Loading...
CR 08-035 Livalbe Communities Demonstration Account - Cottageville Park ExpansionG \TY OF HOPKINS July 15, 2008 Council Report 2008 -035 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT — Cottageville Park Expansion Proposed Action Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Adopt Resolution 2008 -035 identifying the need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding and authorizing an application for grant funds. Overview The City of Hopkins is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds. The LCDA funds development and redevelopment projects that achieve connected development patterns linking housing, jobs and services, and maximize the development potential of existing infrastructure and regional facilities. Cottageville Park is a hidden amenity for Blake Road Corridor residents, and expanding the park to have street frontage and Creek access is vital to stabilizing the neighborhood and connecting it to adjacent neighborhoods, jobs, and transit. The application will request $550,000 for the acquisition of land and demolition of two duplexes for an expanded Cottageville Park. These improvements will allow visibility and improved access to the park from Blake Road, and provide a catalyst for future redevelopment in the area. The expansion of Cottageville Park is a vital part to the continued improvements in the Blake Road Corridor. Staff submitted a pre - application for LCDA funds on June 16, 2008, a requirement of the application process. A final application is due by July 21, 2008. Primary Issues to Consider Why is this funding needed? What will it accomplish? Supporting Information • DRAFT LCDA Application • Resolution 2008 -035 Tara Beard Community Development Coordinator Financial Impact: $ 0 Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Council Report 2008 -035 Page 2 Analysis of the Issues The last few years have seen a level of community and civic engagement of the corridor that has lead to great improvements to the area, including neighborhood watch organizing, National Night Out, youth programming, and increased Police and Inspections presence. The time is ripe for physical redevelopment of the area to build on the successes of the past year in terms of crime and livability. As the City embarks upon a Corridor Planning process to create a vision for the future of the neighborhood, the LCDA funding would help implement one of the most important physical improvements sure to be reflected in the final plan: the expansion of Cottageville park. Staff is recommending the application for LCDA funds to address the first phase of the park expansion by acquiring and demolishing two duplexes between the park and Blake Road. Future phases will include acquiring and demolishing apartments between the park and Minnehaha Creek. Staff is currently investigating possible sources of funding for future phases of the project, and has not ruled out asking for additional LCDA funds. RESOLUTION NO. 2008-035 CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of Hopkins is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2008 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on July 21, 2008; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: Attest: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: No other reasonable source of funding for these activities has been identified. 4. Authorizes its City Manager to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted this 15th day of July, 2008. Terry Obermaier, City Clerk By: Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT 2008 GRANT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: Read and follow all instructions carefully and completely. Any applications submitted that do not adhere to the instructions will be returned for revision. 1. Fill out application completely. If a question does not apply, place "NA" in the appropriate box. Do not leave questions blank. 2. Use only black font size 11 for responses. 3. Use of bulleted lists is encouraged. 4. Do not attach a coversheet, submittal letter or any graphic images to the front of the application. 5. Application should be bound only with staples, paperclips or binder clips. Do not use spiral binding, or any type of report cover or folder. 6. Application should not exceed 25 pages, unless additional space is needed for complete financial (sources and uses pages) information. Responses to financial information requested on the Sources and Uses pages are the only areas of the application that may exceed the designated space allotment. 7. Be sure all seven required attachments are included in the application. See page 26 for the list of required attachments and specific instructions. 8. Submit 20 copies of the application form and attachments by 4:30 p.m. on July 21, 2008, to: Linda Milashius Livable Communities Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street N. St. Paul, MN 55101 9. Submit an electronic copy of the application form (attachments not required) by 4:30 p.m. on July 21, 2008 to Linda .milashius'a;metc.state.mn.us 1 Project Name: Blake Rd Corridor Improvements Applicant: city, county or development authority City of Hopkins Project Location: City: Street boundaries, address or major intersection: Hopkins Cottageville Park area, between Oxford St and Lake St NE on Blake Rd N Project Contact: Name: Title: Address: City, Zipcode: Phone & Fax E - mail: Tara Beard Community Development Coordinator 1010 1" St S Hopkins MN 55343 Ph: 952 -548 -6343 fax:952- 935 -1834 tbeard@hopkinsmn.com Grantee Information: Contact person Name: Title: Phone: E -mail: Authorized city. county or development authority official(s) for contract signature(s) Name: Title: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT 2008 GRANT APPLICATION See Cover Page for Instructions on completing and submitting this application. Section I. Information about the Project and project elements for which you are requesting funding. The Blake Rd Corridor is a part of Hopkins that has struggled with crime and livability concerns but is now ripe with momentum and opportunity for revitalization. A three year stakeholder initiative lead by the Hopkins Police Department and Hennepin County to improve livability in the area was completed in March of 2008 with the release of a community assessment report from the Wilder Foundation. This assessment pointed to, among other things, the need for the improvement and expansion of Cottageville Park. Cottageville Park, central to the Blake Rd Corridor, is a `'pocket' park without street frontage and lined by the backs of surrounding duplexes. The poor visibility of and lack of amenities in the park had turned it into an unsafe place that welcomed criminal activity. The stakeholder collaborative mentioned above has made great strides in improving safety in the corridor with but the root of the problem — the Park's hidden location — must be addressed to ensure long - standing improvement and new investment. In addition to the thousands of dollars raised by the stakeholder collaborative to fund the Wilder Foundation study, increased police patrols, after - school programs, and other services, the City of Hopkins has received Corridor Planning funds from Hennepin County to create a vision for the area. That vision undoubtedly includes the expansion of Cottageville Park to include street frontage by acquiring and demolishing two duplexes that separate the Park from Blake Rd. This improvement will be the first phase in improving Cottageville Park. Future improvements are discussed in Part C. Office Use I.A. Funding Proposal Describe the element, building, or phase(s) that will go forward to construction within one year, if this funding request is granted, and be completed or substantially completed within two years of the grant award (Dec. 2008). Do not include numbers of housing units or other project elements that apply to development beyond two years— include these details in