Loading...
09-26-06 RegularCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:00 - 5:20 p.m. 1. .Discussion regarding Lyndale Avenue bridge design (Council Memo No. 154)_ , 5:20 - 6:20 p.m. 2. Discussion with certain realtors regarding marketability and property values of homes on eastside of Richfield (Council Memo No. 155) Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of August 30, 2006; (2) Special Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Meeting of September 14, 2006; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of September 14, 2006 PRESENTATION 1. Presentation of proclamation designating October 2006 Disability Employment Awareness Month in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION 2. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of continuing public hearing to October 10, 2006 regarding resolution approving preliminary and final plat for subdivision of 6444 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 187 B. Consideration of approval of resolution to be filed with Hennepin County that states City approval must be granted prior to transfer or division of land by County Auditor S.R. No. 188 C. Consideration of approval of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to County Auditor S.R. No.189 D. Consideration of approval of purchase of winter deicing salt for 2006/2007 winter season from North American Salt Company, Overland Park, KS at $45.28 per ton delivered, plus sales tax S.R. No. 190 Notes: 5. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: RESOLUTIONS 6. Disciplinary hearing regarding resolution imposing civil enforcement on establishment in Richfield that underwent alcohol compliance check conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 191 Notes: 7. Consideration of resolution authorizing off-street parking permit at 1430 East 66th Street Staff Report No. 192 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public hearing regarding resolution for special Council approval of installation of ground monument sign located forward of principal building setback at 7512 Lyndale Avenue (Broadway Pizza) Staff Report No. 193 Notes: 9. Public hearing regarding resolution adopting modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, establishing Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District therein and adopting tax increment financing plan therefor Staff Report No. 194 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 10. Consideration of resolution approving second amendment to escrow agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. Staff Report No. 195 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 11. Consideration of right-of--entry agreement for use of all City properties in Cedar Point Commons development area by Ryan Companies US, Inc. Staff Report No. 196 Notes: 12. Consideration of renaming 17th Avenue Staff Report No. 197 Notes: 13. Consideration of proposed stop sign demonstration project Staff Report No. 198 Notes: 14. Discussion related to design criteria for new City maintenance facility Staff Report No. 199 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 15. City. Manager's report Notes: 16. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for oth rs. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 17. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be mad at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # jg] J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continue the public hearing to October 10, 2006 regarding consideration of a resolution a rovin a relimina and final lat for the subdivision of 6444 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Continue the public hearing to October 10, 2006 regarding consideration of a resolution approving a preliminary and final plat for the subdivision of 6444 Portland Avenue South. II: BACKGROUND This item is being continued in order to make corrections to the plat and legal description as directed by legal counsel. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing is required to consider both preliminary and final plats. 092606 - 6444 Portland Prelim & Final Plat (continue) B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Delaying consideration of this item until October 10, 2006 is necessary to make corrections to legal documents as directed by legal counsel. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • N/A V. ATTAC~IlVIENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 CONSENT 4B 188 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING 8L ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution to be filed with the County that states that City approval must be ranted rior to transfer or division of .land b the Count Auditor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution relating to the subdivision of land in the Cit of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota Statute § 272.162 describes regulations regarding the transfer or division of land. Specifically, the law states that if municipal subdivision requirements apply, the County Auditor shall not transfer or divide the land without municipal approval. The law also states that §272.162 only applies to land within municipalities which choose to be governed by its provisions. Legal Counsel has advised staff that it is in the best interests of the City to be governed under such provisions. In order to do so, the City must file a certified copy of a resolution of the Council making this choice. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 092606 -Subdivision regulations A. POLICY • The City Code requires all plats and subdivisions of land to be -- approved by Council resolution (500.03 Subd. 2) B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The filing of a resolution electing to be governed by Minnesota Statute §272.162 ensures that the County Auditor is aware of the City's subdivision regulations and the need for City approval of land transfer - or division. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The filing of the attached resolution will ensure that the county auditor is aware of the City's desire to review all subdivisions and transfers of land. Legal Counsel was under the impression that such a resolution had been filed with the County a number of years ago, but a recent conversation with the county auditor revealed otherwise. The filing of the resolution will close any possible loophole that may have allowed property owners to subdivide property without the approval of the Council. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the attached resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Minn. Stat., §272.162 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~- RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has adopted subdivision regulations in accordance with Minn. Stat., § 462.358, which regulations apply throughout the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat., § 272.162, subd. 1, provides that certain deeds or other instruments conveying parcels of land shall not be transferred or divided by the county auditor without the approval of the City; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat., § 272.162, subd. 3, provides that such restrictions on the transfer or division of land by the county auditor apply only to land within municipalities that choose to be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 272.162; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that land within the City be .governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat., § 272.162. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that: 1. The City hereby elects to be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat., § 272.162. 2. The City clerk is authorized and directed to transmit certified copies of this resolution to the county auditor and the county recorder of Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, the 26th day of September, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk (SEAL) ~ ~-a Minnesota Statutes 2005, 272.162 - 272.162 Restrictions on transfers of specific parts. Subdivision 1. Conditions restricting transfer. When a deed or other instrument conveying a parcel of land is presented to the county auditor for transfer or division under sections 272.12, 272.16, and 272.161, the auditor shall not transfer or divide the land or its net tax capacity in the official records and shall not certify the instrument as provided in section 272.12, if: a) The land conveyed is less than a whole parcel of land as charged in the tax lists; b) The part conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under section 462.36, subdivision 1; and c) The part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 12. Subd. 2. Conditions allowing transfer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1, the county auditor may transfer or divide the land and its net tax capacity and may certify the instrument if the instrument contains a certification by the clerk of the municipality: a) That the municipality's subdivision regulations do not apply; b) That the subdivision has been approved by the governing body of the municipality; or c) That the restrictions on the division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the governing body of the municipality in the particular case because compliance would create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply would not interfere with the purpose of the regulations. If any of the conditions for certification by the municipality as provided in this subdivision exist and the municipality does not certify that they exist within 24 hours after the instrument of conveyance has been presented to the clerk of the municipality, the provisions of subdivision 1 do not apply. If an unexecuted instrument is presented to the municipality and any of the conditions for certification by the municipality as provided in this subdivision exist, the unexecuted instrument must be certified by the clerk of the municipality. Subd. 3. Applicability of restrictions. This section does not apply to the exceptions set forth in section 272.12. This section applies only to land within municipalities which choose to be governed by its provisions. A municipality may choose to have this section apply to the property within its boundaries by filing a certified copy of a resolution of its governing body making that choice with the auditor and recorder of the county in which it is located. J AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # AFC REPORT # I89 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution certifying delinquent sewer and water utility accounts to the County Auditor. .BRIAN YOUNG, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED. BY CITY MANAGER:. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By .Motion: Adopt the resolution certifying unpaid sewer and water. service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with. other taxes on said ro erties. IL BACKGROUND Chapter VII of the .Richfield Ordinance Code provides that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax bill The Ordinance Code also authorizes a certification fee. to be charged against each delinquent account.- By certifying the. delinquent charges to the property taxes for the delinquent properties, the City is assured of ultimately collecting the delinquent charges. in 2005 the City Council certified $184,554..15 of delinquent charges for 423 .properties, an average cost of $436..30 per account. The 2006 certification currently under consideration totals $188,554.49 for 620 properties, an average of $304.12 .per account. Staff expects that, as in years past, many of the now delinquent accounts will be .paid before certification. 092606delinquent III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • State Statute and Chapter VII of the. Richfield Ordinance Code provide that unpaid water and sewer charges may be certified to the County Auditor to be included in a property owner's annual property tax-bill B: CRITICAL ISSUES • Property owners owing utility charges will be notified in September that failure to pay the amount owed will result in certification to the property owners' taxes. C. FINANCIAL Throughout the year, the bivision bills and collects charges for water, wastewater and storm water from accounts within the City. The charges include a 6.5% penalty on unpaid balances. This-penalty is paid .quarterly against the accrued unpaid balance. The delinquent accounts must be certified to .the County Auditor in order for the City to collect the charges through the property tax process. A $50 certification fee is charged to each account assessed to taxes. The assessment is spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. D. LEGAL • A public notice. to property owners in the City of Richfield of the assessment. of the delinquent utility bills was published in the Sun Current on September 14, 2006. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the resolution. However, the certification process is-the only process the City has to collect these delinquent accounts. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing certification of unpaid sewer and water service charges to the County Auditor to be collected with other taxes on said properties VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID SEWER AND WATER SERVICE CHARGES TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE COLLECTED WITH OTHER TAXES ON SAID PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 715 establishes rules, rates and charges for water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 provides that all delinquent water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705 established rules, rates and charges for sanitary sewer service. in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof-provides that all sewer services charges not paid within 15 days after~the quarterly due date may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such property, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 720 established rules, rates and charges for storm water service in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Ordinance Code 705.19 thereof provides that all storm water service charges not paid may be certified to the County Auditor with taxes against such properties, and shall be collected with other taxes on such property; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll has been prepared specifying the amount, which shall be certified against each particular property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. There is hereby determined to be a total uncollected amount for water, sanitary sewer and storm service of $188,554.49. 2. That a $50 certification charge shall be levied against each delinquent account, such charges totaling $31,000.00. 3. That the above-described assessment be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% per annum. 4. That such amount be hereby certified to the County Auditor for collection with other taxes on said properties. 5. That a copy of the resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of September 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk f. J AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # . OFD ~ REPORT # 19O STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: TRENT JUTTING, STREET. SUPERVISOR. NAME, TITLE. COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of winter .deicing salt for the-.2006/2007 winter season from North American Salt Company, Overland Park, KS at the price of $45.28 per ton, delivered, lus sales tax. II. BACKGROUND Each year the City purchases rock salt, to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The .City participates in a joint purchasing. agreement with the State of Minnesota. • The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase agreement. 092606sa1f ~, B. CRITICAL ISSiTES • .The City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount, and may purchase up to 120% of the agreed amount, in accordance with-the contract. C. FINANCIAL • A .recent history of prices for this product is: -Year Base Price Vendor 02/03 27.97/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted; OH 03/04 27.71/ton Cargill Inc.,. North Olmsted, OH 04/05 31.71/ton -North American Salt Co., Overland Park, KS 05!06 36.00/ton North. American .Salt Co., Overland. Park, KS • Funding. for this purchase is included in the 2006 and 2007 operating budgets for street maintenance. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or construction exceeds. $25,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose to discontinue the use of rock salt to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. However, staff is not aware of a more effective means of providing the safest road condition possible under- icy conditions. • Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount for the 2006/2007 winter season; further participation in the cooperative State bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned. V. ATTACHMENTS • None.. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 RESOLDTIONS 6- 191 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for Sandy's Tavern that recently underwent an alcohol compliance check, conducted by Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b sellin alcohol to an undera a outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for Sandy's Tavern for failing an alcohol compliance check, and approve the attached resolution imposing the following penalties for the first time violation: • Suspending the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days, and; • Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000, and; • Requiring a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present an individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind, and; • Requiring a manager to attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety with all costs to be paid by the establishment. 0926 Resolution for Alcohol Compliance Violator Sandy's Tavern III. BACKGROUND I On June 5, 2006 Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by two underage youth that were 18 and19 years of age. These compliance checks were the first compliance checks conducted in 2006. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with. undercover police officers. In one instance, an underage youth was served alcohol. The business that made a sale to an underage youth on June 5, 2006 is: • Sandy's Tavern - 6612 Penn Avenue South This is a first offense for Sandy's Tavern. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their IDs and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the business that holds a license to self alcohol within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the business punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No.9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that the first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and.sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being- are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishment for the sale of alcohol to a minor that would result in no disciplinary action against the establishment. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against. the establishment that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511. V. .ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. for Sandy's Tavern Discipline. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from the establishment are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing regarding the City Council meeting date. ~-i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR FIVE (5) DAYS FOR SANDY'S TAVERN, 6412 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Sandy's Tavern, ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2006, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is the first alcohol compliance failure for Sandy's Tavern, and; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September 26, 2006 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and .penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before October 26, 2006, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by October 26, 2006 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of September 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 192 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding an amended off-street parking permit at 1430 66th Street East. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking ermit at 1430 66th Street East. II. BACKGROUND • The applicant operates EI Jalapeno Market at the above-mentioned location. • The original off-street parking permit for this location was approved in 1965. • The applicant seeks to amend the 1965 off-street parking permit to reflect current conditions. • This item was first brought before the Council on July 11th of this year. • Council directed staff to work with the applicant to add additional landscaping and work through other matters. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 092606 - OSP 1430 66th St (continued) City parking requirements call for 12 parking stalls. o Three parallel parking stalls are allowed for employee parking along the east side of the building. Public Works has authorized the use of the paved boulevard area for the entrance and exit of vehicles using these three stalls. Vehicles parked in this area must enter and exit the parking lot via the curb cut to the north on 15th Avenue. o Seven angled parking stalls are proposed along the rear of the property. o Ten parking stalls are the maximum the site can accommodate and that should be sufficient. (The adjacent commercial property owner and the applicant are unable to agree on joint usage. Therefore, the applicant must confine parking to his site.) Subsection 526.29 of the Zoning Code requires that no more than 85 percent of a lot in the C-2 District be impervious. This requirement is not met, as the site is currently approximately 95 percent impervious; however, significant site improvements have been proposed. The total required landscaping area for this site is 1,660 square feet (15 percent). An additional 610 square feet of landscaping is proposed for the front of building. This is in addition to the 221 square feet of landscaping along the northern edge of the parking lot, which will be enhanced through additional shrubs. The total proposed landscape area is 831 square feet (7.5 percent). With this additional landscaping the site will be 92.5 percent impervious. The proposed front entry way enhancements will include the following features: o A handicap accessible ramp; 0 7-foot concrete walkway to allow customer and employee access from the east side of the building; o Landscape areas that will be surrounded by a rolled concrete curb with 1 x 2 wood breaks to discourage skateboarding which could ruin landscaping; o A brick and/or railroad tie raised planter surrounding the base of the pylon sign; o A bench placed along the east side of the entrance walkway; In addition to these entry way enhancements, the following shall be required of the site as a whole: o Four inches of shredded hardwood mulch shall be provided around all shrubs on the property; o Two inches of hardwood mulch shall surround daylilies; o The fence along the north side of the property must be repaired or replaced in accordance with City standards. o Propane storage containers to be moved to side or rear of building; o Conduit pipe in rear landscape area must be properly removed. o Weeds must be removed from the area around the building foundation and within and surrounding the dumpster enclosure including any volunteer trees; o Railing and blocks at back steps must be repaired in accordance with Building Code requirements; o Enter/exit only signs shall be installed to direct traffic through the site; o The parking lot is to be repaired and resealed with a material approved by the Public Works Department; o The parking lot shall be striped to identify all parking stalls; o Damaged sign faces shall be replaced; poles shall be scraped free of rust and re-painted; o All temporary signs and banners must be removed. Permits for temporary signs must be applied for through the Building Inspections Department and comply with Sign Code regulations; and o Anew dumpster enclosure with a concrete floor shall be constructed at the northwest corner. of the building as indicated on approved site plan.. A construction permit must be applied for through the Building Inspections Department and the enclosure must meet all Building, Zoning & Health Code regulations. The existing trash enclosure is to be removed. • Procedures for the issuance of an off-street parking permit are described in Subsection 800.17 of the City Code and authorize the .City Council to issue a permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current off-street parking permit for this location no longer reflects the layout of the property. • Current landscape standards cannot be met at this site without reducing off-street parking. • To ensure timely completion of the required improvements, a cash escrow equal to 100 percent of the value of the required improvements is required. This value shall be calculated based on at least two bids from licensed independent contractors submitted to the Community Development Department by the applicant. Bids shall reflect the cost of all site improvements not completed by November 1, 2006. • At this time of year contractors are busy. Providing a month to obtain bids will hopefully address the situation. Since the cash escrow will likely be several thousand dollars, should a stipulation be met prior to November 1, 2006, it may be deleted from the bids and would not be included in the calculation of the cash escrow. • This cash escrow must be provided by November 8, 2006. If a cash escrow is not received by November 8, the applicant will be in violation of the approved off-street parking permit. Businesses cannot operate in the City without a valid off-street parking permit. If this escrow has not been received, this item will be brought back before the Council for consideration of the revocation of the applicant's business license. C. FINANCIAL • The off-street parking permit application fee of $300 has been paid. D. LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was received on May 30, 2006. The applicant was notified that the City's request to extend this deadline by 60 days in a letter dated July 12, 2006. A decision must be made by September 27, 2006. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Modify the performance dates for the stipulations. • Add to or delete stipulations. • Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Businesses cannot operate within the City without an off-street parking permit. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Site survey with parking plan Landscape plans Surrounding land use and zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. George Frost, applicant '' t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 1430 66TH STREET EAST WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 1430 66th Street East, legally described as: LOTS 10 AND 11, NOKOMIS GARDENS REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCKS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5, GIRARD PARKVIEWADDITION. WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff and meets City requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street parking permit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the -City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That an off-street parking permit is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the approved site plan and landscape plans (attachments A, B, and C), which provide for 10 on-site parking stalls, a handicap accessible ramp and 7-foot concrete walkway; 2. That a minimum of two bids .from licensed independent contractors for all required site improvements be submitted to the Community Development Department for escrow calculation by November 1, 2006; 3. That a cash escrow equal to 100 percent of the value of the required improvements, as determined by the submitted bids, is provided to the City by November 8, 2006; 4. That non-permitted temporary signs, banners and fasteners be removed immediately and not reinstalled; 5. That the exterior wall area which has been used for posting unauthorized signs be ,repainted to match the adjoining wall area by October 15, 2006; 6. That the conduit pipe in the landscaped area along the northern boundary be removed by October 15, 2006; 7. That the fence along the northern boundary of the property be repaired or replaced to City standards by October 15, 2006. 8. That the landscaped area along the northern boundary of the property be weeded and a weed growth inhibiting mat and mulch be applied by November 1, 2006; 9. That additional shrubs of the same type that exists currently be added to the landscaped area along the northern boundary line to form a continuous row of shrubs by November 1, 2006; 10. That the parking area be repaired and resealed by November 30, 2006, with a material approved by the Public Works Director; 11.A11 parking areas must be striped by November 30, 2006, in accordance with City standards; ~~~ 12. That entrance/exit only signs be installed to direct traffic through the site by November 30, 2006; 13. That use of the public boulevard be in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the Public Works .Department; 14. That "employee parking only" signs be installed to designate stalls along the east side of the building as such by November 1, 2006; 15.That all parking spaces are accessible year round; 16. That existing bollards be scraped and repainted by .November 1, 2006; 17. That the damaged sign faces on the existing pylon sign be repaired or replaced and the poles be scraped free of rust and repainted by November 30, 2006; 18. That the damaged back stair railing and concrete block be repaired in accordance with Building Code standards by November 1, 2006; 19.That a new dumpster enclosure complying with all Health, Building and Zoning Code requirements be installed at the northwest corner of the building by November 30, 2006; 20. That the current dumpster. enclosure be removed by November 30, 2006; 21. That the 5' x 9.5' brick or railroad tie raised planter to be installed at the base of the pylon sign be completed by November 30, 2006; 22.That no parking be allowed in front of the building prior to installation of landscaping areas; 23.That landscaping in front of the building, including but not limited to a concrete walkway, large planting areas and a bench, be in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Community Development Department, and completed by May 1, 2007; 24.That landscape areas in front of the building are surrounded by a rolled concrete curb with 1' x 2' wood breaks; 25. That shredded hardwood mulch of two inches in depth surround all daylilies and four .inches in depth surround all other shrubs and plantings; 26. That propane storage containers be moved to the side or rear of the building prior to installation of landscape areas in front of the building; 27. That weeds and volunteer trees be removed from around the foundation of the building and within and around the dumpster enclosure by September 1, 2006; 28. That the crumbling concrete block foundation on the east wall be repaired and painted by October 15, 2006; 29. That the openings in the concrete foundation on the west wall be sealed and painted by October 15, 2006; and 30.A11 landscaping must be maintained and if necessary replaced in conformance with approved plans. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of September 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1430 E. G~oTM S-I-ree-I- AttachmentA ~, i i i i i i i i i ~ _ - .- SIDE'.^:'AL.K ~, I c~ NG 7 ~ KI ~, I o~ I MI TRASH AREA CTD $~ rCMpVecl G~~ 30.7 p0~ ----- New i trASh enclosure i ,~ _, 11.5 w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 z ~ N I i~ ° 6 I ODD N O ~ ~' d= M ° I d ~1--STORY ~ °° Z I ~ ~ BLOCK BUILDING I cn ~ T-y 143 E. 56TH ST. a is 1 0 a 29.6 ------ --- ,2.6 -SIGN GUARD ~-i - - -pN~'R G O _ OVERHANG ~ ~ ~ Y POST I bGUARD ~ Q N; See lq dsco-pe p!a-nS POST a ~ ~ ii ~ ' ~ ~~ -.. 0 ~~' --88.50-- -' SIDEWALI: ~ - --~~ - S 89'51'00" E ~ ~ .. ......:> ..... x-s .