HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WORKSESSION 08052013Em
Work Session Agenda
Monday, August 5, 2013
5:30 p.m.
(Food at 5:15 p.m.)
1. Apache Medical Bldg. Redevelopment. Kelsey Johnson, City Planner Presenting.
2. Solar Ordinance. Kelsey Johnson, City Planner Presenting.
3. Accessory Structures and Driveways Ordinances. Kelsey Johnson, City Planner
Presenting.
4. Future Street Projects. Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director, Mark Casey, City Manager
Presenting and Todd Robinson, Intern Presenting.
5. Organized Waste Collection. Randy Stille, Council member Presenting.
6. City Tour Recap. Mark Casey, City Manager Presenting.
7. Night to Unite. Mark Casey, City Manager Presenting.
Next worksession — _ J 2013 — 5:30 p.m.
A
WSB
& 4ssocmres, t.,�. Infrastructure . Engineering a Planning ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763 -541 -1700
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Kelsey Johnson, City Planner
Date: July 30, 2013
WSB Project No. 02170 -000
Request: Request for an Informal Concept Review and Discussion of the
Redevelopment of the Apache Medical Building Site Located at 4001
Stinson Boulevard
BACKGROUND
The property owner of the property located at 4001 Stinson Boulevard has requested a "concept review"
with the City Council and City staff relating to the proposed mixed -use redevelopment project of the
Apache Medical Building site into approximately 90 loft style apartments, including the potential for up
to 7,500 square feet of medical office space on a 2.77 acre parcel of land.
The proposal includes the construction of 45 new loft style apartments in one new building over an
enclosed parking structure. In addition, the existing medical building could retain the option to
consolidate certain medical tenants to first floor space, and convert the upper three floors to an additional
45 loft style units, for a total of 90 apartments total.
The property owner has provided for your review the following documents:
• Project Narrative dated July 26, 2013;
• Preliminary Apartment Market Assessment dated July 24, 2013 prepared by Marquette Advisors
Real Estate Consultants;
• Traffic Review dated July 2, 2013 prepared by Spack Consulting; and
• Proposed Concept Site Plan (Sheet Al. 1) and Exterior Elevations (Sheet A2.1) dated July 26,
2013 prepared by Paul Meyer Architects, Inc.
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
In order to accommodate the proposed development of the 90 units with a commercial component, the
formal recommendation by the Planning Commission and decision by the City Council would need to
occur. At this time the following applications are anticipated (Note: additional applications may be
needed depending on the final design and the formal submittal to the City):
1. Land Use Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Re -Guide the Property from
Commercial to Mixed -Use — Housing and Retail Business. Since the proposal does not meet
the current land use guidance in the City's Comprehensive Plan 2008 an amendment to Chapter
2: Land Use Analysis and Plan and all other applicable Chapters of the Plan is needed. It should
July 30, 2013
Page 2
be noted that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment involving a change in land use does require a
mandatory 60 -day review and comment period by adjacent and overlapping communities in
addition to a 60 -day review and approval period by the Metropolitan Council, beyond the City's
process.
2. Land Use Application for Re- Zoning of the Parcel from C —Commercial to PUD —Planned
Unit Development. The property will need to be re -zoned to match the comprehensive plan land
use district and to accommodate housing and commercial/office uses on the site.
3. Land Use Application for PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Final Plan/Site Plan Review. The
City Code requires the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Final Plan/Site Plan
application for all PUDs as detailed in Sections 152.200 through 152.209. These plans will detail
site layout and design, stormwater management, traffic access and circulation, parking, fire
protection and access, landscaping, etc.
4. Variance from the PUD Minimum Site Size Requirement. Sections 152.201 and 152.209 of
the Zoning Code states that "a PUD site must be at least 3 acres in size, and applications for PUD
approval will not be considered for site of less than 3 acres ". The property under review is
currently approximately 2.77 acres in size and does not meet the minimum lot size requirement
and therefore would need a variance from this provision to proceed as desired by the property
owner.
DISCUSSION
The "sketch plan" review or "concept review" provides an opportunity for the applicant/property owner to
submit an informal plan to the city showing the applicant's basic intent and general nature of the
development. The sketch plan is optional and is intended to provide feedback from the City before the
applicant incurs substantial costs in the preparation of formal plans and applications.
Some questions the City Council may want to consider during this review:
• Is the City's desire to have high- density residential in this location or do you prefer it to remain
commercial? Furthermore, is there a desire for more high - density residential other than what is
currently planned for in this area (or in the City as a whole) and/or is there a desire to reduce the
amount of land allocated for commercial (currently 7% of the City)?
• How would the proposed change in land use affect the surrounding property owners?
Furthermore, does the proposed use accomplish coordinated development that is harmonious with
existing development in the surrounding area?
• Would the proposed amendment adversely affect the other parts of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e.
transportation, utilities, etc.)?
• Would the proposed amendment benefit the overall community?
THE LAKE APARTMENTS
at Silver Lake Village
Project Narrative
July 26, 2013
The Village Lofts, Located at 4001 Stinson Blvd., is a proposal to redevelop the 3 acre
Apache Medical Building site into approximately 90 loft style apartments, including the
potential for up to7, 500 square feet of medical office space.
Background:
The former Apacle Medical Building, now referred to as Silver Lake Plaza, is a 60,000
square foot medical office building, built in 1967, located on a parcel of approximately 3
Acres. The parcelhw access through an easement out to 391h Street and also from Stinson
Blvd.
It was once a poopular location for numerous medical and dental practitioners.
Unfortunately, claote the best effort of the owner, and various leasing teams hired by the
owner, that is no langer the case. While some of those medical practitioners still occupy
some of the space in the building, many are rapidly approaching retirement age. In
addition, despite well over a million dollars in reinvestment in 2006 and 2007, the
building continues to languish. That does not bode well for the continuation of this
building in its current use.
The Silver Lake Pizza is contiguous to the Silver Lake Village project, a successful
redevelopment initiated by the city several years ago. This redevelopment effort has
turned the area irYo one of the premier examples of "walk able communities" design in
the metro region_ The Silver Lake Village project has converted the area surrounding
Silver Lake Plaza6om a disconnected mix of commercial and residential uses, to an area
that is predominantly residential. Meanwhile the commercial retail concentration has
moved away fron this site to a more appropriate concentration within the Village
redevelopment arca
This shift has iso"cd the Apache Medical Building from other significant commercial
uses, on Silver lake Road and 391" Street. At the same time this shift creates an
opportunity to com+ert the present office building to a use more compatible and consistent
with the residential uses in the area. The Lake Apartments proposal is an effort to expand
on this enormous redevelopment effort, and significant investment already made by
community stakelnlders and the city in the redevelopment of the area.
The developer, Quest Development, Inc., has over twenty five years of successful
experience, delivering a variety of projects. These projects include the construction and
management of new medical office buildings and retail shopping centers, as well as the
development and wrvstruction of infrastructure for over 800 units of single family and
multifamily development projects.
Project Description:
The proposal calls for the construction of approximately 45 new loft style apartments in
one new building over an enclosed parking structure. In addition, the existing medical
building could retain the option to consolidate certain medical tenants to first floor space,
and convert the upper three floors to approximately 45 loft style units. The developer
proposes to work with the core tenants who might like to continue doing business in this
location, to find, or develop for them, suitable space within the city. This could be a
main floor location within the new or existing building; or a new location entirely.
The plan calls for the new building to be built first, beginning in 2014; followed by
redevelopment of the existing building, beginning in 2015. The housing units will be
designed to attract working couples and singles, as well as empty nester residents,
looking for good value for their rental dollar. It is anticipated that, when fully built out,
the project will generate $10 — $15 Million of additional tax base for the city.
The exteriors and landscaping of the project will be designed to compliment the design
standards of the Silver Lake Village redevelopment by using similar building heights and
materials. However, the project will seek to differentiate itself in various ways, including
unit size, style, price and amenities, in order to complement rather than compete with the
redevelopment project.
The following list outlines some of the significant changes that will take place on the site
through the redevelopment process:
• Complete redesign of the exterior architectural elements of the existing building
in order to match the new buildings which will be constructed;
Removal of a substantial portion of asphalt hard surface, to be replaced with
enlarged and enhanced landscaped green spaces;
• Significantly reduced traffic flow to and from the project, creating a positive
impact for the contiguous residential neighborhoods.
City Approvals:
The development may be requesting rezoning of the property to Planned Unit
Development, or possibly a simple lot split with rezoning, depending on how the project
evolves.
Conclusion:
The Preliminary Demand Study indicates that there is ample room for this project within
the primary market, without detracting from the existing projects. The summary traffic
analysis indicates that the traffic flows will be reduced for the neighborhood. The Lake
Apartments at Silver Lake Plaza will add considerable new value to the tax base of the
City of St. Anthony. The project will add to and visually complement the Silver Lake
Village redevelopment. It will also provide additional housing options for the community.
This project will add to the vibrancy and synergy of the retail, commercial and residential
redevelopment at Silver Lake Village.
Marquette Advisors
Real Estate Consultants
TO: Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc.
FROM: Brent Wittenberg
Marquette Advisors
R.E.: Preliminary Apartment Market Assessment — St. Anthony, MN
DATE: July 24, 2013
BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING
We understand that Quest Development, Inc. ( "Quest') is considering the development of
apartments in St. Anthony, Minnesota. The proposed development is located within the "Silver
Lake Village" development in St. Anthony, MN. Silver Lake Village is a master - planned multi-
use development, anchored by Cub Foods and Wal -Mart, as well as The Landings at Silver Lake
Village rental apartments and townhomes. The proposed development by Quest involves the
construction of a 45 -unit market rate apartment building, with a projected 2014 occupancy date.
This would be followed by the conversion of an adjacent three -story office building to 45
apartments with a projected 2015 occupancy date.
In evaluating this development opportunity, Quest retained Marquette Advisors ( "Marquette ") to
provide a preliminary assessment of St. Anthony apartment market conditions, to opine on
whether sufficient market support exists for such a development, and to estimate supportable
market rental rates for new apartments at this location.
This report does not constitute a feasibility study. Rather, the deliverable is intended to be
concise, summarizing our analysis, conclusions and preliminary recommendations on behalf of
Quest Development. Recommendations were developed by Marquette based on our review of
the proposed development site, relevant market information, and our knowledge of the Twin
Cities apartment market.
Marquette Advisors Offices:
Minneapolis Office: 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1370, Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612 - 335 -8888; Fax: 612 - 334 -3022
Seattle Office: 2723 California Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98116
Phone: 425- 392 -7482; Fax: 425- 392 -7330
Washington DC Office: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202 - 331 -0226; Fax 612 - 334 -3022
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc. July 24 2013
LOCATION
The development site being considered by Quest is situated in Silver Lake Village, a master
planned multi -use development in St. Anthony, Minnesota. The subject site is located at 4001
Stinson Boulevard. The following maps depict the location of the subject site within the
immediate neighborhood environment and surrounding region.
Neighborhood Environment
Marquette Advisors Page 2
FAA
n
;11
m
rA
O
0
C.
r:!
-xf
IS
N WO
14
aa
zz
Mt
mo
ff
- f"J
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc. July 24 2013
The subject site provides good access to goods and services within a few blocks. This includes
nearby grocery (Cub Foods) and discount retailer, Walmart. Both are just a short walk from the
proposed development site. As well, the location is centrally located within the metro area.
Both I -694 and I -35W are accessible within a short distance. Downtown Minneapolis is located
within a 12- minute drive, while Downtown St. Paul is approximately 25 minutes to the
southeast. The site also affords convenient access to major north metro employers such s
Medtronic, Land O' Lakes and Target's North Campus within a five to ten - minute drive.
Drive Time Analysis
Red line = 10 min
Blue line = 20 min
DEVELPOMENT CONCEPT
The proposed development includes a total of 90 units. This includes 45 new construction
apartments in a single building at 4001 Stinson, which would open in the Spring of 2015. As
well, Quest plans to convert a current office building to 45 rental apartments on an adjoining
parcel during 2016. Concept plans for the proposed 45 units in Phase I are provided on the
following page, including the preliminary unit mix and unit sizes. The primary objective of this
analysis is to determine whether there is sufficient demand for 90 market rate apartments in 2015
and 2016, as proposed, and to estimate the approximate market rental rates by unit type for new
apartments at this location.
Marquette Advisors Page 4
IT
{ e1IN.'ul
.
m
L
#
�� '
Maple
Gruw
a
Br
k
f �.>
c ♦
o eMa
"i Baa
'
SaeA - y6
�1 Ik'M LHk.
rv. /xf
�
LagMi!
ss
f
}aa
n o maPalf
oakeaM
m wam
n
er
sfArm
ini e
# ••. ♦
51. Pak x x
aBL Pa VI Hama
webtl
�'
aMy� �y.g
• �,�
eYntlai
%fa+ gee
>x
w
t.ymdin v.¢
wena
e
fzr s a�oe,gm
f
C
�m
_..
e[ym m.n
yJn pe
o
� m
®3W3 vc«nca vq
! s Aa
of
DEVELPOMENT CONCEPT
The proposed development includes a total of 90 units. This includes 45 new construction
apartments in a single building at 4001 Stinson, which would open in the Spring of 2015. As
well, Quest plans to convert a current office building to 45 rental apartments on an adjoining
parcel during 2016. Concept plans for the proposed 45 units in Phase I are provided on the
following page, including the preliminary unit mix and unit sizes. The primary objective of this
analysis is to determine whether there is sufficient demand for 90 market rate apartments in 2015
and 2016, as proposed, and to estimate the approximate market rental rates by unit type for new
apartments at this location.
