,930.87 190,930.87 4,829,154.83$ 8/1/2016205,239.08 259,616.71 251,828.22 251,828.22 4,782,565.69$ 2/1/2017203,259.04 180,553.64 175,137.03 175,137.03 4,810,687.70$ 8/1/2017204,454.23 275,249.58 266,992.09 266,992.09 4,748,149.84$ 2/1/2018201,796.37 223,338.42 216,638.27 216,638.27 4,733,307.94$ 8/1/2018201,165.59 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,692,658.35$ 2/1/2019199,437.98 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,650,281.15$ 8/1/2019197,636.95 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,606,102.91$ 2/1/2020195,759.37 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,560,047.11$ 8/1/2020193,802.00 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,512,033.93$ 2/1/2021191,761.44 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,461,980.19$ 8/1/2021189,634.16 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,409,799.17$ 2/1/2022187,416.46 249,294.00 241,815.18 241,815.18 4,355,400.46$ 8/1/2022185,104.52 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 4,038,931.56$ 2/1/2023171,654.59 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 3,709,012.73$ 8/1/2023157,633.04 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 3,365,072.35$ 2/1/2024143,015.57 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 3,006,514.50$ 8/1/2024127,776.87 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 2,632,717.95$ 2/1/2025111,890.51 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 2,243,035.04$ 8/1/202595,328.99 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 1,836,790.61$ 2/1/202678,063.60 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 1,413,280.79$ 8/1/202660,064.43 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 971,771.80$ 2/1/202741,300.30 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 511,498.69$ 8/1/202721,738.69 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 31,663.96$ 2/1/20281,345.72 517,086.00 33,009.68 33,009.68 (0.00)$ TOTAL7,451,859.00 12,970,198.63 12,120,492.26 12,120,492.00 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase NEStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 53 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 53 Park Commons Continued Maximum amount4,079,105$ Interest Rate8.50%Note Issued Date 6/5/2006Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available97.00%PaidNote Balance2/1/2015200,589.56 185,042.63 179,491.36 2,759,687.70 4,740,852.46$ 8/1/2015201,486.23 237,760.95 230,628.12 2,990,315.82 4,711,710.57$ 2/1/2016200,247.70 194,546.12 188,709.74 3,179,025.56 4,723,248.53$ 8/1/2016200,738.06 246,116.38 238,732.88 3,417,758.44 4,685,253.71$ 2/1/2017199,123.28 194,069.16 188,247.09 3,606,005.53 4,696,129.90$ 8/1/2017199,585.52 295,845.61 286,970.24 3,892,975.77 4,608,745.18$ 2/1/2018195,871.67 202,380.39 196,308.98 4,089,284.75 4,608,307.88$ 8/1/2018195,853.08 249,113.00 241,639.61 4,330,924.36 4,562,521.35$ 2/1/2019193,907.16 249,113.00 241,639.61 4,572,563.97 4,514,788.90$ 8/1/2019191,878.53 249,113.00 241,639.61 4,814,203.58 4,465,027.82$ 2/1/2020189,763.68 249,113.00 241,639.61 5,055,843.19 4,413,151.89$ 8/1/2020187,558.96 249,113.00 241,639.61 5,297,482.80 4,359,071.23$ 2/1/2021185,260.53 249,113.00 241,639.61 5,539,122.41 4,302,692.15$ 8/1/2021182,864.42 249,113.00 241,639.61 5,780,762.02 4,243,916.96$ 2/1/2022180,366.47 249,113.00 241,639.61 6,022,401.63 4,182,643.82$ 8/1/2022177,762.36 516,711.00 501,209.67 6,523,611.30 3,859,196.51$ 2/1/2023164,015.85 516,711.00 501,209.67 7,024,820.97 3,522,002.69$ 8/1/2023149,685.11 516,711.00 501,209.67 7,526,030.64 3,170,478.14$ 2/1/2024134,745.32 516,711.00 501,209.67 8,027,240.31 2,804,013.79$ 8/1/2024119,170.59 516,711.00 501,209.67 8,528,449.98 2,421,974.70$ 2/1/2025102,933.92 516,711.00 501,209.67 9,029,659.65 2,023,698.96$ 8/1/202586,007.21 516,711.00 501,209.67 9,530,869.32 1,608,496.49$ 2/1/202668,361.10 516,711.00 501,209.67 10,032,078.99 1,175,647.93$ 8/1/202649,965.04 516,711.00 501,209.67 10,533,288.66 724,403.29$ 2/1/202730,787.14 516,711.00 501,209.67 11,034,498.33 253,980.76$ 8/1/202710,794.18 516,711.00 264,774.94 11,299,273.27 0.00$ 2/1/20280.00 11,299,273.27 0.00$ TOTAL7,220,168.27 11,901,297.65 11,299,273.27 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase NW Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 54 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 54 Edgewood Description: Edgewood (County #1309) is a soils condition district established on September 15, 2003 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. Originally, the district encompassed one (1) parcel of land and was established to facilitate cleanup of a contaminated site and the construction of an office/warehouse. Expenditures from this district are to be used to mitigate certain hazardous substances in order to facilitate construction of a 79,000 square foot office/warehouse facility. This district was certified by the County on April 26, 2004 and began to receive increment in 2005. The interest rate on the note has been set at 1.7% due to reduced interest loans from other governmental entities. The EDA has pledged 95% of tax increment revenues from this District for a PAYGO note with Edgewood Investors, LLC (originally Real Estate Recycling), in an amount not to exceed $600,000 in two separate notes. Principal and interest was first paid on August 1, 2006 and is paid each February 1 and August 1 through February 1, 2023. For administrative purposes, the notes are being accounted for as one obligation. A soils district cannot pool funds and will need to be decertified as soon as the original obligation is paid. Adopted……………………….… 09/15/2003 Requested Date………………..… 11/24/2003 Certified Date………………….... 04/26/2004 First Increment……..……………..… 07/2005 Anticipated Decertification………12/31/2019 Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PID # Former UseNew PID #New Use08-117-21-14-0043 ConAgraSame as FormerMulti-Tenant Office/WarehouseStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 55 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 55 Edgewood Continued Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 120.9420% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4b specifies the activities on which tax increment from a soils condition district may be spent. In general, tax increment may only be used to acquire property and for removal and remediation actions and allowable administrative expenses Obligations: There is one PAYGO Note that was issued for this project on February 1, 2004 as follows:  $600,000 PAYGO Note at 1.7% interest. This Note was issued on February 1, 2004 to Edgewood Investors LLC and is paid from 95% of the available increment. It is anticipated that the Note will be repaid by August 1, 2019. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Repayment of Assistance. If the property is transferred within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an analysis of repayment of a portion of the assistance is to be completed. If the property does not transfer ownership in this timeframe, then no look back is required. The property ownership was never transferred in the 5-year period. Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Edgewood District met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with Edgewood Investors, LLC. A Tax Increment Financing Note was authorized on August 1, 2006. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 56 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 56 Edgewood Continued Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 was April 2008 and was met because qualified activities happened prior to that time. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 April 2009. Recommendations: 1. Decertification. This district will need to be decertified when the note is paid, which is estimated to be August 2019. 2. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. As stated above, pooling is not allowed in Soils Condition TIF Districts and any remaining balances must be returned to the County. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 57 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 57 Edgewood Continued City of St. Louis ParkEdgewoodORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeSoils Condition Admin Expense 2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently: for year 2017 7.1%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1309Frozen RateUTA #1 120.942% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2005 9/15/2003 11/24/2003 4/26/2004 12/31/2025 12/31/2019‐                        ‐                        ‐                         Cumulative Modified1,675,000            1,675,000           1,200,000              308,000               167,000               1,675,000           1,675,000           End of District Projected Actual Total767,510               1,319                   768,829               ‐                          697,527               61,111                 4,195                    ‐                        5,995                   768,828               768,828                Under / (Over) Budget907,490               (1,319)                  906,171               1,200,000              (389,527)              105,889               (4,195)                   ‐                        (5,995)                  906,172               906,172                YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE17 201619,250                   96,290                   22,862                   54,178                   128.561%65,288                   1                             65,289                   ‐                          47,350                   6,068                     605                         ‐                          ‐                          54,023                   11,477                   18 201719,250                   96,290                   25,117                   51,923                   124.745%62,571                   57                           62,628                   ‐                          57,912                   7,700                     605                         ‐                          ‐                          66,217                   7,888                     19 201819,250                   96,290                   25,117                   51,923                   124.745%62,571                   39                           62,610                   ‐                          62,024                   7,700                     605                         ‐                          ‐                          70,329                   170                         20 201919,250                   96,290                   25,117                   51,923                   124.745%62,571                   1                             62,571                   ‐                          48,441                   7,700                     605                         ‐                          5,995                     62,741                   0                             767,510               1,319                   768,829               ‐                          697,527               61,111                 4,195                   ‐                        5,995                   768,828                DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 58 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 58 Edgewood Continued Maximum amount600,000$ Interest Rate1.70%Note Issued Date 2/1/2004Final Pyament 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CummulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available 95.00%PaidNote Balance2/1/2004- 600,000.00$ 8/1/20045,100.00 - - - 605,100.00$ 2/1/20055,143.35 - - - 610,243.35$ 8/1/20055,187.07 12,158.00 - - 615,430.42$ 2/1/20065,231.16 - - - 620,661.58$ 8/1/20065,275.62 - 30,157.00 30,157.00 595,780.20$ 2/1/20075,064.13 19,586.50 18,607.18 48,764.18 582,237.16$ 8/1/20074,949.02 19,586.50 20,923.63 69,687.81 566,262.54$ 2/1/20084,813.23 22,025.00 20,923.64 90,611.45 550,152.13$ 8/1/20084,676.29 22,025.00 29,816.81 120,428.26 525,011.62$ 2/1/20094,462.60 31,499.79 29,816.80 150,245.06 499,657.42$ 8/1/20094,247.09 33,304.66 31,639.43 181,884.48 472,265.08$ 2/1/20104,014.25 33,304.66 31,639.43 213,523.91 444,639.90$ 8/1/20103,800.44 34,398.44 32,678.52 246,202.42 415,761.82$ 2/1/20113,533.98 34,398.44 32,678.52 278,880.94 386,617.28$ 8/1/20113,286.25 34,016.76 431.38 279,312.33 389,472.14$ 2/1/20123,310.51 34,016.76 44,462.00 323,774.33 348,320.65$ 8/1/20122,960.73 21,894.36 20,799.64 344,573.97 330,481.74$ 2/1/20132,809.09 21,894.36 20,799.64 365,373.61 312,491.19$ 8/1/20132,656.18 22,180.58 21,071.55 386,445.17 294,075.81$ 2/1/20142,499.64 22,180.58 21,071.54 407,516.71 275,503.91$ 8/1/20142,341.78 24,419.17 23,198.20 430,714.91 254,647.50$ 2/1/20152,164.50 24,419.17 23,198.21 453,913.12 233,613.79$ 8/1/20151,985.72 29,355.38 27,887.86 481,800.98 207,711.64$ 2/1/20161,765.55 29,355.38 27,887.61 509,688.60 181,589.58$ 8/1/20161,543.51 32,644.00 19,462.03 529,150.63 163,671.06$ 2/1/20171,391.20 32,644.00 26,900.16 556,050.79 138,162.11$ 8/1/20171,174.38 32,644.00 31,011.80 587,062.59 108,324.68$ 2/1/2018920.76 32,644.00 31,011.80 618,074.39 78,233.64$ 8/1/2018664.99 32,644.00 31,011.80 649,086.19 47,886.83$ 2/1/2019407.04 32,644.00 31,011.80 680,097.99 17,282.07$ 8/1/2019146.90 32,644.00 17,428.97 697,526.96 (0.00)$ TOTAL97,526.95$ 754,527.49$ 697,526.96$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Edgewood InvestorsStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 59 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 59 Wolfe Lake Commercial Redevelopment Description: Wolfe Lake TIF District (County #1310) is a redevelopment district established on July 7, 2003 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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. Adopted……………………..….…07/07/2003 Requested Date……………………12/15/2003 Certified Date……………….…….04/26/2004 First Increment………………..…...... 07/2006 Anticipated Decertification…….....12/31/2019 Former and Current PID Numbers: Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 120.9240% 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 60 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 60 Wolf Lake 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 is currently one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $996,000 at 7.5% interest. This Note was issued on January 20, 2006 to Wolf Lake/Belt Line Industrial Park. The EDA has pledged 95% of tax increment revenues from this District and it is anticipated that the Note will be repaid by February 1, 2020. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2005 shall be $9,500,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. Repayment of Assistance. If the property is transferred within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, an analysis of repayment of a portion of the assistance is to be completed. If the property does not transfer ownership in this timeframe, then no look back is required. The property ownership was never transferred in the 5-year period. 4. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage. Developer must provide City with any notice of default it receives from its mortgage holder and the City has the right, but not the obligation to cure any default on behalf of the developer. Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Wolfe Lake district met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 61 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 61 Wolf Lake Continued Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 6 requires that, within four years from certification date, certain activities must have taken place on each parcel with the TIF district. Required activities include demolition, rehabilitation, renovation and site improvements. The Wolfe Lake four-year deadline was April 2008 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. This district did not fall within the certification dates for extension of the four-year rule. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the Wolfe Lake district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Wolfe Lake Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its five-year rule was April 26, 2014. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 April 2009. Recommendations: 1. Decertification. This district will need to be decertified as of year-end 2019. The note is expected to be paid off in February of 2020. 2. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. There is currently approximately $89,800 available in legal pooling at the end of 2016. It is estimated that there will be approximately $55,400 available at the end of the District. 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 either when the district expires or when the obligation is paid. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 62 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 62 Wolf 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: for year 20173.2%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1310Frozen RateUTA #1 120.942% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Intersest Expense BondsAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2006 7/7/2003 12/15/2003 4/26/2004 12/31/2031 12/31/2019‐                        ‐                        ‐                         Cumulative Modified2,594,000            50,000                 2,644,000           1,165,000            1,350,000             129,000               2,644,000           2,644,000           End of District Projected Actual Total1,741,016            4,453                   1,745,469           ‐                        1,630,073              ‐                     55,033                 4,944                    ‐                         ‐                        1,690,049           1,690,049           Under / (Over) Budget852,984               45,547                 898,531               1,165,000            (280,073)                ‐                     73,967                 (4,944)                   ‐                         ‐                        953,951               953,951               Year Base Current Fiscal Disparities Captured Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo BondsAdmin 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                 449                         128,915                 ‐                          124,392                 ‐                       3,854                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          128,950                 89,805                   13 201834,346                   192,520                 51,569                   106,605                 124.745% 128,466                 449                         128,915                 ‐                          122,043                 ‐                       3,854                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          126,601                 92,119                   14 201934,346                   192,520                 51,569                   106,605                 124.745% 128,466                 461                         128,927                 ‐                          122,043                 ‐                       3,854                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          126,601                 94,445                   15 202034,346                   192,520                 51,569                   106,605                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          39,025                   ‐                       ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          39,025                   55,420                   1,741,016            4,453                   1,745,469            ‐                        1,630,073             ‐                     55,033                 4,944                   ‐                        ‐                        1,690,049             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 63 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 63 Wolf Lake Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $129,000YTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$264,400Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$2,644,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$174,547Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$1,745,469NDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Admin per TIF Plan $129,000Certification Request Date: 12/15/2003Actual Admin Expenses$55,033 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$73,967If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.2%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative11 201643,471                   1,358,712              3.2%133,411                 1,355,618              43,471                   295,434                 ‐                          ‐                          89,839                   12 201747,325                   1,487,627              3.2%128,466                 1,484,084              47,325                   323,696                 ‐                          ‐                          89,805                   13 201851,179                   1,616,542              3.2%128,466                 1,612,550              51,179                   351,959                 ‐                          ‐                          92,119                   14 201955,033                   1,745,469              3.2%128,466                 1,741,016              55,033                   380,221                 ‐                          ‐                          94,445                   15 202055,033                   1,745,469              3.2%‐                          1,741,016              55,033                   380,221                 ‐                          ‐                          55,420                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated TotalsADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for Pooling Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 64 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 64 Wolf Lake Continued Maximum amount 996,000.00$ Interest Rate 7.50%Note Issued Date 1/20/2006Final Payment 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDateInterest Due Available95.00%PaidNote Balance996,000.00$ 2/1/20062,490.00 - 998,490.00$ 8/1/200637,443.38 60,387.11 57,367.75 57,367.75 978,565.62$ 2/1/200736,696.21 60,387.13 57,367.77 114,735.53 957,894.06$ 8/1/200735,921.03 61,064.50 58,011.34 172,746.87 935,803.74$ 2/1/200835,092.64 61,064.50 58,011.34 230,758.21 912,885.05$ 8/1/200834,233.19 61,145.62 57,878.99 288,637.20 889,239.24$ 2/1/200933,346.47 61,145.62 57,878.97 346,516.17 864,706.75$ 8/1/200932,426.50 61,513.46 58,284.00 404,800.17 838,849.25$ 2/1/201031,456.85 61,513.46 58,284.00 463,084.17 812,022.09$ 8/1/201030,620.00 64,625.99 61,233.12 524,317.30 781,408.97$ 2/1/201129,302.84 64,625.99 61,233.12 585,550.42 749,478.68$ 8/1/201128,105.45 59,904.72 55,532.66 641,083.08 722,051.47$ 2/1/201227,076.93 59,904.72 55,532.66 696,615.73 693,595.75$ 8/1/201226,009.84 60,376.28 57,206.52 753,822.26 662,399.07$ 2/1/201324,839.96 60,376.28 57,206.52 811,028.78 630,032.51$ 8/1/201323,626.22 61,166.49 57,955.24 868,984.02 595,703.48$ 2/1/201422,338.88 61,166.49 57,955.24 926,939.27 560,087.12$ 8/1/201421,003.27 62,037.23 58,780.28 985,719.55 522,310.11$ 2/1/201519,586.63 62,037.23 58,780.28 1,044,499.83 483,116.45$ 8/1/201518,116.87 60,368.86 57,351.20 1,101,851.02 443,882.12$ 2/1/201616,645.58 60,368.86 57,350.26 1,159,201.28 403,177.45$ 8/1/201615,119.15 66,705.59 63,370.32 1,222,571.60 354,926.28$ 2/1/201713,309.74 66,705.59 63,370.31 1,285,941.91 304,865.70$ 8/1/201711,432.46 64,233.04 61,021.39 1,346,963.30 255,276.78$ 2/1/20189,572.88 64,233.04 61,021.39 1,407,984.69 203,828.27$ 8/1/20187,643.56 64,233.04 61,021.39 1,469,006.08 150,450.44$ 2/1/20195,641.89 64,233.04 61,021.39 1,530,027.47 95,070.95$ 8/1/20193,565.16 64,233.04 61,021.39 1,591,048.85 37,614.72$ 2/1/20201,410.55 64,233.04 39,025.27 1,630,074.12 0.00$ TOTAL634,074.13 1,743,989.96 1,630,074.12 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Belt Line Industrial Park Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 65 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 65 Aquila Commons Description: Aquila Commons (County #1311) is a housing district established on September 7, 2004 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 Requested Date………………...12/20/2004 Certified Date………….....……04/04/2005 First Increment……………………07/2007 Anticipated Decertification……12/31/2018 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 66 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 66 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: There is one PAYGO Note that was issued for this project as follows:  $1,050,000 at 5.75% interest. This Note was issued on May 25, 2006 to Aquila Senior LLC. The EDA has pledged 95% of tax increment revenues from this District and it is anticipated that the Note will be repaid by August 1, 2018 Due to the reallocation of the market value homestead credit to a market value homestead exclusion in 2011, the tax capacities dropped for the pay 2012 taxes, thus reducing the amount of TIF and extending the repayment period on the Note. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Income restrictions. 95% of the units sold are income restricted pursuant to TIF law. Based upon this, at least 40% of the unit interests (42 units) need to be sold to persons with a household income not exceeding 80% of the median income and adjusted for family size. At least 55% of the unit interests (58 units) need to be sold to persons at or below 100% of the area median income for households of two or less and to persons at or below 115% of the area median income for households of three or more. 2. Assignment of Note. Except for a collateral assignment to a Holder the developer may not transfer or assign its interest in the TIF Note to another party without the written consent of the Authority. a. Look Back. Within 60 days after closing on initial sale of all units, 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 profit for the developer exceeds an 8.00% rate of return, then 50 percent of the profit in excess of 8.00% will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note in accordance with the terms of Section 5(b) of the TIF Note. 3. Marketing Covenants. Through the term of the TIF Note, the developer must use its best efforts to market available unit interests in the Cooperative to buyers who reside in the City, to the extent permissible under State and federal fair housing and related laws. 4. Management. Upon completion and through the term of the TIF Note, the City has to approve the property management company. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 67 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 67 Aquila Commons Continued Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Aquila Commons District met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with Aquila Senior LLC. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule to increase it by an additional two years for districts that were certified on or after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Aquila Commons district falls within this timeline and the Four Year Rule was deadline becomes April 2011. The district met this requirement by April 2009. Five Year Rule: At least 80% of tax increment revenues generated within Aquila Commons Housing must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. However, 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. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 April 2009. Recommendation: 1. Decertification. This district will need to be decertified when the Note is paid, which is estimated to be August 1, 2018. 2. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. It is estimated that there will be approximately $110,000 in legal pooling funds available at year end 2017 that the City could transfer to its housing program fund. If these funds are not used until the district ends, it is estimated that there will be approximately $162,000 available at that time that can be transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. We recommend that the City prepare a plan to utilize these funds for other affordable housing programs in the City. