Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/11/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA NOVEMBER 13, 2018 5:30 p.m. TOUR OF HAMILTON HOUSE – 2400 Nevada Ave. S. 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Hamilton House Discussion items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Annual TIF district management report 3. 7:20 p.m. Affordable housing strategies and tools update 8:05 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal) 8:10 p.m. Adjourn Written reports 4. Living streets policy update 5. 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background 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: November 13, 2018 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Future study session agenda planning Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on November 26, 2018. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the regularly scheduled study session on November 26, 2018. Also attached to this report is the study session discussion topics and timeline. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – November 26, 2018 Study session discussion topics and timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future study session agenda planning November 26, 2018. 6:30 p.m. – Study session – Community room Tentative discussion items 1. Future study session agenda planning – Administrative services (5 minutes) 2. Boards and commissions work plan – Administrative services (45 minutes) The city council will be asked to review and provide feedback on a board and commission work plan process and discuss the 2019 recruitment process. 3. Review updated draft of 2019 legislative priorities with council – Administrative services (45 minutes) In preparation for the upcoming legislative session the city council has a practice of inviting state and county elected representatives and Met Council representative to a study session to discuss the upcoming session and the city’s legislative agenda. Senator Ron Latz, Representative Cheryl Youakim, Representative (and MN Lieutenant Governor-elect) Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Greene and Metropolitan Council representative Gail Dorfman have been invited to this meeting. 4. Commercial, service and liquor store size restriction – Community development (25 minutes) Staff will share information from the planning commission discussion and recommendations related to restricting the size of retail, commercial and liquor store uses in the C-1 zoning district, and potentially changing the zoning of certain C-2 districts. Direction will be requested regarding next steps, including whether the current restriction on the number of liquor licenses should be extended beyond the 2018. Communications/meeting check-in – Administrative services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written reports 5. October 2018 monthly financial report End of meeting: 8:35 p.m. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future study session agenda planning Study session discussion topics and timeline Discussion topic Comments Date Scheduled Living streets policy Written report 11/13/18 Board and commission work plan process Discussed 7/23. Staff following up. 11/26/18 Retail/service/liquor stores size Discussed on 6/11/18; referred to PC. 11/26/18 Crime free ordinance/affordable housing strategies Discussed 5/14/18. 1st reading housing trust fund 10/1/18; Other affordable housing strategies/Crime Free Ordinance – Nov/Dec Nov/Dec Firearm sales Discussed 5/21/18 & 7/23. Written report provided at 9/24 study session. PC currently reviewing ordinance options. Policy on city facilities adopted 10/15 4th quarter Immigration & supporting families Discussed 8/6; referred to HRC; HRC conducting community meeting in October 4th quarter Zoning guidelines for front-facing buildings with windows not papered Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Design guidelines - New home construction Discussed 7/9/18. Referred to PC for review & recommendation. 1st Qtr. 2019 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; adoption postponed on 5/21/18. To be discussed at Jan. Retreat 2019 Workshop Revitalization of Walker Lake area Part of preserving Walker building reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, design study 2/12/18, update 4/23/18, design study update 8/27/18 Ongoing Discuss and evaluate our public process TBD Easy access to nature, across city, starting with low-income neighborhoods TBD SEED’s community greenhouse/resilient cities initiative TBD Community center project TBD Utility pricing policy TBD Establish a local housing trust fund Completed 10/15/18 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: November 13, 2018 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: For many years, 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 of the city’s TIF districts. Stacie Kvilvang with Ehlers and staff will be discussing the attached 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 to consider. 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 considerations: By updating the information contained in the report each year, 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. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Management review and analysis – TIF districts Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager November 13, 2018 Management Review & Analysis Tax Increment Financing Districts City of St Louis Park, MinnesotaStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 2 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 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 .................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Tax Increment Financing Districts ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Victoria Ponds ................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Park Center Housing ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Mill City ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Park Commons .................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Edgewood ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Wolfe Lake Commercial Redevelopment ......................................................................................................................................... 64 Aquila Commons .............................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Highway 7 Corporate Center ............................................................................................................................................................ 90 Ellipse on Excelsior ........................................................................................................................................................................ 108 Hardcoat .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 Eliot Park ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 123 The Shoreham ................................................................................................................................................................................. 129 4900 Excelsior ................................................................................................................................................................................ 136 Wayzata Boulevard ......................................................................................................................................................................... 140 Elmwood Apartments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 143 Wooddale Station ............................................................................................................................................................................ 147 Bridgewater Bank ........................................................................................................................................................................... 152 City Map of the TIF Districts.......................................................................................................................................................... 156 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 157 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 3 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 3 Management Review and Analysis Overview Tax increment is a financing tool authorized by state law, that allows an authority to capture and use most of the increased local property tax revenues from new development within a defined geographic area for a defined period of time without approved of other taxing jurisdictions. Tax increment revenues are used to encourage creation or retention of jobs, redevelopment of blighted areas or polluted sites and construction of affordable housing. 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 for a specified period of time. The revenue generated is first used to pay debt service on outstanding bonds, interfund loans and developer pay-as-you-go notes (PAYGO). A portion, but not all, of the remaining revenues can be used to participate in other eligible development projects and City initiatives. Over the years, the City utilized unobligated revenues from older TIF districts to complete the following projects:  Park Commons property assembly and public improvements  Excelsior Boulevard streetscape improvements  Excelsior Boulevard bridge improvements  Reilly tar clean-up activities  Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue storm water intersection improvements  Louisiana Court Rehabilitation  Erv’s Garage redevelopment  Bikemasters (Construction Assistance Program)  Hardcoat (Construction Assistance Program)  Home Hardware Store (Construction Assistance Program) 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 4 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 4 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. TIF District Summary Currently the City has one inactive (Victoria Ponds) and twenty 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 District1Redevelopment15Renovation and Revewal1Soils1TOTAL21* Actual number is 20 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 22. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 5 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 5 VictoriaParkZarthan/ MillParkAquilaElmwoodHighway 7 CorporatePondsCenter16th AvenueCityCommonsCommonsVillageCenter & HSTIDistrict TypeRedevelopmentHousingRedevelopmentRedevelopment Redevelopment Soils Condition Redevelopment HousingRenewal 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 and cap contaminated land and the subsequent construction of a 78,000 s.f. multi tenant office/warehouse buildingApproved4/1/199610/7/199612/20/19993/20/20001/16/20019/15/20037/7/20039/7/20048/2/20045/15/2006Legal max term12/31/202312/31/202312/31/202612/31/202612/31/202712/31/202512/31/2031 12/31/203212/31/202912/31/2032Anticipated termDecertified12/31/202312/31/202212/31/202212/31/202712/31/201912/31/2019 12/31/203212/31/202212/31/2028First 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 and 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)NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone2018 Est TIF RevenueN/A$175,138$527,027$588,474$2,645,723$59,435$133,192$194,100$1,964,418$140,842Fiscal 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 6 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 6 Ellipse on ExcelsiorDistrict TypeRedevelopmentRedevelopment Economic Development Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment RedevelopmentRedevelopmentProject/Costs FinancedMajor mixed use redevelopment (office, retail, hotel, entertainment, housing, hotel) 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 former 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 100 room hotel and 149 unit apartment and/or office buildingRedevelopment of 1 parcel into 70 agre restricted apartment units with 20% of units reserved for 60% of AME and 4,400 sq/ft of retailRedevelopment of 10 parcels into a 110-room hotel, 299 apartment units (200 affordable units) and 16,261 sq/ft retail, 10,800 sq/ft e-generation facility and structured parkingRedevelopment of 3 parcels into the Headquarters for Bridgewater Bank (38,967 sq/ft), Bank Facility (7,152 sq/ft ), 19,775 sq/ft of office and 7,530 sq/ft of retailApproved11/19/20072/2/200912/20/20105/6/20138/17/201511/16/20153/21/20165/15/20175/1/20177/16/2018Legal max term12/31/203612/31/203612/31/202212/31/204112/31/204312/31/204412/31/204512/31/204512/31/204512/31/2045Anticipated term12/31/203112/31/201912/31/202212/31/202012/31/202112/31/204412/31/204512/31/204512/31/204512/31/2045First Increment2011201120142016201820182020201920192020Current Obligations$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 Note$714,000 Hotel Note - PAYGO and $2,760,000 Apartment Note ‐ PAYGO     $950,000 PAYGO Note$5,660,000 PAYGO Note$950,000 PAYGO NoteOther ObligationsNone None None None None None None None None NoneContruction Assistance Program (CAP) FundingNone None None None None None None None None None2018 Est TIF Revenue$2,171,519$586,825$23,444$445,672$385,507N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AFiscal DisparitiesB (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside) B (inside)County Number1314131513161318/1319132013211322132313241325Eliot ParkThe Shoreham4900 ExcelsiorWayzata BlvdBridgewater BankElmwood Apts Wooddale StationHardcoatWest EndCategory Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 7 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 7 Obligations of the TIF Districts The revenues from these districts are largely site specific, meaning that the revenues are restricted by law and by contract with the developers. The revenues must be used primarily to address blight, contamination, housing or redevelopment needs for the parcels in the TIF district within a specified period of time. The City has the following obligations outstanding (after the August 1, 2018 actual bond and PAYGO payments were made): Summary of Outstanding Obligations (after the 8/1/2018 payment) DistrictNoteOutstanding After 8/1/2018Total By TIF DistrictIssueAmount Paying District TermNote A 960,164$               2008B GO Tax Increment Bonds3,410,000$ West End2/1/2024Note B 164,600$               2010A Tax Increment Revenue Bonds - Hoigaards 1,620,000$ Elmwood2/1/2023Note C 79,566$                  TOTAL5,385,635$ N/AN/ANote D 25,417$                  EdgewoodEdgewood48,298$                  48,298$ Wolfe LakeBeltline155,141$               155,141$ Excelsior & Grand 3,126,136$            Phase NE4,654,653$            Phase E4,027,739$            Phase NW4,488,259$            Mill CitySLP Apts3,543,994$            3,543,994$ CSM Note 1 1,218,476$            CSM Note 2 1,750,836$            Rottlund Note 3 965,644$               Adagio 160,964$               Medley 64,721$                  West EndDuke Realty 20,909,528$          20,909,528$ Ellipse on ExcelsiorEllipse II LLC298,680$               298,680$ Eliot ParkWeidner644,066$               644,066$ The ShorehamBader Development1,200,000$            1,200,000$ 4900 ExcelsiorWeidner2,800,000$            2,800,000$ 714,000$               2,760,000$            Wooddale StationPLACE5,660,000$            5,660,000$ Elmwood Apartments36th Street LLC950,000$               950,000$ Bridgewater BankBridgewater Bank950,000$               950,000$ TOTAL 62,320,881$ Zarthan3,934,956$ Bonds After 8/1/2018Pay As You Go ObligationsHwy 7 Corporate Center $ 1,229,746 Park Commons16,296,787$ Wayzata BoulevardPlatia Place - SLP Park Ventures LLC3,474,000$ Elmwood225,685$ Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 8 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 8 Construction Assistance Program In 2009, the Legislature passed the JOBS Bill and extended it for one year as part of the 2010 legislative session. One element of this was the temporary authority to stimulate construction. This portion of the legislation allowed cities to utilize cash balances in existing TIF 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 commenced by July 1, 2012 and the dollars expended by December 31, 2012. On July 19, 2010, the EDA approved a Construction Assistance Program (CAP) and at a public hearing, adopted the required Spending Plan. The TIF districts that utilized funding for CAP were:  Victoria Ponds  Park Center Housing  CSM  Mill City  Edgewood  Wolfe Lake  Aquila Commons  Elmwood Village (Rottlund portion of TIF only) Three projects were funded through the CAP program – Hardcoat (former Flame Metals building), CKJ Properties LLC (former Bikemasters building) and CAR Properties LLC (former Home Hardware Store). The EDA provided $500,000 to Hardcoat to purchase and renovate the former Flame Metals property within the City. Hardcoat renovated the building and site, constructed a small addition, and relocated its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior was emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and code deficiencies were addressed. 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 9 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 9 The $500,000 in funding for this project came from the Victoria Ponds TIF district. In addition, the EDA created an economic development TIF district on December 20, 2010 for the project to repay as much of the CAP funds back to this district. The EDA provided $70,000 to CKJ Properties LLC to renovate the former Bikemasters building within the City. The 18,000 s.f. building, constructed in 1950 was neglected and fell into disrepair. As a result, the building sustained damage due to lack of maintenance and vandalism. The building went into foreclosure in 2009 year and was purchased in September 2010 by CKJ Properties LLC. The project 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 historic Walker Lake area near the intersection of Wooddale and West Lake Street. It was originally constructed in the 1950’s within a strip of commercial buildings and had always been a hardware store. Despite its use as a former hardware store, the building was neglected for some time. CAR Properties made the required repairs and renovated the building. Renovation included a new roof, front window, energy efficient HVAC equipment, as well as remodeling the bathroom and making other various repairs 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 10 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 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 community development goals of the City has strengthened the overall diversity of housing options, land uses and tax base, while cleaning up contaminated sites and increasing employment opportunities. One immediate benchmark of the benefit of utilizing TIF is the overall increase in market value from when the district was created to when it is fully developed and aging. As indicated in the following table, the overall market value of the City’s TIF district portfolio has increased by nearly 1000%: DistrictCounty District Number Original Market ValuePay 2018 Taxable Market ValuePercent Increase in ValuePark Center1304$493,000$11,807,0002394.93%Zarthan1305 and 1306$4,053,600$40,833,6331007.34%Mill City1307$708,700$37,000,0005220.83%Park Commons1308$4,618,000 $193,964,8774200.19%Edgewood1309$1,000,000$4,750,000475.00%Wolfe Lake1310$1,717,300$10,196,000593.72%Aquila1311$1,900,000$18,792,545989.08%Elmwood1312$10,864,500 $160,471,6141477.03%Highway 7 Business Center1313$2,792,700$8,664,000310.24%West End (Partial Construction)1314$43,051,000 $207,289,000481.50%Ellipse 1315$1,931,800$45,507,0002355.68%Hardcoat1316$1,184,700$2,615,700120.79%Eliot Park 1318/1319$2,143,000$29,966,4001398.34%The Shoreham 1320$2,476,200$27,421,0001107.38%4900 Excelsior (Partial Construction)1321$2,404,000$3,026,000125.87%Wayzata Boulevard (No Construction Yet)1322$2,331,000$2,331,0000.00%Elmwood Apartments (No Construction Yet)1323$1,100,000$1,366,000124.18%Wooddale Station (No Consturction Yet)1324$7,100,000$7,100,0000.00%Bridgewater Bank (No Construction Yet)1325$4,172,400$4,172,4000.00%TOTALN/A$96,041,900 $813,101,769986.38%Note:  % increase in value excludes the 4 districts where construction hasn't commenced or value realized Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 11 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 11 Due to the age of the City, the majority of the TIF districts created were redevelopment districts which have a 26-year term. However, most of the City’s Districts do not extend to the entire term as noted in the chart below: DistrictYear Established Term of District# of Years of TIF Based Upon Obligation Being Paid OffDifferenceZarthan19992622‐4Mill City20002622‐4Park Commons200126260Edgewood20032014‐6Wolfe Lake20032613‐13Aquila20042611‐15Elmwood20042216‐6Highway 7 Business Center20062622‐4West End (Partial Construction)20072620‐6Ellipse 20092610‐16Hardcoat2010990Eliot Park 2013265‐21The Shoreham 2015264‐234900 Excelsior 2015268‐18Elmwood Apartments (Under Construction)2017268‐19Wooddale Station (No Consturction Yet)20172615‐11Bridgewater Bank (No Construction Yet)20172611.5‐14.5AVERAGEN/A24.4113.85‐10.56AVERAGE LAST 10 YEARSN/A24.119.94‐14.17AVERAGE LAST 5 YEARSN/A26.008.42‐17.58 As noted, since 1999, the average term of the TIF districts is approximately 14 years. In the last 5 years, the average has declined to approximately 8.5 years. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 12 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 12 While there are undoubtedly many benefits to utilizing TIF as a development tool, cities still wonder if they are utilizing the tool too much or not enough. One good way to measure a city’s use of TIF is to compare the use of TIF with similar cities. A common measure of the use of TIF is the percentage of the gross tax base captured in TIF districts. Below is a chart which demonstrates the City’s current and projected tax base which is captured in TIF districts with similar cities. City of St. Louis ParkProjected Captured TIF Tax Capacity and Comparison with Other CitiesCity of St. Louis Park2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Excelsior Blvd HSTI-1301 980,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Trunk Highway 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Victoria Ponds-1303 333,565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Park Center-1304 94,015 99,703 116,765 133,828 139,228 151,898 153,417 154,951 156,500 158,065 0 0 0 0 0Zarthan-1305/1306 299,459 312,209 366,255 377,405 408,163 445,306 449,759 454,256 458,799 0 0 0 0 0Mill City-1307 287,326 337,326 362,326 424,401 453,641 494,922 499,872 504,870 509,919 0 0 0 0 0 0Park Commons-1308 1,552,224 1,756,934 1,883,220 2,277,376 2,230,111 2,433,051 2,457,382 2,481,955 2,506,775 2,531,843 2,557,161 2,582,733 2,608,560 2,634,646Edgewood-1309 40,528 48,720 54,178 51,923 49,321 53,809 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wolfe Lake-1310 102,960 100,192 110,708 106,605 110,527 120,585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Aquila Commons-1311 133,298 139,367 146,560 159,581 170,473 185,986 187,846 189,724 191,622 193,538 195,473 197,428 199,402 201,396 203,410Elmwood-1312 1,018,196 1,412,891 1,524,465 1,621,959 1,725,298 1,882,300 1,901,123 1,920,134 1,939,336 0 0 0 0 0 0Highway 7 Business Center-1313 85,739 83,955 94,441 91,015 78,272 85,395 86,249 87,111 87,982 88,862 89,751 90,648 91,555 92,470 0Highway 7 Subdistrict-1313 53,504 53,504 53,504 53,504 53,504 58,373 58,957 59,546 60,142 60,743 61,350 61,964 62,584 63,209 0West End-1314 885,303 1,117,854 1,572,217 2,084,801 2,114,759 2,307,202 2,330,274 2,353,577 2,377,113 2,400,884 2,424,893 2,449,141 2,473,633 2,498,369 2,523,353Ellipse on Excelsior-1315 247,501 415,572 444,092 535,561 546,235 595,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Hardcoat-1316 16,234 15,798 17,093 16,887 19,314 21,072 21,282 21,495 21,710 0 0 0 0 0 0Eliot Park-1318/1319 0 0 52,201 277,040 345,732 377,194 380,966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0The Shoreham - 1320 0 0 0 301,653 374,577 378,323 382,106 0 0 0 0 0 0 04900 Excelsior - 1321 0 0 0 0 0 487,130 492,001 496,921 501,890 506,909 511,978 517,098 522,269 527,492 532,767Wayzata Blvd - 1322 0 0 0 0 0 445,625 450,081 454,582 459,128 463,719 468,356 473,040 477,770 482,548 487,374Elmwood Apartments - 1323 0 0 0 0 0 47,218 47,690 48,167 48,649 49,135 49,627 50,123 50,624 51,130 51,642Wooddale Station - 1324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 504,858 509,906 515,006 520,156 525,357 530,611 535,917 541,276Bridgewater Bank - 1325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99,880 100,879 101,888 102,906 103,936 104,975 106,025 107,085Captured TIF Tax Capacity 6,130,118 5,894,025 6,798,025 8,211,886 8,746,231 10,567,584 9,895,220 10,214,135 9,930,350 7,070,592 6,981,652 7,051,468 7,121,983 7,193,203 4,446,906Total Tax Capacity (Gross) 62,645,169 66,206,866 71,733,485 77,974,751 82,002,664 89,464,906 97,606,213 106,488,378 116,178,821 126,751,093 138,285,443 150,869,418 164,598,535 179,577,002 195,918,509Percentage of Tax Base in TIF 9.8% 8.9% 9.5% 10.5% 10.7% 11.8% 10.1% 9.6% 8.5% 5.6% 5.0% 4.7% 4.3% 4.0% 2.3%Assumes 1% annual increae in tax base and TIF beginning in payable 2020Comparable Final Pay 2018 CityCity Captured TIF as a % of Tax Base City Tax Rate Bond Rating28Golden Valley1.0%55.152%Aaa24Brooklyn Park2.0%52.373%AA+34Minnetonka2.7%35.965%Aaa48Edina3.2%27.849%Aaa/AAA1Bloomington3.6%42.127%Aaa/AAA46Minneapolis7.8%59.556%Aaa/AAA30Hopkins9.4%67.833%AA20St. Louis Park10.7%48.101%AAA42Richfield9.4%59.335%Aa2New Brighton13.1%40.810%AAAcutalProjectedFinal Pay 2018 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 13 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 13 Today, the City’s use of TIF is similar to other first ring suburbs. This use is expected given that St Louis Park is a fully developed and portions are 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 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 ChangeTax YearCityPercent ChangePayable Market Value From Prior YearPayableTax Rate From Prior Year20186,486,028,398 5.65%201848.1014.11%20176,138,955,694 8.47%201746.2000.01%20165,659,666,031 7.95%201646.195-3.26%20155,242,685,1846.68%201547.754-1.68%20144,914,404,3120.48%201448.5700.71%20134,891,018,550-2.54%201348.228 5.60%20125,018,306,562-5.61%201245.672 5.54%20115,316,617,000 -4.40%201143.27611.44%20105,561,557,200 -1.39%201038.8341.06%20095,639,683,900 1.49%200938.4266.43% The above two tables show the history for St Louis Park’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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 14 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 14 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 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. An adjustment was made to admin in the Hardcoat TIF in 2017 because it exceeded the maximum allowable. We would recommend that no further admin be charged to this District. TIF 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$133,789 $146,261 $105,239 $133,844 $39,079 $50,592 $53,208 $253,024Yearly Admin Estimate$3,836 $7,143 $22,419 $10,985 $1,068 $7,121 $5,796 $1,427Statutory % Used to Date7.30% 2.90% 2.60% 0.70% 6.20% 3.40% 3.30% 4.80%Zarthan/16th AvenueMill CityPark CommonsAquila CommonsDistrictPark CenterEdgewood Wolfe LakeVictoria Ponds TIF Admin Budget$4,410,000 $418,105 $14,391,490 $1,105,830 $167,000 $37,619 $982,537 49895.87568Statutory Limit10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%Actual Admin Used to Date$353,507$61,845 $172,906 $50,525 $39,079 $19,888 $32,626 18,174$        Yearly Admin Estimate$21,275$4,870 $12,637 $7,426 $1,068 $0 $4,714 11,565$        Statutory % Used to Date3.10%4.00% 2.10% 2.30% 6.20% 24.80% 8.00% 7.70%DistrictThe ShorehamEliot ParkWest End HardcoatElmwood VillageHighway 7 Corporate Center & HSTIEllipse on ExcelsiorEdgewood Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 15 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 15 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, 2017. 2. Tax Increment. Pay 2018 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 16 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 16 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 September 30, 2018. Staff recommends that the cash balances under redevelopment be utilized to pay for acquisition/demolition of blighted property, environmental remediation and/or public infrastructure costs associated with redevelopment. TIF District Cash Balances Currently Available for Legal Pooling DistrictSeptember 30, 2018 Cash BalanceType of Project EligibleAfter 8/1 PmtsPark Center Housing **289,122$                       Aquila Commons80,892$                          Total Affordable Housing370,014$ Zarthan471,385$                       Victoria Ponds267,883$                       Mill City150,031$                       West End209,867$                        Total Redevelopment1,099,166$ **-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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 17 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 17 Recommendations Continued 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 Ponds 2013 367,293$     RedevelopmentZarthan2023 908,244$    RedevelopmentMill City2019 130,355$    RedevelopmentPark Commons 2028 1,601,495$ RedevelopmentWolfe Lake2020 60,254$       RedevelopmentEllipse20227,509$         RedevelopmentAquila Commons2018 2,794,023$ Affordable HousingWest End2031 1,188,083$ RedevelopmentHwy 7 Corporate Center 2027 91,191$       RedevelopmentEliot Park2021 363,637$    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. 2. 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, 2021 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 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. It is anticipated that all TIF Notes, with the exception of the Phase E Note, will be repaid in full by the ending term of the District. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 18 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 18 Recommendations Continued 3. Aquila Commons District. The TIF Note for this housing district was paid off on August 1, 2018. The City/EDA can either decertify the District early (for pay 2019) or allow the District to remain open through its termination (December 31, 2032). If the City/EDA elects to leave the District open, the existing fund balance and the TIF generated in the future (approximately $194,000 annually) would need to be utilized 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. 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 Due to the on-going need to fund the City’s single-family, owner-occupied housing rehab program (to income qualified residents), the current policy around inclusionary housing and the EDA’s/Council’s expressed desire to retain naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), we recommend that the EDA/City keep this District open (just like they did with Park Center) and utilize the funds for affordable housing projects within the City. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 19 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 19 Recommendations Continued 4. Special Pooling Provision for Tax-Credit Eligible Rental Housing. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), allows the EDA/City to pool up to an additional 10% above the standard allowable limit for rental housing that meets low-income housing tax credit requirements (the projects do not need to receive tax credits, they just need to be tax credit eligible, meaning they are both rent and income restricted). These funds can be used to pay credit-eligible costs for tax credit eligible rental projects. Eligible uses include acquisition and site preparation, construction, rehabilitation and public improvements directly related to the housing, as long as these costs were not funded through tax credits (does not apply if all eligible expenses are funded through tax credits). The funds can be spent anywhere within the City and do not need to be located within a Project Area. The income and rent guidelines are defined as follows: Rental Housing: 20% of the units occupied by families at 50% of median income (20/50) or 40% of the units occupied by families at 60% of median income (40/60) and rents for all the income-restricted units must not exceed 30% of the applicable income limit For a redevelopment district the total pooling may be up to 35%. This pooling, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 subdivision 4k, can be done without regard to project area/development district limitations. The EDA/City would not implement this pooling until the obligations in the various TIF districts are paid off since typically 95% of the TIF is pledged to the obligation. The EDA/City could utilize this authority from the TIF districts on the following page if they choose: Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 20 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 20 Recommendations Continued DistrictEnd Date of ObligationEnd Date of DistrictType of DistrictZarthan2022 2026RedevelopmentMill City 2022 2026RedevelopmentEdgewood2019 2025SoilsWolfe Lake2019 2031 RedevelopmentElmwood Village2022 2029 Renewal  & RenovationHwy 7 Corporate Center 2028 2032 Affordable HousingWest End2031 2036 RedevelopmentEllipse2019 2036 RedevelopmentEliot Park2020 2041 RedevelopmentThe Shoreham2021 2043 Redevelopment4800 ExcelsiorTBD 2044 RedevelopmentWayzata BoulevardTBD 2045 RedevelopmentElmwood Apartments TBD 2045 RedevelopmentWoodale StationTBD 2045 RedevelopmentBridgewater BankTBD 2045 Redevelopment If the EDA/City chose to pursue this election, essentially on an annual basis going forward, the EDA/City would retain 35% of the TIF and return the remaining 65% to the County to redistribute it to the City, County and School District. We recommend that the EDA/City discuss their desire to implement such a program by mid-2019. 5. Edgewood, Wolfe Lake and Ellipse on Excelsior TIF Districts. The TIF Notes in these Districts will be repaid on August 1, 2019. If the EDA/City wants to retain up to 35% of the TIF in the future for use on tax credit eligible rental housing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d), we recommend completing the required modification to those District before the end of 2019. 6. Payment of Administrative costs from the Hardcoat TIF District. This District is at its allowable admin amount (10%). We recommend that the City refrain from charging any additional administrative costs to the District in the future. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 21 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 21 Recommendations Continued 7. Inclusionary Housing Annual Reporting. Both The Shoreham and 4900 Excelsior projects have affordable housing requirements to meet. Since the Certificate of Occupancy has been provided for both of these projects, we recommend that staff reach out to the Developers and let them know that they need to provide the City the necessary compliance information. 8. 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 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 DeadlineThe Shoreham 4/18/2021Wayzata Boulevard 7/1/20214900 Excelsior7/1/2021Wooddale Station6/30/2022Elmwood Apartments6/30/2022 We recommend paying special attention to the Wooddale Station District. This District has a current redevelopment contract with PLACE for a major mixed-use development on the site, but if that development does not occur and eligible costs are not incurred within four (4) years, the EDA/City would need to (i) decertify the District; or (ii) go to the Legislature and request an extension of the 5-year rule. 9. 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. An analysis was completed for Zarthan, Park Commons, Ellipse and the West End TIF Districts. The analysis found that all of the districts are in compliance and expect to continue to be in compliance of the Six Year Rule. We would recommend monitoring compliance. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 22 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 22 Tax Increment Financing Districts Victoria Ponds Description: Victoria Ponds TIF District (County #1303) is a redevelopment district established on April 1, 1996. 