HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly notes 1-27-23
1/27
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS – WEEKLY NOTES for: January 27th, 2023
TO: City Council Members& Staff
FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator
Zoning & Development Items:
1.No new applications have been received for the February Planning Commission.
2.Jim Kremer has submitted an application for appointment to the Planning Commission – Applications are due by
th
Feb 24. Please mention it to anyone who you may think would be interested
3.Staff met with a possible end-user / developer for the former A1 site – along STAGECOACH. Their concepts we
multi-family / possible limited retail or office. We will need to see more before. Itis ZONED R-B which allow
multi-family and/or office as permitted uses.
4.Julie Hultman – took some images of the demo of the Park Dental site.
Other Items:
Agenda for the upcoming Lower St. Croix
River way partnership team –They do meet
at OPH City Hall and act in an advisory
capacity.
Legislators are asking for updates to the
City’s costs associated with improvements
at the AS King Plant site; this stems from
Sen. Housley’ sbills - $12,500,000. See the
enclosed data shared with HouseBonding
Chair Fue Lee.Also, the City Legislative
Lobbyist have been working on getting
other bills jacketed and introduced – these
are what was discussed as CITY
PRIORITIES on 1/24/23 at the Council
Workshop.
Council Member Runk providedan article
about XCEL PLANS for power storage
battery in Becker. Could be a significant
change in how “peaking” power is
provided.
Staff did meet with the new CVB President (director) Ms. Kelly Nygaard. It will take a few months for het to get acquainted
with all of the issues, but she indicated the desire to come to a CITY COUNCIL meeting in the near futureto meet everyone
and give some updates.
Mayor McComber Provided:
1.NLC Update for 1/23 1/24 and 1/25
2.January SPAAR Updates
1 of 32
1/27
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM HOUSE BONDING CHAIR FUE LEE.
REQUESTING ENTITY (i.e. Agency, County,City):
City of Oak Park Heights
The Allen S. King
Plant
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
651-439-4439
eajohnson@cityofoakparkheights.com
Please answer questions #1-6 if this project was
requested during the 2021-22 legislative session or
earlier, before completing the questionnaire. If this is a
new project, please skip to Question #7.
1. When were state GO bonds or general funds first request for this project?
2021.
2. Was there a bill and was it did it receive a hearing in the Capital Investment
committee or did the committee make a site visit during the 2021 bonding tours?
Yes. The House Capital investment Committee did make a site visit in November 2021
3. If this project was requested in 2021-22, is there an updated cost with inflation?
$12,500,00 is the updated request. This anticipates 2024 construction for Phases A & B.
If Phase B was delayed, further inflationary adjustment may be needed.
4. Did the project receive any other funding (federal, local, etc.) during the interim?
No.
5. Has the project scope changed?
No.
6. What is the new total project cost with inflationary or any other increases? How much
exactly is being requested from the state?
$6,165,564 for Phase A – from State.
$6,334,436 for Phase B – from State. (Phase B – could be phased to a 2024 request.)
$12,500,000 – TOTAL from State (in 2024 construction inflation Included)
7. Please provide a brief project overview:
The City is seeking $12,500,000 from the State for the construction of public infrastructure
(water sanitary, roads, trails) at Allen S. King Plant Site.With the anticipated 2028 closure of
the Allen S. King Plant, – a 500 MW coal-fired power plant, the City desires to see a
redevelopment of the site in a prompt timeline.
This Plant site 170 acres +/- on the St. Croix Rivera Federally Designated Wild and Scenic River
under the National Park Service. Any form or meaningful site repurposing will require utilities,
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 2 of 32 1/26/231 of 10
1/27
roads and trails – including typicalresidential or commercial development as well as any
creation of public park space.
The site itself is NOT currently served by water, sanitaryand storm sewer utilities - rather
on-site wells and a private sanitary force main. Further, the City would seek the
development of trails and other public access points to the St. Croix River.
8.How muchis being sought from the state?
$12,500,000infunds are requested from the State as the City does not have the financial
capacity to undertake such investment, moreover – with the closure of the Plant, the City
will lose 35 percent of its tax base, exacerbating this lack of funding. The City hopes tobe
able to provide $878,000.
9.Who will own the facility?
The City would own and operateallpublic infrastructurevia permanent public UTILITY
and ROADWAY EASEMENTSor direct fee ownership. The City would anticipate that
much of the surface to be remainownership of Xcel Energyor their development
partnersfor the long-term with negotiated surface rights- such as 100- year renewable
leases so as to ensure Xcel Energy remains the party responsible for any environmental
impacts. The City and any other final developmental use would likely seek a final
indemnification from Xcel Energy on all such lands.