Marquette Advisors Page 4
Nq
N- I I II
Concept Site Plan I Quest u, arrr ` „n. il, . ��.� Silver Lake Apartments
SGiE: rx "spa • ce i r t c r s. a c 1001 Stinson BWtl. N.E.
J�^^n. MS] 14, I Saint Mln.sr Minnesota
PMOfKTY I39]8.a]
i
i
r
r'
i
�
I
o
PA
o,
I
Nq
N- I I II
Concept Site Plan I Quest u, arrr ` „n. il, . ��.� Silver Lake Apartments
SGiE: rx "spa • ce i r t c r s. a c 1001 Stinson BWtl. N.E.
J�^^n. MS] 14, I Saint Mln.sr Minnesota
PMOfKTY I39]8.a]
AR sm
a N �
yo T
q4 O
990
�k
z
�
IN
�' o
Concept Floor Plansl
44O
�Y
„i 1�8t1� '
Silver Lake Apartments
$CRtE_ vu-� to
O
)
• R ° a �) '
" N ' '
c0
n m > _` C
'M
a
' C
z
PROJECT p U9ldD2
m z
a Gy
m m
F
a o a m C
..
z z
0
=1
q
° m
x
a
�NmN
M
„
440
T
S
�e
A
z
N
�a
—AI
--
x
22
T
O
go
A
9
z
z
Concept Floor Plansl
QUe$t Dcveiv%ptnetn, Inc.
„i 1�8t1� '
Silver Lake Apartments
$CRtE_ vu-� to
®
)
• R ° a �) '
" N ' '
I 4001 Stinson Blvd. N.E.
4
Saint Anthony, Minnesota
PROJECT p U9ldD2
F
T7!r
..
Concept Floor Plansl
QUe$t Dcveiv%ptnetn, Inc.
„i 1�8t1� '
Silver Lake Apartments
$CRtE_ vu-� to
®
)
• R ° a �) '
" N ' '
I 4001 Stinson Blvd. N.E.
4
Saint Anthony, Minnesota
PROJECT p U9ldD2
Concept Floor Plansl
QUe$t Dcveiv%ptnetn, Inc.
„i 1�8t1� '
Silver Lake Apartments
$CRtE_ vu-� to
®
)
• R ° a �) '
" N ' '
I 4001 Stinson Blvd. N.E.
Saint Anthony, Minnesota
PROJECT p U9ldD2
a
S
Concept Floor Plansl
QUe$t Dcveiv%ptnetn, Inc.
„i 1�8t1� '
Silver Lake Apartments
$CRtE_ vu-� to
®
)
• R ° a �) '
" N ' '
I 4001 Stinson Blvd. N.E.
Saint Anthony, Minnesota
PROJECT p U9ldD2
�I
' '1
.�
��
5�
0
_�
a
0
0
..
a
'.
0
A
U
O.
d
P�
3
0
..
0
ro
er
y
A
H
n
N
O
i-+
a
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Develonment, Inc. July 24 2013
DEMOGRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTS
The subject property is located in the St. Anthony, MN. St. Anthony is a "first- ring" northern
suburb of Minneapolis. We expect that the primary market area for apartments at the proposed
site would include St. Anthony along with far northeast Minneapolis (zip code 55418), New
Brighton, Fridley, Columbia Heights and Hilltop, as depicted on the map below. A summary of
the market area's demographic composition and that of the seven -county Twin Cities Metro Area
is provided on the following pages.
St. Anthony, MN Market Area
• The St. Anthony market area had an estimated 2012 population of 97,603 residents
according to ESRI Business Information Solutions, a nationally recognized econometric
forecasting firm.
• The median household income for the St. Anthony market area was estimated to be
$51,088 in 2012, compared to $61,175 for the Twin Cities metro area as a whole,
• According to ESRI estimates, approximately 19% of households in the St. Anthony
market area earn more than $100,000 /year, compared to 27% region wide.
• The median home value was estimated at $167,711 in the St. Anthony market area,
compared to $194,499 for the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole.
• The St. Anthony market area resident base is slightly older compared to the balance of
the region, with a median age of 38.1, compared to 36.2 for the region.
Marquette Advisors Page 8
P,
•VkGUe n
0ktlebP X:v
�� e•�
4M
RbeuYlele
'
P
SWfI.AY YYxY
Polreur v ow± '
f
•�•••. +..
a X.tlb
eo4d
�xw NXpe tun
�Yl. &IWon ..
R
I—
b1.41.- a unn
l
Vb
(GrvLaY
.Sn Ar N et.MY
.An Are .Y
..P Ave kf
_
...
IINY..p
Rn00m.XYe
yT1. 1¢ IYI.
lets [Wa
M
V
Y
ss
e
NeO.eim lake -
a ,1
u a.
Yc
-
Ix,
RMlcl.
m
—
Pvx
cnCO ixw
9L Paul -
• The St. Anthony market area had an estimated 2012 population of 97,603 residents
according to ESRI Business Information Solutions, a nationally recognized econometric
forecasting firm.
• The median household income for the St. Anthony market area was estimated to be
$51,088 in 2012, compared to $61,175 for the Twin Cities metro area as a whole,
• According to ESRI estimates, approximately 19% of households in the St. Anthony
market area earn more than $100,000 /year, compared to 27% region wide.
• The median home value was estimated at $167,711 in the St. Anthony market area,
compared to $194,499 for the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole.
• The St. Anthony market area resident base is slightly older compared to the balance of
the region, with a median age of 38.1, compared to 36.2 for the region.
Marquette Advisors Page 8
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc. July 24 2013
Demographic Profile
St. Anthony, MN Market Area & Twin Cities Metro Area
Population Summary
2000 Total Population
2010 Total Population
2012 Total Population
2012 Group Quarters
2017 Total Population
2012 -2017 Annual Rate
Household Summary
2000 Households
2000 Average Household Size
2010 Households
2010 Average Household Size
2012 Households
2012 Average Household Size
2017 Households
2017 Average Household Size
2012 -2017 Annual Rate
Housing Unit Summary
2000 Housing Units
Owner Occupied Housing Units
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
2010 Housing Units
Owner Occupied Housing Units
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
2012 Housing Units
Owner Occupied Housing Units
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Vacant Housing Units
Median Household Income
2012
2017
Median Home Value
2012
Per Capita Income
2012
2017
Median Age
2010
2012
St. Anthony Mkt Area
96,621
96,183
97,603
1,127
100,815
0.65%
40,990
2.32
40,486
2.35
41,050
2.35
42,687
2.34
0.79%
41,735
68.6%
29.6%
1.8%
43,178
63.4%
30.4%
6.2%
43,615
60.9%
33.2%
5.9%
$51,088
$58,768
$167,711
$28,228
$32,287
37.8
38.1
Twin Cities Metro
2.
1,117,7
2.
1,131,1
2.
1,178,0
1,
63.
$36,
36.
Marquette Advisors Page 9
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development. Inc. July 24 2013
Demographic Profile
St. Anthony, MN Market Area 8 Twin Cities Metro Area
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esn forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Esri convened Census 2000 data into 2010
geography.
Marquette Advisors Page 10
St. Anthony Mkt Area
Twin Cities Metro 11
2012 Households by Income
Household Income Base
41,050
1,131,
<$15,000
10.0%
9
$15,000 - $24,999
10.0%
8
$25,000 - $34,999
12.6%
9 ,
$35,000 - $49,999
16.1%
13.
$50,000 - $74,999
19,8%
19
$75,000 - $99,999
12.7%
13.
$100,000 - $149,999
12.6%
16.
$150,000 - $199,999
3.6%
5
$200,000+
2.6%
5,
Average Household Income
$66,677
$81,;
2012 Owner Occupied Housing
Total
26,549
766,'
<$50,000
1.6%
1.,
$50,000 - $99,999
6.7%
6,;
$100,000 - $149,999
27.9%
17.'.
$150,000 - $199,999
39.0%
27,1
$200,000 - $249,999
15.5%
17.1
$250,000 - $299,999
5.0%
10.:
$300,000 - $399,999
2.6%
10!
$400,000 - $499,999
0.9%
4.:
$500,000 - $749,999
0.7%
3,4
$750,000 - $999,999
0.1%
O.E
$1,000,000 +
0,0%
0._ °
Average Home Value
$176,063
$233,1
2012 Population by Age
Total
97,602
2,889,8
0 - 4
6.8%
6.8
5 - 9
5.8%
6.8
10-14
5.3%
6.6
15-24
11.9%
13.3
25-34
16.3%
15.0
35-44
12.5%
13.4'
45-54
13.8%
15.0'
55-64
12.0%
11.9'
65-74
7.8%
6.1'
75-84
5.4%
3.41
85+
2.4%
1.7(
18+
78.7%
7S ar
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esn forecasts for 2012 and 2017. Esri convened Census 2000 data into 2010
geography.
Marquette Advisors Page 10
Mr. Jim Waters
Ouest Development. Inc. July 24 2013
REGIONAL APARTMENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Rental Demand
The graphic on the following page displays data on apartment unit absorption in comparison with
job growth (losses) over the past several years for the Twin Cities Metro Area. Job growth was
robust during the 1990's, particularly in the latter part of the decade, while apartment supply
increases were nominal. The Twin Cities metro area added an average of 38,000 jobs per year
between 1995 and 2000. During that time, the regional apartment market operated at or above
98% occupancy.
However, the recession of 2001/2002 led to the loss of about 40,000 jobs in the region over a
two -year period. Meanwhile, the apartment market saw the metro -wide physical vacancy rate
spike to 7.6% by 2003, with apartment owners offering deep rent concessions in an attempt
retain current renters and lure others from competing properties.
Between 2003 and 2007, the economy improved and the region added approximately 75,000
jobs. Meanwhile, we saw the absorption of nearly 6,700 market rate rental units over these four
years and a decline in the metro -wide physical vacancy rate to 4.2 %.
A serious economic recession took a major toll on all real estate sectors in 2008 and 2009,
including the Twin Cities apartment market. From the beginning of 2008 through year -end
2009, the Twin Cities economy shed more than 106,000 jobs. The regional apartment market
saw a spike in physical vacancy to 7.9% by the end of 2009. Negative absorption totaled nearly
3,500 units during 2009. (This includes only those units in apartment complexes of 10 or more
units, thereby understating negative absorption since we exclude smaller buildings, duplexes, and
single family rentals.)
The recent recession caused many Twin Cities renters to downsize, or move in with a roommate,
parents or other family members. As the economy continues to improve, many of these renters
are moving back into apartments. 2010 brought dramatic improvement in the Twin Cities
apartment market, spurred by economic improvement and modest job growth, along with a "de-
bundling" of Twin Cities households. A total of 21,600 jobs were added for the year, while
apartment absorption totaled 6,433 units. At the same time, the apartment industry benefited
from foreclosures, with rental properties attracting many former homeowners. Apartment
vacancy in the Twin Cities Metro Area declined from 7.3% to 3.8% during 2010.
Economic conditions continue to improve. A total of 7,100 jobs were added during 2013 Q1,
following growth of 43,000 jobs in 2011 and 33,000 in 2012. Total employment remains just
7,000 jobs short of pre- recession levels in the region. Meanwhile, metro area apartment vacancy
has declined to 2.8% in 2013 Ql. Absorption totaled of 724 units during 2013 Q1, following
2,406 units in 2011 and 1,217 units in 2012.
Marquette Advisors Page I I
H
C
N
F"
t
O
V
O
� b
w
c
O
Q M
L �
O
� N
Q G1
++ 01
a+
C
GJ
L
Q.
Q
H
CJ
C
H
4WOJ9 qor
0
0 0 0 °0 °0 0°
°0 °o °0 0 0 0 0 0
°o °o °0 ° o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 °0 °0 0° °0 °0
�d v N N v co 0
uoildiosgy
s
ti
3
0
00
St
v
4
m
v
Q
v
O
r
O
J
W
d
O
W
O
A
c
z
0
C
i
O
i
O
Q
s
v
i
s
i
b
Q'
m
v
s
Q
U
i
s
0
o e
O Q
e o e e e
N O
O O O O O
cc
t7
r r
N �
' N
r
4+
m
N
m
�
d >
c
u
�
N
w
�
O
o °
c
N
}
OO
N
_ CO
O
O
N
N
C
n
O
O
O
N
s�
�
c
o
O
U
c
N
r
u
`
o
0
�
N
N
y f0
O
001
N
r
A
QO
N
N
N
O
C
O
H
' O
O
N
_ G
O
O
N
O!
CD
r
m
Ol
O1
r
Of
CD
r
I
to
O)
01
r
0 o
N O
p O O
O M
pp to
49 J� N
N
H N
i
b
Q'
m
v
s
Q
U
i
s
0
C
H
C
3
v
Z
N m
� ti ti
o p
N
W
N
Q
N
y
N
C
N
M
�
�y
O
N
a
�0
0
0
N
�
O
IV
N
�
M
of
p
N
O
N
N
M
Vf
n
C_
a
N
.1
M .L
O
O
N
�
N
o
p
N
h
H
� ■
Q
O
O
N
a
�
M
O
c-j
O
N
Q
�
ro
N
p
m
ti
0
,y o
N
� O
e-j O
N
M
Q a
� a
,y a
ti
0
r
a co
a
a
ti
Mr. Jim Waters
Ouest Development, Inc. July 24 2013
Urban submarkets have led the resurgence in the Twin Cities apartment market, although the
recovery has been widespread, with improved demand for all rental product types, at all rent
levels, and in all submarkets, particularly those which provide good access to major job centers,
goods /services, dining/entertainment, parks /trails and urban amenities, key transportation
corridors and access to transit.