Sec. I.H, if applicable. Include funding request (dollars) in Sec. I.B. (Limit 20 lines) A Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development grant in the amount of $468,221 was applied for in February 2008 to build sidewalks in the corridor. Current conditions along Blake Rd include worn footpaths and asphalt sidewalks in lieu of standard concrete sidewalks. This grant would provide sidewalks and a boulevard with trees along the expanded Cottageville Park as described in this application. A decision is expected in July 2008: 3 ct CA cu cr cu atel Type of Use Number of Existing Uses Square Footage or Acreage 1 Number of Planned Uses Square Footage or Acreage Mark (X) to identify whether planned uses are new construction, rehabilitation or adaptive reuse Will new buildings be constructed? If yes, list the percent mix of commercial, residential, public or other uses: Commercial Public uses Residential x_ . Parks /green space Other Uses — list: New Rehabilitation or Adaptive Reuse Residential 4 18,560 SF 0 0 Commercial Retail Restaurant Office Government/Civic Arts /Cultural Entertainment Open Space /Public Space 1 57,600 SF 1 76,160 SF X Other (list) Instructions for I.0 -I.G: Complete Sections IC through IG for the element, building or phases of the proposal that will be completed or substantially completed within two years of the grant award, as described in the "Funding Proposal" in Sec. I.A, page 1. I.C. Proposed Land Use Changes Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box I.D. Project Mix and Type of Uses List the number and types of existing or planned uses for the funding p roposal. Will buildings be demolished? If yes, indicate the number of and type of buildings: Two duplexes built in 1955. Neither are owner- occupied; one has been for sale on and off for over a year. Will new buildings be constructed? If yes, list the percent mix of commercial, residential, public or other uses: Commercial Public uses Residential x_ . Parks /green space Other Uses — list: Instructions for I.0 -I.G: Complete Sections IC through IG for the element, building or phases of the proposal that will be completed or substantially completed within two years of the grant award, as described in the "Funding Proposal" in Sec. I.A, page 1. I.C. Proposed Land Use Changes Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box I.D. Project Mix and Type of Uses List the number and types of existing or planned uses for the funding p roposal. x Will new pedestrian infrastructure be added? If yes, mark type and describe: Total # of Units # Units Owner # Units Rental Distinguishing Features: (e.g. number of stories, building design) Existing Housing: Single- family Townhouse Apartments or Condominiums Duplexes 4 1 3 Single story, tuck under garage Other (list): Planned Housing: Single- family Townhouse Apartments or Condominiums Duplexes Other (list): x Will new pedestrian infrastructure be added? If yes, mark type and describe: _x_ Sidewalks: A new 6' wide sidewalk and boulevard with trees is planned between the expanded park and Blake Rd N. Currently there is no sidewalk access to the park. Bike paths: Trails: Will new street realignments and connections be constructed? If yes, describe: No. I.E. Type and Tenure of Housing: List the number of housing units by type and tenure (owner /renter) currently within and/or planned for the funding proposal area (Sec. I.A, page 1). I.F. Streets Yes No 1 Mark (X) appropriate box I.G Pedestrian Infrastructure Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Will existing pedestrian infrastructure be improved? If yes, mark type and describe: Sidewalks: Bike paths: Trails: 4 Will new streets be constructed? If yes, describe: No. Will new street realignments and connections be constructed? If yes, describe: No. I.E. Type and Tenure of Housing: List the number of housing units by type and tenure (owner /renter) currently within and/or planned for the funding proposal area (Sec. I.A, page 1). I.F. Streets Yes No 1 Mark (X) appropriate box I.G Pedestrian Infrastructure Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Will existing pedestrian infrastructure be improved? If yes, mark type and describe: Sidewalks: Bike paths: Trails: 4 I.H. Future Development Phases, if applicable Describe future development or phases that will be undertaken beyond two years from the date of the grant award (Dec. 2008). Describe phasing plan and include details of phases, e.g. anticipated number and type of housing units, other proposed project components. If no future phases or development are planned beyond two years, write NONE (Limit 20 lines) Future development phases planned for Cottageville Park include the acquisition of two 12 -unit apartment buildings that are adjacent to the Park's south side. This part of the expansion will allow access to Minnehaha Creek and additional land for other park amenities. The City of Hopkins is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and other important area stakeholders to fully realize this phase. Across Lake St NE from the expanded Park is the Atlas site; an almost 17 acre site that has recently been sold to a developer with redevelopment intentions for the site. As a part of the small area plan funded by Hennepin County's Corridor Planning funds, redevelopment scenarios for this site and its connection to Cottageville Park will be explored. While it is premature to anticipate unit numbers or square footages on the site, it's proximity to a planned Light Rail Station, numerous existing transit routes, Knollwood shopping center and surrounding employment all encourage higher density, transit oriented redevelopment on the site Improving Cottageville Park will further catalyze such reinvestment by providing a usable, safe, open -space amenity. Adjacent to the Park on the north is twenty duplexes in poor condition with a history of tenant and landlord problems. As a part of the small -area plan mentioned above redevelopment of this area to improve the quality of housing stock, possibly increase density, and better address Cottageville Park will be explored. Such redevelopment would not be feasible without making basic improvements to the park such as street frontage and creek access. I.I. Completed And /Or Existing Adjacent Development Describe buildings or development phases already constructed, if applicable, and/or other existing development adjacent to the project area described in Section I.A on page 1, "Funding Proposal." (Limit 20 lines) There has been some significant redevelopment occurring in the area of the proposed project. The first phase of a three - phase, 8xx,xxx square foot office development, Excelsior Crossings, is almost complete by Opus Northwest. The project is located at Highway 169 and Excelsior Blvd, approximately '/2 mile from the project area. The office complex will be occupied by Cargill as of June 2008. When complete, the development will add 3,000 new jobs to the City. Excelsior Blvd recently underwent reconstruction that included pedestrian improvements, making all forms of travel easier along this well- traveled East -West corridor. The pedestrian improvements lead to the regional trailhead at Highway 169 and Excelsior Blvd. New infill housing was constructed directly west of the project area on excess parking lots once used by Aliant Tec. The development, Parkside and Regency, are zero lot line single - family and town home units. The former headquarters for Aliant Tec was reconfigured to accommodate several large users and many small office suites. The project received a Sierra Club's smart growth award in 2005. 