10.Who will operate the facility?
The City would operate the public infrastructure.
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 3 of 32 1/26/232 of 10
1/27
11.What is the public purpose?
All of the funds would be expensed on public infrastructure designed to redevelop the
170 acre site now occupied by the King Plant facility. The ultimate goals and purposes
are redevelopment to ensure the community is not burdened with a derelict coal-plant
and its remnant issues, tax base creation, economic development and community -
building.
12.What is the impact on Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities?
According to US CENSUS DATA, (2019) approximately 18.4% of the Washington County
population includes BIPOC residents. These populations are in direct proximity to the
Site – less than 10 miles +/- and would benefit from the Project including recreational
opportunities as well as housing and employment.
The City has reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Croix River
Crossing (lying just north of this site) which endeavored determine any indigenous sites
(burial, heritage sites, etc.) Such work was extensive under Federal 7a Review and
included surrounding areas – no such sites were identified; further examination of the
area could be undertaken.
13.Are there other marginalized communities (disability, aged, low income, etc.)
impacted?
There is not an anticipated direct impact to marginalized communities as a result of this
Project. That stated, any housing development that may be constructed at site should
also include meaningful elements of affordable or workforce housing. Similarly, any
surface transportation – such as trailways or sidewalks must meet ADA compliance and
provide links to surrounding shopping and the rest of the City’s vast trail network.
14. What community engagement has taken place or will take place related to the
project?
The City has convened a Community Advisory Panel consisting of a number of public and
entities to discuss use future concepts. These members include the ISD 834, neighboring
cities of Stillwater and Bayport, MNDNR, Washington County, Chamber of Commerce,
National Park Service, St. Croix River Alliance, members of the City’s Parks and Planning
Commission, Washington County EDA and several residents. This work started in Fall
2020 and continued through 2022. with the culmination of work being TWO concept
plans for further community discussion – These two concepts are attached. In both
concepts – extension of the utilities (PHASE A) is necessary.
15.Who will be served by the facility and who will benefit from the project?
Depending on final land uses, the City would anticipate that some meaningful
percentage of the acres would be returned to a natural condition and would establish a
new interface – such as a park - to the St. Croix River and would be open to all.
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 4 of 32 1/26/233 of 10
1/27
Beyond these generalities the City would anticipate that:
1.The further development for recreational opportunities on the St. Croix River for the
greater Twin Cities area would be meaningful as development of a “in-town” public
access and park facility to a Federally Designated Wild andScenic River would be
incrediblypositiveand such opportunities for such development are limited.
2.Any residential development would be expected to include elements of workforce
housing and not established only for high-wage earners. Rather any housing plans will
be developed to include the gamut of price or rent points.
3.The City’s current tax abatement and TIF policies require the creation of LIVING WAGE
jobs for our local market. The City would expect that any commercial development
would be expect to provide such commitments if any further local benefitsare
requested.
16.If
the facility is proposed to be operated by a non-profit:
NO / NA
a.Does the non-profit board intend to change or expand programmatic offerings because
ofthe state bonding?
b.Has a public entity (city, county, etc.) agreed to own the facility? If not, what is the
status of discussions with a public entity to reach a use agreement for the project?
c.Is the non-profit able to meet all requirements of the use agreement with the intended
public owner (i.e. required fees)?
d.Does the intended public owner of the facility have the statutory authority to provide
programming supported by the facility should the non-profit no longer be able to do so?
17.What are the other funding sources?
a.Will any private fundraising be necessary for a match (i.e. not public grants)?
No private fund raising would be expected for this public infrastructure.
b.Are any of these currently secured? (i.e. secured federal match or private funds in
hand)?
No.
18.Can the project be phased?
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 5 of 32 1/26/234 of 10
1/27
Yes
Phase A, would be the initial services of utility infrastructure to the immediate perimeter.
These are critical towards any final end use proposed.The image below generally depicts
the concepts of the Phase A improvements.
Phase B, could be initially delayed so that a final site reuse plan is agreed upon by the City
and Xcel Energy, proper sequencing can be better understood. Installation of utilities, roads
and trails of this magnitude should be done under one primary contract in order to secure
the best bid and better ensure coordinated construction.If a project can be phased with the
Plant closureit would be viewed favorably. Moreover, anyenvironmental remediation and
redevelopment it will be undertaken if it contributes to the more rapid site redevelopment
and repurposing.
PHASE A
Improvements
19.What is the timeline? Specifically, what is the timelinefor all other (non-state)
matching funds to be committed to the project?