Apartment SumAy Trends
Apartment construction activity was very moderate throughout the 2008/2009 economic
recession, much more so than during the last recession of 2001/2002. The graph on the
preceding page shows regional annual apartment unit construction in comparison with unit
absorption from 1998 through 2012. Over the past 10 years in the Twin Cities region, just 7,853
new market rate apartment units have been constructed, compared to total net positive absorption
of 13,429 units during this timeframe. Construction activity has picked -up dramatically,
however, with more than 5,300 market rate apartments under construction throughout the metro
area and another 7,000 units in the planning stages. The majority of current construction activity
is focused in the City of Minneapolis, in its Downtown and "Uptown" neighborhoods, where
approximately 4,000 units are expected to come online in 2013 and 2014.
Rental Rates
The Twin Cities average market rent was $966 in 2013 QIat the end of 2012, up 3.3% over the
past 12 months. Based on a supplemental survey of about 30,000 units metro -wide, we estimate
that "effective" rental rates (net of concessions) averaged about $957 in 2013 Q1, up 4.1%
compared to a year ago. Rent growth in the Twin Cities has been held down somewhat due to a
variety of factors, including reduced unit turnover activity due to sustained low vacancy (sub -
3.0% for eight consecutive quarters), and a strong local ownership presence which has
historically been very conservative with rent increases. We note that new apartment product has
been very well received to date and is commanding a considerable rent premium over existing
product.
The map on the following page shows average market rental rates and vacancy by submarket as
of 2013 Q1. In general, urban and close -in suburban markets continue to outperform second and
third -ring suburban markets. However, conditions have improved in all submarkets, as rental
housing demand remains strong due to demographic and economic trends, as well as social and
lifestyle trends which are favorable to renting. Vacancy in the North Central Suburban market,
within which the subject property is located, was 2.3 %, with an average market rent of $871 for
2013 Q1.
Marquette Advisors Page 15
42
1�3 ;2
O
y.
FS
42
1�3 ;2
O
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development. Inc. July 24 2013
North Central Suburban Market Conditions
The North Central Suburban submarket has a total inventory of about 13,000 market rate
apartment units. The graph below summarizes rental rate growth and vacancy for the submarket
over the past five years. Through 2013 Ql, the submarket demonstrated 2.5% market rent
growth over a trailing 12 -month period, from $850 to $871. We note that the overall average
rent is held down significantly due to the age of the housing stock in this submarket, which has
seen relatively few new apartment developments in recent years. Our forthcoming analysis
includes a more detailed review of newer Class A apartments, both within and near the
submarket. North Central Suburban vacancy declined dramatically coming out of the recession
in 2009/2010 and has remained very low since that time with a modest number of new units
added during this time, with those units coming online being quickly absorbed. Our 2013 Q1
survey showed a submarket vacancy rate of just 2.3 %.
REVIEW OF CLASS "A" APARTMENT COMPARABLES
We have reviewed a number of Class "A" apartments within and proximate to the subject St.
Anthony market area. We note that the market area has very few modem, Class A apartment
communities. Therefore, we have reviewed a group of north metro apartment properties both
within and near the submarket, including the following properties:
• The Landings at Silver Lake Village (209 mkt rate apts + 54 LIHTC units) — St. Anthony
• The View at Long Lake (122 apartments) — New Brighton
• Autumn Woods (201 units) — St. Anthony
• The Lexington Apartments (150 units) -- Roseville
• Parkshore Apartments (37 units) — Arden Hills
The table on the following page summarizes current vacancy and market rents by unit type for
this sub -group of Class "A" apartment comparables. A map is also provided which shows the
location of the comparables in relationship to the proposed development site in St. Anthony.
Marquette Advisors Page 17
h Central Suburban Submarket
9 st Qtr 2008 -2013
F
5838 $824 5829 5850 5871
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
8200
_
2.0%
$0
0.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
� Avg Rem Avg. Vacancy
REVIEW OF CLASS "A" APARTMENT COMPARABLES
We have reviewed a number of Class "A" apartments within and proximate to the subject St.
Anthony market area. We note that the market area has very few modem, Class A apartment
communities. Therefore, we have reviewed a group of north metro apartment properties both
within and near the submarket, including the following properties:
• The Landings at Silver Lake Village (209 mkt rate apts + 54 LIHTC units) — St. Anthony
• The View at Long Lake (122 apartments) — New Brighton
• Autumn Woods (201 units) — St. Anthony
• The Lexington Apartments (150 units) -- Roseville
• Parkshore Apartments (37 units) — Arden Hills
The table on the following page summarizes current vacancy and market rents by unit type for
this sub -group of Class "A" apartment comparables. A map is also provided which shows the
location of the comparables in relationship to the proposed development site in St. Anthony.
Marquette Advisors Page 17
m o Q m N m N N r rn r m m r o 0 0 m
M r O) N N N
r m m rn
m m
a
O
f9 F9 f9 fA m f9 •9 •9 f9 fA m f9 OW fA f9 f9 f9 :9 m f9
Q M P
19 f9 9 t9 FA
N N
f9
M N m t0 r P m O W m O m N N P m m
(p r N O
r
LL
0
W m Q m
m
a
I9 f9 f9 19 f9 f9 E9 M t9 f9 �9 (9 f9 f9 f9 f9 (9 (9 19 i9
H3 f9 m FA t9
t9
d
Q r p {y O N [O O (p r W N W P N m r W M N
(O W O m N
W
f9 f9 W W IA W f9 m f9 e9 f9 m d3 19 fA E9 f9 fA f9 i9
t9 (9 fA fA fA
O r O) M r W N (p h m O N m O N m O O O m
m m m r h O O (p (p Of m P Q r r W m m
N OI P Q
m
W
N N .0
N W r W m
<O
N
d
O N Q N M m N t0 r N O N m O m m 0 i0 O (p
N O O m N r O m 1p 01 pf W r m N m f0
O N P m M
m
N
r W N � r m O� O N m m w m N N N m P
N O m N
r O> N N r
N
r
m W M O W m (O M h O N P O N O O m O [O
W W t0 O O
m
N W O
O m P
m W 0 0
m
Q (D m O P i[l Vl O m P r O m M h m M
O O N M O
P
j
N P N P m
a
W
fpp9 f9 W f9 NN f9 (9 f9 Cq W W
y
m FA W f9
fA
(9 f9 (9 9 (9 f9 m f9
0
m N N OMi m
m
(9 m
O
C
r m OI W m M O O O O O OI r
V
d
P T Ol N m
T
O M h M T P_ h_ h M W Oi m T N_ m N_ Q P
m d3
O P O m m
m T m �_ M
O
W
C
Z
R'
N N e-
(9
FA f9
f9
d
�
m f9 f9 W W f9 FA f9 (9 f9 eA f9 f9 IA f9
fA fA f9
C
q q
6 q
Q v
T
O O O (O O M e O O P ap O O O O O e N M m e O O o
O M O m m
m
y y
N
P O Q (V
N
q
q
U
>
c
re�m�mo m oNrN W `ram mpPO �nPmr
N
v�QMrn Pin
d
C
F
N Q
h
r �
d
~
+
C C
C
C'1 i m O) m 6] 6] 6] 0] (L (Il 6l 6] m m m
Vl N m f9
ID t 6] +
O q
N M f9 N W N m N N M
(9 N N
F-
N
q
n
a
a
d
d
m
q
o
d
j
Y
LO
C
q
G
O
J T
d
C
N
u
q
i m 3 z
E
=
L
J
J d
YS
tll w N W
c d W Q
O
N
N
E E
d q N 0 b Z
d J C C
v
yy
n
y
O
Z
C Q T q L O d OI a
T
T OI y
C m L N 3 'F N
L
d
d
N
Q'
N
O d X O _N
M Z Y d '> m m
N
J C m E C J
J
{�
`
d
O
O a m d ` r d
d m N
q
tpp
Q f
Vl
L
p � r
O
r��—.Tl
}S D.
iie45t
� � N anv waJSaM.
'_�-4P^i9 ayq,� � a � rv?y� uu,casia,p0
Coale St N �
o _
z ff a env uey,H .. Mic rSt N ., y Mdo"a St N
Id
ej _ S O t tl St tJ
r1 a LebnOM1 ve N �0�
u
< -_
I _ F
IJ
e
I yy
Solo u 19ased
L r � e „ SILq (V A¢e -u
g Fairview Ave N
J
New BngMOn Rd _ �. P[Iar AVeN Na
p° QeveWW- Ave 'N ou
�• ¢�snNO
s rc
q e
d 9
Huhanst Rd
id
Y b�% zu°
_.^ NpH aVal Aanl�S & - — di E?iii 3:5
J ?
A, d-'.N� d uosw�„c
} J m m IN tI ulwefuaa Iwefuaa
W s
ZL
i G a a M ' <a> > n a�
tt ti a z � 2E a s
9 OR
J e N a IN vS uatna uaA 'm 3N aMd IeAI �
Monme Si NE
1 E - 7th SY NE Washingtm ST NE
5th St E
6th st NE a' Q''..
AY Ave NE 4th It NE u
1s PAf
IN IS UL Z Intl St NE 3N; 4S d11 Z
- - a IN nGo
Grand St
c� cE°Ma515t NE ry
Pit Aeniy 3 Tn
day, z 2nd St N
�- _ - LS we
�.
- H _. 5th St N o _
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc. July 24 2013
Apartment Occupancy & Absorption: Collectively, the surveyed apartment comparables
showed a combined physical vacancy rate of just 2.2% in July 2013. The area includes few
modern Class A apartment properties. The nearby Landings at Silver Lake Village is the area's
largest Class A `luxury" apartment development, featuring high - quality apartment residences
and a full array of amenities. This property, constructed by Dominium in 2005, had a vacancy
rate of just 1.4% in July 2013. The most recent Class A apartment development in the area is
The View at Long Lake, which was completed by Stuart Companies last year. The property
features 128 units on a site just northwest of I -694 at 35W. The View reported a 4.7% vacancy
rate in July 2013. The property opened in July 2012, with 25 units pre - leased, and reached a
stabilized 95% occupancy level within seven months, reflecting an absorption rate of 14 units per
month.
Rental Rates: The View at Long Lake and The Landings at Silver Lake Village are the market
leaders among the apartment comparables, with studio and 1BR rents generally in the range of
$1.55 to $1.67 psf, while 2BR plans range widely from approximately $1.25 to more than $1.75
psf, with a 2BR average of about $1.35 psf between The View and The Landings. The other
three properties are considerably older (1980's vintage), and although they maintain high
occupancy levels, rents are considerably lower than what we would expect for new construction
product. Rates at Parkshore, The Lexington and Autumn Woods are mostly in the $1.10 to $1.30
psf range.
DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE
According to our market information and interviews with city planning staff and other housing
professionals familiar with this market, we identified a just one pending apartment development
in the area at this time. Local developer Tycon Companies is proposing a development called
Lakeview Terrace on a site near County E & Victoria in Shoreview. The development will
include 104 units, including 47 1 B units (avg. 880 sf), 16 1BR +Den units (avg. 1,065 sf), 29
2BR units (avg. 1,310 sf) and 12 2BR +Den floorplans (avg. 1,375 sf). Planned amenities
include a club room and fitness center. Rental rates for these units, which are generally at the
high end of size range for each unit type, are expected to average approximately $1.40 psf. The
development is expected to be completed in late 2014.
We believe that the Tycon project will pose peripheral competition to the development planned
by Quest Development. First, we believe that there is sufficient market demand to support both
projects. Secondly, we note that the locations are distinct such that there would only be partial
market overlap (i.e. the Tycon development in Shoreview would draw more so from the east as
compared to the Quest projected in St. Antony). As well, the proposed unit mix, sizes and
development concepts are also differentiated.
Marquette Advisors Page 20
Mr. Jim Waters
Quest Development, Inc. July 24, 2013
CONCLUSIONS
Silver Lake Village is a master planned, mixed -use development conveniently located in St.
Anthony, anchored by Cub Foods and Walmart. The nearby Landings apartments, located
within Silver Lake Village, maintain a 98 %+ occupancy rate, while the area's most recent Class
A apartment development, The View at Long Lake, has also garnered a strong positive market
response. We believe that the subject site is well positioned for a market rate apartment
development, with approximately 90 units, phased between 2014 and 2015 to accommodate new
construction and office conversion components to the project. The development should feature
high - quality units with a high -end finish. Amenities need not be extensive, but must be
tastefully designed and of a high quality level. Fitness and club room/lounge facilities should be
included. A pool is not viable considering site constraints and the size of the project, although an
outdoor courtyard with firepit and grilling areas should be considered.
Considering our preliminary review of market conditions, relevant demographic information and
growth projections, we believe that there is sufficient market demand to support 90 units at this
location as proposed. We would expect that the initial phase, with 45 units opening in 2014,
could expect a pre -lease rate of about 8 to 10 units and an absorption rate of around 13 to 16
units per month following the initial occupancy date. We would expect that the absorption rate
for Phase 11 would be at least similar, if not superior to Phase 1.