5 Section II. Financial Information II.A. Available Resources Assessment State why this project element(s) will not occur within two years after this grant cycle unless LCDA funding is made available for this project at this time. (Limit 15 lines) Funding for property acquisition and demolition is not available from other sources. The City has limited resources for improvements along this corridor. Future funding for continued redevelopment and pedestrian improvements should be available through TIF generated from redevelopment. However, in order for redevelopment to occur, the neighborhood needs to be stabilized. The project as outlined in this application will be the single biggest factor in neighborhood stabilization and the catalyst that will allow additional redevelopment. The City has begun discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the purchase and demolition of the adjacent apartment buildings to further expand the park and provide it with Creek access. The City intends to fully explore this option to support phase II of the Cottageville Park expansion before requesting additional funds from the LCDA for phase II of this project. 2. II.B. Cost Estimates: How have costs been determined? Mark (X) as many as appropriate. For checked boxes. list which project element(s)). II.C. Local Tax Impact of the Project 1. Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Yes No X Mark (X) appropriate box Has the applicant completed a TIF analysis of the project? If so, what is the project increment: To what is the increment pledged? 6 Bidding Is the applicant planning to use TIF for this project? (If so, be sure to include this in Sources and Uses, II.D and II.E) Contracting estimates Developer estimates X City estimates - property value and demo cost OR, is the project going into a district already generating tax increment? Other (list): Section II. Financial Information II.A. Available Resources Assessment State why this project element(s) will not occur within two years after this grant cycle unless LCDA funding is made available for this project at this time. (Limit 15 lines) Funding for property acquisition and demolition is not available from other sources. The City has limited resources for improvements along this corridor. Future funding for continued redevelopment and pedestrian improvements should be available through TIF generated from redevelopment. However, in order for redevelopment to occur, the neighborhood needs to be stabilized. The project as outlined in this application will be the single biggest factor in neighborhood stabilization and the catalyst that will allow additional redevelopment. The City has begun discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the purchase and demolition of the adjacent apartment buildings to further expand the park and provide it with Creek access. The City intends to fully explore this option to support phase II of the Cottageville Park expansion before requesting additional funds from the LCDA for phase II of this project. 2. II.B. Cost Estimates: How have costs been determined? Mark (X) as many as appropriate. For checked boxes. list which project element(s)). II.C. Local Tax Impact of the Project 1. Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Yes No X Mark (X) appropriate box Has the applicant completed a TIF analysis of the project? If so, what is the project increment: To what is the increment pledged? 6 X Is the applicant planning to use TIF for this project? (If so, be sure to include this in Sources and Uses, II.D and II.E) X Is the applicant planning to create a TIF district? X OR, is the project going into a district already generating tax increment? Section II. Financial Information II.A. Available Resources Assessment State why this project element(s) will not occur within two years after this grant cycle unless LCDA funding is made available for this project at this time. (Limit 15 lines) Funding for property acquisition and demolition is not available from other sources. The City has limited resources for improvements along this corridor. Future funding for continued redevelopment and pedestrian improvements should be available through TIF generated from redevelopment. However, in order for redevelopment to occur, the neighborhood needs to be stabilized. The project as outlined in this application will be the single biggest factor in neighborhood stabilization and the catalyst that will allow additional redevelopment. The City has begun discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the purchase and demolition of the adjacent apartment buildings to further expand the park and provide it with Creek access. The City intends to fully explore this option to support phase II of the Cottageville Park expansion before requesting additional funds from the LCDA for phase II of this project. 2. II.B. Cost Estimates: How have costs been determined? Mark (X) as many as appropriate. For checked boxes. list which project element(s)). II.C. Local Tax Impact of the Project 1. Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Yes No X Mark (X) appropriate box Has the applicant completed a TIF analysis of the project? If so, what is the project increment: To what is the increment pledged? 6 II.D. Sources and Uses — For Requested Elements(s) — As described in Sec. I.B, page 2. See sample sources and uses page, attached. Fill out completely, ensuring that the numbers properly total. Incomplete sources and uses may be interpreted as a lack of funding readiness. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee cannot evaluate the financial readiness of a project without complete information. Sources LCDA TOTAL: $ Amount $550,000 Status Pending Approval Anticipated by: Fall 2008 Uses Hard Costs: Property Acquisition Demolition Total Hard Costs: Eligible Soft Costs (refer to "Eligible Uses of Funds, " Item 1.a) of the LCDA criteria. Total Soft Costs: OVERALL TOTAL $ Amount $500,000 $50,000 $550,000 0 $550,000 $ Portion from LCDA Source $500,000 $50,000 $ Other Public Sources $ Other Private Sources 7 Uses $ Amount $ Portion from LCDA Source $ Other Public Sources $ Other Private Sources Hard Costs: Property Acquisition $500,000 $500,000 Demolition $50,000 $50,000 Relocation of tenants $45,000 $45,000 Site prep $30,000 $30,000 Sod $15,000 $15,000 Sidewalk $1,000 $1,000 Trees $3,000 $3,000 Rain Garden $20,000 $20,000 Total Hard Costs: $664,000 Eligible Soft Costs (refer to "Eligible Uses of Funds," Item 1.a) of the LCDA criteria. Engineering & Legal $20,000 $20,000 Total Soft Costs: $20,000 OVERALL TOTAL $684,000 II.E. Sources and Uses — For Funding Proposal, as described in Sec. I.A (page 1), including Requested Element(s) described in Sources and Uses, II.D. See sample sources and uses page, attached. Fill out completely, ensuring that the numbers total. Incomplete sources and uses may be interpreted as a lack of funding readiness. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee cannot evaluate the financial readiness of a project without complete information. Sources TOTAL: $ Amount Status Approval Anticipated by: II.F. Other Resource Documentation Identify other sources the applicant has considered but will not use to fund this LCDA request. (Limit 10 lines) a) Describe the local funding sources the applicant has considered but will not use to fund the project component for which the applicant is requesting LCDA funds. Include local taxes, use of local bonding authority, other local sources. Identify why these sources cannot be used within the next two years to fund the requested project component. City general fund dollars or general obligation bonding authority was considered but due to the need to maintain a reasonable tax levy with increasing costs of service delivery, it was determined that the proposed project cannot be funded solely with local dollars. (Limit 10 lines) b) Describe non -local sources of funding the applicant has pursued to fund this project component within the next two years. Identify why these sources cannot be used. Provide information (e.g. letters, other documentation) to substantiate unsuccessful efforts to secure such funding. The area is being studied for a TIF district but Tax Increment cannot be used for property acquisition resulting in an expanded park. TIF is still being