The URL can be used to link to this page

08-21-06 Regular CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDA V, AUGUST 21, 2006 REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING RICHFIELD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Regular HRA Meeting Roll call . 1. HRA approval of agenda 2. HRA Closed Executive Session in Executive Conference Room regarding condemnation proceedings for Magnuson Sod property at 6500 Cedar Avenue 3. Reconvene Regular HRA Meeting in City Hall Council Chambers 4. Consideration of approving condemnation commissioners' award for Magnuson Sod property at 6500 Cedar Avenue Staff Report No. 55 Notes: 5. Approval of minutes of (1) Regular HRA Meeting of July 17, 2006; (2) Continued Regular HRA Meeting of July 21, 2006; and (3) Special HRA Meeting of July 25, 2006 Notes: 6. Consideration of accepting Richfield HRA Annual Tax Increment District status update Staff Report No. 56 Notes: . 7. Consideration of modifying underwriting guidelines for Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Staff Report No. 57 Notes: 8. Consideration of authorizing environmental response fund grant agreement between HRA and Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services Staff Report No. 58 Notes: 9. Consideration of approving proposed change to Richfield Rediscovered Program Staff Report No. 59 Notes: 10. Consideration of approving revised subordination guidelines for HRA loans Staff Report No. 60 Notes: 11. Consideration of resolutions approving 2007 proposed HRA budget and tax levy and 2006 revised HRA budget Staff Report No. 61 Notes: 12. Executive Director report Notes: 13. Claims and payroll Adjournment . Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to th City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA ITEM # 4 REpORT # 55 ~ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: P AT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY EXECUTWE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Approval of the condemnation commissioners' award of $451 ,000 for the Magnuson Sod property at 6500 Cedar Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the condemnation commissioners' award of $451,000 for Magnuson Sod at 6500 Cedar Avenue. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 21,2005 the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a resolution authorizing the condemnation of three parcels in the Cedar Point area. One of these parcels is located at 6500 Cedar Avenue, Magnuson Sod, owned by Glynn Haag. . On April 5, 2006 the HRA converted the condemnation to a "quick take" action. On April 26, 2006 the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, authorizing transfer of title and possession of the subject parcel. This action basically approved the condemnation and appointed condemnation commissioners to determine a value for the property. 082106 Haag condemnation The 13,957-sq. ft. site contains a former gas station building containing 1,594 sq. ft., of which 292 sq. ft. is approved as an office and 1,302 sq. ft. is used as a repair shop. The HRA's appraiser, Mr. Messner, had a value of $285,000 on the property. The condemnation commissioners established a value of $451,000 for the land, building, immovable fixtures attached to the real estate, and appraisal fees, providing a difference of $173,000. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . It is the policy of the HRA to accept the value set by the condemnation commissioners if it is recommended by HRA legal counsel. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . This award may be appealed by either party. I C. FINANCIAL I . The HRA received a $2 million grant from Hennepin County to purchase 6300, 6320, 6500, and 6528 Cedar Avenue. . Staff budgeted $278,000 for the acquisition and relocation of 6500 Cedar Avenue. . The Hennepin County grant and the HRA's Development Fund will accommodate the difference of $173,000. I D. LEGAL I . The acceptance of the award is recommended by HRA legal counsel. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not accept the recommendation and direct staff to attempt to negotiate a lower award; however, this would expose the HRA to a potential jury trial and the risks associated with that approach make acceptance of the award the preferred course of action. . Direct staff to file an appeal. I V. ATTACHMENTS . N/A I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Robert lindaU, Kennedy & Graven HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Meeting July 17, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Chair Sandahl at 7:00 p.m. HRA Members Present: Sue Sandahl; Joan Heimberger; Martin Kirsch; Donna Drummond; and David Gepner (arrived at 7:05 p.m.). Staff Present: Steve Devich, Executive Director; Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director; Pat Smith, Community Development Manager; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and John Dean, HRA Attorney. Item #1 HRA Attorney Dean recommended to the HRA that they add an item to the agenda regarding the matter of deed restrictions on property obtained using MAC funds, and at that part of the agenda to continue this meeting until Friday, July 21. M/Drummond, S/Helmberger to approve the minutes of (1) Special HRA Meetina of June 26, 2006: (2) Continued Special HRA Meetina of June 30. 2006: and (3) Special HRA Meetina of Julv 10. 2006. Motion carried 4-0. Item #2 M/Drummond, S/Helmberger to approve the aaenda as amended and add Item 11A. HRA Meeting Minutes -2- July 17, 2006 Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Gepner arrived at 7:05 p.m. Item #3 Community Development Director Palmborg presented Staff Report No. 32. Julianne Schweitz, Livable Communities, presented the proposed Intention Statement for August 2006 to July 2007. Commissioner Heimberger asked if this type of property is increasing in Richfield. Ms. Schweitz responded yes, however this program will help assist people with a more clear understanding of what is required of them and for them. Commissioner Gepner asked how will people learn about this program. Ms. Schweitz responded via their web site, newspaper and City Resource program. M/Helmberger, S/Gepner to approve the execution of a Contract with Julianne Schweitz beginning August 1. 2006 for 12 months. Motion carried 5-0. Item #4 Community Development Director Palmborg presented Staff Report No. 33. Chair Sandahl expressed concern that the HRA would only receive 60% of its mortgage in this transaction. She further stated in the future the HRA should set aside reserve funds to buy these foreclosed homes. The HRA could renovate them if needed, sell them and make money to do more of the same. M/Gepner, S/Drummond to approve the Assignment of Mortgage for 7445 10th Avenue to C & M Real Estate Services. Inc. Motion carried 5-0. HRA Meeting Minutes -3- July 17, 2006 Item #5 Community Development Director Palmborg presented Staff Report No. 34. Commissioner Drummond suggested that the Sensible Land Use Coalition was meeting this Wednesday and developers with projects there may be candidates for this development. Chair Sandahl suggested CVS receive information regarding this site. M/Kirsch, S/Helmberger to direct staff to pursue a "Request For Qualifications" with developers for the northeast Quadrant of 76th Street and Lvndale Avenue. Motion carried 5-0. Item #6 Community Development Director Palmborg presented Staff Report No. 35. Mark Koegler, President of Hoisington, Koegler Group Inc., explained current work plan and schedule of Penn Crossing neighborhood. Commissioner Kirsch stated he sees needed improvement in this area and welcomes the changes. Commissioner Drummond suggested that the Planning Commission may be more appropriate to select the committee. Commissioner Kirsch stated that the students did a very good job. M/Kirsch, S/Drummond to authorize the Penn CrossinQs NeiQhborhood Study. Motion carried 5-0. Item #7 Community Development Director Palmborg presented Staff Report No. 36. Michael Schroeder, LHB Inc., was available for questions on technical aspects of the project and he also described where changes will occur. Commissioner Kirsch expressed his approval of the street lighting changes and how this ties everything together. HRA Meeting Minutes -4- July 17, 2006 Commissioner Drummond stated this was good use of Met Council funds. Commissioner Drummond also asked if signage could be placed to make people more aware of the public area behind the building. There was general consensus that the $28,293 amount not be returned to the redeveloper in the proposal. Commissioner Kirsch amended the motion to not return the $28,293 to the developer. Tim Tuel, 6640 Lyndale Avenue Suite 110, owner of Ship Mate, asked if when looking at the whole scheme of things to look at signage regarding parking in the back of the building and across the street. M/Kirsch, S/Gepner to request staff to formulate aQreements. discuss and secure feedback about a work plan with affected resident associations and return to the HRA to finalize a proposal with City Bella LLC. Motion carried 5-0. Item #8 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 37. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, asked for a summary of what the City will receive for this property. HRA Attorney Dean explained the development agreement. M/Kirsch, S/Gepner to close the public hearinQ. Motion carried 5-0. M/Gepner, S/Helmberger that the followinQ HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 987 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. Motion carried 5-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 987. HRA Meeting Minutes -5- July 17, 2006 Item #9 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 38. M/Kirsch, S/Helmberger that the followinQ HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 988 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) Executive Director Devich e?<plained the differences in the map. He stated that part of the area is TIF, the result of special legislation in 2005, and the larger part is a tax abatement district. Motion carried 5-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 988. Item #10 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 39. Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, asked what is the amount of the note and is the City liable for this note. HRA Attorney Dean responded that the note is for $2,068,700 and the note is payable to the developer out of tax abatements that are generated by this project. M/Drummond, S/Gepner that the followinQ HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 989 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF TAXABLE LIMITED REVENUE NOTE AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT Motion carried 5-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 989. HRA Meeting Minutes -6- July 17, 2006 Item #11 M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch to continue this item to be considered at our currentlv scheduled Special HRA meeting of Julv 25. Motion carried 5-0. Item #11A M/Kirsch, S/Gepner to continue this item to the Julv 21. 2006 Special HRA meeting at 8:00 a.m. HRA Attorney Dean suggested to not adjourn tonight's meeting, but to continue until Friday, July 21 at 8:00 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. Item #12 Executive Director Devich reported on the MAC meeting. Executive Director Devich also asked the HRA for the opportunity to talk with C & M Real Estate Services, Inc. regarding 7445 10th Avenue to see if he can secure a greater portion of the HRA second mortgage. The HRA Commission directed him to proceed. Item #13 MlDrummond, S/Gepner that the following claims and pavroll be approved. U.S. Bank Section 8 Checks: 110301 - 110446 HRA Checks: 29538 - 29570 $ 180,176.86 $ 106,843.45 Motion carried 5-0. HRA Meeting Minutes -7- July 17, 2006 At 8:45 p.m. by unanimous consent, the meeting was continued to Friday, July 21 at 8:00 a.m. in the Richfield City Hall Council Chambers. Date Approved: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Suzanne M. Sandahl Chair Steven L. Devich Executive Director HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Continued Regular Meeting (continued from July 17, 2006) July 21,2006 The continued HRA meeting was called to order by Chair Sandahl at 8:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers. HRA Members Present: Sue Sandahl; Joan Heimberger; Martin Kirsch; Donna Drummond; and David Gepner. Staff Present: Steve Devich, Executive Director; Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director; Pat Smith, Community Development Manager; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and John Dean, HRA Attorney. Executive Director Devich began the meeting with information that a MAC meeting was held on July 20, 2006, which included representatives from the City, Ryan Companies US, and MAC. Discussion included restricted covenants and an agreement had been reached. Chair Sandahl asked what the main points were at this meeting. Executive Director Devich explained some of the points included were height restrictions, lighting issues and radio interference. HRA Attorney Dean stated that Ryan Companies, Target and Home Depot wanted assurance that no restrictions would be added later. Item #1 HRA Meeting Minutes -2- July 21,2006 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 49. Due to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) meeting on July 20, 2006, no action was required on this item. Item #2 HRA Attorney Dean explained amendments to the escrow agreement. He also stated that a proposed change would be coming to this agreement at the July 25 meeting. Matt Schneider, on behalf of Ryan Companies, asked to speak with HRA Attorney Dean regarding the last change Mr. Dean just spoke of. HRA Attorney Dean suggested the HRA proceed with item 28 while he discussed proposed changes with Mr. Schneider. Chair Sandahl stated the HRA would hold off on 2A and proceed with 28 regarding the first amendment to the escrow agreement. Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 50. M/Drummond, S/Gepner that the followina HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 991 RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ESCROW AGREEMENT Commissioner Heimberger asked if Community Development Manager Smith was clear that this would be settled by September 30 with no problem. Community Development Manager Smith explained the HRA reached an agreement with property owner and this is acceptable with Ryan's timetable. Motion carried 5-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 991. At 8:15 a.m. Chair Sandahl asked for a five-minute recess until HRA Attorney Dean returned from consultation with Mr. Schneider of Ryan Companies. At 8:20 a.m. the HRA came back from recess to consider Item 2A. HRA Attorney Dean explained the amendments to the escrow agreement. Chair Sandahl asked if the HRA has incurred any of the $500,000 at this point. HRA Attorney Dean stated no we have not because we are not spending any money at this point. HRA Meeting Minutes -3- July 21, 2006 M/Sandahl, S/Kirsch that the followinQ HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 990 RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Motion carried 5-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 990. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:28 a.m. Date Approved: Suzanne M. Sandahl Chair Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Steven L. Devich Executive Director HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special Meeting July 25, 2006 The meeting was called to order by Chair Sandahl at 4:50 p.m. HRA Members Present: Sue Sandahl; Martin Kirsch; Joan Heimberger; and David Gepner. HRA Members Not Present: Donna Drummond (was expected but did not arrive). Staff Present: Steve Devich, Executive Director; Bruce Palmborg, Community Development Director; Pat Smith, Community Development Manager; Bruce Nordquist, Housing & Redevelopment Manager; Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk; and Corrine Thomson, Assistant HRA Attorney. Item #1 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 51. Attorney Thomson explained that the Johnsons had signed the settlement agreement on the wrong page. The Johnsons signed the signature line for Exhibit B rather then the signature page for the correct agreement. Attorney Thomson stated her belief that the Johnsons had intended to sign the amended stipulation and accept the terms. The Johnsons' attorney had told Attorney Thomson that he was sending the signed agreement to her. HRA Special Meeting Minutes -2- July 25, 2006 Chair Sandahl asked Attorney Thomson what would happen if the Johnsons did not re-sign the correct page of the agreement. Attorney Thomson stated the HRA could enforce this settlement based on the existing signatures, because of the Johnsons' expressed intention to accept the settlement proposal. She also stated that she did not expect there to be any problems in obtaining new signatures. M/Helmberger, S/Gepner that the followino HRA resolution be adopted. that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 992 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO SETTLEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING Motion carried 4-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 992. Item #2 Community Development Manager Smith presented Staff Report No. 52. M/Kirsch, S/Gepner that the followino HRA resolution be adopted, that it be spread in the HRA resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 993 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY TO RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. Motion carried 4-0. This HRA Resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 993. Item #3 Attorney Thomson explained technical modifications to the escrow agreement. AttorneyThomson recommended that the HRA approve modifications to the First Agreement in the alternative. The first alternative would be to approve the proposed First Amendment as presented at the meeting, if the Johnsons signed the stipulation. The second alternative would be that, if the Johnsons did not sign the stipulation, the HRA would approve the First Amendment with the exception that the phrase "and possession to" would be removed from paragraph 5(a) of the proposed First Amendment. Chair Sandahl asked Attorney Thomson what is the affect of that. Attorney Thomson responded that if the Johnson stipulation was not signed, the Johnsons would have until November 1 to move out, rather than September 30. She indicated that the HRA HRA Special Meeting Minutes -3- July 25, 2006 should not agree to deliver title and possession of the Johnson property by September 30 unless the HRA knew it could require the Johnsons to move by September 30. Attorney Thomson continued to explain that she fully expected that the HRA would be able to get the Johnson stipulation signed. M/Kirsch, S/Gepner to accept the chanQes as presented toniQht. however to add alternatives 1 and 2 which include approvinQ the proposed First Amendment as presented at the meetinQ if the Johnsons siQn the stipulation: and if the Johnsons did not siQn the stipulation. the HRA would approve the First Amendment with the exception that the phrase "and possession to" would be removed from paraQraph 5(a) of the proposed First Amendment. Motion carried 4-0. Item #4 Executive Director Devich presented Staff Report No. 53. Executive Director Devich renegotiated agreement at 100% of repayment of HRA mortgage for this property. M/Gepner, S/Helmberger to approve the reneQotiated AssiQnment of MortQaQe for 7445 10th Avenue to C & M Real Estate Services. Inc. Motion carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 5:10 p.m. Date Approved: Suzanne M. Sandahl Chair Nancy Gibbs City Clerk Steven L. Devich Executive Director AGENDA ITEM # 6 TIF STATUS ::>b REpORT # ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KA TIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: BRUCE P ALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REVIEWED By EXECUTNE DIRECTOR: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a presentation of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the attached Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. I II. BACKGROUND I The Tax Increment Status Update Report (TIF Status Report) is presented to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) annually for review. This year, the TIF Status Report shows that the HRA is able to meet all of its Pay-As- You-Go Note and General Obligation Tax Increment Bond obligations. The TIF Status Report presents summary text in the front part of the document and summary cashflows in the back. 'Summary highlights for districts begin on the next page of this report. Only districts that have new, updated information are reviewed in the summary. For complete detail on all districts, please refer to the attached TIF Status Report. 082106 TIF Status Report Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) District . In 2004 the HRA approved a tax increment plan modification (deficit pooling) to allow increment from the Interchange and Richfield Rediscovered Pre-1999 districts to be pooled to the ILN if funds are needed for debt service on the bonds. The needs determination is made annually when all property tax data is available and cashflows are recalculated. . For taxes payable 2006, deficit pooling is not required. Interchanae District . The Interchange District is positioned to assist the ILN District for deficit pooling. For taxes payable 2006, deficit pooling is not required. Pre-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts . The Richfield Rediscovered Pre-1999 Tax Increment Districts are positioned to assist the ILN District for deficit pooling. For taxes payable 2006, deficit pooling is not required. Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts . The Housing Fund continues to contribute increment to pay debt service on the Richfield Rediscovered Bonds. Urban Villaae District . There are two Note Payables for this district; one is a Tax Exempt Note, the other a taxable Note. Both have interest rate reset dates. The Tax Exempt Note's reset was recently undertaken. The rate went from 5.60% to 4.98%. The Taxable Note's reset date does not occur until 2011. Interchanae WestlLyndale Gateway District . The Interchange West (Best Buy) portion of this scattered-site district prioritizes the application of increment in the following order: debt service for bridge bonds, administrative costs, housing fund, and payment to developer. City Bella District . City Bella began generating full taxes in 2006. . The project has a $450,000 loan from the development account to pay for land previously owned by the HRA. The loan is being paid with 15% Housing Fund increment. Lyndale Gateway West District . The Kensington Park project began generating full taxes in 2006. . The district has two general obligation bonds totaling $6,000,000. Three million dollars ($3,000,000) has already been paid back with town home sale proceeds. . The district is also receiving increment from the Casteel Place Townhomes project located within the Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interchange WestlLyndale Gateway District. Increment obligations to Casteel Place have since been paid off. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The annual TIF Status Report is provided to the HRA to summarize tax increment district financial activity and comment on the status of the HRA's ability to meet its tax increment obligations. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The TIF Status Report indicates that the HRA is able to meet all of its current and future tax increment obligations. I C. FINANCIAL . See detailed TI F Status Report. I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Reject the conclusions made in the TIF Status Report. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Annual Tax Increment District Status Update. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. RICHFIELD HRA TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT STATUS UPDATE Dated: August 2006 . EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC Prepared by EhlerslPublieorp, Ine ~~/ &/~ OVERALL DISTRICT UPDATE 1. CONCLUSION The HRA will be able to meet all of its tax increment obligations. 2. RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Within the Richfield Redevelopment Project area, there currently exist the following tax increment districts: 1) Interchange-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN); 2) Interchange; 3) Gramercy; 4) Urban Village; 5) Interchange WestlLyndale Gateway; 6) Richfield Rediscovered (pre-1999); 7) Richfield Rediscovered (Post-1999); 8) City Bella; and 9) Lyndale Gateway West. In 2005, the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area were expanded and made coterminous with the City's boundary in order to expand housing program service areas and provide a wider area of tax increment spending authority. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has two types of obligations associated with these districts. The first type of obligation is the Pay As You Go Revenue Note. All of these Notes pledge to the Note Holder a certain percentage of the available tax increment from the specific district. Having less tax increment results in lower Pay As You Go payments. Current projections show that the HRA will be able to meet all of its Pay As You Go Revenue Note obligations. The second type of obligation that the HRA has is Tax IncrementBonds. Currently, there are bonds outstanding in the ILN, Richfield Rediscovered Post-1999, Interchange West (Best Buy), and Lyndale Gateway West (Kensington Park) districts. Property tax law changes in 2002 (with the last phase-in in 2004), resulted in much lower increment receipts than in the past. These changes prompted the HRA to start reserving cash to cover bond debt service. Also, the law provided the ability for the HRA to share tax increment (deficit pooling) from all tax increment districts to help pay General Obligation Tax Increment Bond obligations. In 2004, the HRA undertook modifications to certain tax increment district plans to address shortfalls in the ILN district increment. By using deficit pooling, projections show that the HRA will be able to meet all of its General Obligation Tax Increment Bond obligations. 3. ASSUMPTIONS All projections are based on the most conservative assumptions. The calculations do not include any interest on invested cash or inflation on property market values with a few exceptions. The exceptions to the assumptions are: Interchange West uses a 1.725% market value inflation and Urban Village uses a 2% market value inflation. Lyndale Gateway West uses a 1 % inflation rate. Although Lyndale Gateway (Richfield Senior Housing) used a 3% market value inflation assumption at time of closing, a 0% market value inflation rate is being used in order to be conservative. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 1 ~/) INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) DISTRICT 1. The ILN District has the following obligations: · Pay As You Go Notes for the Shops at Lyndale, Phase I and Phase II, and Meridian Crossings, Phase I and Phase II; · General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1996, refunded in 2002, (formerly the pooled bonds of the LHN and ILN); and · Candlewood General Obligation Bonds of 2000 which utilizes the Candlewood Hotel increment to assist the Lyndale Gateway West District (Kensington Park). 2. The ILN District has a cash balance of $1,217,713. The cash balance will be used to pay the ILN bonds. Also, the 2004 deficit pooling tax increment plan modification undertaken by the HRA allows increment from the Interchange and Richfield Rediscovered pre-1999 districts to be pooled to the ILN if needed for debt service on the bonds. The deficit pooling is reviewed annually. For 2006, no deficit pooling is needed. 3. The assessor's estimated market values for taxes payable 2006 for Shops At Lyndale, Phase I, rose 3% over taxes payable 2005, and 16.3% for Phase II. For Meridian Crossings, the assessor's estimated market value rose 4.4% for both phases. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 2 ~~~ INTERCHANGE DISTRICT 1. The Interchange District is comprised of the Dick's Sporting Goods store. In 2004, Galyan' s Trading Company became a wholly owned subsidiary of Dick's Sporting Goods. 2. Tax increment continues to be paid to Galyans as per the terms of the original Pay As You Go Note. 4. The 2004 deficit pooling tax increment plan modification undertaken by the HRA allows increment from the Interchange (and Richfield Rediscovered Pre-1999) district to be pooled to the ILN if needed for debt service on the bonds. 3. The Interchange District has a cash balance of $224,861. 4. The HRA will be able to meet its Pay As You Go Revenue Note obligation. 