~..w;zrva *rr~„.,+?~s~;:,s+~~;T6Yd~ {s„d~o.~k€rt"F;r~. ~. t :. ~.._.~ R2t...ara..o~. .s..<..,..,~ ... ....._.,.. .. ~~ [..~. Attachment B ` Y .~ ~ ~1 ~ 3 e ~ ~ I ~ Q ~ i J (~ J S?• Attachment C r 7 +Y+ ~ M" ~f ~~ ~~ lG~ 1430 66th Street East - OSP Amendment 9/06 Surrounding.Zoning N R R R ~ 0 ~ R R R R R R R R R R R C-2 R C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 66th Street ~ c ~ a c-z c-z c-2 c-z ~ a R ~ R R ~ C-2 R R R R R -Single-Family Residential C-2 -General Commercial 0 65 130 260 390 520 Feet R R R R R R R R R R R R C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 ~~ 1430 66th Street East - OSP Amendment 9/06 Surrounding Land Uses RES R RES RES RES ~ 0 RES RES u~ M -RES RES RES $ RE RES RES RES RES ES RES RES RES RES. RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES CO COM COM COM RES COM COM O 66th Street C M ~ Q .C ~ Q ~ + + RES ~ r QUASPBLC RES RES -Single-Familiy Residential N COM -Commercial QUASPBLC -Quasi-Public COM DPLX COM RES RES COM RES RES RES 0 65 130. 260 390 520 Feet AGENDA SECTION: PIIBLiC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # H REPORT # 193 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2~Ufi REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POExL,MAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding consideration of a resolution for the installation of a ground monument sign at 7512 Lyndale Avenue (Broadway Pizza) that does not conform to the Sign Ordinance. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution for special Council approval of a ground monument sign to be located forward of the principal building setback at 7512 Lyndale Avenue (Broadway Pizza). II. BACKGROUND The owner of the property located at 7512 Lyndale Avenue is requesting to install a ground monument sign in front of the building. Broadway Pizza and Rapit Printing currently occupy this building. The proposed sign would replace the existing pylon sign. Normally, sign permit requests are approved administratively; however, the City Code requires that in the case of an application for a sign of unusual height, or location, the City Manager shall refer such sign to the Council for approval. In accordance with Subsection 416.07 Subd. 3(d)(3) of the City Code, ground signs 092606 Broadway Pizza Sign located in front of the building setback line (35 feet in the C-2 District) must maintain a minimum vertical clearance of seven feet. The Code defines a ground sign as "a sign attached to the ground on its own structures and which is not attached to any building". The C-2 District does not distinguish ground monument signs from pylon signs. The proposed ground monument sign would increase business visibility without detrimentally impacting safety. Due to the location of street trees along Lyndale Avenue, the existing pylon sign is partially blocked from view of drivers travelling south. As these trees continue to grow, the existing sign will become less and less effective. Staff believes that minimum vertical clearance requirements were originally adopted to ensure clear sight lines for drivers. In this particular case, sight lines will not be impacted by the installation of a monument sign. The proposed location of the sign is more than ten feet back from the edge of the sidewalk and nearly 20 feet from the back of the curb. A boulevard permit allowing a planting bed and monument sign to encroach on City-owned boulevard has been issued by the Public Works Department. The attached site plan accurately depicts the location of the proposed sign; however, the plan does not reflect existing parking, driveway and landscaping locations. The driveway is currently located north of the sign bed and the landscape beds indicated on the north end of the parking lot are not in place. The property owner has been made aware of the requirement to either bring the property into compliance with this approved site plan or request an amendment to the approved off-street parking permit. An amendment to the off-street parking permit will require the property to be brought into compliance with current ordinance requirements, including, but not limited to landscape and impervious surface requirements. The Zoning Code requires a business to have a valid off-street parking permit to operate. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Proposed sign is a ground sign. o When located forward of the principal building setback line, ground signs in the C-2 District must maintain a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet. • Section 416.03 Subd. 6. Special approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign of unusual height, or location, the City Manager shall refer such sign to the Council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of Council B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The existing pylon sign is difficult to see due to street trees. • The proposed sign will not impair sight lines. • The current and approved site plan does not accurately reflect current conditions. The property owner shall either bring the property into compliance with approved plans or request an amendment to the current off-street parking permit. C. FINANCIAL The required fee for anon-residential variance has been paid. D. LEGAL • Notification of this hearing has been sent to residents and property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • .Deny the request for a ground monument sign forward of the principal building setback line. The applicant must comply with clearance requirements. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Site plan • Sign details • Land use & zoning maps VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ms. Patti Chadwell -applicant & property owner ~i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGROUND MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED FORWARD OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK AT 7512 LYDNALE AVENUE WHEREAS, application has been made to the City of Richfield which requests special Council approval for a sign of unusual height on land generally located at 7512 Lyndale Avenue, legally described as: Lots 4-6, Block 25, Irwin Shores WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the requested sign; WHEREAS the proposed sign is reasonable and appropriate for the proposed location and purpose; WHEREAS the proposed sign will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, .services, or existing or proposed improvements; WHEREAS the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Special Council approval is granted for a ground monument sign to be placed forward of the principal building setback, as described in City Council Staff Report No. , on the Subject Properties legally described above. 2. This special Council approval is subject to the following stipulations: • The sign must comply with all other applicable regulations of the City Code; • Applicable permits must be obtained before the sign is erected; and Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of September, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SAS 'end 3"ir/aNl."- ~~4 :::sw im, t :.. ~t~ M~ ~.: :~~ A zl a W F- a ®! ~' ~- ~° ~~ i , t~ F- o W e~ ~' O ch Z _ o ~- -' o Q U ~: ~+ G! C f6 V ~~ QI L QI ~~ LL 0 ~' ~~. W r:~ Z Jb • 5 $~~ ~a£ o a ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~= ~ a •c N ~ 3 N U C ~ O ~ ~ O p U ~ Q ~ O N a eo v N C T'a ~ c °, = g, - m C L R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N c E ~ C Q m C s m in ~~ ~. ,~ w N r~ 7512 Lyndale Avenue -Sign Variance Request Surrounding Land Use September 2006 RES APT APT RES RES RES COM S RES APT ~' O RES M PT RES COM RES . . 1 RES RES COM ~ c RES COM Q COM RES RES ~ COM RES COM ~ ~ RE COM RES ~ ES RES COM RES CO 76th Street 77th Street N COM -Commercial RES -Residential APT -Apartment RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES S RE RES 0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Richfield Community Development (MP) Feet September 11, 2006 8^~ 7512 Lyndale Avenue -Sign Variance Request Surrounding Zoning September 2006 R C-2 MR-3 R R R C-2 R MR-3 O R M R-3 R C-2 R M -3 R ~ R M -3 C-2 ~ c R C-2 Q C-2 R R ~ C-2 R C-2 ~ C-2 R R ~ R R C_2 R C- 76th Street 77th Street N C-2 -General Commercial R -Residential ' MR-3 High-Density Residential 0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Richfield Community Development (MP) Feet September 11, 2006 R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Agenda Section: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 FUBLiC HEARINGS 9 194 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, and establishing the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financin District therein and ado tin a tax increment financin Ian therefor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, and establishing the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District therein and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefor. II. BACKGROUND • In 2005 the Minnesota legislature (Chapter 152, Section 25, Subd. 1) authorized the City of Richfield to "create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending: to 16th Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66th Street; to 17th Avenue between 66th and 69th Streets; and to 18th Avenue between 69th and 72nd Streets (See attached map). Subd. 2 provided that the TIF district created pursuant to Subd. 1 to be deemed a redevelopment district, and further provided that expenditures in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment district, and further, that the five-year rule under Minnesota Statutes does not apply (i.e. district ceases to exist if no development in five years). On June 2, 2005 the Governor signed the bill for this legislation. On June 28, 2005 the Richfield City Council approved a resolution approving this special law. The purpose of the current Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Corridor Area) (Modified Plan) is to incorporate the Cedar Corridor Area TIF District into this plan to allow for tax increment expenditures. State Statute requires this modification. The following summary highlights certain sections of the Modified Plan. Section B. Statement of Public Purpose (Pape 3) sets forth the determination that the portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area comprising the Cedar Corridor Area is considered "blighted" in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 11 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028, Subd. 3 as documented within the "Blight Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Cedar Corridor Area," dated August 9, 2006 by Cornejo Consulting (Blight Assessment Report), copy of which is attached. The purpose of the Blight Assessment Report is to support the Modified Plan by analyzing the physical conditions of the Cedar Corridor Area (including the Cedar Point Development Area as previously reviewed) and public policy evidenced through a number of key studies, committee analyses, and legislative initiatives and actions relative to airport operations and projected low frequency noise, impacting the Cedar Corridor Area. This includes consideration of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report which eventually resulted in the establishment of the TIF District boundary which coincides with the 87 db. Attachment D (Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions) of the Blight Assessment Report provides in-depth description for the summarized chart findings located at Attachment C (Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment Criteria Chart). Photos at Attachment E provide a visual aid for a review of the Cedar Point Development Area. Section D. Statement of Goals and Objectives (Pape 4) within the Modified Plan consolidates changes made in 2005. There are no new changes as a result of the current plan modification. Section E. Description of the R developm nt Project Area (Pape 8) reinforces that the boundary of the Project Area is not being changed. The map at Appendix A of the Modified Plan shows the boundary as of the last change in December 2005. Section F. Development Activities and Agreements (Pape 8) provides for the private and public activities to be undertaken in the Cedar Corridor Area. Projected private activities could include the construction of approximately 350,000 square feet of retail development, 600,000 square feet of office space and 600 housing units. These figures includes activities currently underway with the Cedar Point Commons project and the proposed additional retail space planned for the west side of 17th Avenue on the 6500 block. Agreements for the construction of this space between the HRA and the Developer will proceed upon the processing and approval of the Modified Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District. Public activities within the corridor are proposed to include site assembly, roadway improvements, greenway/parkway improvements, and enhanced streetscape features. Section G. Public Development Cost; Proceeds; Financing (Pape 9) identifies the public funding sources for the project. Section H. Proposed Land Use (Pape 10) indicates the current land uses in the Cedar Corridor Area. Previously in 2004, the Planning Commission and City approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Cedar Point Development Area to "Regional Commercial/Office" to accommodate the retail improvements. Supplemental and future development and/or redevelopment could warrant additional land use changes in the corridor. Section I. Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation Activities Pa a 11 lists the properties to be acquired by both the public and the developer within the TIF District. Appendix A and B provide the maps of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (as most recently revised in December 2005) and the Cedar Corridor Area, respectively. • The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District (TIF Plan) officially establishes the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District within the context of the special legislation and provides the funding mechanism necessary for public funds to be created and spent within the designated area for specific redevelopment activities. (The TIF Plan is sequenced after the Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan with the attachments.) • Since a portion of the overall Cedar Corridor consists of the Cedar Point Area and Cedar Point Commons development project, this portion will not be part of the new tax increment financing district because it is a tax abatement area. • Also, since redevelopment efforts are only beginning in the entire Corridor area, the TIF Plan provides for financing projections of anticipated development, budgeted sources and uses of funds, and impacts on other taxing jurisdictions based on these projections. (The actual outcomes will likely vary from the projections.) • The most immediate redevelopment linked to this TIF Plan. is the retail redevelopment on the 6500 block of .the west side of 17th Avenue that is part of the Cedar Point Commons project. • The following summary highlights certain sections of the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Sub-section I-3. Statement of Objectives (Pape I-1) sets forth the magnitude of the area that consists of 172 parcels of land that is planned for redevelopment consisting of proposed new retail and office space and new housing. Sub-section I-5. Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired (Pape 1-2) cross-references with Appendix C of the TIF Plan and identified individual parcels of land of the district. Sub-section i-6. Classification of the District Page I-2) identified the district to be a redevelopment district in tandem with the special legislation. (The next section immediately following provides for the duration of the district to be 25 years.) Sub-section I-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements (Pape I-3) provides the projected completion values at full build-out, including project fiscal disparities contribution and annual tax increment that could be expected. As the area is split into two watershed districts, separate values were calculated. Sub-section I-9. Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness (Pape projections indicate that the new district could produce increment revenue in the amount of $88 million. The new section, as required by the Office of State Auditor, shows the breakout of how the increment revenue could further be divided: interfund loans, bond principal (for situations in which most some revenue would be needed on the front end of a project), and TIF Note principal (for situations in which some revenue could be spread over the years as increment is collected). Sub-section 1-10. Uses of Fund (Pape I-5) projections indicate that the new district could use all of the $88 million of projected increment revenue collected for qualified costs such as site assembly, site clearance, public improvements, and administrative costs. Again, a new section, as required by the Office of State Auditor, shows the breakout of how the costs could further be divided: interfund loans, bond principal and Note principal. Figures for costs match those of revenues. Sub-section I-11. Fiscal .Disparities (Pape 1-6) the new TIF .District would contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. Sub-section I-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ,Page 1-8) This sections calculates the probable impact the projected new TIF District could have on taxing jurisdictions such as the county, city and school district as well as city services. For the taxing jurisdictions, the calculations are based on the premise that redevelopment would occur without the creation of the TIF District.. However, the HRA and City, through their respective approvals, determine that the redevelopment in the Cedar Avenue corridor would not occur "but for" tax increment financing. This would then leave a $0 impact to the taxing jurisdictions. For city services, it is estimated that police, fire, and recreation would not require new capital improvements to meets the new demands of the new TIF District; that the new public improvements and infrastructure would benefit the area and reduces costs for public works; and that any. debt issuance needs of the new TIF District would be minimal for the city's main operating fund. Also, the city's ability to issue future debt will not be disturbed due to the creation of the new TIF District. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1~. POLICY • The Richfield HRA and City of Richfield are committed to facilitating land use and development changes in the Cedar Corridor Area to mitigate impacts of the operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. • In 2005 the Minnesota Legislature provided a critical mechanism to the City for facilitating redevelopment within the Cedar Corridor, the use of tax increment financing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • .The west side of 17th Avenue or Block 2 of the Cedar Point Commons plat is a proposed retail redevelopment project that is integral to Cedar Point Commons. • The Developer is seeking tax increment financing assistance for this portion of the project, which can be supported by actions related to the Modified Plan and TIF Plan. • The following procedural processes have been undertaken thus far: • Notification of proposed plan modifications and date of public hearing made to Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson on August 11, 2006; • Notification of fiscal/economic implications to Hennepin County Auditor and School Board on August 23, 2006. • Approval of resolution by Planning Commission on August 28, 2006 finding that a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment. Financing District conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. • Publication of legal notice of public hearing by the Sun Current newspaper on September 14, 2006. • HRA approval of a resolution adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, establishing the-Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District therein and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefor. Other highlighted TIF Plan attachments include: Appendix A -provides the project description for the Cedar corridor area; Appendix B - shows a map of the location of the new TIF District within the Richfield. Redevelopment Project Area; and Appendix D -provides the various estimated cashflows for the Cedar corridor (Sid Inman will be present at the meeting to further review these cashflows). C. FINANCIAL • Various sources of funds have been provided to the City for development and redevelopment activities to occur within the Cedar Corridor Area. Tax increment financing will now be among the sources available. D. LEGAL • The Modified Plan, TIF Plan, and resolutions were prepared by the HRA's financial consultant, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, and staff.. • The Blight Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Cedar Corridor Area," dated August 9, 2006 was prepared by Cornejo Consulting. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~ • Delay approval of the Modified Plan and TIF Plan and direct staff on further process and procedure. • Do not approve the Modified Plan and TIF Plan. • Either option could negatively impact the redevelopment of the 6500 block of the west side of 17th Avenue. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Cedar Corridor Tax Increment Financing District • Resolution • Ehlers' TIF District Summary • Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District. • Blight Assessment Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dan Cornejo, Cornejo Consulting • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. -l ava3o 41St 4lCt 419E NOlONIWOOl0 41St Vlbl 4)EL 41ZL 41L1 410E 404443 OOtlOIHO Sn9WnlO0 a ~ Natld W ONtlINtlO a/ ~L.r oNtlllaoa Q Q 41S }~~ NO U y/ NO1NIlO W = PIE V O ~ P"~ A/ ~ SN3A31S Ii = ISL 1311O0IN Z }I T30SItlle W ~ H1aOM1N3M AanBSllld L 1Ntlsv3ld (,~ arroao W = 131aatlH Ol31datlO W ~ 3ltlONAI W L HOIaON O 1NtlAa9 XtldlO0 'L 1NOdno W O NOSa3W3 ~ ~ 1NOW3ad ~ L _ ~ aatlalo U ~ laloewnry ~y ~ oNlnal Li. S3Wtlf XONN NtlOOI Nvoaow NO1M3N a3nllO NN3d N33nO ll3SSna NtlOla3HS StlWOHl Noldn 1N30NIA NanBH StlM ~ S3Xa3X ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 $ ~ s ~ ~ ~ r_ ~ ~ ~ ~ [®® ®®®®® ~II LIlL1L1~ ®®®®® ~~® W Q ® 1- 11 I oofiL atla3o OOBL 4181 OOLI yl[l 009E 4191 bZSL NOlONIWOOIe OOSI VISE 9044 414E OOEL 41EL OOZI UIZL OOLL Nll 0004 4101 OOfi 404443 008 OJtlOIH0 ozG snewnloo OOG NaVd OZg ONtllNtlO 009 aNVllaod OOS V15 004 VIb yyE NO1NIl0 OOE P~ ooz v4z bZl SN3A31S OOL 1st 000 1311OO1N ~ TI30 SItl10 004 H1aOM1N3M ~z AanBSllid ooe 1Ntlstl3ld oob anltlao 005 131aavH pOg Ol31datlO OOL 3ltlUNAI Opg HOIaON 008 1NtlAae OOOL XtldlOO 0044 1NOdnO OOZE NOSa3W3 00E4 1NOW3ad oob4 aatlalo oosL laloewnH 0096 ONIA211 OOGL S3Wtlf 009E XONN OO6L NtlOOI oooz Nvoaow OOLZ NO1M3N OOZZ a3nilO OOEZ NN3d 0042 N33nO p0y~y ll3SSna 0092 NtlOla3HS ' OOLZ SVWOHl 0oez Noldn OOfiZ 1N3ONIA 000E NanBHStlM 004E S3Xa3X ~ e ~ 6 ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - `s 0 M r ti O 0 v 0 (V o~ U _~ C U ~_ V.. (~ ~ Q X O L .L L1 U ~ L Q~ U ~ oii J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND ESTABLISHING THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN,THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the .Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed kiy the HRA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District. (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The HRA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the. property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, approval of the Plans by the HRA on September 18, 2006, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports, including the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan, JLG Architects, September 2004, Acoustical Construction -Baseline Measurements, Orfield Laboratories, Inc., December 30, 2004, Acoustical Construction Criteria, Orfield laboratories, Inc., January 13, 2005, Acoustical Construction Criteria, Orfield Laboratories, Inc., May 18, 2005, Roadway and Transit Assessment of Cedar Avenue Corridor Transit Oriented Development, WSB & Associates, Inc., January 10, 2005, Legislative Summary 2005, John Choi, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, House Research Summary 2005, Joel Michael, House Research (the "Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. `~ - 3 Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public interest and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under the Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 25. 3.02.. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the .proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has. set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.04. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The adoption of the. Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built up and that the adoption of the proposed Plans will help provide employment opportunities in the State and in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and the State because it will discourage commerce and industry from moving their operations to another state or municipality and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the Plan. The developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by the developer are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits. Section 5. Aoproval and Adoption of the Plans 5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Community Development Director. 5.02. The staff of the. City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and ~~ I directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor, of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter. the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Community Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the -Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of September, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: Finding that the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in the Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 25. Sec. 25. [CITY OF RICHFIELD; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.] Subdivision 1. [AUTHORIZATION.] The City of Richfield may create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending: to 16th Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66th Street; to 17th Avenue between 66th and 69th Streets; and to 18th Avenue between 69th and 72"d Streets. The City or its Housing and Redevelopment Authority may be the authority for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, sections. 469.174 to 469.179. Subd. 2. [DISTRICT IS REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.] The redevelopment tax increment district created pursuant to subdivision 1 is deemed to be a redevelopment district and is subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.179, except that: (1) expenditures for activities as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), anywhere in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment districts pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 10; and (2) the five year rule under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 3, does not apply. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section received local approval by the City of Richfield on June 28, 2005 in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This fmding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels because of their location in a noise impacted area, .and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed ~_ ~ ~3 ~-~ -~-hrou~rh ~-l O fa-cr e N o-~- u s~~ development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, due to the extra cost of sound mitigation and site improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. This is also the basis for the. Special TIF Statute by the State for this TIF District. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $268,486,400. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $47,049,903. It is the Council's fmding that no development with a market value of greater than $221,436,497 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District. (See Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan.) 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. -i r Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Richfield Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue TIF District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District (District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan). Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district Parcel Numbers: See attached Proposed Development: The District is being created to facilitate construction of approximately 350,000 sq. ft. of retail development, 600,000 sq. ft. of office space and 600 housing units in the City of Richfield. Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2008. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2033, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax Up to $3,556,502 increment: Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition ..........................................$21,940,000 Site Improvements/Preparation .....................................$3,640,000 Public Utilities ............................................................... $3,640,000 Public Parking Facilities ............................................... $3,640,000 Streets and Sidewalks .................................................... $3,640,000 Interest ......................................................................... $42,700,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) .................................$8,800,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ..................................... 588,000,000 See Subsection 1-10, page 1-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include inter-fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness. Form of financing: Bond issue/pay-as-you-go note/interfund loan/transfer qr Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (~ 469.176 Subd 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: • Demolition • Rehabilitation • Renovation • Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) • If the activity has not been started by the approximately September 2010, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City Council Adopting Resolution. Page 2 ~-~3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel(s) listed below. PARCEL ADDRESS 2502824320001 6733 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330054 6841 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330055 6839 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330056 6833 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330057 6829 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330058 6825 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330059 6821 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330060 6813 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330061 6809 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330062 6801 CEDAR AVE S 2602824110002 6300 18TH AVE S 2602824110033 6309 16TH AVE S 2602824110034 6315 16TH AVE S 2602824110035 6321 16TH AVE S 2602824110036 6327 16TH AVE S 2602824110037 6333 16TH AVE S 2602824110038 6339 16TH AVE S 2602824110039 6345 16TH AVl/ S 2602824110040 6344 17TH AVE S 2602824110041 6338 17TH AVE S 2602824110042 6332 17TH AVE S 2602824110043 6326 17TH AVE S 2602824110044 6320 17TH AVE S 2602824110045 6314 17TH AVE S 2602824110062 6309 18TH AVE S 2602824140001 6541 16TH AVE S 2602824140002 6509 16TH AVE S 2602824140003 6501 16TH AVE S 2602824140004 6401 16TH AVE S 2602824140005 6409 16TH AVE S 2602824140006 6415 16TH AVE S 2602824140007 6421 16TH AVE S 2602824140008 6427 16TH AVE S 2602824140009 6433 16TH AVE S 2602824140010 6439 16TH AVE S 2602824140011 6445 16TH AVE S 2602824140012 6444 17TH AVE S 2602824140013 6438 17TH AVE S 2602824140014 6432 17TH AVE S 2602824140015 6426 17TH AVE S 2602824140016 6420 17TH AVE S 2602824140017 6414 17TH AVE S 2602824140018 6408 17TH AVE S 2602824140019 6400 17TH AVE S 2602824140020 6500 17TH AVE S g-I~ 2602824140021 6508 17TH AVE S 2602824140022 6514 17TH AVE S 2602824140023 6520 17TH AVE S 2602824140024 6526 17TH AVE S 2602824140025 6532 17TH AVE S 2602824140122 1620 66TH ST E 2602824140123 1614 66TH ST E 2602824410001 6607 18TH AVE S 2602824410002 660 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410063. 