considered for additional improvements to the area that are eligible for TIF funding and will contribute to and be benefited by the expansion and improvement of Cottageville Park. II.G. Other Funding Requests Yes No X Mark (X) appropriate box Has the applicant applied this year for the same funds, in whole or in part, as detailed in this request, from another source(s)? If yes, state source(s): 9 X within one -half mile of a transit way in the 2030 Transitway System — NorthStar, Northwest, Cedar Avenue, H -35W, Central, Red Rock, Rush Line, Southwest, I -394, or Hiawatha? If yes, state corridor: Southwest X Planned overall housing density (net units per acre) within one -half mile of a local bus route? If yes, state the route name(s)/number(s): 17, 615, 668 9 X within one -half mile of a park -and -ride facility on an express commuter bus or express bus route? If yes, state the route name(s) /number(s): b) Current overall housing density (net units per acre) Planned overall housing density (net units per acre) 9 0 (Begin new page) Section III. Information for Evaluating Your Proposal on the Step One Criteria (see page 5 of criteria) III.A. Land Use Criteria Include information in Sections III.A. through III.F for the "Funding Proposal," as described in Section I.A, page 1. Do not include data and information for any activity or phase(s) beyond two years from the date of the grant award (Dec. 2007). 1. Use Land Efficiently a) Describe how the proposal will use land more efficiently or increase the intensity of land use on the project site. Limit 10 lines The duplexes are frequently vacant, with high renter turnover and one has been for sale for almost two years. The expansion of the park to include street frontage will increase the Park's visibility and safety. The recently completed Blake Rd Corridor Community Assessment found that significant numbers of residents within walking distance of Cottageville Park were not aware of its existence. The Park is an important amenity to the community and the only park east of Blake Rd and north of Excelsior Blvd. The condition and underutilization of the existing duplexes indicate that a more efficient use of the land would be providing the park with visibility, street frontage and providing space for more amenities. 2. Develop land uses linked to the local and regional transportation system. a) Yes No Is the projected located: b) Describe how project elements are designed to optimize the relationship of the project to transit, (if applicable) through location and orientation of buildings, location of parking, or other project design. Limit 10 lines The project design will make pedestrian access to public transportation easier by constructing a pedestrian a lk« ay providing an important link to area transit stops. c) Describe how, as applicable, existing and /or new street patterns, sidewalks, trails, paths provide pedestrian access to transit. Limit 15 lines The Blake Rd corridor is a highly traveled pedestrian walkway as shown by the well -worn path in the attached photo. People from the surrounding apartment complexes, duplexes, and single- family homes use the corridor to access public transportation, shopping, and employment. A bus transit stop is located at Lake St and Blake Rd 200 feet from the project site. The lack of sidewalks and trails are a deficiency noted by the residents in the Wilder Foundation study, with 90% of respondents rating pedestrian safety as poor. d) Identify bus routes that serve the project. Limit 10 lines 17, 615, 668, 667, and 12. 11 • Type of Use Within the proposed project '/4 mile of the project Office X Retail X Services (list type): Daycare, talor, dry cleaner, hair salon, car repair X Restaurant X Entertainment Government/civic Education Arts /cultural Open space X X Public space X X Residential X e) Describe how residents of the proposed project will have access to transit. Limit 10 lines Residents north of the Park will have safe, clear access to Route 12 on Excelsior and the future Southwest LRT station at 2n Ave NE. Residents south of the Park will have safe, clear access to Route 17 on HWY 7 and Rtes 615, 668, and 667 via Knollwood Mall. Currently these residents must walk on grass or worn paths on Blake Rd to access these routes. f) Identify elements included in the project that support or connect to transit, as appropriate to the site. Mark (X) appropriate box X Sidewalks (describe): 6 foot sidewalk with blvd between the Park and Blake Rd N Paths /trails (describe): Bike racks (describe number. location): Transit shelters (describe number. location): Pedestrian waiting facilities (describe number. location): Other (describe): g) Is the proposal consistent with access management guidelines? \ lurk r 1100y 3. Connect housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses. a) Mark (x) the typ es of uses in the proposed project and within 1 /4 mile of the project. 12 Yes No -- explain: N:A -- explain: e) Describe how residents of the proposed project will have access to transit. Limit 10 lines Residents north of the Park will have safe, clear access to Route 12 on Excelsior and the future Southwest LRT station at 2n Ave NE. Residents south of the Park will have safe, clear access to Route 17 on HWY 7 and Rtes 615, 668, and 667 via Knollwood Mall. Currently these residents must walk on grass or worn paths on Blake Rd to access these routes. f) Identify elements included in the project that support or connect to transit, as appropriate to the site. Mark (X) appropriate box X Sidewalks (describe): 6 foot sidewalk with blvd between the Park and Blake Rd N Paths /trails (describe): Bike racks (describe number. location): Transit shelters (describe number. location): Pedestrian waiting facilities (describe number. location): Other (describe): g) Is the proposal consistent with access management guidelines? \ lurk r 1100y 3. Connect housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses. a) Mark (x) the typ es of uses in the proposed project and within 1 /4 mile of the project. 12 Estimate how many jobs are within '/4 mile. 345 How are these jobs reached by bus or car? (describe bus routes, streets, highways and /or freeways traveled) These jobs are almost exclusively accessed by Blake Rd, either by car or by foot from a transit station at Excelsior Blvd or Cambridge St or HWY 7. Cars may access Exclesior or 7 from HWY 169 to reach Blake Rd. Estimate how many jobs are within 1 mile. 8100 How are these jobs reached by bus or car? (describe bus routes, streets, highways and /or freeways traveled) Jobs can be reached by bus routes 17, 668, and 615 north of the site and 12 and 664 south of the site on Excelsior Blvd. b) Describe how the project will increase or improve connections between jobs and housing. Limit 10 lines The project will add a vital pedestrian link from high - density housing developments to employment opportunities at retail centers including Knollwood Mall, manufacturers such as EDCO and office development including Excelsior Tech Center. c) d) Describe how the project's land uses are arranged or designed to optimize connectivity and access within the project area. 0 lines Limit Employment Proximity and Access The Park is designed to be the focal point of the neighborhood. It is centrally located lying in the middle of the corridor. It can be easily accessed from the east side of Blake Rd and eliminates the need to cross Blake Road for amenities available at larger Hopkins parks but not available at Cottageville. The project is approximately 200 feet from a transit stop at Lake St and Blake Rd. The pedestrian improvements proposed for the project will increase access to transit. 