5. The assessor's estimated market value for taxes payable 2006 increased 1.6% over taxes payable 2005. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 3 / ~,'7} PRE-1999 RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED DISTRICTS 1. Funds in the amount of $762,550 were advanced to the Richfield Rediscovered Program in 1990 from the City and HRA to establish a buy/sell program for the construction of new, contemporary, single-family housing. All advances have been satisfied. 2. At the end of 1999, the City sold temporary tax increment bonds to fund the new Richfield Rediscovered Projects beginning with the year 2000. These bonds were refunded in 2002 to achieve a lower interest rate and, therefore, use less tax increment. 3. Fifteen percent (15 %) of the annual tax increment from the Pre-1999 Districts is used to pay debt service on those bonds. 4. The 2004 deficit pooling tax increment plan modification undertaken by the HRA now allows increment from the Richfield Rediscovered Pre-1999 (and Interchange) District to be pooled to the ILN if needed for debt service on the bonds. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 4 &/10 POST-1999 RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED DISTRICTS 1. In November of 1999, the City sold General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds to fund the Richfield Rediscovered II Projects. These bonds were refunded in 2002 to achieve a lower interest rate and, therefore, use less tax increment. 2. The following revenue sources pay debt on the 1999 bonds: · Annual tax increment from the Post-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts; · 15 percent of the annual tax increment from the Pre-1999 Richfield Rediscovered Districts; · Land sales proceeds; and · Housing Fund for the balance of the needed debt service payment. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 5 1o~1 URBAN VILLAGE DISTRICT 1. The Urban Village district is a mixed-use redevelopment project that began generating tax increment in 2000. 2. Tax increments are pledged to the project to assist with property acquisition and excess site development costs. 3. Fifteen percent (15%) of the annual tax increment from Urban Village is contributed to the Housing Fund. 4. The assessor's estimated market value (for the district) for taxes payable 2006 increased 2.2% over taxes payable 2005. 5. The district has two TIF notes (taxable and tax exempt). Both of the TIF notes have reset dates. The first is a tax exempt note that has a reset date of February 2006. That rate was reset from 5.6% to 4.98% Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 6 ~.-~ GRAMERCY DISTRICT UPDATE* 1. The Gramercy Park Senior Housing Cooperative project began generating full taxes in 2002. 2. Tax increments are pledged to the project to assist with acquisition of property. 3. Fifteen percent (15%) of the annual tax increment from the Gramercy District will be used to fund the Housing Fund. 4. The assessor's esimtated market value for taxes payable 2006 (for the district) increased 7.33% overtaxes payable 2005. *Gramercy District now only encompasses the Gramercy Park Senior Housing Cooperative and VFW club. In 2002, a portion of the Gramercy site area was eliminated and incorporated into the City Bella Project. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 7 ~}f INTERCHANGE WESTIL YNDALE GA TEW A Y DISTRICT* LYNDALE GATEWAY 1. The Lyndale Gateway component of the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway District is comprised of the Richfield Senior Housing project (Main Street Village) and Minnstar Builders, Inc. project (Casteel Place Townhouses.) 2. The Lyndale Gateway component of the district began generating tax increment in 2000 and has two Pay As You Go Notes. Tax increments are pledged to assist with site assembly costs. 3. In 2002, the HRA loaned Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. $338,251.76 to assist with an unexpected condemnation award in acquiring a portion of the redevelopment property. The loan was paid off by the developer in December, 2004. 4. For the Minnstar Builders project, Casteel Place Townhomes, the Contract for Private Redevelopment included a "look back" provision that required review of the developer's costs. To the extent that certain costs would go up or down under the estimate, the associated Pay As You Go Note would be reduced by a like amount. The "look back" provision analysis was completed in 2002 which called for a reduction in the Pay As You Go Revenue Note from $100,000 to $19,985.23. The cost savings of this tax increment was then used as additional gap funding for the Cornerstone/Kensington Park redevelopment project in the Lyndale Gateway West District. 5. The last increment payment to Minnstar Builders was February 1,2005. 6. For Richfield Senior Housing, the assessor's estimated market value for taxes payable declined 1.66% since taxes payable 2005. The assessor's estimated market value for Casteel Place Townhomes increased 6.16%. INTERCHANGE WEST 1. The Interchange West component of the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway District is comprised of the Best Buy Corporate Headquarters project. 2. The Best Buy project began generating full tax increment in 2004. 3. Tax increments are pledged to the Best Buy project to assist with site assembly activities. A certain priority exists in the distribution of the increment. First, debt service on the bridge bonds is paid, then administration, housing fund, and lastly, Best Buy. 4. A set dollar amount of funds from the Interchange West portion of the District will be used to fund the Housing Fund and administrative costs. 5. For Best Buy, the assessor's estimated market value for taxes payable 2006 increased 2.58% over taxes payable 2005. * Part of Lyndale Gateway District was eliminated in 2002 and incorporated into the new Lyndale Gateway West TIF District for the Cornerstone/Kensington Park Project. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 8 (gAD CITY BELLA DISTRICT* 1. The City Bella project is a housing project with a retail component. 2. Tax increments are pledged to the project to assist with acquisition of property and site improvements. 3. Beginning in 2006, fifteen percent (15%) of the annual tax increment from the City Bella District will be used to fund the Housing Fund. 4. The City Bella Project has 'a $450,000 loan from the development account to pay for land owned by the HRA. This loan will be paid by using the 15% Housing Fund. . 5. City Bella began generating full taxes in 2006. *In 2002, a portion of the Gramercy District was eliminated and incorporated into the City Bella Project. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 9 ~/t\ LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST DISTRICT* 1. The Lyndale Gateway West District is comprised of the Cornerstone (Kensington Park) mixed-use redevelopment project. 2. The Lyndale Gateway West District began generating full tax increment in 2006. 3. Tax increments are pledged to the project to assist with site assembly activities. 4. The District has two general obligation bonds totaling $6,000,000. $3,000,000 of the bonds will be paid back with tax increment generated by the project over time. $3,000,000 was paid back by town home sales. 5. The District has a $1,100,000 loan from the ILN District. $600,000 of the loan will be paid back from tax increment. The developer will pay $500,000 of the loan back. The interest on the total $1,100,000 will be paid back from tax increment. 6. Tax increment from the Minnstar Builders townhouse project in the Lyndale Gateway District is being used to pay obligations related to the Cornerstone project * Part of the Lyndale Gateway District was eliminated in 2002 and incorporated into the new Lyndale Gateway West TIF District for the Cornerstone Project. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 10 bA~ CLOSED DISTRICTS 1. L YNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET (LHN) DISTRICT UPDATE The LHN District was closed as of 12/31/2002. 2. CEDAR A VENUE BUSINESS AREA (CABA) DISTRICT . CABA was an economic development district that ended in 1996. No more increment will be received from this District. All accounting transactions to close out the District were completed by December 31,2000. . . 3. PENN AVENUE AND SIXTY-SIXTH STREET (PASSS) DISTRICT · The P ASSS TIF District was established in 1989. · The P ASSS TIF District was terminated in 1996 due to a lack of feasible redevelopment opportunities. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 11 ~/(, HOUSING FUND 1. The Housing Fund is a revenue source comprised of tax increment from the Gramercy, Urban Village Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway (Best Buy) and City Bella TIF Districts. The purpose of the Housing Fund is to fund a variety of housing needs for the community, including but not limited to, new construction of single-family homes, town homes, single-family home renovation and rehabilitation, and apartment rehabilitation. 2. Currently, the Housing Fund is used to fund the New Home (deferred loan) program, Transformation Housing Program, Kids at Home Program, and pay debt service on the Richfield Rediscovered Post-1999 bond. Richfield HRA Tax Increment District Status Update Page 12 h~l~ 10113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 STATUS REPORT ILN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT PROJECTIONS Coun AYMENT Pooling C.S.M. C.S.M. TOLD Candle Wood Existing Bond Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Tax Administration Phase I Phase II Phase I Bond Payments Increment MT YEAR Increment Increment 10.00% PAYG PAYG PAYG 2000 1996/2002 End OtYear BALANCE 1,217,713 2/1 2006 541,138 0 (54,114) (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (156,288) (290,539) 8/1 2006 541,138 0 (54,114) (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (23,168) (36,789) 812,489 2/1 2007 541,138 0 (54,114) (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (158,168) (296,789) 8/1 2007 541,138 0 (54,114) (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (19,894) (32,369) 406,829 2/1 2008 541,138 0 (54,114) (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (164,894) (307,369) 8/1 2008 541,138 224,861 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (16,341) (27,281 ) 271,477 2/1 2009 541,138 0 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (166,341) (312,281) 8/1 2009 541,138 142,851 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (12,629) (21,439) 111,424 2/1 2010 541,138 0 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (172,629) (321,439) 8/1 2010 541,138 335.606 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (8,629) (14,839) 139,280 2/1 2011 541,138 0 0 (90,835) (98,242) (122,084) (125,084) (173,629) (329,839) 8/1 2011 541,138 68,296 0 (90,835) 0 (122,084) (125,084) (4,463) (7,673) 0 2/1 2012 541,138 0 0 (90,835) 0 (122,084) (125,084) (179,463) (337,673) 8/1 2012 541,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227,138 2/1 2013 541,138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 768,276 8,117,070 771,612 (270,569) (1,180,855) (1,080,662) (1,587,092) (1,626,092) (1,256,533) (2,336,316) 768,276 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Infiation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 ~;I~ 20113 CITY OF RICHFIELD. 2006 STATUS REPORT AYMENT Net Tax DATE Gross Tax Administration Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% PAYG End OtYear BALANCE 224,861 2/1 2006 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 8/1 2006 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 2/1 2007 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 8/1 2007 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 2/1 2008 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 8/1 2008 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 2/1 2009 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 224,861 8/1 2009 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) (224,861) 0 2/1 2010 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2010 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2011 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2011 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2012 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2012 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2013 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2013 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2014 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2014 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2015 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2015 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2016 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2016 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2017 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2017 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2018 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 8/1 2018 79,536 (7,954) (71,582) 0 0 2/1 2019 79,536 7,954 71,582) 0 0 2,147,472 (214,748 1,932,724) 224,861 ) 0 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 &/I~ 30113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 STATUS REPORT RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED - Pre -1999 AYMENT Post 1999 Pooling NetTax DATE Gross Tax Administration RR Bond Tax Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% Increment End otYear BALANCE 386,475 2/1 2005 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 431,076 8/1 2005 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 475,677 2/1 2006 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 520,278 8/1 2006 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 564,879 2/1 2007 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 609,480 8/1 2007 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 654,081 2/1 2008 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 698,682 8/1 2008 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 743,283 2/1 2009 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 787,884 8/1 2009 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) (142,861) 689,634 2/1 2010 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 734,235 8/1 2010 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) (336,606) 443,231 2/1 2011 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 487,832 8/1 2011 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) (68,296) 464,138 2/1 2012 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 508,739 8/1 2012 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 553,340 2/1 2013 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 597,941 8/1 2013 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 642,542 2/1 2014 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 687,143 8/1 2014 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 731,744 2/1 2015 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 776,345 8/1 2015 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 820,946 2/1 2016 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 865,547 8/1 2016 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 910,148 2/1 2017 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 954,749 8/1 2017 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 999,350 2/1 2018 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,043,951 8/1 2018 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,088,552 2/1 2019 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,133,153 8/1 2019 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,177,754 2/1 2020 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,222,355 8/1 2020 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,266,956 2/1 2021 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,311,557 8/1 2021 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,356,158 2/1 2022 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,400,759 8/1 2022 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,445,360 2/1 2023 59,468 (5,947) (8,920) 0 1,489,961 8/1 2023 59,468 5,947 8,920) 0 1,534,562 2,259,784 (225,978 (338,968 (546,751 1,534,562 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No MarKet Value Inflation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 40f13 CITY OF RICHFIELD. 