6636 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410066 6614 18TH AVE S 2602824410067 6620 18TH AVE S 2602824410068 6626 18TH AVE S 2602824410069 6632 18TH AVE S 2602824410070 6638 18TH AVE S 2602824410071 6644 18TH AVE S 2602824410072 6645 17TH AVE S 2602824410073 6639 17TH AVE S 2602824410074 6633 17TH AVE S 2602824410075 6627 17TH AVE S 2602824410076 6621 17TH AVE S 2602824410077 6615 17TH AVE S 2602824410078 6609 17TH AVE S 2602824410079 6601 17TH AVE S 2602824410080 6700 18TH AVE S 2602824410081 6708 18TH AVE S 2602824410082 6714 18TH AVE S 2602824410083 6720 18TH AVE S 2602824410084 6726 18TH AVE S 2602824410085 6732 18TH AVE S 2602824410086 6738 18TH AVE S 2602824410087 6744 18TH AVE S 2602824410088 6745 17TH AVE S 2602824410089 6739 17TH AVE S 2602824410090 6733 17TH AVE S 2602824410091 6727 17TH AVE S 2602824410092 6721 17TH AVE S 2602824410093 6715 17TH AVE S 2602824410094 6709 17TH AVE S 2602824410095 6701 17TH AVE S 2602824410096 6700 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410097 6720 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410098 6730 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410099 6744 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410100 6745 18TH AVE S 2602824410101 6739 18TH AVE S 2602824410102 6733 18TH AVE S 2602824410103 6727 18TH AVE S Page 4 ~~~ ~~ • 2602824410104 2602824410105 2602824410106 2602824410107 2602824410108 2602824440001 2602824440002 2602824440003 2602824440004 2602824440005 2602824440006 2602824440007 2602824440008 2602824440009 2602824440010 2602824440011 2602824440012 2602824440013 2602824440014 2602824440015 2602824440016 2602824440017 2602824440018 2602824440019 2602824440020 2602824440021 2602824440022 2602824440023 2602824440024 2602824440025 2602824440026 2602824440027 2602824440028 2602824440029 2602824440030 2602824440031 2602824440032 2602824440065 2602824440066 2602824440067 2602824440068 2602824440069 2602824440070 2602824440073 2602824440074 2602824440075 2602824440076 2602824440077 6721 18TH AVE S 6715 18TH AVE S 6709 18TH AVE S 6701 18TH AVE S 1717 66TH ST E 6800 CEDAR AVE S 6808 CEDAR AVE S 6814 CEDAR AVE S 6820 CEDAR AVE S 6826 CEDAR AVE S 6832 CEDAR AVE S 6838 CEDAR AVE S 6844 CEDAR AVE S 6845 18TH AVE S 6839 18TH AVE S 6833 18TH AVE S 6827 18TH AVE S 6821 18TH AVE S 6815 18TH AVE S 6809 18TH AVE S 6801 18TH AVE S 6800 18TH AVE S 6808 18TH AVE S 6814 18TH AVE S 6820 18TH AVE S 6826 18TH AVE S 6832 18TH AVE S 6838 18TH AVE S 6844 18TH AVE S 6845 17TH AVE S 6839 17TH AVE S 6833 17TH AVE S 6827 17TH AVE S 6821 17TH AVE S 6815 17TH AVE S 6809 17TH AVE S 6801 17TH AVE S 6900 CEDAR AVE S 6908 CEDAR AVE S 6914 CEDAR AVE S 6920 CEDAR AVE S 6924 CEDAR AVE S 6932 CEDAR AVE S 6945 18TH AVE S 6939 18TH AVE S 6933 18TH AVE S 6927 18TH AVE S 6921 18TH AVE S Page S ~~L W 2602824440078 2602824440079 2602824440080 2602824440129 3502824110001 3502824110002 3502824110003 3502824110009 3502824110010 3502824110011 3502824110012 3502824110013 3502824110014 3502824110015 3502824110016 3502824110017 3502824110018 3502824110019 3502824110020 3502824110021 3502824110022 3502824110023 3502824110024 3502824110025 3502824110026 3502824110027 3502824110123 3502824110124 3502824110125 3502824110126 3502824110127 6915 18TH AVE S 6909 18TH AVE S 6901 18TH AVE S 6938 CEDAR AVE S 6958 CEDAR AVE S 7001 18TH AVE S 7005 18TH AVE S 7000 CEDAR AVE S 7034 CEDAR AVE S 7040 CEDAR AVE S 7048 CEDAR AVE S 7100 CEDAR AVE S 7108 CEDAR AVE S 7116 CEDAR AVE S 7121 18TH AVE S 7115 18TH AVE S 7111 18TH AVE S 7105 18TH AVE S 7101 18TH AVE S 7049 18TH AVE S 7045 18TH AVE S 7039 18TH AVE S 7035 18TH AVE S 7033 18TH AVE S 7029 18TH AVE S 7025 18TH AVE S 7134 CEDAR AVE S 7145 18TH AVE S 7137 18TH AVE S 7131 18TH AVE S 7127 18TH AVE S Page 6 9-17 MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE CEDAR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Cedar Corridor Tax Increment Financing District p o fi=g-mw ~55o x"=f ~" -a9-~~~~~ o ~ m° f x 3>~~ m 'h o a o Z °€ ~~'~ i o ,. w o~ m a ~ o x o n a ws m z~ m .. m y r a. ~ a o~ w ~ ~ fi~ ~ m ~ ~~ 6° Qnd 63N 64th nth L&h 67th L51h Wlh 761h 701h 12 71 s1 71ef 12 7fid rttn 74th 75h ]61h 771h 76th 1441 g g g ~, f8 ~ ~ ~ N $ A p F ~ ~ ~ $ 8 B $ R $ 8 8 8 R ~ ~, ~ ~ ~, 8 ~ 8 ~ $ $ ~ ~ S ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 0 °< ® ~ 8 a 4 o m w£ o ~ o< x w o~ x o w 9 w°~~~ a : o 0 w~;€ w~ ° ~$ ~ 4 w m m 9 J a g a s ~ m z U s ~g j ~ = ~ a ~ g 62nd 61rd 6Mh fi6th Efith 67th fidh ~Ih 7fXh 77x1 n~a Tan 74th 7Fh 79h 77th 761h Cedar Corridor Tax Increment Financing District Redevelopment Project Area o ,,,so z,soo a,soo s,soo s,zooe 07/13/06 Page 7 -~ ~ The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Corridor Area) Dated: August 9, 2006 Prepared By: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760. -I Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Corridor Area) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Foreward ~ 3 B. Statement of Public Purpose 3 C. Statuto Authorit -Redevelo ment Plan Modification 4 D. Statement of Goals and Ob'ectives 4 E. Description of Redevelopment Project Area 8 F. Develo ment Activities and A reements 8 G. Public Redevelo ment Costs; Proceeds; Financin 9 H. Pro osed Land Use 10 I. Ac uisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 11 J. Environmental Considerations 12 K. Administration of Project Area 12 Appendix A: Map of Richfield Redevelo ment Project Area Appendix B: Map of Cedar Corridor Area ~-~-6 MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ' FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (CEDAR CORRIDOR AREA) A. FOREWARD The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This Modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the- Redevelopment Pian for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as amended on December 13, 2005. It also is intended to facilitate the implementation of land use and development changes in the Cedar Corridor Area, as such area is depicted on the map at Appendix B, to address blighting conditions; including the significant and unique, adverse environmental and socioeconomic conditions directly associated with the current operation of the nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway that began in the fall of 2005. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as amended; is recommended and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. B. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE In 2005, the Minnesota legislature (Chapter 152, Section 25, Subd. 1) authorized the City of Richfield to "create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending: to 16th Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66th Street; to 17th Avenue between 66th and 69th Streets; and to 18th Avenue between 69th and 72nd Streets. Subd. 2 provided that the TIF district created pursuant to Subd. 1 to be deemed a redevelopment district, and further provided that expenditures in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment district, and further, that the five-year rule under Minnesota Statutes does not apply. On June 2, 2005, the Governor signed the bill for this legislation. On June 28, 2005, the Richfield City Council approved a resolution approving this special law. The purpose of the current modfication to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area into incorporate the Cedar Corridor Area into this plan,.establish anew tax increment financing district, and allow for tax increment expenditures to be made within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. As stated in the Modified Redevelopment Plan of 2005, comprehensive environmental studies that examined the projected low frequency noise levels associated with the operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the -a~i Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport resulted in a mitigation plan that provides for the redevelopment of Richfield's east side into a more compatible use. A comprehensive review of the portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") comprising the Cedar Corridor Area concluded that such portion is blighted within the meaning of the Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 11 and Section 469.028, Subd. 3. A copy of the Blight Assessment Report - Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Cedar Corridor Area, dated August 9, 2006, is on file and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. Therefore, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") have determined that public intervention is necessary in the Cedar Corridor Area in order to achieve set goals and objectives for proper redevelopment of the area. C. STATUTORY AUTHORITY - REDEVLOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to undertake a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Modified Plan") pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, Subd: 6, a redevelopment plan may be modified at any time provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice and after the public hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not constitute a modification of the Redevelopment Plan nor require approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is located. D. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following goals were originally established in 1993. The last modification in 2005 added several. The current Modified Redevelopment Plan does not change the goals. The comprehensive list of goals is as follows. 1. To provide a revenue base to meet the needs of Richfield. 2. To develop job opportunities for area residents. 3. To develop strategies to encourage revitatlization. 4 '" o`- °~' 4. To maintain a positive business environment. 5. To enrich the quality of life for residents through planning of the interrelationship of land use. 6. To recognize the needs of all segments of the populace through diversity in housing stock which is a major determinant of the living environment. 7. To protect the community from the adverse affects of the operations of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. 8. To protect the community from the adverse, low frequency noise impacts of the implementation and operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. 9. More market rate new constructions and remodeled homes for people in all life-cycle stages. 10. Development of low density, attached single family homes, 11. A greater variety of apartment/condominium choices. 12. Affordable housing opportunies. The following objectives were originally established in 1993. The last modification in 2005 added several. The current Modified Redevelopment Plan does not change the goals. The comprehensive list of objectives is as follows. 1. To achieve a high level of design quality through use of design features such as landscaping to enhance the physical environment. 2. To .better utilize vacant or underdeveloped land. 3. To improve vehicular circulation by providing a comprehensive system which provides good, direct access to and from the commercial areas. To the extent practical, eliminate commercial traffic from residential streets and minimize vehicular circulation conflicts or congestion. 4. To achieve a balanced variety of commercial businesses and services appropriate to the market area. 5. To provide increased employment opportunities. 6. To diversify the tax. base of the community. 5 ~.a3 7. To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from imcompatible land use - relationships, especially befinreen residential and non-residential.. 8. To protect the single-family residences from the adverse effects of nearby commercial development, roadways, and off-street parking. 9. To utilize .landscaping and/or screening between all single-family residential and commercial/office uses. Landscaping and/or screening should also be provided along major thoroughfares which border residential areas. 10. To eliminate unsightly and blighting elements such as exposed trash storage areas, overhead utility lines, poorly maintained and excessively large billlboards or signs, and deteriorated structures. 11. To provide for the elimination of blight which is evidenced by irregular sized lots, inadequate streets, incompatible land uses, physical and functional obsolescence, and inadequate parking. 12. To encourage the sharing of parking facilities and to generally improve the parking and circulation in the area. 13. To provide public utilities and other public facilities of sufficient quality and size to support the future development in the area. 14. To provide for an expanded range of housing opportunities in the community, as appropriate. 15. To encourage open lines of communication between all the residents, businesses and city staff. 16. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city for development by private enterprise. 17. To coordinate elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan with these project objectives. 18. Provide jobs within close proximity of the residential population and concurrently saving energy by reducing trip time to jobs. 19. Provide a retail service level required by the residents of the community. 20. Secure the increase of housing, commercial, and industrial property subject to .taxation by the City, Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, Hennepin County, City, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entitites to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them. 6 ~ - ~`~ 21. Encourage local business expansion, improvements, rehabilitation, and development, whenever possible and provide financial incentives for same. 22. Combine the elements of other City Plans with these project objectives. 23. To facilitate the, acquisition and removal of single-family residential and multi- family residential properties located with the city's airport impact zones. 24. To facilitate the acquisition and removal of single-family residential, multi- family residential, commercial and industrial properties deemed blighted due to a number of factors including low frequency noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. 25. To facilitate the acquisition of land or space that is vacant, unused, underused, inappropirately used or contains incompatible land uses. 26. To facilitate the redevelopment of land for the construction of commercial/retail development better suited to withstanding airport noise. 27. To provide modern, transit stop plazas with features such. as heated structures, lighting, landscaping, bus pullouts. 28. To provide newer designed, high-volume street intersections able to better control traffic and interface with pedestrian traffic. 29. To provide bikeways, paths, greenways and parkways for non-vehicular traffic. 30. To provide enhanced streetscape features such as decorative concrete, pedestrian lighting, landspaping features. 31. Encourage residential expansion, improvement, rehabilitation and development, whenever possible and provide financial resources for same. 32. Ensure that for each participating property on a scattered site basis, an HRA evaluation be conducted to qualify the use of available financing resources. 33. Increase the ownership ratio of market rate homes to affordable homes. 34. Increase the ratio of higher rent units to affordable rent units. 35. Increase the ratio and variety of ownership choices. 36. Increase housing density. ~,as E. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA In order to further guide the development and redevelopment of the Project Area, the HRA has created this Modified Plan. The boundary for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is not being altered. This Modified Plan is intended to address primarily the area known as the Cedar Corridor Area. See Appendix A for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. See Appendix B for a map of the Cedar Corridor Area. F. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS General The objectives of the Modified Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by Minnesota Statutes. Redevelopment within the Project Area must be financially feasible, marketable, and compatible with long range redevelopment plans of the City and HRA. The following development activities are appropriate for the area in light of current and future redevelopment opportunities within the Cedar Corridor Area: (1) Property acquisition; (2) Relocation; (3) Site clearance; and (4) Site improvements. Any and all proposals by any developers of the Cedar Corridor Area will be reviewed by the HRA to determine conformance with the Modified Plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: (1) Site Plan; (2) Construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings; (3) Landscaping Plan; (4) Grading and storm drainage plan; (5) Signage system plan; and (6) Any other drawings or narrative deemed by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with the Modified Plan. It is the intention of the HRA that the majority of the redevelopment activities, including but not limited to acquisition, relocation, site clearance, and improvements be directly undertaken by the developer with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA. q- a~ The proposal for the Cedar Corridor Area calls for acquisition, relocation, environmental investigation, site clearance, and construction of new commercial/retail buildings and related parking, and new housing choices. Currently, the Cedar Corridor Area comprises twenty-three (23) full or partial city blocks and Taft Park, or a~total of 274 properties. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities within the Cedar Corridor Area The potential development in the. Cedar Corridor Area could include the construction of approximately 350,000 square feet of retail development, 600,000 square feet of office space and 600 housing units. Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities within the Cedar Corridor Area The. proposed public development activities in the Cedar Corridor Area would be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities and facilitate redevelopment in the area in the manner suitable to overall development plans. These activities could include direct financial-assistance to the developers to facilitate site assembly and other eligible redevelopment costs. Public development activities could include: ^ Acquisition; ^ Relocation; ^ Environmental .investigation and mitigation; ^ Site clearance; ^ Conveyance of properties to developer(s); ^ Roadway improvements; ^ Greenway/parkway improvements; ^ Enhanced streetscape features (decorative concrete, pedestrian lighting, landscaping features, etc.). It is proposed that the HRA sell to the developer certain properties ("HRA Property") described below in Section H. Redevelopment activities would be contingent upon the mutual agreements set forth in a Contract for Private Development. G. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING The HRA determines that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in the Cedar Corridor Area shall be accomplished through the use of private funds from the developer and public funds to the developer, namely tax increment financing and tax abatement. The only Contract for Private Development 9 R-a~ in the Cedar Corridor Area in existence is with Ryan Companies US, Inc. for the Cedar Point Commons development project located north of 66th Street. The revenue source of the public funds for Cedar Point Commons will be in the form of a property tax abatement, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, as previously approved by the City of Richfield on May 24, 2005. The following. revenue sources have also been provided for property acquisitions and other site assembly activities in the Cedar Point Area, located within the Cedar Corridor Area, all located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area: $2.0 million multi jurisdictional project funds (2005) from Hennepin County for acquisition of properties and related activities by the HRA; $7.0 million in funds from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) (2000) for property acquired by the City along Cedar Avenue for Truck Highway 77 ramp reconstruction and bridge widening in which the remnant land will be part of the proposed project; and $5.0 million in funds appropriated by the. 2000 Legislature to the City, and administered by the then Department of Trade and Economic Development, for the purchase of single family homes within the 87db noise contours of the airport impact zone. Also, it is proposed that a special assessment bond, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes; Chapter 429, be used to fund. transit-related improvements in the Cedar Corridor Area. All detailed revenue sources listed above are also referenced in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Cedar Point. A recent addition to City revenue sources is an Environmental Response Fund grant from Hennepin County for Phase I and II environmental assessment work related to 6300-6320 Cedar Avenue. H. PROPOSED LAND USE Per a detailed accounting of properties under the Blight Assessment Report, the properties within the Cedar Corridor Area are comprised of 155 single- family; 7 duplex; 13 multi-family; 11 commercial; 1 park; 1 school; 1 utility; 3 road (i.e. 3 single family family properties taken for new 18th Avenue bypass road at Cedar Avenue; 82 vacant. Further land use and development pattern data is provided in the Blight Assessment Report. Current zoning for the Cedar Corridor Area is a mix of: R (Single Family Residential), MR-1 (Two Family Residential), MR-3 (Multi Residential, High Density), C-2 (General Commercial), PC-2 (Planned General Commercial) and I (Industrial). 10 q- a~ The City of Richfield Planning Commission and City Council have previously adopted resolutions to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Cedar Corridor Area, within the Project Area to "Regional Commercial/Office" to accommodate a retail center. The proposed commercial/retail land use associated with Cedar Point Commons would be consistent with the "Regional Commercial/Office" designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Future changes to the Comreprehensive Plan may be made and dependent upon future redevelopment. I. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES Acquisition At the present time, the HRA intends to acquire the following properties (in remnant form after public roadway taking made) from the City of Richfield and convey them to Ryan Companies US, Inc. for retail redevelopment along the west side of 17th Avenue, 6500 block, associated with the Cedar Point Commons project. At the present time, there is no Contract for Private Development with the developer for these properties. 1614 66th Street East and 1620 66th Street East. Also, the following properties (in remnant form after public roadway taking made) could be conveyed to Ryan Companies US, Inc. under an Option and Right of First Refusal Agreement, approved by the City of Richfield, for future redevelopement. At the present time, there is no Contract for Private Development with the developer for these properties. 6601 16th Avenue S 6600 17th Avenue S 6601 17th Avenue S 6609 17th Avenue S 6615 17th Avenue S 6621 17th Avenue S 6627 17th Avenue S 6633 17th Avenue S Please refer to the Modified Redevelopment Plan for. the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point), as approved June 14, 2005, by the City of Richfield, for additional public and private acquisitions listings 2. Relocation 11 1' ~~ The HRA is bound by the procedures set forth in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117. In the event that the developer, based on information provided by the HRA, determines that any of the properties it is obligated to acquire is occupied by tenants, lessees, or other non-owner occupants, the developer will notify the HRA to provide relocation assistance and benefits to such parties to the extent and at the times required by applicable law, and the developer shall promptly reimburse the HRA for these costs. 3. Rehabilitation Program No rehabilitation program is currently. intended in the Cedar Corridor Area. J. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS All municipal actions, public improvement, and private development shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances will be obtained by the developer. K. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROJECT AREA The administration of the Project Area will be undertaken by HRA officials. 12 13 -_~s i __ TAFT PARK - ~a - 8100 I d9RC 6T.~ } ~ t2ktD 57 ears 03 ,:~ L'st5 nfq~ ~Ba'^~0~ ~ ._. ~.r ~s F3 ,_ .,.. _. __.. I ~._ i .... .... ;:l .. 7 C' ~ _ ~4~E r 1 it 1 634 ~~ ~. ~- _ , - -...~ - - ... _._ ' ____ w w.,., , ____ .. ~ _ __ ~ ~.m. E r ~. a~. .:~.I.~ m•.. e ~.c. __...~ e .r __ e - c -. CHRIST ~ ~ •, ~~. ----------iii spy _... .__ ~ PARK - 4 .-~. ^^-^^ry--t 1 .~ . i.; .. .. A .~ ~...e , t ; _ 621Fi 51 F r 1 ~ ,_~R ..~ ~ . _.._ _.__ I { , ~, 5 .~_.' ! ' ~.~w~ _, ~ ..... :orl+ sT ,~ _. ~~- ~ _ r ~ -- . _._, _...__. TOW mm~~ ~ ~... k-- o-RU'~ ~ ta~: maa . ~ ': ~~' 7oa@ p~ ~,~' .~ 7Qd$ 7W11 4_ .v ~P 70{g 'Ttl48 f ~ ~....:. ......._.... {- .... ~ ,.- - ~ 7toi _710_0 ._ .._.. TS05 ... I ...... ( ..._. _. 7311 7109 ' ~ ---777 7521 7118 }. _.... 7''7 i ~ _ I.._ ....... '159f1 ~.v .... ,< i2Np ST, V4151fi,0A!DEY78'fAPffiR.4PRAJf&TStGED7.R Pr i+E.~i~t~,~.seBS#r npR 6arr t sl r ,A ', Sn l t 1 1 f-it ~ f _ ~ G 7Z~ 64't M1<2 ~ Cl t flS +4 t QfN2!l & M2 ~4~ 1 [tW~~ - M11~~1 (~ e F ~[ t9 ~ M Gf3J ~~ ~ P 1± F.d) j F3'3 { W bSc~ ~ y *. F41 ~++?F I 6G3+161 N ~ P1~~ Ft1 . U f t'SL F j 544` 6u4 ~ F44 `: I P4 ' ~.. •, ~t.($.3 6~,~ ors 5 ~. ~ F, 1 ~K3.; F. , j~ , , nen+ s7. f J.! ~,j ~1T'YL''Nll1X 15 ~ CiF ~~~~~~~ "~ pp~~3~I~H~//1''~~EL.~ A~ Legend {~,~C~Br Corridor A[ea goo ~ ~~n goo soa nna ~~oo ~e~t rs~°°_ _m._ __ - - .; AUGUST, 2006 14 ~3~ As of`~September 18, 2006 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) within THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: September 26, 2006 Adopted: E H L E R S 3060 Centre Pointe Drtle, yR seviEe, Minnesota i5 1E 3~ 1," 5 & .ASSOCIATES i rv c 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com ~-33 TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I -TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ............ 1-1 Subsection 1-1. Foreword ............................................... 1-1 Subsection 1-2. Statutory Authority ........................................ 1-1 Subsection 1-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 1-1 Subsection 1-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ....: ......................... 1-1 Subsection 1-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 1-2 Subsection 1-6. Classification of the District ................................. 1-2 Subsection 1-7. Duration of the District ...............:..................... 1-3 Subsection 1-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 1=3 Subsection 1-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 1-4 Subsection1-10. Uses of Funds .......................................:... 1-5 Subsection 1-11. Fiscal Disparities Election .................................. 1-6 Subsection 1-12. Business Subsidies ....................................... 1-7 Subsection 1-13. County Road Costs .... ................................. 1-8 Subsection 1-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 1-8 Subsection 1-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 1-10 Subsection 1-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ................:...... 1-11 Subsection 1-17. Modifications to the District ..................:............. 1-11 Subsection 1-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 1-12 Subsection 1-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 1-12 Subsection 1-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 1-13 Subsection 1-21. Excess Increments .................:.................... 1-14 Subsection 1-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 1-14 Subsection 1-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 1-14 Subsection 1-24. Administration of the District ................:.............. 1-14 Subsection 1-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 1-15 Subsection 1-26. Reasonable Expectations .: ............................... 1-15 Subsection 1-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................. 1-15 Subsection 1-28. Summary .................................. .......... 1-16 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... ......................................... A-1 APPENDIX B MAP(S) OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE DISTRICT ....................................................................: B-1 APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C-1 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .............................. D-1 APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E-1 q- 3~ _ APPENDIX F FINDINGS AND BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS ................................ F-1 APPENDIX G PRIOR IMPROVEMENTS ................................................ F-3 ~-3 s SECTION l -TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CEDAR AVENUE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 1-1. Foreword The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City .of Richfield (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 1-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas .where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur..To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("MS.'), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF. Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. The HRA and City derive further statutory authority by virtue of Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 25. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield. Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 1-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of .172 parcel(s) of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The District is being created to facilitate construction of approximately 350,000 sq. ft. of retail development, 600,000 sq. ft. of office space and 600 housing units in the City of Richfield. Please see Appendix A for further project information. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in 2007. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many.of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 1-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired -Selected property located within the District maybe acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation -Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-1 I~cJ~ _ relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Subsection 1-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel(s) listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. Parcel Numbers *See Appendix C The HRA. or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 1-6. Classification of the District The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 25. Specifically, the enacted language is as follows: Sec. 25. [CITY OF RICHFIELD; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. J Subdivision 1. [AUTHORIZATION.] The City of Richf eld may create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending: to 16`" Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66"' Street; to 17`" Avenue between 66`h and 69`h Streets; and to 18`"Avenue between 69`" and 72"d Streets. The City or it's Housing and Redevelopment Authority may be the authority for the purposes of Minnesota .Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.179. Subd. 2. [DISTRICT IS REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.) The redevelopment tax increment district created pursuant to ,subdivision 1 is deemed to be a redevelopment district and is subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.179, except that: (1) expenditures for activities as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), anywhere in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment districts pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 10; and (2) the five year rule under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 3, does not apply. [EFFECTIVE DATE.) This section received local approval by the City of Richfield on June 28, 2005. in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021. Pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-2 ~~ ~~ qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.11.1 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 1-7. ,Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 b, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City, of the first tax increment is expected to be 2008. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2033, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2009, the term of the District will be 2034. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 1-13. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. l ,the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2006 for taxes payable 2007. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning- in the payment year 2008) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2007, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2007. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1; 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion ofthe project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the following table. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the .available increase in tax capacity for, repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2008. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-3 ~-3~ WATERSHED DISTRICT NO.O Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $4,159,167 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $524,969 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $862,825 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $2,771,373 Original Local Tax Rate 1.07715 Pay 2006 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $2,985,184 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% WATERSHED DISTRICT N0.3 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $831,833 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $143,105 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $163,557 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC). $525,171 Original Local Tax Rate 1.087870 Pay 2006 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $571,318 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District has found building permits that were issued in the past 18 months prior to the public hearing. Please see Appendix H for the building permits that were issued. Subsection 1-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap- plicable to the HRA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and constnzction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contribu- tions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District I-4 q-3~ Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a bond issue/pay-as-you-go note/interfund loan/transfer. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $40,000,000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $200,000 in interfund loans will be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that $ 40,000,000 in bonded debt/loan proceeds -will be financed with tax increment revenues. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The HRA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $88,000,000 PROJECT REVENUES $88,000,000 Interfund Loans Bond Principal TIF Note Principal $200,000 $10,000,000 $30,000,000 The other financing sources list above is included for purposes of OSA reporting for the TIF District. It is not intended to be cumulative. Transfers are included in case money is moved from one fund to another before an expenditure. Subsection 1-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate construction of approximately 350,000 sq. ft. of retail development, 600,000 sq. fI. of office space and 600 housing units. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-5 1~~~ USES OF FUNDS TOTAL LandBuilding Acquisition $21,940,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $3,640,000 Public Utilities $3,640,000 Public Parking Facilities $3,640,000 Streets and Sidewalks $3,640,000 Interest $42,700,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $8,800,000 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $88,000,000_ Interfund Loans $200,000 Bond Principal $10,000,000 TIF Note Principal $30,000,000 The other financing uses listed above is included for purposes of OSA reporting for the TIF District. It is not intended to be cumulative. Transfers are included in case money is moved from one fund to another before an expenditure. TIF is expected to be used for the project costs listed above, which is anot-to-exceed budget rather than an expected budget of costs. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (S); it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $88,000,000. For purposes of OSA reporting forms, it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including financing which will be paid for with tax increment will equal $128,200,000 as is presented in the budget above. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2; no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 1-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District I-6 ~-~i and no tax increment determination. Where the. original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts. is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The HRA will choose to calculate fiscal. disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 1-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses.or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-7 q,~2 (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;. (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) ,Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. The HRA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 1-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M. S., Section 469.175, Subd. l a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county. plan. If the county elects to use. increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax. increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 1-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax. increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE . 2005/2006 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Ca acity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacitv Unon completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,229,390,982 3,314,080 0.2696% City of Richfield 26,793,818 3,314,080 12.3688% ISD No. 280 32,426,328 3,314,080 10.2203% Richfield IIRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-8 q - ~k3 WATERSHED DISTRICT NO.O IMPACT ON TAX RATE5 2005/2006 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC axes Hennepin County 0.410160 38.08% 2,771,373 1,136,706 City of Richfield 0.404970 37.60% 2,771,373 1,122,323. ISD No. 280 0:192040 17.83% 2,771,373 532,214 Other ~ 0.069980 6.50% 2,771,373 193.941 Total 1.077150 100.00% 2,985,184 WATERSHED DISTRICT NO 3 IMPACT ON TAX RATES 2005/2006 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC axes Hennepin County 0.410160 37.70% 525,171 215,404 City of Richfield 0.404970 37.23% 525,171 212,678 ISD No. 280 0.192040 17.65% 525,171 100,854 Other 0.080700 7.42% 525,171 42.381 Total 1.087870 100.00% 571,318 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actua12005/Pay 2006 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2006 figures. The District will be certified under the actua12006/Pay 2007 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. The cashflows assume a 1% inflation rate. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $88,000,000. (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. While, an impact on the District on police protection is expected, the degree of impact is uncertain. With new residents and businesses, police calls for service may increase. New development will increase vehicular traffic and additional overall demands to the call load. Even though call demand is expected to increase,. the City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in equipment or require the City hire additional. employees. The probable impact of the District on fire protection should be negligible. An increase in service calls can be expected due to the increase in the density of development; however, new buildings typically generate few calls, if any, because of superior construction and fire sprinklers. None of the existing buildings, which will be eliminated by the new development, have fire sprinkler systems. The impact of the District on Parks should be insignificant. Recreational Services has two costs associated with its operations: Program Costs and Capital Costs. Program costs are funded by user Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-9 ~i-y`~ fees. If more programs are added as a result of the District, the additional programs will be entirely funded by user fees. If Capital Costs are needed for new facilities, the District and developments within would be contributors. Therefore, it is anticipated that the District will have a negligible impact on the Department's existing infrastructure. The District should benefit public infrastructure. There should be a net reduction in miles of public streets and a corresponding reduction in public street lighting. This reduces the maintenance costs for Public Works. Land parcels for development will generally be larger than existing land parcels. While new development will be at increased densities; the number of water and sanitary sewer lines will be reduced making for lower maintenance costs for the City. Also, the proposed development densities can be accommodated with existing capacity of the water and sanitary sewer infrastructure. The new development may require additional storm water treatment but this should be funded by the developer(s). Traffic resulting from the new development will increase over existing traffic volumes. However, both East 66"' Street and the .Highway 7T interchange at 66`" Street have been upgraded to accommodate increased traffic volumes. The District will require a new north-south road that extends from 67"' Street south to 72°a Street to serve the new development. The new road will likely be located generally between the existing 17"' and 18`h Avenues, and will be designed as a parkway. Financing for the new road will be folded into financing for the new private redevelopment. The probable impact of any debt issuance within the District on the main operating fund of the city is expected. to be minimal. In addition, the ability of the City to issue future debt will not be affected by the creation of this TIF District. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same is $16,459,768; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same is $35,154,860; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional .information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received.' Subsection 1-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (b) (2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings: Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-10 q-~5 • Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan, JLG Architects, September 2004 • Acoustical Construction -Baseline Measurements, Orfield Laboratories, Inc., December 30, 2004 • Acoustical Construction Criteria, Orfield laboratories, Inc., January 13, 2005 • Acoustical Construction Criteria, Orfield Laboratories, Inc., May 18, 2005 • Roadway and Transit Assessment of Cedar Avenue Corridor Transit Oriented Development, WSB & Associates, Inc., January 10, 2005 • Legislative Summary 2005, John Choi, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered • House Research Summary 2005, Joel Michael, House Research Subsection 1-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the Authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit. paid to the Authority under M.S, Section 273.1384. Subsection 1-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(~, the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses {1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District I-I I `T t0 eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 1-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all .expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; or 4. Amounts used topay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S.; Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual . administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 1-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon maybe discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide .for the payment of the botlds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District I-12 ~- ~~ if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition,. rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax incrementfinancing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from- the original net tax capacity of the tax .increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall cert~ to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall cent ~ the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes. of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately September, 2010 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 1-20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use .100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable _ property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement- to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation; and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs ofpublic improvement activities Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-13 ~~ outside the District. Subsection 1-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Subsection 1-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. S, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District asset forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 1-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,. in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 1-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-14 ~-~q Subs ction 1-25. Annual Disclosure R quirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. S, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. S also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 1-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 1-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Proj ect Area pursuant to the M. S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 pef•cent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 25 Subd 2: (2) the five year rule under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 3, does not apply Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District I-15 ~ -''~ 4. Redevelopment District. Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 2S Subd 2: (1) expenditures for activities as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), anywhere in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment districts pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 10; Subsection 1-28. Summary The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance-the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the. District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District 1-16 ~~~ APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION In 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature made a decision that the Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport (MSP) would remain and expand at its current location. Expansion included the construction of a new North/South Runway, and independent studies confirmed that the noise from this runway - believed to be the closest that any similar runway has been built to an existing residential area in the country -would be incompatible with the adjacent predominantly residential land uses. Based on decibel level studies, the City identified a redevelopment area which essentially included land bounded by .Highway 62 to the north, Interstate 494 to the south, Highway 77 to the east, and 16`" Avenue to the west. In 1999, a redevelopment plan was created. (See Subsection 2-15). Since that time, additional sound studies completed in 2000 revised the noise impact area to include land bounded by Highway 62 to the north, 72°d Street to the south; Highway 77 to the east, and a jogged profile from approximately 16`" Avenue at the north end of the site to 18`" Avenue at the south end. (See Subsection 2-15). Expansion work at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport has presented tremendous challenges and opportunities for the City of Richfield. The construction of a new north-south runway at the westernmost area of the airport site and its resulting low-frequency noise levels have made it essential for the City to revision its eastern edge. The existing land-use, essentially single family residential, is no longer an appropriate neighbor for the airport. These challenges have given rise to opportunities for development that serve the future of the City of Richfield and help to mitigate the problems caused by the airport expansion. JLG Architects was contracted in 2004 to prepare a new land-use masterplan based on these new parameters. In 2005 WSB & Associates, Inc. prepared a Roadway and Transit Assessment that suggests the overall proposed redevelopment is anticipated to consist of the following primary components: • Approximately 350,000 square feet of new retail development • Approximately 600,000 square feet of new office space • Approximately 600 new housing units After completing various financial feasability models it was determined that Tax Increment Financing was needed to make the project feasible. Also in 2005 the City of Richfield requested and received special Tax Increment Financing legislation for this area. (See Subsection 2-6). APPENDIX A-1 g-5~ APPENDIX B MAP(S) OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE DISTRICT APPENDIX B-i l~J~ WN L I.L ~ r Q W O `a = r ~_ Z ~ W ~ a~ p~ W ~ W L W C Q ~L J ''" W O .U T~ L i V U atla3o 418E 41LL 4191 NOlONIWOOIB 4191 Vlbt VIE4 WZL 41LL vwl lOlll3 OOtlOIHO snewnloo Natld ONtllNtlO ONtlllaOd w9 Wb NO1NIlO PEE PuZ SN3n31S 1sL 13llOOIN T3OSItlle HSaOM1N3M Aanesllm 1NVStl3ld oNtlao 131aatlH al3ldav~ 3lVONAI Holaaltl 1NVAae xtldloo 1NOdna NOSa3W3 1NOw3ad oatlalo laloewnH ONIA211 S3Wtlf XONN NtlOOI Ntloaow NO1M3N a3nno NN3d N33nO ll3SSna NtlOla3HS StlWOHl NOLdn 1N3ONIA NaneHStlM S3Xa3X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ®® ® ® LJJJJ-IN~ I I ~1® ®® I~~LPJI ~~J~ ®®® ®® ®®~ 1.0.9.L111111 s o M ~- ti 0 oosL atla3o - OOBL Ngt OOLL 41CL 009E 4191 gZOL NOlONIWOOIe OOSL 41SL OObt 416E OOEL 41E4 OOZE 41ZL OOLL 414E OOOL 4wL OOS lOlll3 pOg OOtlOiHO ozc snewnloo OOL Natld OZ9 ONtllNtlO OOg ONtlllaOd 005 415 004 414 bZ£ NO1NIlO oo£ we OOZ P°Z qZl SN3n31S OOL ls1 000 13llOOIN OS 113O51tl1e OOl H1aOM1N3M 00z Aanesllla Opg 1NVStl3ld ooa aNtlao oos 131aatlH pOg ai3idatlo OOL 3ltl0 NAI ' oog Holaoltl oos LNtlAae aooL xtldloo oou LNOdna U OOZE NOSa3W3 yLj ooel 1NOw3ad Q oobL aatlalo ~ aosL laloewnH C 009E ONlnal •~ OOLI S3Wtlf 0084 XONN LL GOBI NtlOOI oooz Ntl~aow 0042 NOlM31J OOZZ a3nllO OOEZ NN3d X OObZ N33nO OOSZ ll3SSna O OOgZ NtlOla3H5 'a ~L OOLZ SVWOHI - L oOBZ NOldn OOBZ 1N3ONIn L 000E NaneHSVM DOLE e3Xa3X o.l O O O N 0 Q U O L C c~ C Q N~ N ~~~~ APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel(s) listed below. PARCEL ADDRESS 2502824320001 6733 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330054 6841 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330055 6839 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330056 6833 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330057 6829 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330058 6825 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330059 6821 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330060 6813 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330061 6809 CEDAR AVE S 2502824330062 6801 CEDAR AVE S 2602824110002 6300 18TH AVE S 2602824110033 6309 16TH AVE S 2602824110034. .6315 16TH AVE S 2602824110035 6321 16TH AVE S 2602824110036 6327 16TH AVE S 26028241.10037 6333 16TH AVE S 2602824110038 6339 16TH AVE S 2602824110039 6345 16TH AVE S 2602824110040 6344 17TH AVE S 2602824110041 6338 17TH AVE S 2602824110042 6332 17TH AVE S 2602824110043 6326 17TH AVE S 2602824110044 6320 17TH AVE S 2602824110045 6314 17TH AVE S 2602824110062 6309 18TH AVE S 2602824140001 6541 16TH AVE S 2602824140002 6509 16TH AVE S 2602824140003 6501 16TH AVE S 2602824140004 6401 16TH AVE S 2602824140005 6409 16TH AVE S 2602824140006 6415 16TH AVE S 2602824140007 6421 16TH AVE S .2602824140008 6427 16TH AVE S 2602824140009 6433 16TH AVE S 2602824140010 6439 16TH AVE S 2602824140011 6445 16TH AVE S 2602824140012 6444 17TH AVE S 2602824140013 6438 17TH AVE S 2602824140014 6432 17TH AVE S 2602824140015 6426 17TH AVE S 2602824140016 6420 17TH AVE S 2602824140017 6414 17TH AVE S APPENDIX C-i ~~~~ 2602824140018 6408 17TH AVE S 2602824140019 6400 17TH AVE S 2602824140020 6500 17TH AVE S 2602824140021 6508 17TH AVE S 2602824140022 6514 17TH AVE S 2602824140023 6520 17TH AVE S 2602824140024 6526 17TH AVE S 2602824140025 6532 17TH AVE S 2602824140122 .1620 66TH ST E 2602824140123 1614 66TH ST E 2602824410001 6607 18TH AVE S 2602824410002 660 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410063 6636 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410066 -6614 18TH AVE S 2602824410067 6620 18TH AVE S 2602824410068. 6626 18TH AVE S 2602824410069 6632 18TH AVE S 2602824410070 6638 18TH AVE S 2602824410071 6644 18TH AVE S 2602824410072 6645 17TH AVE S 2602824410073 6639 17TH AVE S 2602824410074 6633 17TH AVE S 2602824410075 6627 17TH AVE S 2602824410076 6621 17TH AVE S 2602824410077 6615 17TH AVE S 2602824410078 6609 17TH AVE S 2602824410079 6601 17TH AVE S 2602824410080 6700 18TH AVE S 2602824410081 6708 18TH AVE S 2602824410082 6714 18TH AVE S 2602824410083_ 6720 18TH AVE S 2602824410084 6726 18TH AVE S 2602824410085 6732 18TH AVE S 2602824410086 6738 18TH AVE S 2602824410087 6744 18TH AVE S 2602824410088 6745 17TH AVE S 2602824410089 6739 17TH AVE S 2602824410090 6733 17TH AVE S 2602824410091 6727 17TH AVE S 2602824410092 6721 17TH AVE S 2602824410093 6715 17TH AVE S 2602824410094 6709 17TH AVE S 2602824410095 6701 17TH. AVE S 2602824410096 6700 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410097 6720 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410098 6730 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410099 6744 CEDAR AVE S 2602824410100 6745 18TH AVE S 2602824410101 6739 18TH AVE S 2602824410102 6733 18TH AVE S APPENDIX C-2 ~' ~ `'' 2602824410103. 6727 18TH AVE S 2602824410104 6721 18TH AVE S 2602824410105 6715 18TH AVE S 2602824410106 6709 18TH AVE S 2602824410107 6701 18TH AVE S 2602824410108 1717 66TH ST E 2602824440001 6800 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440002 6808 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440003 6814 CEDAR AVE 5- 2602824440004 6820 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440005 6826 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440006 6832 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440007 6838 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440008 6844 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440009 6845 18TH AVE S 2602824440010 6839 18TH AVE S 2602824440011 6833 18TH AVE S 2602824440012 ..6827 18TH AVE S 2602824440013 6821 18TH AVE S 2602824440014 6815 18TH AVE S 2602824440015 6809 18TH AVE S 2602824440016 6801 18TH AVE S 2602824440017 6800 18TH AVE S 2602824440018 6808 18TH AVE S 2602824440019 6814 18TH AVE S 2602824440020 6820 18TH AVE S 2602824440021 6826 18TH'AVE S 2602824440022 6832 18TH AVE S 2602824440023 6838 18TH AVE S 2602824440024 6844 18TH AVE S 2602824440025 6845 17TH AVE S 2602824440026 6839 17TH AVE S 2602824440027 6833 17TH AVE S 2602824440028 6827 17TH AVE S 2602824440029 6821 17TH AVE S 2602824440030 6815 17TH AVE S 2602824440031 6809 17TH AVE S 2602824440032 6801 17TH AVE S 2602824440065 6900 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440066 6908 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440067 6914 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440068 6920 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440069 6924 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440070 6932 CEDAR AVE S 2602824440073 6945 18TH AVE S 2602824440074 6939 18TH AVE S 2602824440075 6933 18TH AVE S 2602824440076 6927 18TH AVE S 2602824440077 6921 18TH AVE S 2602824440078 6915 18TH AVE S APPENDIX C-3 2602824440079 2602824440080 2602824440129 3502824110001 3502824110002 3502824110003 3502824110009 3502824110010 3502824110011 3502824110012 3502824110013 3502824110014 3502824110015 3502824110016 3502824110017 3502824110018 3502824110019 3502824110020 3502824110021 3502824110022 3502824110023 3502824110024 3502824110025 3502824110026 3502824110027 3502824110123 3502824110124 3502824110125 3502824110126 3502824110127 1 /~~ 6909 18TH AVE S 6901 18TH AVE S 6938 CEDAR AVE S 6958 CEDAR AVE S 7001 18TH AVE S 7005 18TH AVE S 7000 CEDAR AVE S 7034 CEDAR AVE S 7040 CEDAR AVE S 7048 CEDAR AVE S 7100 CEDAR AVE S 7108 CEDAR AVE S 7116 CEDAR AVE S 7121 18TH AVE S 7115 18TH AVE S 7111 18TH AVE S 7105 18TH AVE S 7101 18TH AVE S 7049 18TH AVE S 7045 18TH AVE S 7039 18TH AVE S 7035 18TH AVE S 7033 18TH AVE S 7029 18TH AVE S 7025 18TH AVE S 7134 CEDAR AVE S 714518TH AVE S 7137 18TH AVE S 7131 18TH AVE S 7127 18TH AVE S APPENDIX C-4 q-5g APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT APPENDIX D-1 9N8I2006 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 1 of 11 ~HLERS M {p;aSlRrfr t. CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD SUMMARY T.I.F. CASH FLOP! AS SU MPTIO NC District New Redevelopment Dlstriet County Dlstriet # InOation Rate-Every_Years ~ 1.00% Pay-AS-YOU-Go Interest Rate: 6.50% City Internal Loan Rate ~ 4.00% Note Issued Date (Present Value Date): Ot-Feb-06 Local Tax Rate -Frozen 113.5680 % Pay 2006 Fiscal Dispadlies Election Inside Year Dtstdct was certified 2008 Assumes First Tax Increment For District 2008 Year District was Modified N/A Development located in modfiied area N/A Assumes First Tax Increment For Dev 2009 Years of Tax Increment ~ 26 Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2033 Fiscat Disparities Ratio 33.6177% Pay 2006 Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 121.8020 % Pay 2006 Local Tax Rate -Current ~ .107.7150 % Pay 2006 State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 50.8270 % Pay 2006 Market Value Tax Rate (usetl for total taxes) N/A Pay 2006 Commemial Industdal Class Rate 1.5%-2.0% Pay 2006 First 150,000 1.50% Over 150,000 2.00 Rental Ctass Rate 1.25% ,Pay 2006 Residential Class Ra -Under $500,000 1.00% Over $500.000 1.25% C Note: 1. Tax estimates ars based upon market value, cans%nrctfon costs and taxes per sq/ft. 2. Apartmemslresidential do not Ray State-wide property tax or Fiscal Disparities 3. Assumes Fiscal Disparities is paid inside the district Prepared by Ehlero TIF PLAN Run-09-tad006 9/1812008 ~-~~ EHLErRS l~ u CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD SUMMARY Page 2 of 11 tAX INCREMENTCASH FLOW ' Base Protect Flaut taptued Semi-Annual State Admin. Housing Semi-Annual Sami-Annual PAYMENT DATE PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Otapar8lea Taz Gross Tax Auditor Nel Tax Present PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Ye Ca aci Ca aci Reduction Ca aci Increment 0:36% 10.00% 16.00% Increment Value Yre. Mth. Yr. Pre sent Value Date 01-Feb-06 0.0 1-Aug 2006 668,074 668,074 0 0.0 ~ 1-Feb 2006 0.0 1-Feb 2007 668,074 668,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-Aug 2006 0.0 1-Aug 2007 668,074 668,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-Feb 2007 0.0 1-Feb 2008 668,074 668,074 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1-Aug 2W7 0.5. 1-Aug 2008 668,074 668,074 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1-Feb 2008 1,0 1-Feb 2009 668,074 974-,938 (78,342) 228,522 123,076 (443) (12,263) (18,395) 91,975 78,383 1.5 1-Aug 2008 1.5 - i-Aug 2009 666,074 974,938 (78,342) 228,522 123,076 (443) (12,263) (18,395) 91,975 154,298 2.0 1-Feb 2009 2.0 1-Feb 2010 668,074 1,806,772 (290,749) 847,948 456,684 (1,644) (45,504) (68,256) 341,280 427,120 2.5 1-Aug 2009 2.5 1-Aug 2010 668,074 1,806,772 (290,749) 847,948 456,684 (1,844) (45,504) (68,256) 341,280 691,355 3.0 1-Feb 2010 3.0 1-Feb 2011 668,074 2,638,605 (503,157) 1,467,373 790,281 (2,845) (78,745) (118,117) 590,584 1,134,220 3.5 1-Aug 2010 3.5 1-Aug 2011 668.074 2,636,605 (503,157) 1,467,373 790,291 (2,845) (78,745) (118,117) 590,584 1,563,145 4.0 ~ 1-Feb 2011 4.0 1-Feb 2012 668,074 3,470,438 (715,565) 2,086,799 1,123,898 (4,046) (111,985) (167,978) 839,889 2,153,932 4.5 1-Aug 2011 4.5 1-Aug 2012 668,074 3,470,438 ~ (715,565) 2,086,799 1,123,898 (4,046) (111,985) (167,978) 839,889 2,726,123 5.0 1-Feb 2012 5.0 1-Feb 2013 668,074 4,302,272 (927,973) 2,706,224 1.457,505 (5,247) (145,226) (217,839) 1,089,193 3,444,801 5.5 1-Aug 2012 5.5 1-Aug 2013 668,074 4,302,272 (927,973) 2,706,224 1,457,505 (5,247) (145,226) (217,839) 1,089,193 4,140,857 6.0 1-Feb 2013 6.0 1-Feb 2014 668,074 4,991,000 (1,103,879) 3,219,047 1,736,447 (6,251) (173,020) (259,529) 1,297,647 4,944,023 6.5 1-Aug 2073 6.5 1-Aug 2014 668,074 4,991,000 (1,103,879) 3,219,047 1,736,447 (6,251) (173,020) (259,529) 1,297,647 5,721,909 7.0 1-Feb 2014 7.0 1-Feb 2015 668,074 5,040,910 (1,116,623) 3,256,213 1,756,497 (6,323) (175,017) (262,526) 1,312,630 6,484,007 7.5 1•AUg 2014 7.5 1-Aug 2015. 668,074 5,040,910 (1,116,623) 3,256,273 1,756,497 (6,323) (175,017) (262,526) 1,312,630 7,222,118 8.0 1-Feb 2015 8.0 1-Feb 2016 668,074. 5,091,319 (1,129,495) 3,293,750 1,776,747 (6.396) (177,035) (265,553) 1,327,763 .7,945,236 8.5 1-Aug - 2015 8.5 1-Aug 2016 668,074 5,091,319 (1,129,495) 3,293,750 1,776,747 (6,396) (177,035) (265,553) 1,327,763 8,645,593 9.0 1-Feb 2016 9.0 1-Feb 2017 668,074 5,142,232 (1,142,496) 3,331,662 ~ 1,797,199 (6,470) (179,073) (268,609) 1,343,047 9,331,712 9.5 1-Aug 2016 9.5 i-Aug 2017 868,074 5,142,232 (1,142,496) 3,331,662 1,797,199 (6,470) (179,073) (268,809) 1,343;047 9,996,235 10.0 1-Feb 2017 10.0 1-Feb 2018 668,074 5,193,655 (1,155,626) 3,369,954 1,817,857 (6,544) (181,131) (271,697) 1,358,484 10,647,239 10.5 1-Aug. 2017 10.5 1-Aug 2018 668,074 5,193,655 (1,155,626) 3,369,954 1,817,857 (6,544) (181,131) (271,697) 1,358,484 11,277,750 11.0 1-Feb 2018 11.0 1-Feb 2019 668,074 5,245,591 (1,168,888) 3,408,629 1,838,720 (6,619) (183,210) (274,815) 1,374,076 11,895,424 11.5 1-Aug 2018 11.5 1-Aug 2019 668,074 5,245,591 (1,168,888) 3,408,629 1,838,720 (6,619) (183,210) (274,815) 1,374,076 12,493,655 12.0 1-Feb 2019 12.0 1-Feb 2020 668,074 5,298,047 (1,182,283) 3,447,690 1,859,793 (6,695) (185,310) (277,965) 1,389,823 13,079,696 12.5 1-Aug 2019 12.5 1-Aug 2020 668,074 5,298,047 (1,182,283) 3,447,690 1,859,793 (6,895) (185,310) (277,965) 1,389,823 13,647,290 13.0 1-Feb 2020 13.0 1-Feb 2021 668,074 5,351,028 (1,195,811) 3,487,142 7,881,076 (6,772) (187,430) (281,146) 1,405,728 14,203,309 13.5 1-Aug 2020 13.5 1-Aug 2021 668,074 5,351,028 (1,195,811) 3,487,142 ~ 1,881,076 (6,772) (187,430) (281,146) 1,405,728 14,741,828 14.0 1-Feb 2021 14.0 1-Feb 2022 668,074 5,404,538 (1,209,475) 3.526,988 1,902,572 (6,849) (189,572) (284,358) 1,421.792 15,269.352 .14.5 1-Aug 2021 14.5 1-Aug 2022 668,074 5,404,538 (1,209,475) ~ 3,526,988 1,902,572 ' (6,849) (189,572) (284,358) 1,421,792 15,780,274 15.0 1-Feb 2022. 