13 e) Describe how the project's land uses are arranged or designed to connect to adjacent neighborhoods. Limit 10 lines The housing directly north of the park is almost entirely rental and in various states of disrepair. The housing directly south of the park is more likely to be owner - occupied and in good condition. Further south from the site is a large apartment complex with a large East African population. Opening the park to Blake Rd will embrace all communities and encourage their interaction via shared use of the Park. This project intends to be the catalyst that will bring additional improvements and redevelopment to the area, further encouraging community connections through welcoming open space. 4. Develop a range of housing densities, types and costs. a) Housing Affordability: List estimated affordability levels for existing and planned housing in the following table: (Area median income - $78,500) 14 Number of Units at or below 50% of Area Median Income Number of Units at 50 -80% of Area Median Income Number of Units at Market Rate Current/Proposed Price Ranges of Market Rate Units Existing housing Owner: Rental: 4 $1,250 /month Planned housing Owner: Rental: Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box Are there mechanisms to ensure long -term affordability? If yes, what type? NA Mark (X) any that apply Land trust Resale price indexing Other (describe): e) Describe how the project's land uses are arranged or designed to connect to adjacent neighborhoods. Limit 10 lines The housing directly north of the park is almost entirely rental and in various states of disrepair. The housing directly south of the park is more likely to be owner - occupied and in good condition. Further south from the site is a large apartment complex with a large East African population. Opening the park to Blake Rd will embrace all communities and encourage their interaction via shared use of the Park. This project intends to be the catalyst that will bring additional improvements and redevelopment to the area, further encouraging community connections through welcoming open space. 4. Develop a range of housing densities, types and costs. a) Housing Affordability: List estimated affordability levels for existing and planned housing in the following table: (Area median income - $78,500) 14 b) Describe the mix of housing options that will result when the proposed housing (in Section I.E) is added to the housing in adjacent neighborhoods. Limit 10 lines The immediate project does not contain housing. It is the first component to a neighborhood revitalization plan that will result in new housing options in the area, both on adjacent parcels and on a large redevelopment site currently occupied by Atlas Cold Storage. It is anticipated that this new housing will be a mix of housing types and densities. c) Describe how the proposed housing will diversify housing choices city -wide. Limit 10 lines Mark (X) appropriate box 15 The proposed project does not immediately include housing. Diverse housing choices will be added through the redevelopment efforts that will be made possible by the proposed project. It is l ikely that high - density housing will be added on the Atlas Cold Storage site if this project is funded. d) Check if the project includes housing that addresses the following strategies of Minnesota Housing. e) Check if the project has used or will use any of the following green building systems to build housing. Mark (X) appropriate box Minnesota Green Communities Minnesota GreenStar Other— specit■ New affordable housing (housing that costs no more than 30% of a households' monthly income) Emerging market homeownership Preservation of existing affordable housing Housing for the homeless b) Describe the mix of housing options that will result when the proposed housing (in Section I.E) is added to the housing in adjacent neighborhoods. Limit 10 lines The immediate project does not contain housing. It is the first component to a neighborhood revitalization plan that will result in new housing options in the area, both on adjacent parcels and on a large redevelopment site currently occupied by Atlas Cold Storage. It is anticipated that this new housing will be a mix of housing types and densities. c) Describe how the proposed housing will diversify housing choices city -wide. Limit 10 lines Mark (X) appropriate box 15 The proposed project does not immediately include housing. Diverse housing choices will be added through the redevelopment efforts that will be made possible by the proposed project. It is l ikely that high - density housing will be added on the Atlas Cold Storage site if this project is funded. d) Check if the project includes housing that addresses the following strategies of Minnesota Housing. e) Check if the project has used or will use any of the following green building systems to build housing. Mark (X) appropriate box Minnesota Green Communities Minnesota GreenStar Other— specit■ Yes No X Rain gardens — If yes, describe: A Rain Gardenw ill be constructed to treat storm water and encourage infiltration. X X Infiltration swales — If yes, describe: X Pervious pavement — If yes, describe: X X Native vegetation — If yes, describe: Native vegetation will be used as much as possible in the construction of the Rain Garden. X Underground stormwater retention/filtration structures — If yes, describe: X Green roofs — If yes, describe: X Other — If yes, describe: Yes No X Improved site runoff— If yes, describe: Reduced impervious area due to building and parking lot removal will decrease rate and volume of storm water. X Local storm water detention — If yes, describe: Rain Garden X Regional storm water detention — If yes, describe: X Other — If yes, describe: 5. Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources. a) What types of conventional stormwater management techniques for rate and/or volume control and ollutant removal are employed within the proeect? Mark (X) all that apply. b) What type(s) of innovative and low impact development (LID) methods are employed in the project to achieve storm water control through the integration of natural hydrologic functions into the project's overall design. Mark (X) all that apple. 16 Yes No X Adds green space — If yes, describe: The project would add almost half an acre of green space to an existing 1.5 acre park. Future phases would add an additional acre to the park resulting in approximately 3 acres of green space. X Enhances connections to existing green spaces and other natural areas, within the project or adjacent to it - If yes, describe: The second phase of the proposal would provide a direct connection from the existing park to Minnehaha Creek. X Uses natural resources and features, where feasible and appropriate, as community assets and amenities — If yes, describe: The second phase of the park expansion would bring Minnehaha Creek into the park as an amenity the community will be able to utilize — currently the Creek is virtually invisible to the community. Yes No Has the municipality in which the project will be located prepared a local natural resources inventory and assessment (NRI/A) in coordination with the reSaonai NRI/A? If yes, has the local NRI /A been used to plan this project? It yes. how has the local NRI/A benefitted preset-Nation or integration ofnatural resources in the project? Natural resources inventory and assesment d) Describe the ways in which the project: Mark (X) 17 1 that apply Name of Partner(s) Type of Partnership or Role of Partner Wilder Foundation Research/Social Planning TBA Planning Consultant Blake Corridor Small Area Plan to begin July 2008 Hopkins School District Educational/Recreational Programming City of St. Louis Park/Three Rivers Park District Assistance in policing City of Hopkins Financial assistance for park and future redevelopment; Leadership for stakeholder group Minnehaha Watershed District Minnehaha Creek plans Stewart Lawrence Group Owns 17 acre parcel in the corridor, planning redevelopment. HKGI Comprehensive Planning Area Neighborhood Watch Groups Public outreach 1_arget Corporation National Night Out funding III.B. Tools and Processes to Ensure Successful Outcomes 1. City review /regulatory process: Describe city review or regulatory processes or procedures used or developed for this project, such as zoning codes, design standards, or development standards. (limit 6 lines) The design of the park will utilize crime prevention through design techniques to open the space and provide the residents with a safe gathering place. The ultimate design will also be influenced by the natural amenity of Minnehaha Creek. The neighborhood has been reviewed and some zoning changes are being recommended as a part of Hopkins' Comprehensive Plan update. The neighborhood is the subject of a small area plan that will begin this month (July 2008) and will be completed in early 2009. 