2006 ~~11 STATUS REPORT RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED - Post-1999 YMENT Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration From Pre 1999 Debt Land Housing Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% RR Payment Sales Fund End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2005 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (70,858) 0 45,296 0 8/1 2005 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (20,108) 0 0 5,454 2/1 2006 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (70,108) 0 39,093 (5,454) 8/1 2006 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (19,233) 0 0 6,329 2/1 2007 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (74,233) 0 42,343 (6,329) 8/1 2007 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (18,270) 0 0 7,291 2/1 2008 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (78,270) 0 45,418 (7,291) 8/1 2008 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (17,070) 0 0 8,491 2/1 2009 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (77,070) 0 43,018 (8,491) 8/1 2009 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (15,810) 0 0 9,751 2/1 2010 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (80,810) 0 45,498 (9,751) 8/1 2010 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (14,348) 0 0 11,214 2/1 2011 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (84,348) 0 47,573 (11,214) 8/1 2011 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (12,685) 0 0 12,876 2/1 2012 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (87,685) 0 49,248 (12,876) 8/1 2012 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (10,810) 0 0 14,751 2/1 2013 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (85,810) 0 30,746 (29,502) 8/1 2013 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (8,935) 0 42,379 59,005 2/1 2014 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (88,935) 0 0 (63,374) 8/1 2014 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (6,935) 0 108,121 126,748 2/1 2015 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (91,935) 0 0 (66,374) 8/1 2015 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (4,810) 0 111,996 132,748 2/1 2016 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (94,810) 0 0 (69,249) 8/1 2016 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (2,470) 0 115,406 138,498 2/1 2017 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 (97,470) 0 0 (71,909) 8/1 2017 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 118,256 143,818 2/1 2018 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 8/1 2018 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 2/1 2019 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 8/1 2019 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 2/1 2020 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 8/1 2020 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 2/1 2021 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 8/1 2021 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 2/1 2022 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 8/1 2022 18,490 (1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 2/1 2023 18,490 1,849) 8,920 0 0 0 25,561 684,130 68,413} 1,233,823) 0 884,390 596,332 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 50113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 '-l~ STATUS REPORT URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT -Coun Pro"ect# 1280 YMENT Housing Local Payment Payment Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration Fund Match A B Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% 5.00% PAYG PAYG End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (93,838) (82,932) 0 8/1 2006 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (92,659) (84,111) 0 2/1 2007 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11 ,Q48 (91,480) (85,290) 0 8/1 2007 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (90,300) (86,469) 0 2/1 2008 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (89,121) (87,648) 0 8/1 2008 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (87,942) (88,828) 0 2/1 2009 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (88,763) (88,007) 0 8/1 2009 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (87,534) (89,236) 0 2/1 2010 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (86,305) (90,465) 0 8/1 2010 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (85,076) (91,694) 0 2/1 2011 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (83,847) (92,923) 0 8/1 2011 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (82,618) (94,151) 0 2/1 2012 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (81,389) (95,380) 0 8/1 2012 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (82,160) (94,609) 0 2/1 2013 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (80,881) (95,888) 0 8/1 2013 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (79,603) (97,167) 0 2/1 2014 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (78,324) (98,446) 0 8/1 2014 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (77,045) (99,724) 0 2/1 2015 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (75,766) (101,003) 0 8/1 2015 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (74,488) (102,282) 0 2/1 2016 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (75,209) (101,561) 0 8/1 2016 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (73,880) (102,889) 0 2/1 2017 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (72,552) (104,218) . 0 8/1 2017 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (71,223) (105,546) 0 2/1 2018 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (69,895) (106,875) 0 8/1 2018 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (68,566) (108,204) 0 2/1 2019 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11 ,Q48 (67,237) (109,532) 0 8/1 2019 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (67,909) (108,861) 0 2/1 2020 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (66,531) (110,239) 0 8/1 2020 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (65,152) (111,617) 0 1 2021 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (63,774) (112,996) 0 /1 2021 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (62,395) (114,374) 0 2/1 2022 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (61,017) (115,753) 0 8/1 2022 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (59,639) (117,131) 0 2/1 2023 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (60,260) (116,509) 0 8/1 2023 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 (58,832) (117,937) 0 2/1 2024 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 0 0 176,770 8/1 2024 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 0 0 353,539 2/1 2025 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 0 0 530,309 8/1 2025 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 0 0 707,078 2/1 2026 220,962 (22,096) (33,144) 11,048 0 0 883,848 8/1 2026 220,962 22,096) 33,144) 11,048 0 0 1,060,618 9,280,404 928,040 1,392,061 ) 464,020 2,753,211 3,610,495) 1,060,618 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Mar1<et Value Inflation 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 60113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 ~~(~ STATUS REPORT GRAMERCY PARK TAX INCREMENT - Coun Pro'ect # 1275 YMENT Housing Payment Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration Fund A Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% PAYG End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2006 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2007 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2007 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2008 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2008 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2009 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2009 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2010 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2010 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2011 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2011 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2012 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2012 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2013 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2013 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2014 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2014 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2015 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2015 157,190 T15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2016 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2016 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2017 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2017 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 2/1 2018 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (117,893) 0 8/1 2018 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) (91,032) 26,861 2/1 2019 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 144,753 8/1 2019 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 262,646 2/1 2020 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 380,538 8/1 2020 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2021 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 /1 2021 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2022 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 8/1 2022 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2023 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 8/1 2023 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2024 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 8/1 2024 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2025 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 8/1 2025 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 2/1 2026 157,190 (15,719) (23,579) 0 117,893 8/1 2026 157,190 (15,719 23,579) 0 117,893 6,601,980 660,198 990,297) 3,038,345) 1,532,603 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 70f13 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 h/{fD STATUS REPORT L YNDALE GA TEWA Y (RON CLARK TAX INCREMENT - Coun Pro'ect # 1281 YMENT Payment Pledge Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration A To Total Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% PAYG Cornerstone Pooled End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2006 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2007 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2007 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2008 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2008 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2009 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2009 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2010 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2010 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2011 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2011 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2012 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2012 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2013 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2013 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2014 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2014 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2015 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2015 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2016 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2016 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2017 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2017 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2018 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2018 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2019 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2019 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2020 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2020 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2021 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 11 2021 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2022 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2022 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2023 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2023 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2024 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2024 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2025 