15.0 1-Feb 2023 668,074 5,456,583 (1,223,276) 3,567,233 1,924,282 - (6,927) (191,736) (287,603) 1,438,016 16,280,760 15.5 - 1-Aug 2022 15.5 1-Aug 2023 668,074 5,458,583 (1,223,276) ~ 3,587,233 1,924,282 (6,927) - (191,736) (287,603) 1,438,016 16,765,492 16.0 1-Feb 2023 16.0 1-Feb 2024 668,074 5,513.169 (1,237,214) 3,607,881 1,946,210 (7,006) (193,920). (290,881) 1,454,403 17,240,316 16.5 1-Aug 2023 16.5 1-Aug 2024 668,074 5,513,169 (1,237,214) 3,607,881 1,946,210 (7,006) (193,920) (290,881) 1,454,403 17,700,194" 17.0 1-Feb 2024 17.0 1-Feb 2025 668,074 5,568,301 (1,251,292) 3,648,935 1,968,358 (7,086) (196,127) (294,191) 1,470,954 18,150,665 17.5 1-Aug 2024 17.5 1-Aug 2025 668,074 5,568,301 (1,251,292) 3,648,935 1,968,358 {7,086) (196,127) (294,191) 1,470,954 18,586,956 18.0 1-Pali 2025 18.0 1-Feb 2026 868,074 5,623,884 (1,265,511) 3,690,399 1,990,726 (7,167) (198,356) (297,534) 9,487,670 19,014,316 18.5 1-Aug - 2025 18.5 1-Aug 2026 668,074 5,623,984 (1,265,511) 3,690,399 1,990,726 (7,167) -(198,356) (297,534) 1,487,670 19,428,225 19.0 1-Feb 2026 19.0 1-Feb 2027 666,074 5,680,224 (1,279,871) 3,732,278 2,013,319 (7,248) (200,607) (300,911) 1,504,553 19,833,654 19.5 1-Aug 2026 19.5 1-Aug 2027 668,074 5,680,224 (1,279.871) 3,732,278 2,013,319 (7,248) (200,807) (300,911) 1.504,553 20,226,321 20.0 1-Feb 2027 20.0 1-Feb 2026 688,074 5,737,026 (1,294,376) 3,774,576 2,036,137 (7,330) (202,881) (304,321) 1,521,605 20,610,939 20.5 1-Aug 2027 - 20.5 1-Aug 2028 668,074 5,737,026 (1,294,376) 3.774,576 2,036,137 (7,330) (202,881) (304,321) 1,521,605 20,983,451 21.0 1-Feb 2028 21.0 1-Feb 2029 668,074 5;794,396 (1,309,025) 3,817,297 2,059,184 (7,413) (205,177) (307,766) 1,538,828 21,348,320 21.5 1-Aug 2028 21.5 1-Aug 2029 668;074 5,794,396 (1,309,025) 3.817,297 2,059,184 (7,413) (205,177) (307,766) 1,538,828 21,701,704 22.0 1-Feb 2029 22.0 t-Feb 2030 668,074 5,852,340 (1,323,821) 3,860,445 2,082,461 (7,497) (207,496) (311,245) 1,558,223 22,047.834 22.5 1-Aug 2029 22.5 1-Aug 2030 668,074 5,852,340 (1,323,821) 3,880,445. 2,082,461 (7,497) (207,496) (311,245) 1,556,223 22,383,069 23.0 1-Feb 2030 23.0 1-Feb 2031 668,074 5,910,863 (1,338.765) 3,904,024 2,105.971 (7,581) (209,839) (314,758) 1,573,792 22.711,417 23.5 1-Aug 2030 23.5 1-Aug 2031 668,074 5,910,863 (1,338,765) 3,904,024 2,105.971 (7,581) (209,839) (314,758) 1,573,792 23,029,429 24.0 1•Feb 2031 24.0 1-Feb 2032 6611,074 5,969,972 (1,353,858) 3,948,040 2,129,715 (7,667) (212,205) (318,307) 1,591,536 23,340,904 24.5 1-Aug 2031 24.5 1-Aug 2032 668,074 5,969,972 (1,353,858) 3,948,040 2,129,715 (7,667) (212,205) (318.307) 1,591,536 23,642,575 25.0 1-Feb 2032 25.0 1-Feb 2033 668,074 6,029,672 (1,369,103) 3,992,495 2,153,698 (7,753) (214,594) (321,892) 1,609,458 23,938,041 25.5 1-Aug 2032 25.5 1-Au 2033 666,074 6,029,672 1,369,103 3,992,495 2,153,698 7,753 214,594 321,892 1,609,458 24,224,206 26.0 1-Feb 2033 Totals 54332949 85495,591 307,845 8,514,920 12,772,380 63,861,898 Present Value 45,943,843 165,398 8,624,506 6,866,767 24,224,206 NOTES: i. State Auditor payment Is based upnn 1st halt, pay 2006 actual and may Increase over term of district 2. TIF run does not reflect potential reduction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class sates, cansVUCtion schedule and inflation on Marknt Value. 4. Inlation on tax rakes cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prepared by Ehlero TIF PLAN Run-09-78-2008 911 8 12 0 0 6 (J ~ ~ Page 3 of 11 ~j ~ FREERS . ~,.,, ~ < CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD RETAIL T.LF.CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS _ _ ~ DlsMct New Redeve lopment Distrlci County Dlstrlct # Inflation Rate -Every _ Years 1.00 - Pay-As-Vou-Go Interest Rate: 6.50% . City Inlemal Loan Rate 4.00% Note Issued Date (Present Value Date): ~ 01-Feb-O6 Local lax Rate -Frozen 107.71500% Pay 2006 Fiscal Dispadties Election Inside Year District was certified 2008 Assumes First Tax Increment For District 2008 Vear District was Modified N/A Development located in modified area ~ NIA Assumes First Tax Increment For Dev 2009 Years of Tax Increment 26 Assumes Last Vear of Tax Increment 2033 Fiscal Dispadties Ratio ~ 33.8177 % Pay 2006 Fiscal Dispadties Metro Wide Tax Rate 121.8020 % Pay 2006 Local Tax Rate - Curtent 107.7150 % Pay 2006 State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 50.6270 % Pay 2006 Market Value Tax Rale (used for total taxes) N/A Pay 2006 Commercial Industrial Class Rale 1.5 %-2.0% Pay 2006 First 150,000 1.50% Over ~ 150,000 - - 2.00% Rental Class Rate 1.25 % Pay 2006 Residential Class Ra -Under $500,000 1.00% Over $500.000 1.25% BASE VALUE INFORMATION - - Watershed ~ Markel - Tax - Value Capacity 0 32,594,600 396,759 Comm Retail 158,333,333 61.29% 19,977,335 1.5%-2.0% 398,797 Housing 100,000,000 36.71 % 12,617,265 1.00% 126,173 Total 258,333,333 100.00% 32,594,600 524,969 PROJECT INFOR I~ATIOM _ Total Market 1lalue Market Glass New Date Date Dals PHASE Use Sq. Ft.lUnita Sq. Ft.lUnNs Value Rate lax Capacity Completed Asses Payable 1 Retail 56,333 200.00 11,866,667 1.5 %-2.0% 232,583 2007 :2008 2009 Office 100,000 200.00 20,000.000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2007 2008 2009 Housing 100 200,000.00 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2007 2008 2009 2 Retail 58,333 200.00 11,666,667 1.5 %-2.0% 232,583 2008 2009 2010 OMce 100,000 200.00 20,000,000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2008 2009 2010 Housing ~ 100. 200,000.00 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2006 2009 2010 3 Retail 58,333 200.00 11,666,667 1.5%-2.0% 232,583 2009 2010 2011 . Office 100,000 200.00 20,000,000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2009 2010 2011 Housing _ 100 200,000.00 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2009 2010 2011 4 Retail 58,333 200.00 11,666,667 1.5%-2.0% 232,583 2010 2011 2012 Office 100,000 200.00 20,000,000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2010 2011 2012 Housing 100 200,000.00 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2010 2011 2012 5 Retail 58,333 200.00 11,666,667 1.5%-2.0% 232,583 2011 2012 _ 2013 Office 100,000 200,00 20,000,000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2011 2012 2013 Housing 100 200,000.00 ~ 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2011 2012 2013 TnTAI 792.187 258.333.333 4.159.167 Note: 1. Taz estima#es are based upon market value, consfructtan costs and taxes per sgift: 2. Apartmenfsrresidontial do not pay Statewide property fax or Fiscal Disparities 3. Assumes Fiscal Disparities is paid inside Ylrc district l Prepared by Ehlare TIF PLAN Run• 09.18.2008 Page 4 of 11 9118/2006 ~ ~ ~~ E('1LE ~~ CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD RETAIL PERIOD BEGINNING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Base Tax Ca aci ProJset Tax Ca aci Flsul oispadliea Raduetlon Captured Tax Ca acct YAXINCREMEHr CASH FLGW Semi-Annual State Admin. Gross Tax Auditor Increment 0.36% 10.00% Mousing 15.00% Semi•Annual Seml-Annual Net Tax Present Increment Value PAYMENT OA7E PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. r. Presets Value Date 01-Feb-06 - 0.0 1-Aug 2006 524,969 - 524,969 0.0 1-Feb 2006 0.0 1-Feb 2007 524,989 524,969 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-Aug 2006 0.0 1-Aug 2007 524,969 524,969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 i-Feb 2007 0.0 1-Feb 2008 524,969 524,969 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1-Aug 2007 0.5 1-Aug 2008 524,969 524,969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1-Feb 2008 1.0 1-Feb 2009 524,969 831,833 (78,342) 228,522 123,076 (443) (12,263) (18,395) 91,975 78,383 1.5 1-Aug 2008 1.5 1-Aug 2009 524,969 831,833 (78,342) 228,522 123,076 (443) (12,263) (18,395) 91,975 154,298 2.0 1-Feb 2009 2.0 1-Feb 2010 524,969 1,663,667 (290,749) 847,948 456,684 (1,644) (45,504) (68,256) 341,280 427,120 2.5 1-Aug 2009 2.5 1-Aug 2010 524,968 1,663,667 (290.749) 847,948 456,684 (1,644) (45,504) (68,256) 341,280 691,355 3.0 1-Feb 2010 3.0 1•Feb 2011 524,969 2,495,500 (503,157) 1,467,373 790,291 (2,845) (78,745) (118,117) 590,584 1,134,220 3.5 1-Aug 2010 3.5 1-Aug 2011 524,969 2,495,500 (503,157) 1,467,373 790,291 (2,845) (78,745) (118,177) 590,584 1,563,145 4.0 1-Feb 2011 4.0 1-Feb 2012 524,969 3,327,333 (715,565) 2,086,799 1,123,898 (4,046) (111,985) (167,978) 839,889 2,153,932 4.5 1-Aug 2011 4.5 1-Aug 2012 524,969 3,327,333 (715,565) 2,086,799 1,123,898 (4,046) (111,985) (187,878) 839,889 2,726,123 5.0 1-Feb 2012 5.0 1-Feb 2013 524,969 4,159,167 (927,973) 2,706,224 1,457,505 (5,247) (145,226) (217,839) 1,089,193 3,444,801 5.5 1-Aug - 2012 5.5 1-Aug. 2013 524,969 4,159,167 (927,973) 2,706,224 1,457,505 (5,247) (145,228) (217,839) 1,089,193 4,140,857 8.0 1-Feb 2013 6.0 1-Feb 2014 524,969 4,159,167 (927,973) 2.706,224 1,457,505 (5,247) (145,226) _ (217,839) 1,089,193 4,815.003 6.5 1-Aug 2013 6.5 1-Aug 2014 524,969 4,159,187 (927,973) 2,708,224 1,d57,505 (5,247) (145,226) (217,839) 1,089,193 5,467,929 7.0 1-Feb 2014 7.0 1-Feb 2015 524,969 4,200,758 ' (938,593) 2,737,196 1,474,185 (5,307) ~ (146,888) (220,332) 1,101,659 6,107,540 7.5 1-Aug - 2014 7.5 1-Aug 2015 524,969 4,200,758 (938,593) 2,737,196 1,474,185 (5,307) (146,888) (220,332) 1,101,659 6,727,018 6.0 1-Feb 2015 8.0 1-Feb 2016 524,969 4,242,766 (949,320) 2,768,477 1,497,032 (5,368) (148,566) (222,850) 1,114,248 7,333,854 8.5 1-Aug 2015 8.5 1-Aug 2016 524,969 4,242,786 (949,320) 2,768,477 1,491,032 (5,368) (148,566) (222,850) 1,114,248 7,921,588 9.0 1-Feb 2016 9.0 1-Feb 2017 524,969 4,285,184 (960,154) 2,800,070 1,508,048 (5,429) (150,262) (225,393) 1,126,964 8,497.318 9.5 1-Aug 2016 9.5 1-Aug 2017 524.969 4,285,194 (960,154) 2,800,070 1,506,048 (5,429) (150,262) (225,393) 1,126,964 9,054.925 10.0 1-Feb 2017 10.0 1-Feb 2018 524,969 4,328,046 (971,096) -2,831,980 1,525,234 (5,491) (151,974) (227,961) 1,139,807 9,601,136 10.5 1-Aug 2017 10.5 1-Aug 2018 524,969 4,328,046 (971,096) 2,631,980 1,525,234 (5,491) (151,974) (227,961) 1,139,807 10,130,153 11.0 1-Feb 2018 11.0 1-Feb 2019 524,969 4,371,326 (982,148) 2,864,209 1,542,591 (5,553) (153,704) (230,556) 1,152,779 .10,648,350 11.5 1-Aug 2018 11.5 1-Aug 2019 524,969 4,371,326 (982,148) 2,864,209 1,542,591 (5,553) (153,704) (230,556) 1,152,779 11,150,235 12.0 1-Feb 2019 12.0 1-Feb 2020 524,969 4,415,039 (993,310) 2,896,760 1,560,123 (5,616) (155,451) (233,176) 1,165,880 11,641,846 12.5 1-Aug 2019 12.5 1-Aug 2020 524,969 4,415,039 (993,310) 2,896,760 1,560,123 (5,616) (155,451) (233,176) 1,185,880 12,117.863 13.0 1-Feb 2020 13.0 1-Feb 2021 524,969 4,459,190 (1,004,583) 2,929,637 1,577,829 (5,680) (157,215) (235,822) 1,179,112. 12,584,367 13.5 1-Aug 2020 13.5 1-Aug 2021 524,969 4,459,190 (1,004,583) 2,929,637 1,577,829 (5,680) (157,215) (235,822) 1,179,112 13,036,070 14.0 1-Feb 2021 14.0 1-Feb .2022 524,969 4,503,782 (1,015,970) 2,962,842 1,595,713 (5,745) (158,987) (238,495) 1,192,476 13,476,514 14.5 1-Aug 2021 14.5 1-Aug 2022 524,969 4,503,782 (1,015,970) 2,962,842 1,595,713 (5,745) (158,997) (238,495) 1,192,476 13,907,030 15.0 1-Feb 2022 15.0 1-Feb 2023 524,969 4,548,819 (1,027,470) 2,996,380 1,613,775 (5,810) (160,797) (241,195) 1,205,974 14,326,756 15.5 1-Aug 2022 15.5 1-Aug 2023 524,969 4,548,819 (1,027.470) 2,996,380 1,813,775 (5,810) (160,797) (241,195) 1,205,974 14,733,271 16.0 - i-Feb 2023 16.0 1-Feb 2024 524,969 4,594,308 (1,039,086) 3,030,252 1,632,018 (5,875) (162,614) (243,921) 1,219,607 15,131,440 16.5 1-Aug 2023 16.5 1-Aug 2024 524,969 4,594,308 (1,039,086) 3,030,252 1,632,018 (5,875) (162,614) (243,921) 1,219,607 15,517,076 17.0 1-Feb 2024 17.0 1-Feb 2025 524,969 4,640,251 (1,050,817) 3,064,464 1,650.444 (5,942) (164,450) (246,675) 1,233,377 15,894,791 17.5 1-Aug 2024 7.5 1-Aug 2025 524,969 4,640,251 (1,050,817) 3,064,464 1,650,444 (5,90.2) (184,450) (246,675) 1,233,377 16,260,616 18.0 1-Feb 2025 8.0 1-Feb 2026 524,969 4,686,653 (1,062,666) 3,099,018 1,669,053 (6,009) (166,304) (249,457) 1,247,284 16,618,921 18.5 1-Aug 2025 18.5 1-Aug 2026 524,969 4,686,653 (1,062,666) 3,099,018 1,669,053 (6,009) (166,304) (249,457) ' 1,247,284 16,965,947 19.0 1-Feb 2026 19.0 1-Feb 2027 524,969 4,733,520 (1,074,633) 3,133,917 1,687,849 (6,076) (168,177) (252,266) 1,261,330 17,305,836 19.5 1-Aug 2028 19.5 1-Aug 2027 524,969 4,733,520 (1,074,633) 3.133,917 1,687,849 (8,076) (168,177) (252,266) 1,261,330 17,635,025 20.0 1-Feb 2027 20.0 1-Feb 2028 524,969 4,780,855 (1,086,720) 3.169,165 1,706,833 (6,145) (170,069) (255,103) 1,275,516 17,957,439 20.5 1-Aug 2027 20.5 1-Aug 2028 524,969 4,780,855 (1.086,720) 3.169,165 1,706,633 (6,145) (170,069) (255,103) 1,275,516 18,269,704 21.0 1-Feb 2028 21.0 1-Feb 2029 524,869 4,828,663 (1,098,928) 3,204,766 1,726,007 (6,214) (171,979) (257,969) 1,289,845 18,575,537 21.5 1-Aug 2028 21.5 1-Aug 2029 524,969 4,828,663 (1,098,928) 3,204,766 1,726,007 (6,214) (171,979) (257,969) 1,289,845 18,871,744 22.0 1-Feb 2029 22.0 1-Feb 2030 524,969 4,876,850 (1,111,258) 3,240,722 1,745,372 (6,283) (173,909) (260,863) 1.304,317 19,161,846 22.5 1-Aug 2029 22.5 1-Aug 2030 524,969 4,876,950 (1,111,258) 3,240,722 1,745,372 (6,283) (173,909) (260,863) 1.304,317 19,442,816 23.0 1-Feb 2030 23.0 1-Feb 2031 524,969 4,925,720 (1,123,711) 3,277,039 1,764,931 (6,354) (175,858) (263,787) 1.318,933 19,717,991 23.5 1-Aug 2030 23.5 1-Aug 2031 524,969 4,925,720 (1,123,711) 3;277,039 - 1,764,931 (8,354) (175,858) (263,787) 1,318,933 19,984,505 24.0 1-Feb 2031 24.0 1-Feb 2032 524,969 4,974,977 (1.136,289) 3,313,718 1,784,686 (6,425) (177,826) (266,739) 1,333,696 20,245,519 24.5 1-Aug 2031 24.5 1-Aug 2032 524,969 4,974,977 (1,136,289) 3,313,718 1,784,686 (6,425) (177,826) (266,739) 1,333,696 20,498,317 25.0 1-Feb 2032 25.0 1-Feb 2033 524,969 5,024,726 (1.148,993) 3,350,764 1,804,638 (6,497) (179,814) (269,721) 1,348,606 20,745,895 25.5 1-Aug 2032 25.5 1-Au 2033 524,969 5.024726 1,148,993 3.350764 1,804,638 6,497 179,814 269721 1,348,606 20,885,680 26.0 1-Feb 2033 Totals 46,439,011 72,977,389 282 579 7,267,606 10,901,409 54,507,045 Present Value 39,555,053 142,398 5,782,797 5,911,898 20,985,680 NOTES: i. State Auditor payment Is based upon 1st halt, pay 2006 acfua! and may incroase over term of district 2. TIF run does not reilect potential reduction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amount of increment vrfll vary depending upon market va4aa, tax rates, class rates, construction scheduta and inflation on Market Value. 4. Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prepared by Ehlers TIF PLAN Run- 09.19-4006 911812006 ~ ~ {L~ ~ Page 5 of 11 I:r~~~rS CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD RETAIL I~F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS T. i ~i _ _ D4suiG New Retleve lopment District County Dlstrict# _ Inflation Rate-Every_Years 1.00% Pay-AsYou-Go Interest Rate: 6.50% Ciy internal Loan Rate 4.00% Note Issued Dale (Present Value Date): 01-Feb-O6 Local Tax Rate -Frozen 708.7870% Pay 2006 Fiscal Dispadties Election Inside Year Disidct was certified 2008 Assumes First Tax Increment For Disidct 2006 Year Disidct was Modred N/A Development located in modified area NIA Assumes First Tax Increment For Dev 2009 Years of Tax Inceement 26 Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2033 Fiscal Dispadties Ratio 33.6177 % Pay 2006 Fiscal Dispadties Metro Wide Tax Rate 721.8020 % Pay 2006 Local Tax Rate - Curtent 107.7150 % Pay 2006 State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) .50.8270 % Pay 2006 Market Value Tax Rate (used for total taxes) N/A Pay 2006 Commercial lndustdal Class Rate 1.5%-2.0% Pay 2008 First 150,000 7.50% Over 150,000 2.00% Rental Class Rate ~ 1.25 % Pay 2006 Residential Class Ra -Under $500,000 1:00% Over $500.000 1.25 ~ BASE VALUE INFORMATION Markal lax Watershed Value Capacity 3 8,919,000 108,761 Comm Retail 31,666,667 61.29% 5,466,484 1.5 %-2.0% 106,580. Housing 20.000,000 38.71% 3,452,516 1.00% 34,525 Total 51,666,667 100.00% 8,9f9,000 143,105 PFOAECt {NFORMATION _______ Total Market Value Market Glae New Data Data Dala PHASE Use Sq. Ft.lUnits S . Ft.lUnits Value Rate Tax Capacity Completed Asses Payabl 6 Retail 58,333 - 200.00 11,686,667 1.5%-2.0% 232,583 2012 2013 2014 Office 100,000 200.00 20,000,000 1.5%-2.0% 399,250 2012 2013 2014 Housing 100 200,000.00 20,000,000 1.00% 200,000 2012 2013 2074 Note: 1. Tax es#irnates are based upon market valua, construction casts and taxes per sq/R. 2. Apartmantslrasidentiai da not pay Stafe•wida prapcrfy tax nr Fiscal pisparitics 3. Assumes Fiscal Disparities is paid inside tha district Prepared by Ehlers TIF PLAN Run-09.18.2006 9118/2008 "/ ~ ~~ EHLE,RS CEDAR AVE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT CITY OF RICHFIELD RETAIL Page 8 of 11 ERIOD BEGINNING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Base Tax Ca ad Pro)ect Tax Ca ac Flecar DNparkiea Reduction __ Captured Tax Ca aci YAX INCREMENT cnBH FLOVd - Semi-Annual State Admin. Gross Tax Auditor Increment 0.36% 10.00% Housing 15.00% Semi•Annual SamrvAnnuai Net Tax Present Increment Va4ue PAV MENT DATE PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. r. Preaem Value Date 01-Feb-06 - 0.0 1-Aug 2006 143,105 143,105 - 0.0 1-Feb 2006 0.0 1-Feb 2007 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-Aug 2006 0.0 1-Aug 2007 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-Feb 2007 0.0 1-Feb 2008 143,105 143,105 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 1-Aug 2007 0.5 1•Aug 2008 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1-Feb 2008 1.0 1-Feb 2009 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1-Aug 2008 1.5 1-Aug 2009 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 1-Fab 2009 2.0 1-Feb 2010 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1-Aug 2009 2.5 1-Aug 2010 143,105 143,105 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1-Feb 2010 3.0 1-Feb 2011 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 1-Aug 2010 3.5 1-Aug 2011 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 4.0 1-Feb 2011 4.0 " 1-Feb 2012 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 1-Aug 2011 4.5 1-Aug 2012 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 1-Feb 2012 5.0 1-Feb 2013 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 1-Aug 2012 5.5 1-Aug 2013 143,105 143,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 1-Feb 2013 6.0 1-Feb 2014 143,105 831,833 (175,906) 512,823 278,942 (1,004) (27,794) (41,691) 208,453 129,020 6.5 i-Aug 2013 6.5 1-Aug 2014 143,105 831,833 (175,906) 512,823 278,942 (1,004) (27,794) (41,691) 208,453 253,980 7.0 1-Feb 2014 7.0 1-Feb 2015 143,105 640,152 (178,030) 519,017 282,311 (1,016) (28,130) (42,194) 210,971 376,467 7.5 1-Aug 2014 7.5 1-Aug 2015 - 143,105 840.152 (178,030) 519,017 282,311 (1,016) (28,130) (42,194) 210,971 495,099 8.0 1-Feb 2015 8.0 1-Feb 2016 143,105 848,553 (180,175) 525,273 285,714 (1,029) (28,469) (42,703) 213,514 671,382 8.5 1-Aug 2015 8.5 1-Aug 2016 143.105 848,553 (180,175) 525,273 285,714 (1,029) (28;489) (42,703) 213,514 724,005 9.0 1-Feb 2016 9.0 1-Feb 2017 143,105 857,039 (162,342) 531,592 289,151' (1,041) (28,811) (43,217) 216,083 834,395 9.5 1-Aug 2016 9.5 1-Aug 2017 143,105 857,039 (182,342) 531,592 289,151 (1,041) (28,811) (43,217) 216,083 941,310 10.0 1-Feb 2017 10.0 1-Feb 2018 143,105 865,609 (184,530) 537,974 292,623 (1,053) (29,157) (43,735) 218,677 1,046,103 10.5 1-Aug 2017 10.5 1-Aug 20111 143,105 865,609 (184,530) 537,974 292,623 (1,053) (29,157) (43,735) 218,677 1,147,597 11.0 1-Feb 2018 17.0 1-Feb 2019 143,105 874,265 (186,741) 544,420 296,129 (1,066) (28,506) (44,259) 221,297 1,247,074 11.5 1-Aug 2018 11.5 1-Aug 2019 143,105 874,265 (186,741) 544,420 296,129 (1,066) (29,506) (44,259) 221,297. 1,343,421 .12.0 1-Feb 2019 12.0 1-Feb 2020 143,105 883,008 (188,973) 550,930 299,670 (1,079) (29,859) (44,789) 223,943 1,437,850 - 12.5 1-Aug 2019 12.5 1-Aug 2020 143,105 883,008 (188,973) 550,930 299,670 (1,079) (29,859) (44,789). 223,943 1,529,307 13.0 1-Feb 2020 13.0 1-Feb 2021 143,105 891,838 (191,228) 557,505 303,247 (1,092) (30,215) (45,323) 226,616 1,618,942 13.5 1-Aug _ 2020 13.5 1-Aug 2021 143,105 891,838 (191,228) 557.505 303,247 (1,092) (30,215) (45,323) 226,616 1,705,756 14.0 1-Feb 2021 14.0 1-Feb 2022 143,105 900,756 (193,505) 564,148 306,859 (1,105) (30,575) (45,863) 229,316 1,790,839 14.5 1-Aug 2021 14.5 1-Aug. 2022 143,105 900,756 (193,505) 564,146 308,859 (1,105) (30,575) (45,863) 229,316 1,873,243 15.0 1-Feb 2022 15.0 1-Feb 2023 143,105 909,764 (195,805) 570,854 310,507 (1,118) (30,939) (46,408) 232,042 1,954,003 15.5 1-Aug 2022 15.5 1-Aug 2023 143,105 909,764 (195,805) 570,854 310,507 (1,118) (30,939) (46,408) 232,042 2,032,221 16.0. 1-Feb 2023 16.0 1-Feb 2024 143,105 918,862 (198,128) 577,628 314,192 (1,131) (31,306) (46,959) 234,796 2,108,875 16.5 1-Aug 2023 16.5 1--Aug 2024 143,105 918,862 (198,128) 577,628 314,192 (1,131) (31,306) (48,959) 234,796 2,183,117 17.0 1-Feb 2024 17.0 1-Feb 2025 143,105 928.050 (200,475) 584,471 317,914 (1,144) (31,677) (47,515) 237,577 2,255,874 17.5 1-Aug 2024 7.5 1-Aug 2025 143,105 928,050 (200,475) 584,471 317,914 (1,144) (31,877) (47,515) 237,577 2,326,340 18.0 1-Feb 2025 8.0 1-Feb 2026 143,105 937,331 (202,844) 591,381 321,673 (1,158) (32.051) (48,077) 240,386 2,395,396 18.5 1-Aug 2025 18.5 1-Aug 2026 143,105 937,331 (202,844) 591,381 321,673 (1,158) (32,051) (411,077) 240,386 2,462,277 19.0 1-Feb 2026 19.0 1-Feb 2027 143,105 946,704 (205,238) 598,361 325,470 (1,172) _ (32,430) (48,645) 243,223 2,527,818 19.5 1-Aug 2026 19.5 1-Aug 2027 143,105 946,704 (205,238) - 596,361 325,470 (1,172) (32,430) (48,645) 243,223 2,591,296 20.0 1-Feb 2027 20.0 1-Feb 2028 143,105 956,171 (207,655) 605,411 329,304 (1,185) (32,812) (49,218) 246,089 2,653,500 20.5 1-Aug 2027 20.5 1-Aug 2028 143,105 956.171 (207,655) 605.411 329,304 (1,185) (32,812) (49,218) 246,089 2,713,748 21.0 1-Feb 2028 21.0 1-Feb 2029 143,105 965,733 (210,097) 612,531 333,177 (1,199) (33,198) (49,797) 248,983 2,772,783 21.5 1-Aug 2028 21.5 1-Aug 2029 143,105 965,733 (210,097) 612,531 333,177 (1,199) (33,198) (49,797) 248,983 2,829,960 22.0 1-Feb 2029 22.0 1-Feb 2030 143,105 975,390 (212,563) 619,722 337,089 (1,214) (33,588) (50,381) 251.906 2,885,988 22.5 1-Aug 2029 22.5 1-Aug 2030 143,105 975,390 (212,563) 619,722 337,089 (1,214) (33,588) (50,381) 251,906 2.940.253 23.0 1-Feb 2030 23.0 1-Feb 2031 143.105 985,144 (215,054) 826,986 341,039 (1,228) (33,981) (50,972) 254,859 2,893,425 23.5 1-Aug 2030 23.5 1-Aug 2031 143,105 985,144 (215,054) 626,986 341,039 (1,226) (33,981) (50,972) 254,859 3,044,924 24.0 1-Feb 2031 24.0 1-Feb 2032 143,105 994,995 (217,569) 634,321 345,030 (1,242) (34,379) (51,568) 257,841 3,095,385 24.5 1-Aug 2031 24.5 1-Aug 2032 143,105 994,995 (217,569) 634,321 345,030 (1,242) (34,379) (51,568) 257,641 3,144,258 25.0 1-Feb 2032 25.0 1-Feb 2033 143,105 1,004,945 (220,110) 641,731 349,060 (1,257) (34,780) (52,170) 260,852 3,192,146 25.5 1-Au9 2032 25.5 1-AU 2033 143105 1,004,945 220,110 641,731 349,060 1,257 34,780 52,170 260,852 3,238,526 26.0 1-Feb 2033 Totals 7093,938 12 556,951 45,068 1,247,314 1 870 971 9,354,853 Presen t Value 6,386,790 23,000 861 709 954,869 3 238 528 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st half, pay 2006 actual and may increase over Rerm of d(skrict 2. TIF run does not reflect potential reduction in Market Value Honiastead Credit 3. Amount of inerOment will vary depending upon market value, W x ra4as, class rates, canstrucfinn schedule and inflation on Market Value. 4. In(tation on tax rates cannok be captured. 5. TIF dons not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prepared by Ehlers TIF PLAN Run-09.184008 q- (P~ APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) APPENDIX E-1 t-1 ~~f ~ OsPimt ~ Emgloymer~ 31 r ~/f a+aEOOO(am~ioDeveWpment . ~~ +~ ~~/ ~~~ Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21) Minnesota Business Assistance Form ^ The Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) online is available at wwsv.deed.state.um.us/Commwiity/subsidieslMBAFFarm.htm to report each business subsidy (including Job Opportunity Zone (JOBZ) tax exemptions/credit) and financial assistance agreement signed from AUPUSt 1. 1999 through December 31.2005 unless goals have been achieved and reported on a MBAF per Minn. Stat. §116J.993 to § 116J:995. ^ Assistance given to a business located in a JOBZone must report annually until December 31, 2015 even if goals have been achieved. ^ The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business subsidy agreement since January 1, 2000, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government agencies authorized to provide business subsidies. ^ DEED will contact any local or state government agency that is required to report but has not done so by April 1: Business assistance may not be awarded a8er June 1 of each year until a report has been submitted. ^ Questions? Call (651) 296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 7. Cnn4inn 1 • /!'_r~n4nr infnrmo4innl 1. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this form 3. Street address 4. City 5. Zip Code 6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address 10. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2. Name/Title Phone number Street address City Zip Code 11. Classification of grantor (Mark one. If grantor is entity created 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and adopted by govt agency, please indicate affiliation. For example, a city criteria for awarding business subsidies in compliance with EDA would check "City government. ') Minn. Stat. § 116J.994? (Mark one.) ^ City govemment ^ Yes, in 2006 (attach criteria) ^ Yes, in 2006 but have not yet adopted criteria ^ County government ^ Yes, prior to 2006 ^ Regional government If Yes: Hearing Date: Year Criteria Submitted: ^ State government ^ No ^ Other (Please specify). ^ Other Please attach ex lanation. 13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, 1999 through December 31; 2005 unless goals have been achieved andreported in a previously filed MBAF? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and ^ No(Sto~here, go to section S on page 4.) re orted in a reviousl tled MBAF er Minn. Stat. §I16J.993 and 116J.994. ~ecaon z: xeci Tent tnformation 14. Name of business or organization 15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance receiving subsidy or financial assistance. will be used Street address Citv State ZIP Code 16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.) ^ No Name of address State ZIP Code Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 1 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development 17. Industry of recipient's facility (Mark one. ): ^ Manufacturing ^ Services ^ Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ^ Retail Trade ^ Wholesale Trade ^ Construction ^'Other (please specify) 18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Indicate city and state ofprevious address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.) City/State ofprevious address Reason project not completed at previous address Indicate total number of employees who ceased to be employed by recipient when the recipient relocated to become eligible for the business subsidy. a, ^ No (Go to Ouestion 19 19. What would recipient have done without business subsidy or financial assistance? (Mark one): ^ Remain at previous location, but not expand ^ Remain at previous location but expand at the location ^ Relocate to different Minnesota location ^ Relocated outside Minnesota ^ Other 19A. Was the ro'ect a result of eminent domain? ^ Yes ^ No Co..4..... 2• A...nnmun* infnrm~ftnn 20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or financial assistance 21. Date agreement signed (ln addition to the agreement date, (Please separate value by type in Questions 24 and 25.) indicate any dates the agreement was amended.) (Enter zero for JOBZ, Biozone and Agzone projects.) 22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient receives the business subsidy or improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the property, whichever is earlier.) 23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to be reported? (Mark one.) ^ business subsid ^ financial assistance 24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please indicate the 25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financial assistance, type(s) and total dollar value for each type. please indicate the type(s). ^ not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance ^ not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy ^ loan (only principal) $ ^ assistance for property ^ grant (i.e., forgivable loan). $ by contaminants $ ^ tax abatement $ ^ assistance for renovating building ^ TIF or other tax reduction or deferral* $ stock or bringing it up to code, and ^ guarantee or payment $ assistance provided for designated ^ contribution of property.or infrastructure $ historic preservation districts, when ^ preferential use of governmental facilities $ 50 percent or less of total cost $ ^ land contribution $ ^ assistance for pollution control or ^Biozone $ 0 abatement $ ^ JOBZ (state tax exemptions/credits and sales tax) $ 0 ^ assistance for a TIF soils ^ JOBZ -Agzone $ 0 condition district $ ^ other (Specify subsidy type.) $ ote: no dollar value for zone ro'ects 26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please indicate 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or financial the type of TIF district? (Mark one.) assistance to the same project? (Mark one.) ^ not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF ^ Yes (Spec fy each grantor and the value of their assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary. ^ redevelopment ^ renewal and renovation ^ soils condition Grantor Value ($) ^ economic development ^ mined underground space ^ hazardous substance subdistrict Grantor Value ($) ^ No *For questions about TIF reporting requirements contact Arlin Waelti (651) 296-7676 at the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor. Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 2 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development ~~~ Section JZ: JOZ Information Complete Questions JZ1-JZS if the fmancial assistance was awarded to a JOBZ qualified business recipient receiving JOBZ benefits. (If not, go directly to Question 28.) JZi. What was the amount of private capital investment of the business in the JOBZ zone prior to December 31, 2005? Real (land and buildings) $ Personal (equipment) $ JZ2. What amount of the qualified business's January 2, 2005 taxable market value was exempt from property taxes payable in 2006 due to JOBZ qualification? (Please specify each parcel identification number and exempt value of each parcel, attaching an additional sheet if necessary. Obtain exempt values from the county assessor's office.) $ for Parcel Identification Number: JZ3. What was the value of Wind Energy Production Tax, if any, for the JOBZ qualified business that was operating during the period of January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005? JZ4/JZS: Goals and actual performance for the JOBZ qualified business recipient. Did the qualified business paid compensation including benefits to each employee of at least 110 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four for each year ($10.23 per hour as of July 1, 2005)? ^ Yes ^ No (For JOBZ subsidy agreements signed after June 30, 2005, compensation including benefits paid by a qualified business to each employee on an annualized basis must be at least 110 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four for each year.) Each Ilne represents an hourly wage level, please round wage levels to the nearest whole dollar and specify the hourly benefit for each wage level and the number of jobs (i.e., $12.00 hourly wage level, $1.20 hourly benefits and 10 jobs). JZ4. Goals JZS. Actuals Full-time Full-time Hourly Hourly Number of Hourly Hourly Number of Wage Level Benefits Jobs Wage Level .Benefits Jobs $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.00 $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $14.00 $14.00 $15.00 $15.00 $16.00 $1.6.00 $17.00 $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $19.00 $19.00 $20.00 $20.00 $21.00 $21.00 $22.00 $22.00 $23.00 $23.00 $24.00 $24.00 $25.00 $25.00 $26.00 $26.00 $27.00 $27.00 $28.00 $28.00 $29.00 $29.00 $30.00 $30.00 $31.00 and higher $31.00 and higher Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 3 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development JZ4IJZ5 (continues) Part-time Part-time Hourly Hourly Number of Hourly Hourly Number of Wage Level Benefits Jobs Wage Level Benefits Jobs $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $10.00 $10.00 $11.00 $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $14.00 $14.00 $15.00 $15.00 $16.00 $16.00 $17.00 $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $19.00 $19.00 $20.00 $20.00 $21.00 $21.00 $22.00 $22.00 $23.00 $23.00 $24.00 $24.00 $25.00 $25.00 $26.00 $26.00 $22.00 $27.00 $28.00 $28.00 $29.00 $29.00 $30.00 $30.00 $31.00 and higher $31.00 and higher Job Retention Job Retention Hourly Hourly Number of Hourly Hourly Number of Wage Level Benefits Jobs Wage Level Benefits Jobs $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 8.00 $ 8.00 $ 9.00 $ 9.00 $10.00 $10.00. $11.00 $ 11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $14.00 $14.00 $15.00 $15.00 $16.00 $16.00 $17.00 $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $19.00 $19.00 $20.00 $20.00 $21.00 $21.00 $22.00 $22.00 $23.00 $23.00 $24.00 $24.00 $25.00 $25.00 $26.00 $26.00 $27.00 $27.00 $28.00 $28.00 $29.00 $29.00 $30.00 $30.00 $31.00 and higher $31.00 and higher Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 4 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development (3,~n Sectiorr4: Goals and Public Purpose tdentttied m the Agreement i ., _ 28. Minn. Stat. §116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. W hich of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Mark all that apply.) ^ Enhancing economic diversity ^ Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose) ^ Creating high-quality job growth ^ Job retention ^ Other (please sped) ^ Stabilizing the community 29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.) Goals .Target attainment All goals established? dates (month & year) attained? A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No C) Other wage goals ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No D) Goals other than wage and job goals ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No (Please attach description of goals and progress toward attainment (if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.) 