2. ' es \ lark (X ) appropriate hoy Is the project consistent with an area. neighborhood. corridor or other similar plan adopted by the municipality in v∎hich it is located'' lf' \ es. state t■pe and name of plan: If Ves. describe howl the project implements the plan: 3. Planning, Implementation and Funding Partnerships: List and briefly describe the type and nature of partnerships in the project among government, private, for - profit and non - profit sectors. 4. Community's role: Describe any public participation processes involving residents, businesspersons and others used to develop the proposal. Describe plans for future community involvement in project implementation. Limit 10 lines 18 Since 2005 stakeholders (including residents, business and faith leaders, service agencies and government representatives) in the Blake Corridor have been meeting to identify ways in which the neighborhood can be stabilized and improved. Resident involvement int heplanning process has been achieved through personal visits often with the use of interpreters. The result has been a truly collaborative approach to needs identification, project development, and community planning. These efforts will be built upon as the Blake Corridor Small Area Plan is created. Public participation was outlined in the scope of work as a major element of the process and community input is paramount to the planning process. 5. City's role: How have elected officials, city council initiatives or actions supported the project? Limit 10 lines The City Council has identified the neighborhood as unstable and as having a negative impact on the I overall health of the City. It has supported the stakeholders' efforts by directing staff to lead the neighborhood stabilization efforts and seek out financial assistance from other agencies to achieve the common goal of making the neighborhood a more livable place. 19 (begin new page) Section IV. Information for evaluating your proposal on the Step Two Evaluation Criteria -- see page 6 of criteria. Include information in this section for the Funding Proposal, as described in Section I.A. on page 1, AND for any future development described in Section I.H., page 5. IV.A. Innovation and Demonstration 1. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will make more efficient use of land on the project site to maximize the potential of the project location, in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region. Limit 10 lines The project will be a model of transforming a secluded public space and repositioning it as a neighborhood focal point that brings people together. The outcome should provide a benchmark for communities with parks with poor access and visibility and how expansion and/or redesign can stabilize a neighborhood. The project will also serve as a model for highlighting a natural resource, Minnehaha Creek, as a part of the park's redesign, and will demonstrate how amenity improvement and utilization is a catalyst for further redevelopment. 2. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will link land use to the local or regional transportation system, including any major state transportation investments, in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region. Limit 10 lines The project will be a catalyst for redevelopment that will incorporate major land use change (from industrial to mixed use on the Atlas site) that intensify land use along a current bus transit line and future LRT line. 20 3. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will connect housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses, in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region. Limit 10 lines Housing, employment, education, and retail and recreation are all currently located in the corridor yet do not connect with each other in a way that enhances livability and community engagement. The potential that exists in large redevelopment sites will not be fully realized if the neighborhood's livability and crime issues are not addressed. Providing street frontage to Cottageville Park is essential to improving the area's safety and stability. 4. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will provide a range of housing densities, types and costs in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region. Limit 10 lines Future redevelopment efforts will involve the removal or major rehabilitation of the existing housing surrounding the park. Currently, the park is surrounded primarily by the rear of duplexes owned by a variety of landlords. The City, with Hennepin County, is currently embarked upon a small area plan for the corridor that will detail a range of housing that complements the densely developed neighborhood. Additionally, the Atlas Cold Storage site has been sold and the new owners have indicted that redevelopment of the site lies in the near future. The timing of that redevelopment depends on improvements to the community that the City is currently working on, such as sidewalks on Blake Rd (pending funding from Hennepin County TOD funds) and the project proposed in this application. 5. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will conserve, protect and enhance natural resources, through development that is sensitive to the environment, including how the design of the project may implement the Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region. Limit 10 lines Minnehaha Creek winds through the Blake Rd Corridor to a significant extent, yet is nearly invisible from any public spaces on the Corridor. The second phase of the Cottageville Park expansion plan includes purchasing an apartment complex between the park and the Creek. Creek access would further allow the park to serve as a neighborhood amenity and public property along the Creek would allow the City to improve its visibility from Blake Rd. The City has begun working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to align future Creek plans with regional Creek plans and to identify funding for the second phase of Cottageville Park's expansion. 21 6. Describe ways the funding proposal and its future phases (if applicable) will be innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region, other than those described in Sec. IV.A.1. through A.5. Limit 10 lines The public process to this point, soliciting and recruiting neighborhood residents to play an active role in neighborhood issues, developing programming and designing a redevelopment plan for the area has been extremely successful. Further community engagement activities are planned as a part of the Blake Rd Corridor Small Area Plan that is underway. These outreach activities are especially innovative because of the wide variety of people living and working in the Corridor: short-term renters, long -term owners, recent immigrants, non - English speakers, and youth. 