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 $267,900 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 23 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 23 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: 1. Use of Legal Pooling Funds. When the interfund loan due from Hardcoat is paid (anticipated in 2022), there will be a fund balance of approximately $367,300 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 24 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 24 Victoria Ponds Continued ORIGINALInterest 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 20184.8%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1303Frozen RateUTA #1 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First 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 11/18/2013‐                        ‐                        ‐                        Cumulative Modified6,100,000            200,000               6,300,000           4,015,000            800,000                500,000               5,315,000           5,315,000           End of District Projected Actual Total5,739,893            135,349               5,875,242           734,300               525,000                1,807,053             261,586               3,048                   410,715               1,766,247            5,507,949           5,507,949           Under / (Over) Budget360,107               64,651                 424,758               3,280,700            (525,000)               (1,007,053)           238,414               (3,048)                  (410,715)              (1,766,247)          (192,949)             (192,949)             Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCapturedTax IncrementIFLInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Jobs BillPaygotAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE19 2016‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               128.561%‐                          8,555                     8,555                     ‐                          ‐                          25,587                   ‐                          248,100                 273,687                 361,894                 20 2017‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               124.745%‐                          6,201                     6,201                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     366,668                 21 2018‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,833                     1,833                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     367,074                 22 2019‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,835                     1,835                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     367,483                 232020‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,837                     1,837                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     367,893                 24 2021‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,839                     1,839                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     368,306                 25 2022‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                          1,842                     1,842                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     ‐                          ‐                          1,427                     368,720                 26 2023‐               ‐                      ‐               ‐               0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                        ‐                         1,427                   ‐                        ‐                        1,427                   367,293                DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetIDIDStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 25 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 25 Victoria Ponds Continued City of St. Louis ParkVictoria PondsPursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesExpensesEst expend4,815,000        481,500.0            Actual expend 5,246,363          524,636.30           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $500,000Actual TIF 5,739,893        573,989.30         NTEST 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 $261,586 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $219,914If 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 CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)19 2016251,597                 5,246,363              4.8%‐                          5,739,893              251,597                 1,183,376              ‐                          410,715                 361,894                 5,859,854 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,093,6070(1,221,393)20 2017253,024                 5,246,363              4.8%‐                          5,739,893              253,024                 1,181,949              ‐                          410,715                 366,668                 5,866,055 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,099,8080(1,215,192)21 2018254,451                 5,246,363              4.9%‐                          5,739,893              254,451                 1,180,522              ‐                          410,715                 367,074                 5,867,888 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,101,6410(1,213,359)22 2019255,878                 5,246,363              4.9%‐                          5,739,893              255,878                 1,179,095              ‐                          410,715                 367,483                 5,869,724 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,103,4770(1,211,523)23 2020257,305                 5,246,363              4.9%‐                          5,739,893              257,305                 1,177,668              ‐                          410,715                 367,893                 5,871,561 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,105,3140(1,209,686)24 2021258,732                 5,246,363              4.9%‐                          5,739,893              258,732                 1,176,241              ‐                          410,715                 368,306                 5,873,401 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,107,1540(1,207,846)25 2022260,159                 5,246,363              5.0%‐                          5,739,893              260,159                 1,174,814              ‐                          410,715                 368,720                 5,875,242 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,108,9950(1,206,005)26 2023261,586                 5,246,363              5.0%‐                         5,739,893            261,586               1,173,387            ‐                        410,715               367,293                 5,875,242 5,315,000 yes1,766,247 4,108,9950(1,206,005)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 26 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 26 Park Center Housing Description: Park Center TIF District (County #1304) is a housing district established on October 7, 1996. Originally, the district encompassed a portion of one parcel of land that was originally in the Excelsior Boulevard district. It was created to facilitate the development of 45 units of senior assisted living rental housing. This district was modified in 1999 to include additional parcels (which were replatted into one parcel) to allow for the construction of an additional 45 units of senior assisted living. Legislative change in 2001 eliminated the state aid penalty for this district. Increment was used to repay a $500,000 interfund loan for the Park Shores Assisted Living Project, which was paid off on September 30, 2003. In 2007, $131,000 of increment was used as part of a $400,000 deferred loan fund capital improvements for the 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. In 2016, $144,000 was used for affordable housing. Another $160,000 was used in 2017, bringing the total transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to $989,400. Any and all amounts transferred to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund must be used for affordable housing in the period in which it is transferred. Adopted…………………………. 10/07/1996 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 27 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 27 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. Former PID # New PID #New Use06-028-24-33-001706-028-24-33-002006-028-24-33-0022Park Shores Assisted LivingStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 28 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 28 Park Center Housing 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 Park Center Housing four-year rule was May 2001 and was met because qualifying activities happened prior to this date. 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, 2017, this District had a fund balance and cash balance, respectively of approximately $845,000 and $200,000, and will generate approximately $175,000 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: Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 29 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 29 Park Center Housing Continued 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. 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: 4. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election) 5. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election) 6. 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: 5. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction 6. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers 7. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners) 8. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 30 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 30 Park Center Housing Continued ORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeHousingAdmin Expense3.00%2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently: for year 20187.7%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1304Frozen RateUTA #1 126.247%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First 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 Total3,254,900            193,227               450,000                 3,898,127           713,583               2,039,400               ‐                        136,718        165,314               8,358                    ‐                         ‐                        3,063,373           3,063,373             Under / (Over) Budget2,495,100            56,773                 (450,000)               2,101,873           2,986,417            (2,039,400)            2,550,000            (136,718)      34,686                 (8,358)                   ‐                         ‐                        3,386,627           3,386,627             Year Base Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax Increment Interest Income Other Revenue TOTAL REVENUESProjectAffordable HousingPaygoInterfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE19 20168,360                     125,125                 ‐                 116,765          128.561% 146,882                 1,683                     ‐                           148,565                 144,000                 4,901                     719                         ‐                          ‐                          149,620                 841,357                 20 20178,360                     142,188                 ‐                 133,828          124.745% 166,343                 1,906                     ‐                           168,249                 160,000                 3,836                     744                         ‐                          ‐                          164,580                 845,026                 21 20188,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138                 4,225                     ‐                           179,364                 175,000                 5,254                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          181,054                 843,335                 22 20198,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138                 4,217                     ‐                           179,355                 175,000                 5,254                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          181,054                 841,636                 23 20208,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138                 4,208                     ‐                           179,347                 175,000                 5,254                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          181,054                 839,928                 24 20218,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138                 4,200                     ‐                           179,338                 175,000                 5,254                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          181,054                 838,212                 25 20228,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138                 4,191                     ‐                           179,329                 175,000                 5,254                     800                         ‐                          ‐                          181,054                 836,488                 26 20238,360                     147,588                 ‐                 139,228          130.191% 175,138               4,182                   ‐                         179,321               175,000                 5,254                   800                       ‐                        ‐                        181,054               834,754                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetIDStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 31 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 31 Park Center Housing Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: ExpensesExpensesEst expend 6,250,000        625,000.0            Actual expend 2,898,059          289,805.90           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$200,000Actual TIF3,254,900        325,490.01         YTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $625,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan$6,250,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $289,806Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $2,898,059NDistrict Type: HousingDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Admin per TIF Plan $289,806Certification Request Date: 12/19/1996Actual Admin Expenses $165,314 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $34,686If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage5.7%Total Pooling %:100%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)19 2016129,953                 1,682,515              7.7%146,882                 2,037,727              129,953                 1,907,774              ‐                          ‐                          841,357                 2,653,825 6,450,000 no00(3,796,175)20 2017133,789                 1,843,259              7.3%166,343                 2,204,070              133,789                 2,070,281              ‐                          ‐                          845,026                 2,822,074 6,450,000 no00(3,627,926)21 2018139,043                 2,019,059              6.9%175,138                 2,379,208              139,043                 2,240,165              ‐                          ‐                          843,335                 3,001,437 6,450,000 no00(3,448,563)22 2019144,297                 2,194,859              6.6%175,138                 2,554,347              144,297                 2,410,049              ‐                          ‐                          841,636                 3,180,792 6,450,000 no00(3,269,208)23 2020149,551                 2,370,659              6.3%175,138                 2,729,485              149,551                 2,579,933              ‐                          ‐                          839,928                 3,360,139 6,450,000 no00(3,089,861)24 2021154,806                 2,546,459              6.1%175,138                 2,904,623              154,806                 2,749,818              ‐                          ‐                          838,212                 3,539,477 6,450,000 no00(2,910,523)25 2022160,060                 2,722,259              5.9%175,138                 3,079,762              160,060                 2,919,702              ‐                          ‐                          836,488                 3,718,806 6,450,000 no00(2,731,194)26 2023165,314                 2,898,059              5.7%175,138                 3,254,900            165,314               3,089,586            ‐                        ‐                        834,754                3,898,127 6,450,000 no00(2,551,873)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (100% Outside of District)Tax Increment100% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated TotalsStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 32 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 32 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Description: Zarthan Avenue/16th Street TIF District (County #1305 and #1306) is a redevelopment district established on December 20, 1999. Originally, the district encompassed twelve parcels of land and was created to facilitate the development of two hotels and 86 townhome units just south of I-394. The EDA pledged tax increment revenues from this district to three PAYGO notes, which are all held by CSM. The property tax reform of 2001 hit this development particularly hard. Currently, tax increment income is less than the annual interest payments on the notes. The notes contain pledges from three properties. The Rottlund note covers 86 owner-occupied townhomes. These tax capacities dropped by 25% 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…... 12/31/2022 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 33 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 33 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 34 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 34 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 35 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 35 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 $471,385 in the District for use on redevelopment projects, which represents the actual cash balance at September 30, 2018 after the obligations were paid. It is estimated that there will be approximately $908,200 available for use when the obligations are paid in February 2023. 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 36 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 36 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued ORIGINALInterest 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 20182.9%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1305, 1306Frozen RateUTA #1 143.769%UTA #2 144.294%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District Other Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2001 12/20/1999 1/28/2000 5/9/2000 12/31/2026 12/31/2022‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total8,366,966            53,389                 8,420,356           34,070                 1,539,362            1,917,467              3,742,996            225,315               13,213                 39,689                  ‐                        7,512,111           7,512,111           Under / (Over) Budget5,133,034            56,611                 5,189,644           5,875,930            5,245,638            (1,917,467)            (3,742,996)          774,685               (13,213)                (39,689)                ‐                        6,182,889           6,182,889           YearBase 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              520,609             70,992          377,405            124.745% 467,997                 3,592                     471,589                 ‐                          89,501                   108,658                 216,547                 7,143                     1,410                     39,689                   ‐                          462,949                 646,153                 18 201872,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            130.191% 527,027                 3,231                     530,258                 ‐                          94,025                   113,680                 238,273                 15,811                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          463,290                 713,122                 19 201972,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            130.191% 527,027                 3,566                     530,593                 ‐                          98,788                   119,519                 243,772                 15,811                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          479,390                 764,325                 20 202072,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            130.191% 527,027                 3,822                     530,849                 ‐                          98,788                   119,519                 243,772                 15,811                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          479,390                 815,785                 21 202172,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            130.191% 527,027                 4,079                     531,106                 ‐                          98,788                   119,519                 243,772                 15,811                   1,500                     ‐                          ‐                          479,390                 867,501                 22 202272,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            130.191% 527,027                 4,338                     531,365                 ‐                          49,394                   59,760                   243,772                 15,811                   ‐                          ‐                          368,736                 1,030,130             23 202372,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          121,886                 ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          121,886                 908,244                 24 202472,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          908,244                 25 202572,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          908,244                 26 202672,212              562,169             81,794          408,163            0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          908,244                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local   Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetPaygoID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 37 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 37 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesExpensesEst expend12,695,000     1,269,500.0        Actual expend 7,286,796          728,679.64           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $1,000,000Actual TIF 8,366,966        836,696.61         NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,269,500Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan$12,695,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $728,680Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project$7,286,796YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$728,680Certification Request Date:1/28/2000Actual Admin Expenses$225,315 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$503,365If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.1%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)16 2016139,118                 4,517,964              3.1%465,522                 5,263,832              139,118                 1,176,840              ‐                          ‐                   637,513                 5,294,595 13,695,000 no00(8,400,405)17 2017146,261                 4,973,770              2.9%467,997                 5,731,829              146,261                 1,286,696              39,689                   39,689             646,153                 5,766,184 13,695,000 no00(7,928,816)18 2018162,072                 5,421,249              3.0%527,027                 6,258,856              162,072                 1,402,642              ‐                          39,689             713,122                 6,296,442 13,695,000 no00(7,398,558)19 2019177,883                 5,884,828              3.0%527,027                 6,785,884              177,883                 1,518,588              ‐                          39,689             764,325                 6,827,035 13,695,000 no00(6,867,965)20 2020193,693                 6,348,406              3.1%527,027                 7,312,911              193,693                 1,634,534              ‐                          39,689             815,785                 7,357,884 13,695,000 no00(6,337,116)21 2021209,504                 6,811,985              3.1%527,027                 7,839,939              209,504                 1,750,480              ‐                          39,689             867,501                 7,888,991 13,695,000 no00(5,806,009)22 2022225,315                 7,164,910              3.1%527,027                 8,366,966              225,315                 1,866,426              ‐                          39,689             1,030,130              8,420,356 13,695,000 no00(5,274,644)23 2023225,315                 7,286,796              3.1%‐                          8,366,966              225,315                 1,866,426              ‐                          39,689             908,244                 8,420,356 13,695,000 no00(5,274,644)24 2024225,315                 7,286,796              3.1%‐                          8,366,966              225,315                 1,866,426              ‐                          39,689             908,244                 8,420,356 13,695,000 no00(5,274,644)25 2025225,315                 7,286,796              3.1%‐                          8,366,966              225,315                 1,866,426              ‐                          39,689             908,244                 8,420,356 13,695,000 no00(5,274,644)26 2026225,315                 7,286,796              3.1%‐                          8,366,966              225,315                 1,866,426              ‐                          39,689             908,244                 8,420,356 13,695,000 no00(5,274,644)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 38 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 38 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount1,101,362.00$ 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 38,978.04 964,698.26 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2016 49,280.59 50,564.38 45,381.54 1,010,079.80 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2017 49,822.14 49,994.73 44,870.27 1,054,950.07 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2017 49,009.82 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,099,581.30 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2018 49,822.14 49,728.39 44,631.23 1,144,212.53 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2018 49,009.82 55,034.96 49,393.96 1,193,606.48 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2019 49,822.14 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,243,000.36 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2019 49,009.82 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,292,394.24 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2020 49,822.14 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,341,788.12 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2020 49,280.59 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,391,182.00 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2021 49,822.14 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,440,575.88 1,218,476.17$ 8/1/2021 49,009.82 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,489,969.76 1,218,476.17$ 2/1/2022 49,822.14 55,034.96 49,393.88 1,539,363.63 1,218,476.17$ TOTAL 2,071,121.94 1,703,530.69 1,539,363.63 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 1CSM - Town Place Suites Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 39 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 39 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount 1,448,088.00$ Interest Rate 8.00%PID 04-117-21-32-0088Note Issue Date 10/25/2000Final Payment Date 2/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDate Interest Due Available 89.75% Paid Note Balance2/1/2016 71,589.75 52,768.85 47,360.04 1,222,073.85 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2016 70,811.60 60,988.15 54,736.86 1,276,810.71 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2017 71,589.75 60,988.15 54,736.86 1,331,547.57 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2017 70,422.52 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,385,468.50 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2018 71,589.75 60,079.03 53,920.93 1,439,389.43 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2018 70,422.52 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,499,148.94 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2019 71,589.75 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,558,908.44 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2019 70,422.52 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,618,667.95 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2020 71,589.75 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,678,427.45 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2020 70,811.60 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,738,186.96 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2021 71,589.75 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,797,946.47 1,750,836.21$ 8/1/2021 70,422.52 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,857,705.97 1,750,836.21$ 2/1/2022 71,589.75 66,584.41 59,759.51 1,917,465.48 1,750,836.21$ TOTAL 2,951,814.78 2,130,139.02 1,917,465.48 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 2CSM - Spring Hill Suites Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 40 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 40 Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Continued Maximum amount 1,395,547.00$ Interest Rate 8.00%Note Issue Date 11/6/2000Last Payment 2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Tax IncrementDate Interest Due Available 89.75% Paid Note Balance2/1/2016 54,550.02 104,479.72 93,770.55 2,078,052.68 1,294,883.24$ 8/1/201652,370.83 126,070.18 113,147.98 2,191,200.67 1,234,106.09$ 2/1/201750,461.23 108,820.79 97,666.66 2,288,867.32 1,186,900.66$ 8/1/201747,739.78 132,457.47 118,880.58 2,407,747.90 1,115,759.86$ 2/1/201845,622.18 115,736.93 103,873.77 2,511,621.67 1,057,508.28$ 8/1/2018 42,535.33 149,748.95 134,399.68 2,646,021.35 965,643.93$ 2/1/201939,484.11 135,806.12 121,885.99 2,767,907.34 883,242.04$ 8/1/201935,525.96 135,806.12 121,885.99 2,889,793.33 796,882.01$ 2/1/202032,583.62 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,011,679.32 707,579.64$ 8/1/202028,617.67 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,133,565.31 614,311.32$ 2/1/202125,118.51 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,255,451.30 517,543.83$ 8/1/202120,816.76 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,377,337.29 416,474.60$ 2/1/202217,029.18 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,499,223.29 311,617.80$ 8/1/202212,533.96 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,621,109.28 202,265.77$ 2/1/20238,270.42 135,806.12 121,885.99 3,742,995.27 88,650.20$ TOTAL2,401,157.59 4,053,369.05 3,621,109.28 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Rottlund Note 3Rottlund - 86 Town Homes/Condos Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 41 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 41 Mill City Description: Mill City TIF District (County #1307) is a redevelopment district established on March 20, 2000. Originally, the district was established with two (2) parcels to facilitate the redevelopment of a polluted site and construction of a multi-family rental housing development. Rental housing class rates were reduced dramatically by the 2001 legislature from 2.4% to 1.25%. Projected increment when the note was sized was expected to be $394,188 per year beginning in 2003, which is substantially less than the current annual tax increment. However, the 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 42 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 42 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 8/1/2018 payment, the current balance is $3,543,994 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 43 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 43 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 $150,000 of cash available for projects and it is estimated that there will be approximately $130,400 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 44 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 44 Mill City Continued ORIGINALInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense4.25%2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently: for year 20182.6%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1307Frozen RateUTA #1 144.294%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest Expense BondsAdmin Expense County AdminOutside 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 Total7,437,104            63,120                 7,500,224           8,981                   7,025,275              70,000               255,300               10,313                  ‐                         ‐                        7,369,869           7,369,869           Under / (Over) Budget4,062,896            36,880                 4,099,776           7,991,019            (2,725,275)            (70,000)              744,700               (10,313)                ‐                        ‐                        5,930,131           5,930,131           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 20188,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               130.191% 588,474                 1,847                     590,320                 ‐                          528,699                 ‐                       25,010                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          554,875                 404,821                 19 20198,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               130.191% 588,474                 2,024                     590,498                 ‐                          557,579                 ‐                       25,010                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          583,755                 411,564                 20 20208,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               130.191% 588,474                 2,058                     590,531                 ‐                          557,579                 ‐                       25,010                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          583,755                 418,340                 21 20218,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               130.191% 588,474                 2,092                     590,565                 ‐                          557,579                 ‐                       25,010                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          583,755                 425,150                 22 20228,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               130.191% 588,474                 2,126                     590,599                 ‐                          557,579                 ‐                       25,010                   1,166                     ‐                          ‐                          583,755                 431,995                 23 20238,859                     462,500                 ‐                  453,641               0.000%‐                          2,160                     2,160                     ‐                          278,790                 ‐                       25,010                   ‐                          ‐                          303,800                 130,355                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local     Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 