30. If you answered questions JZ4-JZS for a qualified business go directly to question 32. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention, goals stated in the agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided benefits goals for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full- and part-time positions.) If you answered questions JZ4-JZ5 for a qualified business go directly to question 32. Full-time Hourly Wage Job Part-time Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Retention Benefits no hourly wage-level goal $ less than $7.00 $ $7.00 to $8.99 $ $9.00 to $10.99 $ $11.00 to $12.99 $ $13.00 to $14.99 $ $15.00 to $16.99 $ $17.00 to $18.99 $ $19.00 to $20.99 $ $21.00 to $22.99 $ $23.00 to $24.99 $ $25.00 to $26.99 $ $27.00 to $28.99 $ $29.00 to $30.99 $ $31.00 and higher $ Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 5 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development q-~I 31. If you answered questions JZ4-JZS for a qualified business go directly to question 32. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided benefits for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part- timepositions.) If you answered questions JZ4-JZS for a qualified business go directly to question 32. Full-time Hourly Wage Job Part-time Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Retention Benefits less than $7.00 $ $7.00 to $8.99 $ $9.OO to $10:99 $ $11.00 to $12.99 $ $13.00 to $14.99 $ $15.00 to $16.99 $ $17.00 to $18.99 $ $19.00 to $20.99 $ $21.00 to $22.99 $ $23.00 to $24.99 $ $25.00 to $26.99 $ $27.00 to $28.99 $ $29.00 to $30.99 $ $31.00 and higher $ 32. Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Question 29, 30 and 31) and fulfilled all obli atg ions stipulated in the agreement (Mark one.) ^ Yes ^ No Section 5: Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations (Uo not complete this sectton tf you completed tt on another MLfAt' submitted to UI/CU:) 33. During the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, did your organization have any recipients who failed to report as required by Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 and § 116J.994? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that recipient.. Attach additional pages if necessary.) Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 & 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance ^ No 34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an agreement signed on or after January 1, 2005, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.) ^ Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) ^ No (Stop here and submit form to DEED.) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9/05) Page 6 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development ~-7z For questions 35-39: Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that were to be attained b the time of re ortin . Attach additional a es i necessa • 35. Information on recipient and agreement: Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance .Initial value of subsidy or assistance Street address of recipient City/Zip code of recipient Outstanding value of subsidy or assistance 36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply.): ^ recipient ceased operation ^ recipient relocated to a different community ^ recipient was unable to fill vacant positions ^ other (Spec fy reason.) 37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.) ^ Yes ^ No, recipient has beeun to repay the assistance. ^ No, recipient has not beeun to repay the assistance. 38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark one.) ^ Yes ^ No 39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy: Return your completed MBAF(s) by aril 1.2006 EITHER Mail To: Minnesota Business Assistance Report Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development -Analysis and Evaluation 1St National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1351 OR Fax To: (651) 215-3841 (Next year, please use the online version of this form. It can be found at www.deed. state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm.) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (12/9!05) Page 7 of 7 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development G-~3 APPENDIX F FINDINGS AND BUTlFOR QUALIFICATIONS But-For Analysis Current Market Value 41,513,600 New Market Value.- Estimate ~ 310,000,000 Difference 268,486,400 Present Value of Tax Increment 45,943,843 Difference 222,542,557 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is.Less Than: 222,542,557 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: Finding that the Cedar Avenue Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in the Laws of Minnesota 2005, Chapter 1.52, Article 2, Section 25. Sec. 25. [CITY OF RICHFIELD; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.) Subdivision 1. [AUTHORIZATION.) The City of Richfield may create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending.• to 16``' Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66`" Street; to 17`" Avenue between 66`" and 69`'' Streets; and to 18"' Avenue between 69`" and 72"d Streets. The City or its Housing and Redevelopment Authority may be the authority for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.179. Subd. 2. [DISTRICT IS REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.) The redevelopment tax increment district created pursuant to subdivision 1 is deemed to be a redevelopment district and is subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.179, except that.• (1) expenditures for activities as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 1, paragraph (b), anywhere in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment districts pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 10; and (2) the five year rule under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 3, does not apply. [EFFECTIVE DATE.) This section received local approval by the City ofRichfield on June 28, 2005 in APPENDIX F-1 Qt - 7 ~ compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expectedto occur solely throughprivate investment within the reasonablyforeseeablefuture andthat the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Districtpermitted by the TIFPIan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonablyforeseeable futui^e.• This finding is supported by the fact that the. redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels because of their location in a noise impacted area, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Districtpermitted by the TIFPIan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, due to the extra cost of sound mitigation and site improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible.without tax increment assistance. This is also the basis for the Special TIF Statute by the State for this TIF District. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $268,486,400. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $47,049,903. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $221,436,497 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District. (See Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan.) 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms- to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIFPIan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. APPENDIX F-2 ~,~~~ APPENDIX G PRIOR IMPROVEMENTS APPENDIX F-3 1~~~` d e~ w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~ ~a ~ ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b ,d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~O ~ ~D - ~D ~D ~D ~D ~O tp ~O ~D ~O ~O ~D ~O .--~ .--~ ..~ .-. .--~ .--~ r. r. .-. .-~ .~ .-. ~-. .-. ~ ~ ~ M ~ V1 M M M tr [~` I~ to U1 .O O O O O O O O O O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ rr .-. rr _ ~ t~ ~ O~ t~ M ~ ~ O ~ ~ .nr C ~ ~ N N (~ (~ ~ C .~. .~. N ~ ~ V n W O O .-. O O ~ ~ ^~ ^" ~ O O O O O r• O~ ~D ~O ~D ~n vi O O O O O O O O O O~ Q~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O~ O~ O~ O~ Q~ O~ C.~ B ~ ~' N .~. ~ O t`+1 N N ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ C~ w O ~ ~ ~ r-. ~ O O O ~ O O O ~ O a w A ,~ ~a Z ~ A ~ w ~ ~ ~ -E ~ C7 d Q ~ Q ~ W W AAW w WAw d ~ W° O W ~°o x °o W ° H` F F F F 30 0 ° o ~j ~ ~o O°o E-~o Oo W~ Woo ~N Ooo. O°O ~° O° ~° ~° ~° ~° W U° o Uo o ~~ Fo U~ ~~ ~~+ o ~0 0 0 0 0 a o ~o ~WWvi pM ~.r~~,r.,~~o d-• Q~r w-~ v Wv po WLr~o po Oc pc Oc> 3 ~s9 p4va A~ 04~ pq~s 3EA Ac~9 ~~ p;~ U~ P4~ U~ Ub9 U~ U~ ~ ¢~ ~ ¢W ~ ~~AaA~ w A °~ o ~ ~~ ~o ~z 'w a as a~ a~ A V w w~ w~ u•Z w v ~ ~~ ~'a¢a ~~ ~¢ A ~ A M V P4 W ,'Ti' N d~ ~ ~~ ~~ aA a ap ~A ~ ~a v~ ¢ v' v' Q z~ z°~ wp w° Ae A`V ~3 ~`~ a0 ~~ ~~~~ ww wQ Cal ~ Ca7 ~' ~~ ~x Pr ~ ~~ z z~ Aw A~ ~~ ~~ 0 ~~ ap W~ ~a O F C7 ~~ ~~ ..7 ¢ S W ~~ w¢ Aw A~ ~Q ~'w w ~~ ~,o ~~ ~z ~ O ~O ~¢ a~ as ~~ ~ zw a~ Ao U ~° ~o ~w aw U ~~ ~~ Cal `" cal w ~~ ~3 o N d r a a a a a a a a W a a N H a W .a P ~ W W a G. Pq P4 W W al W ~ W R+ ° , o ~ .--~ O 01 t~ M M M O~ N M M ~ O ~ ~ M N N ~ ~ O .-, N O~ N O~ ~D t" ~ v a~ ~n ~n vi o. o ~n o. O ~ rn rn o~ \p V1 V1 V1 ~!1 Ch Vl V7 ~ ~"~ ~D ~D 00 M ~ EE O O O O O _ a y G GO O O . O O O u O u yoy ~o! !Oyu ~P-y' A a' A. ~-1 . y Cr+ ! y ti ! y ~ ! y Ri ! y ~ ! y ai ! y ~ ~yy ! ~i ! y P'r ! ~ fri !yy ! L~ - G ai q-~~ a ~~~~~~ ~dQQQQ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 00 ~~~ e _O O N N N G4 O b ~ O O O V1 M M ~pD~ \C ~ O O O - O~ ~ Q~i N N N ~ ~--~ V~ v o ~ b O~ O~ O E ~ N O ~ N h N N ~ "" .N. °a A ~a w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w a w c H H w o` Q~ o Q.-• Oo Oo 0 a., 3 3~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ a ¢ w Q¢ aW ¢~ ~~ ~~ ~o ,~~ w w w Q w "' A A~ A Aw ~~ AV o ~ ~~ ~ u~Q ~w ~~ .~ O O .a a ~~ a a az az A ~ wV w w~ wQ w¢ F, O C7 W C7 t7 ~ C7 H C7 EQ., 0 o o F a W ~ W ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ri er v o ~c M w = ~ ~ v ° oMO ~ A ~ ~ o o c rn o 0 a. `7a r~ `a r~ 7a ~ '~ 0 d ~n a ~ ~ ~ ~ > > Q > d > H F F Ex-~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ d 'b .d d N ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ o 0 ~o ~ 0+ ~ o, o+ ~ ~ ~ i0 O N b O . W ~ ~ O O .--~ O ~n O C to O~ v1 O~ b m h N ~ ~ N fr1 N V1 \O O ` F -yi O O «-~ ~-+ v~ z a ~ ~ ~ Z ~a ~ ~ a ~ > ~ 3 z H w a a w a F' o Oo° Oo Wo Oo ,~ i' o o O ~o O ~o C O ~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~z w~ w A ~~`~., A~ AO ° .... ~ rs: ~ ~ O a4 w 04 p o a a z as ~ d Q ~ A w w~ w a w ~~ w ~z ~H ~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N o °~ W W ~ ~ F W o ~ u~, a ... ~ ~ A a' P: a~~ d 00 ee a d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~ ~c ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~c ~ ~c ~ .~ .-. .~ .. .. r. .., r. .--~ r. .-. .-. ,--~ .. .~ .~ .. w .--~ .~ r. ~ ~ r, .--~ .~ r. ... ,-. .. ~ ~ ~ cr ~ ~ d' ~ ~t ~ ~ mot' v v ~ v d~ 9 ~ v~ ~n v~ vi vi v~ ~n v~ vi ~n ~n ~n vi ~n vi ~n d ~o ~a ~o ~o ~o ~c ~ ~c ~o ~o ~o ~o ~c ~o ~c ~o ~c ~O V1 ~O ~D V1 V1 M V1 M M M N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N c`V N ~ ~ ~ O c~ N ~ O O O O N N p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ W O O O O O O O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n M M M M M N N N N N ~+ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O~ O O O O O O O O O - O O O O O O ~1 N N C`V ~V N N N N N N N N N N N N .fl ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ N V1 ~ ~O O~ ~O ~ O V'1 Vl V7 Vl V1 00 00 L~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N t`V N N ~ O O C-' °~ ~ ~ r r ~O ~O \O ~/t ~' ^' r r r r r O O r~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -~ p a ~ d o 0 ~ ~ o z W ~ o E~ `~ W d d ~ a d 1~1 a°, ~ w q° q° ~°• ~ ~°o w ~°o ~$ O C7 E,,, ~°o, °o, o o °o °o, c O°o 0 0 0° ~°o °0 0 ~ O Oo Oo 0 O o po ¢o Wo ~o ~o ~c F~c ao ao W ,x Woo ~o ~+v~ ~~n ~ ~o ~ ao wo F~c Oo Oo Oo Oo 2$ a~; ao c~ ~O vi .-+ ~O cV '-.i ~O vi v~ ~O d ~O C O M M C~ ~n d N d C Q+ 3 ~,~ w~ ~~ ~~ w~ ~~ w~ ~~ ~a~ 3~ ~~ c~7~ ~~ 0~ ~~ 3~ 3~ U ..~ ~ O ~' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d 3 ~ A ~ ~ ~ z z '~ d z~ z~ z~ z z z z z z d ~ d~ ~a z z z d ~ o o~ ox o 0 0 0 0 0_ ~ ~ ~o ~o 0 0 0 W ~¢~~~.~~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ W x x~~c~~ ~ ~ F ~ E.. F F o E. ~ F F H F o+ F ~ .a O v,~ ~n ~ v~~ ~ ~ ~ moo ~ ~ O O O$ O0 ~i vii vii ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U w U w ~ ~ ~; .~ a a a a a a a a a o F w ~. W W w W a Pq is. fs. v~ rn ~ ~ W v~ v~ o a . a ~ N o, -~ r v, o 0o v r O oo ~ ~n ~ M ~o v~ r+ .-. ~ M ~ h O N ~--~ ~ vl h v'i v1 v~ v1 k, ~ N W lI'1 ~ O~ N ~-' r ~ ~ ONi ONi ONi ~ ~ v~'1 vii ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~1-g~ W W W > > Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ d ~ ~ O O~ O ~ rr ~ N R ~-+ N p ~ ~ ~ f~i ~ o ~ P~ I~ O O~ O~ O O~ O~ N ~--~ ~ ~ O~ d ~ N N ` }F----~~ °~ ~ .N. O F~~/ ~ V1 Q A a~ Z ~ w ~ ~ A rA w °o, E" $°o ~o ~o w ,x ~ 0 0 a ° ~"' rr ~ o ~ o a ~~ U~ U~ ~o 0 0 N O O vi a fs. q a ~o µ+ ~ ao ~cWi F ~~ ¢ z Wx ~a ~~ w ~1~ A~ A~ Wa WO ~ t~W~, p a. a ~" ,,~~j Cxj ;..1 A --~ O ~ ~ ~, U A rs; u+ c~: ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O F ~ Q ~ > ~ ~H ~~ ~~ W N b O~ O~ O ~h O~ O~ N N O Q N O~ O~ ,-. O O~ O~ O M O a W o ~o o ~o es ~ v~ P4 ~_ ~ z W O ~ A F ~~ O U `O w ~ W Q ~~ ~ ~O I W F W W N ~-+ ~O O~ ~ O o ~ o ~ ~ ~ n a ~ ~ '7a r'7 ~O 0 ~l-g~ d a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ¢ d ¢ Q H ~ H. x H d ,~ ,~ M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O~ G~ .~ f~ 0~0 ~ N ~ .~. ~` ono G4 ~--~ •--~ ~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ c~V N 'fl O~ n ~ N d F y O Q u~ `v ry ri ~--~ -~ O O O a !~ A ~ ~ d w ~ = a H ~ A ` ua ~ a U Uo ~ W W ~ ¢ °o, Q ~ ~ °d o°°, O °o, ^ ? ~O ~N QC O ~O F+~1 i~ w~ w~ U~ ~ ~~ a Zl.., H Q Q ¢ ~ Qti `" F ¢ H O z A Q A¢ ° ACw7 v~ v~~= rnw ~ ~~ w n ~ ~~ ~H ~ w •,. ., .~ 5" ~.. O a a w w~ wW `D ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ o d o _ ~ W ~ W ~ O N ~/. ~ "" VM1 V~1 0~0 Od0 ~ ~ vii vii N O N A ~ a ~ w7 ~ ~ d bD R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q ~ Q Q ~ i x x x m [ ~ l~ ~ ~ h ~ t~ I`~ 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O 00 O ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O N ~ N ~ ... ~ ~--~ ~ ~--~ ~ R ~ ~ O O O O G4 O ~ O O O O O O b ~ b O N N N i O ^-~ i O ~--~ aai h ~ M ~ ~ O~ a ~ ~ ~ 0 ` 0 ` 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 a A ~ U ti a w ~ ~ a c7 ~ w ~ H ~ H ~ WO w°o, ~° ~ U° r~ ~° p"' ~° A ~O W o o o o . a ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ O~ ~~ a w w ~~ ~°o t-~ a ~~ ~~ Wa ~~ w~ wa W~ wo z WW ~ F d .~ ~w ~~ caw ~~ a aw a~ ~x a~ az az '~ ~W ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~o G wa ww wW w~ wQ wQ v¢i Q `'~ C7 .aa a E: C7 ~ C7 a' C7 ~ C7 ~ Cal H t7 H v~ ~OF„ ~F N~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~o 0 O N 0 ~+' W W W W ~ GG ~ 0 ~ .. A Q: u" ~ 7k •• ~ a ~ o 0 `7w 0 oho 0 ~ ti N oM+ a"7 M v~ aN. r'~ V'1 oo 00 ~ C~ ~ 0 7a ~j-g3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w w w w w w H H F H x ~ ~ VI ~ ~ r` I ~ r~ ~: ~I r-1 ~ L b b rl o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 0 e V1 O M O l~ Q~ ~D O~ ~D O~ ~O O~ ~ ~ ~ C O ~ O ~ N o O ~ O N ~ N W O . -+ O ~ O c O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ a y N N N O N O .-~ O 00 ~ O ~ O .--i N (~ H .--i .--~ O M O O O O ~ r a V ~ p 0 ~ F W N ~ ~ w Q A H A H A H ~ a ~-+ ~, ° wo > x ao w w w A ~ ~"M ~O QM O O O O Q+ 3 ~~ z~ 3~ ~ ~~ Q ~~ ~ V~ ~~ 4 a d Q dw -aE~ ¢~ F ~ H H Ho ~z Fo W W W W W ~ ~ A z ~ W V a ~ ~ tx fxw cGU ~~ f~~ a ~ r ~ a a az ~~ ~z az ~ M u N ~ ~ ~ d ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ A W ww wa w~ U C7 *a .a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3 ~~ ~~ ~o 0 o °' H ~ w a w w w ~ aq o ~ `n OL xt t/1 ~ N N ~ n ~ ~ M O N . M d, ~ ° [ ~ v i o O A " A: G~ q-B`~ r~ Q¢ z~ Aw a¢ ~U ~W a w~ z° A~ ?~ ~ ~ a~ ~W ~~ ~z az A ~ y ~w ~¢ ~~ ~O ~O w~ w3 wW w~ w¢ w¢ a ~ o az a~ ~O as a~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~ W a W ~ o ~. A r"' ~ ~' a ~ ~ ~ ono M o M ~ N ~ 00 ~ oa a N b d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d w d Q ¢ w ¢ w ~ ~ vNi vNi vN1 vNi vNi vNi ~ ~ b ~ ~ b n ~ ~ ~ Q~ O~ C~ G~ ~ ~ -r ~ --~ ~ r .r O~ . N . (~ r N .-. O (~ (~`N. ^'~ ~O O l~ ~O ~D ~O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ .`~ O O O .~. ~ p a ~ z a ~ A ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ w'7 y F ~ a a O A A A ¢ ~> a z H~ H a W ,~ ~M WO ~O ~O ~O OO e vi C QO OO QO ~C 3 ~va ~s~ c>~ Ubs Us9 ~bss ~~z za o z A a~~i A w A ~'O ~F' ~w x ~'`~~ d ao a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q d Q Q }-+rr~ x ~tr~+ x L .-+ .~ .-i .-~ .~ '~ '~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V1 ~O ~O V1 Vl O O ~ ~ ~ C O N O O O C O ` O O O ..-~ ~ ~ ~ Obi ~ ~ Q~ O~ O~ O~ O~ Q~ •--~ .-+ ..+ r+ d q ~ ~ v o o rn F a 0 0 0 --~ o A ~j ~ Q 1~ o° H ~ a a a a w F ~ W W (il W i ~~ ~ zo zo O Z~ al o Wc 00 Do ~o ~o ~o 3 a~ U~ U~ U~ U~ V~ a ao ao a a a~ z za z¢ z~ z zQ A A~ A3 A~ A A~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~¢ ~~ 0 3 0 .~ a aF az az a~ az ~ cz; w~ w¢ cz:~w r=:p w¢ a c~ t~ a ~'' ~a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 0 o H~ w ~ w w ~ ~, 0 G+ ~ O~ M v1 00 ~O ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ -i--~W • d 00 a -Tr Fir w a ~o °o N O O ~' w Ca a ua d ~ n .~r V ~ b N ~ ~ M O O W O a ti. o 0 0 ~i ~ ~ o ~ ~ .. o ea 0 e ~' O ua d H .-. N O~ O1 N o~ O~ n W~ d x H h_ n b ~D N O O W A u .l w°o ~ ~ ~o ~° ~ o, WM ~ DO OO v~ U~ U~ 3 z ~ ~ w ~ ~ A 3 A 5 A ~ c WW a4 W `~ ~w ~`i' a C a ~ '~~'~ Z W '~~~ Z ~ w wQ w~ E~ ~ C7H ~~ FI ~ ~ W ~ ~ O ~ .--. ~ a ~ ' ~ w r d C4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ¢ ¢ ~ F ~ ~ Ex• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ,+~ a~ a~ a+ o~ o~ b Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 o rn o~ 0 0 0 0, o, oho oN~o 0o v 1 C ` ` N N N W O. O O O O O O ~ ~ O~ .--~ ~ ~ V ~ Vim' M a ~: o 0 0 0 a ~ ~ R r GR A C/1 C/1 a 30 3o w ~ a F+ O° A~ po ° W°o W yC O r, o ~ o 3 ~ ~~ `~~ ~~ ~~. ~ ~a ~~ F E-~ E-~ M a w w w~ wa w~ A A~ Aw A~ Ao, g `~ ado `~o `~~ haw A ~A ~O0 ~~ ~~ ~O w~ wW ww w0 wk,, av aQ a~ a~ a~ 0 o o f~ G~0 m ~ a W ~ ~ 0 ct' N ca ~ a 7a ~ ~ ~a ~ ~~gg d ~o a ~ ~ ~ w > w > w > Q H H H ~ ~ ~ L ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D 0 a O o 0 ao a~ 0. N N ~ C N O N fs. O ~ O N O O O op0~ G~ d ~ ~ ~ C~ `~ 1 y r`~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 3 ~ x ~ W w ~ ~ W ~ [ -~o O o o a .a .a H w ~ w A A ~ ° o :: a .a W a d A w ~ ww H Cal Cal Ca7~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w °a a H'' a w oaa v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4r~ a ~ s rn o o c 0 o A a ~ '7w `7a q-8 ~ ~ ~ ~ Wti ~ ~ Q d Q ¢ d d ~ F ~ F H F H ~ .--. r. .~ r. ~ r. 'o b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N ~-+ M V1 ~O C N N ~O ~ ~ N W O O O O ~ 4 N N N N N ~ y N M M V'1 01 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F •--' 1~ H ~ O O d ~--~ I~+d a w A W z p A ~ ~ o ~ ~ w N r a ~ ~ w ~ Oo Wo Wo ~ Qo w ~o Ao ~~ o O W '~ UO~'O ~~ ~Q ~N ~~ ~N ~O Q'd' o-.0 ~M WWO A~ ~~ pGl~ ~~ w~ c46s a z z ~o ~ z ~a w A AQ a a A~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~° o ~z A x ~ A w ~~ ~ H ~~ ~ Q ~ w ww a ~ Ca7 Calms ca7~ Cal cal C 7~ ¢ .o o° N o p, F W ~ a, all W a .x1 o ~ ~+ Ltr ~ r M .-• O M O M ~ [~ Oi P~ Vl V 1 \O 00 A ~+ Q" ~ 0. ~O-y~ ti ~yD ti yO ~~y t y ±y i GYi C4 ai ai Q -~' ~ a W W >~ ~Q ~~ ~~ ~~ _~ ~~ N N d ~ ~ ~O O O O O O N f.\V .-1 eR ~ N ~ v\j M G4 O O ~O O O O O O N N 'b ~ ~ ~_ ~ M a ~ O o A ~. .~ A --+ ~ Z ~ w ~"~ ~ p w °o, W ~ ~~ ~° ~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~¢ A A ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~. .~.a~.~ c,, •,; y d A W W ~ F.,~' Cal Q.C'Cy~7.~ y 7--1 ~ ~ ~ ~ O O y N o F~' 0.1 v] 0 ~ E' a~ ~" u°'. ~ ~ v d ~ ~ A ~ ~ o ~ w 'a `7a Y /~ d bD a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q d Q Q q F ~ H H F H ~ H ~ ... .-, r. .. r, ~ .-~ ,~ -. 'a oMO oMO oMO oMO oMO oMO oMO oMo d ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o ~o 0 0 0 °o °o oO1+ a°1+ N N ~V N N ~--~ .~ ' M M ~O O~ M d\' ~ .~+ S O O N O O b ~ LTr ~ '-+ .-. .r .-. ..+ O O O O O O O O ~ T .-. .r v n ~ O ~ O ~ O~0 O~ F m ~ O~~}} O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a w z z w ¢ ~ ~ ~ ¢ a ¢ ~ a w w a w° ~o o ~„o ~ ~o fi; ~ F Ca o ,.,,., o h o O o U V o W .~ Ov01 ¢O ~w.,0 ON w0 w0. ~O ~O W p W~N ~pr"~'o00 ¢N W~"~n ~C ~~ OC 00 11 3 p4 v~ c~ ~ ~v va s~ ~ U es, V vj C~ r~ C~ sRs ~ ~ Wo ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Wa ~zw Ca ~~ W A A A A ~ V A O c W~ ~F W ~a~ ~a W ~a W ~E-~ ~ aZ ~~ a ~~ a~ ~ ~¢ ~~ ~ ~ .., ... .,, U ..~ ~-., ~~ ~ QQ ¢ w~ wW w wz w~ w w~ w¢ w¢ wC~ w w¢ w~..• w w~ w~ '~~' Ca7 ~ Ca7 ,~.~ Ca7 Cal ~ Ca7 ~ Ca7 Cal ~ ~ ¢ ~o °o d o ~' ~ ~ a Gaa W a W a ~ OL qt ~ M oho ~ oNO N ~ oN0 ~'s' : N V01 N O O O 0~0 O v ~ H o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ oNo bA Q+ ~ _" w ~ b ~ ~e ¢ ~ v-~ 0 0 N 0 a `1 .-r LL .-~ V1 O O N d y t~ A w U w 0 ~ ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ F H H .-, .~ r. oho oho oho ~o ~c ~o o~ o~ o rn o+ o rn ~ o Q1 Q1 00 ~-+ ~--~ O O O O O~ 00 00 O~ O~ O~ O~ 01 O~ ~ n Q~ O ~ ~--~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ F F F ~ ~ ~ .--. .~ .~ oho oho oho ~o ~c ~o ~ rn ~ rn ~ rn \ 1 rl rl 0 O O O 00 00 V1 O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ ~ N O O N O O O H y A A A A A F H H W W F~ H ~, ~ o ~'^ ~oo ~°o ~°o zc z°o a°a W ~ , , o , o o o 0 a c 3 ~~ po U~ p U~ p U~ p U~ p U~ ~~ 0 0 N 0 ~ ~ 0 N w q a c F CQ U ¢ U ¢ a a aw ~ a~ ~~ a¢ aH Vl A ~ Q~ Q~ ¢~ ~w ~~ ~~ w w¢ w~ w w3 ww w F ,a CW7 .wa ~ .wa ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,wa ¢ .wa o ~~ ~~ ~a ~A ~~ ~a ~a ~ °v ~ ~ ~ ¢ ¢~ A aA ° ¢ ¢~ ¢~ z ~~ o ~ ~ x A AEx-~ WF" A A~ AE"' Aw ~ W~ ~F ~ua ~U ~ua ~~" a ~I ~ N ~ ~ ~ o a `7a a a w w ~ ~ ~--~ O P~ l~ O O .~-~ .M. N N ~ N a w W w w w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~D ~O ~D ~O ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h .~-~ ~ .~-. rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 01 t~ O~ C W ` O ~ O O ~O O ~O ~ ~O ~ ~O ~ ~/'~ ~--~ ~ _h ~ M ~ ~ ~ _~ v O~0 ry. O . » ~--~ O O .~. ~ T^ T V1 w A U a ~ e 'R ~ > ~ ca w ca w o w 0 w w w ~o o E, >o >o >o W a L zo °o Qo °° zo °° zo °° zo °° a ~~ Q~ :Ubs U~ U~ ~ F a 0. 3 ~ ~ ~ W WW~ U a a ~ U U U U o xx c v ~ ,,.~ E~ Q ~ ..a a QQ .a j Q¢ ..a ~ QQ A U Q U~ U w U w U W w w w~ wa w~ d a a O O OA OQ OQ Q 0 o M d E• C/1 CQ 0. W n o ~ ~ M ~ O et ~ W ~ w •~ v~'~ O _ ~O O N_ ~ ~ oNo aC ~ a a c~ ci; l~ a ~ 00 ~ q-~ 3 °!, q `f" ~. ~~~ WWW >> d ~ ~~~ d ~ ~ ~ M V'1 ~O O O O~ O O O~ I~ M ~ ~ .. .r ~ O~ N ~ i fry O ~+ O a A ~j w A w U h-( a 0 0 a 0 o a~ w Q ~ M O M O ~O O~ N N ... ~ y (~ N c~ ~ r:i ~ O ~ O ~ O H U O U ° A o ~' R ~ ~w ] A °~ x c a, x W x (~O ~O ~O l. Qo Oo po ~ 3~ ~~ ~~ a a ~, a moo, ~ W ~ ~ A~ ; ~ W a W~ ~ 4 ~ a ~ ~ o ` C 3 ¢ ¢ A w ~ wp o ww a a a~ av a ~ ~ a ~ as ~' ~ aaa w ~ ~n M n .-. M .--~ et l~ M y Vim') y tyrj ~N-J GL Lri L~ ~' ` e~ a d Q Q Q d Q Q d h ~ ~, oho oFo 00 oFo oho o o o 0 00 y ~ N N N N N N N N ' O 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N o N rn o~ ~ o~ i o, ~ ~ o~ ^' o~ v~1 O ~ ... v~1 ~ v i ~ v 1 O C~ H N H d LL C~ C~ O ~ O . . ~--~ ^-~ O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O~ O~ O~ C~ O~ O~ .-. .~ .~ ` 'd ~ O~ O O~ trV ~ .~ M ~ O M _ O O O N .~ N M m ~= 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 ~ U a ~ A U U ~ A ~ e ~ ~~a °S w v~ 3 W A A ~' ~ A A w x x x W H'' V Wo ~O ~ao O po ~O >o z0 wo ~O Oo ~O o ~O ~o z0 e oo do 0 ~ 00 00 0 ~ 00 00 a 3 ~~ 3~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~6' ww w ww wr, AF.. A A~ A~ Aa ~ x w A c ao a a~ a~ d~ w ~ ~ a w~ ~~,,w u,,0 ww O ~ 0 .~ 0 o ad+ a A ~ ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O a '7w ~a aA a~ ~~ ~~ ~a ~ax w~ Aa Ad A ~W~~~ ~•a ~ ?~d W ~ U w0 w~ w~" a w w ~~ ~~ ~a ~~ ~3 ~~ a w ~ w u a a n M ~ N ~ fx 7-Yi 4ri f~ M N ~_ 00 ~-9(0 • d en a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q H ~ ~ ~ r. ~ .~ ~ ~ b N M N M N M N M d' ~O ~ b ~D v7 O M O ~A O O N O N O ~V R b r. ~ ~ O .-. ~--~ W a O ~ ~ O O Q~ O~ O N O N O~ ~ O. ~-+ ~/~ v.f a~i O~ O O~ N ~ ~--' O M a % Q O O a A U ~ ~ ° ~ oAG E~ Iii > ~ rwn A x ~ w w W ~ ~ >o Ho O Oo ~ °o 3 Oo Qo o po "' zH z z za A~ a A as v~ w v ~ v~ i ~ ~ C ~ ] O ~ ] ~ ~ ] Lei o Fri F4 a a a a aF o. wx w w0 w~ O ~" ~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 d 3 p H GYM t i~ W W o ~ ir. 7t ~ am ~ ~ h O ~ ~ d ~ q y ~ ~ d ' p O O ~ ~ 1 ei b0 Or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ua W W W W W d d d Q d d ~r+~! M x x ~M+! y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i. Op Op Op 00 00 00 00 b M V1 N [~ ~' ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~0 O\O N ~ O O is W O N O ` O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ rte, N '; a N O M O N ~ .-. -`~ O O 4 ~ O O O ~ U a ~~~ QA 0 ~ ~~ Q A A o. °~ x x o,~ w a ` ~ W w ~ Qo Oo Qv po Q'''o ~o c a a 3~ ~~ a~ ~,~ ~~ ~~ -~ U ~., ~" ,~ ,.,,, U F _ O~ F O S~ ~ A Q A qC7 A AF Ax AQ Z W a ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~g ~Q a a a~ ~ a~ au~'- ~~ d '~ F W ~ w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~„ ~w ~p a w ~ ax a acb ~~ ac7 W w ~ v~ F o° N c o ~ a w ~ ~ A a al ~o ~ M a. ~ 0 a. 'a ~ a w o°o 0 rt 0~0 ONO w"7 'a ~a W W .~ oo v .-+ N l~ N N ~ `ya '7a 'a ~-~~ a ~ ~ cra Q w Q H ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ V b .b d ~ ~ M O O V'1 O O N N R M .-~ 'd .--i C ~Tr ono O ~ ~--~ M O O M O O ~ y N --~ N L C~ v~ r`~ . O O ~ U A A ~ _ A U ~"~ ~ o° . ~ I~~( ~ > W ~ a ~ x W ~' y W o [~O fx10 ,O p 3 QO 3~ C~O ~~ ~ ~' ~W ~ ~~ o ~. c~ c d dW ~ A w ~ $. ' ,~~ a x F. ' C7 C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~, a ~' ~ ~ o F ~ o ~ y ~ l~ M_ M .M. ti a ~ d' 0 d' 0 A a `7a ~a q-~q d OD R w a a w A H a W H q o b ~ ~ ~ O O A ~ (it C~1 O Q N '~ f~ O ,.~ o 0 0 0 o ~ 5i E q a 1W Q x 0 r t~1 O D N M W O M O O N N 0 W Q 0 O N O O M O N O O N 0 U zw z U a A o ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ d ;; O x ~3 x >a HS >o e Oo Qo Wo 3 ~~ 3~ ~,~ ~' ¢ S 0 w A A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,.. ~. o c d°~ d d~ a ~~ ~ w~ a ~x a aA H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FI 0.W1 ~ W ~ ~ ~ d `7 a ~ a ~ ~i-~a~ a C~ a a A E"" ~ ~o 0 0 0 o ~. ~/f W d O+ Q ~ W W >> d d F ~ ~ ~--~ ~--~ O O ~ ~ C'1 M O O O O N N O~ O W d x H O ` O O W 00 d ~ b ~ O O O N a ~--~ N G~ -~ M M O~ O O O~ O O Q~ N ~V •-+ _ ~ ~ ~ O N O ~ O \ r~ O O O F U 0 U Q vWi W ~ ~ x '~ ~ cz, O ~y >°o, F°o O°o n" Oo ~~ do 3~ o ~~ d .~ o. F w 0 3 a a d ~~ ~, U w W O W ao a W ~o w ax a ~~ ~ q G •u a`~ A d a F as Aw WW~~ ~O a: W a~ W WO C7al a 7 W ~ F, HIS V'1 O 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V 1 V 1 M ! y H ~ y y ~ J Qr ai q~ lob d a ~ ~ w ~ w > d Q N Vl OO .~I 00 rl L b .-.~ ~ d ~ ~ U1 O M O O O N ~O O~ fr+ ~ O O O O O y N -. N q ~= . O O ~ U a ~ A ~ w o ~ ~ w ~ a ' ~ x W ~ a >o Oo ~o do 3 ~~ 3~ 0 0 N 0 o ~ V1 Chi q a ~, ~' o w ~~ ~ o ~~ ~ $ a ~3 a .~ a w~ w a a~ a E~, t7 j C7 ~ ~~ d F~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M Y rl .~ O O a, ~a ~ q' ' + b~' d a W~ a x d ~. O ~ N d ~ O O N w O d ~ S:, o ~O O O rr~~ N V,{ d ~ LJ y \ ~1 M w O r^~r^ v~ a A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ W WW W tt w W Q ¢ Q d ¢ Q d d d h F oho co oho oFo oFo o~0 00 oFo o o o o ~' ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O ~O N N ~--~ .--~ ^' . ^~ ^' O O n ~ ~ ~ OHO ~ ~ ~ N M N ` ` O N N M O O ~ N h W . -~ ~ ~ ~ O ~-+ ~--~ ..r O O . O ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O~ O~ O~ N N ~-+ _ ~ ^" ^" \ ~"' ^' Q N ~ M ~ .r 01 h ~ ~ ~--~ O --~ ~ N O O N M O C~~ (~ ~ ~ ` O M N 0 H ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ r1 ~y ° U U ~ w ¢ d 3 ~ H F~ ~ a aa. ~' A A ¢ A A A A O F~~ w ~ ~a' w a ~ ~ a~"' c U I w d° A° ~o O°o ~oc ~o° OOC ~°o, ~00 ~OC ~°o, o ~ay"N po ~o ~o po po t~w~~o Do po po po QI 3 ~~ U~ z~ ~~ U~ U~ R:~ U~ U~ U~ Uva a w ~ 4 ~. ¢ d d`r' aU a ¢ d ¢ az ¢z z~z z zxz zaz~z z zazH w.o w w wF,z„ wP~ wA w w w w~ w~ A~ A A AO Ad Az A~ A A A A vWW~ ,w, •WWn~ ~ v~WO vow v~d v~d v~ v~ vW~O ~O a y a a a a~ a p., a az a a ~;~ ~w ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~w ~~ ~~ ~~ q d dE, d d d~`' dw r/1 d;,, d~ O d~ w ~ w w w w w t~ w w w w rz. ~, w w3w~w wowow~wvwaw~wpw~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~x ~ ~a ~~ ~~ ~5 ~ ~H ~a ~~ ~ ~H ~3 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~> ~. 0 o ~I a w w raa w ~ ~ ~ w w a o ti ~ h rn o o ~o .-- o~ o rn h ~ ~ ~ h O ~ O O OHO O~ - h M ~ .,, ~ ~ ~O ~O d' M M N N N N ^' A ~ N O O O O O~ OO O 00 O~ C~ h A "" a ~a a'7 `7a 'a ~w '7w ~w u~i, ~a ~ 7a ~-to3 a ~ w ~ w ~ w F H F ~, v r o0 00 00 . ~ d M ~O M ~O M ~O .-~ O O f,`V V1 O O O O O ~ 00 Cf ~--~ M .~ ~ I~ l~ O .--~ O O N .~ O O ~ O O O ~ T~//~~ V1 d ~ ~ ~ O y FyV ~ ° ~ ° ~ N ~ ~ rr V1 a A U °o ~ E~ -~ a ~ 3° ~ w E-' wo o Ooc Oo o W w ~ ~°• O ~° M Vl ~ 3 A~ ~ ~ ¢~ a~ F ¢~ FC7,7 W ~ W F~ WE-~ F A ~ .A AW o ~ r~W WWW rx~ ~00 ~ n A z ~ ~ O w 3 W dz ., w~ wW ~ w~„ w~ ~~ w wa ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ VI ~ N ~ ~D O O N o G H .a ~ .a ~ W ~ 0 ~ f3. ~ a~ ~ o ~ c~ v ~ o A ~ C. ~f-rod a r~~/~ V1 a w A xz v ~+ ~ ~ 0 0 a ~. w A ~ ~ ~ ~ w w w Q ¢ d H ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ N d ~ ~ ~o V'1 M ~D . O O O~ O O O~ .-~ \ ~~ In rl w ~-+ N O ~ N OHO N GT+ r. O O M M V7 O O O~ O O O~ N .-. y N f~ n `~. H ~i O O O H U 0 U o w w a ~, o. x °~ W ~' >a°, H°o, Oo0 3 ~~ 3~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~' zN w A ~ ~ A~~, ~.c~ .. o ~C7 ~ aU ~~ ~~ ~ ~o A rs: p w w 0 a ax a a`" H ~~ ~ ~A a ~ a ~ ~ 00 0 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~' M Vi ~n N a ~w r'7 `7w s Q~ ((~~ a ~ ~ ~ w w Q w d F ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ w L .b b d ~ ~ ~ v1 O O M O O ~ O O N N N ie ~ V1 N N H O~ O H W ~-* O O O O O O M O O M C O O~ Q~ O~ V1 ~ ~ cv ,r ~ r ~ qq`A I~ O O .-~ O Vl a ,,W,, ~y A ~ v ~ U ~ ~ IE I y > ~ vwi ~ x ~ ~ Ow w ~ ~°o, No° ~o a, ~ a a ~ Z ~ zx w~ Ac w A ww~ ~O t ~ y ~ a u a ~t3 w a a ( ~ z A d wp wx w w a ww ww ~; aw ~ a ~ ao ~~ ~ 0 O N 3 O E-~ Pa C /] W O a"i ~ ~ [~ ~ ~_ ~O MO ti q a Q C~ P4 Fri P4 q-ioc~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Q d d Q yH N ~ ~ ~ •--~ ~ ~--~ ~ ~--~ ~" b M M M M ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O M O O ~ O~ O~ .--~ N ~ 7 D ~ ~ O O O O ~ O~ ~ O~ y N ~ N N .-~ N r" ~ L C, `-' y -~ ~ O ~ O N ~ ~ O ~~ U ° ~ a A o ~ ~ a ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ w °x ~ w 0 x W >o Ho a~ o ~-, QO d Q H ~" ~v~i W W W ,~ ~ W W A ~ 1 W W A A > W WW W a a°~ a a0' az o ~-' A '-'0 w ww ~~ a ~x ,W.t ~O ,~..1~ 0 ~ ~ y a ~ ~ W o E f A o ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ v o°OO ~ °n v d = v ~ A °" a C, Rte, ~ P~ a-ion a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q W W Q Q x ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ 'q 'C7 M ~ M ~ M n . M ~ ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ M ~ v'f O M O O O O O O O d' ~ ~ ~ d' ~ d' ~ ~ H _ ~ dam' ,-. N ,-. o 0 O O O O O .. ~ ~ ~ .