Based on this preliminary review, we estimate approximate market rental rates as follows for the
project, by unit type (presented in July 2013 dollars):
1 BR — avg. 725 sf - $1,200 ($1.66 psf)
1BR +Den — avg. 900 sf - $1,350 ($1.50 psf)
2BR — avg. 1,170 sf -- $1,475 ($1.26 psf)
Although demand for larger 2BR and 3BR rental units has improved throughout the metro area,
the economics are still a challenge for new construction apartments, particularly for larger unit
types in many suburban locations. Competition from a "shadow" market (privately owned SF
homes, townhomes, etc) and home - ownership has an impact on overall demand and achievable
rents for apartment operators. As such, on a psf basis, 2BR and 3BR rents lag those of smaller
1BR and Studio floorplans, for which demand remains high from single renters and young
couples, who are less likely to consider homeownership, even in suburban locations offering
good proximity to goods /services, restaurants, amenities and employment. That said, we would
suggest that the development team could consider a revision to the unit mix to be inclusive of a
larger number of 1BR plans, and fewer 2BR plans, which could be concentrated primarily in the
upper levels of the building.
Marquette Advisors Page 21
Spack
TRAFFIC S" UDY COMPANY
Technical Memorandum
To: Jim Waters, Quest Development
From: Mike Spack, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Date: July 2, 2013
Re: Traffic Review of 4001 Stinson Boulevard Redevelopment in St. Anthony
Quest Development is proposing to replace the 58,000 square foot medical office building at 4001
Stinson Boulevard NE in St. Anthony, MN with a 90 unit apartment building. This memorandum
documents the potential traffic impact of the renovation.
Traffic Generation
A trip generation analysis was performed for the proposed site based on the methods and average
rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9`" Edition.
The ITE Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of traffic data from existing developments throughout
the United States. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1. These results assume fully
occupied land uses.
Table 1— Vehicles
720 58,000 sq ft Medical Office Building _1,048 -1,048 -110 29 58 149
(Removed)
90 Dwelling Unit Apartment 300 300 9 37 36 20
Building (Added)
Net Change -748 -748 1 -101 8 -22 -129
The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development report
recommends a detailed traffic impact study be done for developments generating 100 or more new
trips in a peak hour. That is the threshold where development traffic may adversely impact the
transportation system and intersection operations should be analyzed.
Although the calculations show a significant decrease in traffic, the decrease might not be as large as
the amount shown in Table 1 because the medical office building may not be operating at full
capacity. It is reasonable to assume however that replacing the medical office building with the
apartment building will not result in 4001 Stinson Boulevard generating more than 100 new peak hour
trips. Therefore, a traffic impact study analyzing nearby intersection operations is not warranted for
the proposed renovation.
Conclusions /Recommendations
The 4001 Stinson Boulevard redevelopment will have negligible impact on the area transportation
system and no improvements are necessary to accommodate the redevelopment plan.
AN AITA/AC5M LAND TITLE SURVEY DONE BY
PAUL R. McL1GAN <50N LAND SURVEYORS.
DATED MAY 9. 1998
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A14 ei
zn m
�zw
p
z
>
W
0
wo
W
C
Q z m
(L
Qm�
Lu
d
Y a
O
Q
a
0
Jam
a`
w
W
J
N
zn m
�zw
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ISSUEIREVISIONS
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
A1.1
p
N`4.p2H
>
N9sb�
^V \J
V
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ISSUEIREVISIONS
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
A1.1
t ELEVATION -WEST
�z1 ELEVATION - NORTH
ELEVATION •EAST
la.t ec..�:»r -raw mx
Ql s
CG
L`
rn
I.-
E
z
0
w
g
2
m
two
Qom
V]
CL !g
mo
d
Yea
Js�
��
CL
0
a`
W
J
CO)
Ql s
CG
L`
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
A2.1
p
E
mw
0
�UCM�
0
. U.7
V]
'
a�-
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
A2.1
A
WSB
& dasociales, lnc.
Infrastructure . Engineering . Planning . Construction
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner
Meeting Date: July 30, 2013
WSB Project No. 02170 -000
Request: Solar Energy Systems Ordinance Discussion
OVERVIEW
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 - 641.4800
Fax: 763.541 -1700
It is beneficial to review sections of the City Code on a regular basis in order to identify potential issues
before they are found through a request or land use application. In addition, it ensures that the City Code
is reflective of what is desired for the community. Following a cursory review of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, staff created a list of code provisions to review and potentially update, to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 28, 2013, the
Planning Commission reviewed this list and created a "Work Plan ".
The Work Plan is a schedule of objectives established by the Planning Commission, which provides an
efficient method of prioritizing projects and achieving the most important goals of the Planning
Commission and the community. Among potential projects in 2013, the Planning Commission prioritized
a list of projects they would like to work on. The City Council, at their regular meeting on April 12, 2013,
approved the Work Plan as presented by the Planning Commission.
Item #6 on the Planning Commission Work Plan is to "review green/energy reuse ordinance(s) ". With
increased interest in renewable energy, more specifically for the installation of solar energy systems, staff
has prepared a draft Ordinance relating to Solar Energy Systems. The purpose of the amendment is to
incorporate more detailed standards governing the installation of solar energy systems. The ordinance is
expected to provide clarity and predictability while ensuring that solar energy systems may be installed in
a manner that allows for effective energy production. Further, the standards are intended to ensure that
these systems are installed in a manner that would not unduly affect community character. The proposed
text amendment would:
• Provide clarity for City staff as well as solar installers and property owners;
• Set standards for building- mounted and freestanding (i.e. ground mounted) systems;
• Clarify that solar access easements may be purchased from nearby property owners, consistent
with state statute.
The proposed text amendment provides for an administrative review process. For new solar energy
systems that do not or cannot comply with the new standards, the proposed ordinance includes a
conditional use permit (CUP) process that would authorize the City to grant exceptions to the standards.
This process would offer flexibility — more flexibility than a variance process — while also offering nearby
property owners an opportunity to review and comment on proposals that may affect their property. In
this instance the City could place reasonable conditions on applications in order to mitigate any adverse
impacts associated with installations that do not meet the standards of the ordinance.
As proposed, solar energy systems would be permitted as accessory uses within the LI — Light Industrial
and R/O — Recreation/Open Space Districts subject to the provisions as outlined in the proposed draft
ordinance text attached as Exhibit A.
NEXT STEPS
With feedback as provided by the City Council at this work session, staff will bring the proposed draft
ordinance language to the August 26, 2013 Planning Commission Work Session for review and comment.
Staff will make modifications to the draft language as requested and will likely bring forward a text
amendment request at the September regular meeting of the Planning Commission for a public hearing
and recommendation to the City Council.
EXHIBIT A:
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-
SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15X TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS PERTAININT
TO SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
The City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village ordains as follows:
Section One. Amendment to the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code Section 15X Chapter
15X of the City Code of the City of Saint Anthony Village is hereby amended as follows. The deleted
language is represented by ugh text. The additional language is represented by double
underlined text.
152.008DEFINITIONS.
BUILDING
INTECRATFD
SOLAR
ENERGYSYSTEM,
A solar
vnergy
system
that is
an integral
part of
a principal
or
accessQry
building rather
than
a separate
mechanical
d
replacing
or substituting
for an architectural
or structuraLcomponent
of the
building.
B uildin
integrated systems
include but are
not limited to arrive pbotQyoltaic
or hot
wateLsyst4�ms
that are
cputained
within
roofing
materials windows
walls skylights
and
ammings,
or
passiye
systeuis
that are designed
to capture
dir-ect
solar
hear
Bl/IL-
principal
-DING-
or accessory
MOUNTED
building,
SOLAR
ENERGYSYSTEM
A solar
enervv
sys
m affixed to
supporting
ESTANDING
framework that
SOLAR
is placed
ENERG
on
Y NYSTEM
or anchored in, the
A solar e=gsLsv
around and that
t m
is independent
i
h
of any
building or
other
structure
Garages
camoris
or similar stru-ctums
th t inrorpor=aLejuUdinv-
integy—aftd
or building-
mounted
solar
energy
systems shall
not be
cla sift
d as fteesMnding
sola
energy systems
and
shall
instead
be subioct
to regulations
governing
accessory
sAwgiures.
SOLAR
COLLECTO
R SURFACE.
Anv p rt of a
solar
energy systtm
that
absor
h
energy for use in
the system's
transformation
prose The
collector
surface
doe
not include
frames. supports-
and mounting
hardware_
SOLAR
ENERGE
Radiant
energy
r c iv d _from
the sun
that can
he QQ11crip
form of heat
or light
by a
solar collector,
SOLAR
ENERGYSY
T M
A device 5el of
devices
or structural
d_e_si_u_n_
feature
intended
to provide for
collection storage and distribution
of solar
energy
f
purposes
including
heating
or cooling
buildings
or other energy
-using
ss
procees
electricity
generating by means of any combination of collecting transferring solar- enerat d ne
water heating,
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
Regulations
energy systems
governing solar
energy systems
are established
to n_rnvide
for appropriate
locations
far solar energy
systems
to ensure compatibility
with the roofing material&
with sun•ounding
uses,
and to promote safQ and
ffective
se of solar energy
to
increase opportunities
for
generation
of renewable
nergy
(A) In general. Solar energy systems shall bepermitted in those zoning districts whiac permitted
as an accessory use subject to the standards of this article Solar collector cnrfa_rec and _u t'
devices shall comply with the minimum yard requirements of the district in which they are located G
Screening of solar collector surfaces shall nQt be required,
(1) Notwithstanding the height limitations of the zoning district building mQu rated c lar
energy systems shall not extend higher than three (3) feet above the ridge level of a roof on
ructure with a gable hip or gambrel roof and shall not extend higher than ten (10) feet abov
the surface of the roof when installed on flat or hed roof
(2) The solar collector surface and mounting devices for building- mounted solar energy
systems shall be set back not less than one (1) foot from the exterior perimeter of a roof for evm
one (1) foot that the system extends above the roof surface on which the system is r d
olar energy systems that extend less than one (1) foot abov the roof surface--shall be exempt
from this provision however shall be set back from the roof edge by a minimum of 7 f r
(3) The collector surface and mounting devices for building mounted solar energy &vctems
shall not extend beyond the exterior Perim ter of the building on which the system is mounted or
built- -
(4) Solar
energy systems
shall
be designed to blend inta the architecture of the building or be
screened from
routine view
from public
rights-of-way other than alleys The solar of the solar
collector is
not reauired
to be consistent
with the roofing material&
(5) Building- mounted systems excluding b ildin int ated systems, hall not cover mot
than 80% of the roof upon which the panels are mounted
(1) Freestanding solar energy SySkms on the ground or Pole mounted measured to the
highest Point of the system shall not exceed the hei ht of the Principal truc re or y my (2m
feet- whichever is less The height of the principal tructurP sh 11 be measured as proyid d in
Section 152.008 Definitions Freestanding solar energy systems up to fifteen 05) f et in height
hall be subject to the minimum yard requirements of an acme pry ctrnrt re F cta d' g solar
energy systems greater than fifteen (15) feet in height shall he cpb'e r t th a
requirements of a Principal structure. The required yard shall he measured from the r o w , line
Lo the closest part of the structure at minimum design tilt
(3) The supporting framework for freestanding solar energy sysLems shall not include
unfinished lumber,
(4) All abandoned or unused freestanding solar energy systems shall be removed within
twelve (12) months of the cessation ofonerations-
(5) Freestanding solar energy systgms shall be located in rear and side yards only.
(A) In general. Application that meet the design reg it men *c ofthis policy shall be grante
dministrative approval by the onjn Admini trator or oth r Authorim d Agent- plan approval dQvs
not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric ('ode All systems ch II Iy with the
Minnesota State Building and Electric Code
(B) Submittal requirements An application for a solar energy system shall be filed on_a form_
provided by the City In addition the applicant shall submit he following
(1) Plan application_ for solar energy systems shall he accompanied by scaled horivnnral and
vertical (elevation) drawings The drawings must chow the locatim of thr system 1h
building or on the property for a ground mounted system ingluding including the property We
a. EQr all building- mounted systems other than a flat roof the elevation d
hall show the highest fini hed slope of tht sQlar collmtor and the slQp of the
finished roof surface on which jt i -$-Mounted.
b. For flat - building - building systems a drawing shall be submitted shQwing the
iAance to the roof edge and any Parands-on-th—e-building and shall identify th
height of the building on the street frontage side the shortest distance Qf the
system from the street frontage edge of th h dl ins, and the highest finished
eight of the solar collector above the fini h d surface of the roof.
(2) Written
evidence that
the
electric utility service provider that serves the propos d care hM
been informed
of the applican
A's intent
to install a solar e _ cy + tm, UnIcss rh r . does
not plan and so
states so in
the application_
+n nnnnee+ the system to the eie t :: grid.