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 68 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 68 Aquila Commons Continued City of St. Louis ParkAquila CommonsORIGINALHSS 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: for year 2017 3.4%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1311Frozen RateUTA #1 114.271% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest 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 12/31/2018‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total1,776,361            2,245                   1,778,606           ‐                         1,551,150             58,314                 6,572                    ‐                        346                       1,616,382           1,616,382           Under / (Over) Budget5,495,355            (2,245)                  5,493,110           5,750,000             (756,606)               669,398               (6,572)                   ‐                        (346)                     5,655,874           5,655,874           YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE10 201616,906                   163,466                 ‐                          146,560                 128.561% 167,035                 125                         167,160                 ‐                          154,793                 6,098                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          161,978                 100,494                 11 201716,906                   176,487                 ‐                          159,581                 124.745% 181,698                 502                         182,201                 ‐                          165,416                 5,451                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          171,954                 110,741                 12 201816,906                   176,487                 ‐                          159,581                 124.745% 181,698                 554                         182,252                 ‐                          124,231                 5,451                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          130,769                 162,224                 13 201916,906                   176,487                 ‐                          159,581                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          162,224                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 69 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 69 Aquila Commons Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $727,712NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $727,172Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$7,271,716NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $177,861Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$1,778,606YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $177,861Certification Request Date: 12/20/2004Actual Admin Expenses $58,314 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$119,547If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.3%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative10 201647,412                   1,414,153              3.4%167,035                 1,412,964              47,412                   305,829                 ‐                          ‐                          100,494                 11 201752,863                   1,596,354              3.3%181,698                 1,594,662              52,863                   345,803                 ‐                          ‐                          110,741                 12 201858,314                   1,778,606              3.3%181,698                 1,776,361              58,314                   385,776                 ‐                          ‐                          162,224                 13 201958,314                   1,778,606              3.3%‐                          1,776,361              58,314                   385,776                 ‐                          ‐                          162,224                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 70 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 70 Aquila Commons Continued Maximum amount 1,050,000.00$ Interest Rate 5.75%Note Issued Date 25-May-06Final Payment 2/1/2020Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDate Interest Due Available 95.00% Paid Note Balance8/1/20061,050,000.00 2/1/2007 30,187.50 - - - 1,080,187.50 8/1/2007 31,055.39 - - - 1,111,242.89 2/1/2008 31,948.23 - - - 1,143,191.12 8/1/2008 32,866.74 27,651.20 4,436.45 4,436.45 1,171,621.42 2/1/2009 33,684.12 27,651.20 37,199.16 41,635.61 1,168,106.37 8/1/2009 33,583.06 100,128.78 95,122.34 136,757.95 1,106,567.09 2/1/2010 31,813.80 100,128.78 94,878.67 231,636.62 1,043,502.23 8/1/2010 30,167.36 99,679.83 94,695.84 326,332.45 978,973.75 2/1/2011 28,145.50 99,679.83 94,695.84 421,028.29 912,423.41 8/1/2011 26,232.17 89,143.55 84,686.37 505,714.66 853,969.22 2/1/2012 24,551.61 89,143.55 84,686.37 590,401.03 793,834.46 8/1/2012 22,822.74 78,089.07 74,184.61 664,585.64 742,472.59 2/1/2013 21,346.09 78,089.07 74,184.61 738,770.25 689,634.06 8/1/2013 19,826.98 78,151.63 74,244.05 813,014.30 635,217.00 2/1/2014 18,262.49 78,042.46 74,140.34 887,154.64 579,339.15 8/1/2014 16,656.00 75,885.98 72,091.68 959,246.32 523,903.47 2/1/201515,062.22 75,885.98 72,091.68 1,031,338.00 466,874.01 8/1/201513,422.63 79,341.55 75,374.50 1,106,712.50 404,922.14 2/1/201611,641.51 79,341.55 75,374.47 1,182,086.97 341,189.18 8/1/20169,809.19 83,598.99 79,419.00 1,261,505.97 271,579.37 2/1/20177,807.91 83,436.33 79,264.21 1,340,770.17 200,123.07 8/1/20175,753.54 90,686.32 86,152.00 1,426,922.18 119,724.60 2/1/20183,442.08 90,686.32 86,152.00 1,513,074.18 37,014.68 8/1/20181,064.17 90,686.32 38,078.86 1,551,153.04 (0.00) TOTAL501,153.04$ 1,695,128.27$ 1,551,153.04$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Stonebridge Development Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 71 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 71 Elmwood Village Description: Elmwood Village (County #1312) is a renewal and renovation district established on August 2, 2004 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 72 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 72 Elmwood Village Continued 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, Grecco 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. Adopted:…………………….….08/02/2004 Requested Date:…….……….…12/20/2004 Certified Date:………….……....05/31/2005 First Increment……………….……07/2007 Anticipated Decertification…….12/31/2025 Required Decertification……….12/31/2029 Modifications:………………….02/21/2006 10/19/2009 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 73 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 73 Elmwood Village Continued 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 74 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 74 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 16-117-21-34-0339 Village Lofts-Condos16-117-21-34-009616-117-21-34-0100 through 16-117-21-34-0119 Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-34-009716-117-21-34-0120 through 16-117-21-34-0137 Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-34-009816-117-21-34-0195 through 16-117-21-34-0217 Elmwood Village-Condos16-117-21-33-010516-117-21-33-0197 through 16-117-21-33-0212 Elmwood 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 75 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 75 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 will be paid in full in 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.  $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. However, based upon the 5-year rule date of May 31, 2015, the City only advanced $3,298,200 of the loan and therefore that is the maximum that can be done under this IFL. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 76 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 76 Elmwood Village Continued  $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 should be paid in full by 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 should be paid in full by August 1, 2020. Other Development Agreement Compliance: ROTTLUND 1. Look Back. Within 60 days after closing to third parties of the final unit a look back would be completed. If, based on such review, the actual profit for the Developer exceeds a 12% rate of return, then 50 percent of excess amount of profit was to be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note. The look back was completed in 2008 and the developer‘s expected rate of return was below the 12% threshold so there was no excess profit to prepay the TIF note. HOIGAARD VILLAGE 1. Association and Apartment Covenants. The City shall be entitled to review and approve the articles, bylaws and declaration of restrictive covenants for the condominium association and sub-associations 2. Special Service District. Upon written request by the City, the developer will submit required petition to establish a special service district encompassing the redevelopment property and any other property identified by the City, and to levy a special service charge. 3. Look Back. Within 60 days after closing to third parties of the final unit a look back would be completed for each Stage of the project, excluding Stage IV). If, based on such review, the actual profit for the Developer exceeds the rate of return specified for each Stage, then 50 percent of excess amount of profit was to be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note. The look back was completed in 2008 and the developer‘s expected rate of return was below the 12% threshold so there was no excess profit to prepay the TIF note. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 77 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 77 Elmwood Village Continued WOODDALE CATERED LIVING LLC. 1. Termination of right to Note. All conditions for delivery of the Note must be met by no later than March 31, 2012, which date is less than ten (10) years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County and complies with the so-called five-year rule under Section 469.1763, subd. 3(c) of the TIF Act, as amended during the 2009 State legislative session. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2012 shall be $6,825,000 and the minimum market value as of January 2, 2013 shall be $13,650,000. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. Look Back. Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (95% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds a 20% internal rate of return (IRR), then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. The look back was completed in 2013 and the developer‘s expected IRR was below the 20% threshold so there was no excess profit to prepay the TIF note. 4. Management. The Developer 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 Developer will annually submit evidence of such management by February 1 of each year. 5. Plaza. The Developer shall construct an outdoor Plaza as depicted in the Site Plan. 6. Special Service District. Upon written request by the City, the developer will submit required petition to renew any levy of special service charges for Special Service District No. 6. By no later than December 31, 2011, the developer shall submit to the City for review and approval a plan for maintenance and operation of all pedestrian and landscaping improvements located within the redevelopment property Three Year Rule: The three-year rule states that, within three years from certification date, bonds much be issued, the authority has acquired land or has caused public improvements to be constructed in the district. The Elmwood District met the requirement when the City approved the Development Agreement with Union Land II LLC in March 2006. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 78 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 78 Elmwood Village Continued Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Elmwood Renewal and Renovation district fits this timeline and its four-year rule was May 2011. The City reported on the four-year activity in November 2009 and reported to the County that two parcels did not meet the deadline for qualifying activity. They were 16-117-21-34-0034 (Center Park) and 16-117-21-21-0053 (Center Park). Parcel 16-117-21-34-0034 was reinstated to the district for payable 2011. Parcel 16-117-21-21-0053 has not been reinstated but is not necessary since it will remain a tax-exempt use. Five Year Rule: At least 80% of tax increment revenues generated within Elmwood Village must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Elmwood Village Renewal and Renovation district fits this timeline and the five-year rule was May 31, 2015 for the original area and February 21, 2016 for the modified area (Hoigaards redevelopment area). The five-year rule was met for the original area since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars prior to that time. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 2010. Recommendation: 1. Use of increment from increased pooling authority. In 2017 the City obtained special legislation that increased the legal pooling amount from 20% to 30% for the district, starting with second half pay 2017 TIF receipts. Since we are now past the 5-year rule date of May 31, 2015, any future expenditures need to be under a new interfund loan (IFL) and would be paid from the new 30% pooling availability. Based upon our analysis, there is approximately $6.589 million in future pooling available to the City through 2024. We recommend that the City pass a new IFL for up to $7 million to cover any future costs inside and outside of the district (the cash flow shown below includes expenditures for the Wooddale Avenue bridge in 2018 and W 36th Street and Wooddale reconstruction in 2019 which total approximately $6.5 million). Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 79 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 79 Elmwood Village Continued City of St. Louis ParkElmwood VillageORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRenewal and RenovationAdmin Expense2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently:for year 20172.8%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1312Frozen RateUTA #1 114.271%0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First 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 12/31/2025‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total27,514,971           563,893     117,927               8,633,000               36,829,791         6,769,007            956,050               566,314               993,720                236,163                8,836,865         4,653,075         1,111,894         1,997,499         557,232               63,023                 6,589,051            33,329,892         33,329,892         Under / (Over) Budget16,585,029           (563,893)    (117,927)              (8,633,000)              7,270,209           6,820,993            25,143,950         (566,314)              (993,720)               (236,163)               (8,836,865)        (4,653,075)        (1,111,894)        (1,997,499)        3,852,768            (63,023)                (6,589,051)          10,770,108         10,770,108         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 EXPENSE13 2016168,836                 1,704,659              11,358                   1,524,465              128.561% 1,735,088              ‐                             1,735,088             140,589                 251,915                 207,080                 39,397                   ‐                       346,362               260,169               97,697                 9,533                     4,954                     ‐                          1,357,696             (1,982,711)            14 2017168,836                 1,803,274              12,479                   1,621,959              124.745% 1,846,756              ‐                             1,846,756             21,043                   211,650                 45,927                   ‐                       356,762               272,709               107,228               25,000                   4,954                     250,000                 1,295,273             (1,431,228)            15 2018168,836                 1,821,307              12,604                   1,639,867              124.745% 1,867,146              ‐                             1,867,146             ‐                          234,289                 50,758                   ‐                       365,869               83,852                 91,517                 25,000                   4,954                     2,200,000              3,056,240             (2,620,321)            16 2019168,836                 1,839,520              12,730                   1,657,954              124.745% 1,887,740              ‐                             1,887,740             ‐                          209,414                 53,430                   ‐                       367,500               137,883               25,000                   4,954                     4,139,051              4,937,232             (5,669,813)            17 2020168,836                 1,857,915              12,857                   1,676,222              124.745% 1,908,540              ‐                             1,908,540             ‐                          ‐                          17,822                   ‐                       377,625               258,960               25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          684,361                 (4,445,634)            18 2021168,836                 1,876,494              12,986                   1,694,672              124.745% 1,929,548              ‐                             1,929,548             ‐                          ‐                       381,625               219,318               25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          630,897                 (3,146,984)            19 2022168,836                 1,895,259              13,116                   1,713,308              124.745% 1,950,766              ‐                             1,950,766             ‐                          ‐                       389,625               178,091               25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          597,670                 (1,793,888)            20 2023168,836                 1,914,212              13,247                   1,732,129              124.745% 1,972,196              ‐                             1,972,196             ‐                          ‐                       328,000               135,215               25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          493,169                 (314,862)               212024168,836                 1,933,354              13,379                   1,751,139              124.745% 1,993,840              ‐                             1,993,840             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       90,623                 25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          120,577                 1,558,401             22 2025168,836                 1,952,687              13,513                   1,770,338              124.745% 2,015,701              ‐                             2,015,701             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       44,248                 25,000                   4,954                     ‐                          74,202                   3,499,899             23 2026168,836                 1,972,214              13,648                   1,789,730              0.000%‐                          ‐                             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       (0)                          ‐                          ‐                          (0)                            3,499,899             27,514,971           563,893     117,927               8,633,000               36,829,791         6,769,007            956,050               566,314               993,720                236,163                8,836,865         4,653,075         1,111,894         1,997,499         557,232               63,023                 6,589,051            33,329,892         TIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSBondsPaygoEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 80 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 80 Elmwood Village Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$4,410,000NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $4,410,000Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $44,100,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $2,819,679Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project $28,196,791YDistrict Type:Renewal and RenovationDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $2,819,679Certification Request Date:12/20/2004Actual Admin Expenses $557,232 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $2,262,447If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage2.0%Total Pooling %:20%Special Legislation Pooling %30%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsCumulativeSpent Outside Cumulative13 2016332,232                 10,824,559           3.1%1,735,088              10,142,739           332,232                 1,696,316      1,696,316              ‐                          ‐                          14 2017357,232                 12,671,315           2.8%1,846,756              11,989,495           357,232                 436,689                 2,133,005              250,000                 250,000                 15 2018382,232                 14,538,462           2.6%1,867,146              13,856,642           382,232                 535,144                 2,668,149              2,200,000              2,450,000              16 2019407,232                 16,426,202           2.5%1,887,740              15,744,382           407,232                 541,322                 3,209,471              4,139,051              6,589,051              17 2020432,232                 18,334,742           2.4%1,908,540              17,652,922           432,232                 547,562                 3,757,033              ‐                          6,589,051              18 2021457,232                 20,264,290           2.3%1,929,548              19,582,470           457,232                 553,864                 4,310,897              ‐                          6,589,051              19 2022482,232                 22,215,055           2.2%1,950,766              21,533,235           482,232                 560,230                 4,871,127              ‐                          6,589,051              20 2023507,232                 24,187,251           2.1%1,972,196              23,505,431           507,232                 566,659                 5,437,786              ‐                          6,589,051              21 2024532,232                 26,181,091           2.0%1,993,840              25,499,271           532,232                 573,152                 6,010,938              ‐                          6,589,051              ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated TotalsADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (20% Outside of District)Tax Increment30% for Qualified Costs20% for Qualified Costs Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 81 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 81 Elmwood Village Continued Maximum amount 820,000$ Interest Rate4.00%Note Issue Date 7/29/2013Final Payment 2/1/2021Total Tax Tax Increment Available CumulativeIncrement Available at TaxPrinciple Unpaid Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00% Increment PaidInterestPaidYear7/29/2013- - - - - - - 820,000.00$ 08/1/2013273.33 - - - - - - 820,273.33$ 02/1/201416,770.03 - - - - - - 837,043.37$ 08/1/201416,833.87 13,093.86 12,439.16 12,439.16 - (3,740.02) 12,439.16 837,043.37$ 0.52/1/201516,740.87 13,093.86 12,439.16 12,439.16 - (3,647.01) 24,878.32 837,043.37$ 18/1/201516,740.87 112,009.41 106,408.93 106,408.93 86,021.06 3,647.01 131,287.26 751,022.31$ 12/1/201615,020.45 112,009.41 106,408.93 106,408.93 87,648.47 3,740.02 237,696.19 663,373.84$ 1.58/1/201615,020.45 119,125.64 113,169.35 100,670.85 85,650.41 338,367.05 577,723.43$ 22/1/201711,554.47 119,125.64 113,169.35 100,670.85 89,116.38 - 439,037.90 488,607.05$ 2.58/1/20179,772.14 129,799.97 123,309.97 110,978.97 101,206.83 - 550,016.87 387,400.21$ 32/1/20187,748.00 129,799.97 123,309.97 110,978.97 103,230.97 - 660,995.85 284,169.24$ 3.58/1/20185,683.38 129,799.97 123,309.97 123,309.97 117,626.59 - 784,305.82 166,542.66$ 42/1/20193,330.85 129,799.97 123,309.97 123,309.97 119,979.12 - 907,615.79 46,563.54$ 4.58/1/2019931.27 129,799.97 86,104.29 86,104.29 46,563.54 - 993,720.08 (0.00)$ 5TOTAL136,419.99 1,043,379.08 837,043.37 0.00 City of St. Louis Park2013A TIF Note - Webster LLC. (Adagio)Date Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 82 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 82 Elmwood Village Continued Maximum amount 200,000$ Interest Rate 4.00%Note Issue Date 7/29/2013Final Payment 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment Available CumulativeIncrement Available at TaxPrinciple Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00% Increment PaidPaidYear7/29/2013- - - - - - 200,000.00$ 08/1/201366.67 - - - - - 200,066.67$ 02/1/20144,090.25 - - - - - 204,156.92$ 08/1/20144,105.82 5,954.79 5,657.05 5,657.05 1,551.23 5,657.05 202,605.69$ 0.52/1/20154,052.11 5,954.79 5,657.05 5,657.05 1,604.94 11,314.10 201,000.75$ 18/1/20154,020.02 18,435.04 17,513.29 17,513.29 13,493.27 28,827.39 187,507.48$ 1.52/1/20163,750.15 18,435.04 17,513.29 17,513.29 13,763.14 46,340.68 173,744.34$ 28/1/20163,474.89 26,262.86 24,949.72 21,883.72 18,408.83 68,224.39 155,335.51$ 2.52/1/20173,106.71 26,262.86 24,949.72 21,883.72 18,777.01 90,108.11 136,558.51$ 38/1/20172,731.17 28,121.03 26,714.98 24,043.48 21,312.31 114,151.59 115,246.20$ 3.52/1/20182,304.92 28,121.03 26,714.98 24,043.48 21,738.56 138,195.07 93,507.64$ 48/1/20181,870.15 28,121.03 26,714.98 26,714.98 24,844.83 164,910.05 68,662.81$ 4.52/1/20191,373.26 28,121.03 26,714.98 26,714.98 25,341.72 191,625.03 43,321.09$ 58/1/2019866.42 28,121.03 26,714.98 26,714.98 25,848.56 218,340.01 17,472.53$ 5.52/1/2020349.45 28,121.03 26,714.98 17,821.98 17,472.53 245,054.99 0.00$ 6TOTAL36,161.99 283,244.96 236,161.99 204,156.91 City of St. Louis Park2013B TIF Note - Medley Row LLCDate Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 83 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 83 Elmwood Village Continued Maximum amount 5,000,000$ Interest Rate 4.00%Note Issued Date 10/21/2010Final Payment 12/31/2020Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax Increment AdditionalAvailable 100.00% Paid Principal3,298,200.00$ 12/31/2011 131,928.00 - 3,430,128.00$ 12/31/2012 131,927.00 - - 3,562,055.00$ 12/31/2013 131,928.00 497,500.00 497,500.00 497,500.00 3,196,483.00$ 12/31/2014 127,859.00 497,500.00 497,500.00 995,000.00 2,826,842.00$ 12/31/2015 113,073.68 497,500.00 497,500.00 1,492,500.00 2,442,415.68$ 12/31/2016 97,696.63 - 1,492,500.00 140,589.00 2,680,701.31$ 12/31/2017 107,228.05 750,000.00 750,000.00 2,242,500.00 250,000.00 2,287,929.36$ 12/31/2018 91,517.17 1,132,377.94 1,132,377.94 3,374,877.94 2,200,000.00 3,447,068.59$ 12/31/2019 137,882.74 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 4,624,877.94 4,139,051.00 6,474,002.33$ 12/31/2020 258,960.09 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 5,874,877.94 5,482,962.43$ 12/31/2021 219,318.50 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 7,124,877.94 4,452,280.92$ 12/31/2022 178,091.24 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 8,374,877.94 3,380,372.16$ 12/31/2023 135,214.89 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 9,624,877.94 2,265,587.05$ 12/31/2024 90,623.48 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 10,874,877.94 1,106,210.53$ 12/31/2025 44,248.42 1,250,000.00 1,150,458.95 12,025,336.89 (0.00)$ TOTAL 1,997,496.89 12,124,877.94 12,025,336.89 Economic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Elmwood IFLDateInterest DueNote BalanceStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 84 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 84 Highway 7 Corporate Center Description: Highway 7 Business Center (redevelopment district) and the Highway 7 Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (County #1313) were established on May 15, 2006 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 Requested Date……………. 06/29/2006 Certified Date………….….. 07/17/2006 First Increment…………..…. .…07/2007 Required Decertification…… 12/31/2032 Anticipated Decertification….12/31/2027 Before AfterStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 85 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 85 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  $360,000 PAYGO Note B for Highway Business Center LLC  $72,000 PAYGO Note C for Highway Business Center LLC  $23,000 PAYGO Note D for Highway Business Center LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 86 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 86 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued These Notes carry a 1% interest rate and 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 2026 and Notes C and D will be repaid in 2027. 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 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. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Highway 7 Corporate Center Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its four-year rule was July 17, 2012 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 87 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 87 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years from the certification date for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Highway 7 Corporate Center Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its five-year rule is now July 17, 2016. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 2012. Recommendations: None at this time. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 88 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 88 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: for year 2017 4.0%Fiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1313Frozen RateUTA #1 107.266% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Admin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictTOTAL 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 Total3,120,157            7,550                   3,127,707           26,862           2,289,574        392,499            86,594          27,804          128,475            11,107            ‐                        2,962,916           2,962,916           Under / (Over) Budget1,060,897            (7,550)                  1,053,347           3,108,922      (1,662,409)       (392,499)           (86,594)         (27,804)         289,630            (11,107)          ‐                        1,218,138           1,218,138           YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Note ANote BNote CNote DAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL 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% 154,462                 383                         154,845                 ‐                    114,330              19,599               6,500                  738                   ‐                          141,167                 90,261                   12 2018‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 451                         154,913                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 93,842                   13 2019‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 469                         154,931                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 97,441                   14 2020‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 487                         154,949                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 101,058                 15 2021‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 505                         154,967                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 104,693                 16 2022‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 523                         154,985                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 108,346                 17 2023‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 542                         155,003                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 112,017                 18 2024‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 560                         155,022                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 115,707                 19 2025‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 579                         155,040                 ‐                    123,007              21,087               6,500                  738                   ‐                          151,332                 119,415                 202026‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 597                         155,059                 ‐                    116,001              19,886               7,796              ‐                   6,500                  738                   ‐                          150,922                 123,552                 21 2027‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 154,462                 618                         155,079                 ‐                    ‐                      ‐                      78,798            27,804            6,500                  738                   ‐                          113,840                 164,791                 22 2028‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                    ‐                      ‐                      ‐                   ‐                   ‐                      ‐                          ‐                          164,791                 3,120,157            7,550                   3,127,707            26,862           2,289,574        392,499            86,594          27,804          128,475            11,107            ‐                        2,962,916             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetInterest Expense on PaygoID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 89 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 89 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $418,105NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $418,105Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $4,181,054NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $312,771Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project $3,127,707YDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $312,771Certification Request Date: 6/30/2006Actual Admin Expenses$128,475 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$184,296If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage4.1%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative10 201656,975                   1,422,914              4.0%158,123                 1,421,079              56,975                   298,295                 ‐                          ‐                          76,584                   11 201763,475                   1,577,759              4.0%154,462                 1,575,541              63,475                   330,410                 ‐                          ‐                          90,261                   12 201869,975                   1,732,672              4.0%154,462                 1,730,002              69,975                   362,526                 ‐                          ‐                          93,842                   13 201976,475                   1,887,602              4.1%154,462                 1,884,464              76,475                   394,641                 ‐                          ‐                          97,441                   14 202082,975                   2,042,551              4.1%154,462                 2,038,926              82,975                   426,756                 ‐                          ‐                          101,058                 15 202189,475                   2,197,518              4.1%154,462                 2,193,387              89,475                   458,872                 ‐                          ‐                          104,693                 16 202295,975                   2,352,503              4.1%154,462                 2,347,849              95,975                   490,987                 ‐                          ‐                          108,346                 17 2023102,475                 2,507,507              4.1%154,462                 2,502,311              102,475                 523,103                 ‐                          ‐                          112,017                 18 2024108,975                 2,662,529              4.1%154,462                 2,656,772              108,975                 555,218                 ‐                          ‐                          115,707                 19 2025115,475                 2,817,569              4.1%154,462                 2,811,234              115,475                 587,334                 ‐                          ‐                          119,415                 20 2026121,975                 2,972,628              4.1%154,462                 2,965,696              121,975                 619,449                 ‐                          ‐                          123,552                 21 2027128,475                 3,127,707              4.1%154,462                 3,120,157              128,475                 651,564                 ‐                          ‐                          164,791                 22 2028128,475                 3,127,707              4.1%‐                          3,120,157              128,475                 651,564                 ‐                          ‐                          164,791                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 90 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 90 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Note amount 2,100,000.00$ Interest Rate 1.00%Note Issue Date 7/24/2008Final Payment 2/1/2034Total Tax Tax Increment Increment Prorated toDate Interest Due Available Note A Total Payments Note Balance2/1/2008- 2,100,000.00$ 8/1/2008 350.00 136,025.07 110,313.17 110,313.17 1,990,036.83$ 2/1/2009 9,950.18 72,655.77 58,922.06 169,235.23 1,941,064.96$ 8/1/2009 9,705.32 72,747.08 62,101.17 231,336.40 1,888,669.11$ 2/1/2010 9,443.35 72,747.08 62,101.17 293,437.57 1,836,011.29$ 8/1/2010 9,231.06 75,158.02 64,159.29 357,596.85 1,781,083.06$ 2/1/2011 8,905.42 75,158.02 64,159.29 421,756.14 1,725,829.19$ 8/1/2011 8,629.15 71,989.90 61,454.79 483,210.93 1,673,003.54$ 2/1/2012 8,365.02 71,989.90 61,454.79 544,665.72 1,619,913.77$ 8/1/2012 8,099.57 69,790.70 59,577.43 604,243.15 1,568,435.91$ 2/1/2013 7,842.18 69,790.70 59,577.43 663,820.58 1,516,700.66$ 8/1/2013 7,583.50 70,349.09 60,054.10 723,874.68 1,464,230.06$ 2/1/2014 7,321.15 70,349.09 60,054.10 783,928.78 1,411,497.11$ 8/1/2014 7,057.49 70,962.10 60,577.40 844,506.19 1,357,977.19$ 2/1/2015 6,789.89 70,962.10 60,577.40 905,083.59 1,304,189.67$ 8/1/2015 6,520.95 69,784.99 59,572.55 964,656.14 1,251,138.07$ 2/1/20166,255.69 69,784.99 59,572.55 1,024,228.70 1,197,821.21$ 8/1/20165,989.11 59,694.10 50,958.39 1,075,187.09 1,152,851.92$ 2/1/20175,764.26 69,571.96 59,390.70 1,134,577.79 1,099,225.48$ 8/1/20175,496.13 64,357.34 54,939.19 1,189,516.98 1,049,782.42$ 2/1/20185,248.91 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,251,020.55 993,527.76$ 8/1/20184,967.64 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,312,524.12 936,991.83$ 2/1/20194,684.96 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,374,027.69 880,173.22$ 8/1/20194,400.87 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,435,531.26 823,070.52$ 2/1/20204,115.35 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,497,034.83 765,682.30$ 8/1/20203,828.41 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,558,538.40 708,007.14$ 2/1/20213,540.04 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,620,041.97 650,043.61$ 8/1/20213,250.22 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,681,545.54 591,790.25$ 2/1/20222,958.95 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,743,049.11 533,245.64$ 8/1/20222,666.23 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,804,552.68 474,408.29$ 2/1/20232,372.04 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,866,056.25 415,276.77$ 8/1/20232,076.38 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,927,559.82 355,849.58$ 2/1/20241,779.25 72,047.04 61,503.57 1,989,063.39 296,125.26$ 8/1/20241,480.63 72,047.04 61,503.57 2,050,566.96 236,102.31$ 2/1/20251,180.51 72,047.04 61,503.57 2,112,070.53 175,779.25$ 8/1/2025878.90 72,047.04 61,503.57 2,173,574.10 115,154.58$ 2/1/2026575.77 72,047.04 61,503.57 2,235,077.67 54,226.78$ 8/1/2026271.13 72,047.04 54,497.92 2,289,575.59 (0.00)$ TOTAL189,575.58 2,700,714.74 2,289,575.59 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE A - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 91 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 91 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Maximum amount 360,000$ Interest Rate 1.00%Note Issue Date 7/24/2008Final Payment 2/1/2034Total Tax Tax Increment Increment Prorated to Date Interest Due Available Note B Total Payments Note Balance2/1/2008- 360,000.00$ 8/1/2008 60.00 18,910.83 18,910.83 341,149.17$ 2/1/20091,705.75 10,100.92 29,011.75 332,753.99$ 8/1/20091,663.77 10,645.91 39,657.67 323,771.85$ 2/1/20101,618.86 10,645.91 50,303.58 314,744.79$ 8/1/20101,582.47 10,998.73 61,302.32 305,328.52$ 2/1/20111,526.64 10,998.73 72,301.05 295,856.43$ 8/1/20111,479.28 10,535.11 82,836.16 286,800.61$ 2/1/20121,434.00 10,535.11 93,371.27 277,699.50$ 8/1/20121,388.50 10,213.27 103,584.54 268,874.73$ 2/1/20131,344.37 10,213.27 113,797.81 260,005.83$ 8/1/20131,300.03 10,295.00 124,092.81 251,010.86$ 2/1/20141,255.05 10,294.97 134,387.78 241,970.94$ 8/1/20141,209.85 10,384.70 144,772.48 232,796.10$ 2/1/20151,163.98 10,384.70 155,157.18 223,575.38$ 8/1/20151,117.88 10,212.44 165,369.62 214,480.82$ 2/1/20161,072.40 10,212.44 175,582.05 205,340.79$ 8/1/20161,026.70 8,735.72 184,317.78 197,631.77$ 2/1/2017988.16 10,181.26 194,499.04 188,438.66$ 8/1/2017942.19 9,418.15 203,917.19 179,962.71$ 2/1/2018899.81 10,543.47 214,460.66 170,319.05$ 8/1/2018851.60 10,543.47 225,004.13 160,627.18$ 2/1/2019803.14 10,543.47 235,547.60 150,886.84$ 8/1/2019754.43 10,543.47 246,091.07 141,097.81$ 2/1/2020705.49 10,543.47 256,634.54 131,259.83$ 8/1/2020656.30 10,543.47 267,178.01 121,372.66$ 2/1/2021606.86 10,543.47 277,721.48 111,436.05$ 8/1/2021557.18 10,543.47 288,264.95 101,449.76$ 2/1/2022507.25 10,543.47 298,808.42 91,413.54$ 8/1/2022457.07 10,543.47 309,351.89 81,327.14$ 2/1/2023406.64 10,543.47 319,895.36 71,190.30$ 8/1/2023355.95 10,543.47 330,438.83 61,002.78$ 2/1/2024305.01 10,543.47 340,982.30 50,764.33$ 8/1/2024253.82 10,543.47 351,525.77 40,474.68$ 2/1/2025202.37 10,543.47 362,069.24 30,133.58$ 8/1/2025150.67 10,543.47 372,612.71 19,740.78$ 2/1/202698.70 10,543.47 383,156.18 9,296.01$ 8/1/202646.48 9,342.49 392,498.67 0.00$ TOTAL32,498.67 - 392,498.67 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE B - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 92 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 92 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Maximum amount 72,000$ Interest Rate 1.00%Note Issue Date 7/24/2008 Accrual date 10/6/2008Final Payment 2/1/2034Total Tax Tax Increment Increment Available atDate Interest Due Available 95.00% Total Payments Note Balance2/1/2008- - 72,000.00$ 8/1/200812.00 - - 72,012.00$ 2/1/2009360.06 - - 72,372.06$ 8/1/2009361.86 - - 72,733.92$ 2/1/2010363.67 - - 73,097.59$ 8/1/2010365.49 - - 73,463.08$ 2/1/2011367.32 - - 73,830.39$ 8/1/2011369.15 - - 74,199.55$ 2/1/2012371.00 - - 74,570.54$ 8/1/2012372.85 - - 74,943.40$ 2/1/2013374.72 - - 75,318.11$ 8/1/2013376.59 - - 75,694.70$ 2/1/2014378.47 - - 76,073.18$ 8/1/2014380.37 - - 76,453.54$ 2/1/2015382.27 - - 76,835.81$ 8/1/2015384.18 - - 77,219.99$ 2/1/2016386.10 - - 77,606.09$ 8/1/2016388.03 - - 77,994.12$ 2/1/2017389.97 - - 78,384.09$ 8/1/2017391.92 - - 78,776.01$ 2/1/2018393.88 - - 79,169.89$ 8/1/2018395.85 - - 79,565.74$ 2/1/2019397.83 - - 79,963.57$ 8/1/2019399.82 - - 80,363.39$ 2/1/2020401.82 - - 80,765.20$ 8/1/2020403.83 - - 81,169.03$ 2/1/2021405.85 - - 81,574.87$ 8/1/2021407.87 - - 81,982.75$ 2/1/2022409.91 - - 82,392.66$ 8/1/2022411.96 - - 82,804.63$ 2/1/2023414.02 - - 83,218.65$ 8/1/2023416.09 - - 83,634.74$ 2/1/2024418.17 - - 84,052.92$ 8/1/2024420.26 - - 84,473.18$ 2/1/2025422.37 - - 84,895.55$ 8/1/2025424.48 - - 85,320.02$ 2/1/2026426.60 - - 85,746.62$ 8/1/2026428.73 8,206.63$ 7,796.30 7,796.30 78,379.06$ 2/1/2027391.90 77,231.00$ 73,369.45 81,165.75 5,401.50$ 8/1/202727.01 77,231.00$ 5,428.45 86,594.20 0.06$ TOTAL14,594.26 162,668.63 86,594.20 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE C - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 93 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 93 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Maximum amount 23,000$ Interest Rate 1.00%Note Issue Date 7/24/2008 Accrual date 10/6/2008Final Payment 2/1/2034Total Tax Tax Increment Increment Available atDate Interest Due Available 95.00% Total Payments Note Balance2/1/2008- - 23,000.00$ 8/1/20083.83 - - 23,003.83$ 2/1/2009115.02 - - 23,118.85$ 8/1/2009115.59 - - 23,234.45$ 2/1/2010116.17 - - 23,350.62$ 8/1/2010116.75 - - 23,467.37$ 2/1/2011117.34 - - 23,584.71$ 8/1/2011117.92 - - 23,702.63$ 2/1/2012118.51 - - 23,821.15$ 8/1/2012119.11 - - 23,940.25$ 2/1/2013119.70 - - 24,059.95$ 8/1/2013120.30 - - 24,180.25$ 2/1/2014120.90 - - 24,301.15$ 8/1/2014121.51 - - 24,422.66$ 2/1/2015122.11 - - 24,544.77$ 8/1/2015122.72 - - 24,667.50$ 2/1/2016123.34 - - 24,790.83$ 8/1/2016123.95 - - 24,914.79$ 2/1/2017124.57 - - 25,039.36$ 8/1/2017125.20 - - 25,164.56$ 2/1/2018125.82 - - 25,290.38$ 8/1/2018126.45 - - 25,416.83$ 2/1/2019127.08 - - 25,543.92$ 8/1/2019127.72 - - 25,671.64$ 2/1/2020128.36 - - 25,800.00$ 8/1/2020129.00 - - 25,929.00$ 2/1/2021129.64 - - 26,058.64$ 8/1/2021130.29 - - 26,188.93$ 2/1/2022130.94 - - 26,319.88$ 8/1/2022131.60 - - 26,451.48$ 2/1/2023132.26 - - 26,583.74$ 8/1/2023132.92 - - 26,716.65$ 2/1/2024133.58 - - 26,850.24$ 8/1/2024134.25 - - 26,984.49$ 2/1/2025134.92 - - 27,119.41$ 8/1/2025135.60 - - 27,255.01$ 2/1/2026136.28 - - 27,391.28$ 8/1/2026136.96 - - 27,528.24$ 2/1/2027137.64 - 27,665.88$ 8/1/2027138.33 77,231.00$ 27,804.21 27,804.21 (0.00)$ TOTAL4,804.21 77,231.00 27,804.21 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE D - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 94 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 94 West End Description: West End (County #1314) is a redevelopment district that was established on November 19, 2007 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 parties 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. 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. They sold the property to a variety of developers for various aspects of the remaining development. The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies will begin construction in early 2018 on an 11-story Class A office building with adjacent structured parking (Phase IV). 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, Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 95 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 95 West End Continued 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 began construction in the fall of 2016 on a 126-room AC Hotel by Marriott. It will feature approximately 3,000 sq/ft of restaurant/lounge area, 1,000 sq/ft of meeting space and a spa. DLC Residential began construction in 2016 on their 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). They are expected to begin Building #2 in the spring of 2018. It is expected to be six stories and be comprised of 164 housing units. Adopted………………..…… .11/19/2007 Requested Date…………..….. 06/30/2008 Certified Date………………07/09/2008 First Increment……..…….…… 07/2011 Anticipated Decertification....12/31/2031 Former and Current PID Numbers: Property AddressFormer PID # Former UseNew PID #'sNew Use5201 Wayzata30-029-24-32-001830-029-24-21-0024Future Office Bldgs - Land East of Utica30-029-24-32-0019 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 Utica30-029-24-33-0019NoneThis is now a portion of Utica Ave-No PID1621 Park Place30-029-24-33-0002Tennis Club30-029-24-33-0031Shops at West End30-029-24-32-0025 Homeward Suits Hotel30-029-24-32-0026 Existing Bank - Building30-029-24-32-0007Chilis & Olive Garden30-029-24-32-0015Existing Bank5245 Wayzata5353 Wayzata Blvd 1551 Park Place30-029-24-32-0011Novartis Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 103.0550% Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 96 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 96 West End 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 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 public improvements 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. LEED Certification. The core and shell of all office facilities are required to be LEED-certified (or at least meet current LEED requirements). 2. 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 97 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 97 West End Continued 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Lookback Provision. The EDA was required to perform a “lookback” calculation 60 days after the earliest of (i) the date a Phase or facility reaches 95% lease-up; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the subject Phase or facility; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Phase or subject facility (September 30, 2012). The Redeveloper had to submit evidence of its Yield on Total Project Costs, which is Net Operating Income in the year of the calculation divided by Total Project Costs to date. If that result is more than 15%, the EDA and Redeveloper share equally in the excess income. The EDA’s share is used to pay off outstanding PAYGO TIF Notes. The property was sold in 2015 and the lookback was completed. Since the yield to the developer was not more than 15%, there was no reduction in the Note. Four Year Rule: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The West End Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its four-year rule is now July 9, 2014. Since qualifying redevelopment activities have been completed, the four-year rule has been met. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The West End Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its five-year rule is now July 9, 2018. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 98 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 98 West End Continued Geographic Enlargements: MN Statute 469.175 subd. 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 2013. Recommendations: 1. 5-Year Rule. Continue to review if there are any development opportunities to take advantage of the extended 5-year rule to 10-years, which is July 9, 2018. 2. Year Six Rule. MN Statute 469.1763 subdivision 4 requires that beginning in year 6 of the district, the City must utilize 75% of the tax increment generated to pay obligations. We recommend completing a year six rule analysis for the District to determine if it should be decertified prior to the end of the legal term. 3. Decertification. This district will need to be decertified when all obligations are paid, which is estimated to be February 2032. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 99 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 99 West End Continued City of St. Louis ParkWest EndORIGINALInterest 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: for year 2017 2.7%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1314Frozen RateUTA #1 103.055%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First 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 TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2011 11/19/2007 6/30/2008 7/9/2008 12/31/2036 12/31/2031‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total38,106,065         126,043            5,490,000      37,281,463         5,367,414            28,262,978           7,793,222         133,472             1,187,832            50,929                  ‐                        36,429,411         42,795,848         Under / (Over) Budget105,808,830       (126,043)           (5,490,000)    106,633,432       89,632,586         6,260,427              (7,793,222)        (133,472)           13,203,658         (50,929)                 ‐                        107,485,484       101,119,047       Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygoBonds Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSE6 2016859,520                 2,948,211         516,474           1,572,217          128.561% 1,609,013              1,660                   ‐                    1,610,673             36,900                   676,867                 542,651               19,086                 17,854                   2,796                     ‐                          1,296,154             421,956                 7 2017859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              2,110                   ‐                    2,142,867             ‐                          1,078,322              552,813               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          1,698,154             866,669                 8 2018859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,333                   ‐                    2,145,090             ‐                          1,525,905              556,612               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,149,536             862,224                 9 2019859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,311                   ‐                    2,145,068             ‐                          1,535,638              559,613               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,162,270             845,022                 10 2020859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,225                   ‐                    2,144,982             ‐                          1,537,550              565,563               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,170,132             819,872                 11 2021859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,099                   ‐                    2,144,856             ‐                          1,536,225              569,300               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,172,544             792,184                 122022859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,961                   ‐                    2,144,718             ‐                          1,540,688              571,913               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,179,620             757,283                 13 2023859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,786                   ‐                    2,144,544             ‐                          1,540,938              573,400               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,181,357             720,470                 14 2024859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,602                   ‐                    2,144,359             ‐                          1,537,504              583,181               64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,187,703             677,126                 15 2025859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,386                   ‐                    2,144,143             ‐                          2,033,719              ‐                       64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,100,738             720,531                 16 2026859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,603                   ‐                    2,144,360             ‐                          2,033,719              ‐                       64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,100,738             764,152                 17 2027859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              3,821                   ‐                    2,144,578             ‐                          2,033,719              ‐                       64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,100,738             807,992                 18 2028859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,040                   ‐                    2,144,797             ‐                          2,033,719              ‐                       64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,100,738             852,051                 19 2029859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757              4,260                   ‐                    2,145,017             ‐                          2,033,719              ‐                       64,223                   2,796                     ‐                          2,100,738             896,331                 20 2030859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757            4,482                 ‐                  2,145,239           ‐                        2,033,719              ‐                     64,223                 2,796                   ‐                        2,100,738           940,832               21 2031859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          124.745% 2,140,757            4,704                 ‐                  2,145,461           ‐                        2,033,719              ‐                     64,223                 2,796                   ‐                        2,100,738           985,555               22 2032859,520                 3,575,601         631,280           2,084,801          0.000%‐                        4,928                 ‐                  4,928                   ‐                        ‐                          ‐                     64,223                 ‐                        64,223                 926,260               ‐                      38,106,065         126,043            5,490,000      43,722,108         5,367,414            28,262,978           7,793,222         133,472             1,187,832            50,929                 ‐                        42,795,848         ExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local    Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 100 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 100 West End Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $14,391,490NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$14,391,490Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$143,914,895NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$4,372,211Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$43,722,108YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$4,372,211Certification Request Date:6/30/2008Actual Admin Expenses$1,187,832 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$3,184,379If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage2.7%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative6 2016160,269                 6,057,100              2.6%1,609,013              5,994,708              160,269                 1,338,408              ‐                          ‐                          421,956                 7 2017224,492                 8,199,967              2.7%2,140,757              8,135,465              224,492                 1,809,375              ‐                          ‐                          866,669                 8 2018288,714                 10,345,057           2.8%2,140,757              10,276,222           288,714                 2,280,341              ‐                          ‐                          862,224                 9 2019352,937                 12,490,126           2.8%2,140,757              12,416,979           352,937                 2,751,308              ‐                          ‐                          845,022                 10 2020417,160                 14,635,108           2.9%2,140,757              14,557,736           417,160                 3,222,274              ‐                          ‐                          819,872                 11 2021481,383                 16,779,964           2.9%2,140,757              16,698,494           481,383                 3,693,241              ‐                          ‐                          792,184                 12 2022545,605                 18,924,682           2.9%2,140,757              18,839,251           545,605                 4,164,207              ‐                          ‐                          757,283                 13 2023609,828                 21,069,226           2.9%2,140,757              20,980,008           609,828                 4,635,174              ‐                          ‐                          720,470                 14 2024674,051                 23,213,585           2.9%2,140,757              23,120,765           674,051                 5,106,140              ‐                          ‐                          677,126                 15 2025738,273                 25,357,728           2.9%2,140,757              25,261,522           738,273                 5,577,107              ‐                          ‐                          720,531                 16 2026802,496                 27,502,088           2.9%2,140,757              27,402,279           802,496                 6,048,074              ‐                          ‐                          764,152                 17 2027866,719                 29,646,666           2.9%2,140,757              29,543,036           866,719                 6,519,040              ‐                          ‐                          807,992                 18 2028930,942                 31,791,463           2.9%2,140,757              31,683,793           930,942                 6,990,007              ‐                          ‐                          852,051                 19 2029995,164                 33,936,480           2.9%2,140,757              33,824,550           995,164                 7,460,973              ‐                          ‐                          896,331                 