~ \ M ~ .-. ~--~ ~ O ~ ~--~ N ~--~ N .-r 00 O [ ~ O ~ O V O .-+ .r ,r rr V1 ~i N N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O F a q .: ~ o ~ o N ~ N ~ ~ o O i o n 0 n 0 ~ U a Q'i A~ o ~ ~ Z A ~yy ~ ~ G W Ri E.., ~ ~ > ~ ~ w v, tz77~ A W H a a A x a ~ Up U°o, w A ~ w w ~, ~1 WW '" ~o d ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ zo ~Z z A zw ~ zo ~ A~ A AH A A ~~ ~ A A~ n ~Q v~ ~ riwWW aq vWW~ c~ n ~a vWi~ rx~ w wF" v, ~O aWw,W x~ c ~w a3 a ~a a as a a a3 , ., z a av q ~~ , ~ ~¢ a ~ ~ ~5az ~ F ~~ ~¢ ~ A wp w w w w wp wA w o. a x ~ a s ,.tea a a~ ~ ,wa W a v ~ v ~~ ~O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'" ~ ~o 0 o c ~ E+ ~ ' ~ W W ~ W ~ ~ a"~, o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... rn ~ v`ti ~' ~ M ~ 00 ~ ' ° O ~ Vl W a qq ar r~yh ray -+ y ~yy+ ~yy-~ ~ yN lrr~--~~ yyN . . yy A OK G4 P4 ~ ~"r 0.'i fx P4 fx P'+ ~~[~V .-+ d OD R a V1 T~T~ V1 a x ~ H 0 0 N O O a d q a ~ ~ w w > > Q H ~ o0 00 -. ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ M V1 O O O O ~ N N cl' m .. O W oN-~ M M O O O O N N y N N ~ ... ~ d1 00 00 N O O V 0 U ~_ A A O „ w d ~ W F~' WQ WO .m Ho >o o Qo Oo 3 3~ ~~ a a~ zQ A A~ a ~ ~Q a ,~.~ a 3 .y Q w w0 ~ a ax A ~ ~o ~ ~ ~~ a ~I ~ ~ yk M ~+ ^' •~ O O a ~ '7a ~~j~~ R a ~ ~ ~ w > w. > w > ~ ~ ~ ~ -. e ~, 0 0 ~, 0 0 '-, 0 0 N N (`V C Q' O V1 N M W O O ~n O O V~ O O O O 'g N N '"' h W O O •--~ ~ '^ ' V1 a U ~ ~ ~ °o ~ H a ~ y o. ~o o ~ woo Oo W Ao ~ "° ~O °° ~M / ~ 3 O ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. o Q A A .~ A ~, ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~, e a. ~ ~ ~ ~ •° d ~ p z U F ~ A w w ,w.a w o. a a ~ a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ° o N o p, F~' a W ~ 0 w ' o o ~ a ~ = ~ 0 0 0 A a P+ ~rlr~ d a Q Q ~ Q d ¢ Q ~ y ~ ~ ~ L 7 .fl d 00 ~c .--~ 00 ~o wr 00 ~c 00 ~o 00 ~ .-~ 00 .D ti ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N .-. ~ L~. M O M O 'f O o O i O n O ~n O +n O ~n O d' O .-. O ~ ~ ~ O~ .r .-. d H M O M O M O ~O O O O O G~ O a ~ ~ ~ ~ o a a ¢ _a + U ~ ~°o, Uo°, ~ wo w H W W F'k '- ~o o Ao . i ^ ~ ~ Uc ~o AO ~ DO ~o ~O 0 3 ] w~ .- ~~ ~. wva ~~ ~sA ~~ ova Q d~ a d ¢~ ~ w w E-~ w ~p E w w ~w A A A A~ A A A> a vW~ P; ~vy~ H P4 ~ ~vy~~ .~ P4 Gvr~~ E,., R; 0 ran} P4 cWFn f-~. {v{rr~~~ ~ P4 Lt. o a ,~ ~a ,~ a~ z a~ ~ a o ~o W '" e,. a ,Wa ~ ~ ~ a a ~ a ~ ~ .1 w , "~ ~ ' ~ .~ 3 ~ ~ ~o ~~ v, ~ ~a `~'a° `i'~ `~° ~o°o '~Zw o' 0 0 o d w w R c. ~ w ~ ~ 0 o a '7w W a ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ W o ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ 0'7. ~a ~t-I~i a Q ~ Q F ~ ~ F ~ o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ .-~ r.. .--~ L 'fl O O O O O O O '~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O n O O O O N N N N V1 M M i0 ` N N 47 ~ W O ~ ~ O ~ O O O O O ~ ~ ~ O O O O O~ Q~ Q~ " '~ ~ 1 V`1 O~ ~ ~ N .~-i .Jd. - .-i .--i .r f~ O O ~_ ~ ~ _OO ~ O O ~ O O O O a ~ A ~ ~ z ~~yy ~ ~ o AG ~ ~ F, ~ > A w ~ °• U Cw7~ w W A E w o ,._, o O W p UN UC WO ¢¢v1 ~"O QO ~""O w 3 a~ a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Q a Q ~ Q~ ¢~ Qa Q~ d w w wzWz wo w~ w~ w A A A¢ Az ~p AE¢,,, A d ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a ,~.a a a~ aZO a~ aU a¢ A ¢ ~ ¢ A wa w w>' wA ww w~ wk" w ~ ¢ w ~i ~' cal u~a ca7 cal `" cal ~~'' ca7 ~ ~ w cal w ~w ~ ~z ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ °o „ F ~ W W ~ ~ W GaG ~o ~ 0 at oo r ~n ~o r, oo c~ V1 ~!1 V1 ~O M O Y ~ N N ~ ~ N ~ ~ q,l~z a ~ W H m 00 L ~ O ~O O O a R N GTi O O O N N r O r l q r~ O ~ F -- 1~ a w A ~ w .~ w Q H ~--~ d' O O O N O N O W~ d 00 O O~ N O O~ O W~ Q F 00 ~--i ~' O ~' O~ a N O~ O fit' M O E"~ w C7 a q w d ~o w F ~ o u. rx ~° ~~ a° z° °a N 0 o ~ ~; ~q C q a a d~ a ~ aA az z A w W ~ C w w w W m W W' W ~ W V ET, ~ ~ Cal ~ Ca7 P4 C7 5 ~~ ~ ~ ~w ~w F ~ a a a ~w„ a F.,; E~-~ c ¢O HO ~~ w ~ ~x ww A ~ A w C7 W(~.~ ~o ~z ~ ai `' W R" d F W ~ ~ T N N ~ rn ~ O V1 V1 M a ~ ~ a W N ~' o+ N q,ii3 a Q A w U N M 'v '~ d. w 0 0 N F ~ m .~ a o Q a A W U N M OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 d a A U N M o~ o~ 0 o~ v~ N 0 a ~ ¢ ~ ~'' a ~ 3 H ~ ? ~ ~~ a w w ~ ,, AO o ~°o ~°o a a ~ ~° ~~° w ~ ~ ~x W W W~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ o a ~ a~ , .~ ~ a "" "" a w w F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ W ~ H 0 N N ip, O l~ CQ V] L~ O ~ ~ O O O ~ A ~ ~ ~ !qy yO y O!y~y ~ ai R'a ~-~-~ a `i' A ~, W ~ U 4 pp b ~ d ° N O O N R O A ~ GS+ O ,V1 O O TT~~ N Vl ~ .--• h n H O r~r~ V1 a ~ A w U ~"'~ °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ,, A A A A A ~ U U U U U O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lf1 N ~+ ~ O O O O O~ O O O O Q~ ~ 0 ono V ' ~ N O O ~ •--~ O O ~ d O ~ ~ .-. . ~ Y1 O n M N ~ N O l~ M ~ O O O O R N hit > W E-~ F O O W O F"O O O ~ W O ~O W O ~O W i" UO U~ ~ ~ a~ a~ ~~ ~ U~ U~ W Q a ~z H~ ~ ~ W N A ~ W A ~ Q e ~ ~ ~ x •°i j •a ~ ¢ ~+ W p ~+ W ~ H u A G W ,~ A U ~" Q' W ~ ~C Z 5C ~ W c DC v~ W Q W W W U ~ a ~~ ~ a° ~~ ~a ' A ^~ ~ A~ ~~ `~'~ v ~ 0 0 c~ 0 ~ ~ 0 Vl W i q a n. W ~ ~ # ~ r ~ ~ O O a ~ W a ~ ~ ~ M l`~ 00 ~O n ~ ~ O M • i y LYi - y fr. ~ y ai yy ~ - LYi q~~r~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ W W W W W L ~ O O O O ~d O O O O O ~ V'1 O V'f O Y1 O ~' O r+ O ~ ~ M ie 0 0 O 0 0 O ~ ~--~ ~ O O (iw O O O O V1 O V'1 O 'd' O Cl' O ~ O 'b ~ ~ ~ N N N N E ~ o a a a a A ~ ~ y Z ~ ~ ~ f~ ° ~ x [..i ' a a H wo w ~' o °o O~ 00 wo w a x'' ~ Uo a~ U~ a~ ~M ~~ ~0 ~~ 40 a~ ~ o A A ~ o ~ W~ a o ~ C4 a ~ ~~ A X Xz w¢ ~Cw ~ A A ~z ~ A ~ ~ ~ o HI w ~ ~ w a 0 o ~ ~ LPL y ~ N N N o~0 n OMO n ~ ~ ~ Q 0; ~ y y ~ ! y ti : y fx ~ y q,i~c~ d bA Pte. ~ Q Q Q m W ~ U ,~ o ,0 O Q ~ H O O N is O 9 Crr o N O O ~ ~ °' h -".i O r~~/~ v1 a ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q A A A W W W U U U °o °o c C~ l~ l~ N ~/'~ ~Y O O O O O O N N N ~ a' r O O O O O O O O N N N Q~ ~ t~~1 N .-. .r ~ ~ ~ O N O .-. Q Q Q W U °o ~n O O N 00 O O h O O N N O ~ ~ ~ W W Q ~ Q ~i P~. fy+ Q Q Q W W W U U U 0 0 0 O O O ~ ~ ~ N ~--~ 00 O O O~ O O O~ ~-. N ` v~ r. t~ O a O N o0 O O O~ O O O~ .-. ~n O O ~--~ N ..r Q N O ~ A W ~ ~ ~ H Ri E~ ~ ~ a > z ~ W ~ o ~o w A c4°o Oo O W F ~ ` o Uo o°o~ U U°O `moo ~o ri >°o, ~o Ho v"'i Od°. ~d~ Oo ~o w o 3 a~ .-. a~ ~~ ¢ ~~ A~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ V .a C7 ~ 3 ~ ~ A o ~ ~ a A py A ~ pi fr. x a ~ 'a w ~• ~ Aq ~ ~"' d O a i ~" ~ ~~ W ~ O ~ ~ °'~ A a W W z W ~~ W U ~ W O W O ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~¢ ~Q .o ri A A~ ~ Aw ~ U AF `nH-~ °o N o ~ H w ~ w o'~n ~ a ~ ~ ~ O ~ Li. ~ N N O O ~ ~ O ~ o 0 A ~ Cam. ~ y ~-1 y Lrr ~ - y Lz~ ~ yy r ai y ~ ~ y LYi R- i~~ ~o a `~ w ~ w x A A ~ L b ~ .dy n ~ ~ ~ C O O O N N 0~0 0`O i7 O O W O O ~ ~ O O O O r y t`V N F-~r~ O d 1~ a A U ~ E„~ ", a °c F 0 0° W ~ o a Ud U-: a a~ a~ d 0 W ~ W z ~ H a pa, Pt ~ U m A A ~o °o N ~ H w O ~ u" `'~ ~ N A ~ '7 N ~ a a .~ d en a. `" d A ~ U w o, ~ o Q ~ 0 0 N M ce 9 w 0 0 ~ d ~ O r~r~~ ~ ~ Vl a C U e ~ ~ ~ ~ Q' ~ Q A A A A U U U U 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ rn rn ~ rn .~ .-. M N ~ c`V ` N 0 0 0 ° rn rn rn o O~ O O O~ M .-+ _ --~ O O O w H M~~I > ~ ~ W W W H H F ~ X00 Ho ~o ~° ,~o a ~°° ¢N ~~ ~~ ~~ 3 ~~ 3~ ~~ U~ U~ dw QO Q~ z ~ d war w ww w¢ wo' A~ A Aw A~Ayr~ g ~w ~a ~a_H ~v ~av ao ~ aP~ a¢ a~ a w U A ¢ ~ ~ ~ p w w~„ w w~ w,~ ~'`~'O ~, aw a a¢ ~a ~~ z ~ ~ A 0 o d N H a a w ~ a ~o ~ 0 o~ r• va r ~o c~ as vii o <°+° ~ Ca "' a ~ ~ `7w r~ ~ q-f Iq d a `n A U ti ti ~ ~ ~ °. fs. ~n O O N T~~/~ V1 d _ M ~ N a a A Z U ~"r o° A U o~ _~ N O n W W x A U r1 Mai > H Q ~ ~ ° ~o w Oo ;o W ~ ~ o ~~ 0 ~o 0 0 a 3 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~a 0 0 N 0 o ~ ~; w ~: ~ a A F ~~ W ~ ~U W A V G ~ Y Cr a ~i ~+ a L r 0 az .a ~ ~ ~~ ¢O A ww w¢ ~ ~ ~~ ~F ~ ~ Q ~H ~ ~~ a ~' a ~ w ~ ~ M N 00 oho v1 v 0 ~ 0 o0 00 a q-~a-d d a `~' Q A q U d ~ v Q ~ 0 0 0 W O O O C""' 'g n O a ° 9 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q yy d w w w w w w w r., ~ .~ .~ r. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ° ° a o o o o rn ~ ~ o~ N M O ~ O O O ~ ~ O d' ~h d' G~ T O~ ~O ~ ~ O O O N N N ~ ~ ~ ` O ~ C ~ O N ~ O O o ~ O o .~ A ~ .U-yy ~ o Ri ~ ? ~ F~ E-~ ~ H r -+ ~ ~ a w w a ca V fit Wo W°o w W A ~ F"`o ° poa ~ Oo ~ wo po°, ~ ~00 >oo z boo a ~ .~ ~ o .... ¢~ o ~o c o 3 A~ ~~ ~~ cam ~~ V~ V~ ~~' F W ~ W G ~~ H Q W~ F~ W E-~ W V zz t~1 zFz r~ k~ a A A AQ A~ A~ A a AV ~W ~ ~x ~ ~a ~ ~a~ ~~ q ~¢ ~a ~w ~. ~~ ,.a ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~~ ~a ~ ~o a ~ ~ ya v ~~ a ~~ ,~ d a wz w ¢ w~ ~ w~ ~~~" w¢ w w d w c~ a~ a a~ waw w .wa0 a~ a ~'~ ~ a`a ~ v~ ~ ~ v~ ~ v~ ~ v~ pq v~ v~ ~ rn, pq v~ ~ o ~'I ~ w a ~ ~ w ~ aai ~ ~ 0 y w ~ O~ v1 O Off' V1 O~ 00 ~ l~ 00 ~ 00 00. v1 V1 [~ O ~O O O ry _ ~O ~-l~-I a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ cn w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w d ¢ ¢ ¢ Q d 4 d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ,¢ ¢ d w a c~ a a; x a4 a x a a a4 a x x aG Q ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ d A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w •r ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ v v ~ v v ~ v v ~ v v v ~ ~r ~ v ~ ~ v v v v v v Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .NC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d' N O O O O O O O 00 00 O O O O O O O 'O O O O~ CT O O O O N O N O O O O~ O~ ~ oho off, ~ `v ~ ono ~ N oho N o C ~ O O' O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N h• Fry ` O O ~ ` ` O O O O O O v O O V7 M N O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 h O O O O O O - O O O O O O O. O O O~ CT ° N ° N N N N N° O O O O O N O~ ~ O~ .-. v N'.. N. 0~0 ~ ~ O\O ~ h O~ N v1 ~ ~t 00 ~' \V O O F y N N O O~ v~i\i1 M r~i M N N ~ ~ ~ C F~1 rya O O O O O O O O O O .O O- O O O '^ F~ t.a A ~ Z }~ O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ z ¢ A A A ¢ A ¢ ~ A A ~ ~ Q' w °o w ~ w `i' ~ ~ ~ w ~ w ~ ~ a O U WW WW F' '-'°• QN O°• 3°• O°• =o >o >o o >o Oo >o Oo Fo >o >o Ho W ~ aQ.o ~'~ ~o vUi,°,~ ~~ E"O• z°• z°• 3° z° ~° zo ~o Uo zo zo Ao c v A M ,~~o ~0 5Co po po wo po wo po o Ao pc po Ao QI 3 ~ ~ u,~ ~tA ~~ ~ s9 GS 69 U s9 U 59 259 U 6s C4 ~ U 6s p;~ A 64 U 6s U 69 Q vi w ¢ ~ H w v' o w ° x w ~ a w w ~ ~ U ¢ p z u~ w Q p ~ A = F" ¢ O o vFi ~ w ° a ~ o ~ z o 3 ~ ~ o cw7 ~ x ~ ~ ~ o ~~ w v~ v~ a W U ~ °o ,Qj Q a ~ O E~~.. ¢ a .wa ¢N ¢~ Qa d d 4 ¢o ¢o Q,..a ¢W ¢~ QN dW ¢w ¢ ¢~ ¢a ~ a~ ad aA ~~ a ~w a~ a~ a.~ az ~~ ~~ aA ~? ~~ ~3 a3 wA Wp wW w~ w w~Fi, w.-i wH wv ww w¢ w~ w~ w~ w~ w~ w~ ~a ~~ ~v ~w ~ ~w ~w ~w ~H ~A ~ ~w ~w ~w ~w ~w ~w o~ ow o~ o~ o oN o~ 03 0~ o~ o~ 03 03 03 03 03 03 U~ Ud U¢ Ua U U~ U2 U~ UQ Ua Ux U~ U~ U~ U= U~ U~ 0 M a s w .~ a ..a ~a ..~ ra .a ra w ,.a ra W .~ a a H a ~ w w w a w w as w ~ w as ~ a w as o ~• y N N oo M v1 O~ l~ ~ o0 00 ~O ~D O~ v1 ~ O~ h ••-~ h Vl O N O ~O 7 h h ~O ~O v~ ~~„ •,~,,, V ~ 00 v1 ~ ~ O M M o0 N C' ~O ~' O h 00 ei d' ~D O ~ 00 N N V1 N N N ~/l 00 h ~O Vl- ~ C' M M M M M M N M M N N N ~w a~ ~ O O_ O_ O O O T ~ O_ O+ 00 ~ O_ 00 h O. O A A. iL ~ GG P4 ~ G4 C4 C~ 04 f~ A4 G4 R: 0.~ Ol. P4 ~ ~ i l pi,~ d m a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ W Q d Q d d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b b ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ V1 O t/~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ C N N (~ ~ ~ 1 ` V 1 .-~ N .-. W O ~ O O O O O O O O O~ O~ O~ O~ ~ O~ '~ i W n \V 0~0 ~ O ~"~ v i ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~--~ a A w U ~ W ° ~ ~ a A w a U o U W >' ~-' ~ p do° ~~n N do ~o C W 0 ~o O W 0 ~o O o o C A Oo ~o O 3 ~ W vs ~ W s9 . ~ U s9 ~ V~ es {T, a Q ~ d d ' Ey z + ~ ~ ~F-• W A A A A Q ~ A cn U cn ~ ~ ~, ~ cn W A ~ W A4 O W A wO w ~~ a~ a as ~ ~a ~ ~~ p4 E" F'' ~~ ~ ¢A w W `O w a a ~¢ ¢ ~o F H U ~~ ~ ~~ 0 o d E~' W ~ W vi W W ~ ~ o ~ A p(, w °" ~ .. P; ~ ~r ~ O ~ ~ N vii ~ ~ o ~G ~ ~ ~i O Blight Assessment Report Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification Cedar Corridor Area Richfield, Minnesota ~i August 9, 2006 Prepared for: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield,MN 55423-2599 Prepared by: Dan Corne'o •- • • COMMUNITY PLANNING + DESIGN Blight Assessment Report Cedar Corridor Area Richfield, Minnesota Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................... 3 Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight Study Methodology 2: Area Overview and Description .................................................... 4 Area Description Natural Environment Land Use and Development Pattern Transportation Surrounding Context 3. Relevant Public Policy ................................................................ 5 Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force Final Report Jan. 15, 2000 Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report -August 10, 2000 City of Richfield Minnesota Legislative Actions 4. Summary of Findings and Conclusions ........................................14 Attachments A. Map: Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan Modification -Cedar Corridor Area B. Map: Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan Modification -Cedar Corridor Assessment Area C. Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Criteria Chart D. Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions E. Photos Dan Cornejo CORNEJO CONSULTING Community Planning + Design 1657 Saunders Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55116-2430 P 651.699.1927 F 651.698.0212 E dancorneio(c~comcast.net Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 2 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 1. Introduction Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight The purpose of this report is to analyze the Cedar Corridor Area, located in the northeast corner of Richfield, south of Highway 62 and west of Trunk Highway 77, to determine if it meets the following definition for "Blighted Area" according to the criteria defined in Chapter 469, Section 469.002, Subd. 11, of Minnesota Statues: "Blighted area" means any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. Also, Section 469.028, Subdivision 3 further defines and explains that blighting conditions include: open, undeveloped, unused, or inappropriately used lands with unusual and difficult physical characteristics of the ground, the existence of faulty planning characterized by the subdivision or sale of lots laid out in disregard of the contours or of irregular form and shape or of inadequate size, or a combination of these or other conditions which have prevented normal development of the land by private enterprise and have resulted in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety, and welfare. This report describes the physical conditions within the Cedar Corridor Area and evaluates the level of and degree to which blight exists. Study Methodology The Blight Assessment Report -Cedar Corridor Area of Richfield, Minnesota includes documentation of a detailed field survey and investigation of a11274 parcels in the area, observation of the exterior conditions of all buildings and public improvements, and review of building permits over the past ten years. Qualifying blight conditions throughout the study area were identified and analyzed on aparcel-by-parcel basis to produce a chart showing blight conditions present in the study area. Photo documentation of each property is also included. This Report includes a review of relevant prior studies of this corridor area and its physical context, relevant Richfield public policy, and Minnesota legislative actions affecting these properties. A portion of the Cedar Corridor Area, known as the Cedar Point Area, was the subject of an earlier modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Blight Assessment Report for the Cedar Point Area is incorporated in this Report so that the entire Cedar Corridor Area maybe assessed as a unit. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 3 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 2. Area Overview and Description Area Description. Located in the northeast corner of Richfield, the Cedar Corridor Area is an irregularly-shaped area made up of twenty-three (23) full or partial city blocks, plus Taft Park, comprising two hundred and seventy-four (274) properties, bounded on the north by Highway 62, on the south by 72"d Street, on the west by 16th Avenue, 17th Avenue, and 18th Avenue, and on the east by Trunk Highway 77 and Cedar Avenue. See Attachment A: Map of Cedar Corridor Area and Attachment B: Map of Cedar Corridor Assessment Area. Natural Environment. This area is generally flat, with the high point at 66th Street. The area slopes downhill from 66th Street northward to Taft Park, and southward from 66th Street toward 72"d Street. Soils appear stable. Drainage of this area is to the north and to the south, from 66th Street. There do not appear to be conditions that give rise to ponding or other drainage difficulties. There are many mature trees throughout the area. Land Use and Development Pattern. This corridor area, as with most of Richfield, comprises primarily single-family detached houses that were built in the 1950s for returning World War II veterans. One hundred and fifty-five (155) properties are occupied by single- family residential uses; seven (7) properties are occupied by duplexes; thirteen (13) properties are occupied by residential apartment buildings. Eleven (11) properties are occupied with buildings and/or operations used for commercial purposes. There is one (1) school, one (1) park, and one (1) utility. Three (3) of the properties have been converted to roads. And, finally, eighty-two (82) properties are vacant, and have been cleared. Pro ert Use No. %-a e Sin le-Famil 155 57 Du lex 7 3 Multi-Famil 13 5 Commercial 11 4 Park 1 <1 School 1 <1 Utilit 1 <1 Road 3 1 Vacant 82 30 Total 274 100 The properties that front 16th, 17th and 18th Avenues comprise a uniformly platted area characterized by approximately 10,000 sq. ft. lots. The lots that front the west side of Cedar Avenue are irregularly-sized (ranging from approximately 7,150 sq. ft. to 27,500 sq. ft.), and are generally larger because they accommodate apartment developments, or did so in the past, as well as commercial businesses. The Northwestern Bell/Qwest Corporation lot (6244 Cedar Ave S) is 82,325 sq. ft. The lots that front the east side of Cedar Avenue are also of irregular- size; approximately two-thirds are around 6,000 sq. ft., with the remainder from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. The largest parcel is Taft Park (6300 18th Ave S) at 620,664 sq. ft. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota Q. CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 Transportation. As is the case in most of Richfield, the Cedar Corridor Area has a grid street pattern. At roughly the mid-point of this corridor lies 66th Street, an east-west arterial road. Regional access is facilitated by Trunk Highway 77, which runs north-south and also functions as the eastern boundary to this area. Metro Transit service is provided by the 515 bus route along Cedar Avenue and along 66th Street, and by the 552 bus route which runs north-south along Bloomington Avenue. Surrounding Context. To the north lies Highway 62, a stormwater pond and the northern portion of Taft Park, a 42-acre community playfield and athletic complex. To the south and west are single-family homes. A few blocks west, between 68th and 70th Streets, lies Christian Park, an 11-acre active and passive park with a small pond, walking paths, tennis and basketball courts, children's play equipment, hockey rink, and softball and soccer/football fields. To the east is Trunk Highway 77, and immediately adjacent to that highway is the western boundary of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Of considerable note, the Cedar Corridor Area is located extremely close to the new North/South (17/35) Runway (approximately 1,350 feet, or about two blocks, from the eastern boundary of the Cedar Corridor Area) -believed to be the closest that any similar runway has been built to an existing residential area in the country. It became operational in late 2005. The placement and configuration of this new runway provide no room to establish a buffer or transition zone on airport property. 3. Relevant Public Policy Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force Final Report -January 15, 2000 The Governor's Airport Community Stabilization Funding Task Force was created by the 1999 Minnesota Legislature in response to the need to identify and recommend funding sources to implement noise mitigation measures resulting from the expansion of MSP. The Task Force was organized by the then Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DYED) (now the Department of Employment and Economic Development) in June and July of 1999. The Task Force included representatives from the Governor's Office, DYED, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minnesota Department of Finance and the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, and Burnsville. Task Force membership also included two at-large members representing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Metropolitan Council. The Task Force Report noted that the City of Richfield is located in unique proximity to the new North/South (17/35) Runway which at that time was already under construction at the Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport (MSP). The Task Force Report stated that during the 19991egislative session, the Minnesota Legislature created: an Airport Impact Zone in East Richfield running parallel to the new Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 North/South (17/35) Runway. This zone encompasses roughly 50 blocks of residential and light commercial uses along Richfield's eastern border. See map below which shows the 87 db portion of the Airport Impact Zone. In 1999 the Minnesota Legislature adopted Chapter 243 Laws of 1999 which stated "The legislature finds that the area included within the airport impact zone defined under this section will experience significant and unique adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts directly associated with the operation of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport." Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 The Task Force Report stated that it anticipated that the new North/South (17/35) Runway will cause low frequency aircraft noise onto adjacent communities. Low frequency noise can be characterized, the Task Force Report explained, as the rumbling sound associated with powerful engines caused by acceleration of aircraft during take-off and use of reverse thrust for deceleration on landing. Aircraft on the runway during take-offs and landings generate significantly more low frequency noise, or low rumbling sounds, than do aircraft in flight. This low frequency noise is capable of causing rattling, shaking, and vibrations in windows, walls, and objects in homes. The Task Force Report further stated that low frequency energy is radiated more strongly to the rear and side of the aircraft and can propagate over considerable distances without being reduced as much as higher frequency sound energy. At the time of the release of this Task Force Report, the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) were working with the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee to measure the impact of low frequency noise on the City of Richfield and that their report was not yet completed. Therefore, the environmental impact data and conclusions that were discussed in this report were based on information gathered at other airports and extrapolated for MSP. The Task Force Report noted that the increased noise levels produced by the operation of the new North/South (17/35) Runway (300-400 jet operations daily (or one every 3.6 minutes, lasting as long as 30-45 seconds per flight) are expected to create audible rattling inside residences in eastern Richfield, including some residences that had undergone acoustical insulation treatments for overflight noise. Further, this Report stated that "Studies have shown that there is no meaningful difference in low frequency noise reduction in homes that have received standard over-flight acoustic treatment vs. homes that have received no sound insulation." The Report concluded that "it is clear that low frequency noise cannot be mitigated in the same fashion as higher frequency noises." The City of Richfield expressed concern that the residents and businesses that are located near the new North/South (17/35) Runway would find the increased noise to be intolerable and would eventually want to move. The City was concerned that the more annoyed residents became from the increased noise, the faster they would leave the area in search of quieter neighborhoods elsewhere. As a result, degradation of the neighborhood seemed inevitable: maintenance and home improvements would become a low priority and residents would begin selling their homes realizing they would likely have to sell at a loss (See Attachment D for Review of Building Permits issued over the past ten years in the Cedar Corridor Area). As the quality of life and the values of the homes in the area continued to decline, more and more residents would sell their homes at even lower prices in hopes of leaving a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood before it would be too late. In order to prevent the above-described scenario from occurring, the Task Force Report stated that the City of Richfield proposed to buy out the residential and business properties within the Airport Impact Zone to redevelop the area into commercial and residential uses that would be more compatible with the neighboring airport. By doing so, the City might be able to Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 'J CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 control the types of development that occur within the Airport Impact Zone and ensure that the redevelopment of the area is consistent with airport use. More importantly, the City might prevent the area from further deterioration. This change in land use is consistent with Metropolitan Council Aviation Guide land use guidelines. Sound insulation was discussed in only a limited manner in the Governor's Task Force Report. However, the issue of utilization of advanced construction technology for newly-constructed buildings to address the mitigation of low frequency noise is considered in the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report in the next section. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report -August 10, 2000 The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee was formed as part of a December 18, 1996 agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). That agreement arose out of the City's concern regarding the potential impact of low frequency noise from the new North/South (17/35) Runway on the established residential neighborhoods in east Richfield. It revealed that the North/South (17/35) Runway is part of MAC's 2010 expansion plan, the new runway is scheduled to become operational in late 2005, and that the new runway is 8000 feet long, carrying up to 300 to 400 daily operations. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee reviewed previous noise studies pertaining to operations at other airports around the country, conducted their own studies, convened an expert panel to provide technical input, and presented recommendations regarding the appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended mitigation programs, measures, or techniques. The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report (the "LFNPC Report"), noted that both the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identified the >75 decibel noise level as the "level above which residential use is not compatible." With respect to the Cedar Point Area, the LFNPC Report found that the average exterior Low Frequency Sound Level (LFSL) would be >87 decibels. The LFNPC Report indicated that available treatment methods to reduce rattle were not adequate, and that treatment methods to decrease interior LFSL by at least 10 decibels were "probably not economically feasible" for existing residential development. For those areas in the >87 decibel contour, the LFNPC Report recommended that this area not be developed for residential use (Table 3 and Recommendation # 4 of the LFNPC Report). Recommendation # 7 of the LFNPC Report stated that "land use conversion be used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential neighborhoods inside of the 87 dB contour." Furthermore, recommendations # 8 and # 9 of the LFNPC Report called for the adoption of the Policy Contour Runway map and a map illustrating the blocks depicted to be impacted by three levels of noise decibels, wherein these designations were to be used in the application of the proposed mitigation measures. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 In summary the LFNPC Report concluded that treatment to reduce rattle from the >87 dB noise level was "probably not fully adequate" and recommended that "land use conversion be used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential nei>;hborhoods inside of the 87 dB contour." City of Richfield Based on the previous decibel level studies that concluded that the noise from the proposed North/South (17/35) Runway would be incompatible with the adjacent predominantly residential land uses, the City of Richfield adopted a modification to the redevelopment plan in 1999 that expanded its redevelopment project area boundary to include the airport noise impacted area at Highway 62 to the north and Trunk Highway 77 to the east. Since that time, additional studies were completed in 2000 by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, as outlined above. These studies produced a revised low frequency sound level contour map (see map on page 6 of this report) that indicates a >87 dB level for the easternmost area of the Airport Impact Zone which includes the Cedar Corridor Area. In February, 2004, the Richfield HRA contracted with JLG Architects to prepare a new land use master plan based on these new parameters. The Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan was officially supported by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority on October 18, 2004, by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2004, and by the City Council on January 25, 2005. The Master Plan will take 12-15 years to be fully implemented. The Concept Master Plan is shown below. The four District plans follow. Cedar (Ae - .. ~ YIl r ~ `~ ~ ' " ~~,' otfi _ _ ~ ~ n¢iggborhoad commercial ',~~ it >' ~ ©op o p © devefopmerrt center cedar -- , . a :,, deve M :; rrt',IGrc'T ~ '}4771~~J;7eil"1l.l,a llu'~.;i i m "~ 1 i ~ I i a ri _ I _ ~~a.+umr.~n~..annnma.rmmnuir~u~nn s - ~ 71 i • i ee ~ya~ nul6-fam _% a greenlink' ~ ~ 5 ~,mwsarfiir , n..ma~Y s14~. iausug• ~ Ceano ~~ ~5~ a Ii a~u,~aauc~j ~ mm' ~ -~ ~ a muldriamily ~~ t ,~ his ~ housing f w _ _ o~ ~celq~C~,~L,orhood ~_ 3 LAND USE LEGEND ~ ffle(Ua1 ;~ ~~~°'rQ m~rmea.mwm~uvrmee ~ ORema oe~eapnnt ~..rnrcem~.. _ _.y Ce1RlY~'ry~ nwnm...w6o®rr.rnnrF ~~~ um ®Olfice Dertlop~x.M , ®namr~a~naeay _ ~~ _ p O smoox t ~ a 7 creN Uaca R,ua . a °° °°" ~ C, - 0 .,~~~~,.