(3) -Written evidence that the elertrir solar energy yctem mmp nt have a Ii I ring
(E) Conditional uses Solar energy svctems that do not comply with the standards as crated in bion
SX XXX above may be allowed by conditional use permit, uhicct m the provisions of a tion 152.2 d t
CL3nditional Use Permits, provided that-requests to exceed thrpermilWd amount Qfinwp
jyious surface
shall be by variance
(F) Solar access Solar access easements, may be filed consistent with Minn Stat t Seel' n §500.30 as
may be amended from time to time Any property n ne_r may Purchase an easement agrncs uparbv
properties to protect aceesc to sunlight The ea emeni is purchased or granted by owners of ne rbv
p_r_oi2rdies and can apply to buildings. tree . or other structwo that would dimini h olar arcs,
152.143 Accessory Uses (LI Light Industrial District)
Subject to the provisions of §152.175 through 152.186, the following accessory uses are
permitted in the LI District:
(_ Solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of 1 X
152.158 Accessory Uses (R/O Recreational/Open Space District)
Subject to the provisions of §152.175 through 152.186, the following accessory uses are
permitted in the R/O District:
(G) Solar energy systems subject to the provisions of 15X RX
Section Two. Findings for Amending the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code
Section 152. In amending the City of Saint Anthony Village City Code Section 152 relating to
the regulations of solar energy systems, the City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village
finds that the amendment is required for the public good; is in the interest of public health, safety
and welfare; and is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance amendment shall be in full force and
effect upon its publication as provided by law.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on 2013.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
By:
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Barb Suciu, City Clerk
A
WSB
& dssrn:rmes. mo. Infrastructure . Engineering . Planning . Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 - 6414800
Fax: 763- 541.1700
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner
Meeting Date: July 30, 2013
WSB Project No. 02170 -000
Request: Accessory Buildings and Driveway Ordinance Discussion
OVERVIEW
It is beneficial to review sections of the City Code on a regular basis in order to identify potential issues
before they are found through a request or land use application. In addition, it ensures that the City Code
is reflective of what is desired for the community. Following a cursory review of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, staff created a list of code provisions to review and potentially update, to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 28, 2013, the
Planning Commission reviewed this list and created a "Work Plan ".
The Work Plan is a schedule of objectives established by the Planning Commission, which provides an
efficient method of prioritizing projects and achieving the most important goals of the Planning
Commission and the community. Among potential projects in 2013, the Planning Commission prioritized
a list of projects they would like to work on. The City Council, at their regular meeting on April 12, 2013,
approved the Work Plan as presented by the Planning Commission.
In an effort to continue work on the items of the Work Plan, staff introduced the discussion relating to the
City's existing ordinances related to accessory buildings and driveways at the June 24, 2013 regular
meeting of the Planning Commission and further reviewed and updated the draft text amendment at a
work session held on July 22, 2013. At this time staff is seeking comments from the City Council.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
The Zoning Code currently addresses the following items as it relates to accessory buildings:
• Where an accessory building may be located
• Minimum setbacks from lot lines and principal building
• Design
• Garage setback permits
Other areas not currently addressed in the code, but may be considered include:
• Height and number of stories
• Size of buildings
• Number of accessory buildings permitted
• Size of garage door openings
The double underlined text shows the proposed additions and the stril:et�+rougli-� shows the proposed
deletions.
§ 152.008 DEFINITION.
For the purpose of this subchapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates
or requires a different meaning.
ACCESSORY BUILDING. A separate building or structure or a portion of a principal building
or structure used for accessory uses.
(1993 Code, § 1605.01)
§ 152.176 ACCCESSORY BUILDINGS.
(A). In yards. No detached accessory buildings may be located within any yard other than the rear
yard, except that garages may be located in side yards.
(B). Minimum setback. No accessory buildings or any cave or other portion of any accessory
building may be located within 3 feet of any property line, except as provided in division (F) OQ-below.
(C). Accessory buildings attached. If an accessory building is attached to the principal structure
in , it will be considered a part of the principal stfuetHFe and must comply with all setbacks
and other requirements applicable to the principal stmetuFe -buil ' .
(D). Setback from principal structure Unless attached to and made a part of the
principal structure b itpI g, no cave or other portion of an accessory building may be closer than 5 feet
from any cave or other portion of a principal structure huddiag, except as may be provided in division (F)7
(KLbelow.
(E). Design. All accessory buildings constructed after the construction of the principal structure
in must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the design and general appearance
of the principal structure bui i . Accessory buildings constructed primarily of canvas plastic fahrio —Or
other similar non - permanent building materials shall be prohibited
(F) Height An accessory building shall not =c pd 15 feet in height or the height of the prin ipal
building, whichever is less
(G) Number ofbuildings A maximum of two individual asses ory buildings per lot including
(ID Size An accessory building or combination of two buildings hall not exce d 750 sp r f et
in area or ° the area of the principal building which ver is The rea of an acs c ory building
hall be measured from the cave or any portion inie ted beyQnd the Il sunoorts of the building in
MI offr41677
W In all residential districts one accessory building in addition to any garage may be
pertilted, except that it shall not exceed 120 sauare feet in ea if a detached ara a exists on the
same lot•
UJIn e event a detached garage is constmMd anv accessory buildin exi in on the
(I). Garage Door Openings. Garage door openings shall be limited in hei ht to 8 fe t as m asure
from the driveway apron at the door opening.
ffJ (F)-. Garage setback permit. A garage which will cover an area of no more than 528 square
feet and no dimension of which is greater than 24 feet may be located within the side setbacks and/or rear
setbacks if a setback permit has been issued for the garage under the following provisions of this section.
(1) Application for a setback permit must be made in writing on forms provided by the
City Manager and must be filed with the City Manager, together with a filing fee in the amount required
under Chapter 33. The application must include a survey showing the proposed location of the strustare
in and the stmetatres b it in on the property adjoining the setback in question. The application
must also address the other matters to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, as set
forth in division (B) above. The permit application will be considered by the Planning Commission and
City Council, and notice of the hearing will be given, all in the same manner as provided in § 152.243 for
conditional use permits. After the hearing by the Planning Commission, the City Council will grant or
deny the permit, stating its reasons for doing so.
(2) In granting or denying the setback permit, the City Council will consider the
proximity of the garage to any structures bdm on the adjoining property, the extent of vegetation or
other screening on the subject property and the adjoining property, the effect of the garage on the light
and visibility available to the adjoining property, matters of fire safety, the existing garages on the
adjoining property, the ability to locate garages elsewhere on the subject property, and any other matters
which may be relevant to the degree of encroachment into the setback.
(3) If a setback permit is granted, it will run with the title to the property for which it was
granted so long as the garage for which it was granted continues to exist. If that stfueture it 'n is
destroyed or removed, the permit will automatically expire.
(1993 Code, § 1650.02) Penalty, see § 10.99
(L) Permit Requirements A zoning permit shall be required for all accessory buildin s less than
120 square feet in area All accessory buildings over 120 square feet shall require a.building Permit. e
fee as determined from time to time by the Cites Council shall be required to process the permit
Language for Discussion
Staff offers the above suggested language for review and discussion by the City Council. Some, all, none,
or a modification of the above language could be incorporated into the City's existing Ordinance relating
to accessory buildings. The additions to the Code attempt to address some of the concerns of staff
regarding the existing language. These concerns are centered around the height, size and number of
accessory buildings permitted on a property. As the Code is currently written, a property owner with a
single -story home could potentially construct a two -story accessory building. In addition, an accessory
building could be constructed that is larger than the principle building. There is currently nothing limiting
the size or number of accessory buildings other than the impervious surface requirement. A property
owner could construct any number of accessory buildings on a property so long as the impervious surface
requirement is met. The proposed additions to the Code are common among other cities as a way to
regulate orderly development. Staff believes that these requirements will help to ensure the character of
neighborhoods is preserved.
DRIVEWAYS
The Zoning Code currently addresses the following items as it relates to driveways:
• Total impervious surface on a property
• Distance between curb cuts
• Number of required parking spaces
Other areas not currently addressed in the Code, but may be considered include:
• Driveway width
• Driveway setback
• Location and layout of driveways and parking areas
§ 152.179 PARKING.
(C) Residential driveways. All residentially zoned properties must comply with the following
re '
(I)Drivewav width Residential driveways installed or modified after the date of adoption of
the ordinance shall comply with the following standards:
(a) Driveways with a single driveway approach shall not exceed 40% of the width of
the lot up to a maximum of 36 feet whichever dimension is the smaller provided the
driveway between the curb and right of way line does not exceed 28 feet in width
(b) Circular driveways with driveway approach cuts serving the same lot shall not
exceed the maximum 36 feet when the width when both driveway approaches are
combined.
(2) Driveway setback. Residential driveways shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet from the
orone rtv�lines
3) Required surface material. All driveways and narking areas shall be of a hard surface.
Hard surfaced areas shall consist of a durable material such as concrete. asphalt or pavers,_butnot
ing_ rag vel or
feet from the corner side property lines.
(5) Permit requirements. All new driveways, alterations, or additions to existing driveways
(not including pavement overlay or seal coating) shall require the issuance of a zoning permit A fee
as determined from time to time by the City Council shall be required to process the permit
§ 152.180 CURB CUTS.
The City Council has the authority to limit the curb cuts serving a property or properties where the City
Council deems it appropriate for safety reasons due to the traffic on abutting streets. No curb cut to a
parking area may be more than 28 feet in width. Curb cuts on any 1 street must be at least 30 feet apart,
unless curb cuts are to be used for 1 -way traffic only and clearly designated as such, and except that
residential driveways may be closer as long as they meet the requirements as designated in 152.180. C.
No C or LI use may have a curb cut within 30 feet of any residential district boundary, unless it is located
across a street from the residential district boundary.
Language for Discussion
Staff offers the above suggested language for review and discussion by the City Council. Some, all, none,
or a modification of the above language could be incorporated into the City's existing Ordinance relating
to driveways. The additions to the Code attempt to address some of the concerns of staff regarding the
existing language. These concerns are centered on driveway widths and setbacks from adjacent property.
As the Code is currently written, there is no limit to the width of a driveway. Driveway sizes in general
are limited by the impervious surface requirement. However, a property that is well below the impervious
limit could potentially pave the entire front width of their property or portion thereof. While curb cuts are
limited to 28 feet in width, this does not prevent a property owner from paving along the front curb and
using this space for parking. Staff believes that this scenario would detract from the appearance of
existing neighborhoods.
In addition, the current language in the Code states that curb cuts simply be 30 feet apart, not a specific
distance from a lot line. Therefore one property owner could potentially locate their curb cut along the
edge of their property, forcing adjacent property owners to construct any future curb cut at least 30 feet
away. Therefore, where one property owner chooses to locate their curb cut has a direct impact on where
a neighboring property owner can locate theirs, which is not practical or reasonable. Staff also believes it
is important to have a driveway setback requirement in order to allow for proper snow removal /storage
and stormwater management/drainage adjacent to a driveway. As it is written currently, the Code allows
property owners to pave right up to their side lot lines. The proposed changes to the Code are common
requirements found among other similar cities.
4 Base Option
= 37th Ave NE
wrisrM'A7/e —�
Wilshire Park
Elementary
b
36th Ave NE
is
Mnailawand Or
Downers Or
1
Wilshire Park
Elementary
36th Ave NE
Ir 4r Downers Dr
fl R
v Option 2
F 37th Ave NE
Wilshire Park
Elementary
Downers Or
St. Anthony Village
Capital Improvement Plan
Street & Utility Improvements
� 2014
� Rain Garden
Park Entrance
N
W� t
5
1000
Feet
Base Option - 2014 Project
Edgemere Avenue, Wendhurst Avenue, and Penrod Lane (north of 36th)
Surface Improvements
Surface Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$863,019.00
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$443,740.00
$249,480.00
Water Main Improvements
Rain garden Improvements
$292,330.00
Storm Sewer Improvements
$2,495,128.00
$249,512.80
$121,300.00
Rain garden Improvements
SUBTOTAL - BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT
ESTIMATED ECONOMIES OF SCALE DISCOUNT
$134,280.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
+ 10% CONTINGENCIES
$1,660,409.00
$166,040.90
SUBTOTAL - TOTAL BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES
+20% ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL, ETC.
$1,826,449.90
$365,289.98
GRAND TOTAL- BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT
$2,191,739.88
Option 1 - Base Plan & half of 2015
Edgemere Avenue, Wendhurst Avenue, Penrod Lane (north of 36th),
Chelmsford Lane (north of 36th), and 36th Avenue (east of Penrod and west of Chelmsford)
Surface Improvements
$1,356,308.00
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$377,200.00
Water Main Improvements
$443,740.00
Storm Sewer Improvements
$183,600.00
Rain garden Improvements
$134,280.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
+ 10% CONTINGENCIES
$2,495,128.00
$249,512.80
SUBTOTAL - TOTAL BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES
+20% ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL, ETC.
$2,744,640.80
$548,928.16
SUBTOTAL - BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT
ESTIMATED ECONOMIES OF SCALE DISCOUNT
$3,293,568.96
($174,559.15)
GRAND TOTAL - BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST+ CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT - DISCOUNT
$3,119,009.81
Option 2 - 2014, 2015, & 2016
Edgemere Avenue, Wendhurst Avenue, Penrod Lane, Chelmsford Lane,
36th Avenue, Sky Croft Avenue, and Maplewood Drive
2014
Surface Improvements
2016
$2,490,014.00
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$1,880,000.00
$730,000.00
Water Main Improvements
$3,119,000.00
$906,910.00
Storm Sewer Improvements
Option 2
$469,820.00
Park Entrance Improvements
$317,000.00
$14,600.00
Raingarden Improvements
$134,280.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
+ 10% CONTINGENCIES
$4,745,624.00
$474,562.40
SUBTOTAL - TOTAL BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COSTS + CONTINGENCIES
+20% ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGAL, ETC.