7. Describe ways the project has evolved, e.g. how the project may have changed due to public involvement, whether local regulations were modified or created to allow project innovation, collaborations with other regulatory levels resulted in "breaking rules" or creating new rules. Limit 10 lines The needs of the neighborhood were originally identified as improved pedestrian connections and streetscape elements. As the neighborhood deterioration became more apparent the City began an effort to bring the stakeholders together to identify solutions. Through this process youth programming, family connections and increased policing were put in place. The evaluation of the area by the Wilder Foundation, as a part of these efforts, indicated a strong need for physical infrastructure improvements that the City is attempting to address via various sources of funding. IV.B. How LCDA Funding is a Catalyst How will LCDA funding be a catalyst to implement the project? Limit 20 lines The City of Hopkins recognizes the need for a revitalization of this neighborhood. Incredible potential exists to improve the quality of life along the corridor but a catalyst is needed to spur the redevelopment process. Planned LRT has peaked interest in the area but uncertain timelines are preventing future transit from being enough of a motivation to redevelop key sites in the near future. The City must implement findings from the Wilder study and other area plans to keep interest in the area high and redevelopment attractive. The two most imperative findings the City wishes to implement are creating sidewalks along the entire corridor and expanding Cottageveille Park so that it has street frontage and ultimately creek access. Cottageville Park is the only neighborhood park east of Blake Rd and north of Interlachen neighborhood and is a vital amenity for Northeast Hopkins that must be realized to keep redevelopment along the Blake Rd Corridor viable. Will be Needed Underway City has Adopted NA Mark (X) appropriate box - if not applicable, place NA in box. X X Comprehensive plan amendment. If needed, please describe: NA Design standards. Briefly describe: In addition to design work done by the Blake Rd Corridor Small Area Plan consultant, the expanded park will need to implement design standards of the neighborhood, City, and Park Board. Environmental Reviews - EAW, EIS, AUAR. If needed, please describe: X Development standards. Briefly describe: Zoning changes and variances. If needed, please list and include change to /from: Will be Needed Underway City has Adopted NA Mark (X) appropriate box - if not applicable, place NA in box. X Design standards. Briefly describe: In addition to design work done by the Blake Rd Corridor Small Area Plan consultant, the expanded park will need to implement design standards of the neighborhood, City, and Park Board. X Development standards. Briefly describe: (Begin new page) Section V. Information for Evaluating Your Proposal on the Step Three Selection Criteria — Readiness (see page 6 of criteria) V.A. The Status of Implementation Tools 1. Regulatory Status: Mark (X) whether the following will be needed, is underway or is completed, or if not applicable, place `NA' in the box. Briefly provide additional information as noted. 2. Indicate the status of design or development standards: V.B. Other Status and Commitments 1. Yes Mark (X) appropriate box Is the development site as represented currently within a designated development district, or an approved development (i.e. PUD)? Yes Mark (X) appropriate box Does the applicant control the site, or sites represented in the proposal? 23 If no — are steps being taken to gain control? Explain. Without LCDA funds, the City of Hopkins has no resources available for land purchase. One of the properties is on the market, the others will be purchased through a negotiated sale. 24 X Has a developer been selected for the proposal? If no, explain status or next steps for selecting a developer and skip to question #7: If yes, provide the requested information about the developer(s) and answer question #6: Name of Developer(s) Type of contract or commitment City of Hopkins City will provide the funding to design and build the expanded park. If yes, is the site being sold at fair - market value? NA No Are market studies available for all some or all components of the project? X If yes, which components (e.g. retail, office, ownership housing, rental housing)? Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box X Is the developer acquiring the development site from the city? If yes, is the site being sold at fair - market value? 3. Market and Fesibility Studies: Indicate the status of market and feasibility studies. Will be Needed NA NA Underway City has Completed Mark (X) appropriate box — if not applicable. place NA in box. Market studies Feasibility studies If completed, briefly state the conclusions of the studies: (limit 4 lines) 4. Availability of Market Studies Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box 5. Developer Status Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box 6. Site Status 7. Site Plan Yes Mark (X) appropriate box X Is site plan final? If not final, describe status: (limit 4 lines) The site plan for the park will be funded by the City after pending expansion funding is approved. 25 8. Architect/Engineer Status Yes No X Mark (X) appropriate box Has an architect/engineer been selected for the project? 9. Commercial: If commercial is proposed (in Funding Proposal, as described in Section I.A), provide as much specificity as possible regarding the type of tenants and projected rents. Type of Tenant NA Projected Rents 27 Required Attachments Maps and graphic images are an important part of the evaluation. Ensure that they are readable. • Use only an 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17" format If using 11" x 17' format, pages must be folded to an 8.5" x 11" size • Maps and graphic images must be clearly legible • Identify north- south - east -west on all images Attach the following to the application, in the order listed: 1. Aerial photo — provided by the Council. Applicant is responsible for marking the project site boundaries on the photo. Contact Metropolitan Council staff person Joanne Barron (651- 602 -1385 or joanne.harron U metc.state.mn.us) for an aerial photo of the site area. 2. Vicinity map — provided by the Council. Applicant is responsible for marking the project site boundaries on this map. Contact Joanne Barron to obtain a vicinity map showing project location, planned land use, transit locations, and adjacent land uses. 3. A site plan showing: • adjacent land uses and connections (roads, sidewalks, or other) • the location of existing and planned buildings (marked) • existing and planned streets • transit stops within or adjacent to the development • sidewalk and trail routes • open space, public spaces • proposed phases, if applicable, clearly distinguishing between existing and proposed phases • 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile radius. 4. Up to five (5) one -page images of your choice - elevations, section drawings, perspective drawings or illustrations. 5. The applicant's due diligence financial analysis for the project, if one has been completed. This may be a consultant report, or an internal staff summary or report. 6. Completed Certification of Compliance regarding use of eminent domain (see attachment). Must be submitted with application. 