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2025 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 2/1 2026 38,566 (3,857) 0 (5,785) 25.00% 28,925 8/1 2026 38,566 3,857) 0 5,785 25.00% 28,925 1,619,772 161,977 0 1,214,840 ASSUMPTIONS TIF NOT USED FOR PAYG NOTE IS PLEDGE~ TO THE PROJECT ON WEST L YNDALE No Interest Income No Markel Value Inflation 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 80113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 b"~\ STATUS REPORT LYNDALEGATEWAY TeCH) TAXINCREMENT-Coun Pro'ect # 1281 YMENT Payment Net Tax ATE Gross Tax Administration A Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% PAYG End OtYear BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 8/1 2006 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2007 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2007 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2008 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2008 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2009 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2009 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2010 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2010 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2011 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2011 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2012 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2012 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2013 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2013 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2014 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2014 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2015 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 8/1 2015 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2016 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2016 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2017 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2017 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2018 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 8/1 2018 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 2/1 2019 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2019 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2020 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2020 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2021 119,134 (11,913) (107,221 ) 0 /1 2021 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2022 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2022 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2023 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2023 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2024 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2024 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2025 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2025 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 2/1 2026 119,134 (11,913) (107,221) 0 8/1 2026 119,134 (11,913 (107,221 0 5,003,628 (500,363) (4,503,265) 0 ASSUMPTIONS TIF NOT USED FOR PA YG NOTE IS PLEDGED TO THE PROJECT ON WEST L YNDALE No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/912006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 90f13 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 ~J}r STATUS REPORT CITY BELLA TAX INCREMENT - Coun Pro'eet #1285 AYMENT Housing Payment Net Tax DATE Gross Tax Administration Fund A Interfund Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 15.00% PAYG Loan Payment End Of Year BALANCE 0 0 2/1 2006 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 735 8/1 2006 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 1,470 2/1 2007 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 2,206 8/1 2007 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 2,941 2/1 2008 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 3,676 8/1 2008 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 4,411 2/1 2009 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 5,147 8/1 2009 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 5,882 2/1 2010 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 6,617 8/1 2010 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 7,352 2/1 2011 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 8,088 8/1 2011 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 8,823 2/1 2012 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 9,558 8/1 2012 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 10,293 2/1 2013 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 11,029 8/1 2013 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 11,764 2/1 2014 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 12,499 8/1 2014 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 13,234 2/1 2015 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 13,970 8/1 2015 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 14,705 2/1 2016 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 15,440 8/1 2016 204,327 (20,433) 0 (152,510) (30,649) 16,175 2/1 2017 204,327 (20,433) (17,493) (152,510) (13,156) 16,911 8/1 2017 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 17,646 2/1 2018 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 18,381 8/1 2018 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 19,116 2/1 2019 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 19,852 8/1 2019 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 20,587 2/1 2020 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 21,322 8/1 2020 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 22,057 1 2021 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 22,793 /1 2021 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 23,528 2/1 2022 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 24,263 8/1 2022 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 24,998 2/1 2023 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 25,734 8/1 2023 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 26,469 2/1 2024 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 27,204 8/1 2024 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 27,939 2/1 2025 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 28,675 8/1 2025 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 29,410 2/1 2026 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 30,145 8/1 2026 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 30,880 2/1 2027 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 31,616 8/1 2027 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 32,351 2/1 2028 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 33,086 8/1 2028 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 33,821 2/1 2029 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 34,557 8/1 2029 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 35,292 2/1 2030 204,327 (20,433) (30,649) (152,510) 0 36,027 8/1 2030 204,327 20,433) 30,649) (152,510 0 36,762 10,216,350 1,021,635 (845,017 (7,625,500) (687,435) 36,762 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 10of13 CITY OF RICHFIELD. 2006 ~J}? STATUS REPORT BEST BUY TAX INCREMENT - Coun pro'ect # 1282 A YMENT Admin Housing Tax Exempt PAY.G. Net Tax DATE Gross Tax Fund Fund G. O. Bond Note Increment MT YEAR Increment FIXED FIXED Payment A End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 856,073 (33,371) (233,598) (184,722) (404,382) 0 8/1 2006 856,073 (33,371) (233,598) (469,722) (119,382) 0 2/1 2007 870,840 (34,068) (238,479) (179,022) (419,272) 0 8/1 2007 870,840 (34,068) (238,479) (474,022) (124,272) 0 2/1 2008 885,862 (34,777) (243,443) (173,122) (434,520) 0 8/1 2008 885,862 (34,777) (243,443) (483,122) (124,520) 0 2/1 2009 901,143 (35,499) (248,493) (166,767) (450,384) 0 8/1 2009 901,143 (35,499) (248,493) (486,767) (130,384) 0 2/1 2010 916,688 (36,233) (253,631) (160,047) (466,778) 0 8/1 2010 916,688 (36,233) (253,631) (495,047) (131,778) 0 2/1 2011 932,501 (36,979) (258,857) (152,844) (483,821) 0 8/1 2011 932,501 (36,979) (258,857) (507,844) (128,821) 0 2/1 2012 948,587 (37,739) (264,173) (145,034) (501,641) 0 8/1 2012 948,587 (37,739) (264,173) (515,034) (131,641) 0 2/1 2013 964,950 (38,511) (269,581 ) (136,709) (520,149) 0 8/1 2013 964,950 (38,511) (269,581 ) (521,709) (135,149) 0 2/1 2014 981,595 (39,297) (275,082) (127,806) (539,410) 0 8/1 2014 981,595 (39,297) (275,082) (532,806) (134,410) 0 2/1 2015 998,528 (40,097) (280,678) (118,188) (559,566) 0 8/1 2015 998,528 (40,097) (280,678) (543,188) (134,566) 0 2/1 2016 1,015,752 (40,910) (286,370) (108,094) (580,379) 0 8/1 2016 1,015,752 (40,910) (286,370) (558,094) (130,379) 0 2/1 2017 1,033,274 (41,737) (292,161) (97,125) (602,251) 0 8/1 2017 1,033,274 (41,737) (292,161) (567,125) (132,251 ) 0 2/1 2018 1,051,098 (42,579) (298,051 ) (85,375) (625,093) 0 8/1 2018 1,051,098 (42,579) (298,051) (580,375) (130,093) 0 2/1 2019 1,069,229 (43,435) (304,044) (73,000) (648,751) 0 8/1 2019 1,069,229 (43,435) (304,044) (598,000) (123,751) 0 2/1 2020 1,087,674 (44,305) (310,139) (59,875) (673,354) 0 8/1 2020 1,087,674 (44,305) (310,139) (609,875) (123,354) 0 1 2021 1,106,436 (45,191) (316,340) (46,125) (698,780) 0 8/1 2021 1,106,436 (45,191) (316,340) (626,125) (118,780) 0 2/1 2022 1,125,522 (46,092) (322,647) (31,625) (725,157) 0 8/1 2022 1,125,522 (46,092) (322,647) (646,625) (110,157) 0 2/1 2023 1,144,937 (47,009) (329,064) (16,250) (752,614) 0 8/1 2023 1,144.937 (47,009) (329,064) (666,250) (102,614) 0 2/1 2024 1,164,687 (47,941) (335,591) 0 (781,155) 0 8/1 2024 1,164,687 (47,941) (335,591 ) 0 (781,155) 0 2/1 2025 1,184,778 (48,890) (342,231 ) 0 (793,657) 0 8/1 2025 1,184,778 (48,890) (342,231 ) 0 (793,657) 0 40,480,310 (1,629,321) (11,063,071) (11,943,460) (15,502,227) 0 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income Market Value Inflation 1.7250% 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 110113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 ~/~~ STATUS REPORT L ndale Gateway West Cornerstone Kensin ton Park) 1286 I\YMENT Cornerstone Admin Housing Taxable Ron Clark Interfund Net Tax DATE Gross Tax Fund Fund G. O. Bond Gross Tax Loan A Increment MT YEAR Increment 10.00% 0.00% Payment Increment 5.00% End Of Year BALANCE 0 2/1 2006 153,415 (15,342) 0 (88,325) 5,785 0 55,533 8/1 2006 153,415 (15,342) 0 (203,325) 5,785 (14,000.00) (73,467) 2/1 2007 154,949 (15,495) 0 (85,809) 5,785 0.00 59,430 8/1 2007 154,949 (15,495) 0 (205,809) 5,785 (14,000.00) (74,570) 2/1 2008 156,499 (15,650) 0 (83,184) 5,785 0.00 63,449 8/1 2008 156,499 (15,650) 0 (208,184) 5,785 (14,000.00) (75,551) 2/1 2009 158,064 (15,806) 0 (80,450) 5,785 0.00 67,592 8/1 2009 158,064 (15,806) 0 (210,450) 5,785 (14,000.00) (76,408) 2/1 2010 159,644 (15,964) 0 (77,606) 5,785 0.00 71,858 8/1 2010 159,644 (15,964) 0 (212,E?06) 5,785 (14,000.00) (77,142) 2/1 2011 161,241 (16,124) 0 (74,569) 5,785 0.00 76,333 8/1 2011 161,241 (16,124) 0 (214,569) 5,785 0.00 (63,667) 2/1 2012 162,853 (16,285) 0 (71,279) 5,785 (6,400.00) 74,674 8/1 2012 162,853 (16,285) 0 (221,279) 5,785 0.00 (68,926) 2/1 2013 164,482 (16,448) 0 (67,529) 5,785 (13,000.00) 73,290 8/1 2013 164,482 (16,448) 0 (222,529) 5,785 0.00 (68,710) 2/1 2014 166,126 (16,613) 0 (63,654) 5,785 (16,300.00) 75,345 8/1 2014 166,126 (16,613) 0 (228,654) 5,785 0.00 (73,355) 2/1 2015 167,788 (16,779) 0 (59,529) 5,785 (18,400.00) 78,865 8/1 2015 167,788 (16,779) 0 (234,529) 5,785 0.00 (77,735) 2/1 2016 169,466 (16,947) 0 (55,154) 5,785 (22,100.00) 81,050 8/1 2016 169,466 (16,947) 0 (240,154) 5,785 0.00 (81,850) 2/1 2017 171,160 (17,116) 0 (50,413) 5,785 (26,300.00) 83,116 8/1 2017 171,160 (17,116) 0 (245,413) 5,785 0.00 (85,584) 2/1 2018 172,872 (17,287) 0 (45,343) 5,785 (26,500.00) 89,526 8/1 2018 172,872 (17,287) 0 (250,343) 5,785 0.00 (88,974) 2/1 2019 174,601 (17,460) 0 (39,962) 5,785 (32,800.00) 90,164 8/1 2019 174,601 (17,460) 0 (254,962) 5,785 0.00 (92,036) 2/1 2020 176,347 (17,635) 0 (34,264) 5,785 (39,800.00) 90,432 8/1 2020 176,347 (17,635) 0 (259,264) 5,785 0.00 (94,768) 1 2021 178,110 (17,811) 0 (28,218) 5,785 (42,900.00) 94,966 8/1 2021 178,110 (17,811) 0 (268,218) 5,785 0.00 (102,134) 2/1 2022 179,891 (17,989) 0 (21,738) 5,785 (47,000.00) 98,949 8/1 2022 179,891 (17,989) 0 (271,738) 5,785 0.00 (104,051) 2/1 2023 181,690 (18,169) 0 (14,988) 5,785 (47,400.00) 106,918 8/1 2023 181,690 (18,169) 0 (279,988) 5,785 0.00 (110,682) 2/1 2024 183,507 (18,351) 0 (7,700) 5,785 (54,522.00) 108,719 8/1 2024 183,507 (18,351) 0 (287,700) 5,785 0.00 (116,759) 2/1 2025 185,342 (18,534) 0 0 5,785 (186,350.00) (13,757) 8/1 2025 185,342 (18,534) 0 0 5,785 0.00 172,593 2/1 2026 187,195 (18,720) 0 0 5,785 (339,700.00) (165,439) 8/1 2026 187,195 (18,720) 0 0 5,785 0.00 174,261 2/1 2027 189,067 (18,907) 0 0 5,785 (308,000.00) (132,054) 8/1 2027 189,067 (18,907) 0 0 5,785 0.00 175,946 2/1 2028 190,958 (19,096) 0 0 5,785 (312,000.00) (134,353) 8/1 2028 190,958 (19,096) 0 0 5,785 0.00 177,647 2/1 2029 192,868 (19,287) 0 0 5,785 (303,100.00) (123,734) 8/1 2029 192,868 19,287) 0 0 5,785 0.00 179,366 8,276,268 827,627) 0 0 277,675 1,912,572) 0 ASSUMPTIONS No Interest Income Market Value Inflation 1.0000% 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 120113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 Ii~~ STATUS REPORT TOTAL ADMINISTRATION YMENT RR L YN DALE Net Tax ATE ILN GAL YNS Post 1999 URBAN GRAMERCY GATEWAY CITY BEST Increment MT YEAR Pre 1999 VILLAGE R.C & TCCH CORNERSTONE BELLA BUY End Of Year BALANCE 2/1 2006 54,114 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,342 20,433 33,371 192,594 8/1 2006 54,114 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,342 20,433 33,371 192,594 2/1 2007 54,114 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,495 20,433 33,371 192,747 8/1 2007 54,114 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,495 20,433 34,068 193,444 2/1 2008 54,114 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,650 20,433 34,068 193,599 8/1 2008 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,650 20,433 34,777 140,195 2/1 2009 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,806 20,433 34,777 140,351 8/1 2009 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,806 20,433 35,499 141,073 2/1 2010 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,964 20,433 35,499 141,231 8/1 2010 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 15,964 20,433 36,233 141,964 2/1 2011 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,124 20,433 36,233 142,124 8/1 2011 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,124 