$5,220,186.40
$1,044,037.28
SUBTOTAL - BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST+ CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT
ESTIMATED ECONOMIES OF SCALE DISCOUNT
$6,264,223.68
($438,495.66)
GRAND TOTAL - BASE BID CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY + INDIRECT - DISCOUNT
$5,825,728.02
PROJECT COSTS
2014
2015
2016
Base Option
$2,192,000.00
$1,880,000.00
$2,193,000.00
Option 1
$3,119,000.00
$2,800,000.00
$224,000.00
Option 2
$5,826,000.00
$952,000.00
$317,000.00
ESTIMATED SAVINGS
Option 1
Option 2
Difference
Construction Savings
$346,000.00
$439,000.00
$93,000.00
Interest Savings
$289,000.00
$513,000.00
$224,000.00
Total project savings
$635,000.00
$952,000.00
$317,000.00
Decrease in Annual Levy
$33,926.00
$58,269.00
$24,343.00
City of St. Anthony
Debt Levy - Roads, Tax Abatement, Public Facilities
Base
Existing
TAX ABATEMENT
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2026
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
20%
2035
2036
2037
2036 2039
$1,700,0002003A (Refunding 2011A)
118,057
121,103
123,992
121,473
124,204
132,028
134,286
399.882
403.347
406.602
414,897
422683
424,289
,.smao
.,,00mo
>momo
_ -
$1,790,000 - 20D4A(Refunded in 2011 B)
128,800
569,168
525,677
528,487
536,020
$47,434
$23,573
529,663
535,186
540,121
$49,697
558,402
560,579
136,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$1 ,695,000 - 2005A (Refunded in 2011B)
121,500
Total levied debt after reduction
2,059,923
$102861
2321,146
2,353,816
2,396403
2,434.314
2,480,731
2,627,563
2568,211
2681,797
2,601,070
2,624,670
2,617,041
2,495345
2,382,952
2,102,987
2,106,591
1,986,521
1,834,288
1,695,136
1,623,662
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
$2,485,000 - 2006A (Refunded in 2012A)
186,668
394373
208,808
Total levied debt before reduction
2,059,923
2102 861
21321,146
2 479 816
2,633,403
2 704 314
2,795,731
2,837,553
2,928 211
2,806,797
2,866 070
3,044,670
2,617,041
2 495 345
2,382,952
2102 997
2105 591
1 986 521
1,834,268
1 695136
1,523,682
1 346 596
1,195,103
$2 ,050,000 - 2007A (Refunded in 2012A)
137,737
6118,495
394,373
208,808
% Increase in levied Debt
2.08%
10.38%
1.41%
1.81%
1.58%
1.91%
1.69%
1.61%
0.53%
0.75%
0.91%
-0.29%
4.65%
4.50%
. 11.75%
0.12%
-5.65%
.7.66%
.7.59%
- 10.11%
. 11.62%
$1,910,ODO -2008A
175.652
177,319
178,526
179,550
179,760
179,780
179,550
179,130
178,500
182,910
181,650
180,180
46.417
46,822
40,658
11,586
19,274
2 3600
(76281
(121696)
(112,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(152,263)
(139,132)
(171,454)
$2,630,000 -2009A
184,768
185,450
185,975
186,343
186,553
186.605
186,500
191,120
189,766
193,084
195,709
197,664
193,674
$1,645,000 - 2009B(2001B& 2002A)
196,995
192,401
187,808
193,714
183,608
106,150
$1,375,000 -2010A
108,587
112,065
110,175
108,285
111,645
109,413
112,209
114,624
111,532
113,665
115,450
111,729
113,258
114,350
$1,940,000 -2011A
141,991
138,684
140,626
142,411
138,789
140,416
141,886
142,871
138,434
139,248
139,537
139,642
139,183
138.526
137,266
$2,210,000 - 2011B (20D4A and 2005A)
-
226,977
226,899
221,025
225,157
223,441
226,430
223,528
109,589
$9,495,000 - 2012A (20D6A & 2007A)
-
423,185
518,973
519,813
525,693
520,968
526,218
531,153
535,773
306,356
141,358
142,864
138,580
139,546
140,032
-
$1,775,000 - 2013A
118.685
118.93D
119.176
119,120
119,063
118,523
117,984
117,082
115,939
119.864
118,133
116 402
119133
116.476
119,070
Total Levy
1,500,755
1,677,184
1,791,659
1,791,544
1,794,584
1,717,902
1,626,143
1,500,949
1,361,678
1,052,344
889,642
891,90
702,827
508,824
396,431
116,476
119,070
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
2014 Roadlmprovements
$2,230,000 -2014A
152,253
152,253
152.253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
152,253
2015 -2023 Roadlmprovements
$1,913,000 -2015A
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139,132
139.132
139,132
$2,231,000 -2016A
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171,454
171.454
$2.265,000 -2017A
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
$2,024,000 -2018A
161,493
161,493
161.493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
$2,530,000 -2019A
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
20.5,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
$2,4DB,DDD -2020A
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
$2,541,000 -2021A
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
$2,024,000 -2022A
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
$2,144,000. 2023A
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185.566
185.666
185,566
185,566
185,566
185.566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
$2,367,000 -2024A
208,807
2088D7
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208.807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807 208,808
Additional levy
152,253
291,386
462,839
639,925
801,418
1,006,512
1,204,755
1,418,026
1,592,148
1,777,714
1,986,521
1,986,521
1,986,521
1,996,621
1986,521
1834,268
1,695,136
1.623682
1,346,596
7185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373 206,808
Road levy before debt reduction
1,500,755
1,577,184
1,791,659
1,943,797
2,085,969
2,180,741
2,266,068
2,302,367
2,388,090
2,257,099
2,307,668
2,484,091
2,480,541
2,495,345
2,362,952
2,102,997
2,105,591
1,986,521
1,834,268
1,695,136
1,523,682
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373 208,808
Stormwaler Debt Service
(25,000)
(170,ODO)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,0001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MSAAdvance
(90,000)
(135,000)
(130,000)
(85,000)
Excess Bond Balance
(10,000)
(10,000)
(10'00)
(10,000)
(10,000)
(105,0001
(55,000)
(95,000)
(250,000)
Conduit Fee
(91,000)
(57,000)
Land Sale
Road improvement levy
1,577,184
1,791,859
1,877,707
1,84!1,969
1,910,741
1,951,068
1,992,367
2,028,090
2,032,099
2,042,668
2,064,091
2,480541
2,495,345
2,382,952
2,102,997
2,105,591
1,986,521
1,834,268
1,695,136
1.523,682
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373 208,808
% Increase in Road levy
.1,500755
5.09%
13.60%
1.46%
1.71%
3.34%
2.11%
2.12%
1.79%
0.20%
0.52%
1.05%
20.18%
0.60%
4.50%
- 11.75%
0.12%
-5.65%
-7.66%
.7.59%
. 10.11%
. 11.62%
- 11.99%
- 17.31%
. 20.23%
. 27.28%
-30.63% 47.05%
$ Increase in Road levy
76,429
214,475
26,138
31,172
61,772
40,327
41,299
35,723
4,010
10,569
21,423
416,451
14,804
'12,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(152,253)
(139,132)
(171,454)
(177,086)
(181,493)
(205,094)
(198,243)
(213,271)
(174,122) (185,665)
TAX ABATEMENT
149,395
146,480
151,025
153,148
155,112
127,366
129,781
131,839
133,519
134,800
135,719
136,290
136,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PUBLIC FACILITIES
409,773
379,197
378,462
382872
392,322
396,207
399.882
403.347
406.602
414,897
422683
424,289
,.smao
.,,00mo
>momo
_ -
-
569,168
525,677
528,487
536,020
$47,434
$23,573
529,663
535,186
540,121
$49,697
558,402
560,579
136,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total levied debt after reduction
2,059,923
$102861
2321,146
2,353,816
2,396403
2,434.314
2,480,731
2,627,563
2568,211
2681,797
2,601,070
2,624,670
2,617,041
2,495345
2,382,952
2,102,987
2,106,591
1,986,521
1,834,288
1,695,136
1,623,662
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394373
208,808
Total levied debt before reduction
2,059,923
2102 861
21321,146
2 479 816
2,633,403
2 704 314
2,795,731
2,837,553
2,928 211
2,806,797
2,866 070
3,044,670
2,617,041
2 495 345
2,382,952
2102 997
2105 591
1 986 521
1,834,268
1 695136
1,523,682
1 346 596
1,195,103
900,009
701,766
6118,495
394,373
208,808
% Increase in levied Debt
2.08%
10.38%
1.41%
1.81%
1.58%
1.91%
1.69%
1.61%
0.53%
0.75%
0.91%
-0.29%
4.65%
4.50%
. 11.75%
0.12%
-5.65%
.7.66%
.7.59%
- 10.11%
. 11.62%
. 11.99%
. 17.31%
. 20.23%
- 27.28%
. 30.63%
47.05%
$ Increase in levied Debt
42,939
218,284
32,671
42,687
37,911
46.417
46,822
40,658
11,586
19,274
2 3600
(76281
(121696)
(112,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(152,263)
(139,132)
(171,454)
(177,086)
(161,493)
(205,094)
(198,243)
(213,271)
(174,1221
(185,565)
Total Levied Debt before reduction
Total Levied Debt after reduction
-
m m
lees
m .m
r.womo
xmo®
Road levy before
_.
0000-
debt reduction
111
Road levy after
o.®om
rmoao
vm�
reduction
ma
,.smao
.,,00mo
>momo
City of St. Anthony
Debt Levy - Roads, Tax Abatement, Public Facilities
Option 1 A Without Land Sale
Exisdn9
TAXABATEMENT 149,395 146,480 151,025 153,148 155,112 127,366 129,781 131,839 133,519 134,800 135,719 136,290 136,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC FACILITIES 409,773 379,197 378,462 382.872 392,322 396,207 399882 403,347 408.602 414,897 422.683 424,289
559,168 525,677 629,487 536,020 547,434 523,573 529,663 535,186 640,121 549,697 558,402 560,579 136,600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total levied debt after reduction
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037 2038
$1,700,0002003A (Refunding 2011A)
118,057
121,103
123,992
121,473
124,204
132,028
134,286
3,092,528
2,986,142
3,006,266
3,196,310
2,791,922
2,461,419
2,349,026
2,069,071
2,071,665
1,952,695
1,730,267
1,523,682
1,348,696
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,807
$1 ,790,000 - 20D4A(Refunded in 2011 B)
128,800
10.38°%
2.40%
2.27%
2.53%
2.84%
2.94%
2.80%
231%
2.52%
2.98%
-5.08%
. 11.84%
4.57%
-11.92%
0.13°%
-5.75%
. 11.39%
- 11.94%
- 11.62%
- 11.99%
. 17.31%
- 20.23%
. 27.28%
30.63%
47.05%
$1,695,000 -2005A (Refunded in 2011 B)
121,500
218,284
66,756
54,030
61,543
70,824
75,423
73,807
75,614
70,125
85,044
4149,387)
(330,603)
(112,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(222,338)
(206,675)
(177,086)
(161,493)
4205,094)
(198,243)
(213.271)
(174,122)
(186,566)
$2,485,000 - 2006A (Refunded in 2012A)
186,668
$ 2,050,000 - 2007A (Refunded in 2012A)
137,737
$1,910,000 -200aA
175,652
177,319
178,526
179,550
179,760
179,760
179,550
179,130
178,500
182,910
181,650
180,180
$2,830,000 -2009A
184,768
185,450
185,975
186,343
186,553
186,605
186,500
191,120
189,766
193,084
195,709
197,664
193,674
$1,645,000 - 20D9B (2001 B & 2002A)
196,995
192,401
187,808
193,714
183,608
106,150
$1,375,000 -2010A
108,587
112,065
110,175
108,285
111,645
109,413
112,209
114,624
111,532
113,665
115,450
111,729
113,258
114,350
$1,940,000 -2011A
141,991
138,884
140,626
142.411
138,789
140,416
141,886
142,871
138,434
139,248
139,537
139,642
139,183
138,526
137,266
$2,210,000 - 2011 B(2004A and 2005A)
-
228,977
226,899
221,025
225,157
223,441
226,430
223,528
109,589
$9,495,000 - 2012A(2006A& 2007A)
-
423,185
518,973
519,813
525,693
520,968
526,218
531,153
535,773
306,356
141,358
142,864
138,580
139,546
140,032
-
$1,775,000 - 2013A
118,685
118,930
119,176
119,120
119,063
118.523
117,984
117,082
115.939
119,864
118,133
116.402
119,133
116,476
119,070
Total Levy
1,500,755
1,577,184
1,791,659
1,791,541
1,794,584
1,717,902
1,626,143
1,500,949
1,381,578
1,052,344
889,642
891,943
702,827
508,824
396,431
116,476
119,070
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
2014 -2015 Roadlmpaovements
$3,255,000- 2014A&1/22015A
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222.338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
2016 -2023 Road Improvements
$2,849,000- 1/2 2016A &2016A
206,575
208.575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206.575
206,575
$2,265,000 -2017A
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,066
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
$2.024.000 -2018A
161,493
161,493
161.493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