Much of the timeline would ultimately depend on the final closure of the Plant and the
approval of a re-use plan. Assuming a final 2028 closure of the Plant, the City would like to
see Xcel Energy have all unused facilities razed from the property and all environmental
st
, 2029.
clean-up completed not later than December 31
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 6 of 32 1/26/235 of 10
1/27
These timelines dissipate quickly when trying to bring major public infrastructure on-line
and so that potential partners in redevelopment have reasonable assurances of what will
happen
20.Have previous state appropriations been requested or received for the project?
No.
The City did receive a DEED grant of $87,000 in early 2021 for some additional planning and
utility feasibility studies.
21.How is climate change mitigation, benefits to public health, racial disparities, or
other cultural impacts being considered in the request?
The shuttering of a coal -fired power plants – including this Plant is a key strategy toward
climate change mitigation, however a vital next step is to ensure such lands are fully
remediated and repurposed. From an “environmental justice” standpoint, the Twin Cities
residents benefitted for 60+ years from the operation of this Plant but also absorbed the
local pollution and visual impacts associated with it. And now that the closure is anticipated
the same residents should NOW benefit from this site’s renewal- and not just Xcel
Shareholders. Due to its proximity to the largest metropolitan area in the State; the post-
closure development of nearby river access, park lands, living wage jobs and affordable
housingshould benefit the same residents.
22.For state agencies, is there an impact on the state agency’s operating budget?
NA.
23. For local units of government, identify any new or additional state operating
dollars that will be requested for this project.
No additional State operating dollars are being requested or are anticipated.
24. Are there any other influencing factors to consider (e.g. coordinating with other
construction projects)?
None at this time.
25. Is there a commitment or resolution of support from the governing body?
The City itself would be the acting entity and would be responsible to execute all
commitments and would not need another LGU approval.
26. What would happen if the project does not receive state bonding?
The City does not have the financial capacity to extend these utilities, roadway or trails.
Potentially, the site would remain wholly vacant, potentially with unaddressed
environmental concerns and the public will express concerns about the unknown future of
this 170-acre site along the St. Croix River.
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 7 of 32 1/26/236 of 10
1/27
There is a further risk that if the Cityis not a major player, if not the leader of the site
redevelopmentwith clear controlling interest in the public facilities, that the acreage could
be redeveloped purely at the full-guidance of development interests which could inherently
lead to into such thing as extensive industrial uses, high-end residential only and very
limited – if no public access.
The City’s involvement and control of the underlying infrastructure via the receipt of these
$12,500,000 in State funds will result a dramatically lessened need to incorporate such
costs into development scenarios by private developers – making many elements more
affordable which the City will ensure is substantially passed through – and not to the benefit
of the bottom line of developers or by Xcel Energy who is beholden to their shareholders.
Project Funding Sources (Dollars in Thousands):
The 2023 Session column represents the project, or project phase, for which you are requesting
state funds. Enter the source and amount requested from the state, and the sources and
amounts pending or committed from non-state funds. Total project funding sources must equal
total project costs. Amounts are in thousands.
PLEASE SEE NEXT PAGE
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 8 of 32 1/26/237 of 10
1/27
All Funding Sources: 2023 Session2024 Session
Including: Local and Federal Funds, Non-Governmental Funds, etc.
State$ 12,500
City $ 878
TOTAL FUNDING$ 13,378
Total Project Funding Sources 2023 Project Costs (Dollars in Thousands):
Cost Category2023 Session2024 Session
Property Acquisition$ 698
Predesign$ 249
Design$1,243
Project Management$1,243
Construction$9,945
Occupancy Costs$ -
Other$ -
Total Project Costs$ 13,378
Costs By Phase
PHASE A$6,605
PHASE B$6,773
TOTAL$ 13,378
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 9 of 32 1/26/238 of 10
1/27
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 10 of 32 1/26/239 of 10
1/27
OPH Responses to House Bonding Chair F.Lee 11 of 32 1/26/2310 of 10
1/27
MUNICIPAL CLERKS, PLEASE POST THIS AGENDA
LOWER ST. CROIX MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
PARTNERSHIP TEAM
7:00 PM Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Oak Park Heights City Hall 651-439-4439
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N.