45 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 45 Mill City Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:ExpensesExpensesEst expend12,300,000         1,230,000.0     Actual expend7,114,569              711,456.93        TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $1,000,000Actual TIF 7,437,104            743,710.41      NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,230,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan $12,300,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $711,457Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $7,114,569YDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $711,457Certification Request Date: 6/8/2000Actual Admin Expenses $255,300 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $456,157If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage3.6%Total Pooling %: 25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)16 201682,820                   3,599,977              2.3%464,132                 3,967,223              82,820                   908,986                 ‐                          ‐                          333,572                 4,016,369 13,300,000 no00(9,283,631)17 2017105,239                 4,070,935              2.6%527,513                 4,494,736              105,239                 1,018,445              ‐                          ‐                          369,376                 4,545,550 13,300,000 no00(8,754,450)18 2018130,249                 4,600,800              2.8%588,474                 5,083,210              130,249                 1,140,553              ‐                          ‐                          404,821                 5,135,870 13,300,000 no00(8,164,130)19 2019155,260                 5,159,545              3.0%588,474                 5,671,683              155,260                 1,262,661              ‐                          ‐                          411,564                 5,726,368 13,300,000 no00(7,573,632)20 2020180,270                 5,718,290              3.2%588,474                 6,260,157              180,270                 1,384,770              ‐                          ‐                          418,340                 6,316,900 13,300,000 no00(6,983,100)21 2021205,280                 6,277,035              3.3%588,474                 6,848,630              205,280                 1,506,878              ‐                          ‐                          425,150                 6,907,465 13,300,000 no00(6,392,535)22 2022230,290                 6,835,780              3.4%588,474                 7,437,104              230,290                 1,628,986              ‐                          ‐                          431,995                 7,498,064 13,300,000 no00(5,801,936)23 2023255,300                 7,114,569              3.6%‐                          7,437,104              255,300                 1,603,976              ‐                          ‐                          130,355                 7,500,224 13,300,000 no00(5,799,776)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 46 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 46 Mill City Continued Maximum amount 3,431,137.00$ Interest Rate 8.75%Note Issued Date 11/20/2000Final Payment2/1/2023Total Tax Tax Increment CumualtiveIncrementAvailable at Tax IncrementDate Interest DueAvailable94.75%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$ 8/1/2018160,236.44 294,236.96 278,789.52 4,516,160.52 3,543,994.20$ 2/1/2019155,049.75 294,236.96 278,789.52 4,794,950.04 3,420,254.43$ 8/1/2019149,636.13 294,236.96 278,789.52 5,073,739.56 3,291,101.04$ 2/1/2020143,985.67 294,236.96 278,789.52 5,352,529.08 3,156,297.19$ 8/1/2020138,088.00 294,236.96 278,789.52 5,631,318.59 3,015,595.67$ 2/1/2021131,932.31 294,236.96 278,789.52 5,910,108.11 2,868,738.46$ 8/1/2021125,507.31 294,236.96 278,789.52 6,188,897.63 2,715,456.25$ 2/1/2022118,801.21 294,236.96 278,789.52 6,467,687.15 2,555,467.94$ 8/1/2022111,801.72 294,236.96 278,789.52 6,746,476.67 2,388,480.14$ 2/1/2023104,496.01 294,236.96 278,789.52 7,025,266.19 2,214,186.63$ TOTAL7,247,767.81 7,418,369.22 7,025,266.19 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - MSP SLP Apartments, LLC Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 47 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 47 Park Commons Description: Park Commons TIF District (County #1308) is a redevelopment district established on January 16, 2001. Originally, the district encompassed 38 parcels of land, most of which were in the Excelsior Boulevard District and was established to facilitate the construction of mixed use housing and retail facilities. Construction has been completed on all phases and consists of 338 market rate apartments, 306 condominiums and approximately 86,500 sq/ft of commercial space. The EDA entered into a contract with Meridian Properties (TOLD Development) on January 16, 2001 and executed five amendments to it for various items including end uses, timing of construction, transfer of property and remediation issues. Overall the contract delineates PAYGO obligation for the development in an amount not to exceed $18 million at 8.5% interest, over a 22-year period. On July 1, 2003, the EDA issued a PAYGO note in the principal amount of $3.5 Million at 8.5% for the Phase I public improvements in Park Commons East. In addition, three (3) Phase Notes were issued on June 5, 2006 at 8.5% as follows: Phase NE Note for $4,668,633, Phase NW Note for $4,079,105 and Phase E Note for $3,300,715. Each Note is payable with 97% of the TIF generated from the parcels within each phase. In addition, the EDA 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 48 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 48 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 49 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 49 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 50 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 50 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, 2021 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 Phase I will be repaid on August 1, 2022. Approximately $1.60 million/year was being applied to repayment on this obligation. Starting after the August 1, 2022 payment, this amount will be utilized on a prorated basis to repay the Phase Notes. It is anticipated that all TIF Notes, with the exception of the Phase E Note, will be repaid in full by the end of the District. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 51 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 51 Park Commons Continued ORIGINALInterest 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 2018 0.7%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesA ElectionCounty Number1308Frozen RateUTA #1 119.065%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected TermTax IncrementOther RevenuesInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Interest 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 Total48,127,343          40,936                 48,168,279         7,396                   4,733,317            9,622,930            7,935,049           11,805,071     10,853,656        ‐                 1,006,932            91,106                 511,327                ‐            46,566,785         46,566,785           Under / (Over) Budget26,872,657          209,064               30,331,721         49,742,604         40,266,683         (9,622,930)          (7,935,049)          (11,805,071)    (10,853,656)       ‐                 6,493,068            (91,106)                (511,327)               ‐            55,683,215         55,683,215           Year Base Currentiscal DisparitieCapturedTax IncrementInterest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectTOLD Excel and Grand Phase EPhase 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% 2,652,452              114                         2,652,566             ‐                          279,317                 881,761                 278,355               442,129             475,217               ‐                   10,985                   6,517                     ‐                          ‐              2,374,281             1,204,852             17 201872,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              6,024                     2,651,747             ‐                          279,317                 976,442                 303,186               496,951             512,157               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,653,490             1,203,108             18 201972,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              6,016                     2,651,738             ‐                          279,317                 1,028,242              314,022               583,781             629,168               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,919,967             934,879                 19 202072,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              4,674                     2,650,397             ‐                          279,317                 1,028,242              314,022               583,781             629,168               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,919,967             665,310                 20 202172,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              3,327                     2,649,049             ‐                          161,073                 1,028,242              314,022               583,781             629,168               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,801,723             512,636                 21 202272,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              2,563                     2,648,286             ‐                          609,913                 469,330               793,464             815,793               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,773,938             386,984                 22 202372,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              1,935                     2,647,658             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,715,643             318,998                 23 202472,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              1,595                     2,647,318             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,715,643             250,673                 24 202572,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              1,253                     2,646,976             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         1,002,419           ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,715,643             182,006                 25 202672,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              910                         2,646,633             ‐                          624,639               1,003,147         737,967               ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              2,451,191             377,447                 26202772,035            2,302,146         ‐                2,230,111     130.191% 2,645,723              1,887                     2,647,610             ‐                          624,639               331,711             ‐                       ‐                   79,372                   6,066                     ‐                          ‐              1,041,788             1,983,270             27 2028‐                  ‐                     ‐                ‐                  0.000%‐                          9,916                     9,916                     ‐                          312,320               ‐                     ‐                       ‐                   79,372                   ‐                          ‐              391,691                 1,601,495             Paygo Notes DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local     Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 52 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 52 Park Commons Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: ExpensesExpensesEst expend 94,750,000         9,475,000.0     Actual expend 45,559,852           4,555,985.22    TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$7,500,000Actual TIF48,127,343         4,812,734.35  NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$9,475,000Estimated Total TIF Expenses per TIF Plan$94,750,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $4,555,985Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Expenses for the Project $45,559,852YDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $4,555,985Certification Request Date: 3/8/2001Actual Admin Expenses $1,006,932 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $3,549,053If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage2.2%Total Pooling %: 25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)15 2016122,859                 17,968,960           0.7%2,226,110              19,017,665           122,859                 4,631,557              ‐                          511,327                 926,567                 19,018,386 102,250,000 no00(83,231,614)16 2017133,844                 20,332,256           0.7%2,652,452              21,670,117           133,844                 5,283,685              ‐                          511,327                 1,204,852              21,670,952 102,250,000 no00(80,579,048)17 2018213,216                 22,906,375           0.9%2,645,723              24,315,840           213,216                 5,865,744              ‐                          511,327                 1,203,108              24,322,699 102,250,000 no00(77,927,301)18 2019292,587                 25,746,970           1.1%2,645,723              26,961,562           292,587                 6,447,803              ‐                          511,327                 934,879                 26,974,437 102,250,000 no00(75,275,563)19 2020371,959                 28,587,565           1.3%2,645,723              29,607,285           371,959                 7,029,862              ‐                          511,327                 665,310                 29,624,834 102,250,000 no00(72,625,166)20 2021451,331                 31,309,917           1.4%2,645,723              32,253,008           451,331                 7,611,921              ‐                          511,327                 512,636                 32,273,883 102,250,000 no00(69,976,117)21 2022530,702                 34,004,483           1.6%2,645,723              34,898,730           530,702                 8,193,980              ‐                          511,327                 386,984                 34,922,169 102,250,000 no00(67,327,831)22 2023610,074                 36,640,755           1.7%2,645,723              37,544,453           610,074                 8,776,039              ‐                          511,327                 318,998                 37,569,827 102,250,000 no00(64,680,173)23 2024689,446                 39,277,026           1.8%2,645,723              40,190,176           689,446                 9,358,098              ‐                          511,327                 250,673                 40,217,144 102,250,000 no00(62,032,856)24 2025768,817                 41,913,297           1.8%2,645,723              42,835,898           768,817                 9,940,157              ‐                          511,327                 182,006                 42,864,120 102,250,000 no00(59,385,880)25 2026848,189                 44,285,117           1.9%2,645,723              45,481,621           848,189                 10,522,216           ‐                          511,327                 377,447                 45,510,753 102,250,000 no00(56,739,247)26 2027927,561                 45,247,533           2.0%2,645,723              48,127,343           927,561                 11,104,275           ‐                          511,327                 1,983,270              48,158,363 102,250,000 no00(54,091,637)27 2028 1,006,932              45,559,852           2.2%‐                          48,127,343           1,006,932              11,024,903           ‐                          511,327                 1,601,495              48,168,279 102,250,000 no00(54,081,721)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 53 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 53 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 54 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 54 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$ 8/1/2015 203,798.76 347,810.25 337,375.94 3,332,761.30 4,661,687.67$ 2/1/2016 198,121.73 348,857.48 338,391.76 3,671,153.06 4,521,417.64$ 8/1/2016 192,160.25 411,275.01 398,936.76 4,070,089.82 4,314,641.13$ 2/1/2017 183,372.25 350,398.53 339,886.57 4,409,976.39 4,158,126.81$ 8/1/2017 176,720.39 558,633.56 541,874.55 4,951,850.94 3,792,972.64$ 2/1/2018 161,201.34 476,619.60 462,321.01 5,414,171.96 3,491,852.97$ 8/1/2018 148,403.75 530,021.55 514,120.90 5,928,292.86 3,126,135.82$ 2/1/2019 132,860.77 530,021.55 514,120.90 6,442,413.76 2,744,875.69$ 8/1/2019 116,657.22 530,021.55 514,120.90 6,956,534.67 2,347,412.00$ 2/1/2020 99,765.01 530,021.55 514,120.90 7,470,655.57 1,933,056.11$ 8/1/2020 82,154.88 530,021.55 514,120.90 7,984,776.47 1,501,090.09$ 2/1/2021 63,796.33 530,021.55 514,120.90 8,498,897.38 1,050,765.51$ 8/1/2021 44,657.53 530,021.55 514,120.90 9,013,018.28 581,302.14$ 2/1/2022 24,705.34 530,021.55 514,120.90 9,527,139.18 91,886.58$ 8/1/2022 3,905.18 530,021.55 95,791.76 9,622,930.94 0.00$ TOTAL 6,122,930.94$ 14,076,064.77$ 9,622,930.94$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Excelsior and Grand Tax Increment District Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 55 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 55 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 Balance2/1/2015 161,038.81 116,900.30 113,393.29 2,108,937.24 3,836,793.92$ 8/1/2015 163,063.74 131,479.38 127,535.00 2,236,472.24 3,872,322.66$ 2/1/2016 164,573.71 130,105.85 126,202.67 2,362,674.91 3,910,693.70$ 8/1/2016 166,204.48 148,375.65 143,924.38 2,506,599.30 3,932,973.80$ 2/1/2017 167,151.39 128,749.60 124,887.11 2,631,486.41 3,975,238.08$ 8/1/2017 168,947.62 158,214.12 153,467.70 2,784,954.11 3,990,718.00$ 2/1/2018 169,605.51 150,695.98 146,175.10 2,931,129.21 4,014,148.41$ 8/1/2018 170,601.31 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,088,140.04 4,027,738.88$ 2/1/2019 171,178.90 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,245,150.88 4,041,906.95$ 8/1/2019 171,781.05 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,402,161.71 4,056,677.16$ 2/1/2020 172,408.78 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,559,172.54 4,072,075.11$ 8/1/2020 173,063.19 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,716,183.38 4,088,127.46$ 2/1/2021 173,745.42 161,866.84 157,010.83 3,873,194.21 4,104,862.05$ 8/1/2021 174,456.64 161,866.84 157,010.83 4,030,205.05 4,122,307.85$ 2/1/2022 175,198.08 161,866.84 157,010.83 4,187,215.88 4,140,495.10$ 8/1/2022 175,971.04 321,979.00 312,319.63 4,499,535.51 4,004,146.51$ 2/1/2023170,176.23 321,979.00 312,319.63 4,811,855.14 3,862,003.11$ 8/1/2023164,135.13 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,124,174.77 3,713,818.61$ 2/1/2024157,837.29 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,436,494.40 3,559,336.27$ 8/1/2024151,271.79 321,979.00 312,319.63 5,748,814.03 3,398,288.43$ 2/1/2025144,427.26 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,061,133.66 3,230,396.06$ 8/1/2025137,291.83 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,373,453.29 3,055,368.26$ 2/1/2026129,853.15 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,685,772.92 2,872,901.78$ 8/1/2026122,098.33 321,979.00 312,319.63 6,998,092.55 2,682,680.48$ 2/1/2027114,013.92 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,310,412.18 2,484,374.77$ 8/1/2027105,585.93 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,622,731.81 2,277,641.07$ 2/1/202896,799.75 321,979.00 312,319.63 7,935,051.44 2,062,121.18$ TOTAL6,696,457.63 8,182,147.56 7,935,051.44 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase E Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 56 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 56 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$ 2/1/2018201,796.37 211,402.17 205,060.10 205,060.10 4,744,886.10$ 8/1/2018201,657.66 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,654,653.23$ 2/1/2019197,822.76 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,560,585.47$ 8/1/2019193,824.88 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,462,519.82$ 2/1/2020189,657.09 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,360,286.39$ 8/1/2020185,312.17 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,253,708.03$ 2/1/2021180,782.59 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,142,600.09$ 8/1/2021176,060.50 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 4,026,770.07$ 2/1/2022171,137.73 300,918.07 291,890.53 291,890.53 3,906,017.27$ 8/1/2022166,005.73 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 3,570,449.58$ 2/1/2023151,744.11 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 3,220,620.27$ 8/1/2023136,876.36 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 2,855,923.21$ 2/1/2024121,376.74 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 2,475,726.53$ 8/1/2024105,218.38 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 2,079,371.49$ 2/1/202588,373.29 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 1,666,171.35$ 8/1/202570,812.28 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 1,235,410.22$ 2/1/202652,504.93 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 786,341.73$ 8/1/202633,419.52 517,086.00 501,573.42 501,573.42 318,187.83$ 2/1/202713,522.98 517,086.00 331,710.82 331,710.82 (0.00)$ TOTAL7,136,437.92 13,371,254.94 11,805,071.18 11,805,070.92 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase NE Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 57 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 57 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$ 2/1/2018195,871.67 203,683.92 197,573.40 4,090,549.17 4,607,043.45$ 8/1/2018195,799.35 324,313.21 314,583.81 4,405,132.99 4,488,258.99$ 2/1/2019190,751.01 324,313.21 314,583.81 4,719,716.80 4,364,426.18$ 8/1/2019185,488.11 324,313.21 314,583.81 5,034,300.62 4,235,330.48$ 2/1/2020180,001.55 324,313.21 314,583.81 5,348,884.43 4,100,748.21$ 8/1/2020174,281.80 324,313.21 314,583.81 5,663,468.24 3,960,446.19$ 2/1/2021168,318.96 324,313.21 314,583.81 5,978,052.06 3,814,181.34$ 8/1/2021162,102.71 324,313.21 314,583.81 6,292,635.87 3,661,700.24$ 2/1/2022155,622.26 324,313.21 314,583.81 6,607,219.68 3,502,738.68$ 8/1/2022148,866.39 516,711.00 501,209.67 7,108,429.35 3,150,395.41$ 2/1/2023133,891.80 516,711.00 501,209.67 7,609,639.02 2,783,077.54$ 8/1/2023118,280.80 516,711.00 501,209.67 8,110,848.69 2,400,148.67$ 2/1/2024102,006.32 516,711.00 501,209.67 8,612,058.36 2,000,945.32$ 8/1/202485,040.18 516,711.00 501,209.67 9,113,268.03 1,584,775.82$ 2/1/202567,352.97 516,711.00 501,209.67 9,614,477.70 1,150,919.12$ 8/1/202548,914.06 516,711.00 501,209.67 10,115,687.37 698,623.52$ 2/1/202629,691.50 516,711.00 501,209.67 10,616,897.04 227,105.35$ 8/1/20269,651.98 516,711.00 236,757.32 10,853,654.36 0.00$ TOTAL6,774,549.37 12,504,202.86 10,853,654.36 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityMeridian Properties Real Estate Development LLCPhase NW Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 58 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 58 Edgewood Description: Edgewood (County #1309) is a soils condition district established on September 15, 2003. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 59 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 59 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 60 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 60 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. Use of Future TIF After Obligation is Repaid. The TIF Note for this District will be paid off on August 1, 2019. Once the note is repaid, the District will need to be decertified and any remaining funds repaid to the County. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 61 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 61 Edgewood Continued ORIGINALHSS 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 20186.2%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 2018First 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 Total751,090               1,281                   752,371               ‐                          697,494               41,215                 4,198                   ‐                        9,464                   752,371               752,371               Under / (Over) Budget923,910               (1,281)                  922,629               1,200,000              (389,494)              125,785               (4,198)                  ‐                        (9,464)                  922,629               922,629               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%52,422                   57                           52,479                   ‐                          63,082                   1,068                     608                         ‐                          ‐                          64,758                   (801)                       19 201819,250                   94,250                   25,679                   49,321                   124.745%59,435                   ‐                          59,435                   ‐                          56,379                   1,068                     605                         ‐                          ‐                          58,052                   582                         20 201919,250                   94,250                   25,679                   49,321                   124.745%59,435                   3                             59,438                   ‐                          48,883                   1,068                     605                         ‐                          9,464                     60,020                   0                              DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 62 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 62 Edgewood Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesRevenuesEst expend1,508,000            150,800.0        Actual expend711,156                 71,115.61          TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $167,000Actual TIF 751,090               75,109.01        NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $167,500Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$1,675,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $75,109Total TIF Revenues for the Project $751,090YRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$75,109Actual Admin Expenses$41,215Available Admin$33,894Actual Percentage5.5%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % AllowableIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)17 201638,011                   581,019                 6.5%581,019 1,675,000 no00(1,093,981)18 201739,079                   633,498                 6.2%633,498 1,675,000 no00(1,041,502)19 201840,147                   692,934                 5.8%692,934 1,675,000 no00(982,066)20 201941,215                   752,371                 5.5%752,371 1,675,000 no00(922,629)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 63 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 63 Edgewood Continued Maximum amount600,000$ 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 Balance8/1/20161,543.51 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 30,050.73 36,181.63 592,232.42 103,154.85$ 2/1/2018876.82 29,659.23 28,147.32 620,379.74 75,884.35$ 8/1/2018645.02 29,717.25 28,231.39 648,611.13 48,297.98$ 2/1/2019410.53 29,717.25 28,231.39 676,842.51 20,477.12$ 8/1/2019174.06 29,717.25 20,651.20 697,493.71 (0.02)$ TOTAL97,493.69$ 740,169.20$ 697,493.71$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Edgewood InvestorsStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 64 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 64 Wolfe Lake Commercial Redevelopment Description: Wolfe Lake TIF District (County #1310) is a redevelopment district established on July 7, 2003. Originally the district encompassed four (4) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the rehabilitation of an area adjacent to West 36th Street and Belt Line Boulevard into office and other commercial uses. These parcels were eventually replatted into two (2) parcels when development was commenced. This district was certified by the County on April 26, 2004 and first increment was received in 2006. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 65 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 65 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 66 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 66 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. Use of Future TIF After Obligation is Repaid. The TIF Note for this District will be paid off on February 1, 2020. We recommend that the City/EDA either (i) decertify the District early (for pay 2020); or (ii) complete the required modification to the TIF District to retain up to 35% of the TIF in the future for use on tax credit eligible rental housing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d). 2. Pooling Analysis and Use of Funds. There is currently approximately $97,900 available in legal pooling at the end of 2018. It is estimated that there will be approximately $60,300 available at the end of the 2019. We recommend that the City develop a plan for use of these funds. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 67 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 67 Wolf Lake Continued ORIGINALHSS 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 2018 3.2%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 2018First 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 Total1,750,469            4,201                   1,754,669           ‐                        1,630,894              ‐                      58,584                 4,937                    ‐                         ‐                        1,694,415           1,694,415           Under / (Over) Budget843,531               45,799                 889,331               1,165,000            (280,894)                ‐                      70,416                 (4,937)                   ‐                         ‐                        949,585               949,585               Year Base Current Fiscal Disparities Captured Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo BondsAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE11 2016 34,346                   191,770                 46,716                   110,708                 128.561% 133,411                 181                         133,592                 ‐                          120,721                 ‐                       6,099                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          127,524                 89,839                   12 201734,346                   192,520                 51,569                   106,605                 124.745% 128,466                 186                         128,652                 ‐                          124,392                 ‐                       7,121                     697                         ‐                          ‐                          132,210                 86,281                   13 201834,346                   202,420                 57,547                   110,527                 130.191% 133,192                 431                         133,624                 ‐                          117,352                 ‐                       3,996                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          122,052                 97,853                   14 201934,346                   202,420                 57,547                   110,527                 130.191% 133,192                 489                         133,682                 ‐                          119,597                 ‐                       3,996                     704                         ‐                          ‐                          124,297                 107,238                 15 202034,346                   202,420                 57,547                   110,527                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          46,984                   ‐                       ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          46,984                   60,254                   1,750,469            4,201                   1,754,669            ‐                        1,630,894             ‐                      58,584                 4,937                   ‐                        ‐                        1,694,415             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 68 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 68 Wolf Lake Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 2,515,000        251,500.0            Actual expend 1,635,831          163,583.15           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $129,000Actual TIF 1,750,469        175,046.87         YTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $259,400Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $2,594,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $175,047Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project $1,750,469NDistrict Type: RedevelopmentDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Admin per TIF Plan $175,047Certification Request Date: 12/15/2003Actual Admin Expenses$58,584 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$70,416If 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 CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)11 201643,471                   1,358,712              3.2%133,411                 1,355,618              43,471                   295,434                 ‐                          ‐                          89,839                   1,358,712 2,644,000 no00(1,285,288)12 201750,592                   1,487,364              3.4%128,466                 1,484,084              50,592                   320,429                 ‐                          ‐                          86,281                   1,487,364 2,644,000 no00(1,156,636)13 201854,588                   1,620,988              3.4%133,192                 1,617,276              54,588                   349,731                 ‐                          ‐                          97,853                   1,620,988 2,644,000 no00(1,023,012)14 201958,584                   1,754,669              3.3%133,192                 1,750,469              58,584                   379,034                 ‐                          ‐                          107,238                 1,754,669 2,644,000 no00(889,331)15 202058,584                   1,754,669              3.3%‐                          1,750,469              58,584                   379,034                 ‐                          ‐                          60,254                   1,754,669 2,644,000 no00(889,331)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 69 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 69 Wolf Lake Continued Maximum amount 996,000.00$ Interest Rate7.50%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$ 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 66,595.95 56,330.65 1,464,315.34 155,141.18$ 2/1/20195,817.79 66,595.95 56,330.65 1,520,646.00 104,628.32$ 8/1/20193,923.56 66,595.95 63,266.15 1,583,912.15 45,285.73$ 2/1/20201,698.21 66,595.95 46,983.94 1,630,896.09 0.00$ TOTAL634,896.09 1,753,441.60 1,630,896.09 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Belt Line Industrial ParkStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 70 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 70 Aquila Commons Description: Aquila Commons (County #1311) is a housing district established on September 7, 2004. Originally the district encompassed one (1) parcel of land and was established to facilitate the construction of a limited equity senior housing co-operative on the former Talmud Torah School. The district currently contains 106 owner-occupied units in the form of a limited equity cooperative, under which 95% of the initial buyers will need to meet TIF income restrictions Adopted………………………..09/07/2004 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 71 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 71 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 the Note was paid in full on August 1, 2018 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Management. Upon completion and through the term of the TIF Note, the City has to approve the property management company. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 72 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 72 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. Use of Future TIF After Obligation is Repaid. The TIF Note for this District was paid off on August 1, 2018. The City/EDA can either decertify the District early (for pay 2019) or allow the District to remain open through its termination (December 31, 2032). IF the City/EDA elect to leave the District open, the existing fund balance and the TIF generated in the future (approximately $194,000 annually) would need to be utilized 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: Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 73 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 73 Aquila Commons Continued 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. 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: 7. New affordable rental housing as part of redevelopment (20/50 or 40/60 election) 8. Renovation of an existing rental housing development (20/50 or 40/60 election) 9. 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: 9. Site acquisition and demolition for infill lots that will be sold for new housing construction 10. Acquisition of foreclosed homes for resale to income qualified buyers 11. Rehabilitation loans for home improvements (including HIA owners) 12. Second mortgages to qualified home buyers Due to the on-going need to fund the City’s single-family, owner-occupied housing rehab program (to income qualified residents), the current policy around inclusionary housing and the EDA’s/Council’s expressed desire to retain naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), we recommend that the EDA/City keep this District open (just like they did with Park Center) and utilize the funds for affordable housing projects within the City. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 74 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 74 Aquila Commons Continued ORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income 0.50% 1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeHousing Admin Expense 3.00% 2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently: for year 2018 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 2018First 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 12/31/2032‐                        ‐                        ‐                         Cumulative Modified7,271,716            7,271,716           5,750,000              794,544               727,712               7,272,256           7,272,256            End of District Projected Actual Total4,505,998            1,883                   3,731,481           ‐                          1,551,146            140,553               21,813                  ‐                        346                       1,686,218           1,713,858            Under / (Over) Budget2,765,718            (1,883)                  3,540,235           5,750,000              (756,602)              587,159               (21,813)                ‐                        (346)                     5,586,038           5,558,398            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% 181,535                 145                         181,680                 ‐                          165,416                 5,796                     1,110                     ‐                          ‐                          172,322                 109,852                 12 201816,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 549                         194,649                 ‐                          124,226                 5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          131,136                 173,365                 13 201916,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     360,554                 14 202016,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     547,744                 15 202116,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     734,934                 16 202216,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     922,124                 17 202316,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     1,109,314             18 202416,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     1,296,504             19 202516,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     1,483,694             20 202616,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     1,670,884             21 202716,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     1,858,074             22 202816,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     2,045,264             23 202916,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                 130.191% 194,100                 194,100                 ‐                          ‐                          5,823                     1,087                     ‐                          ‐                          6,910                     2,232,454             24 203016,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                130.191% 194,100               194,100               ‐                          ‐                        5,823                   1,087                   ‐                        ‐                        6,910                   2,419,644            25 203116,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                130.191% 194,100               194,100               ‐                          ‐                        5,823                   1,087                   ‐                        ‐                        6,910                   2,606,834            26 203216,906                   187,379                 ‐                          170,473                130.191% 194,100               194,100               ‐                          ‐                        5,823                   1,087                   ‐                        ‐                        6,910                   2,794,023            27 2033‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                         0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                          ‐                        ‐                        ‐                        ‐                        ‐                        2,794,023             DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 75 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 75 Aquila Commons Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 6,544,544        654,454.4            Actual expend 1,545,665          154,566.46           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$727,712Actual TIF4,505,998        450,599.78         NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$727,172Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$7,271,716NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $450,600Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project $4,505,998YDistrict Type: HousingDoes this section apply? YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $450,600Certification Request Date: 12/20/2004Actual Admin Expenses $140,553 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $310,047If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage3.1%Total Pooling %: 100%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)10 201647,412                   1,414,153              3.4%167,035                 1,412,964              47,412                   1,365,552              ‐                          ‐                          100,494                 1,414,153 7,272,256 no00(5,858,103)11 201753,208                   1,595,833              3.3%181,535                 1,594,499              53,208                   1,541,291              ‐                          ‐                          109,852                 1,595,833 7,272,256 no00(5,676,423)12 201859,031                   1,790,482              3.3%194,100                 1,788,599              59,031                   1,729,568              ‐                          ‐                          173,365                 1,790,482 7,272,256 no00(5,481,774)13 201964,854                   1,984,582              3.3%194,100                 1,982,699              64,854                   1,917,845              ‐                          ‐                          360,554                 1,984,582 7,272,256 no00(5,287,674)14 202070,677                   2,178,682              3.2%194,100                 2,176,799              70,677                   2,106,122              ‐                          ‐                          547,744                 2,178,682 7,272,256 no00(5,093,574)15 202176,500                   2,372,782              3.2%194,100                 2,370,899              76,500                   2,294,399              ‐                          ‐                          734,934                 2,372,782 7,272,256 no00(4,899,474)16 202282,323                   2,566,882              3.2%194,100                 2,564,999              82,323                   2,482,676              ‐                          ‐                          922,124                 2,566,882 7,272,256 no00(4,705,374)17 202388,146                   2,760,982              3.2%194,100                 2,759,099              88,146                   2,670,953              ‐                          ‐                          1,109,314              2,760,982 7,272,256 no00(4,511,274)18 202493,969                   2,955,082              3.2%194,100                 2,953,198              93,969                   2,859,229              ‐                          ‐                          1,296,504              2,955,082 7,272,256 no00(4,317,174)19 202599,792                   3,149,182              3.2%194,100                 3,147,298              99,792                   3,047,506              ‐                          ‐                          1,483,694              3,149,182 7,272,256 no00(4,123,074)20 2026105,615                 3,343,282              3.2%194,100                 3,341,398              105,615                 3,235,783              ‐                          ‐                          1,670,884              3,343,282 7,272,256 no00(3,928,974)21 2027111,438                 3,537,381              3.2%194,100                 3,535,498              111,438                 3,424,060              ‐                          ‐                          1,858,074              3,537,381 7,272,256 no00(3,734,875)22 2028117,261                 3,731,481              3.1%194,100                 3,729,598              117,261                 3,612,337              ‐                          ‐                          2,045,264              3,731,481 7,272,256 no00(3,540,775)23 2029123,084                 3,925,581              3.1%194,100                 3,923,698              123,084                 3,800,614              ‐                          ‐                          2,232,454              3,925,581 7,272,256 no00(3,346,675)24 2030128,907                 4,119,681              3.1%194,100                 4,117,798            128,907               3,988,891            ‐                        ‐                        2,419,644             4,119,681 7,272,256 no00(3,152,575)25 2031134,730                 4,313,781              3.1%194,100                 4,311,898            134,730               4,177,168            ‐                        ‐                        2,606,834             4,313,781 7,272,256 no00(2,958,475)26 2032140,553                 4,507,881              3.1%194,100                 4,505,998            140,553               4,365,445            ‐                        2,794,023             4,507,881 7,272,256 no00(2,764,375)27 2033140,553                 4,507,881              3.1%‐                          4,505,998            140,553               4,365,445            ‐                        2,794,023             4,507,881 7,272,256 no00(2,764,375)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (100% Outside of District)Tax Increment100% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 76 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 76 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 Balance8/1/2016 9,809.19 83,598.99 79,419.00 1,261,505.97 271,579.37 2/1/2017 7,807.91 83,436.33 79,264.21 1,340,770.17 200,123.07 8/1/2017 5,753.54 90,686.32 86,152.00 1,426,922.18 119,724.60 2/1/2018 3,442.08 90,849.25 86,306.79 1,513,228.97 36,859.90 8/1/2018 1,059.72 90,849.25 37,919.62 1,551,148.59 0.00 TOTAL 501,148.59$ 1,695,454.13$ 1,551,148.59$ City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Stonebridge DevelopmentStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 77 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 77 Elmwood Village Description: Elmwood Village (County #1312) is a renewal and renovation district established on August 2, 2004. Originally the district encompassed seventeen (17) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the construction of various public improvements related to the construction of housing and commercial facilities (a portion of this district is derived from parcels decertified from the Trunk Highway 7 TIF District). The District was initially established to assist Rottlund Homes with additional site improvements and land acquisition costs associated with a condominium/townhome project on the old Quadian site. Rottlund was issued a PAYGO note in the amount of $790,000 at 5.75% interest. The note was paid off on February 1, 2010 and the TIF generated from these parcels can be utilized by the City for other qualified TIF costs. On February 21, 2006 this district was modified to add eight additional parcels. The parcels were part of the Hoigaards redevelopment project which consists of a 220-unit market rate apartment building, 100-unit senior independent apartment building, 22 rental townhomes, a mixed use residential development consisting of 74 condos (temporarily turned rental) over 25,000 square feet retail and a regional storm pond. The City issued short-term taxable tax increment revenue notes to finance costs for the 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 78 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 78 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…….12/31/2022 Required Decertification……….12/31/2029 Modifications:………………….02/21/2006 10/19/2009 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 79 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 79 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 80 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 80 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 81 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 81 Elmwood Village Continued Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 114.2710% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a renewal and renovation district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. In addition, pursuant to the TIF plan the dollars can be utilized for improvements of a grade separated crossing for Wooddale Avenue at Highway 100. Obligations: There are four (4) Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bonds, one (1) PAYGO Note and one (1) Interfund Loan that were issued for the projects within this district as follows:  $3,495,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bond, Series 2010A. This Bond was issued on October 21, 2010 and sold to third party investors. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Bond will be paid in full on February 1, 2023.  $935,000 Tax Exempt TIF Revenue Bond, Series 2010B. This Bond was issued on October 21, 2010 and was privately placed. This Bond is subordinated to the 2010A bonds and is paid from 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Bond were repaid in full on February 1, 2018.  $490,000 TIF Note at 6.5% interest. This Note was issued to Wooddale Catered Living on August 1, 2013. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project. This Note was paid in full by February 1, 2017.  $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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 82 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 82 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 February 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 83 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 83 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 84 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 84 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: None at this time Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 85 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 85 Elmwood Village Continued ORIGINALHSS 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 20182.8%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 2018First 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 12/31/2022‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total21,836,643           563,893     122,588               8,633,000               31,156,124         6,769,007            956,050               566,314               1,063,409             235,736                 8,836,865         4,653,075         1,111,894         1,300,861         523,707               63,055                 4,039,051            30,119,024         30,119,024         Under / (Over) Budget22,263,357           (563,893)    (122,588)              (8,633,000)              12,943,876         6,820,993            25,143,950         (566,314)              (1,063,409)           (235,736)                (8,836,865)        (4,653,075)        (1,111,894)        (1,300,861)        3,886,293            (63,055)                (4,039,051)          13,980,976         13,980,976         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% 1,653,982              4,661                     ‐                             1,658,643             21,043                   211,650                 45,927                   ‐                       356,762               272,709               107,228               21,275                   4,986                     1,041,580             (1,365,648)            15 2018168,836                 1,911,784              17,650                   1,725,298              130.191% 1,964,418              ‐                             1,964,418             ‐                          239,731                 54,578                   ‐                       365,869               83,852                 111,517               21,275                   4,954                     881,775                 (283,006)               16 2019168,836                 1,930,902              17,827                   1,744,239              130.191% 1,985,984              ‐                             1,985,984             ‐                          273,662                 55,505                   ‐                       367,500               67,162                 21,275                   4,954                     790,058                 912,921                 17 2020168,836                 1,950,211              18,005                   1,763,370              130.191% 2,007,767              ‐                             2,007,767             ‐                          ‐                          11,502                   ‐                       377,625               19,849                 21,275                   4,954                     4,039,051              4,474,255             (1,553,568)            18 2021168,836                 1,969,713              18,185                   1,782,692              130.191% 2,029,767              ‐                             2,029,767             ‐                          ‐                       381,625               132,205               21,275                   4,954                     ‐                          540,059                 (63,860)                  19 2022168,836                 1,989,410              18,367                   1,802,207              130.191% 2,051,987              ‐                             2,051,987             ‐                          ‐                       389,625               87,493                 21,275                   4,954                     ‐                          503,347                 1,484,780             20 2023168,836                 2,009,304              18,550                   1,821,918              0.000%‐                          ‐                             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       328,000               40,993                 21,275                   4,954                     ‐                          395,222                 1,089,558             21 2024168,836                 2,029,397              18,736                   1,841,825              0.000%‐                          ‐                             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       (0)                          21,275                   4,954                     ‐                          26,229                   1,063,329             22 2025168,836                 2,049,691              18,923                   1,861,932              0.000%‐                          ‐                             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       (0)                          21,275                   4,954                     ‐                          26,229                   1,037,100             23 2026168,836                 2,070,188              19,112                   1,882,240              0.000%‐                          ‐                             ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                       (0)                          ‐                          ‐                          (0)                            1,037,100             21,836,643           563,893     122,588               8,633,000               31,156,124         6,769,007            956,050               566,314               1,063,409             235,736                 8,836,865         4,653,075         1,111,894         1,300,861         523,707               63,055                 4,039,051            30,119,024         Ending BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpenditures DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSBondsPaygoTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetIDElizabeth Diaz:why did we increase the captured by 1% each year? Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 86 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 86 Elmwood Village Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on:RevenuesRevenuesEst expend39,690,000         3,969,000.0        Actual expend 29,595,317           2,959,531.69        TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $4,410,000Actual TIF 21,836,643         2,183,664.30      NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $4,410,000Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $44,100,000NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $2,183,664Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$21,836,643YDistrict Type:Renewal and RenovationDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $2,183,664Certification Request Date:12/20/2004Actual Admin Expenses $523,707 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin $1,659,957If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage2.4%Total Pooling %:20%Special Legislation Pooling %30%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsCumulativeSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)13 2016332,232                 10,824,559           3.1%1,735,088              10,142,739           332,232                 1,696,316      1,696,316              ‐                          ‐                          (1,982,711)            10,824,559 44,100,000 no00(33,275,441)14 2017353,507                 12,483,202           2.8%1,653,982              11,796,721           353,507                 392,221                 2,088,537              ‐                          ‐                          (1,365,648)            12,483,202 44,100,000 no00(31,616,798)15 2018374,782                 14,447,620           2.6%1,964,418              13,761,139           374,782                 568,050                 2,656,587              ‐                          ‐                          (283,006)                14,447,620 44,100,000 no00(29,652,380)16 2019396,057                 16,433,604           2.4%1,985,984              15,747,123           396,057                 574,520                 3,231,107              ‐                          ‐                          912,921                 16,433,60444,100,000 no00(27,666,396)17 2020417,332                 18,441,371           2.3%2,007,767              17,754,890           417,332                 581,055                 3,812,162              4,039,051              4,039,051              (1,553,568)            18,441,371 44,100,000 no00(25,658,629)18 2021438,607                 20,471,137           2.1%2,029,767              19,784,656           438,607                 587,655                 4,399,817              ‐                          4,039,051              (63,860)                  20,471,137 44,100,000 no00(23,628,863)19 2022459,882                 22,523,124           2.0%2,051,987              21,836,643           459,882                 594,321                 4,994,138              ‐                          4,039,051              955,087                 22,523,124 44,100,000 no00(21,576,876)20 2023481,157                 22,523,124           2.1%‐                          21,836,643           481,157                 (21,275)                  4,972,863              ‐                          4,039,051              933,812                 22,523,124 44,100,000 no00(21,576,876)21 2024502,432                 22,523,124           2.2%‐                          21,836,643           502,432                 (21,275)                  4,951,588              ‐                          4,039,051              912,537                 22,523,124 44,100,000 no00(21,576,876)22 2025523,707                 22,523,124           2.3%‐                          21,836,643           523,707                 (21,275)                  4,930,313              ‐                          4,039,051              891,262                 22,523,124 44,100,000 no00(21,576,876)23 2026523,707                 22,523,124           2.3%‐                          21,836,643           523,707                 ‐                          4,930,313              ‐                          4,039,051              891,262                 22,523,124 44,100,000 no00(21,576,876)ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (20% Outside of District)Tax Increment30% for Qualified CostsAvailable for Pooling20% for Qualified CostsEXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 87 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 87 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$ 32/1/20187,748.00 129,799.97 123,309.97 117,843.83 110,095.83 - 667,860.71 277,304.39$ 3.58/1/20185,546.09 144,032.43 136,830.81 121,886.73 116,340.64 - 789,747.43 160,963.75$ 42/1/20193,219.27 144,032.43 136,830.81 136,830.81 133,611.53 - 926,578.24 27,352.21$ 4.58/1/2019547.04 144,032.43 136,830.80 136,830.80 27,352.21 - 1,063,409.04 0.00$ 5TOTAL135,786.89 1,121,147.26 837,043.36 0.00 City of St. Louis Park2013A TIF Note - Webster LLC. (Adagio)Date Interest DueNote BalanceStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 88 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 88 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 30,175.48 27,870.55 144,327.07 87,375.64$ 48/1/20181,747.51 29,212.97 27,752.32 24,402.12 22,654.61 168,729.19 64,721.03$ 4.52/1/20191,294.42 29,212.97 27,752.32 27,752.32 26,457.90 196,481.51 38,263.13$ 58/1/2019765.26 29,212.97 27,752.32 27,752.32 26,987.06 224,233.83 11,276.07$ 5.52/1/2020225.52 29,212.97 27,752.32 11,501.59 11,276.07 235,735.42 0.00$ 6TOTAL35,735.43 288,431.68 235,735.42 204,156.91 City of St. Louis Park2013B TIF Note - Medley Row LLCDate Interest DueNote BalanceStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 89 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 89 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 - 1,492,500.00 2,787,929.36$ 12/31/2018 111,517.17 1,220,388.66 1,220,388.66 2,712,888.66 - 1,679,057.87$ 12/31/2019 67,162.31 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 3,962,888.66 - 496,220.19$ 12/31/2020 19,848.81 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 5,212,888.66 4,039,051.00 3,305,119.99$ 12/31/2021 132,204.80 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 6,462,888.66 2,187,324.79$ 12/31/2022 87,492.99 1,250,000.00 1,250,000.00 7,712,888.66 1,024,817.79$ 12/31/2023 40,992.71 1,250,000.00 1,065,810.50 8,778,699.16 (0.00)$ 12/31/2024 (0.00) 1,250,000.00 8,778,699.16 (0.00)$ 12/31/2025 (0.00) 1,250,000.00 8,778,699.16 (0.00)$ 12/31/2026 (0.00) 1,250,000.00 8,778,699.16 (0.00)$ TOTAL1,300,859.16 12,712,888.66 8,778,699.16 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Elmwood IFLDateInterest DueNote BalanceStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 90 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 90 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. 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….12/31/2028 Before AfterStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 91 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 91 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 92 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 92 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 93 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 93 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 94 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 94 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued ORIGINALHSS Geo. EnlargementInterest Income0.50%1)  Limited Pooling options availableDistrict TypeRedevelopmentAdmin Expense2)  Budget Mod:  Not Recommended at this timeProject Area3)  Admin. Expense is currently:for year 2018At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1313Frozen RateUTA #1 107.266% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectAdmin Expense County AdminOther ExpenseTOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2007 5/15/2006 6/30/2006 7/17/2006 12/31/2032 12/31/2028‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total3,085,754            5,734                   3,091,487           26,862           2,294,919          393,422           87,417          27,943          115,415            11,838            42,480         3,000,296           3,000,296            Under / (Over) Budget1,095,300            (5,734)                  1,089,567           3,108,922      (1,667,754)         (393,422)         (87,417)         (27,943)         302,690            (11,838)          (42,480)        1,180,758           1,180,758            YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Note ANote BNote CNote DAdmin Expense County AdminIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE10 2016‐                          187,796                 39,851                   147,945                 128.561% 158,123                 158,123                 ‐                    110,530              18,948               6,068                  738                   ‐                  136,284                 76,584                   11 2017‐                          188,546                 44,027                   144,519                 124.745% 115,413                 114                         115,527                 ‐                    114,330              19,599               4,870                  731                   ‐                  139,530                 52,581                   12 2018‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 263                         141,105                 ‐                    99,929                17,131               4,870                  738                   ‐                  122,667                 71,018                   13 2019‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 355                         141,197                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 72,807                   14 2020‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 364                         141,206                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 74,605                   15 2021‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 373                         141,215                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 76,412                   16 2022‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 382                         141,224                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 78,228                   17 2023‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 391                         141,233                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 80,052                   18 2024‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 400                         141,242                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 81,887                   19 2025‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 409                         141,251                 ‐                    114,220              19,581               4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,408                 83,730                   20 2026‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 419                         141,261                 ‐                    114,220              19,133               425                  ‐                   4,870                  738                   ‐                  139,386                 85,605                   21 2027‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 428                         141,270                 ‐                    91,717                16,177               24,610            ‐                   4,870                  738                   ‐                  138,113                 88,762                   22 2028‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 130.191% 140,842                 140,842                 ‐                    ‐                      ‐                     62,381            27,943            4,870                  738                   42,480           138,412                 91,191                   23 2029‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                    ‐                      ‐                     ‐                   ‐                   ‐                      ‐                  ‐                          91,191                   24 2030‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                  ‐                    ‐                ‐                        91,191                  25 2031‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                  ‐                    ‐                ‐                        91,191                  26 2032‐                          172,530                 40,754                   131,776                 0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                  ‐                    ‐                ‐                        91,191                  27 2033‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                         0.000%‐                        ‐                        ‐                  ‐                      ‐                    ‐                ‐                        91,191                   DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetInterest Expense on PaygoID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 95 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 95 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend3,762,949            376,294.9            Actual expend2,884,881              288,488.12           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $418,105Actual TIF 3,085,754            308,575.38         NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $418,105Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $4,181,054NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$308,575Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$3,085,754YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $308,575Certification Request Date: 6/30/2006Actual Admin Expenses$115,415 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$193,160If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.7%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)10 201656,975                   1,422,914              4.0%158,123                 1,421,079              56,975                   298,295                 ‐                          ‐                          76,584                   1,422,914 4,181,054 no00(2,758,140)11 201761,845                   1,538,441              4.0%115,413                 1,536,492              61,845                   322,278                 ‐                          ‐                          52,581                   1,538,441 4,181,054 no00(2,642,613)12 201866,715                   1,679,546              4.0%140,842                 1,677,334              66,715                   352,618                 ‐                          ‐                          71,018                   1,679,546 4,181,054 no00(2,501,508)13 201971,585                   1,820,743              3.9%140,842                 1,818,176              71,585                   382,959                 ‐                          ‐                          72,807                   1,820,743 4,181,054 no00(2,360,311)14 202076,455                   1,961,949              3.9%140,842                 1,959,018              76,455                   413,299                 ‐                          ‐                          74,605                   1,961,949 4,181,054 no00(2,219,105)15202181,325                   2,103,164              3.9%140,842                 2,099,860              81,325                   443,640                 ‐                          ‐                          76,412                   2,103,164 4,181,054 no00(2,077,890)16 202286,195                   2,244,388              3.8%140,842                 2,240,702              86,195                   473,980                 ‐                          ‐                          78,228                   2,244,388 4,181,054 no00(1,936,666)17 202391,065                   2,385,621              3.8%140,842                 2,381,544              91,065                   504,321                 ‐                          ‐                          80,052                   2,385,621 4,181,054 no00(1,795,433)18 202495,935                   2,526,863              3.8%140,842                 2,522,386              95,935                   534,661                 ‐                          ‐                          81,887                   2,526,863 4,181,054 no00(1,654,191)19 2025100,805                 2,668,115              3.8%140,842                 2,663,228              100,805                 565,002                 ‐                          ‐                          83,730                   2,668,115 4,181,054 no00(1,512,939)20 2026105,675                 2,809,375              3.8%140,842                 2,804,070              105,675                 595,342                 ‐                          ‐                          85,605                   2,809,375 4,181,054 no00(1,371,679)21 2027110,545                 2,950,645              3.7%140,842                 2,944,912              110,545                 625,683                 ‐                          ‐                          88,762                   2,950,645 4,181,054 no00(1,230,409)22 2028115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%140,842                 3,085,754              115,415                 656,023                 ‐                          ‐                          91,191                   3,091,487 4,181,054 no00(1,089,567)23 2029115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%‐                          3,085,754              115,415                 656,023                 ‐                          ‐                          91,191                   3,091,487 4,181,054 no00(1,089,567)24 2030115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%‐                         3,085,754            115,415               656,023               ‐                        ‐                        91,191                  3,091,487 4,181,054 no00(1,089,567)25 2031115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%‐                         3,085,754            115,415               656,023               ‐                        ‐                        91,191                  3,091,487 4,181,054 no00(1,089,567)26 2032115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%‐                         3,085,754            115,415               656,023               ‐                        ‐                        91,191                  3,091,487 4,181,054 no00(1,089,567)27 2033115,415                 3,091,487              3.7%‐                         3,085,754            115,415               656,023               ‐                        EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 96 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 96 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 Balance8/1/2016 5,989.11 59,694.10 50,958.39 1,075,187.09 1,152,851.92$ 2/1/2017 5,764.26 69,571.96 59,390.70 1,134,577.79 1,099,225.48$ 8/1/2017 5,496.13 64,357.34 54,939.19 1,189,516.98 1,049,782.42$ 2/1/2018 5,248.91 72,047.04 42,818.77 1,232,335.75 1,012,212.56$ 8/1/2018 5,061.06 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,289,445.60 960,163.78$ 2/1/2019 4,800.82 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,346,555.45 907,854.74$ 8/1/2019 4,539.27 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,403,665.30 855,284.17$ 2/1/2020 4,276.42 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,460,775.15 802,450.74$ 8/1/2020 4,012.25 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,517,885.00 749,353.14$ 2/1/2021 3,746.77 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,574,994.85 695,990.06$ 8/1/2021 3,479.95 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,632,104.70 642,360.16$ 2/1/2022 3,211.80 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,689,214.55 588,462.11$ 8/1/2022 2,942.31 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,746,324.40 534,294.57$ 2/1/2023 2,671.47 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,803,434.25 479,856.19$ 8/1/2023 2,399.28 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,860,544.10 425,145.62$ 2/1/2024 2,125.73 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,917,653.95 370,161.50$ 8/1/20241,850.81 66,900.11 57,109.85 1,974,763.80 314,902.46$ 2/1/20251,574.51 66,900.11 57,109.85 2,031,873.65 259,367.12$ 8/1/20251,296.84 66,900.11 57,109.85 2,088,983.50 203,554.11$ 2/1/20261,017.77 66,900.11 57,109.85 2,146,093.35 147,462.03$ 8/1/2026737.31 66,900.11 57,109.85 2,203,203.20 91,089.49$ 2/1/2027455.45 66,900.11 57,109.85 2,260,313.05 34,435.08$ 8/1/2027172.18 66,900.11 34,607.26 2,294,920.31 0.00$ TOTAL194,920.31 2,747,017.15 2,294,920.31 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE A - Hwy 7 Business Center LLCStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 97 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 97 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 Balance8/1/2016 1,026.70 8,735.72 184,317.78 197,631.77$ 2/1/2017 988.16 10,181.26 194,499.04 188,438.66$ 8/1/2017 942.19 9,418.15 203,917.19 179,962.71$ 2/1/2018 899.81 7,340.36 211,257.55 173,522.16$ 8/1/2018 867.61 9,790.26 221,047.81 164,599.51$ 2/1/2019 823.00 9,790.26 230,838.07 155,632.25$ 8/1/2019 778.16 9,790.26 240,628.33 146,620.15$ 2/1/2020 733.10 9,790.26 250,418.59 137,562.99$ 8/1/2020 687.81 9,790.26 260,208.85 128,460.55$ 2/1/2021 642.30 9,790.26 269,999.11 119,312.59$ 8/1/2021 596.56 9,790.26 279,789.37 110,118.89$ 2/1/2022 550.59 9,790.26 289,579.63 100,879.23$ 8/1/2022 504.40 9,790.26 299,369.89 91,593.36$ 2/1/2023 457.97 9,790.26 309,160.15 82,261.07$ 8/1/2023 411.31 9,790.26 318,950.41 72,882.12$ 2/1/2024 364.41 9,790.26 328,740.67 63,456.27$ 8/1/2024 317.28 9,790.26 338,530.93 53,983.29$ 2/1/2025 269.92 9,790.26 348,321.19 44,462.95$ 8/1/2025 222.31 9,790.26 358,111.45 34,895.00$ 2/1/2026174.47 9,790.26 367,901.71 25,279.21$ 8/1/2026126.40 9,342.49 377,244.20 16,063.12$ 2/1/202780.32 9,342.49 386,586.69 6,800.95$ 8/1/202734.00 6,834.95 393,421.64 0.00$ TOTAL33,421.64 - 393,421.64 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE B - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 98 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 98 Highway 7 Corporate Center Continued Maximum amount 72,000$ Interest Rate 1.00%Note Issue Date 7/24/2008Accrual date 10/6/2008Final Payment 2/1/2034Total Tax Tax Increment Increment Available atDate Interest Due Available 95.00% Total Payments Note Balance8/1/2016388.03 - - 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$ 8/1/2026428.73 447.77$ 425.38 425.38 85,749.98$ 2/1/2027428.75 447.77$ 425.38 850.76 85,753.34$ 8/1/2027428.77 25,457.90$ 24,185.01 25,035.77 61,997.11$ 2/1/2028309.99 49,991.01$ 47,491.16 72,526.93 14,815.93$ 8/1/202874.08 49,991.01$ 14,890.01 87,416.94 0.00$ TOTAL15,416.94 126,335.46 87,416.94 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE C - Hwy 7 Business Center LLC Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 99 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 99 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 Balance8/1/2016 123.95 - - 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 - 27,804.21$ 2/1/2028139.02 29,413.93$ 27,943.23 27,943.23 0.00$ TOTAL4,943.23 29,413.93 27,943.23 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Highway 7 Corporate CenterNOTE D - Hwy 7 Business Center LLCStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 100 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 100 West End Description: West End (County #1314) is a redevelopment district that was established on November 19, 2007. Originally the district encompassed six (6) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of a site near I-394 and Highway 100 into approximately 1.5 million square feet of office, 350,000 square feet of retail, 124 hotel units and a 120-unit luxury apartment building by Duke Realty. Subsequent to Duke Realty’s acquisition of the parcels, the property has been replatted into 9 parcels. The EDA executed a Development Agreement with Duke Realty Limited Partnership on December 17, 2007. The EDA provided Duke Realty a PAYGO note in a maximum principle of $21.1 million at 6.75% interest. In addition to the PAYGO note, the City issued $5,490,000 in GO TIF bonds in 2008 to pay for various public improvements in the area, which have a priority claim on annual TIF revenue. On May 17, 2010 and November 21, 2011, the EDA entered into the first amendment to the contract to describe the 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. Duke then sold the eastern portion of the redevelopment site to several developers for various aspects of the remaining development, once sufficient pre-leasing commitments have been secured. The plan is to construct ½ of the structured parking (1,214 stalls) and will include approximately 5,000 sq/ft of shared outdoor amenity space, Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 101 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 101 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 completed construction in early 2018 on a 126-room AC Hotel by Marriott. It features approximately 3,000 sq/ft of restaurant/lounge area, 1,000 sq/ft of meeting space and a spa. DLC Residential completed construction in late 2017 on Central Park West Apartment (building #1) which is a 6-story apartment complex with 199 units (approximately 115 in the City and the remaining 84 in Golden Valley). It plans to begin Building #2 in the spring of 2018. It is expected to be six stories and be comprised of 164 housing units. The Excelsior Group and Ryan Companies plan to begin construction on an 11-story Class A office building with adjacent structured parking (Phase IV) 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 Use30-029-24-32-0031 thru 0033 Office Bldgs - Land East of Utica30-029-24-32-0028 thru 0029 Apartments, Retail30-029-24-32-0019 Millennium Apartments30-029-24-32-0020 Olive Garden30-029-24-32-0021 The Flats at West End30-029-24-32-0022 Rainbow Grocery 30-029-24-33-0031 Shops at West End1600 Utica 30-029-24-33-0019 None This is now a portion of Utica Ave-No PID1621 Park Place 30-029-24-33-0002 Tennis Club 30-029-24-33-0031 Shops at West End30-029-24-32-0025 Homeward Suits Hotel30-029-24-32-0026 Existing Bank - Building5353 Wayzata Blvd 30-029-24-32-0015 Existing Bank5201 Wayzata 30-029-24-32-0018 Commercial5245 Wayzata 30-029-24-32-0007 Chilis & Olive Garden1551 Park Place 30-029-24-32-0011 Novartis Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 102 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 102 West End Continued Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 103.0550% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 subd. 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. Obligations: There is one GO Tax Increment Bond (2 purposes) and one PAYGO Note for this district as follows:  $5,490,000 GO Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2008B - $4,965,000 Senior TIF Bonds and $525,000 5% Admin Bonds. These bonds mature on February 1, 2024.  $21,100,000 PAYGO Note - This Note was issued to Duke Realty on November 1, 2010 at 6.75%. The EDA has pledged 95% of the tax increment revenues from the project for a twenty-one (21) year term (end date of August 1, 2031). The City issued the 2008B TIF Bonds to pay for such public improvements as the reconstruction of Duke Place Boulevard, required for the West End development. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the City could issue TIF Bonds that produced net proceeds (after deducting costs of issuance, discount and capitalized interest) in the amount of $4,500,000 (Senior TIF Bonds) and were required to have 120% debt service coverage. These Bonds have a first priority on the TIF and are paid from 95% of the increment generated by all property in the TIF District. If the increment generated is insufficient to make the Senior TIF Bond payments, then Duke Realty is required to make up this shortfall within 20 days of receipt of notice from the EDA (failure by the EDA to provide this notice does not relieve Duke Realty of its obligation to make the required payment). The City could also issue a bond of any size it determined that is secured in whole or in part by any portion of the 5% of Tax Increments that are withheld by the EDA as administration fee. These Bonds were issued as part of the 2008B TIF Bond issue and had a principle amount of $525,000. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 103 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 103 West End Continued 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. 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 104 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 104 West End 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 West End Redevelopment district fits this timeline and its five-year rule is July 9, 2018. 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. 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 105 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 105 West End Continued ORIGINALInterest 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 2018 2.1%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1314Frozen RateUTA #1 103.055%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First 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 Total38,472,562         128,579            5,490,000      37,554,142         5,402,854            28,241,976           7,793,222         255,662             1,150,090            59,254                  ‐                        36,556,525         42,903,058         Under / (Over) Budget105,442,333       (128,579)           (5,490,000)    106,360,753       89,597,146         6,281,429              (7,793,222)        (255,662)           13,241,400         (59,254)                 ‐                        107,358,370       101,011,837       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% 2,076,586              2,839                   ‐                    2,079,425             35,440                   1,078,322              552,813               19,086                 12,637                   3,351                     ‐                          1,701,649             799,732                 8 2018859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,999                   ‐                    2,175,518             ‐                          1,614,363              556,612               22,964                 65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,262,436             712,814                 9 2019859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,564                   ‐                    2,175,083             ‐                          1,527,218              559,613               20,362                 65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,175,690             712,207                 10 2020859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,561                   ‐                    2,175,080             ‐                          1,529,130              565,563               17,631                 65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,180,821             706,466                 11 2021859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,532                   ‐                    2,175,052             ‐                          1,527,805              569,300               14,762                 65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,180,364             701,154                 12 2022859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,506                   ‐                    2,175,025             ‐                          1,532,268              571,913               11,750                 65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,184,428             691,751                 13 2023859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,459                   ‐                    2,174,978             ‐                          1,532,518              573,400               8,588                   65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,183,002             683,727                 14 2024859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,419                   ‐                    2,174,938             ‐                          1,529,084              583,181               5,267                   65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,186,028             672,637                 15 2025859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,363                   ‐                    2,174,882             ‐                          2,025,299              ‐                       1,780                   65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,095,576             751,943                 16 2026859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              3,760                   ‐                    2,175,279             ‐                          2,025,299              ‐                       65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,093,796             833,426                 17 2027859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              4,167                   ‐                    2,175,686             ‐                          2,025,299              ‐                       65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,093,796             915,316                 18 2028859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              4,577                   ‐                    2,176,096             ‐                          2,025,299              ‐                       65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,093,796             997,616                 19 2029859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519              4,988                   ‐                    2,176,507             ‐                          2,025,299              ‐                       65,146                   3,351                     ‐                          2,093,796             1,080,328             20 2030859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519            5,402                 ‐                  2,176,921           ‐                        2,025,299              ‐                     65,146                 3,351                   ‐                        2,093,796           1,163,453           21 2031859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           130.191% 2,171,519            5,817                 ‐                  2,177,336           ‐                        2,025,299              ‐                     65,146                 3,351                   ‐                        2,093,796           1,246,993           22 2032859,520                 3,637,813         663,534           2,114,759           0.000%‐                        6,235                 ‐                  6,235                   ‐                        ‐                          ‐                     65,146                 ‐                        65,146                 1,188,083           ‐                       ExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local    Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 106 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 106 West End Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 129,523,405   12,952,340.5      Actual expend 27,613,214       2,761,321.38        TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan$14,391,490Actual TIF38,472,562     3,847,256.24      TEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $12,952,341TIF expenditures per plan129,523,405         TEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $3,847,256Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$38,472,562YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $3,847,256Certification Request Date:6/30/2008Actual Admin Expenses$1,150,090 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$2,697,166If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage3.0%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)6 2016160,269                 6,057,100              2.6%1,609,013              5,994,708              160,269                 1,338,408              ‐                          ‐                          421,956                 6,057,100 143,914,895 no00(137,857,795)7 2017172,906                 8,136,525              2.1%2,076,586              8,071,294              172,906                 1,844,918              ‐                          ‐                          799,732                 8,136,525 143,914,895 no00(135,778,370)8 2018238,052                 10,312,043           2.3%2,171,519              10,242,813           238,052                 2,322,652              ‐                          ‐                          712,814                 10,312,043 143,914,895 no00(133,602,852)9 2019303,197                 12,487,126           2.4%2,171,519              12,414,332           303,197                 2,800,386              ‐                          ‐                          712,207                 12,487,126 143,914,895 no00(131,427,769)10 2020368,343                 14,662,206           2.5%2,171,519              14,585,852           368,343                 3,278,120              ‐                          ‐                          706,466                 14,662,206 143,914,895 no00(129,252,689)11 2021433,488                 16,837,258           2.6%2,171,519              16,757,371           433,488                 3,755,854              ‐                          ‐                          701,154                 16,837,258 143,914,895 no00(127,077,637)12 2022498,634                 19,012,283           2.6%2,171,519              18,928,890           498,634                 4,233,589              ‐                          ‐                          691,751                 19,012,283 143,914,895 no00(124,902,612)13 2023563,779                 21,187,261           2.7%2,171,519              21,100,409           563,779                 4,711,323              ‐                          ‐                          683,727                 21,187,261 143,914,895 no00(122,727,634)14 2024628,925                 23,362,198           2.7%2,171,519              23,271,928           628,925                 5,189,057              ‐                          ‐                          672,637                 23,362,198 143,914,895 no00(120,552,697)15 2025694,071                 25,537,081           2.7%2,171,519              25,443,447           694,071                 5,666,791              ‐                          ‐                          751,943                 25,537,081 143,914,895 no00(118,377,814)16 2026759,216                 27,712,360           2.7%2,171,519              27,614,967           759,216                 6,144,525              ‐                          ‐                          833,426                 27,712,360 143,914,895 no00(116,202,535)17 2027824,362                 29,888,046           2.8%2,171,519              29,786,486           824,362                 6,622,260              ‐                          ‐                          915,316                 29,888,046 143,914,895 no00(114,026,849)18 2028889,507                 32,064,142           2.8%2,171,519              31,958,005           889,507                 7,099,994              ‐                          ‐                          997,616                 32,064,142 143,914,895 no00(111,850,753)19 2029954,653                 34,240,649           2.8%2,171,519              34,129,524           954,653                 7,577,728              ‐                          ‐                          1,080,328              34,240,649 143,914,895 no00(109,674,246)20 2030 1,019,798              36,417,570           2.8%2,171,519              36,301,043         1,019,798            8,055,462            ‐                        ‐                        1,163,453             36,417,570 143,914,895 no00(107,497,325)21 2031 1,084,944              38,594,906           2.8%2,171,519              38,472,562         1,084,944            8,533,197            ‐                        ‐                        1,246,993             38,594,906 143,914,895 no00(105,319,989)22 2032 1,150,090              38,601,141           3.0%‐                         38,472,562         1,150,090            8,468,051            ‐                        ‐                        1,188,083             38,601,141 143,914,895 no00(105,313,754)ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATIONPOOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Accummulated TotalsTax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingEXCESS INCREMENT Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 107 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 107 West End Continued Maximum amount 21,100,000$ PAYGO Interest Rate 6.75%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2032Total TIFAdmin Over/(Short) Tax Increment Tax Increment CumulativeAccruedAvailableFor Admin Bond Available atAvailable For Tax IncrementAccrued Interest Interest(Net of OSA Fee)Payment95.00%PAYGO Note PaidNot PaidBalance21,100,000.00$ 8/1/2011- 380,236.44 (19,011.82) (11,296.88) 7,714.94$ 361,224.62 (100,734.38) - 20,909,527.57$ -$ -$ 12/1/2012705,696.56 380,236.41 (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) 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) 3,886.62 409,944.60 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) 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) - 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) 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) 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) 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) 237,078.91 2,404,818.41 20,909,527.57$ 468,617.64 5,331,409.30$ 6.58/1/2017705,696.56 1,060,449.06 (53,022.45) (9,515.63) 43,506.82$ 1,007,426.61 (65,440.63) 841,243.32 3,246,061.73 20,909,527.57$ (135,546.76) 5,195,862.54$ 72/1/2018705,696.56 1,016,136.95 (50,806.85) (49,515.63) 1,291.22$ 965,330.10 (440,440.63) 677,062.95 3,923,124.68 20,909,527.57$ 28,633.60 5,224,496.15$ 7.58/1/2018705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (8,715.63) 44,581.72$ 1,012,649.60 (57,940.63) 937,300.35 4,860,425.03 20,909,527.57$ (231,603.80) 4,992,892.35$ 82/1/2019705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (53,715.63) 1,012,649.60 (447,940.63) 564,708.97 5,425,134.01 20,909,527.57$ 140,987.58 5,133,879.93$ 8.58/1/2019705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (7,815.63) 1,012,649.60 (50,140.63) 962,508.97 6,387,642.98 20,909,527.57$ (256,812.42) 4,877,067.51$ 92/1/2020705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (62,815.63) 1,012,649.60 (455,140.63) 557,508.97 6,945,151.95 20,909,527.57$ 148,187.58 5,025,255.10$ 9.58/1/2020705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (6,578.13) 1,012,649.60 (41,028.13) 971,621.47 7,916,773.42 20,909,527.57$ (265,924.92) 4,759,330.18$ 102/1/2021705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (66,578.13) 1,012,649.60 (466,028.13) 546,621.47 8,463,394.90 20,909,527.57$ 159,075.08 4,918,405.26$ 10.58/1/2021705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (5,228.13) 1,012,649.60 (31,465.63) 981,183.97 9,444,578.87 20,909,527.57$ (275,487.42) 4,642,917.85$ 112/1/2022705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (75,228.13) 1,012,649.60 (471,465.63) 541,183.97 9,985,762.84 20,909,527.57$ 164,512.58 4,807,430.43$ 11.58/1/2022705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (3,653.13) 1,012,649.60 (21,565.63) 991,083.97 10,976,846.81 20,909,527.57$ (285,387.42) 4,522,043.01$ 122/1/2023705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (78,653.13) 1,012,649.60 (481,565.63) 531,083.97 11,507,930.79 20,909,527.57$ 174,612.58 4,696,655.59$ 12.58/1/2023705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (1,965.63) 1,012,649.60 (11,215.63) 1,001,433.97 12,509,364.76 20,909,527.57$ (295,737.42) 4,400,918.18$ 132/1/2024705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) (86,965.63) 1,012,649.60 (496,215.63) 516,433.97 13,025,798.73 20,909,527.57$ 189,262.58 4,590,180.76$ 13.58/1/2024705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 14,038,448.33 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 4,283,227.71$ 142/1/2025705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 15,051,097.94 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 3,976,274.66$ 14.58/1/2025705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 16,063,747.54 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 3,669,321.62$ 152/1/2026705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 17,076,397.14 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 3,362,368.57$ 15.58/1/2026705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 18,089,046.74 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 3,055,415.52$ 162/1/2027705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 19,101,696.35 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 2,748,462.48$ 16.58/1/2027705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 20,114,345.95 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 2,441,509.43$ 172/1/2028705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 21,126,995.55 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 2,134,556.38$ 17.58/1/2028705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 22,139,645.15 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 1,827,603.33$ 182/1/2029705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 23,152,294.76 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 1,520,650.29$ 18.58/1/2029705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 24,164,944.36 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 1,213,697.24$ 192/1/2030705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 25,177,593.96 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 906,744.19$ 19.58/1/2030705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 26,190,243.56 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 599,791.15$ 202/1/2031705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 27,202,893.17 20,909,527.57$ (306,953.05) 292,838.10$ 20.58/1/2031705,696.56 1,065,946.95 (53,297.35) - 1,012,649.60 - 1,012,649.60 28,215,542.77 20,909,527.57$ - 292,838.10$ 21TOTAL 28,227,862.21 36,844,671.72 (1,842,276.47) (743,593.88) 162,148.49 35,002,395.25 (6,570,381.38) 28,241,977.16 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 108 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 108 Ellipse on Excelsior Description: Ellipse on Excelsior (County #1315) is a redevelopment district that was established on February 2, 2009. Originally the district encompassed ten (10) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the purchase and redevelopment at the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue (former Al’s Liquors, Anderson 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……………..12/31/2019 Decertifies…………………… 12/31/2036 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 109 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 109 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Former and Current PID Numbers: Former PIDFormer UseNew PIDNew Use06-028-24-41-0002Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0069Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0053 Excelsior Blvd LLC06-028-24-41-0052Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0056Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0057Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0051Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0050Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0058Al's Liquor06-028-24-41-0003 Budget Motel 06-028-24-41-0076 E2 Apartments06-028-24-41-0075 Ellipse Apartments Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 107.8190% 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 110 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 110 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. Notes A and B were paid off on August 1, 2018. The E2 Note will be repaid in full by August 1, 2019. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 111 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 111 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 were paid off on 8/1/2018, 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 will be paid off on 8/1/2019. 2. Use of Future TIF After Obligation is Repaid. The TIF Note for this District will be paid off on August 1, 2019. We recommend that the City/EDA either (i) decertify the District early (for pay 2020); or (ii) complete the required modification to the TIF District to retain up to 35% of the TIF in the future for use on tax credit eligible rental housing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 2(d). 