7. Local Resolution of Support (see sample attachment). Must be submitted with application. ?8 Project Name: Applicant's Name: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Regarding Metropolitan Council Policy Restricting LCA Grants For Projects Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development The "Applicant" is a statutory or home rule charter city or town that has negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals pursuant to the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account program, or is a housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, or port authority. On January 25, 2006, the Metropolitan Council adopted a "Policy Restricting Metropolitan Council LCA Grants for Projects Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development." The policy applies to LCA grants awarded after January 25, 2006 and private property that was acquired through eminent domain proceedings after January 25, 2006. Please check (CO one of the following as appropriate for the Project. The Project will not be eligible for LCA grant funding unless the appropriate certifications are made by the Applicant: ❑ ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT and to the best of my knowledge, I CERTIFY that with regard to the Project for which LCA funding is requested, no eminent domain authority was used after January 25, 2006 to acquire any private property associated with the Project and there are no plans to use eminent domain authority for "economic development" purposes in connection with the Project. ❑ Eminent domain authority was used after January 25, 2006 to acquire private property associated with the Project but, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT and to the best of my knowledge, I CERTIFY that the eminent domain authority was not exercised for "economic development" purposes as defined by the Metropolitan Council's policy because one or more of the following exceptions applies: Please check (❑) the following exception(s) that applies: ❑ (a) Private property was acquired for public ownership and public use such as for a roadway, park, sanitary sewer, hospital, public school, or similar use; ❑ (b) Private property was acquired to remediate or clean up pollution or contamination that threatens or may threaten public health or safety or the environment; (c) Private property acquired through eminent domain will be leased to a private person or entity but the private person or entity only will occupy an incidental part of a public property or public facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building; ❑ (d) Eminent domain authority was used to acquire abandoned property or acquire "blighted" property as the term "blighted" is defined and used in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469; ❑ (e) Private property was acquired to remove a public nuisance; or ❑ (f) Eminent domain authority was used to clear defective chains of title. 29 If eminent domain authority was used to acquire private property to remediate or clean up pollution or contamination that threatens or may threaten public health or safety or the environment (see exception (b) above), then ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, and to the best of my knowledge, I FURTHER CERTIFY that: (1) (2) (3) The property owner was /is unable or unwilling to pay for appropriate remediation or clean up; and Remediation or clean up must occur expeditiously to eliminate or mitigate the threat to public health or safety or the environment; and No Responsible Party has been identified or is financially capable of carrying out the remediation or clean up. 30 THIS CERTIFICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL: Name: Title: Signature: 2008 RESOLUTION - SINGLE PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF , MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2008 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on , 2008; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account 31 funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: 4. Authorizes its to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted this day of , 2008. Mayor Clerk 32 2008 RESOLUTION - llJ1 TIPLE PROJECTS RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF , MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2008 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified proposed projects within the City that meet the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and are consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the projects contained in the grant applications submitted on , 2008; WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed projects or key components of the proposed projects can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding; and WHEREAS cities may submit grant applications for up to five projects during each funding cycle but, using the cities' own internal ranking processes, must rank their projects by priority so the Metropolitan Council may consider those priority rankings as it reviews applications and makes grant awards. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and 33 consideration, the governing body of the City: Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed projects to occur at these particular sites at this particular time. 1. Finds that the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after the grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for these projects at this time. 2. Ranks the project funding applications, according to the City's own internal priorities, in the following order: ;DACI • Priority Ranking Project Name Adopted this day of , 2008. Mayor Clerk 4. Authorizes its to submit on behalf of the City applications for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project components identified in the applications, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the projects on behalf of the City. Grant Amount Requested 3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: 34 Uses $ Amount $ Portion from LCDA Source $ Other Public Sources $ Other Private Sources Hard Costs: Decision pending December 2007 TIF 900,000 Site assembly: Assessments 150,000 Funded Land acquisition 1,000,000 1,000,000 Committed Developer equity 500,000 Committed Public Infrastructure: LCDA Grant 1,500,000 New street construction 2,000,000 1,500,000 500,000 Street lighting and signs 350,000 $4,350,000 350,000 Storm water management improvements 500,000 500,000 Total Hard Costs: $3,850,000 Soft Costs: (refer to "Eligible Uses of Funds," Item l'.a. of the LCDA criteria) Design costs 500,000 500,000 Total Soft Costs: $500,000 OVERALL TOTAL $4,350,000 $1,500,000 $1,850,000 $1,000,000 Sources $ Amount Status Approval Anticipated by: CDBG 800,000 Decision pending December 2007 TIF 900,000 Committed Assessments 150,000 Funded Private contribution 500,000 Committed Developer equity 500,000 Committed LCDA Grant 1,500,000 Pending TOTAL: $4,350,000 SAMPLE H.D. Sources and Uses — For Requested Elements(s) — As described in Section I.B, page 2. 35 Uses $ Amount $ Portion from LCDA Source $ Other Public Sources $ Other Private Sources Hard Costs: Committed MHFA 2,000,000 Land acquisition 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Committed Demolition 800,000 800,000 $800,000 December 2007 Building construction 20,000,000 Applied 2 -07 June 2007 $20,000,000 Stormwater improvements 500,000 500,000 Assessments 150,000 Street construction 2,000,000 Private contribution 1,500,000 500,000 Street lighting and signs 350,000 500,000 350,000 Public parking structure 2,000,000 Collected as units close 2,000,000 LCDA Grant 1,500,000 Total Hard Costs: $26,650,000 $1,500,000 $4,650,000 $20,500,000 TOTAL: $31,350,000 Soft Costs: (refer to "Eligible Uses of Funds," Item 1.a. of the LCDA criteria) Developer's fee 500,000 500,000 Design costs 500,000 500,000 Engineering costs 800,000 800,000 Legal 500,000 500,000 Financing Fees 200,000 200,000 Marketing 1,000,000 1,000,000 Project administration 500,000 500,000 Appraisal 200,000 200,000 Inspection fees 500,000 500,000 Total Soft Costs: $4,700,000 $2,200,000 $2,500,000 OVERALL TOTAL $31,350,000 $1,500,000 $6,850,000 $23,000,000 Sources $ Amount Status Approval Anticipated by: County 2,000,000 Committed MHFA 2,000,000 Applied 3 -07 October 2007 HOME 1,000,000 Committed CDBG 800,000 Decision pending December 2007 County HRA 500,000 Applied 2 -07 June 2007 TIF 900,000 Committed Assessments 150,000 Funded Private contribution 2,000,000 Committed Developer equity 500,000 Committed Sales Proceeds 20,000,000 Collected as units close LCDA Grant 1,500,000 Pending TOTAL: $31,350,000 SAMPLE Include these costs if applicable to your project, and others, as applicable. II.E Sources and Uses — For Entire Funding Proposal - As described in Section I.A. on page 1, including Requested Element(s) described in Section II.D. 36