20 2030 1,059,387              36,081,719           2.9%2,140,757            35,965,307         1,059,387            7,931,940            ‐                         ‐                        940,832               21 2031 1,123,610              38,227,180           2.9%2,140,757            38,106,065         1,123,610            8,402,906            ‐                         ‐                        985,555               22 2032 1,187,832              38,232,108           3.1%‐                        38,106,065         1,187,832            8,338,684            ‐                         ‐                        926,260               ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Accummulated Totals Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for Pooling Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 101 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 101 West End Continued Maximum amount 21,100,000$ PAYGO Interest Rate 6.75%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2032Total TIF Admin Over/(Short) Tax Increment Pending Pay Back of Hold back Tax Increment CumulativeAccruedAvailable For Admin Bond Available at Tax Petition Tax Petition for 2nd 1/2 Available For Tax Increment Accrued Interest Interest(Net of OSA Fee) Payment 95.00% Reduction (10%) Settlements Pmt Shortfall PAYGO Note Paid Not Paid Balance21,100,000.00$ 8/1/2011 - 380,236.44 (19,011.82) (11,296.88) 7,714.94$ 361,224.62 (100,734.38) (25,508.01) - (44,509.79) - 20,909,527.57$ -$ -$ 12/1/2012 705,696.56 380,236.41 (19,011.82) (11,296.88) 7,714.94$ 361,224.59 (405,734.38) - - - 190,472.43 190,472.43 20,909,527.57$ 515,224.13 515,224.13$ 1.58/1/2012705,696.56 388,808.16 (19,440.41) (11,296.88) 8,143.53$ 369,367.75 (95,778.13) (16,593.39) - (41,410.68) 215,585.55 406,057.98 20,909,527.57$ 490,111.01 1,005,335.13$ 22/1/2013705,696.56 388,808.15 (19,440.70) (11,296.88) 8,143.82$ 369,367.45 (410,778.13) 3,886.62 - 41,410.68 3,886.62 409,944.60 20,909,527.57$ 701,809.93 1,707,145.07$ 2.58/1/2013705,696.56 412,678.10 (20,655.20) (11,296.88) 9,358.32$ 392,022.90 (90,659.38) 25,348.77 (23,636.49) 303,075.80 713,020.40 20,909,527.57$ 402,620.76 2,109,765.83$ 32/1/2014705,696.56 412,678.09 (20,655.20) (26,296.88) (5,641.68)$ 392,022.89 (415,659.38) - 23,636.49 - 713,020.40 20,909,527.57$ 705,696.56 2,815,462.38$ 3.58/1/2014705,696.56 454,532.86 (22,726.64) (11,034.38) 11,692.26$ 431,806.21 (84,971.88) (59,019.41) - (47,185.08) 240,629.84 953,650.24 20,909,527.57$ 465,066.71 3,280,529.09$ 42/1/2015705,696.56 420,232.84 (21,011.64) (31,034.38) (10,022.74)$ 399,221.20 (419,971.88) - 47,185.08 26,434.40 953,650.24 20,909,527.57$ 679,262.16 3,959,791.25$ 4.58/1/2015705,696.56 648,769.85 (32,438.49) (10,684.38) 21,754.11$ 616,331.36 (79,109.38) - - 537,221.98 1,490,872.22 20,909,527.57$ 168,474.58 4,128,265.83$ 52/1/2016705,696.56 498,711.07 (24,935.55) (35,684.38) (10,748.83)$ 473,775.52 (424,109.38) - - 49,666.14 1,540,538.36 20,909,527.57$ 656,030.42 4,784,296.25$ 5.58/1/2016705,696.56 818,528.39 (40,926.42) (10,215.63) 30,710.79$ 777,601.97 (72,640.63) (77,760.20) - 627,201.14 2,167,739.50 20,909,527.57$ 78,495.41 4,862,791.66$ 62/1/2017705,696.56 783,297.71 (39,164.89) (45,215.63) (6,050.74)$ 744,132.82 (432,640.63) (74,413.28) - 237,078.91 2,404,818.41 20,909,527.57$ 468,617.64 5,331,409.30$ 6.58/1/2017 705,696.56 1,060,449.06 (53,022.45) (9,515.63) 43,506.82$ 1,007,426.61 (65,440.63) (100,742.66) - 841,243.32 3,246,061.73 20,909,527.57$ (135,546.76) 5,195,862.54$ 72/1/2018705,696.56 1,060,449.06 (53,022.45) (49,515.63) 1,007,426.61 (440,440.63) - - 566,985.98 3,813,047.71 20,909,527.57$ 138,710.58 5,334,573.12$ 7.58/1/2018705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (8,715.63) 1,016,859.62 (57,940.63) - - 958,918.99 4,771,966.70 20,909,527.57$ (253,222.44) 5,081,350.68$ 82/1/2019705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (53,715.63) 1,016,859.62 (447,940.63) - - 568,918.99 5,340,885.69 20,909,527.57$ 136,777.56 5,218,128.25$ 8.58/1/2019705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (7,815.63) 1,016,859.62 (50,140.63) - - 966,718.99 6,307,604.68 20,909,527.57$ (261,022.44) 4,957,105.81$ 92/1/2020705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (62,815.63) 1,016,859.62 (455,140.63) - - 561,718.99 6,869,323.68 20,909,527.57$ 143,977.56 5,101,083.37$ 9.58/1/2020705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (6,578.13) 1,016,859.62 (41,028.13) - - 975,831.49 7,845,155.17 20,909,527.57$ (270,134.94) 4,830,948.43$ 102/1/2021705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (66,578.13) 1,016,859.62 (466,028.13) - - 550,831.49 8,395,986.66 20,909,527.57$ 154,865.06 4,985,813.50$ 10.58/1/2021705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (5,228.13) 1,016,859.62 (31,465.63) - - 985,393.99 9,381,380.65 20,909,527.57$ (279,697.44) 4,706,116.06$ 112/1/2022705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (75,228.13) 1,016,859.62 (471,465.63) - - 545,393.99 9,926,774.65 20,909,527.57$ 160,302.56 4,866,418.62$ 11.58/1/2022705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (3,653.13) 1,016,859.62 (21,565.63) - - 995,293.99 10,922,068.64 20,909,527.57$ (289,597.44) 4,576,821.18$ 122/1/2023705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (78,653.13) 1,016,859.62 (481,565.63) - - 535,293.99 11,457,362.63 20,909,527.57$ 170,402.56 4,747,223.75$ 12.58/1/2023705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (1,965.63) 1,016,859.62 (11,215.63) - - 1,005,643.99 12,463,006.63 20,909,527.57$ (299,947.44) 4,447,276.31$ 132/1/2024705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) (86,965.63) 1,016,859.62 (496,215.63) - - 520,643.99 12,983,650.62 20,909,527.57$ 185,052.56 4,632,328.87$ 13.58/1/2024705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 14,000,510.24 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 4,321,165.80$ 142/1/2025705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 15,017,369.86 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 4,010,002.74$ 14.58/1/2025705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 16,034,229.49 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 3,698,839.67$ 152/1/2026705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 17,051,089.11 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 3,387,676.60$ 15.58/1/2026705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 18,067,948.73 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 3,076,513.53$ 162/1/2027705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 19,084,808.35 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 2,765,350.47$ 16.58/1/2027705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 20,101,667.98 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 2,454,187.40$ 172/1/2028705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 21,118,527.60 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 2,143,024.33$ 17.58/1/2028705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 22,135,387.22 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 1,831,861.26$ 182/1/2029705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 23,152,246.85 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 1,520,698.20$ 18.58/1/2029705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 24,169,106.47 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 1,209,535.13$ 192/1/2030705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 25,185,966.09 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 898,372.06$ 19.58/1/2030705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 26,202,825.71 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 587,209.00$ 202/1/2031705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 27,219,685.34 20,909,527.57$ (311,163.07) 276,045.93$ 20.58/1/2031705,696.56 1,070,378.55 (53,518.93) - 1,016,859.62 - 1,016,859.62 28,236,544.96 20,909,527.57$ - 276,045.93$ 21TOTAL 28,227,862.21 37,008,637.04 (1,850,474.74) (743,593.88) 116,275.55 35,158,162.30 (6,570,381.38) (350,150.33) 25,348.77 28,262,979.35 YearCity of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityWest End - County TIF District 1314Duke RealtyDate Interest Due 5% Admin FeeBond Payment Admin BondsBond Payment Sr. BondsNote BalanceStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 102 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 102 Ellipse on Excelsior Description: Ellipse on Excelsior (County #1315) is a redevelopment district that was established on February 2, 2009 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 Cleaner’s 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). Adopted……………..………. 02/02/2009 Requested Date………….….. .06/30/2009 Certified Date………..…..…. .07/09/2009 First Increment………..…....….…07/2011 Anticipated Term……………..12/31/2020 Decertifies…………………… 12/31/2036 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 103 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 103 Ellipse on Excelsior 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: 107.8190% 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: There are three PAYGO Notes that were issued for this project as follows:  $1,230,000 PAYGO Note A – Redevelopment Costs issued on February 23, 2011, payable through 2/1/2025.  $220,000 PAYGO Note B – Environmental Costs issued on February 23, 2011, payable through 2/1/2025.  $686,195 PAYGO Note for E2– Redevelopment Costs issued on August 1, 2015, payable through 2/1/2023. 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 Motel Same as Former E2 Apartments06-028-24-41-0072 Ellipse ApartmentsStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 104 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 104 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued The first two (2) Notes carry a 6% interest rate and the third one has a 5.6% interest rate. Each is paid from 95% of the available increment generated by the Ellipse on Excelsior Apartments (first 2 Notes) and Ellipse 2 (e2) on the second Note. The available increment is prorated semi-annually between the first two Notes with 86% being paid to the A Note and 14% being paid to the B Note. It is anticipated that the Note A will be paid off on February 1, 2019, Note B will be paid in full by August 1 2019, and the E2 Note will be repaid in full by February 1, 2021. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back – Ellipse I. Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds a 20% internal rate of return, then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. The development reached its occupancy threshold in mid-2011 and the look back was completed. The developer ‘s expected internal rate of return was below the 20% threshold so there was no excess profit to prepay the TIF note. 2. Look Back – Ellipse II. Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds a 18% internal rate of return, then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. The lookback was completed in May 2015 and the TIF Note was reduced by $13,805 to 686,195. 3. Special Service District – Both Properties. Upon written request by the City, they will submit required petition to renew any levy of special service charges for the District. 4. Minimum Assessment Agreement – Both Properties. For Phase I, the minimum market value as of January 2, 2011 shall be $8,819,000 and the minimum market value as of January 2, 2012 shall be $17,637,450. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. For Phase II, the minimum market value as of January 2, 2014 shall be $6,380,000. 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 105 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 105 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Ellipse on Excelsior district does not fit this timeline and its four-year rule is July 2013. Since redevelopment has been completed on the former Al’s Bar and Anderson Drycleaner site (construction of the Ellipse Apartments) and the City has purchased and demolished the motel on the other site, the four-year rule has been met. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Ellipse on Excelsior district does not fit this timeline and its five-year rule is July 2014. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. 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 2014. Recommendations: 1. 6-Year Rule. Since TIF Note A and B will be paid off by 2019, we recommend completing a 6-year rule analysis to determine if the District can be closed sooner than 2020 given the fact that the E2 note is anticipated to be paid off on 2/1/2021. 2. Decertification. This district will need to be decertified when all obligations are paid, which is estimated to be February 2021. 3. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. We recommend that the City complete an analysis of funds available for pooling that includes analysis from the 6-year rule and develop a plan for use of these funds. If no pooling is completed, the balance will have to be returned either when the district expires or when the obligation is paid. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 106 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 106 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued City of St. Louis ParkEllipse on ExcelsiorORIGINALInterest 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:for year 20172.8%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1315Frozen RateUTA #1 107.819%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES ProjectInterfund Loan Admin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2011 2/2/2009 6/30/2009 7/9/2009 12/31/2036 12/31/2020‐                        ‐                        ‐                         Cumulative Modified11,058,000         11,058,000         8,300,000            1,652,670      1,105,830            11,058,500         11,058,500         End of District Projected Actual Total3,916,976            14,375                 3,931,351           176,599               1,596,197      291,157          793,992           35,320           129,403               8,950                    ‐                        3,031,618           3,031,618            Under / (Over) Budget7,141,024            (14,375)                7,126,649           8,123,401            56,473           (291,157)        (793,992)          (35,320)          976,427               (8,950)                   ‐                        8,026,882           8,026,882            Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Ellipse Note A Ellipse Note B Ellipse E2 Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSE6 201624,527                   485,970                 17,351            444,092            128.561% 477,093                 138                         477,231                 ‐                          258,410           42,067            121,820             8,830                6,522                     1,185                     ‐                          438,834                 67,256                   7 201724,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            124.745% 575,358                 336                         575,694                 ‐                          279,016           45,421            138,468             ‐                    17,261                   1,185                     ‐                          481,352                 161,598                 8 201824,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            124.745%575,358                 808                         576,166                 ‐                          305,862           49,791            151,417             ‐                    17,261                   1,185                     ‐                          525,517                 212,247                 9 201924,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            124.745% 575,358                 1,061                     576,419                 ‐                          57,895             40,736            151,417             ‐                    17,261                   1,185                     ‐                          268,493                 520,173                 10 202024,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            124.745% 575,358                 2,601                     577,959                 ‐                          ‐                    151,417             ‐                    17,261                   1,185                     ‐                          169,863                 928,269                 11 202124,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            0.000%‐                          4,641                     4,641                     ‐                          20,392                ‐                    17,261                   ‐                          37,653                   895,257                 12 202224,527                   584,015                 23,927            535,561            0.000%‐                          4,476                     4,476                     ‐                          ‐                    ‐                          ‐                          899,733                 CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local   Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSPaygoIDID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 107 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 107 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $1,105,830NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,105,800Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $11,058,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $393,135Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$3,931,351YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $393,135Certification Request Date: 6/30/2009Actual Admin Expenses $129,403 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $263,732If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage3.3%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative6 201643,099                   1,615,996              2.7%477,093                 1,615,545              43,099                   360,787                 ‐                          ‐                          67,256                   7 201760,360                   2,191,690              2.8%575,358                 2,190,903              60,360                   487,366                 ‐                          ‐                          161,598                 8 201877,620                   2,767,856              2.8%575,358                 2,766,260              77,620                   613,945                 ‐                          ‐                          212,247                 9 201994,881                   3,344,275              2.8%575,358                 3,341,618              94,881                   740,523                 ‐                          ‐                          520,173                 10 2020112,142                 3,922,233              2.9%575,358                 3,916,976              112,142                 867,102                 ‐                          ‐                          867,102                 11 2021129,403                 3,926,875              3.3%‐                          3,916,976              129,403                 849,841                 ‐                          ‐                          849,841                 12 2022129,403                 3,931,351              3.3%‐                          3,916,976              129,403                 849,841                 ‐                          ‐                          849,841                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Accummulated Totals Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for Pooling Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 108 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 108 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 1,230,000$ Interest Rate6.00%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2025Total Tax Tax Petition Tax Increment Tax Increment Accrued CumulativeAccruedIncrement Reduction Available at For Note Principle Interest Tax Increment Accrued Interest InterestAvailable (10%) 95.00% 86.00% Paid Paid Paid Not Paid BalanceYear1,230,000.00$ 8/1/2011- 5,287.20 5,022.84 4,319.64 4,319.64 4,319.64 1,225,680.36$ -$ -$ 12/1/201237,587.53 5,287.20 5,022.84 4,319.64 - 8,639.28 1,225,680.36$ 33,267.89$ 33,267.89$ 1.58/1/201237,178.97 99,657.40 94,674.53 81,420.10 10,973.24 33,267.89 90,059.38 1,214,707.12$ -$ -$ 22/1/201337,251.02 99,657.40 94,674.53 81,420.10 44,169.08 - 171,479.48 1,170,538.04$ -$ -$ 2.58/1/201335,311.23 108,110.54 102,705.02 88,326.32 53,015.08 - 259,805.79 1,117,522.96$ -$ -$ 32/1/201434,270.70 108,110.56 102,705.03 88,326.33 54,055.62 - 348,132.12 1,063,467.34$ -$ -$ 3.58/1/201432,081.26 130,576.29 124,047.48 106,680.83 74,599.57 - 454,812.95 988,867.77$ -$ -$ 42/1/201529,666.03 132,946.02 126,298.72 108,616.90 78,950.87 - 563,429.85 909,916.90$ -$ -$ 4.58/1/201527,297.51 161,056.57 153,003.74 131,583.22 104,285.71 - 695,013.06 805,631.20$ -$ -$ 52/1/201624,168.94 161,056.57 153,003.74 131,583.22 107,414.28 - 826,596.28 698,216.92$ -$ -$ 5.58/1/201620,946.51 172,483.44 (17,248.34) 147,473.34 126,827.07 105,880.56 - 953,423.35 592,336.35$ -$ -$ 62/1/201717,770.09 172,483.43 (17,248.34) 146,610.91 126,085.39 108,315.30 - 1,079,508.74 484,021.06$ -$ -$ 6.58/1/2017 14,520.63 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 152,931.02 138,410.39 - 1,232,439.76 345,610.66$ -$ -$ 72/1/201810,368.32 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 152,931.02 142,562.70 - 1,385,370.79 203,047.96$ -$ -$ 7.58/1/20186,091.44 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 152,931.02 146,839.59 - 1,538,301.81 56,208.37$ -$ -$ 82/1/20191,686.25 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 57,894.62 56,208.37 - 1,596,196.43 0.00$ -$ -$ 8.5TOTAL366,196.44 1,596,196.43 1,229,999.99 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315Note ADate Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 109 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 109 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 220,000$ Interest Rate 6.00%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2025Total Tax Tax Petition Tax Increment Tax Increment Accrued CumulativeAccruedIncrement Reduction Available at For Note Principle Interest Tax Increment Accrued Interest InterestAvailable(10%)95.00%14.00%PaidPaidPaidNot Paid BalanceYear220,000.00$ 8/1/2011- 5,287.20 5,022.84 703.20 703.20 703.20 219,296.80$ -$ -$ 12/1/20126,725.10 5,287.20 5,022.84 703.20 - 1,406.40 219,296.80$ 6,021.90$ 6,021.90$ 1.58/1/20126,652.00 99,657.40 94,674.53 13,254.43 580.53 6,021.90 14,660.83 218,716.28$ -$ -$ 22/1/20136,707.30 99,657.40 94,674.53 13,254.43 6,547.14 - 27,915.26 212,169.14$ -$ -$ 2.58/1/20136,400.44 108,110.54 102,705.02 14,378.70 7,978.27 - 42,293.97 204,190.87$ -$ -$ 32/1/20146,261.85 108,110.56 102,705.03 14,378.70 8,116.85 - 56,672.67 196,074.02$ -$ -$ 3.58/1/20145,914.90 130,576.29 124,047.48 17,366.65 11,451.75 - 74,039.32 184,622.28$ -$ -$ 42/1/20155,538.67 132,946.02 126,298.72 17,681.82 12,143.15 - 91,721.14 172,479.12$ -$ -$ 4.58/1/20155,174.37 161,056.57 153,003.74 21,420.52 16,246.15 - 113,141.66 156,232.97$ -$ -$ 52/1/20164,686.99 161,056.57 153,003.74 21,420.52 16,733.53 - 134,562.18 139,499.44$ -$ -$ 5.58/1/20164,184.98 172,483.44 (17,248.34) 147,473.34 20,646.27 16,461.28 - 155,208.45 123,038.15$ -$ -$ 62/1/20173,691.14 172,483.43 (17,248.34) 146,610.91 20,525.53 16,834.38 - 175,733.98 106,203.77$ -$ -$ 6.58/1/2017 3,186.11 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 24,895.75 21,709.64 - 200,629.73 84,494.14$ -$ -$ 72/1/20182,534.82 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 24,895.75 22,360.92 - 225,525.48 62,133.21$ -$ -$ 7.58/1/20181,864.00 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 24,895.75 23,031.75 - 250,421.23 39,101.46$ -$ -$ 82/1/20191,173.04 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 24,895.75 23,722.70 - 275,316.97 15,378.76$ -$ -$ 8.58/1/2019461.36 207,984.53 (20,798.45) 177,826.77 15,840.12 15,378.76 - 291,157.09 (0.00)$ -$ -$ 9TOTAL71,157.09 291,157.09 220,000.00 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315Note BDate Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 110 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 110 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 686,195$ Interest Rate 5.60%Note Issue Date 8/1/2015Final Payment 8/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment Accrued CumulativeAccruedIncrement Available at Principle Interest Tax Increment Accrued Interest InterestAvailable 95.00% Paid Paid Paid Not Paid BalanceYear686,195.00$ 8/1/2015 - 62,168.62 59,060.19 59,060.19 - 59,060.19 627,134.81$ -$ -$ 12/1/2016 17,559.77 62,168.62 59,060.19 41,500.42 - 118,120.38 585,634.39$ -$ -$ 1.58/1/2016 16,397.76 66,062.99 62,759.84 46,362.08 - 180,880.22 539,272.31$ -$ -$ 22/1/2017 15,099.62 66,062.99 62,759.84 47,660.22 - 243,640.06 491,612.10$ -$ -$ 2.58/1/2017 13,765.14 79,693.28 75,708.62 61,943.48 - 319,348.68 429,668.62$ -$ -$ 32/1/201812,030.72 79,693.28 75,708.62 63,677.89 - 395,057.30 365,990.73$ -$ -$ 3.58/1/201810,247.74 79,693.28 75,708.62 65,460.88 - 470,765.91 300,529.85$ -$ -$ 42/1/20198,414.84 79,693.28 75,708.62 67,293.78 - 546,474.53 233,236.07$ -$ -$ 4.58/1/20196,530.61 79,693.28 75,708.62 69,178.01 - 622,183.14 164,058.06$ -$ -$ 52/1/20204,593.63 79,693.28 75,708.62 71,114.99 - 697,891.76 92,943.07$ -$ -$ 5.58/1/20202,602.41 79,693.28 75,708.62 73,106.21 - 773,600.38 19,836.86$ -$ -$ 62/1/2021555.43 79,693.28 20,392.30 19,836.87 - 793,992.68 (0.00)$ -$ -$ 6.5TOTAL107,797.67 793,992.68 686,195.00 Note: Maximum of TIF note was reduced by $13,805 per lookback review on 5-5-15. City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315E2Date Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 111 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 111 Hardcoat Description: Hardcoat (County #1316) is an economic development district that was established on December 20, 2010 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 Requested Date………..….. 04/20/2011 Certified Date……………...04/27/2011 First Increment…………………7/2014 Decertifies………………....12/31/2022 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 112 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 112 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:  $500,000 Interfund Loan payable from the Hardcoat TIF district adopted on EDA Res10-24 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 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 $115,000 is outstanding at year end 2016. 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 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Hardcoat District does not fit this timeline and its four-year rule is April 2015. Since qualifying redevelopment activities happened prior to this date, the four-year rule has been satisfied. 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 113 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 113 Hardcoat Continued Five Year Rule: At least 80% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Hardcoat District does not fit this timeline and its five-year rule is 2016. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. 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 2016. Recommendations: 1. Reimbursement of administrative funds. This district has exceeded it allowable admin amount. In order to bring it into compliance, we would recommend that the City transfer a total of $27,000 from another source and to refrain from charging any additional administrative costs to the District. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 114 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 114 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:22.5%Over LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1316Frozen RateUTA #1 121.824% 0.000%0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo 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 Total182,620               73                         182,693               115,000                ‐                          18,020                 4,361                    ‐                         ‐                        166,825               137,381                Under / (Over) Budget143,566               49,927                 193,493               202,861               20,706                   19,599                 (4,361)                   ‐                         ‐                        209,361               238,805                Year Base Current Fiscal Disparities Captured Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE3 2016 22,194                   46,500                   7,213                     17,093                   128.561%20,748                   19                           20,767                   ‐                          4,963                   1,200                     546                         ‐                          ‐                          6,709                     (113,310)               4 201722,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          4,608                   (27,000)                  546                         ‐                          ‐                          (21,846)                  (70,966)                  5 201822,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          3,962                   546                         ‐                          ‐                          4,508                     (54,976)                  6 201922,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          3,301                   546                         ‐                          ‐                          3,847                     (38,324)                  7 202022,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          2,613                   546                         ‐                          ‐                          3,159                     (20,985)                  8 202122,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          1,898                   546                         ‐                          ‐                          2,444                     (2,930)                    9 202222,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          1,154                   546                         ‐                          ‐                          1,700                     15,868                   182,620               73                         182,693               115,000               ‐                          18,020                 4,361                   ‐                        ‐                        166,825                DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 115 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 115 Hardcoat Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$37,619NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $37,619Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $376,186NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $18,269Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project $182,693YDistrict Type: Economic DevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $18,269Certification Request Date: 4/20/2011Actual Admin Expenses$18,020 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$249If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage9.9%Total Pooling %:20%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside Cumulative3 201645,020                   59,703                   75.4%20,748                   59,630                   45,020                   (33,094)                  ‐                          ‐                          (113,310)                4 201718,020                   80,201                   22.5%20,498                   80,128                   18,020                   (1,994)                    ‐                          ‐                          (70,966)                  5 201818,020                   100,700                 17.9%20,498                   100,627                 18,020                   2,105                     ‐                          ‐                          (54,976)                  6 201918,020                   121,198                 14.9%20,498                   121,125                 18,020                   6,205                     ‐                          ‐                          (38,324)                  7 202018,020                   141,696                 12.7%20,498                   141,623                 18,020                   10,305                   ‐                          ‐                          (20,985)                  8 202118,020                   162,195                 11.1%20,498                   162,122                 18,020                   14,404                   ‐                          ‐                          (2,930)                    9 202218,020                   182,693                 9.9%20,498                   182,620                 18,020                   18,504                   ‐                          ‐                          15,868                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (20% Outside of District)Tax Increment20% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 116 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 116 Hardcoat Continued Maximum amount 115,000.00$ Interest Rate 4.00%Note Issued Date 1/26/2011Final Payment 12/31/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax Increment AdditionalAvailable 100.00%PaidPrincipal115,000.00$ 12/31/2011- 115,000.00$ 12/31/2012- - 115,000.00$ 12/31/2013- - 115,000.00$ 12/31/20144,600.00 19,706.00 - 119,600.00$ 12/31/20154,963.00 19,176.00 9,363.00 9,363.00 115,200.00$ 12/31/20164,608.00 20,748.00 20,748.00 30,111.00 99,060.00$ 12/31/20173,962.40 20,498.36 20,498.36 50,609.36 82,524.04$ 12/31/20183,300.96 20,498.36 20,498.36 71,107.72 65,326.65$ 12/31/20192,613.07 20,498.36 20,498.36 91,606.07 47,441.35$ 12/31/20201,897.65 20,498.36 20,498.36 112,104.43 28,840.65$ 12/31/20211,153.63 20,498.36 20,498.36 132,602.79 9,495.92$ 12/31/2022379.84 9,875.75 9,875.75 142,478.54 0.00$ TOTAL27,478.54 171,997.54 142,478.54 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Hardcoat IFLDateInterest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 117 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 117 Eliot Park Description: Eliot Park (County #1318/1319) is redevelopment district that was established on July 16, 2013 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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. Adopted……………..…..…. 05/06/2013 Requested Date…………….. 06/28/2013 Certified Date………..….…. 07/16/2013 First Increment………..…..……07/2016 Expected Decertification……12/31/2021 Decertifies…………………..12/31/2041 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 118 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 118 Eliot Park Continued 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 Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 1318 – 132.2090% 1319 - 133.1340% 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: There is currently one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $1,100,000 at 5.50% interest. The note was issued on July 25, 2016, payable from August 1, 2016 through February 1, 2021. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 119 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 119 Eliot Park Continued Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back . Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds an 18% internal rate of return (IRR), then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. The lookback was completed in July 2016 and the IRR was only 14.18%. Therefore, there was no reduction in the amount of the TIF note. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2016, shall be $17,250,000 for the apartments and $250,000 for each single family home. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Eliot Park district does not fit this timeline and its four-year rule is July 2017. Since redevelopment has been completed, the four-year rule has been met. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Eliot Park district does not fit this timeline and its five-year rule is July 2018. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. 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 2014. Recommendations: None at this time Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 120 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 120 Eliot Park Continued City of St. Louis ParkElliot ParkORIGINALHSS 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: for year 20179.4%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1318, 1319Frozen RateUTA #1 132.209% 0.000%0.000%UTA #2 133.134%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2017First 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 12/31/2021‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total1,775,356            5,135                   1,780,491           ‐                        1,271,770              1,273                 89,476                 4,737                    ‐                         ‐                        1,367,257           1,367,257            Under / (Over) Budget8,050,009            977,402               9,027,411           5,404,624            3,148,971              (1,273)                893,061               (4,737)                  ‐                        ‐                        9,440,645           9,440,645            YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest IncomeRTOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE12016‐                          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%342,022                 20                           342,042                 ‐                          195,168                 10,261                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          206,045                 139,976                 3 201826,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 124.745%342,022                 700                         342,722                 ‐                          324,921                 10,261                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          335,798                 146,900                 4 201926,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 124.745%342,022                 734                         342,757                 ‐                          324,921                 10,261                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          335,798                 153,859                 5 202026,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 124.745%342,022                 769                         342,792                 ‐                          324,921                 10,261                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          335,798                 160,852                 6 202126,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 124.745%342,022                 804                         342,827                 ‐                          71,414                   10,261                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          82,291                   421,388                 7 202226,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 0.000%‐                          2,107                     2,107                     ‐                          10,261                   ‐                          ‐                          10,261                   413,234                 8202326,433                   303,473                 ‐                          277,040                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          413,234                 1,775,356            5,135                   ‐                        1,271,770              1,273                 89,476                 4,737                   ‐                        ‐                         DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 121 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 121 Eliot Park Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesTEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $982,537NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,080,790Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$10,807,902NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $178,049Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$1,780,491YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $178,049Certification Request Date: 6/28/2013Actual Admin Expenses $89,476 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $88,573If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage5.0%Total Pooling %: 25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside Cumulative1 2016 27,912                   65,244                   42.8% 65,244                   65,244                   27,912                   (11,601)                   ‐                          ‐                          (11,601)                  2 201738,173                   407,286                 9.4%342,022                 407,266                 38,173                   63,644                   ‐                          ‐                          63,644                   3 201848,433                   750,009                 6.5%342,022                 749,289                 48,433                   138,889                 ‐                          ‐                          138,889                 4 201958,694                   1,092,765              5.4%342,022                 1,091,311              58,694                   214,134                 ‐                          ‐                          153,859                 5 202068,955                   1,435,557              4.8%342,022                 1,433,334              68,955                   289,379                 ‐                          ‐                          160,852                 6 202179,215                   1,778,384              4.5%342,022                 1,775,356              79,215                   364,624                 ‐                          ‐                          364,624                 7 202289,476                   1,780,491              5.0%‐                          1,775,356              89,476                   354,363                 ‐                          ‐                          354,363                 8 202389,476                   1,780,491              5.0%‐                          1,775,356              89,476                   354,363                 ‐                          ‐                          354,363                 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 122 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 122 Eliot Park Continued Maximum amount 1,100,000$ Interest Rate 5.50%Note Issue Date 5/18/2016Final Payment 2/1/2021Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Principle Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00% Paid PaidYear5/18/2016 - - - - - 1,100,000.00$ 08/1/2016 12,604.17 32,025.47 30,424.20 17,820.03 30,424.20 1,082,179.97$ 0.52/1/2017 29,759.95 33,218.17 31,557.26 1,797.31 61,981.46 1,080,382.66$ 18/1/2017 29,710.52 172,221.71 163,610.62 133,900.10 225,592.08 946,482.56$ 1.52/1/2018 26,028.27 171,011.25 162,460.69 136,432.42 388,052.77 810,050.14$ 28/1/2018 22,276.38 171,011.25 162,460.69 140,184.31 550,513.46 669,865.83$ 2.52/1/2019 18,421.31 171,011.25 162,460.69 144,039.38 712,974.15 525,826.45$ 38/1/2019 14,460.23 171,011.25 162,460.69 148,000.46 875,434.83 377,825.99$ 3.52/1/2020 10,390.21 171,011.25 162,460.69 152,070.47 1,037,895.52 225,755.52$ 48/1/2020 6,208.28 171,011.25 162,460.69 156,252.41 1,200,356.21 69,503.11$ 4.52/1/2021 1,911.34 171,011.25 71,414.47 69,503.11 1,271,770.68 0.00$ 5TOTAL171,770.65 1,271,770.68 1,100,000.00 City of St. Louis ParkEliot ParkDate Interest DueNote Balance Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 123 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 123 The Shoreham Description: The Shoreham (County #1320) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on August 17, 2015 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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. To date the TIF Note has not been issued. 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. Adopted……………..…….….....8/17/2015 Requested Date……………..….11/16/2015 Certified Date………..………….4/18/2016 First Increment………..….....….....07/2018 Expected Decertification………12/31/2022 Decertifies………………….. ...12/31/2043 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 124 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 124 The Shoreham Continued 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% 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: There is currently one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $1,200,000 at 3.75% interest. To date the Note has not been issued. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 125 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 125 The Shoreham Continued Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back . Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds an 18% internal rate of return (IRR), then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value as of January 2, 2017 shall be $27,421,000 and $32,260,000 as of January 2, 2018. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. 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. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as required in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The Shoreham district does not fit this timeline and its four-year rule is April 18, 2020. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The Shoreham district does not fit this timeline and its five-year rule is April 18, 2021. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 126 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 126 The Shoreham 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 April 18, 2021. Recommendations: None at this time Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 127 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 127 4900Excelsior Description: 4900Excelsior (County #1321) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on November 16, 2015 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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. 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 4.75% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. To date the TIF Note has not been issued. 4900 Excelsior Boulevard project was later renamed 4800 Excelsior. On December 7, 2015, the EDA approved a development Agreement with 4900 Excelsior Apartments LLC. Adopted…………………….11/16/2015 Requested Date……………..06/16/2016 Certified Date……………....07/01/2016 First Increment……………..07/01/2018 Expected Decertification…...12/31/2024 Decertifies………………….12/31/2043 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 128 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 128 4900Excelsior Continued 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 Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 128.561% Obligations: It is anticipated that there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $2,600,000 at 4.75% interest. To date the Note has not been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back . Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased); (2) sale of property or; (3) 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 profit for the developer exceeds an 18% internal rate of return (IRR), then 50% of the excess percentage of the profit will be applied as prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the TIF Note. 2. 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. 3. Public Art. The Redeveloper shall allocate at least $75,000 for the design and installation of public artwork to be placed in a prominent location on the property. Prior to installation, the design of the public art shall be approved by the EDA, provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Installation shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 129 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 129 4900Excelsior Continued 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Special Service District Maintenance. Upon the written request of the EDA, the Redeveloper agrees to file any petition or other document required to enter into the City’s Special Service District No. 3 and to become subject to special service charges levied on all commercial properties in the District. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA for review and approval a plan for maintenance and operation of all pedestrian and landscaping improvements located within the property, other than those within the Excelsior Boulevard right-of-way and/or included in the Special Service District. The plan must address at a minimum snow removal from pedestrian connections and sidewalks, maintenance and replacement of landscaping, irrigation and other streetscaping, snow removal and maintenance of any surface parking and maintenance of the public art, a description of how the maintenance costs will be assessed to tenants and enforcement mechanisms. 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 State Legislature amended the four-year rule limit to increase it to six years for districts certified after January 1, 2005 and before April 20, 2009. The 4900 Excelsior district does not fit this timeline and its four-year rule will be July 1, 2020. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 130 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 130 4900Excelsior Continued Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The State Legislature amended the five-year rule limit to increase it to ten years for Redevelopment or Renewal and Renovation districts certified after June 30, 2003 and before April 20, 2009. The 4900 Excelsior district does not fit this timeline and its five-year rule is July 1, 2021. Since the EDA has entered into contracts and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule has been satisfied. 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 1, 2021. Recommendations: None at this time Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 131 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 131 Wayzata Boulevard Description: Wayzata Boulevard (County #1322) is a redevelopment district adopted on March 21, 2016 and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. The district encompasses two (2) parcels of land (former Santorini Site and EDA vacant parcel) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into a hotel and apartments and/or multi-story office building with structured parking. A development proposal for these parcels has been received and is currently being reviewed for formal approval. Adopted…………………….03/21/2016 Requested Date……………..06/16/2016 Certified Date………………07/01/2016 First Increment……………..08/01/2020 Decertifies………………….12/31/2045 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 Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 131.8230% Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 132 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 132 Wayzata Boulevard Continued Obligations: None at this time. Other Development Agreement Compliance: None at this time. 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 Wayzata Boulevard four-year rule will be July 1, 2020. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The Wayzata Boulevard district five-year rule is July 1, 2021. If the EDA enters into a contract and obligated TIF dollars, the Five-Year rule will be satisfied. 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 1, 2021. Recommendations: None at this time. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 133 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 133 Elmwood Apartments Description: Elmwood Apartments (County #1323) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 15, 2017, and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 Requested Date……………..06/27/2017 Certified Date………………06/30/2017 First Increment………………..est. 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 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 October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 134 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 134 Elmwood Apartments Continued 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. 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. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 135 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 135 Elmwood Apartments Continued 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. 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 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 rule will be June 30, 2021. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The five-year rule is June 30, 2022. Since the EDA has entered into a contract and obligated TIF dollars, the five-year rule has been satisfied. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 136 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 136 Elmwood Apartments 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 June 30, 2022. Recommendations: None at this Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 137 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 137 Wooddale Station Description: Wooddale Station (County #1324) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 1, 2017, and is located within the Redevelopment Project No 1. 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 contract for Private Redevelopment with PLACE E-Generation One LLC and agreed to provide them with a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $5,660,000. Adopted…………………….05/01/2017 Requested Date……………..06/28/2017 Certified Date………………06/30/2017 First Increment………………..est. 2019 Decertifies………………….12/31/2044 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 138 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 138 Wooddale Station Continued 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% Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $5,660,000 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 of the Minimum Improvements, 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 139 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 139 Wooddale Station Continued projected in Purchase and Redevelopment Contract), 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, the minimum market value for the South Apartments Component shall be $6,903,750, the minimum market value for the South Commercial Space Component shall be $735,225, and the minimum market value for the Hotel Component shall be $4,675,000. 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 Facility Component shall be $216,000, the minimum market value for the South Apartments Component shall be $13,807,500, the minimum market value for the South Commercial Space Component shall be $1,470,450, and the minimum market value for the Hotel Component shall be $9,350,000. 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 99 of the units of the North Apartments Component and South Apartments Component as live/work units (“Live/Work Units”), comprised of Live/Work Type I and Live/Work Type II units. Approximately 94 Live/Work Type I units will include a large working space within the dwelling unit, but no physical storefront, with approximately 18 Live/Work Type I Units will be located in the North Apartments Component and approximately 76 Live/Work Type I Units located in the South Apartments Component. There will be approximately five Live/Work Type II Units, which will include a large work space within the dwelling unit and a storefront, with all Live/Work Type II Units located in the South Apartments Component. 4. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve 200 of the units for households 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 the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as defined in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 140 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 140 Wooddale Station Continued 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. 7. Property Maintenance. 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: 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 rule will be June 30, 2021. Five Year Rule: At least 75% of tax increment revenues generated within the district must be used to pay for qualified costs within the district. The five-year rule is June 30, 2022. 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: None at this time. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 141 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 141 City Map of the TIF Districts Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 142 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 142 Definitions Administrative expenses. “Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of an authority 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 real 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. Authority. "Authority" means a rural development financing authority created pursuant to sections 469.142 to 469.151; a housing and redevelopment authority created pursuant to sections 469.001 to 469.047; a port authority created pursuant to sections 469.048 to 469.068; an economic development authority created pursuant to sections 469.090 to 469.108; a redevelopment agency as defined in sections 469.152 to 469.165; a municipality that is administering a development district created pursuant to sections 469.124 to 469.134 or any special law; a municipality that undertakes a project pursuant to sections 469.152 to 469.165, except a town located outside the metropolitan area or with a population of 5,000 persons or less; or a municipality that exercises the powers of a port authority pursuant to any general or special law. Bonds. Bonds or other obligations include: refunding bonds, 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. Economic development district. "Economic development district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds to be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or it will result in increased employment in the state; or it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state. The duration of an Economic Development District is 8 years after receipt of first increment. 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 for site improvements and binding contracts have been entered into. 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 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 143 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 143 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. Governing body. "Governing body" means the elected council or board of a municipality. 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. 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 Municipality. "Municipality" means the city, however organized, in which the district is located. 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. Project. "Project" means a project as described in section 469.142; an industrial redevelopment district as described in section 469.058, subdivision 1; an economic development district as described in section 469.101, subdivision 1; a project as defined in section 469.002, subdivision 12; a development district as defined in section 469.125, subdivision 9, or any special law; or a project as defined in section 469.153, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), (b), or (c). 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. Parcel. "Parcel" means a tract or plat of land established prior to the certification of the district as a single unit for purposes of assessment. 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. 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 consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more blighting conditions exist, reasonably distributed throughout the district. Parcels in a Redevelopment District must be analyzed to determine if they qualify under the law to be included in the District. Blighting factors include structurally substandard buildings, parcels that are vacant, unused, underused or inappropriately used. The duration of a Redevelopment District is 25 years after the receipt of first increment. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 144 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsOctober 2017 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 144 Renewal and renovation district. "Renewal and renovation district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more blighting conditions exist, similar to a Redevelopment District. 