20,433 36,979 142,871 2/1 2012 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,285 20,433 36,979 143,032 8/1 2012 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,285 20,433 37,739 143,791 2/1 2013 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,448 20,433 37,739 143,954 8/1 2013 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,448 20,433 38,511 144,727 2/1 2014 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,613 20,433 38,511 144,891 8/1 2014 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,613 20,433 39,297 145,677 2/1 2015 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,779 20,433 39,297 145,843 8/1 2015 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,779 20,433 40,097 146,643 2/1 2016 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,947 20,433 40,097 146,810 8/1 2016 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 16,947 20,433 40,910 147,624 2/1 2017 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,116 20,433 40,910 147,793 8/1 2017 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,116 20,433 41,737 148,620 2/1 2018 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,287 20,433 41,737 148,792 8/1 2018 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,287 20,433 42,579 149,633 2/1 2019 0 7,954 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,460 20,433 42,579 149,806 8/1 2019 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,460 20,433 43,435 142,708 2/1 2020 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,635 20,433 43,435 142,883 8/1 2020 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,635 20,433 44,305 143,754 2/1 2021 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,811 20,433 44,305 143,930 /1 2021 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,811 20,433 45,191 144,816 2/1 2022 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,989 20,433 45,191 144,994 8/1 2022 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 17,989 20,433 46,092 145,895 2/1 2023 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,169 20,433 46,092 146,075 8/1 2023 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,169 20,433 47,009 146,992 2/1 2024 0 0 7,796 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,351 20,433 47,009 147,173 8/1 2024 0 0 0 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,351 20,433 47,941 140,310 2/1 2025 0 0 0 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,534 20,433 47,941 140,493 8/1 2025 0 0 0 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,534 20,433 48,890 141,442 2/1 2026 0 0 0 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,720 20,433 48,890 141,627 8/1 2026 0 0 0 22,096 15,719 15,770 18,720 20,433 0 92,737 2/1 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,907 20,433 0 39,339 8/1 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,907 20,433 0 39,339 2/1 2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,096 20,433 0 39,529 8/1 2028 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,096 20,433 0 39,529 2/1 2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,287 20,433 0 39,719 8/1 2029 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,287 20,433 0 39,719 270,569 214,748 288,445 928,040 660,198 662,340 827,627 980,770 1,662,692 6,495,428 5.50% 249,604 150,188 179,587 546,371 388,682 389,944 445,068 540,954 953,388 3,740,912 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 130113 CITY OF RICHFIELD - 2006 ~/~~ STATUS REPORT TOTAL HOUSING YMENT New Home Post 1999 Net Tax Net Tax ATE URBAN GRAMERCY CITY BEST And Kids RRII RR Bond Increment Increment MT YEAR VILLAGE BELLA BUY Transformation At Home Cemetery Site Payment EOY TOTAL BALANCE 0 1,030,186 2/1 2006 33,144 23,579 0 233,598 (140,000) (60,000) (125,000) (45,296) (79,975) 950,211 8/1 2006 33,144 23,579 0 233,598 (140,000) (60,000) (125,000) 0 (34,679) 915,532 2/1 2007 33,144 23,579 0 238,479 (190,000) (100,000) (225,000) (39,093) (258,891) 656,641 8/1 2007 33,144 23,579 0 238,479 (190,000) (100,000) (225,000) 0 (219,799) 436,842 2/1 2008 33,144 23,579 0 243,443 0 0 0 (42,343) 257,823 694,665 8/1 2008 33,144 23,579 0 243,443 0 0 0 0 300,166 994,831 2/1 2009 33,144 23,579 0 248,493 0 0 0 (45,418) 259,799 1,254,630 8/1 2009 33,144 23,579 0 248,493 0 0 0 0 305,216 1,559,846 2/1 2010 33,144 23,579 0 253,631 0 0 0 (43,018) 267,336 1,827,182 8/1 2010 33,144 23,579 0 253,631 0 0 0 0 310,353 2,137,535 2/1 2011 33,144 23,579 0 258,857 0 0 0 (45,498) 270,082 2,407,617 8/1 2011 33,144 23,579 0 258,857 0 0 0 0 315,579 2,723,197 2/1 2012 33,144 23,579 0 264,173 0 0 0 (47,573) 273,323 2,996,519 8/1 2012 33,144 23,579 0 264,173 0 0 0 0 320,896 3,317,415 2/1 2013 33,144 23,579 0 269,581 0 0 0 (49,248) 277,056 3,594,471 8/1 2013 33,144 23,579 0 269,581 0 0 0 0 326,303 3,920,774 2/1 2014 33,144 23,579 0 275,082 0 0 0 (30,746) 301,058 4,221,832 8/1 2014 33,144 23,579 0 275,082 0 0 0 (42,379) 289,426 4,511,258 2/1 2015 33,144 23,579 0 280,678 0 0 0 0 337,400 4,848,658 8/1 2015 33.144 23,579 0 280,678 0 0 0 (108,121) 229,279 5,077,937 2/1 2016 33,144 23,579 0 286,370 0 0 0 0 343,093 5,421,030 8/1 2016 33,144 23,579 0 286,370 0 0 0 (111,996) 231,096 5.652,126 2/1 2017 33,144 23.579 17,493 292,161 0 0 0 0 366,377 6,018,503 8/1 2017 33,144 23,579 30,649 292,161 0 0 0 (115,406) 264,126 6,282,629 2/1 2018 33,144 23,579 30,649 298,051 0 0 0 0 385,423 6,668,052 8/1 2018 33,144 23,579 30,649 298,051 0 0 0 (118,256) 267,167 6,935,219 2/1 2019 33,144 23,579 30,649 304,044 0 0 0 0 391,415 7,326,634 8/1 2019 33,144 23,579 30,649 304,044 0 0 0 0 391,415 7,718,050 2/1 2020 33,144 23,579 30,649 310,139 0 0 0 0 397,511 8,115,561 8/1 2020 33,144 23.579 30,649 310,139 0 0 0 0 397,511 8,513,072 1 2021 33,144 23,579 30,649 316,340 0 0 0 0 403,712 8,916,783 11 2021 33,144 23,579 30,649 316,340 0 0 0 0 403,712 9,320,495 2/1 2022 33,144 23,579 30,649 322,647 0 0 0 0 410,019 9,730,514 8/1 2022 33,144 23,579 30,649 322,647 0 0 0 0 410,019 10,140,534 2/1 2023 33,144 23,579 30,649 329,064 0 0 0 0 416,436 10,556,970 8/1 2023 33,144 23,579 30,649 329,064 0 0 0 0 416,436 10,973,405 2/1 2024 33,144 23,579 30,649 335,591 0 0 0 0 422,963 11,396,368 8/1 2024 33,144 23,579 30,649 335,591 0 0 0 0 422,963 11,819,331 2/1 2025 33,144 23,579 30,649 342,231 0 0 0 0 429,603 12,248,934 8/1 2025 33,144 23,579 30,649 342,231 0 0 0 0 429,603 12,678,537 2/1 2026 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,709,186 8/1 2026 0 0 30.649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,739,835 2/1 2027 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,770,484 8/1 2027 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,801,133 2/1 2028 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,831,782 8/1 2028 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,862,431 2/1 2029 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,893,080 8/1 2029 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,923,729 2/1 2030 0 0 30,649 (0) 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,954,378 8/1 2030 0 0 30,649 0 0 0 0 0 30,649 12,985,027 1,325,772 943,140 845,017 11,405,302 (660,000) (320,000) (700,000) (884,390) 11,954,841 5.50% 755,905 552,531 302,604 6,273,872 5,688,833 No Interest Income No Market Value Inflation 8/9/2006 Prepared by Ehlers Pro 08-09-2006 AGENDA ITEM # 7 REpORT # 57 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: V ANESSA HAIGHT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANT COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT 11ANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED By EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of modifying underwriting guidelines for approving Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize modifying underwriting guidelines for the Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program. I II. BACKGROUND I Since 1978, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has administered the Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loans. The Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program enables low-income homeowners to make basic home improvements through a $30,000 (maximum) no-interest and no-payment loan. Improvements funded typically include: furnace replacement, window replacement, siding or painting, electrical work and plumbing. The HRA administers the program with oversight by Hennepin County. The program is funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The HRA typically accepts the program guidelines prepared by Hennepin County, with slight modification, as the guidelines for the Richfield pro~ram. 082106 Guidelines for Deferred Loans Due to the number of recent foreclosures on property with HRA investment, staff is requesting HRA direction on the guidelines for approving Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loans. The current guidelines for both Hennepin County and Richfield call for the lien to be collectable for the term of the repayment agreement (30 years). All existing mortgages, contracts for deed, and other encumbrances, including the Deferred Loan, should not exceed the value of the property. Hennepin County can waive the requirement under certain circumstances. Staff has been following these guidelines, approving loans not to exceed the amount of equity in the property. If the HRA would like to tighten these guidelines, staff recommends: 1. Approval of loans not to exceed 90% of the equity in the property. 2. Between 91 % and 100%, staff will be given the authority to administer the loan on a case by case basis, addressing major health and safety concerns. 3. Above 100% and an emergency situation, staff would administer and communicate the basis for proceeding to the HRA. Examples of previous emergencies include sewer back up, furnace break-down, inoperable water heater and leaking roof (see criteria for an emergency deferred loan on the attached). [ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The HRA has administered a housing rehabilitation program for low- income homeowners for several years. . To be approved for a Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan, an applicant must meet several criteria. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . A majority of Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan recipients have limited equity in their home and rely on the Deferred Loan as a last resort to making improvements to their home. Without the loan, the home improvements will likely not be made. . Due to the rigorous lead testing and abatement requirements, the program is increasingly difficult to administer. Tightening the guidelines for approving the loan could impact the number of eligible recipients and the HRA's ability to close loans. . Staff currently is reviewing a Deferred Loan application in which the homeowner has only $7,000 of equity in the property. Staff determined the amount of equity based on a recent lender appraisal. o The property requires a number of basic improvements, including: furnace replacement, water heater replacement, window replacement/repair, exterior door replacement/repair, improvements to rotting attached screened porch, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs, and flooring replacement (vinyl). o Staff plans to approve $7,000 worth of health and safety improvements including the furnace and water heater. I C. FINANCIAL I . The HRA currently has available funding for the program in the 2006 revised, 2007 proposed budget. I D. LEGAL I . Legal counsel reviewed the guidelines when the program was initiated. The proposed guidelines are consistent with the program but were not reviewed further. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Reject the proposed revised guidelines for approving Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loans, finding that the current guidelines are sufficient. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Summary of Qualifying Criteria for Underwriting Loans I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A 7-1 Summary of Qualifying Criteria for Underwriting Loans . Property must be principal place of residence and borrower must have a qualifying interest in the property (one-third interest or life estate). . Borrowers must be current on mortgage payments and property taxes. . The household gross annual income must be at or below 50% of the Area Median Income. ($39,250 for a family of four). . Adequate equity must exist in the property to cover the cost of the rehabilitation work. . To ensure adequate equity exists in the property and to account for any difference between the estimated market value (EMV) and the real market value, the administering entity has two options: . Multiply the EMV by 100% (the EMV is typically about seven to eight percent below actual purchase prices) and add 50% of the maximum loan amount; or, . The borrower can request that a local realtor provide a written market analysis of the post-rehab value of the property. . If serious health and safety issues exist which directly and negatively affect the habitability of the dwelling, the administering entity can elect to waive or amend the equity requirement, provided that the same waiver/amendment opportunities are presented to all future borrowers who find themselves affected by the same conditions. . If the administering entity wishes to waive the equity requirement, written justification must be submitted to Hennepin County. Written approval from Hennepin County must be returned before the loan is approved. . An Emergency Deferred Loan can be issued if: . "The dwelling unit contains defects or deficiencies which, if left uncorrected, would render the unit immediately uninhabitable; or . Such defects are the direct result of occurrences which include but are not limited to, natural causes such as floods, tornadoes, fire, blizzards, and storm; or mechanical failures such as burst pipes, furnace breakdowns, or clogged sewer lines; or . A child under the age of seven years, living in the home, is found to have an "Elevated Blood Level." 