$2,530,000 -2019A
205.094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205.094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
$2,408,000 -2020A
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
$2,541,000 -2021A
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
$2,024,000 -2022A
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
$2,144,000 -2023A
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185.566
185,566
185566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
$2,367,000 -2024A
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208.807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807 208,807
Additional levy
_
222,338
429,913
606,999
767,492
972,686
1,170,829
1 384100
1,558,222
1 743 788
1,952,595
1 952 595
1,962,695
1 952 595
1,952,595
1 952 595
1,730,257
1 523 682
1,346,696
1 185103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373 208,807
Road levy before debt reduction
1,500,755
1,577,184
1,791,659
2,013,882
2,223,497
2,323,901
2,393,635
2,473,535
2,652,407
2,436,444
2,447,864
2,635,731
2,655,122
2,461,419
2,349,026
2,089,071
2,071,665
1,952,595
1,730,257
1,523,682
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
SOBA95
394,373 208,807
Stormwaler Debt Service
(25,OOD)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(160,000)
(150,000)
(200,000)
MSA Advance
(170,000)
(170,000)
(100,000)
Excess Bond Balance
(15,000)
(90,000)
(200,000)
(210,000)
(40,000)
(55,000)
Conduit Fee
(148,000)
Road improvement levy
1,600,755
1,677,184
1,791,659
1.840,482
1.883,497
1,968,901
2,033,635
2,103,636
2,172,407
2,236A44
2,297,864
2,380,731
2,655,422
2,461,119
2,349,026
2,069,071
2,071,665
1,952,595
1,730,257
1,523,682
1,348,696
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
38/.375 208,807
% Increase in Road levy
5.09%
13.60%
2.75%
2.31%
4.53%
3.29%
3.44%
3.27%
2.95%
2.75%
3.61%
11.54%
.7.31%
4.57%
. 11.92%
0.13%
3.75%
. 11.39%
- 11.94%
41.62%
- 11.99%
. 17.31%
- 20.23%
- 27.28%
- 30.63% . 47.05%
$Increase In Road levy
76,429
214,475
49,223
42,615
85,404
64,734
69,900
68,872
64,038
61,420
82.867
274.692
(194,003)
(112,393)
(279,966)
2,694
(119,070)
(222,338)
(206,575)
(177,086)
(161,493)
(206,094)
(198.243)
(213,271)
(174,122) (185,566)
TAXABATEMENT 149,395 146,480 151,025 153,148 155,112 127,366 129,781 131,839 133,519 134,800 135,719 136,290 136,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC FACILITIES 409,773 379,197 378,462 382.872 392,322 396,207 399882 403,347 408.602 414,897 422.683 424,289
559,168 525,677 629,487 536,020 547,434 523,573 529,663 535,186 640,121 549,697 558,402 560,579 136,600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total levied debt after reduction
2059,923 2102,861
2,321,146
2,376,901
2,430,931
2 ,492.474
2,563,298
2,638,721
2,712,528
2,786,142
2,856,266
2,941,310
2,791,922
2,461,419
2,349,026
2,069,071
2,071,665
1,952,595
1,730,257
1,623,682
1,346,696
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,807
Total levied debt before reduction
2,059,923 2,102,861
2,321,148
2,549,901
2,770,931
2,847A74
2,923,298
3,008,721
3,092,528
2,986,142
3,006,266
3,196,310
2,791,922
2,461,419
2,349,026
2,069,071
2,071,665
1,952,695
1,730,267
1,523,682
1,348,696
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,807
%Increase in levied Debt
2.08%
10.38°%
2.40%
2.27%
2.53%
2.84%
2.94%
2.80%
231%
2.52%
2.98%
-5.08%
. 11.84%
4.57%
-11.92%
0.13°%
-5.75%
. 11.39%
- 11.94%
- 11.62%
- 11.99%
. 17.31%
- 20.23%
. 27.28%
30.63%
47.05%
$Increase in levied Debt
42,939
218,284
66,756
54,030
61,543
70,824
75,423
73,807
75,614
70,125
85,044
4149,387)
(330,603)
(112,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(222,338)
(206,675)
(177,086)
(161,493)
4205,094)
(198,243)
(213.271)
(174,122)
(186,566)
)awaoo
vw0000
z,)ooaao
-
Total Levied Debt before reduction
Total Levied Debt after reduction
aIDOaoo
Ole}�000
z,,00000
}
Road lev before
}.romo
eduction
ww
zmo
Road levy after
reduction
}.l00000
4nUp4
).YnFm
2012
A]) IDY IDLL m}a
Sal w)e m)f mm
IDll MS} p}] iN SII M% IDil AY Ttl9
City of St. Anthony
Debt Levy - Roads, Tax Abatement, Public Facilities
Option 1 8 With Land Sale
2014.2015 Road Improvements
$3,255,000- 2014A &1/22015A
2012
201J
2014
2016
2018
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2622
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
$1,700.0002003A (Refunding 2011A)
118,057
121103
123,992
121,473
124,204
132,028
134,286
2015.2023 Road Improvements
Total levied debt before reduction 2
2,059,923 2,102,861 2
2,321,14 2
2,549,901 2
2,770,931 2
2,847 ,474 2
2,923,298 3
3,008,721 3
3,082,528 2
$1.790.000 - 2D04A ( Refunded in 20118)
128,800
3,1 96,310 2
2,791,922 2
2,461,419 2
2,349,026 2
2,069,071 2
2,071,665 1
1,952,595 1
1,730,257 1
1,523,682 1
1,346,596 1
1,185,103 9
980,009 7
781,766 5
568,495 3
$2,849.000- 1/2 2015A &2016A
208,807
$1,695,000 -2005A (Refunded in 2011 B)
121,50D
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
0.13% -
-5.75% .
$2 ,485,000 - 2008A (Refunded in 2012A)
186,668
- 11.62% -
- 11.99% -
- 17.31% -
- 20.23% -
$2,265,000 -2017A
. 30.63% 3
37.05%
$Increase in levied Debt 4
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
$2 ,050,000 - 2007A (Refunded in 2012A)
137,737
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
2,594 (
(119,070) (
(222,338) 1
1206,5761 (
(177,086) (
(161,493) (
(205,094) (
$2,024,000 -2018A
(213,271) (
(174,122) (
(185,566)
$1,910,000 -2008A
175,852
177,319
178,526
179,550
179,760
179,760
179.550
179,130
178,500
182,910
181,650
180.18D
161,493
161,493
161,493
$2,630,000 -2009A
184,768
185,450
185,975
186,343
186,553
186,605
186,500
191,120
189,766
193,084
195,709
197,664
193.674
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
$1,645,000 - 20096(20018 &2002A)
196,995
192,401
187,808
193,714
183,608
106,150
$2,408,000 -2020A
$1,375,000 -2010A
108587
112,065
110,175
108,285
111,645
109,413
112,209
114,624
111,532
113,665
115,450
111,729
113,258
114,350
198,243
$1,940,000 -2011A
141,991
138,684
140,626
142,411
138,789
140,416
141,886
142,871
138,434
139,248
139,537
139,642
139,183
138,526
137,266
213,271
213.271
$2,210,000 - 2011 B(2DD4A and 2005A)
-
228,977
226,899
221,025
225,157
223,441
226,430
223,528
109,589
$2,024,000 -2022A
$9,495,000- 2012A(2006A &2007A)
-
423,185
518,973
519,813
525,693
520,968
526,218
531.153
535,773
306,356
141,358
142,864
138,500
139,546
140,032
-
$1,775,000 - 2013A
118,685
118.930
119.176
119,120
119.063
118,523
117,984
117,082
115,939
119,664
118,133
116,402
119,133
116,476
119,070
Total Levy
1,500,755
1,577,184
1,791,659
1,791,644
1,794,584
1,717,902
1,626,143
1,500,949
1,361,578
1,052,341
889,642
891,943
702,827
608,824
396,431
116,476
119,070 - - - - - - - - - -
2014.2015 Road Improvements
$3,255,000- 2014A &1/22015A
2,059,923 2,102,861 2
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222.338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222,338
222.338
222,338
222,338
1,952,595 1
1,730,257 1
1,523,682 1
1,346,596 1
1,186,103 9
980,009 7
781,766 5
568,495 3
394,373 2
2015.2023 Road Improvements
Total levied debt before reduction 2
2,059,923 2,102,861 2
2,321,14 2
2,549,901 2
2,770,931 2
2,847 ,474 2
2,923,298 3
3,008,721 3
3,082,528 2
2,986,142 3
3,006,266 3
3,1 96,310 2
2,791,922 2
2,461,419 2
2,349,026 2
2,069,071 2
2,071,665 1
1,952,595 1
1,730,257 1
1,523,682 1
1,346,596 1
1,185,103 9
980,009 7
781,766 5
568,495 3
$2,849.000- 1/2 2015A &2016A
208,807
% Increase in levied Debt 2
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
206,575
0.13% -
-5.75% .
. 11.39% -
- 11.94% -
- 11.62% -
- 11.99% -
- 17.31% -
- 20.23% -
$2,265,000 -2017A
. 30.63% 3
37.05%
$Increase in levied Debt 4
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
2,594 (
(119,070) (
(222,338) 1
1206,5761 (
(177,086) (
(161,493) (
(205,094) (
$2,024,000 -2018A
(213,271) (
(174,122) (
(185,566)
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
$2,530,000 -2019A
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
$2,408,000 -2020A
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
$2,541,000 -2021A
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213.271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
$2,024,000 -2022A
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174.122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
$2,144,000. 2023A
185,568
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
165,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
$2.367,000 -2024A
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
208,807
Additional levy
222,338
428,913
605,999
767A92
972,586
1,170,829
1 384100
1,556,222
1 743,788
1,952,595
1 952 595
1,952,595
1 952 595
1,952,595
1 952 595
1,730,257
1 523 682
1,346,596
1 185 103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,807
Road levy before debt reduction
1,500,755 1,577,184 1,791,659
2,013.882
2,223A97
2,323,901
2,$93,636
2,473,535
2,552A07
2,438A4
2,447,804
2,635,731
2,665A22
2A81A19
2,349,026
2,069,071
2,071,665
1,952,595
1,730,257
1,523,682
1,346,596
1,185,103
900,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,807
Stoonwater Debt Service
(25,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(160,000)
(160,000)
(190,000)
MSA Advance
(165,000)
(170,000)
(105,000)
Excess Bond Balance
(15,000)
-
(60,000)
(175,000)
(45,01)(1)
(95,000)
(220,000)
Conduit Fee
(148,000)
Land Sale
(10,OOD)
(30,000)
(30,000)
(130,01)(1)
(200,000)
(110,000)
(90,000)
Road improvement levy
1,500,765 1.877,14 1,791,659
1.830,882
1,858.497
1,938,901
1,988,635
2,043,535
2,097,407
2,141,44
2,192,864
2,225,731
2,655 .422
2,461,419
2,349,020
2,289,071
2,071,665
1,952,595
1,730,257
1,523,682
1,348,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,768
56SAOS
394,373
208,807
% Increase in Road levy
5.09% 13.60%
2.19%
1.51%
4.33%
2.571/t
2.76%
2.64%
2.10%
2.40%
1.50%
19.31%
4.31%
3.57%
- 11.92%
0.13%
-5.75%
- 11.39%
- 11.94%
- 11.62%
- 11.99%
- 17.31%
. 20.23%
. 27.28%
- 30.63%
47.05%
$ Increase in Road levy
76A28 214,475
39,223
27.615
80,104
49,734
54,900
53,872
4,038
51,420
32,867
429,692
(194,003)
(112,393)
(279,955)
2,594
(119,070)
(222,338)
(206,576)
(177,086)
(161,493)
(205,094)
(198,243)
(213,271)
(174,122)
(186,566)
TM ABATEMENT 149,395 14,480 151,025 153,148 155,112 127,366 129,781 131,839 133,519 134,800 135,719 136,290 136,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC FACILITIES 409,773 379,197 378,462 382,872 392,322 396,207 399,882 403,347 406,602 414.897 422,683 424,289
559,168 526,677 529A87 536,020 547,434 523,573 629,663 635,186 540,121 549,697 558,402 560,679 136,600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total levied debt after reduction 2
2,059,923 2,102,861 2
2,321,14 2
2,366,901 2
2,405,931 2
2A02 ,474 2
2,518,288 2
2,678,721 2
2,637,528 2
2,691,142 2
2,761,266 2
2,786,310 2
2,791.922 2
2,461,419 2
2,349,026 2
2,069,071 2
2,071,665 1
1,952,595 1
1,730,257 1
1,523,682 1
1,346,596 1
1,186,103 9
980,009 7
781,766 5
568,495 3
394,373 2
206,807
Total levied debt before reduction 2
2,059,923 2,102,861 2
2,321,14 2
2,549,901 2
2,770,931 2
2,847 ,474 2
2,923,298 3
3,008,721 3
3,082,528 2
2,986,142 3
3,006,266 3
3,1 96,310 2
2,791,922 2
2,461,419 2
2,349,026 2
2,069,071 2
2,071,665 1
1,952,595 1
1,730,257 1
1,523,682 1
1,346,596 1
1,185,103 9
980,009 7
781,766 5
568,495 3
394,373 2
208,807
% Increase in levied Debt 2
2.08% 1
10.38% 1
1.97% 1
1.65% 2
2.35% 2
2.27% 2
2.4% 2
2.28% 2
2.03% 2
2.23% 1
1.27% 0
0.20% .
. 11.84% 3
3.57% -
- 11.92% 0
0.13% -
-5.75% .
. 11.39% -
- 11.94% -
- 11.62% -
- 11.99% -
- 17.31% -
- 20.23% -
- 27.28% .