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. Soils condition district. "Soils condition district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants exist that require removal. Tax increment financing plan. A Tax Increment Financing Plan is a document that is adopted by resolution by the Authority which outlines certain statutory requirements. These include a statement of objectives of the project, a list of development activities that the plan proposes, identification of parcels to be included in the district, a budget of revenues and project costs, and district duration. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Annual TIF District Management ReportPage 145 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Via (PLACE) Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. This report is to update the Council on this project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Economic Development Authority (EDA) wish to allow PLACE to close separately on the north and south side properties so as to allow construction to begin immediately on the north side site? SUMMARY: PLACE is preparing to begin site work and building construction on Via, a mixed- use redevelopment to be located on the north and south sides of the future Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Wooddale Station. Financing has been secured, demolition of the former McGarvey property is underway, and the building permit is pending for the 217-unit mixed-use, mixed income apartment building to be constructed on the north side site. However, financing, property closing, and construction of the hotel on the south side site is dependent upon Marriott’s approval of PLACE’s franchise application and building plans. Absent any significant design changes to the hotel’s interior or exterior, PLACE hopes to receive Marriott’s final approval in December or January; however, the exact timing is yet to be determined. This precludes PLACE from acquiring the south side property at this time. Additionally, PLACE must commence its project by December 31st or risk losing its $900,000 DEED cleanup grant. Given the above, PLACE has requested that its acquisition of the EDA’s property occur through two separate property conveyances: one for the north side site and one for the south side site. Closing on the north side site would occur no later than November 30, 2017, thus allowing construction to begin on the north side site before the end of the year. Closing on conveyance of the south side site would occur no later than April 30, 2018. Authorization of two separate property closings would not change the required project commencement and completion dates outlined in the Contract and would allow PLACE to complete construction on the total project earlier than the required December 31, 2019. Such a request would require an amendment to the Contract (attached). The Amendment could be brought to the EDA for formal consideration on November 6th. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As outlined in the proposed 1st Amendment, PLACE would purchase the north side site for approximately $4,000,000. This includes the previously negotiated cost of the land ($3,925,000), plus 65% of the EDA’s holding costs ($159,250), and all of the EDA’s administrative costs related to the project to date (approximately $50,000). The cost to purchase the south side site would be approximately $2,200,000. This includes the previously negotiated cost of the land ($2,075,000), plus 35% of the EDA’s holding costs ($85,750). SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed 1st Amendment Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director Page 2 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project DISCUSSION In addition to the proposed 1st Amendment to the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract, staff wishes to inform the City Council of two additional planning actions related to the Via project requiring its formal approval. Final Plat Resolution Conditions Amendment: Various conditions were established in the Resolution for PLACE’s Final Plat Approval, including the payment of park and trail dedication fees. The approved resolution requires the park and trail dedication fees be paid prior to recording the plat with Hennepin County. Given the proposed two separate property closings, staff is recommending an amendment to the Final Plat Resolution Conditions to require the related park and trail dedication fees be paid to the city prior to sale of each property, rather than prior to the recording of the plat with Hennepin County. In this particular circumstance, it would be most appropriate for the city to collect the park and trail dedication fees upon each property transfer to the developer. The amendment to the conditions allows the plat to be recorded as soon as possible. The recording legally establishes the correct property lines, easements, and right-of-ways. The plat will need to be recorded regardless of ownership, and will facilitate the transfer of the properties from the EDA to PLACE. Registered Land Survey: Due to the financing requirements of combining market-rate housing and income-restricted housing in one structure, PLACE will be submitting an application for a Registered Land Survey (RLS) in the coming months. An RLS is essentially a three dimensional plat that divides land not only horizontally, but also vertically. The city’s Subdivision Ordinance treats an RLS similar to subdivision plats and requires the Planning Commission to conduct a preliminary review the RLS and provide a recommendation, and also requires formal approval from the City Council. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT This First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (the “Amendment”) is dated as of _____________, 2017, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and PLACE E-GENERATION ONE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”). RECITALS A.The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Purchase and Redevelopment Contract, dated as of May 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), whereunder the Authority agreed to convey certain property described in the Agreement (the “Redevelopment Property”) to the Redeveloper and pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Agreement) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of certain North Components, consisting of the North Apartments Component, the North Commercial Space Component, the E-Generation Facility Component, and associated parking; and certain South Components, consisting of the South Apartments Component, the South Commercial Space Component, the Hotel Component, and associated parking (all as defined in the Agreement) on the Redevelopment Property (collectively, the “Minimum Improvements”). B.The Agreement contemplates closing on conveyance of all of the Redevelopment Property by a date no later than April 30, 2018. C.In order to meet certain requirements for the disbursement of grant proceeds to pay Grant-Eligible Costs, the Redeveloper has requested and the Authority has agreed to convey the Redevelopment Property pursuant to two separate closings, and to amend certain provisions of the Agreement accordingly, as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: 1.Amendment of Sections 3.1(a) and (b). Sections 3.1(a) and (b) of the Agreement are amended as follows: Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 3 (a)The Redevelopment Property consists of the North Parcels and the South Parcels, as described in Schedule A attached hereto. (b)The Authority owns all parcels of the Redevelopment Property and will convey title to and possession of the Redevelopment Property to the Redeveloper, or its successor in interest hereunder, subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Authority will convey the North Parcels and the South Parcels to the Redeveloper in two separate transactions (the “North Closing” and the “South Closing,” as defined in Section 3.3(b) hereof, and each a “Closing”). (c)The Redeveloper has prepared and obtained final City approval of a PUD and plat of the Redevelopment Property (the “Redevelopment Plat”). Park dedication fees attributable to the South Parcels and due and payable upon filing of the Redevelopment Plat may be deferred and paid on the date of the South Closing. 2. Amendment of Section 3.2. Section 3.2 of the Agreement is amended as follows: Section 3.2. Purchase Price; Provisions for Payment; Deferral. The purchase price to be paid to the Authority by the Redeveloper in exchange for the conveyance of the Redevelopment Property shall be $6,245,000 (the “Purchase Price”), to be paid as follows: Upon execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper will place $20,000 as earnest money (the “Earnest Money”) into an escrow account administered by a title company mutually agreeable to the parties (the “Title Company”), to be held and applied to the Purchase Price on the date of the North Closing. At the North Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay $3,084,250 of the Purchase Price, less the escrowed Earnest Money. At the South Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay $1,660,750 of the Purchase Price. The Redeveloper will pay the remaining $1,500,000 of the Purchase Price, plus interest to accrue at the rate of 4.0% per annum (the “Financed Purchase Price”), in regular semiannual installments of principal and accrued interest, over a period of ten (10) years. The Financed Purchase Price shall be allocated 65% to the North Purchase Price and 35% to the South Purchase Price. Interest on the portion of the Financed Purchase Price attributable to the North Parcels shall accrue from the date of the North Closing, and interest on the portion of the Financed Purchase Price attributable to the South Parcels shall accrue from the date of the South Closing. To secure the full payment of the Financed Purchase Price, the Redeveloper will provide a mortgage lien on the Redevelopment Property in favor of the Authority in the principal amount of $975,000 on the date of the North Closing and in the amount of $525,000 on the date of the South Closing, which mortgage liens shall be subordinate to any mortgage provided under the terms of Section 7.3 hereof. Additionally, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has adopted an interfund loan resolution providing for an interfund loan in the amount of $1,500,000 as permitted under Section 469.178, subd. 7 of the TIF Act (the “Interfund Loan”). In the event that the Redeveloper fails to make the scheduled payments for the Financed Purchase Price, the Interfund Loan shall be repaid from the Available Tax Increment on a subordinate basis to the payments on the TIF Note. 3. Amendment of Section 3.3. Section 3.3 of the Agreement is amended as follows: Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 4 Section 3.3. Conditions of Conveyance. (a)The Authority shall convey title to and possession of the North Parcels and the South Parcels of the Redevelopment Property to the Redeveloper by quit claim deeds substantially in the form set forth on Schedule B to this Agreement (the “Deed”), modified as may be necessary to enable issuance of a suitable owner’s policy in a form acceptable to the Redeveloper and its successors and assigns. The Authority’s obligation to convey the Redevelopment Property to the Redeveloper, and the Redeveloper’s obligation to acquire the Redevelopment Property, are subject to satisfaction of the following terms and conditions: (1)The Redeveloper having closed on permanent financing for the North Components or South Components, as applicable, at or before closing on transfer of title to the relevant parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper, or having received a binding commitment from a lender to provide financing sufficient for construction of the North Components or South Components of the Minimum Improvements, as applicable, or having otherwise provided the Authority with proof of funds available to finance construction of the North Components or South Components of the Minimum Improvements, as applicable. (2)The City having approved the Redevelopment Plat and PUD in accordance with Section 3.1 hereof, and the Redeveloper having recorded or filed the Redevelopment Plat at or before the earlier of the North Closing or South Closing. (3)The City having approved all necessary zoning variances to the Redevelopment Property in accordance with Section 3.1 hereof. (4)The Authority having approved Construction Plans for the applicable Components of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof. (5)The Redeveloper having reviewed and approved (or waived objections to) title to the Redevelopment Property and having obtained a commitment from a title company acceptable to the Redeveloper (the “Title Company”) to issue a suitable owner’s policy, as set forth in Section 3.5 hereof. (6)The Redeveloper having remitted to the Authority all Administrative Costs (as defined in Section 3.11) that remain outstanding and payable at the time of the North Closing and South Closing, such Administrative Costs to be determined in accordance with Section 3.11. The Administrative Costs may be paid by the Redeveloper at each Closing in accordance with Section 3.4(b) hereof. (7)The Redeveloper being satisfied with the results of its due diligence inspections and testing with regard to the Redevelopment Property as further described in Section 3.3(b) hereof. (8)There existing no uncured Event of Default under this Agreement. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 5 Conditions (1) and (4), and (6) are solely for the benefit of the Authority and may be waived by the Authority. Conditions (5) and (7) are solely for the benefit of the Redeveloper and may be waived by the Redeveloper. Conditions (2), (3), and (8) are for the benefit of both parties and may be waived by both parties. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to failure to meet or waive any of conditions (1) through (7), the Earnest Money shall be returned to the Redeveloper and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except for the Redeveloper’s continuing obligation under Section 3.11 hereof. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to condition (8), the provisions of Article IX hereof shall apply. (b)The closing on conveyance of the North Parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper (the “North Closing”) shall occur within thirty (30) days of satisfaction or waiver of conditions (1) through (7) specified in Section 3.3(a) hereof, and subject to the continued satisfaction at the North Closing of condition (8), but no later than November 30, 2017 (the “North End Date”); and the closing on conveyance of the South Parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper (the “South Closing”) shall occur within thirty (30) days of satisfaction or waiver of conditions (1) through (7) specified in Section 3.3(a) hereof, and subject to the continued satisfaction at the South Closing of condition (8), but no later than April 30, 2018 (the “South End Date”); provided that the North End Date and South End Date shall be subject to extension upon mutual agreement of the parties. 4.Amendment of Sections 3.4(b) and (c). Sections 3.4(b) and (c) are amended as follows: (b)The Deed for each of the North Parcels and South Parcels shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded in the proper office for the recordation of deeds and other instruments pertaining to the Redevelopment Property. At each Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay all recording costs in connection with the conveyance of the North Parcels or South Parcels, as applicable; the Authority’s holding costs attributable to the North Parcels or South Parcels, as applicable; title insurance commitment fees and premiums, if any; Title Company closing fees, if any; and all outstanding Administrative Costs. The Authority shall pay costs of recording any instruments used to clear title encumbrances; State deed tax; and any special assessments outstanding or levied against the North Parcels as of the date of the North Closing and against the South Parcels as of the date of the South Closing. The parties agree and understand that the Redevelopment Property is exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2017, and is expected to be exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2018. (c)At each Closing, the Authority shall deliver to the Redeveloper: (1)The executed Deed; (2)All certificates, instruments and other documents necessary to permit the recording of the Deed; Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 6 (3)A standard Seller’s Affidavit with respect to judgments, bankruptcies, tax liens, mechanics liens, parties in possession, unrecorded interests, encroachment or boundary line questions and related matters; (4)If applicable, the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (the Authority need not provide an abstract of title if the property is classified as abstract property); (5)An affidavit that the Authority is not a “foreign person” within the meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (6)One or more Assessment Agreements. (d)At each Closing, the Redeveloper shall deliver to the Authority: (1)The applicable portion of the Purchase Price as provided in Section 3.2 hereof, plus or minus pro rata costs between the Authority and Redeveloper as set forth in Section 3.4(b) hereof, less the applicable portion of the Financed Purchase Price; and (2)One or more Assessment Agreements. 5.Amendment of Schedule A. Schedule A is amended to replace the prior legal description with the platted legal description, as follows: North Parcels: Lot 1, Block 1, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Lot 1, Block 2, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Outlot A, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota South Parcels: Lot 1, Block 3, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Outlots B and C, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota 6.Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Upon execution of this Amendment, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this Amendment. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________, 2017, by Anne Mavity and Thomas K Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 8 PLACE E-GENERATION ONE LLC By ___________________________________ Its President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________, 2017, by Chris Velasco, the President of PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 3) Title: Via (PLACE) Project Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to enter into contract for audit services with selected firm. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Considering the three audit firms who are presenting, which does the City Council wish to proceed with the contract for auditing services for 2017 - 2021? SUMMARY: The City Council directed staff on July 11, 2016 to request proposals for auditing services after the 2016 audit. Staff outlined the process on July 24, 2017 for auditing services for fiscal years ending 2017 – 2021. On September 5, 2017 staff distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for auditing services. By late September eight proposals were received, all from very reputable CPA firms. After consideration of the proposals, including general requirements, technical quality and price, five firms were invited to interview with staff on October 6, 2017. Upon completion of the interviews and reference calls staff concluded that either of BerganKDV, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. (MMKR), or Redpath and Company would provide quality audit services for the City. An executive summary of each firm’s proposal is attached. Since the auditors are hired and report directly to the City Council, each firm will have representatives attend the meeting to conduct a five minute presentation to highlight their qualifications. Following the presentations City Council will have fifteen minutes to ask additional questions of any of the firms. Staff looks forward to hearing Council’s conversation and direction on auditing services. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total fee for 2016 audit was $53,700, which did not include a Single Audit. The expense for the 2017 audit is included in the 2018 budget. Dollar cost proposals for each firm are included in the attached dollar cost proposal summary. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Audit Firm Executive Summaries Dollar Cost Proposal Summary Prepared by: Mark Ebensteiner, Finance Manager Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Council requested that proposals be requested and received for the next audit cycle. Staff sent out RFP’s and 8 firms responded. After review, staff interviewed 5 firms. The top 3 firms are attending the study session and have provided an executive summary. At this meeting the firms will each have 5 minutes for a presentation, after all presentations, there will be time for Council to ask questions of the firms and have time for discussion to determine next steps. The schedule for the evening is as follows: 1. 5 minute presentations by firms – total time 15 minutes: a.Nancy Schulzetenberg, CPA, Partner – BerganKDV b.Aaron Nielsen, CPA, Partner – Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. c.David Mol, CPA, Partner – Redpath and Company 2.After all interviews are complete, Council will have a total of 15 minutes to ask questions of all 3 firms. 3.The last 15 minutes is time for council discussion. Council will share their observations and provide staff direction. At this time Council will either ask for additional information or ask staff to prepare the contract. BerganKDV, Ltd. 3800 American Blvd West, Suite 1000 Bloomington, MN 55431-4420 Contact: Nancy Schulzetenberg Phone: 952.563.6800 www.bergankdv.com CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK  Executive Summary of the Technical Proposal for Auditing For the Years Ending December 31, 2017 through 2021 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 3 bergankdv.com 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Thank you for the opportunity to partner with your City to deliver audit services. As sought- after experts in the government industry we're confident that, as one of your trusted advisors, BerganKDV will be an integral part of your daily operations. You would work with a recognized leader in providing auditing and consulting services to Minnesota Municipalities. Our differentiators that tie to what we understand as important to you follow: Minnesota Government Finance Expertise. Your audit firm needs to understand how municipalities operate and how the environment in which they function is regulated. Your audit firm also needs to understand the intricacies of these entities and how decisions that are made, affect the community as a whole. BerganKDV audit professionals are dedicated to your industry beyond the audit; we strive to be your trusted resource in all areas. Effective Communication. You would work with professionals who are willing to communicate effectively and collaboratively with you throughout the audit process and the year. You will never be surprised by our communication in reporting on your audits. We will provide practical suggestions for operational and internal control improvements, as needed, and as situations arise creating a positive two-way communication experience. We will always provide effective and professional communication with you, your staff, and the governing body. BerganKDV understands that the audit can be a positive learning experience. A Personalized Approach to the Audit. Our audit process includes an annual planning meeting with you to discuss any challenges and changes in the City over the past year, and to build future strategies. We enjoy learning about your City and will work to understand your City from an overall operational standpoint. We are not afraid to "roll up our sleeves" and delve into the details of your operations. This allows us to personalize our audit approach each year, bring best practices, and be a resource for you when it comes to GASB and other reporting standards. Value for Time and Fees Invested. Receiving value for your fee investment is critical in City government. In addition to offering highly competitive fees, we work diligently to not incur fee surprises. We encourage frequent calls throughout the year, always at no cost to you. Our goal is to be your first call when you experience organizational challenges, and our current clients report that this has helped them save time, reduce costs and build confidence when solving issues. Respect for Your Time: Your fieldwork timelines and council presentations will drive our audit process. We will be clear with you on things we need for the audit including timing and deadlines. We work efficiently, with manager and partner review in the field, which provides for significantly less time on-site and follow-up. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 4 bergankdv.com 2 BerganKDV has a personalized team of professionals to meet your unique needs. Your BerganKDV team is familiar with governments and has extensive experience working with your City and similar Cities and related entities. This translates into a greater ability to understand your unique organization. "Over the 21 years they have performed our annual audit, BerganKDV has consistently assigned a capable and responsive team to do the work. We don't have to spend time "training" the new audit staff. The partner and in-charge auditor check in with us regularly throughout the year and are always available to answer questions and offer accounting advice at no extra charge. We feel BerganKDV's services have provided a good value for our City—we're very pleased to have them as our auditor." – Tom Pepper Chief Financial Officer City of Eagan, Minnesota  Nancy Schulzetenberg, CPA Engagement Partner •24 years with the firm •Current city clients include St. Cloud, Otsego and Fergus Falls Matthew Mayer, CPA Concurring Review Partner •21 years with firm •Current city clients include Eagan, Richfield, Crystal Andrew Grice, CPA Audit Manager •9 years with firm •Current city clients include Roseville, Crystal and Otsego Steve Wischmann, CPA, CFF, CFE,  CCFE, MAFF, CGMA Special Services Partner •29 years with the firm •Current city clients include Maplewood and New Brighton Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 5 bergankdv.com BERGANKDV BACKGROUND AND SERVICES Our Beginning BerganKDV was formed when three successful firms merged – Bergan Paulsen, Networking Solutions, and KDV. Combined, our roots trace all the way back to the 1940s. From our humble beginnings as trusted business advisory firms, we have expanded and adapted to now offer business planning and consulting, tax, audit, and accounting, technology and wealth management services throughout the Midwest. Who We Are Today BerganKDV now employs over 340 talented individuals, with seven offices across Minnesota and Iowa, and serves clients in 40 states nation-wide. Our firm employs a total of 128 certified public accountants utilized within various departments. Our government audit team consists of 18 employees located in both Bloomington and St. Cloud offices. These employees are all dedicated to providing auditing and consulting services to cities, school districts and other government organizations. The firm employs over 50 individuals with audit experience. In response to client requests, we have built a robust suite of operational and financial services to meet their needs, save them time, and ultimately, improve results. In addition to audit and tax planning and compliance services, we also provide expertise in payroll, technology, 401(k), wealth management, life insurance, business valuation, merger and acquisition, fraud and forensic, and trust and estate solutions. Specialists that are included in the robust suite of services include experts in the areas of Employee Benefit Tax Issues, Exempt Tax Issues, Information Technology, Government and Tax Increment Financing Consulting and Certified Fraud Examination. BDO Alliance, USA. Beyond the talented individuals on our staff, BerganKDV has access to additional resources through our independent firm membership of the BDO Alliance, USA, one of the nation's largest accounting firms and the world's 5th largest accounting and consulting organization. Through our close working relationship with BDO, we are able to seamlessly provide you the strength, reach, and technical resources of a multi- national accounting and consulting firm for any specialized reporting and filing requirements. Putting the Pieces Together. BerganKDV is not in the business of providing one-size-fits-all solutions. Every client is different – from business problems to personal preferences. We invest the time to understand your needs and customize our services and solutions to meet them. We put the pieces together for you. We solve complex business, financial and technology challenges, all under one roof. Extensive governmental auditing and consulting experience With over 50 years of experience serving the government community, we have a great appreciation for the unique issues and complexities that you face. We currently work with over 150 governmental entities, including cities, school districts, and other governmental entities, providing a wide array of services including accounting, auditing, and consulting services. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, AND 2021 WILLIAM J. LAUER, PRINCIPAL E-MAIL: BLAUER@MMKR.COM 952.545.0424 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 7 A. Organization Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. (MMKR) is a local CPA firm, located on the west side of St. Louis Park at the intersection of Highways 394 and 100. We have been at this location for over 60 years. MMKR is currently staffed by approximately 35 individuals. The principals and professionals of MMKR perceive our firm as unique in its organizational structure and the client-oriented approach taken to the management of our practice. Personalized principal attention is built into our services, which is a key to the longevity of our client relationships and the continuity of quality services we provide. B. Governmental Audit Specialization MMKR has specialized in providing audit and consulting services to Minnesota local governments for over 60 years. Last year we audited over 25 municipalities, 30 school districts, 30 charter schools, and numerous other governmental and related organizations. This represented approximately 60 percent of our practice. The following is a list of the cities to which we provided audit services for fiscal 2016 (Cities participating in the GFOA Certificate Program are identified with an asterisk): * City of Apple Valley * City of Golden Valley * City of Robbinsdale * City of Arden Hills * City of Monticello * City of Rosemount * City of Brooklyn Center * City of Mounds View City of Saint Peter * City of Burnsville * City of New Hope * City of Shoreview * City of Chaska City of Newport City of Spring Park City of Circle Pines * City of North St. Paul * City of South St. Paul * City of Coon Rapids * City of Plymouth * City of St. Michael * City of Edina City of Prior Lake City of Wayzata * City of Farmington * City of Ramsey Cities Audited in 2016 C. Experience Specific to Your Needs Our city and school district audit clients are primarily large local governments located in the metro area, with general fund budgets ranging up to $600 million in annual appropriations. We work with over 30 local governments that prepare Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) and participate in either the GFOA or ASBO Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Programs. MMKR performs dozens of Single Audits of federal awards expenditures annually. We have extensive experience with Economic Development Authorities, tax increment financing, and utility enterprise fund operations. D. Commitment to Quality MMKR is a member of the Governmental Audit Quality Center of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), and conforms to the external peer review and internal review requirements of that organization. We have never had a client fail to obtain or retain a GFOA or ASBO Certificate of Achievement. We have never had a report rejected or deemed inadequate by any oversite agency. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Our Company Page 8 A. Government Audit Team MMKR’s governmental audit team is led by three principals that practice almost exclusively in the governmental sector, as do the majority of our key managers and supervisory level personnel. The size and variety of our governmental practice dictates that we have a number of professionals that work with governmental clients year-round, which allows the members of our governmental audit team to quickly acquire the depth of knowledge and expertise necessary to provide efficient, high quality services to this complex and specialized clientele. The following is a breakdown of our professional staff by position: Classification Number Number of CPAs Number Providing Over 500 Hours of Governmental Services Annually Principals 6 6 3 Senior Managers/Consultants 4 3 3 Managers 3 3 1 Senior Associates and Associates 8 7 8 Staff Accountants 7 –7 B. Training, Education, and Development MMKR emphasizes quality service, accomplished by recruiting and developing high quality personnel. Professional staff meet, and routinely exceed, all continuing professional education requirements. MMKR professionals participate actively in many professional organizations and committees, including the AICPA, MNCPA, GFOA, and Minnesota GFOA. That participation includes serving in leadership roles, making presentations, serving on planning committees, and serving as panel members and/or moderators. On our staff, we have a number of current and former reviewers for both the GFOA and the ASBO Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Programs. C. Personnel Assigned The firm’s policy for governmental audits typically requires the assignment of a principal, a manager, a senior associate, and additional associates of varying qualifications as deemed necessary in the circumstances. A second principal is assigned to each governmental audit engagement to consult on technical issues. The following audit team has is included in our proposal for your audit: Name Classification Auditing Experience Cities Audited for Fiscal 2016 William J. Lauer, CPA Principal 32 years Chaska, Coon Rapids, Farmington, Golden Valley, LOGIS, New Hope, St. Michael, and James H. Eichten, CPA Consulting Principal 28 years Apple Valley, Brooklyn Center, Burnsville, Edina, Monticello, Newport, Prior Lake, South St. Paul, Spring Park, and St. Peter Jaclyn M. Huegel, CPA Senior Manager 14 years Arden Hills, Apple Valley, Brooklyn Center, Burnsville, Chaska, North St. Paul, South St. Paul, and Wayzata Seth A. Mader, CPA Senior Associate 4 years Coon Rapids, North St. Paul, Newport, Rosemount, South St. Paul, and St. Peter Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Our People Page 9 A. Audit Philosophy MMKR embraces the traditional role of the independent auditor, providing assurance of accurate financial reporting and compliance. We view each audit engagement as an opportunity to provide value added services, partnering with our clients to strengthen internal controls, improve procedures and financial operations, and comply with rapidly changing financial reporting requirements. MMKR places great emphasis on the quality of the financial reports issued by our clients. All audited financial statements go through multiple reviews, utilizing GFOA Certificate of Excellence disclosure checklists for all CAFRs. We provide meaningful and effective communication of audit results and recommendations to management, governance, and other stakeholders through meetings, presentations, and our management report. B. More Than an Audit Firm MMKR strives to establish an ongoing, year-round relationship with our clients, serving as a resource to assist with day-to-day accounting and reporting issues. We see this as an extension of our role as auditor, and do not bill for phone calls or questions throughout the year. We utilize a variety of methods; such as monthly newsletters, email blasts, or face-to-face training opportunities; to inform and educate our clients about new reporting standards, changes to federal or state regulations, compliance requirements, and other developments of interest. Our management report provides additional analysis and comparative benchmark data to add context for interpreting financial results. We provide a wide variety of special services and consulting tailored to the specific needs of our clients. C. Client-Centered Approach MMKR’s first priority is to always be responsive to the needs of our clients, and we work hard to provide timely and effective audit and consulting services. We find flexible solutions to overcome challenges, such as the turnover of key client personnel or financial software system conversions, and still meet client reporting timelines. We are respectful of our clients’ time and resources, using effective audit planning, technology, and communication to minimize disruption to our clients’ daily operations. We communicate with our clients throughout the audit process, making management aware of potential issues, findings, or recommendations at the first opportunity, and avoiding any surprises. Our long record of client satisfaction and retention is the best evidence of this commitment to our clients, and we invite you to contact them. D. Size of Firm With MMKR, you get the advantages of working with a local firm, as well as a firm with one of the largest governmental audit practices in the state. A client your size is important to us, assuring the personal involvement of our top people, and priority when it comes to the allocation of staff and resources. Our pricing structure is competitive. You get what you pay for, and more! Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Our Services Page 10 Audit Services Interview •City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota October 23, 2017 Submitted By: David Mol, CPA Partner dmol@redpathcpas.com 651.407.5803 Cathy A. Lydon, CPA Senior Manager clydon@redpathcpas.com 651.255-9337 Redpath and Company | 55 Fifth Street East, Suite 1400 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 | P: 651.426.7000 | F: 651.426.5004 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 11 Redpath and Company | Audit Services Interview2COMPANY OVERVIEWFIRM SIZE and STRUCTURE Redpath and Company is a full-service public accounting firm helping individuals and organizations—including not-for-profits, businesses, and local governments—make better and more informed decisions that contribute to their financial well-being. With approximately 150 staff in our St. Paul and White Bear Lake, Minnesota offices, the firm ranks as the largest certified public accounting firm in St. Paul and one of the largest in the Twin Cities metro area. Year founded: 1971 International Affiliation: HLB International Headquarters: St. Paul, Minnesota 2nd Office: White Bear Lake, Minnesota Ownership: 100% ESOP owned Management model: EOS (“Traction”) Total employees: 150 Total tax professionals: 51 Total audit and accounting professionals: 72 Administrative/support staff: 27 Total partners: 16 Top industries served: Government, Not-For-Profit, Manufacturing and Distribution, Construction, Real Estate and Engineering, ESOP, Technology SPECIALIZED SERVICES •Audit and Assurance Services •Financial Statement Audit •Federal Single Compliance Audit •GASB Implementation •Debt Services Studies •Utility Rate Studies •Cost Allocation Studies •CAFR Preparation Assistance, Including Government-Wide Conversion •Sales and Use Tax Compliance •Payroll Services •Internal Control Studies •Forensic Accounting Services •Employee Benefits •Agreed-Upon Procedures ENTITIES SERVED •Cities / Towns •School Districts / Charter Schools •HRAs / EDAs •Fire Relief Associations •Watersheds / Special Districts •Tribal Government SIMILAR CLIENTS (not all-inclusive) •Blaine •Bloomington •Champlin •Chanhassen •Columbia Heights •Fridley •St. Anthony •Oakdale •Waconia Redpath and Company, Ltd is a member firm of the AICPA’s Governmental Audit Quality Center Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 12 Redpath and Company | Audit Services Interview3COMPANY OVERVIEWPHILANTHROPIC CULTURE Redpath and Company and its employees are committed to giving back. For over ten years our employees have had the opportunity to donate a portion of their salaries to various not-for-profit organizations. Each employee’s contribution is then matched by Redpath and donated to a charity chosen by the employees. Over the years we have donated to many organizations from small, local groups to large, nationally recognized organizations. In 2016, Redpath and Company donated $14,000 to Second Mile Haiti. Since 2011, Redpath and Company has contributed nearly $150,000 in charitable donations or sponsorships. In addition to financial contributions, we also encourage all employees to volunteer by providing paid time off to do so, whether through a Redpath organized volunteer event or on their own. Supported Organizations: 2017 - Junior Achievement of the Upper Midwest 2016 - Second Mile Haiti 2015 - Make A Wish Foundation 2014 - Newtrax 2013 - Make A Wish Foundation 2012 - Minnesotan’s Military Appreciation Fund 2011 - Angel Foundation 2010 - Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare 2009 - Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity 2008 - Spare Key 2007 - White Bear Lake Emergency Food Shelf WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO Because we care about your success, are fun to work with, and love to bring value. We have the right systems, resources, and talent in place to exceed your expectations: Proactive. Attentive client managers—backed by a system followed by all—are held accountable for delivery on our promise. Innovative. Practical and efficient approach to delivering solutions instead of a larger firm’s bureaucracy and protocol. Value-Driven Services. Focused on delivering value by solving, not selling. ASSOCIATION INVOLVEMENT •League of Minnesota Cities •Minnesota Association of County Officers •Minnesota Association of County Auditors, Treasurers, and Financial Officers •Association of Minnesota Counties •Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association •2016 Thomas J. Moran Award Recipients (David Mol and Peggy Moeller) •GFOA Certificate Review Program •AICPA Governmental Audit Quality Center •AICPA Single Audit Resource Center Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 13 Redpath and Company | Audit Services Interview4 A FRESH SET OF EYES ”Another person taking a look at a particular thing or event. A new person who has not previously looked at the item may be able to see things the first person no longer can.” This definition is the role of your auditor. •Finance staff may perform the same task routinely throughout the year and may not see an error. •The auditor’s fresh look will view financial activity from an unbiased new perspective and question things that had not been questioned previously. Your auditor is held to extremely high standards set by the AICPA—independence, skepticism, and unpredictability. DOWNTOWN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA HEADQUARTERS Redpath and Company made a strategic decision in 2014 to move its headquarters into downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. The reason was twofold: 1.To increase visibility as a leader in providing proactive, innovative, and value-driven CPA services. 2.To attract a more diverse workforce. Redpath has since experienced a period of growth that has resulted in a third floor being opened in the Alliance Bank Building in downtown St. Paul. We also continue to work toward greater diversity within our workforce which includes holding certificates of compliance from the City of Saint Paul and the MN Department of Human Rights. These documents certify that our company’s recruiting and employment policies and practices are in compliance with rules governing Affirmative Action Requirements. 100% EMPLOYEE-OWNED Our employees also enjoy the benefit of firm growth through our Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). As the only 100% employee-owned CPA firm in Minnesota, the ESOP drives a culture of inclusion for our employees, and allows them to be rewarded as a result of the firm’s success. They are more engaged and have a higher sense of value knowing there is a direct correlation between how clients are served and how that translates into firm success and growth. Almost 60% of our employee owners are female. FOCUSED RECRUITING EFFORTS Redpath and Company has a robust recruiting strategy that includes on-campus recruiting from schools around the region. Our Summer Experience and Intern Program attract students from:POINTS OF EMPHASIS•University of Minnesota, Duluth •Minnesota State University, Mankato •University of North Dakota, Grand Forks •University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire •University of Wisconsin, La Crosse •University of St. Thomas •Bethel University •College of Saint Benedict •Saint John’s University Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 14 REDPATH AND COMPANY CORE VALUES Caring - Clients and colleagues must know we care—they must feel it. Committed - To the firm, the firm’s vision, clients, and colleagues. Continuously Improving - Always striving to be better, learn more, and offer more. Confident - In ourselves, our colleagues, and our firm. Connected - Awareness of the world and our surroundings, developing relationships, and articulating ideas. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 15 BerganKDV Service 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Financial Audit 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,800$ 41,550$ 42,300$ 204,650$ Report Preparation (CAFR) 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,300 20,600 Single Audit*3,000 3,000 3,000 3,100 3,150 15,250 Total 47,000$ 47,000$ 47,900$ 48,850$ 49,750$ 240,500$ Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. (MMKR) Service 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Financial Audit 46,775$ 47,730$ 48,660$ 49,490$ 50,345$ 243,000$ Report Preparation (CAFR) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000 Single Audit*3,750 3,800 3,850 3,900 3,950 19,250 Total 56,525$ 57,530$ 58,510$ 59,390$ 60,295$ 292,250$ Redpath and Company Service 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Financial Audit 44,000$ 45,100$ 46,200$ 47,300$ 48,500$ 231,100$ Report Preparation (CAFR) 6,000 6,150 6,300 6,450 6,600 31,500 Single Audit*4,500 4,600 4,700 4,800 4,900 23,500 Total 54,500$ 55,850$ 57,200$ 58,550$ 60,000$ 286,100$ * Assume one major program for pricing Dollar Cost Proposal Summary Note: The Single Audit fee will only be assessed if the City is required to have a single audit for that year. A single audit is required if the City expends $750,000 or more of Federal assistance. A single audit will be required for fiscal year ending 2017 due to federal funding for the 37th Street Bridge project. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Page 16 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: September 2017 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of September, General Fund expenditures total approximately 71.3% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3.5% under budget. The attached analysis explains variances. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: September 2017 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report provides summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally run at about 75% of the annual budget at the end of September. General Fund expenditures are under budget at approximately 71.3% of the adopted budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A few comments on variances are noted below. Revenues: License and permit revenues continue to exceed budget at 89% through September. Over 95% of the 2017 business and liquor license revenue has been received and permit revenue is at almost 87% of budget through September. The timing of some larger commercial permits related to redevelopment will determine how much permit revenue will exceed budget in 2017. Intergovernmental revenue is at 98% as the $693,000 Police & Fire State Aid payment was received on September 30th. Expenditures: Communications & Marketing is at 81.5% through September. The variance is due to some large expenditures during the first part of the year for the Park Perspective, the Park & Recreation brochure and various mailings. Expenditures have been reviewed and staff will continue to monitor throughout the remainder of the year. Organized Recreation has a temporary variance of about 5% because the annual community education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the school district early in the year, and also due to higher seasonal expenditures from the summer months. The Recreation Center budget is at 82.5% through September. This is a normal variance following the pool season due to seasonal expenditures for temporary staffing and supplies and is consistent with prior years. Park Maintenance is running about 2.5% higher than budget also due to seasonal expenditures that are typical over the summer months. Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: September 2017 Monthly Financial Report Utility Funds Revenues: The user charges utility revenue in each of the funds is lower than 75% due to the timing of the billing cycles. Utility revenues lag one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to additional antenna lease revenue. Expenses: Personal services is exceeding budget in the Sewer Fund, but running under budget in the Storm Water Fund. This is because staff time is recorded to the area being worked, which doesn’t always reflect the current budget. Staff will review and monitor this throughout the rest of the year. Total operating expenses in the Sewer Fund typically appear high throughout the year because the Met Council waste water service charge of $355,300 is paid one month in advance. Capital outlay will vary during the year based on timing of projects and when expenditures are incurred. The large capital outlay expense in the Storm Water Fund is the Carpenter Park project. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,742 $5,447 $8,263 $10,741 $13,326 $16,872 $19,748 $22,898 $25,529 Budget $2,984 $5,969 $8,953 $11,937 $14,921 $17,906 $20,890 $23,874 $26,858 $29,843 $32,827 $35,811 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of September 30, 2017201720172015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget Sept YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 12,989,503$ 11,758,933$ 52.49% Licenses and Permits3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 3,326,561 419,175 88.81% Fines & Forfeits320,200 263,951 341,200 299,808 254,200 207,972 46,228 81.81% Intergovernmental1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,598,759 32,910 97.98% Charges for Services1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 1,598,134 429,503 78.82% Miscellaneous Revenue1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 912,867 361,548 71.63% Transfers In1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,417,445 482,482 74.61% Investment Earnings 140,000 68,908 140,000 114,957 140,000 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,900 61,025 27,450 20,440 30,450 22,993 7,457 75.51% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 58,541 - 58,541 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 22,074,234$ 13,736,777$ 61.64%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 747,569$ 301,554$ 71.26% Finance 912,685 902,901 933,624 869,759 957,275 661,177 296,098 69.07% Assessing 602,299 601,687 641,038 607,443 707,139 469,257 237,882 66.36% Human Resources 805,929 857,950 748,718 801,958 754,699 530,638 224,061 70.31% Community Development 1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 985,193 380,862 72.12% Facilities Maintenance 1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 806,365 326,409 71.19% Information Resources 1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,038,654 532,058 66.13% Communications & Marketing 635,150 571,815 608,228 657,758 646,841 527,419 119,422 81.54% Community Outreach 24,677 22,380 25,587 22,718 26,553 19,381 7,172 72.99% Engineering 492,838 381,148 549,251 436,228 376,601 197,428 179,173 52.42%Total General Government8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 5,983,081$ 2,604,691$ 69.67% Public Safety: Police8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 6,861,381$ 2,356,607$ 74.43% Fire Protection3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 3,199,617 1,208,039 72.59% Inspectional Services2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 1,663,668 755,405 68.77%Total Public Safety14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 11,724,666$ 4,320,051$ 73.07% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration 232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 181,321$ 84,928$ 68.10% Public Works Operations 2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,014,526 1,004,491 66.73% Organized Recreation 1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,183,272 289,724 80.33% Recreation Center 1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,439,581 305,070 82.51% Park Maintenance 1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,333,922 387,810 77.48% Westwood Nature Center 564,055 560,744 576,173 555,887 602,400 425,127 177,273 70.57% Natural Resources 472,049 377,617 479,408 362,094 550,235 310,595 239,640 56.45% Vehicle Maintenance 1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 886,945 497,093 64.08%Total Operations & Recreation9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 7,775,288$ 2,986,030$ 72.25% Non-Departmental: General -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 23,895$ 8,014$ 74.88% Transfers Out- 2,194,245 - 1,873,000 - - - 0.00% Contingency177,984 14,438 266,719 104,224 385,295 22,433 362,862 5.82%Total Non-Departmental177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 46,328$ 370,876$ 11.10%Total General Fund Expenditures32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 25,529,362$ 10,281,649$ 71.29%Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: September 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of September 30, 2017Current BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetSept Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,420,438$ 3,530,846$ 2,889,592$ 54.99% 6,915,804$ 4,673,752$ 2,242,052$ 67.58% 3,319,001$ 1,987,940$ 1,331,061$ 59.90% 2,853,520$ 1,871,584$ 981,936$ 65.59% Other 375,000 472,361 (97,361) 125.96% 30,000 7,863 22,137 26.21% 148,000 109,067 38,933 73.69% - - - Total operating revenues6,795,438 4,003,208 2,792,230 58.91% 6,945,804 4,681,614 2,264,190 67.40% 3,467,001 2,097,007 1,369,994 60.48% 2,853,520 1,871,584 981,936 65.59%Operating expenses: Personal services1,322,998 972,035 350,963 73.47% 613,321 615,466 (2,145) 100.35% 590,172 376,922 213,250 63.87% 705,221 397,066 308,155 56.30% Supplies & non-capital544,800 185,308 359,492 34.01% 65,050 24,024 41,026 36.93% 153,350 148,212 5,138 96.65% 30,800 1,558 29,242 5.06% Services & other charges1,688,398 1,276,344 412,054 75.59% 4,764,546 4,017,102 747,444 84.31%2,692,499 1,342,364 1,350,135 49.86% 597,828 128,931 468,897 21.57% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,556,196 2,433,686 1,122,510 68.44% 5,442,917 4,656,592 786,325 85.55% 3,436,021 1,867,498 1,568,523 54.35% 1,333,849 527,556 806,293 39.55%Operating income (loss)3,239,242 1,569,521 1,669,721 48.45% 1,502,887 25,022 1,477,865 1.66% 30,980 229,509 (198,529) 740.83% 1,519,671 1,344,028 175,643 88.44%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 3,408 - 3,408 1,953 - 1,953 0.00% 30,849 - 30,849 0.00% 2,875 - 2,875 0.00% Other misc income- - - - - -2,500 - 2,500 0.00%- - - Debt issuance costs- (59,272) 59,272 - (13,122) 13,122 - (3,850) 3,850 Interest expense/bank charges(182,037) (184,506) 2,469 101.36% (16,016) (16,115) 99 100.62% (11,000) (12,333) 1,333 112.12% (30,604) (31,811) 1,207 103.94% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(178,629) (243,778) 65,149 136.47% (14,063) (29,237) 15,174 207.90% 22,349 (12,333) 34,682 -55.19% (27,729) (35,661) 7,932 128.61%Income (loss) before transfers3,060,613 1,325,743 1,734,870 43.32% 1,488,824 (4,215) 1,493,039 -0.28% 53,329 217,176 (163,847) 407.24% 1,491,942 1,308,367 183,575 87.70%Transfers inTransfers out(584,451) (438,338) (146,113) 75.00% (799,648) (599,736) (199,912) 75.00% (227,229) (170,422) (56,807) 75.00% (313,067) (234,800) (78,267) 75.00%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,476,162 887,405 1,588,757 35.84% 689,176 (603,951) 1,293,127 -87.63% (173,900) 46,754 (220,654) -26.89% 1,178,875 1,073,567 105,308 91.07%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,163,298) (1,678) (3,161,620) 0.05% (785,983) (1,678) (784,305) 0.21%- - - (2,191,667) (632,308) (1,559,359) 28.85%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(687,136) 885,727 (1,572,863) (96,807) (605,629) 508,822 (173,900) 46,754 (220,654) (1,012,792) 441,259 (1,454,051) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: September 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2017) RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. 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 CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at September 30, 2017 is approximately $55.3 million. Over $36.8 million is invested in longer term securities that include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for future cash flow needs. The overall yield is at 1.26%, compared to .88% at the end of 2016. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Investment Portfolio Summary Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2017) DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and investment in longer term securities. This is done 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 increased by approximately $5 million in the third quarter of 2017 from $50.4 million at 6/30/2017 to $55.3 million at 9/30/2017. The increase was due to the receipt of the 2017A bond proceeds in July. The overall yield of the portfolio increased slightly to 1.26% compared to 1.23% at 6/30/2017 and is up from .88% at 12/31/2016. Cities typically use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury, which was at 1.47% on 9/29/2017, or a similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. While larger balances in money market accounts reduce the portfolio yield slightly, it is necessary to keep cash available for construction contract payments and on-going expenses for payroll and operating expenses. Money market rates continued to increase during the third quarter and range from .77% to .84%. In addition to the $15.9 million of cash held in money market accounts, the portfolio also has $2.6 million of commercial paper. 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. One of the commercial paper securities matured in early October 2017, and the other two will mature in mid-January 2018. Approximately $4.5 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed and step rate certificates of deposit. There are currently 19 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $245,000 or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. They have varying maturity dates over the next 3 years with rates of up to 2.3%. One CD reached maturity during the quarter and one of the step rate CD’s was called prior to final maturity. The remaining $32.4 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities which include municipal bonds ($6 mil), Federal agency bonds ($12.3 mil) and U.S. Treasury notes ($14.1 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. Agency bonds are issued by government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae and may have call dates where they can be called prior to their final maturity date. One municipal bond matured during the quarter and was replaced with Federal securities. Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at September 30, 2017: NEXT STEPS: None at this time. 6/30/17 9/30/17 <1 Year 40% 41% 1-2 Years 16% 22% 2-3 Years 14% 14% 3-4 Years 22% 19% >4 Years 8% 4% 6/30/17 9/30/17 Money Markets/Cash $10,698,392 $15,892,807 Commercial Paper $3,382,710 $2,593,488 Certificates of Deposit $4,987,191 $4,500,682 Municipal Debt $7,004,660 $6,009,990 Agency Bonds/Treas Notes $24,338,435 $26,351,892 City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary Sept 30, 2017 Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield Par Value Market Value at 9/30/2017 Estimated Avg Annual Income Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.05%1,471 1,471 1 4M Liquid Asset Money Market 0.77%415,505 415,505 3,199 4MP Liquid Asset Money Market 0.83%7,523,267 7,523,267 62,443 4M 2017A Bonds Money Market 0.77%2,330 2,330 18 4MP 2017A Bonds Money Market 0.83%6,369,007 6,369,007 52,863 14,310,109 UBS Institutional Money Market 0.84% 1,107,881 1,107,881 9,306 UBS Institutional Money Market & Cash 0.84% 473,347 473,347 3,976 1,581,227 PFM Comm Paper - Credit Agricole CIB NY 22533TX27 10/02/2017 1.34% 1,000,000 999,900 13,400 PFM Comm Paper - BNP Paribas NY 09659CAG3 01/16/2018 1.39% 1,000,000 996,000 13,900 PFM Comm Paper - Toyota Motor Credit 89233HAG9 01/16/2018 1.32% 600,000 597,588 7,920 2,593,488 PFM CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 240,000 2,400 PFM CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 239,995 2,400 PFM CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 200,174 2,500 PFM CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 240,185 2,640 PFM CD - Ally Bank UT 02006LNL3 02/05/2018 1.25% 240,000 240,062 3,000 PFM CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35% 240,000 240,146 3,240 PFM CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 241,034 4,560 PFM CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 240,905 4,680 PFM CD - Capital One Bank 14042E4S6 07/15/2019 1.95% 240,000 240,929 4,680 PFM CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 240,302 4,800 PFM CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 241,390 4,560 PFM CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 241,831 5,040 PFM CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 241,877 5,040 PFM CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 242,362 5,280 PFM CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 240,271 4,680 PFM CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 241,445 4,320 PFM CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 241,730 4,200 PFM CD - World's Foremost 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 198,574 4,600 PFM CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 247,470 4,900 4,500,682 PFM Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33% 1,000,000 997,520 13,280 PFM Muni Debt - Williamston Mich Sch 970294CN2 05/01/2019 1.46% 2,000,000 2,013,700 29,200 PFM Muni Debt - New York City 64971WUX6 08/01/2019 1.33% 2,000,000 2,007,700 26,600 PFM Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.78% 1,000,000 991,070 17,800 6,009,990 PFM Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 200,000 199,878 2,000 PFM FHLB Bond 3130A7CX1 03/19/2018 0.90%2,450,000 2,446,619 22,050 PFM FHLB Global 3130A9AE1 10/01/2018 0.91%2,000,000 1,991,220 18,200 PFM US Treasury Note 912828WD8 10/31/2018 0.89% 200,000 199,696 1,780 PFM FHLB 3130AAE46 01/16/2019 1.25% 730,000 728,219 9,125 PFM FNMA 3135G0H63 01/28/2019 1.03%1,600,000 1,598,400 16,480 PFM FHLB Global 3130A9EP2 09/26/2019 1.04%1,400,000 1,385,454 14,560 PFM FHLMC 3137EAEF2 04/20/2020 1.49%1,000,000 993,630 14,900 PFM FNMA 3135G0T60 07/30/2020 1.60%1,250,000 1,243,163 20,000 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.34% 525,000 521,393 7,035 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.93% 1,200,000 1,191,756 11,160 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.89% 1,000,000 993,130 8,900 PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.09% 700,000 695,191 7,630 PFM FHLB 3130ACE26 09/28/2020 1.48% 575,000 569,497 8,510 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.02% 250,000 250,470 2,550 PFM US Treasury Note 912828N48 12/31/2020 1.12% 750,000 751,410 8,400 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.86% 1,050,000 1,036,707 19,530 PFM US Treasury Note 912828Q78 04/30/2021 1.87% 675,000 666,455 12,623 PFM US Treasury Note 912828R77 05/31/2021 2.02% 1,600,000 1,578,368 32,320 PFM FHLB Global 3130A8QS5 07/14/2021 1.25% 750,000 732,653 9,375 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.86% 600,000 604,782 11,160 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.73% 1,200,000 1,209,564 20,760 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.93% 1,600,000 1,612,752 30,880 PFM US Treasury Note 912828D72 08/31/2021 1.85% 1,150,000 1,159,166 21,275 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.72% 1,100,000 1,075,426 18,920 PFM US Treasury Note 912828T67 10/31/2021 1.64% 575,000 562,155 9,430 PFM FHMS 3137FARD2 10/01/2023 1.92% 175,000 177,683 3,360 PFM FNMA 3136AXQM0 01/25/2024 1.98% 175,000 177,057 3,465 26,351,892 GRAND TOTAL 55,348,859 697,804 Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 1.26% Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 6) Title: Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2017)Page 3 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Westwood Hills Nature Center Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide a status update on this project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the direction staff is taking consistent with the Council’s expectations? SUMMARY: The Westwood Hills Nature Center staff have been meeting with the HGA design team to establish the general direction and review building and site design concepts for the project. Sustainability strategies and energy analysis are being developed, and sustainability rating systems have been reviewed by the group. Staff and the design team are working towards a “Net Zero” energy building as an underlay to the design. A Net Zero or Zero Energy building is one in which one hundred percent of the building’s energy needs on a net annual basis are supplied by on-site renewable energy. This is generally accomplished through maximizing passive climatic opportunities, choosing efficient mechanical systems and continuing to fine tune the building’s operation during occupancy to reduce energy loads dramatically. As we progress in the project design, we will weigh function versus zero energy and there may be compromises along with way. A zero energy certification is currently targeted for the project, in addition to meeting the St. Louis Park Green Building Policy. The exhibit design has also kicked off. Split Rock Studios is our consultant with the intent to integrate the building, site and exhibit design to support the nature center educational programming. Designing the exhibits appropriately is important as we consider working towards Net Zero since they can be one of the biggest energy users. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City’s CIP has $300,000 in 2017 to begin preliminary design for the construction of a new Nature Center building, and an additional $700,000 in 2018 to finalize design. The current CIP estimates an $11 million project in 2019. NEXT STEPS: Next steps include analysis of survey results from a recent events, as well as development and deployment of a variety of additional methods to collect feedback, foster engagement, and inform interested publics and the community as the design phase progresses. A wetland delineation has been completed and a site survey is underway. Staff will continue developing the schematic design in further detail to address programmatic needs, and developing a cost estimate with construction manager, RJM. We are planning to discuss this project with Council at its December 11 study session. Schematic Design will be presented for approval at the December 18 Council meeting. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might have. SUMMARY: The attached report summarizes the current status of the various redevelopment contracts to which the Economic Development Authority (EDA) is a party. Its purpose is to apprise the EDA of any current issues or anticipated actions that may be necessary for it to consider relative to these contracts. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into account. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Proposed use: 5-story, 70-unit mixed-use, mixed-income bldg including 4,400 SF of commercial space and 17 (24%) affordable apt units @ 60% AMI. 8/15/2019 NA Building demolition and site prepararation is tentatively scheduled to occur before year end, depending on when financing closes. Proposed use: 299-unit, mixed- use, mixed-income project (including 200 (67%) affordable @60% AMI and 99 live/work units); a 110-unit limited service hotel; 16,200 SF of commercial space, and 10,200 SF e- generation/co- generation/greenhouse. 12/31/2019 NA Building demolition and contamination cleanup to occur on north side site before year end. Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status The Elmwood (36th Street LLC/Main Street Companies) Location : 5605 W 36th St Pending Contract Actions : A revised Redevelopment Contract was approved 9/18/17 allowing for a reduction in building size from 6 floors and 85 apt units to 5 floors and 70 units. Staff will be monitoring Contract compliance. The TIF Note will be issued upon submission and verification of Redeveloper's qualified Public Redevelopment Costs. Contract End Date: The inclusionary housing requirement extends 25 years beyond the building's initial occupancy. Via (PLACE) Location : 5725, 5815, & 5925 Hwy 7, 3520 Yosemite, 3575 Wooddale, 5814 & 5816 36th St, 3565 Wooddale Ave and 3548 Xenwood Ave Pending Contract Actions : A Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE was approved 5/1/17. The EDA acquired several Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA)-owned properties needed for the PLACE site assemblage in August 2017. PLACE has requested to aquire the north and south side sites separately so as to allow it to commence construction on north side apartment building yet this year. Such a modification will require an amendment to the Contract which is scheduled for discussion on Oct 23rd and formal consideration Nov. 6th. Contract End Date: The inclusionary housing requirement extends 25 years beyond the building's initial occupancy. Page 1 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status Proposed Use : 4-6 story, 164- unit mixed-use, mixed-income bldg including 18 affordable units (11% @ 60% AMI) & 28,228 SF of retail space. 1/1/2018 100% of retail space leased, apt units in process of lease-up. Project commenced prior to required date and is nearing completion. Building expected to be completed November 2017. 5-story, 148 unit mixed-use, mixed-income bldg including 30 (20%) affordable units @50% AMI and 20,000 SF of office space. 5/1/2017 100% of commercial space leased, apt units 90% leased. Buildings completed in May 2017. 138 mkt rate apts & 2 single family houses 12/1/2015 Nominal vacancy All required apartments and single family homes completed;. Location : 6800 Cedar Lake Road Pending Contract Actions : Monitoring Green Building Policy compliance. The Shoreham (Bader Development) Location : SW corner of CSAH 25 & France Ave Pending Contract Actions : The TIF Note will be issued upon submission and verification of Redeveloper's qualified Public Redevelopment Costs. Monitoring Green Building Policy compliance. Status of Lookback: Lookback analysis will occur upon project reaching 93% lease-up. Contract End Date: The inclusionary housing requirement extends 25 years beyond the building's initial occupancy. Siena Apartments (Hunt Associates & Weidner Apartment Homes) Contract End Date: The inclusionary housing requirement extends 25 years beyond the building's initial occupancy. Status of Lookback: Lookback analysis will occur upon project reaching 93% lease-up. 4800Excelsior (Weidner Apartment Homes) Location : 4800Excelsior Blvd Pending Contract Actions : Staff is monitoring Contract compliance. The TIF Note will be issued upon submission and verification of Redeveloper's qualified Public Redevelopment Costs. Page 2 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status 58 market rate apartments 3/1/2014 95% Leased Building completed. Commercial building renovation 12/1/2012 100% Leased Building renovation completed and leased. 18,000 SF building renovation 12/1/2011 100% Leased Building renovation completed and leased to 5 businesses with a total of 32 employees Status of Lookback: NA Contract End Date: 12/2017 6414/6416 W. Lake Rd-former Home Hardware (CAR Properties) Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on current projections, is estimated to occur by 12/31/21. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed. TIF Note reduced by $13,805 to $686,195. Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on revised projections, is estimated to occur in 2021. Location: 6414 W. Lake St Status of Lookback: NA Status of Lookback: Analysis was completed and it was determined that no adjustment was necessary to the principal amount of the TIF Note. The Note was subsequently issued at the approved amount of $1,100,000. e2 -“Ellipse on Excelsior II” (Bader Development) Location : 3924 Excelsior Blvd Pending Contract Actions : None. Monitoring Green Building Policy compliance. Former Bikemasters Bldg Renovation (CKJ Properties, LLC) Pending Contract Actions : Entirety of Construction Assistance issued. Final site inspection conducted. Certificate of Completion issued 2016. Location: 3546 Dakota Ave S Pending Contract Actions : Entirety of Construction Assistance issued. Monitoring contract compliance. Final inspection to be scheduled. Contract End Date: 2016 Page 3 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status 33,600 SF building renovation, 1,500 SF building addition 12/31/2012 100% Occupied Building renovations and addition completed. Hardcoat is fully operational and has created approximately 25 new jobs. Status of Lookback : NA 115 senior assisted living rentals 12/31/2012 Nominal vacancy 10,000 SF retail space 12/31/2012 100% Leased 132 market rate apartments 3/1/2011 Nominal vacancy 16,394 SF commercial 3/1/2011 100% Leased Contract End Date : 8/27/17 TIF District decertifies: 12/31/22 Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the two TIF Notes have been paid in full which, based on the current schedule, is estimated to occur by 12/31/20. Building completed and commercial portion leased. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note was necessary. Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on current projections, is estimated to occur in 2017. Ellipse on Excelsior (Bader Development) Location: 3601 Wooddale Ave Location: 7301 & 7317 Lake St W Pending Contract Actions : None. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note was necessary. Pending Contract Actions: None. Location: 3900 Excelsior Blvd Building completed. Pending Contract Actions: Entirety of Construction Assistance issued. Final site inspection conducted. Certificate of Completion and Termination of Contract issued September 2017. TowerLight (Greco Development) Former Flame Metal Bldg Renovation (Hardcoat Inc) Page 4 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status 67,000 SF medical office bldg 6/30/2009 Fully occupied by PN Building completed. Status of Lookback: NA 120 unit apt.bldg. (The Flats at West End)12/31/2016 100% Leased Building completed 199 unit apt.bldg. (Central Park West Apts)6/30/2017 0% Leased Under construction. Project scheduled to open fall 2017. 164 unit apt.bldg. 3/4/2019 0% Leased Construction to follow soon after Central Park West completion. 126-unit hotel (AC Hotel by Marriottt)8/31/2017 0% Leased Construction underway. Completion anticipated 3/2018. 353,353 SF office building (10 West End)9/30/2019 0% Leased Construction required to commence April 2018. 353,353 SF office building 9/30/2022 0% Leased Construction required to commence April 2021. Contract End Date: Based on the current TIF payment schedule, the contract will terminate upon decertification of the TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/31. Contract End Date: 2049 Building completed Building completed The West End (Duke Realty) Location : 1600 West End Blvd Pending Contract Action s: None. Highway 7 Corporate Center (Real Estate Recycling now Hyde Development ) Melrose Center (Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital) Location : 3525 Monterey Dr Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note was necessary. Pending Contract Actions : A Fourth Amendment to the Contract was approved 3/20/17 which updated the legal descriptions for the CPW phases and construction commencment/completion dates for the two office buildings. Monitoring Contract compliance. 350,000 SF retail/restaurant 6/1/2010 93% Leased 28,000 SF 2nd floor office space 6/1/2010 100% Leased Page 5 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status Location : 7003 Lake St W 79,000 SF office/tech bldg 12/31/2007 Nominal vacancy Building completed. Location : NE corner 36th St & Xenwood Ave “Harmony Vista” – 74 units, 2/28/2008 Nominal vacancy Building completed. 25,000 SF retail Nominal vacancy “The Camerata” – 220 units 9/1/2008 Nominal vacancy Building completed. “The Adagio” – 100 units 12/31/2013 Nominal vacancy Building completed. “Medley Row” – 22 twnhomes 12/31/2013 Nominal vacancy Building completed. Location : 8200 33rd St W 106 unit senior housing cooperative 12/31/2007 100% Sold Building completed. Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the two TIF Notes have been paid in full which, based on the current schedule, is estimated to occur by 12/31/27. Contract End Date: Based on the current TIF Note payment schedules the Contract will terminate upon decertification of the original TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/23. Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on the current schedule, is estimated to occur by 12/31/18. Aquila Commons (Stonebridge Development) Pending Contract Actions : None. Status of Lookback: Analysis pending. Hoigaard Village (Union Land II - Dunbar Development ) Pending Contract Actions : A new Assignment and Subordination was approved by the EDA 10/19/15 as a result of the Redeveloper refinancing the project.. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note necesssary. DEED Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note was necessary. Pending Contract Actions : None. Page 6 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status Location : 2401 Edgewood Ave S 79,000 SF office/warehouse 12/4/2004 100% Leased Building completed. Location : 5000 & 5050 36th St W 2-story, 54,742 SF office bldg 3/31/2004 100% Leased Building completed. 1-story, 10,038 SF commercial “West” bldg 5/31/2005 100 % Leased Building completed. Status of Lookback: NA Location : Excelsior Blvd & Grand Way Phase I – 338 apts, 62,700 SF retail space 7/1/2003 Apts Fully Leased.Building completed. Phase NE-124 Condos, 4,500 retail space 4/30/2006 Condos 100% Sold.Building completed. Phase E – 86 condos & 14,235 SF retail space 4/1/2006 Retail Fully Leased.Building completed. Phase NW – 96 condos, up to 5,000 SF retail space 6/1/2007 Condos 100% Sold.Building completed. Pending Contract Actions: None. Status of Lookback: NA Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on the current schedule, is estimated to occur by 12/31/19. Contract End Date: Based on the current TIF Note payment schedules, the Contract will terminate upon decertification of the TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/27. Edgewood Business Center (Real Estate Recycling now Hyde Development ) Pending Contract Actions : None. Contract End Date: The Contract terminates once the TIF Note is paid in full which, based on the current schedule, is estimated to occur by 12/31/19. Wolfe Lake Professional Center (Belt Line Industrial Park, Inc) Pending Contract Actions : None. Status of Lookback: Analysis completed; no adjustment to TIF Note necessary. DEED Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed. Excelsior & Grand (TOLD Development) Page 7 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Redevelopment Contract Status Report October 2017 Project (Developer)Required Completion Percent Sold &/or Leased Current Project Status Location : 7201 Walker St 200 market rate apartments 6/1/2002 99% leased Building completed. Status of Lookback: NA Location : NW 16th & Zarthan Ave Marriott Springhill Ste-127 units 3/1/2002 Hotel Building completed. Marriott TownePlace Ste-107 units 8/1/2001 Hotel Building completed. 86 owner occupied townhomes 1/1/2003 100% Sold Building completed. Status of Lookback: NA Location : 3633 Park Center Blvd 45 unit assisted living facility 6/1/2001 100% Occupied Building completed. Status of Lookback: NA Contract End Date: The Contract will terminate upon decertification of the TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/23. Contract End Date: Based on the current TIF Note payment schedule, the contract will terminate upon decertification of the TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/22. Park Center (Silver Crest Properties) Pending Contract Actions : Monitoring adherence to renter income limitations as statutorily required. Zarthan & 16th Street (CSM Hospitality & Rottlund Homes) Contract End Date: Based on the current TIF Note payment schedules, the Contract will terminate upon decertification of the TIF district which is anticipated by 12/31/21. Louisiana Oaks (MSP Real Estate) Pending Contract Actions : None. TIF Notes were reassigned to Garrison Investment Group. Pending Contract Actions : None. DEED Contamination Cleanup Grant successfully closed. Page 8 of 8 Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Walker Building and Historical Society Updates RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time, this report is to update Council. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any questions or concerns regarding this report? Is there any other information needed by Council? SUMMARY: The Walker Building (located at 6516-6524 Walker Street) was recently put back on the market and is being offered for sale at $795,000. The 2017 taxable market value of the property is $573,000, based on the building configured for multi-tenant office use and the underlying land. At present, there are seven businesses leasing space in the building. Given the market value and the asking price of the property, it is unlikely that a prospective buyer would purchase the property to demolish the structure to redevelop the parcel. Staff recently met individually with the property owner and with the previous prospective buyer to obtain additional information about the building. Based on the most recent property maintenance inspection of the building which was performed two years ago, there are a number of items requiring attention or correction, which is not unusual given the building’s age. Until the property is re-inspected, it is uncertain how many of the items may have been addressed and how many are still outstanding. Additionally, the previous prospective buyer had a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted which noted several areas of concern and recommended a Phase II Environmental Investigation be conducted, which is typical for properties in the area. St. Louis Park Historical Society Location Search Staff conducted a location search and provided the Historical Society with an inventory of prospective space options for the organization at a meeting in August. Staff has also met twice with representatives of the Historical Society to discuss its space needs and how the Walker Building might be utilized to meet those needs. The Historical Society will be discussing its interest in the Walker building, as well as other possible options to address their space needs at its board meeting in mid-November, and will subsequently follow-up with city staff. Staff is in the process of vetting options and alternatives for the Walker building and the Historical Society and will be presenting a detailed report to the EDA in late November for discussion. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Walker Building is listed for sale at $795,000. The building will likely require repair/corrections in order to obtain a Property Maintenance Certificate. Additional significant costs could include installation of a supplemental sprinkler/fire suppression system in the building and remodeling to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The cost of further environmental investigation and any necessary remediation would also need to be considered. Costs to restore the building’s historic character are further unknown. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager and EDA Executive Deputy Director Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SWLRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Needed. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council regarding the rebidding of the SWLRT project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Please inform staff of any questions or concerns you might have. SUMMARY: The Civil Construction bids submitted for the Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT ) project were rejected by the Met Council on 9/21/17. The Met Council intends to reissue the invitation for bids yet this October. The SWLRT Project Office (SPO) is working on modifying the bid specifications to reduce costs without changing the overall scope of the project. The SPO is meeting with all the cities along the corridor to discuss their ideas for modifications. SLP Staff met with the SPO October 3rd. Potential modifications discussed included reducing the amount of picket fencing at the stations and increasing the use of chain link; waiving or reducing local fees and permits; and, changing specifications regarding such things as roadway markings and protection techniques for below grade piping. Rerouting the regional trail out of the SWLRT corridor during construction was also discussed. The Engineering Department is weighing the cost effectiveness of the technical changes under consideration; and, staff shared its concerns regarding cheapening the appearance of stations by an over use of chain link fencing. Detouring trail users away from the SWLRT construction in the regional trail corridor seemed to offer some of the most significant savings. It would eliminate the cost of building temporary trails and bridges in the construction zone, simplify and speed construction logistics, and improve safety by separating trail users more fully from SWLRT construction activities. More work is needed on detailing the location of the detour routes. In many cases alternative existing trails and sidewalks can serve as detour routes. The precise next steps and timing in the rebidding process have not yet been revealed. It is expected that there will be another Corridor Management Committee meeting soon. Staff will keep the city council informed as we know more becomes known. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Kevin Locke, SWLRT Project Specialist Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: October 23, 2017 Written Report: 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Proposed Property Acquisition: 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to inform the EDA of an opportunity to make a potentially strategic property acquisition. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA have questions or concerns regarding the purchase of this property? SUMMARY: Staff has prepared a letter of intent to purchase a single-family property at 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard contingent upon EDA approval. In early October staff became aware of a foreclosed, single-family property, located at 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard that would soon be listed for sale. The subject property has been vacant for several years and has fallen into disrepair. The property is zoned R-4, Multi-Family Residential and is located adjacent to three other single-family homes, all zoned R-4. These properties are guided for RM-Medium Density Residential, which permits up to 30 units per acre. They are located on the south side of Minnetonka Boulevard between a church and an apartment building. All three of the neighboring single-family properties are working with a realtor to sell and redevelop their properties. A realtor has met with staff and indicated an interest in building an apartment building at this location. EDA ownership of this property would allow the city to direct and facilitate redevelopment of these single-family homes and expand the city’s housing stock with new market-rate and affordable housing. Staff believes this location provides an opportunity to incorporate under- represented, in-demand housing options such as row homes or townhomes. It is anticipated that there will be numerous parties interested in this property when it becomes available for sale. Since time is of the essence, staff has drafted a non-binding letter of intent to purchase contingent upon EDA approval. If the EDA is supportive of acquiring the property, a purchase agreement will be prepared for EDA review and approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: A Letter of Intent has been drafted. The property is currently assessed at $168,000. It is not known at this time what the property will be listed for. A purchase agreement is being prepared for EDA review and approval. The EDA could incur additional costs related to property management before the property is redeveloped. The cost of acquisition and related expenses would be covered by the Development Fund with the intent to recoup the EDA’s investment from the future sale of the property. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Colonial Apts Church Roller Garden Single Family Homes Zoned R-4 Subject Site 5639 Minnetonka Blvd LAKEMINNETONKA WEBSTERXENWOODYOSEMITEWEBSTER5639 Minnetonka BlvdLocation Map Ü 0 0.030.015 Miles Study Session Meeting of October 23, 2017 (Item No. 11) Title: Proposed Property Acquisition: 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard Page 2