Oak Park Heights, MN 55082
Agenda for Meeting #74
1. Introductions - Sign In – Determination of quorum (6 + 6 +6)/3 X 0.6 = 4
2. Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting: #73a August 30, 2022- Beaudet
3. Report of LSCMC meeting October 4 at Afton- Malick
4. Mellum, Pierce County, Driveway- Beaudet
5. Bryant, Washington County, House- Malick
6. Lockwood, St. Croix County, Garage- Wroblewski
7. Ashford, Hudson, House- Beaudet
8. Rieser, St. Croix County, Garage- Ward
9. General Riverway Announcements
10. Adjourn
Since the PT has no staff or budget, agendas and minutes will be furnished only by e-mail.
Agendas are emailed to some municipal clerks in the Riverway for posting and emailed to some
newspaper reporters.
Future Land Use Review Committee meetings: Afton City Hall, 5:00 PM second Tuesday of
each 5-Tuesday month. May 9, August 8, 2023.
Future Partnership Meetings: Oak Park Heights City Hall, 7:00 PM fifth Tuesday of each 5-
Tuesday month. May 30, August 29, 2023.
12 of 32
1/27
13 of 32
1/27
14 of 32
1/27
15 of 32
1/27
16 of 32
1/27
17 of 32
1/27
18 of 32
1/27
19 of 32
1/27
20 of 32
1/27
21 of 32
1/27
22 of 32
1/27
23 of 32
1/27
24 of 32
1/27
25 of 32
1/27
26 of 32
1/27
27 of 32
1/27
28 of 32
1/27
29 of 32
1/27
30 of 32
1/27
31 of 32
1/27
Mpdbm!Nbslfu!Vqebuf!!Efdfncfs!3133
!B!SFTFBSDI!UPPM!QSPWJEFE!CZ!UIF!TBJOU!QBVM!BSFB!BTTPDJBUJPO!PG!SFBMUPST¯
...!77/8&,!:/2&
Dibohf!jo!Dibohf!joDibohf!jo!
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!TbmftNfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf
Pbl!Qbsl!Ifjhiut
EfdfncfsZfbs!up!Ebuf
31323133,!0!31323133,!0!
1 5..74 73.2/7&
Ofx!Mjtujoht
:4.77/8&78 5:.37/:&
Dmptfe!Tbmft
%381-111%3:5-611,!:/2&%425-:61%464-235,!23/2&
Nfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf+
%414-216%436-278,!8/4&%439-344%462-972,!8/3&
Bwfsbhf!Tbmft!Qsjdf+
%291%331,!32/:&%294%2:5,!6/8&
Qsjdf!Qfs!Trvbsf!Gppu+
214/3&:4/5&.:/6&213/8&213/4&.1/5&
Qfsdfou!pg!Psjhjobm!Mjtu!Qsjdf!Sfdfjwfe+
34 26.45/9&34 29.32/8&
Ebzt!po!Nbslfu!Voujm!Tbmf
1 6........
Jowfoupsz!pg!Ipnft!gps!Tbmf
1/1 2/2........
Npouit!Tvqqmz!pg!Jowfoupsz
+!Epft!opu!bddpvou!gps!tfmmfs!dpodfttjpot/!!}!!Bdujwjuz!gps!pof!npoui!dbo!tpnfujnft!mppl!fyusfnf!evf!up!tnbmm!tbnqmf!tj{f/
31323133
Efdfncfs
31323133
Zfbs!up!Ebuf
:
78
74
73
5:
5
4
1
...77/8&
.2/7&
.37/:&
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!Tbmft
Ofx!MjtujohtDmptfe!Tbmft
27.Dpvouz!Uxjo!Djujft!Sfhjpo
c
Dibohf!jo!Nfejbo!Tbmft!Qsjdf!gspn!Qsjps!Zfbs!)7.Npoui!Bwfsbhf*++
Pbl!Qbsl!Ifjhiut
b
,!91&
,!71&
,!51&
,!31&
1&
.!31&
.!51&
.!71&
.!91&
2.31192.311:2.31212.31222.31232.31242.31252.31262.31272.31282.31292.312:2.31312.31322.3133
++!Fbdi!epu!sfqsftfout!uif!dibohf!jo!nfejbo!tbmft!qsjdf!gspn!uif!qsjps!zfbs!vtjoh!b!7.npoui!xfjhiufe!bwfsbhf/
!!!Uijt!nfbot!uibu!fbdi!pg!uif!7!npouit!vtfe!jo!b!epu!bsf!qspqpsujpofe!bddpsejoh!up!uifjs!tibsf!pg!tbmft!evsjoh!uibu!qfsjpe/
32 of 32
Dvssfou!bt!pg!Kbovbsz!:-!3134/!Bmm!ebub!gspn!OpsuitubsNMT/!!}!!Dpqzsjhiu!TipxjohUjnf/