082106 Guidelines for Deferred Loans AGENDA ITEM # R REpORT # '1R ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED By EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Hennepin County's Deoartment of Environmental Services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize an Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Hennepin County's Department of Environmental Services. I II. BACKGROUND I The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) applied for and was approved to receive an Environmental Response Fund Grant (ERF Grant) in the amount of $25,500 for 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue. Both 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue are located in the Cedar Point Commons Redevelopment Project area. The ERF Grant assists in the assessment and clean-up of sites that are contaminated or potentially contaminated sites located within Hennepin County. The HRA applied for the ERF Grant for 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue (Air Care Go) because the sites previous use was a service station. The grant will allow the proper environmental work to be completed to ensure that any contaminated or potentially contaminated soil or building materials are properly cleaned-up. 082106 ERF Grant Acceptance_6300 Cedar A Phase I environmental assessment has been done for the sites. The Phase I assessment concluded that further testing would have to be done. The testing will include a Phase II environmental assessment and a hazardous building material inventory for the site. The ERF Grant will be used to pay for this work. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The HRA is committed to seeking outside funding to assist redevelopment of Cedar Point Commons. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The one year requirement for the expenditure of funds is consistent with proposed construction schedule for Cedar Point Commons. . Hennepin County requires an Agreement in order for the HRA to receive the funds. I C. FINANCIAL I . In the Contract for Private Development (Contract) between the HRA and Ryan Companies, US, Inc. (Ryan), signed in July 2005, the HRA committed to attempt to secure third-party funding for environmental assessment work. At the time the Contract was signed the HRA had to disclose to Ryan what it knew about the environmental condition of all the HRA properties. The HRA disclosed the conditions and therefore, any additional costs and responsibilities to mitigate 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue that exceeds the grant amount will rest with Ryan. I D. LEGAL I . The HRA's legal counsel has reviewed the Agreement as presented. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not enter into the Agreement for the approved grant amount. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement. . Map of Grant Property I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A ~/I Contract No. A061057 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES This Agreement is made on by and between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("County" or "Grantor" at A2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487) by and through its Department of Environmental Services ("Department") and the City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423 ("Grantee"). Grantee has made application to the County for a grant to be used for environmental assessment of Cedar Point Commons, a potentially contaminated site located at 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue South, in Richfield, which application is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. GRANT AMOUNT AND COMPLETION The County shall grant to the Grantee a sum not to exceed Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($ 25,500.00) which funds shall be only for expenses, incurred in performing activities specified in the Application and as may be further described in Exhibit A to this Agreement or as approved by County staff. Approved assessment and/or clean-up activities as may be described in the application and Exhibit A are referred to herein as the "Project". Administrative costs incurred by the Grantee are not eligible for reimbursement via this Agreement. Grantee agrees to complete the Project within one (1) year of execution ofthis Agreement and within the terms stated herein. Any material change in the scope of the Project, including time schedule and budget, must be approved in writing by the County. Funds made available pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only for expenses incurred in performing such purposes and activities described in the Application and this Agreement. 2. ACCOUNTING AND RECORD KEEPING For all expenditures of funds made pursuant to this Agreement, the Grantee shall keep financial records including properly executed contracts, invoices, and other documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditures. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Grantee agrees that the County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Grantee and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the Agreement and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation. 3. PAYMENTIDISBURSMENT SCHEDULE Grantor will disburse funds to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement, based on a payment request form provided by the Grantor, submitted by the Grantee and approved by the Grantor. Payment requests can be submitted once per month and must be accompanied by supporting invoices that relate to activities in the approved Project budget. Subject to verification of adequacy of a written disbursement request and approval of consistency with this Agreement, the Grantor will disburse the requested amount to the Grantee within six (6) weeks after receipt of a written disbursement request. g/d 4. REPORTING Grantee shall submit to the Grantor a report on the distribution of funds and the progress of the Project covered from the date of the grant award through June 30 of each year. The reports must be received by the County no later than July 25 of each year. The report shall identify specific goals listed in the application and quantitatively and qualitatively measure the progress of such goals. Reporting forms will be provided by the Grantor. In addition, the required documentation listed in Exhibit A should be supplied as it becomes available. 5. CONTRACTS Grantee shall include in any contract, provisions that require contractors to comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations regarding employment and workplace safety. In accordance with Hennepin County's policies against discrimination, Grantee agrees that it shall not exclude any person from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service, or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules, or regulations against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Public Grantees and any contractors or subcontractors performing services as part of this Agreement shall follow that public Grantee's AffIrmative Action policy against discrimination. 6. TERMINATION, CANCELLATION AND ASSIGNMENT This Agreement may be canceled by the County upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Grantee without cause. In the event of such cancellation, Grantee shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of such cancellation. Ifthe County fmds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made toward commencement or completion of the assessment and/or clean-up activities specified in the Application and this Agreement, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary and after written notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, the County may refuse to disburse additional funds and/or require the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed, to the extent such funds were used for purposes other than activities contemplated by this Agreement. This Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the County. 7. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Grantee shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the activities herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Grantee as the agent, representative, or employee of the County for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Grantee is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services and activities performed under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Grantee or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Grantee under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the County, and shall not be considered employees of the County. Any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment including without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Grantee, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the County. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, and employees from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the County, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 2 ~/3 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Grantee agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless, the County, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or any party that directly or indirectly benefits from the activities specified in this Agreement, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance ofthe activities specified in this Agreement and against all loss by reason of the failure of the Grantee to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 9. INSURANCE In order to protect the County and those listed above under the indemnification provision, the Grantee agrees at all times during the term of this Agreement and beyond such term when so required, to have and keep or cause to have and be kept in force, and to cause all contractors to do likewise, the following insurance coverages under either a purchased insurance or self-insurance program: I. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with Contractual Liability Coverage: Limits General Aggregate $1,000,000 Products-Completed Operations Aggregate 1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury 1,000,000 Each Occurrence - Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage 1,000,000 2. Automobile Liability - Combined single limit each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage covering owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles. 1,000,000 3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: a. Workers' Compensation If the contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota laws. Statutory b. Employer's Liability. Bodily Injury by: Accident - Each accident Disease - Policy Limit Disease - Each Employee 100,000 500,000 100,000 4. Professional Liability - Per Claim and Aggregate 1,000,000 The insurance must be maintained continuously for a period of two years after the termination of this Agreement. The Grantee shall require that any independent contractors rendering assessment and/or clean-up activities under this Agreement furnish certificates of insurance to the Grantee of the insurance coverages listed above, and provide updated certificates as coverages expire. An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability coverages is an acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits. The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole responsibility of the Grantee to determine the need for and to procure additional insurance which may be needed in connection with this Agreement. Copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. The Grantee shall not commence work until it and any contractors have obtained the required proof of insurance which clearly evidences required insurance coverages. 3 ~/~ If the Grantee fails to furnish proof coverages, if requested by the County, the County may withhold payments and/or pursue any other rights or remedy allowed under the contract, law, equity, and/or statute. 10. MERGER AND MODIFICA nON It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supercedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 11. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. The Remainder Of This Page Was Intentionally Left Blank 4 %/~ COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL GRANTEE, having signed this agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this agreement on the of , 2006, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Reviewed by the County Attorney's Office COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator By: Assistant County Administrator, Public Works Date: Recommended for Approval By: Director, Department of Environmental Services Date: GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances. * Name: CITY OF RICHFIELD HRA By: ATTEST: By: Suzanne M. Sandahl, Chair Donna Drummond, Secretary Date: Date: *GRANTEE shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confIrmS the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time Grantee returns the Agreement to the County. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. HCA Form No. 101 2006 (Revised 10/05) 5 ~/1 This Page Was Intentionally Left Blank 6 ~/~ Exhibit A City of Richfield HRA Proiect Summary: The project site is an approximately 0.5-acre, industrial-zoned parcel that is in use as a warehouse. The project site is part of a larger 30 acre area in northeastern Richfield that is being redeveloped for commercial use because it is no longer suitable for residential use due to the airport runway expansion. The City intends to rezone the project site to commercial and then sell the property to Ryan Coso The project site would then be developed for an unspecified commercial use. No environmental work has been conducted on the project site; however, a service station is believed to have been previously located on-site. The applicant requests ERF assistance for Phase I and II environmental assessment and hazardous building material assessment costs. An ERF grant of $25,500 is awarded to the City of Richfield lIRA to complete a Phase I and Phase II of the project site. Hazardous building material assessment costs are not eligible for reimbursement. The following costs are based on a budget submitted by the Grantee. Modifications must be approved in writing by the Grantor. Approved Budget for Cedar Point Commons: Total: $ 25.500 $ 25,500 Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Required Documentation to be Submitted to Hennepin County: Consultant/Contractor Invoices Phase I and II Environmental Assessment Reports Annual Project Progress/Summary Report(s). E-l z o l- e> z - ~ ", -"', 0 ..c:: ..c'""""-,~~.o ~ ii5 "::J r ~ co " ,..~~ [[[[] OIIIJ :..-- i-- i-- - 1= , i--- - - ~ --L ---t I I I - ---- ,.....- - -- -- i--- i--- cornnr 11 J I - M~n of ERF -, ~/q ..c:: ........ CD ~ ;0; ..c:: ........ I'- ~ c:: <( ~ / \ , j' ""\. ~ I \ l ,-, ". .~ ~2ndq \1~ '~~~l \ " ~k 4 _:'II~ _.~.ta' _\@ ".