. 30.63% 3
37.05%
$Increase in levied Debt 4
42,939 2
218,284 4
45,756 3
39,030 5
56.543 5
55.824 6
60623 5
58,807 5
53,614 6
60,125 3
35,04 5
5,613 (
(330,503) (
(112,393) (
(279,955) 2
2,594 (
(119,070) (
(222,338) 1
1206,5761 (
(177,086) (
(161,493) (
(205,094) (
(198,24) (
(213,271) (
(174,122) (
(185,566)
Total Levied Debt before reduction
m m
:smom
Total Levied Debt after reduction
zsm000
nm� Road levy before
mw
reduction
mm
� Road levy after
- 0051 reduction
uoomo
v�.� soss mss ms. suss mu mn my my mm mzs mo ma m» mzs mm mm mm m»
City of St. Anthony
Debt Levy - Roads, Tax Abatement, Public Facilities
Option 2
$1,700,000 2003A (Refunding 2011A)
$1,790,000 -2004A (Refunded in 2011 B)
$1,695,000 -2005A (Refunded In 20118)
$2,485,000 - 2006A (Refunded in 2012A)
$2,050,000 - 2007A (Refunded in 2012A)
$1,910,000 - 2008A
$2,630,000 -2009A
$1,645,000 - 2009B (2001 B 8 2002A)
$1,375,000- 2010A
$1,940,000 -2011A
$2,210,000 - 2011B (2004A and 20D.5A)
$9,495,000 - 2012A (2006A 8 2007A)
$1,775,000 -2013A
Total Levy
2014.2016 Roadfmprovements
$5,928,000 - 2014A, 2015A 8 2016A
2017.2023 Roadlmprovements
$2,265,000 -2017A
$2,024,000 - 2018A
$2,530,000 -2019A
$2,408,000 - 2020A
$2,541,000 - 2021A
$2,024,000 -2022A
$2,144,000 - 2023A
$2,367,000 - 2024A _
Additional levy
128,800
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177.086
161,493 161,493
161,493
121,600
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
186,668
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
(140,000)
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
137,737
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
x.wum
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
175,652
177,319
178,526
179,550
179,760
179,760
179,550
179,130
178,500
182,910
181,650
180,180
174,122
174,122
184,768
185,450
185,975
186,343
186,553
186,605
186,500
191,120
189,766
193,084
195,709
197,664
193,674
185,566
196,995
192,401
187,808
193,714
183,608
106,150
1.77%
.7.37%
-4.61%
. 12.04%
0.13%
-5.82%
. 20.98%
- 11.62%
108,587
112,055
110,175
108,285
111,645
109,413
112,209
114,624
111,532
113,665
115,450
111,729
113,258
114,350
141,991
138,684
140,626
142,411
138,789
140,416
141,886
142,871
138,434
139,248
139,537
139,642
139,183
138,526 137,266
-
226,977
226,899
221,025
225,157
223,441
226,430
223,528
109,589
-
423,185
518,973
519,813
525,693
520,966
526,218
531,153
535,773
306,356
141,358
142,864
138,58D
139,546 140,032
404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 4134,570 404,570 404,570 404,570 404,570
177,086 177,086 177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177,086
177.086
161,493 161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
161,493
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
205,094
(140,000)
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
198,243
x.wum
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
213,271
2,297 335
2,301 223
2189.087
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
174,122
1 186103
980,009
781,766
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
185,566
177,086
161,493 161,493
205,094 205,094
198,243 198,243
213,271 213,271
174,122 174,122
185,566 185,566
205,094
198,243 198,243
213,271 213,271 213,271
174,122 174,122 174,122 174,122
185,566 185,566 185,566 185,566
Road levy before debt reduction
1,500,765 1,577,194
1,791,659
2,196,114
2,376,240
2,461,051
2,574,386
2,647,435
2,744,335
2,586,223
2,609,087
2,820,195
2,631,079
2,437,076
2,324,683
2,044,728
2,047,322
1,928,252
1,523,682
1,346,596
1,185,103
980,009
781,766
568,495
394,373
208,607
Stormwaler Debt Service
MSA Advance
Excess Bond Balance
Conduit Fee
Land Sale
Road levy before
reduction
Road levy after
(25,000)
(160,000)
(148,000)
(20,000)
(170,000 )
(210,000)
(80,000)
170,000
( )
(70,000)
(150,000)
(45,000)
(170,000)
(200,000)
(95,000)
(170,000)
(170,000)
(110,000)
(170,000)
(90,000)
(190,000)
(170,000)
(25,000)
(140,000)
(200,000)
(35,000
-
x.ma000
vmuoo
vww
x.wum
Road improvement levy
_ 1,500,755 1,577,184
1,791 659
1,843,114
1,916,240
2 026 051
2109 386
2,197,435
2,297 335
2,301 223
2189.087
2685195
2 631 079
2,437,076
2 32a 683
2 044 728
2 047 322
1,928,252
1 527 682
1,346,595
1 186103
980,009
781,766
° o Increase in Road levy
5.09%
13.60%
2.87%
3.97%
5.73%
4.11%
4.17%
4.27%
4.36%
3.26%
4.70%
1.77%
.7.37%
-4.61%
. 12.04%
0.13%
-5.82%
. 20.98%
- 11.62%
- 11.99%
- 17.31%
. 20.23%
- 27.28%
- 30.63 %
- 47.05%
$ Increase in Road levy
76,429
214475
511,455
73.126
109811
83335
88.049
93,900
99889
77884
116108
45685
1194003)
(112393)
(279955)
2584
(119070)
(404570)
(177086)
(161493)
(205084)
(198243)
(213271)
(174122)
(785566)
TAX ABATEMENT 149,395 146,480 151,025 153,148 155,112 127,366 129,781 131,839 133,519 134,800 135,719 136,290 136,500
PUBLIC FACILITIES 409,773 379.197 378,482 382,872 392,322 396,207 399,882 403347 406.602 414,897 422,683 424,289
559.168 525677 579467 516 n7n .wv c11.11 con e.o ....e. ....... ...... - - - - -- --- --- --- ---
Total levied debt after reduction
Total levied debt before reduction
% Increase in levied Debt
$Increase in levied Debt
2,059,923 2,102,861 2,321,146 2,379 133 2.463.874 2.549.624 2,639,049 2 732,621 2,831,456 2 940 921 3,027,489 3 145 774 2 767,579 2137 076 23246" 2 014 728 2 047 322 1 828 252 7 523 882 1346 598 7 185105 980 009 787 766 588 495 394 373 208 807
2,059,923 2102 861 2,321,146 2 732 733 2 923 674 2,984,624 3104 049 3182 621 3,281.456 3135 921 3167169 3,380,774 2 767 579 2,437,076 2 324 663 2 ,044,728 2,047,322 1 928 252 1 523 682 1,346,595 1 185103 980,009 781,766 568&95 394,373 208 607
2.08% 10.38% 2.50% 3.55% 3.49% 3.51% 3.55% 3.62% 3.87% 2.94% 3.91% - 12.02% - 11.94% 4.61% A2.04% 0.13% .5.82% - 20.98% . 11.62% . 11.99% . 17.31% - 20.23% - 27.28% . 30.63% -47.05%
42,939 218.284 57,988 84,541 85,950 89,425 93,572 98,535 109,465 86.569 118.286 (378,194) (330,503) (112 393) (279,955) 2 594 (119 070) (404 570) (177,086) (161,493) (205 0947 (198 2437 (211271) (7741221 (185 586)
axmom
�Mw
Total Levied Debt before reduction
xmmo
x.wam
xwmo
x.wam
:.w.w
x,.m.om
z,wam
xx000m
Total Levied Debt after reduction
Road levy before
reduction
Road levy after
xwow
:,mourn
reduction
x w.000
x.ma000
vmuoo
vww
x.wum
x.wum
xww
x.ww
m�z
mn mx. xoxs mu mn .ov
mto mm
mn zmx xoxx xm. mxz x cx zmx xme xw
METRO
CITIES
Realizing the Benefits
of a Streamlined
Organized Collection Process
July 25, 2013
1. Welcome
2. Overview of New Legislation
"L) I01
L,EAG U E m
,"INNESOTA
CITIES
Patricia Nauman,
Executive Director
Metro Cities
Todd Olson, Metro Cities
Government Relations
Craig Johnson, League of Cities
Government Relations
3 Key Benefits of Organized Collection White Bear Lake, Maplewood,
and Shakopee
4. Organizing Collection with your Licensed Haulers'; Trudy Richter, RRA
Being Prepared to Establish an Organized Public Policy Consultant
Collection Options Committee
5. Questions and Answers
FMIn collaboration with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. (RRA), public policy
consultants working with government on solid waste issues for 30 years.
www.richardsonrichter.com // (651) 222 -7227
City Council
adopted
Resolution of
Intentto
�,. . u,.m•m.
Organize on
,,,
March
_• •, ,e
28,
m
°..
2011
Next Steps
• Hired a Consultant - s6o,000
i8o Day Process
• go Day Planning Period
• go Day Negotiation Period
City Council Authorized Organization of City's
Trash System on November 28, zoii
Findings of Fact
Five Year Contract
City Wide Single Hauler
Cost: 56.79 to $3.3.17 per month
Residents will save
si.z million per year less than the current
average published rates
si.6 million per year less than the average
actualrates
Time and cost
Politically charged
No chance to work togethertoward a mutually
beneficial outcome
Trash cart order
z0/32/65/95 gallon carts
Trash cart purchase
Resident billing addresses
Trash cart roll out
All residents have trash service
or an environmentally
responsible way of disposing of
trash
Solid Waste Ordinance and
Standards
Trash and Recycling Education
Better records
Code enforcement
Licensing
Working relationship
with contracted
hauler
Cooperative
purchasing
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
City of Maplewood
igzo County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55iog
(651) 249-2304
shann.finwall (aka. maolevrood nvi.0
wwvd.u. ma lewood. mn_uLosI..
�-i
HIR)
_M
O
N
N
N
1
T
C
J
O
U
N a
E
m m
y
= U
3 �
a N�
O
D O o
0 a
O p
LL U m
m
N
N
0
U
m m
L
a0
07 w
C N
O `i
U
LL �
a
a
N
d
C
N O
> N
� C
n. -
>i N
o-
w o.
mU
N
O M
U N
C
� \1m @
p `
O U
LL C I
ri ■ten ■�ru�■u �ur�rl■�
m N
C ❑
_Ow
C
1L 3
N O
Y �
J w
m
O w
U
m
N
N
C L
D M
O
m =
N N
� � N
fl U
U
m m m
N -
L N 'm
m O
0.0-0
Q a a
N
J
0
C O=
rn °i 3
C N W
O C
O N a
LL a m
Y 00 m
l
J N
o
pia
� U r
� � 3
d
N
N
T
(0
d
3
C
r Y N
C
LLo >
O
N
T
C
_
C
O
n
2
N O
W
ac w E
ft -
K o°
« 0
N C >
a2 o
p D
oaf
N
`O
c
y N
E�
a.-
O c
d �
> a
d L
O of
Es
=a
. d
E o
O a
Q L
M
C
O
L
3
E
0-
y U N
N O a
m N �
C = T
E ° "£
O E
`C o
O '0 j
C ME
O w
Z W,2
O
N
� c
d m
iA o-
L N
N >
m
3v
L
A
C
U)
rn
� o
(9 a
a
C
m
O
Y L
� U
30
y O
a
41 N
Q0
s4?
M (n
r
4
U
d
O
a`
D
m
0
a�
mo
O N
CL
O o
LL
r
m11111111
�„'01„
0/111110
1111111m
:111111_
�Iltllllllli
U
d N
'p o
LL`o
� U
3�
O �
m r
a�i v
� U
m
C m
r N
o�N
n
r
�11111�
wo
c
s
U
d Q
>
Q 01
V N
M a
M U
`O_
N d
m
C
N C
N N
aE
O n
m v o
N O N
OD a
K `o
O
E m w0
o O O N
O N j O 0
> LL
C E
Nw 0- p-
_ LL O LL N C
w° �a ro
p v u E
U N O = m
N
o m D 5 D o c
M C LL c U o
w N V
I■■■olm ■1■ ■I■ = ■. m ■I■ ■H■
G
N C
v v
m
E
> >
C N
N [2
D (7
V C
I
O
N
LL7 E
=
m
Z) CL
d N
Y O
C
4)
C J
O)
C
N 'O
Q 9 N
v C>
O an d
m
O
N
o— M
O
a U i
N
O N
iw
mm:
LL C M
IA
<O
h
c
s
U
d Q
>
Q 01
V N
M a
M U
`O_
N d
m
C
N C
N N
aE
O n
m v o
N O N
OD a
K `o
O
E m w0
o O O N
O N j O 0
> LL
C E
Nw 0- p-
_ LL O LL N C
w° �a ro
p v u E
U N O = m
N
o m D 5 D o c
M C LL c U o
w N V
I■■■olm ■1■ ■I■ = ■. m ■I■ ■H■
G
N C
v v
m
E
V
UJ
E
N
O
a
E
m
N
d
a
a
■ 1 {� ■H�t} ■E ■H� ■1■iR ►Ea1rH1 ■� ■1 ■■■ ■1�
■
■
■
1
C C 04
N O N
• y N U c
atn`�'Qc
■ C a > U O
O C a C U
cEm=
d o
N H LL m U
> >
C N
N [2
D (7
� D
0 N
U�
� T
o
N�
J li
�
o
V
UJ
E
N
O
a
E
m
N
d
a
a
■ 1 {� ■H�t} ■E ■H� ■1■iR ►Ea1rH1 ■� ■1 ■■■ ■1�
■
■
■
1
C C 04
N O N
• y N U c
atn`�'Qc
■ C a > U O
O C a C U
cEm=
d o
N H LL m U
I <
� T
C �
■
N =
O
I�■I■
■u�
U
U c
m
�
N
c
L
y = p
D -
E
aa�
N
—
N C
W O p
y
J a U
a
O D
E
C U
E C
m=
N U
Q Z w
I <