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 112 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 112 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued ORIGINALInterest 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 20182.3%At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1315Frozen RateUTA #1 107.819%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First Receipt City Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUES ProjectInterfund Loan Admin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2011 2/2/2009 6/30/2009 7/9/2009 12/31/2036 12/31/2019‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total3,364,553            2,162                   3,366,715           176,599               1,592,574      289,207          786,084           48,167           93,025                 8,050                   365,500               3,359,206           3,359,206           Under / (Over) Budget7,693,447            (2,162)                  7,691,285           8,123,401            60,096           (289,207)        (786,084)          (48,167)          1,012,805            (8,050)                  (365,500)              7,699,294           7,699,294           Year Base CurrentFiscal DisparitiesCaptured Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Ellipse Note A Ellipse Note BEllipse E2 Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside District TOTAL EXPENSE52015‐                   0.000% 1,138,452              313                         1,138,765             176,599                 695,014           113,141          59,060                26,490             36,577                   3,025                     ‐                          1,109,906             28,859                   6 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                 178                         575,536                 ‐                          279,016           45,421            138,468             8,096                7,426                     1,280                     ‐                          479,708                 163,084                 8 201824,527                   595,890                 25,128            546,235            130.191% 586,825                 815                         587,640                 ‐                          360,134           88,578            153,267             4,751                21,500                   1,280                     629,509                 121,215                 9 201924,527                   595,890                 25,128            546,235            130.191% 586,825                 606                         587,431                 ‐                          ‐                    ‐                  313,468             ‐                    21,000                   1,280                     365,500                 701,248                 7,397                     10 202024,527                   595,890                 25,128            546,235            0.000%‐                        37                         37                         ‐                        ‐                  ‐                    ‐                  ‐                        ‐                        ‐                        7,434                   11 202124,527                   595,890                 25,128            546,235            0.000%‐                          37                           37                           ‐                          ‐                      ‐                    ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          7,471                     12 202224,527                   595,890                 25,128            546,235            0.000%‐                          37                           37                           ‐                          ‐                      ‐                    ‐                          ‐                          7,509                     ExpendituresTotal Budget DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSPaygoTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local   Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceDecertifies RevenuesCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPIDID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 113 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 113 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:RevenuesAdmin limit is based on: RevenuesEst expend 9,952,670        995,267.0            Actual expend 3,266,181        326,618.10         Actual TIF 3,364,553          336,455.26           TEST 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%) $336,455Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$3,364,553YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$336,455Certification Request Date:6/30/2009Actual Admin Expenses$93,025 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$243,430If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage2.8%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)5 201536,577                   1,138,765              3.2%1,138,452              1,138,452              36,577                   248,036                 ‐                          ‐                          28,859                   1,138,765 11,058,500 no00(9,919,735)6 201643,099                   1,615,996              2.7%477,093                 1,615,545              43,099                   360,787                 ‐                          ‐                          67,256                   1,615,996 11,058,500 no00(9,442,504)7 201750,525                   2,191,532              2.3%575,358                 2,190,903              50,525                   497,201                 ‐                          ‐                          163,084                 2,191,532 11,058,500 no00(8,866,968)8 201872,025                   2,779,172              2.6%586,825                 2,777,728              72,025                   622,407                 ‐                          ‐                          121,215                 2,779,172 11,058,500 no00(8,279,328)9 201993,025                   3,366,603              2.8%586,825                 3,364,553              93,025                   748,113                 365,500                 365,500                 7,397                     3,366,603 11,058,500no00(7,691,897)10 202093,025                   3,366,640              2.8%‐                         3,364,553            93,025                 748,113               ‐                        365,500               7,434                     3,366,640 11,058,500 no00(7,691,860)11 202193,025                   3,366,677              2.8%‐                          3,364,553              93,025                   748,113                 ‐                          365,500                 7,471                     3,366,677 11,058,500 no00(7,691,823)12 202293,025                   3,366,715              2.8%‐                          3,364,553              93,025                   748,113                 ‐                          365,500                 7,509                     3,366,715 11,058,500 no00(7,691,785)ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Accummulated Totals Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingEXCESS INCREMENT Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 114 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 114 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 1,230,000$ Interest Rate6.00%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2025Total Tax Tax Increment Tax Increment Accrued CumulativeIncrement Available at For Note Principle Interest Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00%86.00%PaidPaidPaidYear1,230,000.00$ 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$ 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$ 5.58/1/201620,946.51 172,483.44 147,473.34 126,827.07 105,880.56 - 953,423.35 592,336.35$ 62/1/201717,770.09 172,483.43 146,610.91 126,085.39 108,315.30 - 1,079,508.74 484,021.06$ 6.58/1/201714,520.63 207,984.53 177,826.77 152,931.02 138,410.39 - 1,232,439.76 345,610.66$ 72/1/201810,368.32 207,984.53 252,880.44 217,477.18 207,108.86 - 1,449,916.94 138,501.80$ 7.58/1/20184,155.05 211,774.64 201,185.91 142,656.83 138,501.78 - 1,592,573.78 0.02$ 82/1/20190.00 - (0.00) - 1,592,573.78 0.02$ 8.5TOTAL362,573.81 1,592,573.78 1,229,999.97 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315Note ADate Interest DueNote Balance Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 115 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 115 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 220,000$ Interest Rate 6.00%Note Issue Date 8/1/2011Final Payment 2/1/2025Total Tax Tax Increment Tax Increment Accrued CumulativeIncrement Available at For Note Principle Interest Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00% 14.00% Paid Paid PaidYear220,000.00$ 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$ 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$ 5.58/1/20164,184.98 172,483.44 147,473.34 20,646.27 16,461.28 - 155,208.45 123,038.15$ 62/1/20173,691.14 172,483.43 146,610.91 20,525.53 16,834.38 - 175,733.98 106,203.77$ 6.58/1/20173,186.11 207,984.53 177,826.77 24,895.75 21,709.64 - 200,629.73 84,494.14$ 72/1/20182,534.82 207,984.53 252,880.44 35,403.26 32,868.44 - 236,032.99 51,625.70$ 7.58/1/20181,548.77 211,774.64 201,185.91 53,174.47 51,625.70 - 289,207.46 (0.00)$ 82/1/2019(0.00) - - 0.00 - 289,207.46 (0.00)$ 8.58/1/2019(0.00) - - 0.00 - 289,207.46 (0.00)$ 9TOTAL69,207.46 289,207.46 220,000.00 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315Note BDate Interest DueNote BalanceStudy session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 116 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 116 Ellipse on Excelsior Continued Maximum amount 686,195$ Interest RateNote Issue Date 8/1/2015Final Payment 8/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeIncrement Available at Principle Tax IncrementAvailable 95.00% Paid PaidYear686,195.00$ 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$ 32/1/2018 12,030.72 79,693.28 75,708.62 63,677.89 395,057.30 365,990.73$ 3.58/1/2018 10,247.74 81,640.46 77,558.44 67,310.70 472,615.73 298,680.03$ 42/1/20198,363.04 81,640.46 77,558.44 69,195.40 550,174.17 229,484.63$ 4.58/1/20196,425.57 81,640.46 235,910.00 229,484.43 786,084.17 0.20$ 52/1/20200.01 81,640.46 (0.01) 786,084.17 0.21$ 5.58/1/20200.01 81,640.46 (0.01) 786,084.17 0.21$ 62/1/20210.01 81,640.46 786,084.17 0.21$ 6.5TOTAL99,889.43 786,084.17 686,194.76 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityEllipse on Excelsior - County TIF District 1315E2Date Interest DueNote Balance Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 117 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 117 Hardcoat Description: Hardcoat (County #1316) is an economic development district that was established on December 20, 2010. Originally the district encompassed two (2) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Flame Metals building. The City provided them a $500,000 grant through the Construction Assistance Program (CAP). Hardcoat renovated the building and site and relocated its operations there. The existing industrial building is approximately 33,600 square feet and was constructed in 1963. Both the interior and exterior had numerous building code deficiencies. Following Flame Metals’ departure in 2009, the building’s interior was emptied, thoroughly cleaned, repainted, and code deficiencies were addressed. Nearly all the building’s operating systems were removed. The project included a complete renovation of both the interior and exterior of the building as well as the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet of office/conference space on the north side of the building. Renovations included a new roof, new exterior facelift, new windows and dock doors, new offices and interior spaces, new electrical and plumbing systems, new energy efficient HVAC equipment, new parking lot and landscaping, rain gardens and site amenities, as well as the construction of a 1,500 SF addition for office/conference space. Hardcoat occupies approximately 25,000 square feet of the building. Adopted……………..….… 12/20/2010 Requested Date………..….. 04/20/2011 Certified Date……………...04/27/2011 First Increment…………………7/2014 Decertifies………………....12/31/2022 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 118 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 118 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 $99,800 was outstanding at year end 2017. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 119 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 119 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: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 120 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 120 Hardcoat Continued ORIGINALHSS 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:19.2%Over LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1316Frozen RateUTA #1 121.824% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #2 0.000%UTA #3 0.000%Current Year 2018First 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 Total197,350               73                         197,423               115,000                ‐                          19,888                 4,421                    ‐                         ‐                        171,954               139,309                Under / (Over) Budget128,836               49,927                 178,763               202,861               20,706                   17,731                 (4,421)                   ‐                         ‐                        204,232               236,877                Year Base Current Fiscal Disparities Captured Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE2015‐                          0.000%38,882                   54                           38,936                   115,000                 6,945                   43,820                   539                         ‐                          ‐                          166,304                 (100,617)               3 201622,194                   46,500                   7,213                     17,093                   128.561%20,748                   19                           20,767                   ‐                          4,963                   2,819                     546                         ‐                          ‐                          8,328                     (88,178)                  4 201722,194                   47,250                   8,169                     16,887                   124.745%20,498                   20,498                   ‐                          4,963                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          5,519                     (73,199)                  5 201822,194                   51,564                   10,056                   19,314                   130.191%23,444                   23,444                   ‐                          4,600                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          5,156                     (54,911)                  6 201922,194                   51,564                   10,056                   19,314                   130.191%23,444                   23,444                   ‐                          3,992                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          4,548                     (36,014)                  7 202022,194                   51,564                   10,056                   19,314                   130.191%23,444                   23,444                   ‐                          3,214                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          3,770                     (16,340)                  8 202122,194                   51,564                   10,056                   19,314                   130.191%23,444                   23,444                   ‐                          2,405                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          2,961                     4,144                     9 202222,194                   51,564                   10,056                   19,314                   130.191%23,444                   23,444                   ‐                          1,563                   556                         ‐                          ‐                          2,119                     25,469                    DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 121 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 121 Hardcoat Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 338,567           33,856.7              Actual expend 152,066             15,206.57              TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $37,619Actual TIF 197,350           19,734.99            NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $32,619Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$326,186NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $19,735Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$197,350YDistrict Type:Economic DevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $19,735Certification Request Date: 4/20/2011Actual Admin Expenses $19,888 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area? NoAvailable Admin($153)If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%): 0%Actual Percentage10.1%Total Pooling %: 20%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin Costs Spent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)0 201517,069                   38,936                   43.8%38,882                   38,882                   17,069                   (9,293)                    ‐                          ‐                          (100,617)                38,936 376,186 no00(337,250)3 201619,888                   59,703                   33.3%20,748                   59,630                   19,888                   (7,962)                    ‐                          ‐                          (88,178)                  59,703 376,186 no00(316,483)4 201719,888                   80,201                   24.8%20,498                   80,128                   19,888                   (3,862)                    ‐                          ‐                          (73,199)                  80,201 376,186 no00(295,985)5 201819,888                   103,645                 19.2%23,444                   103,572                 19,888                   826                         ‐                          ‐                          (54,911)                  103,645 376,186 no00(272,541)6 201919,888                   127,090                 15.6%23,444                   127,017                 19,888                   5,515                     ‐                          ‐                          (36,014)                  127,090 376,186 no00(249,096)7 202019,888                   150,534                 13.2%23,444                   150,461                 19,888                   10,204                   ‐                          ‐                          (16,340)                  150,534 376,186 no00(225,652)8 202119,888                   173,979                 11.4%23,444                   173,906                 19,888                   14,893                   ‐                          ‐                          4,144                     173,979 376,186 no00(202,207)9 202219,888                   197,423                 10.1%23,444                   197,350                 19,888                   19,582                   ‐                          ‐                          19,582                   197,423 376,186 no00(178,763)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (20% Outside of District)Tax Increment20% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 122 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 122 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% Paid Principal115,000.00$ 12/31/2011- 115,000.00$ 12/31/2012 - - 115,000.00$ 12/31/2013 - - 115,000.00$ 12/31/2014 4,600.00 19,706.00 - 119,600.00$ 12/31/2015 4,963.00 19,176.00 9,363.00 9,363.00 115,200.00$ 12/31/2016 4,963.00 - - 9,363.00 115,200.00$ 12/31/2017 4,600.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 29,363.00 99,800.00$ 12/31/2018 3,992.00 20,498.36 20,498.36 49,861.36 83,293.64$ 12/31/2019 3,331.75 20,498.36 20,498.36 70,359.72 66,127.03$ 12/31/2020 2,645.08 20,498.36 20,498.36 90,858.07 48,273.75$ 12/31/2021 1,930.95 20,498.36 20,498.36 111,356.43 29,706.34$ 12/31/2022 1,188.25 20,498.36 30,894.60 142,251.03 (0.00)$ TOTAL 32,214.03 161,373.79 142,251.03 City of St. Louis ParkEconomic Development AuthorityPrincipal Ledger - Hardcoat IFLDate Interest DueNote Balance Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 123 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 123 Eliot Park Description: Eliot Park (County #1318/1319) is redevelopment district that was established on July 16, 2013. Originally the district encompassed two (2) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Eliot School building into 138 market rate apartments and two (2) single-family homes. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $1,100,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 5.5% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. On July 1, 2014, the EDA entered into a development Agreement with Cedar Lake Road Apartments LLC. The project began construction in 2014 and opened as the Siena Apartment Homes in July 2015. Subsequently two single family homes were constructed on the property as required under the extended redevelopment contract. Adopted……………..…..…. 05/06/2013 Requested Date…………….. 06/28/2013 Certified Date………..….…. 07/16/2013 First Increment………..…..……07/2016 Expected Decertification……12/31/2020 Decertifies…………………..12/31/2041 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 124 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 124 Eliot Park Continued Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Address Former PID # Former Use New PID #'sNew Use6720 Cedar Lake Road 08-117-21-11-0079Vacant lot 08-117-21-11-0094 Vacant08-117-21-12-0149Siena Apartment Homes08-117-21-12-0150Single Family Lot08-117-21-12-0151Single Family Lot6800 Cedar Lake Road 08-117-21-12-0028Eliot School Fiscal Disparities Election: The City elected to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 1318 – 132.209% 1319 - 133.134% Allowable Uses: MN Statute 469.176 sub 4j specifies the activities on which tax increment from a redevelopment district may be spent. In general, tax increment must be spent on correcting those conditions which caused the area to be designated a redevelopment district. Allowable uses include property acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, installation of public utilities, road, sidewalks, public parking facilities, and allowable administrative expenses. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 125 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 125 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 was 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 was 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 126 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 126 Eliot Park Continued ORIGINALHSS 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 2018 8.0%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 2018First 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 12/31/2020‐                        ‐                        ‐                         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 Total1,745,493            7,374                   1,752,867           ‐                        1,262,369              4,550                 72,737                 4,487                    ‐                         ‐                        1,344,143           1,344,143            Under / (Over) Budget8,079,872            975,163               9,055,035           5,404,624            3,158,372              (4,550)                909,800               (4,487)                  ‐                        ‐                        9,463,759           9,463,759            YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest IncomeRTOTAL REVENUESProject Paygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County Admin Outside DistrictIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE0 20150.000%‐                          539                       17,819                   1,041                      ‐                           ‐                          19,399                   (19,399)                  1 2016‐                          52,201                    ‐                          52,201                   128.561% 65,244                   65,244                   30,424                   734                       10,093                   616                          ‐                           ‐                          41,867                   3,978                     2 2017 26,433                   303,473                  ‐                          277,040                 124.745% 343,232                 58                           343,290                 ‐                          195,168                 734                       4,714                     982                          ‐                           ‐                          201,598                 145,670                 3 2018 26,433                   372,164                  ‐                          345,731                 130.191% 445,672                 728                         446,401                 ‐                          350,721                 815                       13,370                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          365,522                 226,549                 4 201926,433                   372,164                 ‐                          345,731                 130.191%445,672                 1,133                     446,805                 ‐                          378,865                 847                       13,370                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          393,698                 279,655                 5 202026,433                   372,164                 ‐                          345,731                 130.191%445,672                 1,398                     447,071                 ‐                          307,191                 881                       13,370                   616                         ‐                          ‐                          322,058                 404,668                 6 202126,433                   372,164                 ‐                          345,731                 0.000%‐                          2,023                     2,023                     ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          406,691                 7 202226,433                   372,164                 ‐                          345,731                 0.000%‐                          2,033                     2,033                     ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          408,724                 8 202326,433                   372,164                 ‐                          345,731                 0.000%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          408,724                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 127 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 127 Eliot Park Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 9,825,365        982,536.5            Actual expend 1,271,406          127,140.64           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $982,537Actual TIF 1,745,493        174,549.31         NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $982,537Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan $9,825,365NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$174,549Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$1,745,493YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $174,549Certification Request Date: 6/28/2013Actual Admin Expenses$72,737 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$101,812If so, What is the Additional % Allowed in TIF Plan (Up to 10%):0%Actual Percentage4.2%Total Pooling %:25%TIF Year Year Admin. Expenses Total % Allowable Current Year Cummulative Admin CostsSpent Outside CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year end Excess (Not Excess)0 201517,819                   ‐                          #DIV/0!‐                          ‐                          17,819                   (17,819)                  ‐                          ‐                          (19,399)                  0 10,807,902 no00(10,807,902)1 201627,912                   65,244                   42.8%65,244                   65,244                   27,912                   (11,601)                  ‐                          ‐                          (11,601)                  65,244 10,807,902 no00(10,742,658)2 201732,626                   408,534                 8.0%343,232                 408,476                 32,626                   69,493                   ‐                          ‐                          69,493                   408,534 10,807,902 no00(10,399,368)3 201845,996                   854,935                 5.4%445,672                 854,148                 45,996                   167,541                 ‐                          ‐                          167,541                 854,935 10,807,902 no00(9,952,967)4 201959,366                   1,301,740              4.6%445,672                 1,299,821              59,366                   265,589                 ‐                          ‐                          265,589                 1,301,740 10,807,902 no00(9,506,162)5 202072,737                   1,748,810              4.2%445,672                 1,745,493              72,737                   363,637                 ‐                          ‐                          363,637                 1,748,810 10,807,902 no00(9,059,092)6 202172,737                   1,750,834              4.2%‐                          1,745,493              72,737                   363,637                 ‐                          ‐                          363,637                 1,750,834 10,807,902 no00(9,057,068)7 202272,737                   1,752,867              4.1%‐                          1,745,493              72,737                   363,637                 ‐                          ‐                          363,637                 1,752,867 10,807,902 no00(9,055,035)8 202372,737                   1,752,867              4.1%‐                          1,745,493              72,737                   363,637                 ‐                          ‐                          363,637                 1,752,867 10,807,902 no00(9,055,035)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 128 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 128 Eliot Park Continued 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 22,276.38 199,402.68 188,260.54 165,984.16 576,313.31 644,065.98$ 2.52/1/2019 17,711.81 199,402.68 189,432.55 171,720.73 765,745.86 472,345.25$ 38/1/2019 12,989.49 199,402.68 189,432.55 176,443.05 955,178.40 295,902.19$ 3.52/1/2020 8,137.31 199,402.68 189,432.55 181,295.24 1,144,610.95 114,606.96$ 48/1/2020 3,151.69 199,402.68 117,758.65 114,606.96 1,262,369.60 0.00$ 4.5TOTAL162,369.60 1,262,369.60 1,100,000.00 Date Interest DueNote Balance Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 129 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 129 The Shoreham Description: The Shoreham (County #1320) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on August 17, 2015. The district encompasses five (5) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 148 apartments and 20,000 sq/ft of retail/office. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 20% of the apartment units for households earning 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 15 years following building occupancy. For the next 10 years, Redeveloper agreed to reserve at least 10% of the apartment units for households earning 60% of AMI or at least 8% of the apartment units for households earning 50% of AMI. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $1,200,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 3.75% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. 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………12/31/2021 Decertifies………………….. ...12/31/2043 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 130 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 130 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, yet to be issued, in this district as follows:  $1,200,000 at 3.75% interest. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 131 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 131 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 132 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 132 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: 1. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve at least 18 of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. Since the Certificate of Occupancy has been provided, we recommend that staff reach out to the Developer and let them know that they need to provide the City the necessary compliance information. 2. Lookback. The project is near stabilization, so we recommend reaching out to the Developer to remind them of this provision and work with them to complete the required lookback analysis, if required threshold has been met.Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 133 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 133 The Shoreham Continued ORIGINALHSS 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:At or Under LimitFiscal DisparitiesB ElectionCounty Number1320Frozen RateUTA #1 128.260% 0.000% 0.000%UTA #20.000%UTA #30.000%Current Year 2018First ReceiptCity Approved Cert Request Certified Legal Term Expected Term Tax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County AdminOther Expense TOTAL EXPENSEOriginal Budget2017 8/17/2015 8/17/2015 4/18/2016 12/31/2042 12/31/2021‐                        ‐                        ‐                         Cumulative Modified12,293,160         1,229,316            13,522,476         8,150,030              4,757,788            614,658               13,522,476         13,522,476          End of District Projected Actual Total1,542,029            7,344                   1,549,374           ‐                          1,292,213            2,088                 49,896                 527                       ‐                        1,359,262           1,344,723            Under / (Over) Budget10,751,131         1,221,972            11,973,102         8,150,030              3,465,575            564,762               (527)                     ‐                        12,163,214         12,179,840          YearBaseCurrent Fiscal Disparities CapturedTax Increment Interest Income TOTAL REVENUESProjectPaygo Interfund LoanAdmin Expense County AdminIncrement ReturnedTOTAL EXPENSE201641,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 128.561%‐                          ‐                          582                       3,121                     ‐                          3,703                     (18,242)                  1 201741,112                   29,800                   ‐                          ‐                          124.745%‐                          ‐                          ‐                          706                       514                         527                         ‐                          1,747                     (19,989)                  2 201841,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 130.191% 385,507                 385,507                 ‐                          ‐                          800                       11,565                   ‐                          12,365                   353,154                 3 201941,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 130.191% 385,507                 1,766                     387,273                 ‐                          366,492                 11,565                   ‐                          378,058                 362,369                 4 202041,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 130.191% 385,507                 1,812                     387,319                 ‐                          366,232                 11,565                   ‐                          377,797                 371,891                 5 202141,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 130.191% 385,507                 1,859                     387,367                 ‐                          366,232                 11,565                   ‐                          377,797                 381,461                 6 202241,112                   342,765                 ‐                          301,653                 0.000%‐                          1,907                     1,907                     ‐                          193,257                 ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          193,257                 190,111                  DISTRICT INFORMATIONASSUMPTIONSRECOMMENDATIONSTIF YearTAX CAPACITYCurrent Local      Tax RateRevenuesExpendituresEnding BalanceCASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ROLL UPTIF PLAN BUDGET ANALYSISDecertifiesRevenuesExpendituresTotal BudgetID Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 134 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 134 The Shoreham Continued Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 3:Admin limit is based on: RevenuesRevenuesEst expend 12,907,818     1,290,781.8        Actual expend 1,309,367          130,936.65           TEST 1:Admin per TIF Plan $614,658Actual TIF 1,542,029        154,202.92         NTEST 2:Estimated TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $1,229,316Estimated Total TIF Revenues per TIF Plan$12,293,160NTEST 3:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%) $154,203Pursuant to M.S. 469.1763 Subd. 2:Total TIF Revenues for the Project$1,542,029YDistrict Type:RedevelopmentDoes this section apply?YesRESULTS:Cumulative TIF Admin Allowable (10%)$154,203Certification Request Date:8/17/2015Actual Admin Expenses$49,896 Does TIF Plan Specify Assisting Housing Outside Project Area?NoAvailable Admin$104,307If 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 CumulativeIncrement GeneratedCosts Authorized Required?Increment returned Net RetainedP&I Due after year endExcess (Not Excess)0 201617,660                   ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          17,660                   (17,660)                  ‐                          ‐                          (18,242)                  0 13,522,476 no00(13,522,476)1 201718,174                   ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          18,174                   (18,174)                  ‐                          ‐                          (19,989)                  0 13,522,476 no00(13,522,476)2 201829,739                   385,507                 7.7%385,507                 385,507                 29,739                   66,638                   ‐                          ‐                          66,638                   385,507 13,522,476 no00(13,136,969)3 201941,304                   772,780                 5.3%385,507                 771,015                 41,304                   151,449                 ‐                          ‐                          151,449                 772,780 13,522,476 no00(12,749,696)4 202052,870                   1,160,100              4.6%385,507                 1,156,522              52,870                   236,261                 ‐                          ‐                          236,261                 1,160,100 13,522,476 no00(12,362,376)5 202164,435                   1,547,466              4.2%385,507                 1,542,029              64,435                   321,072                 ‐                          ‐                          321,072                 1,547,466 13,522,476 no00(11,975,010)6 202264,435                   1,549,374              4.2%‐                          1,542,029              64,435                   321,072                 ‐                          ‐                          190,111                 1,549,374 13,522,476 no00(11,973,102)EXCESS INCREMENTADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CALCULATION POOLING CALCULATION (25% Outside of District)Tax Increment25% for Qualified CostsAvailable for PoolingADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE TESTAccummulated Totals Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 135 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 135 The Shoreham Continued Maximum amount 1,200,000$ Interest Rate 3.75%Note Issue Date TBDFinal Payment 8/1/2022Total Tax Tax Increment CumulativeAccruedIncrement Available at Principle Tax Incrementrued Inte InterestAvailable 95.00% PaidPaidNot Paid BalanceYear1,200,000.00$ 2/1/2018 - - - - - 1,200,000.00$ -$ -$ 0.58/1/2018193,027.76 - 1,200,000.00$ -$ -$ 12/1/2019 22,500.00 193,027.76 183,376.37 160,876.37 183,376.37 1,039,123.63$ -$ -$ 1.58/1/2019 19,483.57 192,753.65 183,115.97 163,632.40 366,492.34 875,491.23$ -$ -$ 22/1/2020 16,415.46 192,753.65 183,115.97 166,700.51 549,608.30 708,790.72$ -$ -$ 2.58/1/2020 13,289.83 192,753.65 183,115.97 169,826.14 732,724.27 538,964.58$ -$ -$ 32/1/2021 10,105.59 192,753.65 183,115.97 173,010.38 915,840.24 365,954.20$ -$ -$ 3.58/1/2021 6,861.64 192,753.65 183,115.97 176,254.32 1,098,956.20 189,699.88$ -$ -$ 42/1/2022 3,556.87 192,753.65 183,115.97 189,699.88 1,292,212.96 (0.00)$ 4.5TOTAL 92,212.95 1,200,000.00 Date Interest Due Note Balance Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 136 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 136 4900 Excelsior Description: 4900Excelsior (County #1321) is a redevelopment district that was adopted on November 16, 2015. The district encompasses two (2) parcels of land (former Bally’s Fitness Center and EDA vacant parcel) and established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 164 apartments and a 28,000 sq/ft grocery store. On December 7, 2015, the EDA approved a development Agreement with 4900 Excelsior Apartments LLC. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 18 of the residential units for households earning 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The EDA is required to issue the Developer a $2,800,000 PAYGO TIF Note at 4.75% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. To date the TIF Note has not been issued and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard project was later renamed 4800 Excelsior. Adopted…………………….11/16/2015 Requested Date……………..06/16/2016 Certified Date……………....07/01/2016 First Increment……………..07/01/2019 Expected Decertification…...12/31/2024 Decertifies………………….12/31/2044 4900 Excelsior Continued Former and Current PID Numbers: Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 137 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 137 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. 4900 Excelsior Continued Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 138 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 138 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. 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 139 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 139 4900 Excelsior 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: 1. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve at least 18 of the units for household earning 60% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. Since the Certificate of Occupancy has been provided, we recommend that staff reach out to the Developer and let them know that they need to provide the City the necessary compliance information. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 140 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 140 Wayzata Boulevard (Platia Place) Description: Wayzata Boulevard (County #1322) is a redevelopment district adopted on June 16, 2017. The district encompasses two (2) parcels of land (former Santorini Site and EDA vacant parcel) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into a 100-room hotel and 149 apartments. On October 15, 2018, the EDA approved a Development Agreement with SLP Park Ventures LLC. The Developer had to purchase one (1) parcel from the EDA and the other from a private party. The EDA is required to issue the Developer two pay-as-you-go TIF Notes (Hotel Note - $714,000 and Apartment Note - $2,760,000) at 5.5% interest, to reimburse them for qualified redevelopment costs. To date the TIF Notes have not been issued. 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 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 141 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 141 Wayzata Boulevard (Platia Place) Continued Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: 131.8230% Obligations: It is anticipated that there will be two (2) PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $714,000 for the hotel. To date the Note has not been issued.  $2,760,000 for the apartments. To date the Note has not been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back . There are three (3) components to the lookback. (1) At the time of completion of construction of each component, if the amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs actually incurred is less than anticipated, the TIF Note(s) will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis. (2) Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (93% of the rental units are leased or hotel is at 68% occupancy); (ii) sale of property or; (iii) three years after the issuance of the CO, the developer will provide the City the financial data to calculate the actual rate of return to the developer. If, based on such review, the actual cash-on-cash (COC) return to the developer(s) exceeds 10% for the apartments or 9% for the hotel, then the TIF Notes will be reduced by 50% of the amount that results in an annual COC return equal to 10% for the apartments and 9% for the hotel; and (3) At the time of sale of either of the projects during the first five (5) years after issuance of the CO, if the COC exceeds 10% for the apartments or 9% for the hotel, the amount that exceeds these thresholds will be used to reduce the principal amount of the TIF Note(s). 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. The minimum market value for the hotel as on January 2, 2021 shall be $8,500,000. The minimum market value for the apartments as of January 2, 2020 shall be $14,900,000 and $29,800,000 as of January 2, 2021. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the applicable TIF Note is paid in full or the TIF District terminates, whichever is sooner. 3. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 15 of the units for household earning 50% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions of the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as required in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 142 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 142 Wayzata Boulevard (Platia Place) 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 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 143 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 143 Elmwood Apartments Description: Elmwood Apartments (County #1323) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 15, 2017. The district encompasses one (1) parcel of land (former 36th Street Business Center) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the property into a five-story, 70-unit apartment (with 17 affordable units) and 4,400 sq/ft of retail space. On September 18, 2017 the EDA entered into a revised contract for private redevelopment with 36th Street LLC and agreed to provide a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $950,000. The Redeveloper agreed to reserve 24% of the residential units for households earning 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. Adopted……………………..05/15/2017 Requested Date……………..06/27/2017 Certified Date………………06/30/2017 First Increment………………..est. 2020 Decertifies………………….12/31/2045 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 144 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 144 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 145 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 145 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 146 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 146 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 147 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 147 Wooddale Station Description: Wooddale Station (County #1324) is a redevelopment district adopted on May 1, 2017. The district encompasses ten (10) parcels of land (former McGarvey Coffee and others) and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into 200 affordable apartments, 99 market rate apartments, 110-room hotel, 16,261 sq/ft commercial space and a 10,800 sq/ft Greenhouse/E-Generation facility. The development incorporates a mix of renewable energy sources, including an anaerobic digester, wind turbines and solar panels, which will provide 90% of the heat and power for the development. The entire development is designed to achieve LEED certification. The development also includes a mobility plan to lessen the traffic impact in the area, including car-free living, car share, bike share, multiple onsite live/work opportunities, transit passes and a local shuttle. On May 1, 2017 the EDA entered into a Purchase and Redevelopment contract with PLACE E-Generation One LLC and agreed to sell the redevelopment site and provide PLACE with a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $5,660,000. The 1st amendment was dated November 6, 2017. The 2nd amendment was dated December 18, 2017. The 3rd amendment was dated May 7, 2018 and the 4th amendment was dated November 5, 2018. Adopted…………………….05/01/2017 Requested Date……………..06/28/2017 Certified Date………………06/30/2017 First Increment………………..est. 2019 Decertifies………………….12/31/2045 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 148 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 148 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 and can be split into two (2) notes (North and South). Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 149 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 149 Wooddale Station Continued Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Look Back. At the time of completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, if the aggregate total amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs paid or incurred is less than the aggregate total amount of Public Redevelopment Costs, the total assistance provided will be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis and the principal amount of the TIF Note will be reduced accordingly. In addition, if the Projected Total Development costs, excluding Public Redevelopment Costs (in Schedule E of the Development Agreement), are less than the Projected Total Development Costs, the principal amount of the Note will be reduced by 50% of the excess of the Projected Total Development Costs over the actual Total Development Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper. 2. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2019 the minimum market value for the North Side Apartments Components, shall be $18,100,000, the minimum market value for the North Commercial Space Component shall be $390,600, the minimum market value for the E-Generation Facility Component shall be $108,000, 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 150 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 150 Wooddale Station Continued 4. Inclusionary Housing. The Redeveloper agrees to reserve 200 of the units for households earning between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for at least 25 years following building occupancy. The monthly rental price shall include rent and utility costs as determined annually by MHFA for the Housing Tax Credit Program. The size and design of these units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units and is subject to approval of the City. The units shall be distributed throughout the entire project. The units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportions the market rate units. The Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as defined in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. 5. Public Art. The Redeveloper agrees to incorporate public art curated by the Museum of Outdoor Arts (the “Public Art”) throughout the Redevelopment Property. The Public Art will include: (i) community-led art components involving collaboration with local artists, schools, and organizations; (ii) 8 to 10 art installations interwoven into the Urban Forest; (iii) additional pieces to be installed in the Plaza and other publicly accessible pedestrian areas on the Redevelopment Property, as well as affixed to various of the Components; and (iv) multipurpose spaces featuring exhibits and presentations from creatives as well as hosting community gatherings. 6. Special Service District Maintenance. The Redeveloper understands that the project currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 6 and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the EDA or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within the Special Service District. 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. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 151 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 151 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 152 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 152 Bridgewater Bank Description: Bridgewater Bank (County #1325) is a redevelopment district adopted on July 16, 2018. The district encompasses three (3) parcels of land and was established to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties into the corporate headquarters of Bridgewater Bank (39,967 sq/ft), 19,775 sq/ft of additional office, 7,530 sq/ft of retail space and 7,152 sq/ft Bridgewater Bank facility. On August 6, 2018 the EDA entered into a contract for Private Redevelopment with Bridgewater Bank and agreed to provide it with a pay-as-you-go note in the amount of $950,000. Adopted…………………….07/16/2018 Requested Date…………………...TBD Certified Date…………………..…TBD First Increment………………..est. 2020 Decertifies………………….12/31/2045 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 153 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 153 Bridgewater Bank Continued Former and Current PID Numbers: Property Addresss Foremer PID #Former Use New PID #New Use4424 Excelsior Blvd 06‐028‐24‐43‐0064Vacant Same as former PID4400 Excelsior Blvd 06‐028‐24‐43‐0187Vacant Same as former PID3743 Monterey Drive 06‐028‐24‐43‐0065Vacant Same as former PIDOffice/Retail Fiscal Disparities Election: The City will elect to calculate fiscal disparities from inside (B election) the district. Frozen Tax Rate: TBD Obligations: It is anticipated there will be one PAYGO Note in this district as follows:  $950,000 and paid with 95% of the TIF generated from the project. The Note has not yet been issued. Other Development Agreement Compliance: 1. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper shall commence construction by December 31, 2018 and be completed by December 31, 2020. 2. Green Building Policy. Developer shall development the project in accordance with the City’s policy and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain “green” certification for the project. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion, Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA either (a) evidence of certification of LEED, or similar certification or (b) in absence of actual certification, evidence of compliance with the Green Building Policy including a detail of the specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 154 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 154 Bridgewater Bank Continued 3. Look Back. There are three (3) components to the lookback. (1) At the time of completion of construction, if the amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs actually incurred is less than anticipated, the TIF Note will be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis. (2) Within 60 days after the earliest of (i) stabilization (90% leased); (ii) sale of property or; (iii) three years after the issuance of the CO, the developer will provide the City the financial data to calculate the actual rate of return to the developer. If, based on such review, the actual cash-on-cash (COC) return to the developer(s) exceeds 6%, then the TIF Notes will be reduced by 50% of the amount that results in a stabilized annual COC return equal to 6% for the term of the TIF Note; and (3) At the time of sale of the project during the first six (6) years after issuance of the CO, if the COC exceeds 6%, the amount that exceeds this threshold will be used to reduce the principal amount of the TIF Note. 4. Minimum Assessment Agreement. As of January 2, 2020 the minimum market value for the development shall be $5,883,300 and $11,766,600 as of January 2, 2021. The Assessment Agreement shall be in place until the TIF Note is paid in full. 5. Entrepreneurial Center. Until such time as Redeveloper needs all or any part of the fourth floor for their business operations, Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Fourth Floor to be used as an Entrepreneurial Center. For a period of ten (10) months following the date of the Agreement, the Redeveloper shall expend reasonable time, resources and efforts to secure a lease with a tenant who will operate an Entrepreneurial Center on all or a portion of the Fourth Floor upon terms and conditions reasonably acceptable to Redeveloper (an “EC Lease”). If Redeveloper is unsuccessful in securing an EC lease despite expending reasonable time, resources and efforts to do so, then Redeveloper may lease or use the Fourth Floor for any other purpose consistent with the Agreement. Thereafter if all or any portion of the Fourth Floor becomes available for lease (or if the then-current EC Lease expires or terminates) and Redeveloper does not need such available area for its own operations, then Redeveloper shall expend reasonable time, resources and efforts for at least ninety (90) days from the date of notice of the termination or expiration of any option notice period of the then-current EC Lease to attempt to secure an EC Lease prior to proceeding with any other lease or use of all or the applicable portion of the Fourth Floor. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the obligations of the Redeveloper shall continue until the TIF Note is paid in full. 1. The foregoing covenant shall be binding upon Redeveloper and any of its Affiliates. Beginning five (5) years from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, the foregoing covenant shall not bind any subsequent fee owner of the Redevelopment Property. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 155 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 155 Bridgewater Bank Continued 6. Special Service District Maintenance. The Redeveloper understands that the project currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 2 and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the EDA or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within the Special Service District. Four Year 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 District hasn’t been certified so this date is yet to be determined. 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 District hasn’t been certified so this date is yet to be determined. 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 hasn’t been certified so this date is yet to be determined. Recommendations: None at this time. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 156 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 156 City Map of the TIF Districts Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 157 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 157 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 158 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 158 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 159 Management Review & Analysis - Tax Increment Financing DistrictsNovember 2018 St Louis Park, Minnesota Page 159 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 November 13, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Management review and analysis – TIF districtsPage 160 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: November 13, 2018 Discussion item: 3 Executive summary Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update Recommended action: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to review strategies and tools to create and preserve affordable housing identified by the council for further exploration. Policy consideration: Does the council support the strategies and tools outlined in the report? Does the council support further exploration of the proposed future strategies? Summary: At Tuesday’s council meeting staff will review three proposed housing programs that further support the preservation and stabilization of NOAH properties and promote affordable homeownership opportunities in St. Louis Park including: •4d tax classification program •Multi-family rental rehab program •Down payment and closing cost homeownership program Staff will also present additional affordable housing strategies and tools to determine council’s interest in further discussion including: •Fair housing policy •Multi-family land trust model •Affordable housing fee applied to new development •One-for-one replacement policy •Reduce building and permit fees for affordable housing developments •Nondiscrimination of use of rent subsidies Financial or budget considerations: The housing rehab fund and affordable housing trust fund are the proposed primary funding resources. The proposed funding levels for each program are pending adequate fund balances. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion 4d program summary Rental rehab program summary Affordable homeownership program summary Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, CD Deputy Director and Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update Discussion Background: St. Louis Park has over 9,000 multifamily rental units. The majority of St. Louis Park’s multifamily properties are Class B and C properties built prior to 1990. These buildings offer lower, non-subsidized rents affordable to low- and moderate-income households and provide the majority of affordable housing in the city. Given St. Louis Park’s desirable location, demand to live here puts upward pressure on rents. This in turn creates an environment where conversion of the city’s affordable properties to higher rents is becoming more likely and results in low-income families and individuals being at risk of displacement. Since approval of the Inclusionary Housing Policy in June 2015, a number of housing related strategies and tools to both create new affordable housing opportunities and preserve NOAH properties were identified and approved by the council. Affordable housing initiatives implemented to date include the following: • Inclusionary Housing Policy • Tenant Protection Ordinance • Affordable Housing Trust Fund Ordinance • Creation of the Kids in the Park rent assistance program • HUD Award of 8 mainstream vouchers for use by non-elderly disabled households • Land Banking at Beltline and Wooddale station areas • Proposed 2019 funding for STEP’s emergency rental assistance and transportation programs • Legacy Program Listed below are three proposed strategies to further preserve affordability and stabilize NOAH properties and provide affordable homeownership assistance. Strategies and tools for present consideration: 4d tax classification program: The proposed program would enable owners of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) in St. Louis Park to utilize a state provision called 4d, also known as the Low Income Rental Classification (LIRC). Minnesota’s 4d provision reduces property taxes by approximately 40 percent on rent restricted housing units that are affordable to households making 60% or less of area median income (AMI) (approximately $56,580 for a 4- person household or $45,300 for a 2-person household). The LIRC/4d statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions (serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal, state or local government. This condition allows the city to create a “Local 4d” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4d tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which meet the city’s housing policy goals. Participating owners must sign a commitment to keep at least 20% of the units in their building affordable for 5 years, and subsequently renewable in 5-year increments. In return, the city will pay the application fee for the first year of 4d certification and $200 per unit for energy improvements with a maximum of $6,000 per building. Program summary attached. Proposed 2019 budget: $50,000 Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update Multi-family rental rehabilitation loan program: The proposed program would provide moderate rehabilitation assistance to eligible landlords of occupied multi-family residential rental properties with 3 or more units. The targeted properties are naturally occurring affordable housing that have been maintained and are licensed in good-standing. • Maximum loan amount per qualified unit = $5,000 • Maximum loan amount per building/development = $50,000 • Loan is deferred for 10 years with 0% interest • Loan principal is due and payable at the end of the 10 year loan term or at a time when the property is sold, refinanced or the ownership of the property is transferred • Loan must be matched on a 1:1 basis by other funds • Loan must be used in qualified units or in common spaces. Rents of the assisted units must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI for the entirety of the 10 year term period of loan. Program summary attached. Proposed 2019 budget: $120,000 Affordable homeownership assistance program: The proposed program would provide down payment and closing cost assistance loans to assist first-time homebuyers (or have not owned a home in the least three years) in purchasing a home in St. Louis Park. Employees of St. Louis Park businesses would be eligible for an additional loan amount to encourage them to live where they work. • The maximum loan amount is $15,000, not to exceed 5% of the purchase price. • Live where you work loan amount: An additional $5,000 to employees of St. Louis Park businesses. • Interest rate and loan terms: 0% interest 20 year deferred loan. 100% of the loan amount is due if the property is sold, ownership is transferred, or no longer owner- occupied. Loan is forgiven after 20 years. Program summary is attached. Proposed 2019 budget: $140,000 Strategies and Tools for Future Consideration: • Fair housing policy: Cities are required to adopt a local fair housing policy to be eligible for Met Council funding opportunities. Staff will return to council for further discussion in first quarter 2019. • Multi-family land trust model: The city would partner with an affordable housing developer to create/preserve affordable rental opportunities. The city would function as the land trust, retaining ownership of the land. The building would be owned by the developer. The city would lease the land to the developer in return for a commitment to rent restrictions at an affordability level determined by the city. This model could be applied for both acquisition and new construction and would maintain permanent affordability. • Affordable housing fee applied to new development: It was suggested that an “affordable housing fee” be considered which would be applied to new housing and/or commercial developments. Revenue generated from the fee would be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund. The city may not have the statutory authority to impose such a fee. Special legislation may be required. Further research would be needed to determine the city’s authority to impose such a fee. • One-for one replacement policy: All lower income dwelling units (either rental or owner-occupied) that are demolished or converted to a use other than lower-income Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update dwelling units, in connection with public financial assistance from the city/EDA must be replaced with comparable lower-income dwelling units. This could be applied in a specific geographic area to multi-family or single family homes. Further research would be needed to determine the city’s authority to enact such a policy. • Reduce building and permit fees for affordable housing developments: The reduction or waiving of city building and permit fees have often been used to reduce the cost of affordable housing development and rehab. The city’s current fee structure reflects the city’s cost to provide a variety of city services related to housing development. Further research would be required to determine the financial impact to the city as well as the influence waiving of fees would have on affordable housing production. • Nondiscrimination of use of rent subsidies: The city will table further action on this strategy until the appeal decision on the Minneapolis ordinance. Next steps: Based on the council’s direction, staff will return to council for program approvals and/or further discussion. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update St. Louis Park 4D tax classification program 4d tax classification program: Proposed pilot program would enable owners of multi-family rental housing owners in St. Louis Park to utilize a State provision called 4d, also known as the Low Income Rental Classification (LIRC). The LIRC/4d statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions (serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal, state or local government. This allows the city to create a “Local 4d” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4d tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which meet the city’s housing policy goals. Participating owners must sign a commitment to keep at least 20% of units in their building affordable for 5 years. Owners participating in this program must also agree to limit future rent increases to 5% or less annually for existing residents in affordable units. Program benefits Qualified building owners that agree to keep at least 20% of the units affordable at or below 60% area median rents and incomes for five years will receive: • 40% property tax reduction on qualifying units (4d property tax classification) • Payment of first year application fee to the State of Minnesota for certification of the 4d property tax classification ($10/unit) • Optional free energy efficiency and healthy homes audits • Utility rebates and city grants offered to each 4d property in the amount of $200 per affordable unit, capped at $6,000/ per property for the cost of energy efficiency and healthy homes improvements as identified in the free audit • Reduced maintenance costs and renter turnover Eligibility guidelines Owners of market-rate multifamily properties that meet the following criteria: • Buildings with at least 3 rental units, licensed properties in good standing with no code compliance issues. • At least 20% of the rental units in a building must be occupied by and affordable to households whose income is at or below 60% of the Area Median Income. • Existing tenants in units that have program compliant rents do not need to be income qualified. • Income qualification is determined upon initial occupancy for new tenants. Thereafter, increased incomes of tenants in affordable units will not violate the program requirements. • Buildings can include units with owner occupants, but only rental units are eligible for 4d tax status. • Deadline for annual application for tax payable in following year is March 31. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update Multi-family rental rehabilitation loan Proposed program would provide moderate rehabilitation assistance to eligible owners/landlords of St. Louis Park occupied multi-family residential rental properties with 3 or more units desiring to make property improvements. The targeted properties are naturally occurring affordable housing that have been maintained, are licensed and have no license revocations. Eligible properties: • Rental properties with 3 or more units. • Licensed rental properties with no rental housing license revocations or outstanding code violations • Buildings must be at least 30 years old • Properties must meet the St. Louis Park definition of NOAH property (at least 18% of units with rents affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI) • Properties located in the City of St. Louis Park • Property has current property insurance • Property taxes, liens and other assessments are current • No displacement of current residents • The combined loan-to-value ratio of all loans secured by the property must not exceed 110% of the property value • The applicant must be current on mortgage/contract for deed payments and property taxes. • Be willing to restrict rents through the life of the 10 year loan term or until the sale or transfer of the ownership of the property Maximum award: • Maximum loan amount per qualified unit =$5,000 • Maximum loan amount per building/development = $50,000 • Minimum loan amount $5,000 Term: • Loan is deferred for 10 years with 0% interest • Loan principal is due and payable at the end of the 10 year loan term or at a time when the property is sold, refinanced or the ownership of the property is transferred • Loan must be matched on a 1:1 basis by other funds • Loan must be used in qualified units or in common spaces. Rents of the assisted units must be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI for the entirety of the 10 year term period of loan • Annual rent increase for the assisted units may not exceed 5% of the previous rent charged each year, not to exceed 60% AMI affordable rent levels • Property owners must file an annual self-certification that rents charged for the assisted units do not exceed the 60% AMI affordability level. • Properties must agree to give equal consideration to renting to tenants with housing subsidy vouchers. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: Affordable housing strategies and tools update First time homeowners down payment assistance program The proposed program would provide down payment and closing cost assistance loans to first- time homebuyers (or have not owned a home in the least three years) in purchasing a home in St. Louis Park. Employees of St. Louis Park businesses would be eligible for an additional loan amount to encourage them to live where they work. Loan amount: The maximum loan amount is $15,000, not to exceed 5% of the purchase price. Live where you work: An additional $5,000 to employees of St. Louis Park businesses. Interest rate and loan terms: 0% interest 20 year deferred loan. 100% of the loan amount is due if the property is sold, ownership transferred, or no longer owner-occupied. Loan is forgiven after 20 years. Loan security: All loans will be secured by a mortgage in favor of the City of St. Louis Park. Loan costs: Application fee, filing fees, title policy, wire transfer fee and credit report will be paid by the borrower(s). Eligible use of funds: The loan funds can be used for down payment and closing costs. The borrower cannot receive any portion of these funds as cash. Property eligibility: Purchase price cannot exceed MHFA first time home buyer limit ($328,200) and may be used for single-family detached houses, townhomes, or condos. The first mortgage must be a prime/A-rated fixed rate mortgage loan. Properties may not be within the flood plain as identified by FEMA. Borrower eligibility: • First-time homebuyer status: applicant(s) must be a first-time homebuyer (a person that has not owned a home within the last three years) • Debt to income limit: borrower’s gross monthly debts cannot exceed 50% of gross monthly income. • Current on debt payment: borrower(s) must be current on any ongoing debt payment • Standard underwriting criteria apply including review of a credit report. • Minimum contribution: there must be a minimum contribution of 5% of the purchase price paid by or on behalf of the borrower. Acceptable sources of the minimum contribution include: earnest money, buyer funds brought to closing and seller paid closing costs. Buyer funds that result from a gift must be accompanied by a gift letter documenting the source as a relative. In no case shall proceeds from a loan or other debt instruments be allowed to meet this minimum contribution criterion. • Education: all applicants must have 8 hours pre-purchase education or an online equivalent, as evidenced by an acceptable completion certificate. • Income limit: The total gross annual borrower income for families with 1-4 family members cannot exceed 120% AMI based on a family of four. Income limits for families larger than four must not exceed 120% AMI based on family size. Sharia compliant: This down payment loan has 0% interest therefore it is Sharia law compliant. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: November 13, 2018 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Living streets policy update Recommended action: None at this time. Staff will be bringing the policy to the city council at a future council meeting for approval. Policy consideration: Does the council have questions regarding the draft Living Streets Policy? AND Does council support applying the principles of Living Streets to transportation projects in St. Louis Park? Summary: At the March 27, 2017, study session, staff presented a draft Living Streets policy. At the study session, council was generally supportive of the draft policy but asked staff to: •Review the written comments from the environment and sustainability commission. •Come back to the council with a revised draft policy at a future study session. At the time of the study session, the city was starting work on the following planning initiatives: •Vision 3.0 (completed January 2018) •Climate Action Plan (approved February 27, 2018) •Comprehensive Plan 2040 – Mobility chapter (to be approved December 2018) Staff waited to bring this draft policy back to the city council until after these initiatives were complete to ensure that the foundation for the principles in the policy were consistent with the vision, goals and policies established in these planning documents. In addition, staff used the public process for these initiatives to influence and inform this revised policy. Financial or budget considerations: The application of the principles described in the policy are already incorporated into the design and planning process for our transportation projects. In 2017, staff included living streets elements in the 10 year CIP for every transportation project. Living streets elements are funded using pavement management, storm water, and general obligation bonds. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. AND St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Draft living streets policy March 27, 2017 Study session agenda packet March 27, 2017 Study session minutes Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Shannon Pinc, Environment and Sustainability Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Living streets policy update Discussion Background: This policy formalizes practices currently used by the engineering department for public and private transportation projects. For purposes of discussion, a transportation project is any construction project that involves the city’s network of bikeways, sidewalks, trails, and streets. This can be the retrofit of an existing facility or the proposed expansion of the network. The living streets principles apply to all types and phases of transportation projects, including programming, planning, design, and construction. The attached policy guides how the scope of our transportation projects are developed. It is not meant to be a prescriptive “one size fits all” policy covering every contingency. Instead, it establishes principles that will be applied to each project as it goes through the planning and design process. The principles will be used to develop the project scope and our recommended design to the city council. Ultimately the final decision on all items incorporated into a transportation project is made by the city council. Present considerations: The revised draft incorporates comments from the ESC transportation workgroup, goals from the Climate Action Plan, and goals from our 2040 comprehensive plan. The revised policy includes the following as vision statements: •The city will plan, design, build, and operate the city’s mobility system in a way that prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use; •Transportation will occur via complete, integrated, efficient, safe, and comfortable networks for all users regardless of age or abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles; •The city wide network of bikeways, sidewalks and trails will be expanded to provide connections to and from parks, schools, restaurants, transit, and commercial areas, providing users with transportation choices not involving a single use vehicle, supporting the climate action plan goals of a reduction in vehicle miles travelled and reduction in greenhouse gases. •The health of our residents, workers, and visitors will be improved through walking and biking; •The environment, in terms of local air and water quality and in terms of global impacts like climate change, will be positively impacted by the city’s transportation-related decision-making; •The local economy will be supported and strengthened through the provision of safe, efficient transportation options and vibrant public spaces; •City streets and sidewalks – our largest public space – will foster livable, walkable, bicycle-friendly, green neighborhoods by including healthy trees, plants, permeable surfaces, and design features that help enhance the character of a street while providing added benefits of shade, summer cooling, reduced energy consumption, and improved water quality •St. Louis Park will create an integrated transportation network that provides everyone access to employment, education, and other needs for daily living, regardless of their age, access to, or ability to operate a motorized vehicle. St. Louis Park Engineering Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2656 • Fax: 952.924.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518 Purpose and vision The public right- of- way is not only used for travel from place to place, it is also the front yard for homes and businesses. The elements that we include in our new and retrofit transportation projects within the right- of- way contribute to neighborhood livability. The City of St. Louis Park is committed to building a complete and integrated public right-of-way that has a positive impact on the livability of our neighborhoods. To support neighborhood livability, streets must be vital, healthy places. To accomplish this, the city has developed this Living Streets Policy that will inform decision-making throughout all phases of transportation projects. Living streets: •Build community: improve public health; increase safety; create a sense of place; strengthen sense of community; provide positive impact upon people of all ages and abilities. •Provide environmental benefits: improve water quality; improve air quality; reduce greenhouse gases; reduce the urban heat island affect; promote the planting of trees, reduce materials and energy used in street construction and maintenance. •Provide economic benefits: lower initial construction costs; lower on-going maintenance costs; increased property values; support economic revitalization. By implementing this policy: •The city will plan, design, build, and operate the city’s mobility system in a way that prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use; •Transportation will occur via complete, integrated, efficient, safe, and comfortable networks for all users regardless of age or abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles; •The city wide network of bikeways, sidewalks and trails will be expanded to provide connections to and from parks, schools, restaurants, transit, and commercial areas, providing users with transportation choices not involving a single use vehicle, supporting the climate action plan goals of a reduction in vehicle miles travelled and reduction in greenhouse gases. •The health of our residents, workers, and visitors will be improved through walking and biking; •The environment, in terms of local air and water quality and in terms of global impacts like climate change, will be positively impacted by the city’s transportation-related decision-making; •The local economy will be supported and strengthened through the provision of safe, efficient transportation options and vibrant public spaces; •City streets and sidewalks – our largest public space – will foster livable, walkable, bicycle-friendly, green neighborhoods by including healthy trees, plants, permeable Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 3 Living streets policy- Draft Living Streets Policy- Draft November 2018 Page 2 of 6 surfaces, and design features that help enhance the character of a street while providing added benefits of shade, summer cooling, reduced energy consumption, and improved water quality •St. Louis Park will create an integrated transportation network that provides everyone access to employment, education, and other needs for daily living, regardless of their age, access to, or ability to operate a motorized vehicle. Living streets principles The following six principles will guide implementation of this policy. These principles will be incorporated into the planning and design of transportation projects and referenced when making land use decisions. 1.Enhance walking/ biking conditions and connections By prioritizing mobility in an explicit way, leading with pedestrians, followed by bicycles and transit, and supporting them with vehicular movement, that the city will be well positioned for future mobility and can continue its growth. The city has pedestrian and bicycle networks dedicated to the use of non-vehicular transportation. The purpose of these networks are to provide safe connected routes to and from transit, parks, schools, commercial areas, and the region for all users regardless of age and ability. As a part of project development, the existing bikeway, sidewalk and trail networks will be reviewed. Recommendations will be made to close gaps in the networks, provide additional connections, and make safety improvements based on the context of the specific transportation project under consideration. 2.Traffic management Traffic is an important element of livability. The methods for traffic management depend largely on the type of roadway, its function, and the modes of travel expected on the roadway. The concept of traffic management is usually focused on limiting cut- through traffic, decreasing the speed of vehicles, and enhancing safety for pedestrians and bicycles. Traffic management measures for consideration include but are not limited to the following: •Medians •Roundabouts •Right sizing streets •Traffic circles •Barriers/ diverters •Signage •Bump-outs at intersections •Pavement markings •Narrowing lanes •Traffic signal timing optimization •Dynamic speed display signs •Turn lanes •Installing street trees to narrow the feel of the corridor Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 4 Living Streets Policy- Draft November 2018 Page 3 of 6 Each traffic management measure can have both positive and negative effects in terms of cost, time, feasibility, emergency response, safety, parking, maintenance, and aesthetics. As a part of project development data will be collected on existing conditions. Recommendations will be made on which traffic management measure(s) could be utilized based on the context of the specific transportation project. 3. Storm water management As a part of project development, opportunities to install storm water best management practices (BMPs) will be identified in order to improve storm water quality, reduce volume, and reduce the temperature of solar heated runoff. BMPs for consideration include but are not limited to the following: • Reduce impervious by street right sizing • In line treatment manholes • Pervious pavement • Tree planting to create shade • Underground chamber systems • Sidewalks with green boulevards • Ponds • Rain gardens • Infiltration trenches • Native plantings Each BMP can have both positive and negative effects in terms of cost, time, feasibility, maintenance, and aesthetics. As a part of project development data will be collected on existing conditions. Recommendations will be made on which BMP(s) could be utilized based on the context of the specific transportation project. 4. Support the urban forest Trees have numerous environmental, storm water, and community benefits. Trees are part of the urban forest, and the urban forest can be enhanced and expanded by proper management. To accomplish this transportation projects will incorporate the following: • Narrow existing streets to provide wider green boulevards for tree planting. (street right-sizing) • Install additional trees to increase the tree canopy in the city and create shade. • Use context sensitive design to preserve existing trees. • If a tree is removed, tree replacement will follow the city’s ordinances. • Annually plant trees around the city to offset future tree removals and build up a reserve of mature trees. This will grow our tree canopy at a greater rate and proactively compensate for unavoidable tree loss. 5. Create a sense of place Streets, as well as utilities, within the public right-of-way perform a necessary function in supporting the developed environment. Beyond their base functionality, they also provide opportunities for complimenting and contributing to the identity of the Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 5 Living Streets Policy- Draft November 2018 Page 4 of 6 neighborhood. Creating an atmosphere that is positive, pleasant, and safe helps attract and retain residents in the community. Our streets should provide a sense of well-being, belonging, and contribute to quality of life. Projects can create this sense of place by bringing about an increase in activity in the right- of- way. To create a sense of place, the following elements should be considered and included as appropriate in the design and implementation of projects: • Sidewalks installed with green boulevards to create safer walking environments by providing distinct edges to sidewalks and separation from the street. • Installation of boulevard trees to create a more pleasant walking environment. • Narrowing streets to increase the green space in the right- of- way. • Installation of medians/ islands for landscaping. • Elimination of signals, signs, or utility poles. • Street lights to enhance safety. 6. Ensure cost-effective and practical solutions It is important that transportation projects minimize construction, replacement, and maintenance costs. Being cost effective and practical is important for acceptance by the general public and to keep projects within budget. The ways in which cost effectiveness and practicality can be accomplished include but are not limited to the following: • Use construction materials with recycled content. • Select the appropriate street section based on roadway type and function. Narrower streets cost less to build and maintain. (i. e. context sensitive design, street right-sizing). • Locate storm water BMPs where they will be effective. • Select tree species appropriate to the site condition. • Use native plants, when appropriate, to reduce long term public maintenance cost. • Use street lights that are low energy • Ensure street lights provide adequate, not excessive, lighting for the need and minimize spill over beyond the right of way. Application This policy will apply to: • City transportation projects including those involving new construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. • All private projects and initiatives that are within the public right-of-way. • Transportation projects or land use decisions under the jurisdiction of another agency. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 6 Living Streets Policy- Draft November 2018 Page 5 of 6 Consideration will be given to the logical termini by mode, not just by project limits. For example, the logical termini for a bikeway or sidewalk may extend beyond the limits of the transportation project, in order to ensure network connectivity and continuity. Implementation All transportation projects within the city will follow this policy. This includes all types and phases of transportation projects, including programming, planning, design, and construction. The process by which this policy is applied will be scaled appropriately for each individual project or initiative, including private developments that influence the public right-of-way. The city will engage stakeholders in a cooperative manner throughout implementation of this policy. Stakeholder can include, but are not limited to: residents, partner agencies, schools, businesses, neighborhood associations, and developers. Project recommendations will be based upon project-specific objectives and context sensitive design solutions. (i.e street type, opportunities, functionality, environmental or social factors, right-of-way impacts, and feedback from the community) This context sensitive approach to process and design gives consideration to stakeholder and community values. The overall goal of this approach is to preserve and enhance the livability of the street while improving or maintaining safety, mobility, and infrastructure conditions. Design Project design sign shall follow accepted or adopted design standards and use the best or latest design standards, policies, principles and guidelines available. Guidelines and standards may include but not be limited to National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway (and transportation) AASHTO, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), public right of way accessibility guidelines (PROWAG) and Municipal State Aid standards. The city will continue to; explore flexible designs, monitor the latest design standards and evaluate innovative concepts for application on transportation projects. Exceptions This policy will be applied to all transportation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. Exemptions shall be considered on a case by case basis and approved by the City Council. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as sealcoating, mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. • Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. • Project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 7 Living Streets Policy- Draft November 2018 Page 6 of 6 • It is determined that the construction is not practically feasible because of adverse impacts. Benchmarks and performance measures The ability to measure the performance of a policy, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the city will monitor and measure performance relative to this policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: • Sidewalk installed (miles) • Sidewalk users (number) • Bikeways installed (miles) • Bikeway users (number) • Trails installed (miles) • Trail users (number) • Reduction of street impervious (sq ft) • Number of storm water BMPs installed (number) • BMP performance (phosphorus removal, infiltration etc) • Trees installed (number, caliper inches) • Livability index (score) • Meeting pedestrian and bicycle demand The city will monitor and measure its performance relative to this policy using metrics outlined in Green Steps Cities. Additional performance measures may be identified as this policy is implemented. Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Living streets policy update Page 8 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: November 13, 2018 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background Recommended action: No formal action at this time. This report is provided in advance of the Planning Commission public hearing on December 5, 2018 and the action proposed to be taken by the City Council on December 17, 2018. Policy consideration: Does the draft 2040 St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan meet with City Council’s desired direction for the future? Summary: Building on Vision 3.0, council strategic priorities and further community engagement, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan sets out goals, strategies and direction to carry out the city’s vision for its future. It includes specific plan sections on Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Parks, Water Resources, Capital Improvements and other elements required by state law. New sections in the plan include: Racial Equity, Climate and Energy, and Community Health. The 2040 plan is an update to the 2030 plan. Notable policy changes in the 2040 plan include: •Increasing the land use density allowed in low density residential areas to allow accessory housing units and duplexes through changes to the zoning ordinance. •Allowing more residential density in high-density residential and mixed-use areas. •Adding a new land use category for transit-oriented development (TOD) and allowing the highest density development in areas near the future SWLRT stations. •Changing the future land use for 18 areas (see attached map). •Prioritizing walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use for mobility in the community. •Promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. •A new section on Racial Equity discussing the current and future work of the city. •A new section on Climate and Energy, reflecting the Climate Action Plan. •A new section on Community Health that emphasizes the importance of health, safety and well-being in the community. Next steps: Please review the draft plan and land use map and provide any comments to Meg McMonigal at mmcmonigal@stlouispark.org or 952-924-2573 prior to the December 5, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Financial or budget considerations: The 2040 plan sets out long-terms plans and policies for the city, and guides future funding decisions as the plans and policies are implemented. Additional information is provided in the Discussion section. Strategic priority consideration: All of the strategic priorities are addressed in the draft plan. Supporting documents: Discussion Currently available at www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040 or upon request in the city clerk’s office Community engagement summary for 2040 Comprehensive Plan 2040 land use map showing proposed changes Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study session Meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background Discussion Background: The draft plan can currently be found on the city website at www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040. State statutes require local governments in the metro area to complete a comprehensive plan every 10 years. The Metropolitan Council, the planning agency for the 7-county area, reviews the plans for conformance to the regional systems and requirements including sanitary sewer, transportation, parks and trails, water supply, surface water, housing and land use. The city’s Capital Improvements Plan is also required. There are various requirements with each of these required elements. St. Louis Park has included additional sections in the past including Plan by Neighborhood and others. New sections in the 2040 plan include Racial Equity, Climate and Energy, and Community Health. Emphasis in the 2040 plan has been on the Council’s Strategic Priorities developed from the Vision 3.0 community process. Financial or budget considerations: The Comprehensive Plan is a big picture policy document that adopts the city’s priorities and goals. As such, its purpose is to be used as a touchstone for creating programs, policies and making funding decisions for the long term future of the community, in a comprehensive manner. In the area of physical improvements for example, a schedule for improvements in local parks is laid out. This follows the overall policy of providing a high quality park system. The plan discusses why this is important: to address the strategic priorities of having strong neighborhoods, and being integral to having a healthy, sustainable, equitable, and livable community. As such, the 2040 plan is set up to provide city-wide and long-term context for future decisions and funding. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Highlights: Building on Vision 3.0, council strategic priorities and further community engagement, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan sets out goals, strategies and direction to carry out the city’s vision for its future. The 2040 plan is an update to the 2030 plan. Notable policy changes in the 2040 plan include: •Increasing the density allowed in low density residential areas to allow accessory housing units and duplexes through changes to the zoning ordinance. •Allowing more residential density in high-density residential and mixed-use areas. •Adding a new land use category for transit-oriented development and allowing the highest density development in areas near the future SWLRT stations. •Changing the future land use guidance for 18 areas (more than 100 parcels) around the community. •Prioritizing walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and then motor vehicle use for mobility in the community. •Promoting affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income households. •A new section on Racial Equity discussing the current and future work of the city. •A new section on Climate and Energy, reflecting the Climate Action Plan. •A new section on Community Health that emphasizes the importance of health, safety and well-being in the community. Study session Meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background Activities of community engagement undertaken with this planning process are attached, and reports on the processes are on the city’s website. Comments received from council throughout the process have been incorporated into the plan. Land Use Changes Land use in the community is one of the important policy decisions for the city. It impacts the need for streets, sewers, housing, parks, and other city needs and functions in the community. In the 2040 plan, changes are recommended in two main areas: (1) density for residential areas, and (2) designations to approximately 18 areas around the community, as shown on attached map. The proposed changes to residential density are shown in the table below highlighted in yellow. LAND USE CATEGORY 2030 Units per acre 2040 Units per acre RL – Residential Low Density 3-7 3-10 RM – Residential Medium Density 6-30 6-30 RH - Residential High Density 20-50+ 30-75+ C – Commercial 20-50+ 20-50 MX – Mixed Use 20-50+ 20-75 TOD – Transit Oriented Development N/A 50-125 O - Office No limit 50-125 Next Steps: On December 5, 2018 the planning commission will hold a public hearing on the Plan and make a recommendation to the city council. Formal city council action is scheduled for December 17, 2018. The Metropolitan Council is currently completing an informal review, and staff will work to incorporate any comments received prior to the Planning Commission and City Council action in December. After city approval, the plan will be formally submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review for conformance with regional systems. It is expected the formal review will be completed in the first quarter of 2019, and when it is deemed complete and in conformance with metropolitan systems, the city can put the plan “into effect.” Please review the draft plan and land use map and provide any comments to Meg McMonigal at mmcmonigal@stlouispark.org or 952-924-2573 prior to the December 5th Planning Commission meeting. Study session Meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background Community Engagement for 2040 Comprehensive Plan VISION 3.0 Vision 3.0 has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, including a section detailing Vision 3.0 at the beginning of the plan, and inclusion of the vision recommendations and strategic priorities throughout the plan. Five areas of recommendation in Vision 3.0 include: 1. Develop Creative Housing Solutions 2. Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions 3. Continue to Lead in Environmental Stewardship and Ensure Access to Green Space for Future Generations 4. Prepare our Next Generation 5. Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion From the Vision 3.0 five recommendations, the council developed five Strategic Priorities for the city to use in its long-range planning, as well as its daily decisions and activities: 1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood-oriented development. 4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the City comfortably, safely and reliably. 5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Icons representing the five strategic priority areas were developed by the city’s communications department, and will be placed throughout the plan to show where they are being addressed. Study session Meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background The following tables summarize the community input, planning commission meetings and council reports and discussions that have occurred to date in the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan: COMMUNITY INPUT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN When Type Participation Action November 2017 4 Neighborhood Planning Workshops 133 attendees Report at www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040 November- Dec 2017 Companion on-line survey with Neighborhood Workshop questions 1,083 responses www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040 May - June 2018 On-line survey on draft notable changes 2,158 responses www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040 May - present Website comments 18 comments Responded to comments and/or forwarded to relevant city departments September 2018 Letters to property owners on land use designation changes 123 letters sent Spoke with over property owners or representatives of 40 properties Planning Commission Meetings on 2040 Comprehensive Plan Date Topics June 7, 2017 Present 2030 chapters: Land Use, Housing, Park & Rec, Redevelopment, Transportation Dec. 6, 2017 Project schedule, November neighborhood planning workshops Jan. 17, 2018 Neighborhood planning workshops Feb. 21, 2018 Land use discussion March 7, 2018 Housing discussion March 21, 2018 Mobility and land use discussion April 4, 2018 Discussion with Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and Environment and Sustainability Commission: solid waste, parks & open space, natural resources, climate action and energy conservation April 18, 2018 Water resources (water supply, sanitary sewer, surface water management) May 2, 2018 Public health and safety (community health, police and fire services, inspection services) May 16, 2018 Draft goals and strategy May 30, 2018 Review draft 2040 Comp Plan June 6, 2018 Review draft 2040 Comp Plan August 1, 2018 Draft survey report and plan by neighborhood Study session Meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background City Council Reports or Discussion on draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Date Topic Sept. 25, 2017 Comp Plan 2040 update written report discussing schedule, process and consulting needs for the plan. Oct. 9, 2017 Comp Plan consultant contract – written report noting upcoming consultant contract, schedule and public engagement plans. Oct. 16, 2017 Approved consultant contract Nov. 6, 2017 Comp Plan upcoming activities – written report on Neighborhood Planning Workshops Jan. 29, 2018 Comp Plan upcoming activities – written report on the results of the Neighborhood Planning Workshops Feb. 26, 2018 Update – written report on schedule, work with Commissions, outline for document March 26, 2018 Update – written report with a descriptive outline of each section, more information on schedule and outline April 16, 2018 Plan outline, review schedule, housing goals and strategy, land use goals and strategy, density recommendations, land use categories designation, proposed land use map changes. Discussion on the intent to say “all housing is important’ and to revise language to state so. Discussion on land use plan proposed changes. May 14, 2018 Goals and strategies presented; Council suggested reorganizing the plan to reflect the importance of racial equity and the climate action plan by placing them at the front of the document May 29, 2018 Comp Plan outline, descriptions, draft plan – discussion on survey and food access and security June 18, 2018 Council approved release of draft plan for adjacent community review Aug. 13, 2018 Written report with draft survey results and draft plan by neighborhood City of Hopkins City of Edina City of Golden Valley City of MinnetonkaCity of Minneapolis169 169 169 7 394 394 100 100 25 5 3 100 3 7 5 5 17 Change in Land Use RL - Low Density Residential RM - Medium Density Residential RH - High Density Residential MX - Mixed Use TOD - Transit Oriented Development COM - Commercial OFC - Office BP - Business Park IND - Industrial CIV - Civic PRK - Park and Open Space ROW - Right of Way RRR - Railroad 2018 City of St. Louis Park Community Development ´0 0.25 0.5 Miles 0 1,500 3,000 Feet ROW to Offi ROW to RM Civic to P&OS RL to P&OS Commercial to Offi Commercial to Mixed Use Offi to RH Commercial to RM Commercial to Mixed Use Commercial, Offic Mixed Use, & RH to TOD Commercial, Mixed Use, & BP to TOD Mixed Use to TOD Industrial to BP Commercial to Mixed Use Industrial to BP Industrial to RM Commercial to Offi Commercial, Mixed Use, & BP to TODCedar Lake RoadLouis iana Avenue Excelsior B o ul e v ar d Minnetonka Boulevard Highway 1002040 Proposed Future Land Use City of St. Louis Park Study session meeting of November 13, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: 2040 Comprehensive plan highlights and background Page 7