-~ \1 f --t- --i- I · -:..-..,,,.. .."" . ---I' - '- --1\~ = 64' h - 1- - I '-- ~ - -~- --~ f --I-- --I _- -t- -1-\ c:. . . '\. \".,.. T" IS- I I, +- ~ == ~. 5t" \ lit('...., \ -l- -~- ~=, '. " '. . ~ = ~ "., \ \ %- '7 ~ j - 1~ J~ 'III ,. \ -n L\ '\ I, U. I T ~== It ,) ~ " N C \\ \ -:;-. -;fllfr ...' \ l!' .. ~.:Z,. \ rr' Q 1.1 'r' \ \ I~ _ \ I n Le9;::darpointCommonsArea~ _ ~ If ~ ..1 ERF Grant Properties - I \ \ L~' " :;, r \,' ..c:: ........ ex:> ~ \ - o 270 540 1,080 1,620 2,160 Feel AGENDA ITEM # 9 REpORT # 59 STAFF REpORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TiTLE REpORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TiTLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a change to the Richfield Rediscovered Program. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider and approve the proposed change to the Richfield Rediscovered Program. I II. BACKGROUND I In March 2005, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved changes to the Richfield Rediscovered Program. The program offers an incentive of $50,000 to builder/buyer teams that acquire substandard property, demolish existing structures, and build new higher valued homes. The builder/buyer team assumes responsibility for the acquisition and demolition of substandard structures. Previously the HRA assumed responsibility for these costs, took possession of the property, and sold to a team for the value of the vacant land and in accordance with a Contract for Private Development. The $50,000 incentive has not proven large enough to be effective in encouraging the development of new homes. The marketplace is slowing, there are many choices for homebuyers and the values of single-family lots and substandard structures remain high. The incentive assumes: 082106_Richfield Rediscovered Guideline Changes 1) Buying and tearing down a structure would be a financial loss to the team. 2) The desire to be in Richfield was thought to be so strong and "valued" that the team would accept some financial loss. The marketplace is not responding. No applications for the program have been received. Projects have not occurred since the change. There has been interest in the program and staff has been contacted regarding several properties that could be candidates for the program. Using the present program teams cannot afford to purchase these properties, pay for demolition, and build a new home. Using recent examples (attached) the $50,000 is an insufficient incentive to cause the development to move forward because these properties have land values averaging $86,000 and structure values averaging $93,000. It is recommended that an increase in the incentive amount to $70,000 may provide the desired result. This increase is closer to the value of the structure. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The Richfield Rediscovered Program has been a successful program for replacing smaller, substandard housing with larger, higher-valued homes. . The HRA is responsible for the administration of Richfield Rediscovered and the successful replacement of over 120 homes. . The proposed adjustment tests a more competitive incentive given recent program experience. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The incentive being offered is not triggering the desired result. . The HRA contribution is an incentive grant that is earned upon the purchase, demolition of structures and construction of the new home. . The HRA budget proposes four homes could be developed annually. The adjustment would reduce the number to three. . The HRA would consider a Contract for Private Redevelopment so that the project costs would be reviewed for each transaction and confirm the role the incentive played. I C. FINANCIAL I . The proposed HRA budgets contain $200,000 in 2006 for the program and $200,000 in 2007. Funds come from the Housing Fund. I D. LEGAL I . A Contract for Private Redevelopment, similar in form and content to past contracts will be used to approve each project and secure payment of the incentive grant upon project completion. Legal counsel will prepare the contract. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Do not approve the suggested program modifications. . Modify the program further, making additional adjustments to the incentive. . End the program. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Recent Property Inquiry Data I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A CI) -g~oooo .... >'" 0 0 0 0 cu 0000 E....'l::toom1.O +i~oom,.....,..... U)...~~~~ wcuEl)-EI)-EI)-EI)- :2 C) c "'. 0 goo -0 00 '-;jOOOO "0_ N =CUCON1.Om ;j>m~oooo m EI)-EI)-EI)-EI)- cu .... CU C ~ ... ;j CT C ~ CI) C- O ... a. .... c CI) (.) ~ CI) ;j - CU > "0 C CU ..J 0000 0000 0000 ooCO'l::tCO oo/'-moo EI)- EI)- EI)- EI)- . CTCI) U)g'l::t1.Om,..... (1).... CO CO,..... <v> U)O~N,.....m ;jo~~ Ou.. J: &~oooo'l::t,..... U)CU1.Omom ........1.O<V>om o OOooCO~~ ..Ju.. ~~ U) E '08 ~ ... "0 CI) m U) U) CI) ... "0 "0 <( <V><V>NN <V ..- > C <( c <V? xCO'l::t o<Vc~ a.. .- ~~>~ 1.00000 1.Ooo0CO mcom co co 00 00 00 Noo mm <V>EI)- EI)- 00 00 00 'l::tco 'l::too <V>EI)- EI)- CI) cog .... ... o CI) t-> <( o o CD o N N (fi- CJ) rn ~ "0 Q) t;:: ..e () ~ c Q) :::J ~ ...... Q) ~ ..... rn ::2: "0 Q) ...... rn E :+:: CJ) W Q) 0> rn ..... Q) ~ It) o o N ..... o LL oj( q-( E :::J E c ::2: o o 00 ("') N N (fi- - o Q) () "C a. CJ) Q) rn CJ) Q) 0> ~ Q) > rn Q) ..e ...... - o ~ o o It) ~ ...... CJ) rn Q) o o 00 ("') N N (fi- CJ) rn ~ "0 Q) t;:: ..e () ~ c Cii -I ~ '-' ...... rn rno :::JO 0"1'- Q)L!"i 0("') ...... ("') CJ)(fi- rn...... ..eCJ) Q) rn E Q) 0...... ..ern c Q) 0..0 .- ...... t5CJ) :::J :::J .bE CJ)>> Ct:: o Q) ()a. ~ e Q)a. c- Q) Q) ..eE -0 'O..e Q) ~ :::J Q) - c rn Q) >..e "0 ...... C ..... Q).E Q) ..... ..eQ) T~ co..c -Q) :::J..e E...... ..... 0 0...... LLQ) C:::::::J c:::: rn oj( > Q) () "C a.. CJ) Q) rn (f) Q) 0> ~ Q) ~ It) o o N ..... o LL oj( t/) Q) 0: c:: C1l .c () Q) ,S: Q) "0 ':; (9 "0 ~ Q) > 8 t/) :.c Q) ~ "0 Q) <;:: .c o C2 CD o ..- N 00 o AGENDA ITEM # 1 0 REpORT # fiO ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT 11ANAGER REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of revised Subordination Guidelines for Housing and Redevelopment Authority loans. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approval of revised Subordination Guidelines for Housing and Redevelopment Authority loans. I II. BACKGROUND I The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) provides Richfield residents with financing for remodeling, repair, and second mortgages for purchasing homes. The HRA places a lien on the property to secure this financing. The HRA's lien is, in most cases, a junior lien on the property after a first mortgage. The payment is deferred to a future time such as the sale of the home. When homeowners attempt to refinance their first mortgage or obtain an equity line of credit, the new lender requests a subordination from the HRA in order for their lien to be in a superior position. The current guideline for subordination requests is the following: If the combined loan-to-value ratio is under 100 percent, the subordination request is approved. If the combined loan-to-value ratio is 100 percent or above, the request is denied. 082106_Subordination Policy The Proposed Guideline: Would limit the loan-to-value ratio to 85 percent and below, as well as add additional criteria that must be met in order for the subordination to be approved. The additional criteria would be the following: 1) the overall value of superior debt must not be increased by more than 50 percent and 2) the proposed mortgage cannot be a line-of-credit, reverse mortgage, interest-only loan, or any loan presenting the borrower with an interest only option. The proposed guideline is based on staff conversations with other cities and Hennepin County. A summary table is attached. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I IA. POLICY I . It is HRA policy to recover HRA funds. . A subordination policy manages HRA interests with the homeowners. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Homeowners are not able to refinance and leverage equity unless the HRA subordinates. There may be interests such as home maintenance or medical expenses that are not addressed. . The HRA has an opportunity to encourage better household financing practices by having a more restrictive policy. . However, as seen in the attached, it is not as restrictive as some agencies. I C. FINANCIAL I . A 85% loan-to-value ratio limit will ensure that the HRA recovers its lien. . The HRA charges a $50 administrative fee for each subordination. I D. LEGAL I . The subordination agreement form and content is based on a template developed with legal counsel. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATlON(S) . Do not approve proposed guidelines. . Approve alternative guidelines. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Process and Policy for Subordination Requests . Summary Table of Other Cities/County's Subordination Policies I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A II) --I New Process and Policy for Subordination Requests Transformation, First-Time Advantage, CDBG Deferred Loan: When processing subordination requests, staff evaluates whether to approve or deny the request based on the loan-to-value ratio. Requests are approved as long as the loan-to- value ratio is 85 percent and below. If the loan-to-value ratio is above 85 percent, the request is denied. Staff has used estimated market value in the past but, more typically, receives a copy of the bank appraisal to determine the value of the property. A copy of the title commitment is also received to verify the new loan amount and current debts against the property. New Home/First-time Buyer homes: The same process is used with the following exception: staff re-verifies income. If the household income exceeds the original qualifying income limit allowed at the time the second mortgage was placed, the request is denied and the loan must be re-paid if the homeowner proceeds with refinancing. 082106_Subordination Policy /()-J- Summary of City and County Subordination Policies City or County Loan-to-value ratio Comments Bloomington 75% St. Louis Park 80% They use Hennepin County's Guidelines. Dakota County CDA They look at several different variables besides loan-to-value including: 1) There must be at least $50,000 worth of equity 2) the value of superior debt must not be increased by more than 50% 3) will not subordinate to line-of-credit, reverse mortgage, interest only loans 4) no amortization over 30 years 5) the borrower's credit must be good 6) CDA will not lower it's position 7) property taxes must be current amonq others. Hennepin County 80% Will approve a subordination between 80-90% loan-to-value as long as the cash out is being used for home improvements. AGENDA ITEM # 11 REpORT # 61 STAFF REpORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AUGUST 21, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY HRA ~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: rn ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving proposed property tax levy for payable 2007 for certification to Hennepin County. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions approving the 2007 Proposed Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget and Tax Levy and 2006 Revised Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget. I II. BACKGROUND N/A I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Minnesota Statutes require adoption of a preliminary levy from each taxing authority. . The budget and accompanying proposed levy for 2007 are ready for consideration. . Even though a pubic hearing for the HRA tax levy is not required by State Statute, this does not preclude the HRA from opening this item up for public discussion if the HRA desires to do so. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . As required by State Statutes, each taxing authority must certify its proposed tax levy for the payable year 2007 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2006. I C. FINANCIAL I . The Proposed 2006 HRA levy represents a 5.18% increase from the previous year's levy. . The levy is approximately $48,000 less than the maximum HRA levy established by law of the .0144% of the City's total taxable market value. I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . The HRA could adopt a preliminary levy less than the one proposed herein. However, that would not provide for programs that are recommended in the 2006 Revised/2007 Proposed budget. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution Approving Proposed 2007 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget and Certifying the 2007 Tax Levy . Resolution Authorizing Revision of the 2006 Budget of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A /1" I HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 2007 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 2007 TAX LEVY BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield for the year 2007 in the amount of $497,930 is hereby ratified. Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2007, and as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the budget for the year 2007, in the amount of $463,870 is hereby approved. Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield an ad valorem tax in 2006, payable in 2007 for the following purposes: Housing and Redevelopment Authority $409,500 Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21 st day of August, 2006. Suzanne M. Sandahl, Chair ATTEST: Donna Drummond, Secretary !}-). HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF THE 2006 BUDGET OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, Resolution No. 953 appropriated funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlay for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the year 2006,and WHEREAS, The Executive Director has requested a revision of the 2006 budget as detailed in the 2007 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the 2006 appropriation for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund be revised as follows: $180,060 increase . Section 2. Estimated 2006 gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the 2006 budget document, are hereby revised as follows: $61,600 increase Section 3. That the Executive Director bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21 st day of August, 2006. Suzanne M. Sandahl, Chair ATTEST: Donna Drummond, Secretary