•. p waa, Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 9 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 District A -Taft Park Greenway ^;. Greenway retail i >~~~~; ~- . -~ -. a chits cta 66h street ~-~ ~t,,,t retail/shops. w/commercial above page 16 The first phase of the Plan is the Taft Park Greenway, bounded by Taft Park on the north, 66tH on the south, 16th Avenue to the west, and Highway 77 to the east. This area includes the northernmost portion of the Cedar Corridor Area. In the Cedar Point Area, the JLG plan continues to identify regional retail as the preferred use. Based on these recommendations, the Richfield Planning Commission and City Council adopted resolutions, on July 26, 2004 and September 16, 2004, respectively, to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Cedar Point Area to "Regional CommerciaVOffice" to accommodate a retail center. The Ryan Companies US, Inc. has been selected to redevelop the Cedar Point Area as a regional retail center. ~ ~* ~~ ~~m®', Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 1 Q CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 District B -Cedar and 66t" Gateway 0 a ,- a . a i ~' { ~inCFI'u1`~~ n ~~~ q "IJIiiITRf a ~ ~ ~ (~ t 1 ~~ ~~ Vtt~tt~cii*+ a ~ ~ ~ ri ~1~ 1~ ~I ~ , '~ ,`x f , 0 ~, ~ ~ ~`~ Ca _~ ~ n •~~ ti 1 ^ ____- ^ ~ ~ •~ n I ~ ~ ~ ~ w { ~ ~ ' _ r ~ ~ a lI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 111 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~~~ 2 ~ greannray m sxund akmg aew cedar avrwemlinkm new commercial ~ravat~e ~ mufti-family at ~~ homing above retail ~~ a The Cedar and 66th area is intended to become the eastern gateway into the City of Richfield. Major commercial activities are enhanced, buildings front on the streets and the major intersection of 66th and Cedar. The buildings developed here are intended to have retail functions on the ground floor, facing the major streets with offices or residential units above. Parking is to be included behind or below these new buildings. A newly established bus stop would link this new activity area to the rest of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 11 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 District C -Cedar and 17t'' Boulevard The Cedar & 17th Boulevard area is intended to be a vital component of this Plan for the eastern edge of Richfield. There would be a wide variety of housing options. The design recommendations illustrate the transition from office uses adjacent to the airport, to townhouses and finally to existing single family residential. The new office and service buildings to be developed along the eastern edge of Richfield would help bring additional employment opportunities to the community and also act to mitigate some of the negative impacts of the airport while taking advantage of the access to air shipping services nearby. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 12 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 District D -Cedar and Diagonal a m ~~ a >s ~~.. ~,i'~iilYiii ' D~edar a a ^ s_ PiiM 37 This area is intended to be a small neighborhood commercial center containing retail and service businesses that provide daily necessities to residents of the immediate local area. To the east of the Diagonal Neighborhood Center would be the development of office blocks adjacent to the airport. To the north and south of the neighborhood center would be the development of townhouses and condominiums as a transition to the single-family housing to the west of the neighborhood center. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 13 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 . o ~ t h a t s c e i Minnesota Legislative Actions In 2000, a $5.0 million grant (representing over 6% of the required acquisition funds) was provided by the Minnesota legislature. Richfield also received a $10.0 million grant from the MAC (at the instruction of the federal government) to acquire homes in the low frequency noise area. In 2005, the City of Richfield received $2.0 million grant from Hennepin County to continue acquisition of properties on Cedar Avenue north of 66th Street. Through all of these funding sources, the City of Richfield has acquired 52 single-family homes, 5 apartment buildings (72 units) and 28 commercial buildings. In 2005, the Minnesota legislature (Chapter 152, Section 25, Subd. 1) authorized the City of Richfield to "create a tax increment financing district consisting of an area lying west of Trunk Highway 77 extending: to 16th Avenue between Crosstown Highway 62 and 66th Street; to 17th Avenue between 66th and 69th Streets; and to 18th Avenue between 69th and 72nd Streets. Subd. 2 provided that the TIF district created pursuant to Subd. 1 to be deemed a redevelopment district, and further provided that expenditures in the district are deemed to be the costs of correcting conditions that allow the designation of redevelopment district, and further, that the five-year rule under Minnesota Statutes does not apply. 4. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Summary of Findings Two hundred and fifty-nine (259) properties in the Cedar Corridor Area exhibit two or more of the nine criteria for a finding of blight. Attachment C portrays this blight assessment in chart format. Attachment D presents the detailed verbal analysis of these properties. And, lastly, Attachment E provides photos of these properties. The findings for each of the nine blight criteria are summarized below: 1. Dilapidation Twenty (20) properties exhibit dilapidation. As indicated in Attachment C of this report, two (2) of the parcels exhibit "strong" evidence of this criterion, while another eighteen (18) exhibit "moderate" evidence. All twenty (20) of these properties suffer from one to several deferred maintenance issues: ^ The fifteen (15) single-family homes (6309, 6321, 6327, 6415, and 6509 16th Avenue South; 6315, 6321, 6332, 6439, and 6532 17th Avenue South; and 6432, 6526, 6532, 6844, and 7035 18th Avenue South) exhibit roof Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 14 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 and/or siding repair deferral. 6315 17th Avenue South also exhibits unkempt outside storage. ^ One (1) duplex (6932-34 Cedar Avenue South) exhibits roof repair deferral. ^ The two (2) brick apartment buildings at 6520 Cedar Avenue South (now City-owned) and 6528 Cedar Avenue South (now HRA-owned) need repair or replacement of their decorative siding. They are in the demolition and site clearance process. Two (2) commercial properties (6300 and 6500 Cedar Avenue South, both HRA-owned)) have unscreened storage of trucks and other vehicles and a deficient area for vehicle parking on site. 6500 Cedar Avenue South also lacks adequate outside storage area for materials and area to efficiently carry out the scale of its operations, with pallets, sod, equipment, and vehicles spilling out onto the sidewalk and adjoining streets. Finally, even though 6320 Cedar Avenue South is deemed vacant, it nevertheless is used temporarily for overflow truck parking and storage for 6300 Cedar Avenue South, on a large unpaved surface area. These current uses are operated by the previous owner on a short-term lease, prior to demolition. 2. Obsolescence One hundred and seventy-eight (178) properties that have improvements on them exhibit a combination of functional and economic obsolescence. Even though 80 of the 155 single-family homes have been soundproofed through the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) program in the 1990s, these properties, the seven duplexes, and the 13 multi-family apartment buildings are obsolete for continued residential use, because the new low frequency noise levels created by jet airplane flights using the new North/South Runway is not able to be mitigated by soundproofing techniques, and consequently the properties are declining in resale values, as well. The two commercial properties at 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South now isolated uses, exhibit obsolescence as well. 3. Overcrowding There is no evidence of overcrowding. 4. Faulty Arrangement or Design 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South exhibit faulty arrangement or design. 6300 Cedar Avenue South, used for an air freight operation, has inadequate space around the building for proper parking of trucks and loading operations, and is using a gravel area on an adjacent lot at 6320 Cedar Avenue South for overflow parking and vehicle storage. The sod business at 6500 Cedar Avenue South clearly overflows onto the adjacent sidewalks and streets for its operations and storage of vehicles. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 15 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 5. Lack of Ventilation Light, and Sanitary Facilities There is no evidence of lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities. 6. Excessive Land Coverage Two properties exhibit excessive land coverage, namely the two properties noted above for faulty arrangement or design, i.e., 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South. 7. Deleterious Land Use There is no evidence of deleterious land use. 8. Obsolete Lam Two hundred and fifty-nine (259) properties exhibit inappropriate platting for new commercial or residential uses that could be constructed to the higher noise mitigation standards required because of the proximity of the new North/South Runway. A consolidated plat pattern would be required to facilitate a site layout and access pattern to ensure proper building placement, adequate auto access, parking loading provision, and transit services. 9. Other -Environmental All two hundred and seventy-four (274) properties exhibit environmental degradation from the existing operations of the nearby MSP Airport. The remaining residentially- used properties cannot be physically and economically soundproofed to mitigate the low frequency noise to be generated from the operations of the new runway. Also, the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report - August 10, 2000 concluded that the >87 dB noise level to be experienced by these properties from the operations of the new North/South (17/35) Runway would be incompatible with existing residential uses. The continued operation of a few (6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South) of the remaining commercially-used properties is questionable, as well, given their isolation and limited prospects for expansion. Conclusions Viewed as a whole, the several blighting conditions documented, including the environmental degradation from the current operations of the nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and the physical and economic impracticality of further soundproofing to mitigate the expected low frequency noise from the new North/South (17/35) Runway, act together to undermine any livability or economic value perceived to exist in the Cedar Corridor Area. These blighting conditions retard a normally functioning market for transactional activity, i.e., reinvestment is unlikely without government intervention and assistance. While most of the lot sizes can be considered standard for single-family residential development, this factor is considered a significant impediment for redevelopment to new uses that could be laid out and constructed with the configuration and sound mitigation measures required for this location. Simply put, these lots are too small for commercial Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 16 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 activity, and the multiplicity of ownership makes private purchase and consolidation difficult if not impossible. Piecemeal rezoning of these lots over time is also unrealistic. Contemporary development practices favor larger sites in order to vary and mix uses and activities, and to design compatible and contextual buildings, including site access/egress and landscaping. Although each lot or potential redevelopment site maybe buildable, in the aggregate these lots are largely economically dysfunctional because they simply do not meet contemporary site design or investor requirements. Some of the homes in the Cedar Corridor Area exhibit deferred maintenance. However, most of the remaining residential structures are not dilapidated or poorly maintained. The two remaining brick apartment buildings on Cedar north of 66th vacant and are in poor repair. As this report was being finalized, they were being demolished and the properties cleared. The remaining two commercial structures north of 66th Avenue are deteriorated, and their operations require more land area to function properly and without negative impacts to adjacent and nearby properties. Therefore, the overall existing conditions within this larger setting near the new airport runway combine to create a physical and economic context that is not viable for long term viability and stability. It would be difficult for private interests, acting alone, to acquire sufficient property to alter the established patterns of development and use. Aggressive intervention is needed to assemble parcels to such an extent that the larger community would be, and would be seen to be, evidently committed to changing the study area's social, physical, and economic character to re-establish its long-term economic viability. In conclusion the evidence of gualifying_blight conditions found in the study area and documented by this stud provide a strong basis for finding that the Cedar Corridor Area meets the statutory definition fora "Blighted Area " as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota 1'7 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 sooz `tsn~ne ~aa~ 0001. 008 009 OOti OOZ 0 OOZ N ea.1d .~opi.lao~ aepa~ pua~a~ NOIlV~I~IaOW Mdld V32M 1~3f'O21d 1N3WdOl3A3a321 d"131dH~Rl a~~1~H~121 ~O Jlll~ d 1N3WH~b~1Lb~ a { ; ,t 7 a a ~~u aN Z9 21dV '1WSS3SSV A3Q32! ld 21V430/S1031'021d!]119IddV1S/A34W00/SI'J/I W~~~~C~ '1S aNZL __ sooz `isn~nv }aa~ 006 OOZE 0006 008 009 00~ OOZ 0 OOZ N :t::.. __ ~~~ pue~ ~ueoen earyr }uauassassbr aop~aao~ aepa~ puafia~ NOI1~d~I~IQOW d~21d 1~ ~021d 1N3Wd0~3A3a32! a~31~H~121 a~~I~H~I?~ ~O )lJ.l~ a,, _' ~- ` ~I al ~; 21dV'1WSS3SSV /130321 ld 21V030/S103f021dI1118/d3V1S//~30W00/SIJ/I ~~~~~~ 9 1N3WH~~dll~d ATTACHMENT C-1 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence N m N ~ d :.+ O Z ~ . w = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 d L O _ ~ R d ' ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ V C ~ ~ J ea O ~ O GOi 'a ~ ~ ~ R N y R O ~ ~ ~, H :~ N 3 ~ ~ O L t0 > v- > 'y o ~; ~ 'i d y- N ~ Q' O L ~ > =~ Y d d C d N 0 o O O O 1i ~ w O O O Address PID #'s Use x a Area ~ c•; ri ~ ui co ,•~ ad c> 6309 16th AveS 2602824110033 SF RES H R 9,878 6315 16th AveS 2602824110034 SF RES H R 10,230 6321 16th AveS 2602824110035 SF RES H R 10,402 6327 16th AveS 2602824110036 SF RES H R 10,001 6333 16th AveS 2602824110037 SF RES H R 10,068 6339 16th AveS 2602824110038 SF RES H R 10,031 6345 16th AveS 2602824110039 SF RES H B 10,604 6401 16th AveS 2602824140004 SF RES H R 10,695 6409 16th AveS 2602824140005 SF RES H R 10,092 6415 16th AveS 2602824140006 SF RES H R 10,103 '_ 6421 16th AveS 2602824140007 SF RES H R 10,105 6427 16th AveS 2602824140008 SF RES H R 9,978 6433 16th AveS 2602824140009 SF RES H R 10,276 6439 16th AveS 2602824140010 SF RES H R 9,910 6445 16th AveS 2602824140011 SF RES H R 9,901 6501 16th AveS 2602824140003 SF RES H R 10,104 6509 16th AveS 2602824140002 SF RES H R 9,992 ~°~' :" 6541 16th AveS 2602824140001 SCHOOL N R 60,123 6314 17th AveS 2602824110045 SF RES H R 9,947 6315 17th AveS 2602824110046 SF RES H R 10,170 , 6320 17th AveS 2602824110044 SF RES H R 10,194 6321 17th AveS 2602824110047 SF RES H R 10,385 '_: 6326 17th AveS 2602824110043 SF RES H R 9,760 6327 17th AveS 2602824110048 SF RES H R 10,050 6332 17th AveS 2602824110042 SF RES H R 9,903 ~ _,. 6333 17th AveS 2602824110049 SF RES H R 10,328 6338 17th AveS 2602824110041 SF RES H R 9,799 6339 17th AveS 2602824110050 SF RES H R 10,074 6344 17th AveS 2602824110040 SF RES H R 10,383 6345 17th AveS 2602824110051 SF RES H R 10,545 6400 17th AveS 2602824140019 SF RES H R 10,581 6401 17th AveS 2602824140038 SF RES H B 10,945 ATTACHMENT C-2 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence ~ m w ' d ~. o z a~ w ~ ~~ ~+ 3 ~ ~ ~ d O ~ C ~ ~ o ~ o E s ~ ~ C 7 J ~ ~ ~ C d ~ ++ c0 ~ T L ~ Q 0 d ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~- ~ Ri N! ~ ~ V ~ N Q •N •~ r + RS W L . 0 E p O O O ti J w D O O Address PID #"s Use = a Area ~ ci ri ~ ~i cc ti oo as 6408 17th Ave S 2602824140018 SF RES H R 9,942 6409 17th Ave S 2602824140039 SF RES H R 10,119 6414 17th Ave S 2602824140017 SF RES H R 9,922 6415 17th Ave S 2602824140040 SF RES H R 10,276 6420 17th Ave S 2602824140016 SF RES H R 10,036 6421 17th Ave S 2602824140041 SF RES H R 10,312 6426 17th Ave S 2602824140015 SF RES H R 9,914 6427 17th Ave S 2602824140042 SF RES H R 10,036 6432 17th Ave S 2602824140014 SF RES H R 10,180 6433 17th Ave S 2602824140043 SF RES H R 10,458 6438 17th Ave S 2602824140013 SF RES H R 9,837 6439 17th Ave S 2602824140044 SF RES H R 10,033 6444 17th Ave S 2602824140012 SF RES H R 9,871 6445 17th Ave S 2602824140045 SF RES H R 9,942 6500 17th Ave S 2602824140020 SF RES N R 10,666 6501 17th Ave S 2602824140026 SF RES H R 10,919 6508 17th Ave S 2602824140021 SF RES H R 10,238 6509 17th Ave S 2602824140027 SF RES H R 10,444 6514 17th Ave S 2602824140022 SF RES H R 10,293 6515 17th Ave S 2602824140028 SF RES H R 10,551 6520 17th Ave S 2602824140023 SF RES H R 10,320 6521 17th Ave S 2602824140029 SF RES H R 10,430 6526 17th Ave S 2602824140024 SF RES H R 10,255 6527 17th Ave S 2602824140030 SF RES H R 10,369 6532 17th Ave S 2602824140025 SF RES N R 9,964 ;' 6533 17th Ave S 2602824140031 SF RES H R 10,080 6601 17th Ave S 2602824140079 SF RES H R 7,116 6609 17th Ave S 2602824410078 SF RES H R 9,823 6615 17th Ave S 2602824410077 SF RES H R 9,907 6621 17th Ave S 2602824410076 SF RES H R 9,841 6627 17th Ave S 2602824410075 SF RES H R 9,864 6633 17th Ave S 2602824410074 SF RES H R 10,054 ATTACHMENT C-3 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence ~ d w " m ~. o z ~ ~ ~ . ~ .a ~ :° ~ o = R d O t V 3 J l: d Cf C 'a ~. O ~ d C N C ~ O ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ N ea O >~ ~+ V C 3 t0 s= > > O O R N ~ O > 7 V V d N ~ .~ E p O O O ti J W ~ O O Address PID #'s Use = a` Area ~ ci ri ~ Sri cc -: oo ai 6639 17th Ave S 2602824410073 SF RES H R 9,600 6645 17th Ave S 2602824410072 SF RES H R 9,845 6701 17th Ave S 2602824410095 SF RES H R 9,608 6709 17th Ave S 2602824410094 SF RES H R 10,108 6715 17th Ave S 2602824410093 SF RES H R 10,193 6721 17th Ave S 2602824410092 SF RES H R 9,551 6727 17th Ave S 2602824410091 SF RES H R 9,980 6733 17th Ave S 2602824410090 SF RES H R 9,939 6739 17th Ave S 2602824410089 SF RES H R 9,990 6745 17th Ave S 2602824410088 SF RES H R 10,004 6801 17th Ave S 2602824440032 SF RES H R 9,332 6809 17th Ave S 2602824440031 SF RES H R 9,788 6815 17th Ave S 2602824440030 SF RES H R 9,883 6821 17th Ave S 2602824440029 SF RES H R 9,825 6827 17th Ave S 2602824440028 SF RES H R 9,963 6833 17th Ave S 2602824440027 SF RES N R 9,787 6839 17th Ave S 2602824440026 SF RES H R 9,944 6845 17th Ave S 2602824440025 SF RES H R 9,696 6300 18th Ave S 2602824110002 Park N V 620,664 6309 18th Ave S 2602824110062 COM N C 9,953 6314 18th Ave S 2602824110057 VAC N LR 10,073 6315 18th Ave S 2602824110063 VAC N LR 10,125 6320 18th Ave S 2602824110056 VAC N LR 10,235 6321 18th Ave S 2602824110064 VAC N LR 10,124 6326 18th Ave S 2602824110055 VAC N LR 9,970 6327 18th Ave S 2602824110065 VAC N LR 10,084 6332 18th Ave S 2602824110054 VAC N LR 10,138 6333 18th Ave S 2602824110066 VAC N LR 10,149 6338 18th Ave S 2602824110053 SF RES H R 9,953 6339 18th Ave S 2602824110067 VAC N LR 9,917 6344 18th Ave S 2602824114052 VAC N LR 10,431 6345 18th Ave S 2602824110068 VAC N LR 10,270 ATTACHMENT C-4 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence ~ m w ' m _ o z ~ w ~ ~ . ~ ~ ° as ~ a ~ L ~ _ ~ L ++ (/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ cv O y ~ L G. O d :C ~ _ d d N 3 - +~+ d >1 ~ ~ V >1 ~ ~N ~ ~ L N L Q• cv N ~ ~ > - ~ -Y. ~ G~ ~ d y G~ s E p D O O ti J W D O O Address PID #'s Use 2 a` Area ~ ci ri ~ ~ cc ~ oo ai 6400 18th Ave S 2602824140053 VAC N LR 10,745 6401 18th Ave S 2602824140068 VAC N LR 10,556 6408 18th Ave S 2602824140052 VAC N LR 9,922 6409 18th Ave S 2602824140069 VAC N LR 10,126 6414 18th Ave S 2602824140051 VAC N LR 10,013 6415 18th Ave S 2602824140070 VAC N LR 10,105 6420 18th Ave S 2602824140050 SF RES H R 10,067 6421 18th Ave S 2602824140071 VAC N LR 10,151 6426 18th Ave S 2602824140049 SF RES H R 9,841 6427 18th Ave S 2602824140072 VAC N LR 9,975 6432 18th Ave S 2602824140048 SF RES H R 10,288 6433 18th Ave S 2602824140073 VAC N LR 10,297 6438 18th Ave S 2602824140047 SF RES H R 9,994 6439 18th Ave S 2602824140074 VAC N LR 10,060 6444 18th Ave S 2602824140046 SF RES H R 9,839 6445 18th Ave S 2602824140075 VAC N LR 9,815 6500 18th Ave S 2602824140037 SF RES N R 10,750 6501 18th Ave S 2602824140058 SF RES N R 10,220 6508 18th Ave S 2602824140036 SF RES N R 10,368 6509 18th Ave S 2602824140059 VAC N LR 10,025 6514 18th Ave S 2602824140035 SF RES H R 10,376 6515 18th Ave S 2602824140060 VAC N LR 10,258 6520 18th Ave S 2602824140034 SF RES H R 10,334 6521 18th Ave S 2622824140061 VAC N LR 10,063 6526 18th Ave S 2602824140033 SF RES H R 10,264 '` 6527 18th Ave S 2602824140062 VAC N LR 10,026 6532 18th Ave S 2602824140032 SF RES H R 10,010 6533 18th Ave S 2602824140063 VAC N LR 9,906 6607-09 18th Av 2602824410001 COM N C 15,515 6614 18th Ave S 2602824410066 VAC N R 9,926 6620 18th Ave S 2602824410067 VAC N R 10,008 6626 18th Ave S 2602824410068 VAC N R 9,933 ATTACHMENT C-5 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence V! m N ~ d ~_ O Z ~ w ~, = .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d L O _ = ~. ~ N ~ 0 ~ Q C I: ~ ~ ~ w+ J ' GI ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ 0 NJ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ N O !4 ~ w ~ N M 'C "~ w ~ i ~ " '' tl~ 'C Q t0 O ~ L ~ r ~ .~C U G1 V r + d N d t E c ` ~ O O u`°. ~ W ~ O O Address PID #'s Use = a Area r c•; ri ~ Sri co is ao ai 6632 18th Ave S 2602824410069 VAC N R 10,220 6638 18th Ave S 2602824410070 VAC N R 9,852 6644 18th Ave S 2602824410071 VAC N R 9,784 6700 18th Ave S 2602824410080 VAC N R 9,635 6701-03 18th Ave S 2602824410107 ROAD N DB 9,462 6708 18th Ave S 2602824410081 VAC N R 10,122 6709-11 18th Ave S 2602824410106 ROAD N DB 9,611 6714 18th Ave S 2602824410082 VAC N R 10,193 6715 18th Ave S 2602824410105 SF RES H R 9,859 6720 18th Ave S 2602824410083 VAC N R 9,562 6721 18th Ave S 2602824410104 VAC N R 9,150 6726 18th Ave S 2602824410084 VAC N R 9,150 6727 18th Ave S 2602824410103 VAC N R 9,608 6732 18th Ave S 2602824410085 VAC H R 10,039 6733 18th Ave S 2602824410102 VAC N R 9,566 6738 18th Ave S 2602824410086 VAC N R 10,008 6739 18th Ave S 2602824410101 VAC N R 9,785 6744 18th Ave S 2602824410087 VAC N R 10,139 6745 18th Ave S 2602824410100 VAC N R 9,602 6800 18th Ave S 2602824440017 SF RES H R 9,607 6801 18th Ave S 2602824440016 SF RES H R 7,521 6808 18th Ave S 2602824440018 SF RES H R 10,006 6809 18th Ave S 2602824440015 SF RES H R 9,178 6814 18th Ave S 2602824440019 SF RES H R 10,138 6815 18th Ave S 2602824440014 SF RES N R 9,312 6820 18th Ave S 2602824440020 SF RES N R 10,005 6821 18th Ave S 2602824440013 SF RES H R 9,222 6826 18th Ave S 2602824440021 SF RES H R 10,207 6827 18th Ave S 2602824440012 SF RES H R 9,243 6832 18th Ave S 2602824440022 SF RES H R 10,034 6833 18th Ave S 2602824440011 SF RES H R 9,207 6838 18th Ave S 2602824440023 SF RES H R 10,083 ATTACHMENT C-6 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence N m N ~ y +• O Z C1 w ~, ~ d ~ ~ ~ d L O ~ t0 d O ~ J E t as v 'a '° .r C 7 ~ ~. _ __ d = _ i+ Rf ~ ~ L fq l0 ~ Q 0 d ~ R ~ ~ ' ~ r ~ ~ 1Ci VJ O t0 ~ ~ O •y .0 ~ '' n 1 ~ L U! ~ Q Q L ~ ~ j + + 3 V V 0 ~ N L ~ p ` o 0 0 li J W O O O Address PID #'s Use = a Area ~ ci ri ~ Sri co r~ ao ai 6839 18th Ave S 2602824440010 SF RES H R 9,324 6844 18th Ave S 2602824440024 SF RES H R 9,861 6845 18th Ave S 2602824440009 SF RES H R 9,022 6901 18th Ave S 2602824440080 SF RES H R 9,295 6909 18th Ave S 2602824440079 SF RES H R 9,324 6915 18th Ave S 2602824440078 SF RES H R 9,075 6921 18th Ave S 2602824440077 SF RES H R 9,356 6927 18th Ave S 2602824440076 SF RES H R 9,196 6933 18th Ave S 2602824440075 SF RES H R 9,457 6939 18th Ave S 2602824440074 SF RES H R 9,369 6945 18th Ave S 2602824440073 SF RES H R 12,935 7001 18th Ave S 3502824110002 SF RES N R 7,483 7005 18th Ave S 3502824110003 SF RES H R 8,986 7025 18th Ave S 3502824110027 SF RES H R 8,010 7029 18th Ave S 3502824110026 SF RES H R 8,414 7033 18th Ave S 3502824110025 SF RES H R 8,952 7035 18th Ave S 3502824110024 SF RES H R 11,893 _ ">' 7039 18th Ave S 3502824110023 SF RES H R 8,922 7045 18th Ave S 3502824110022 SF RES H R 6,904 7049 18th Ave S 3502824110021 SF RES H R 6,817 7101 18th Ave S 3502824110020 SF RES H R 6,994 7105 18th Ave S 3502824110020 SF RES H R 7,106 7111 18th Ave S 3502824110018 SF RES H R 7,121 7115 18th Ave S 3502824110017 SF RES H R 7,306 7121 18th Ave S 3502824110016 SF RES H R 7,315 7127 18th Ave S 3502824110127 DUPLEX N DB 9,274 7131 18th Ave S 3502824110126 DUPLEX H DB 10,681 7137 18th Ave S 3502824110125 DUPLEX H DB 9,466 7145 18th Ave S 3502824110124 SF RES H R 7,613 6200 Cedar Ave 2602824110001 UTILITY N U 36,606 6244 Cedar Ave 2602824110075 COM N C 82,325 6300 Cedar Ave 2602824110061 COM-IND N I 15,736 ATTACHMENT C-7 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence N d N ~ y :«• O Z ~ . w = ~ 'a ~ ~ ~ ~ d O = +r d fA t V ~ J as Cf d ~ 'C = C 7 i c0 O ~ Q _ 0 ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ y+ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ N O ~ ,~ ~ • .~ ~' R ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q L y.~1r 0 Y ~ N d +d+ O L G1 d N ~ o G ~ O > O RS w l 3 ~ K w d ~ o 0 0 Address PID #'s Use 0 x a Area ~ ci ri ~ ui co ~: o0 of 6301 Cedar Ave 2502824220001 VAC N C 6,198 6311 Cedar Ave 2502824220002 VAC N C 6,429 6315 Cedar Ave 2502824220003 VAC N C 6,243 6320 Cedar Ave 2602824110060 VAC N LI 7,149 6325 Cedar Ave 2502824220004 VAC N C 19,223 6328 Cedar Ave 2602824110059 VAC N A 15,169 6333 Cedar Ave 2502824220060 VAC N C 12,635 6341 Cedar Ave 2502824220007 VAC N C 6,329 6344 Cedar Ave 2602824110058 VAC N A 17,191 6345 Cedar Ave 2502824220008 VAC N C 6,386 6400 Cedar Ave 2602824140067 MF RES VAC H A 11,266 6405 Cedar Ave 2502824230064 VAC N C 13,535 6409 Cedar Ave 2502824230065 VAC N C 12,665 6412 Cedar Ave 2602824140066 VAC N A 27,206 6417 Cedar Ave 2502824230066 VAC N LC 6,618 6421 Cedar Ave 2502824230067 VAC N C 6,253 6425 Cedar Ave 2502824230142 VAC N C 12,902 6429 Cedar Ave 2502824230143 VAC N LC 6,495 6437 Cedar Ave 2502824230069 VAC N LC 6,193 6441 Cedar Ave 2502824230070 VAC N LC 6,299 6444 Cedar Ave 2602824140065 VAC N A 27,486 6445 Cedar Ave 2502824230071 VAC N C 6,431 6500 Cedar Ave 2602824140057 COM N C 14,217 6501 Cedar Ave 2502824230001 VAC N C 13,212 6509 Cedar Ave 2502824230002 VAC N LC 6,349 6511 Cedar Ave 2502824230003 VAC N C 9,013 6520 Cedar Ave 2602824140056 MF RES-VAC N A 18,463 6521 Cedar Ave 2502824230004 VAC N C 10,142 6525 Cedar Ave 2502824230005 VAC N C 6,284 6528 Cedar Ave 2602824140055 MF RES N A 15,726 6529 Cedar Ave 2502824230006 VAC N C 6,237 6533 Cedar Ave 2502824230007 VAC N LR 5,440 ATTACHMENT C-8 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence N m N_ ~ d ~. O Z ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ 3 d L O ~ t0 ~_+ d = v ~ J d ~ 1= d Of _- C ~ w R O ~ Q. C C O O d 'O C to *' C R ~ i v! Rt O ~ H ~ vp! O .a °~ ~ ,~ O .N ~ •~ ~' ~ d ~ d G1 >, d ~ ~ O L ~ ~ > ~, = ~C G1 p m N O d ~ ~ p o O O ~ LL R J i t W 01 o O O Address PID #'s Use o = a Area ~ ci ri ~ Sri cc ti o0 of 6537 Cedar Ave 2502824230008 VAC N C 5,224 6600 Cedar Ave 2602824410002 COM N C 30,011 6636 Cedar Ave 2602824410063 COM N C 115,455 6700 Cedar Ave 2602824410096 ROAD N C 17,358 6720 Cedar Ave 2602824410097 MF RES N A 17,310 6730 Cedar Ave 2602824410098 MF RES N A 17,255 6733 Cedar Ave 2502824320001 MF RES N A 43,810 6744 Cedar Ave 2602824410099 MF RES N A 18,210 6800 Cedar Ave 2602824440001 SF RES H R 7,381 6801 Cedar Ave 2502824330062 SF RES N R 6,686 6808 Cedar Ave 2602824440002 SF RES H R 8,962 6809 Cedar Ave 2502824330061 SF RES H R 9,469 6813 Cedar Ave 2502824330060 SF RES H R 7,732 6814 Cedar Ave 2602824440003 SF RES H R 9,049 6820 Cedar Ave 2602824440004 SF RES H R 9,049 6821 Cedar Ave 2502824330059 MF RES H A 12,410 6825 Cedar Ave 2502824330058 SF RES N R 6,429 6826 Cedar Ave 2602824440005 SF RES H R 9,002 6829 Cedar Ave 2502824330057 SF RES H R 6,401 6832 Cedar Ave 2602824440006 SF RES H R 9,067 6833 Cedar Ave 2502824330056 SF RES H R 6,280 6838 Cedar Ave 2602824440007 SF RES H R 9,054 6839 Cedar Ave 2502824330055 SF RES H R 6,540 6841 Cedar Ave 2502824330054 SF RES H R 12,579 6844 Cedar Ave 2602824440008 SF RES N R 8,790 6900 Cedar Ave 2602824440065 SF RES H R 9,034 6908 Cedar Ave 2602824440066 SF RES H R 8,934 6914 Cedar Ave 2602824440067 SF RES H R 8,688 6920 Cedar Ave 2602824440068 SF RES H R 8,926 6924-26 Cedar A 2602824440069 DUPLEX H D 8,725 6932-34 Cedar A 2602824440070 DUPLEX N D 8,971 ' 6938 Cedar Ave 2602824440129 COM N C 17,365 ATTACHMENT C-9 Cedar Corridor Blight Assessment EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BLIGHT Strong Evidence Moderate Evidence Little or No Evidence ~ as w ' d :r. o z a~ . •« _ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ o ~ no m ~ ~ ° ' ~ E ~ as _ ~ ~ c ~ ~• ~ O ~ O O ~ d O_ ~ ~ ~ ++ !C N ~ L t0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ N °~ C ~ ~ O > .N O ~; ea ~ d N >, ~ Q ! ~ O C ~ L > ~, +• 3 V V d ~ L O H .~ £ c _ D . O O ii J w o O O Address PID #'s Use x° a Area ~ ci c~i er Sri eo ti oo ai 6958 Cedar Ave 3502824110001 COM N C 16,008 7000 Cedar Ave 3502824110009 MF RES N A 40,260 7034 Cedar Ave 3502824110010 COM N C 16,554 7040 Cedar Ave 3502824110011 MF RES N A 15,776 7048-50 Cedar Ave 3502824110012 DUPLEX N DB 7,472 7100-02 Cedar Ave 3502824110013 DUPLEX N DB 7,648 7108 Cedar Ave 3502824110014 MF RES N A 15,302 7116 Cedar Ave 3502824110015 MF RES N A 15,438 7134 Cedar Ave 3502824110123 MF RES N A 37,854 1614 66th Street 2602824140123 SF RES H R 8,134 1620 66th Street 2602824140122 SF RES H R 7,801 1700 66th Street 2602824140121 VAC N LR 8,006 1708 66th Street 2602824140120 VAC N LR 7,923 1714 66th Street 2602824140119 VAC N C 8,149 1717 66th Street 2602824410108 COM N C 16,922 1720 66th Street 2602824140118 VAC N C 7,769 1800 66th Street 2602824140064 VAC N LR 8,993 1820 66th Street 2602824140054 VAC N C 25,990 ATTACHMENT D Detailed Analysis of Blight Conditions Cedar Corridor Area Richfield, Minnesota Statutory Definition of Blighted Area Chapter 469, Section 469.002, Subd. 1 1, of Minnesota Statutes defines "Blighted Area" as follows: "Blighted area" means any area with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. Also, Section 469.028, Subd. 3 further defines and explains that blighting conditions include: open, undeveloped, unused, or inappropriately used lands with unusual and difficult physical characteristics of the ground, the existence of faulty planning characterized by the subdivision or sale of lots laid out in disregard of the contours or of irregular form and shape or of inadequate size, or a combination of these or other conditions which have prevented normal development of the land by private enterprise and have resulted in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety, and welfare. Building Permit Review The review of building permits issued over the past ten years for the 274 properties in the Cedar Corridor Area revealed that a total of 1,275 permits were issued over that period. Most of these permits (964 or 76%) were for upgrading and repair of utilities (electrical, air conditioning, furnaces, plumbing, etc.), roof/siding replacement, or airport noise soundproofing, all items required to ensure proper functioning of the homes and commercial premises. The next largest category (172 permits or 13%) was for demolition and/or moving a house or garage (as part of the City of Richfield purchase and clearance initiatives). Only 139 permits or 11% were for remodeling or additions to improve the quality and/or size of the home or business. See table on page D-2. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota D_ 1 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 Buildin Permit Review -Cedar Corridor Area Cate o Number %-a e Utilities 712 55.8 Roofin /Sidin 172 13.4 .Sound roofin 80 6.2 Demolition and/or Move 172 13.4 Remodel/Additions 139 10.9 Total 1,275 100.0 Blight Evaluation 1. Dilapidation Dilapidation can be defined as: (a) Deferred maintenance ofstructures and improvements. Specific evidence of deferred maintenance includes: ^ Poorly maintained exterior building surfaces including masonry, stucco, wood clapboard/vinyl/metal siding. ^ Windows and doors which are cracked or patched. ^ Cracked, rutted paved surfaces, or poorly maintained gravel surfaces. ^ Unkempt yard areas with overgrown or "wild" vegetation. ^ Unscreened trash or mechanical equipment or storage, or other site maintenance issues. ^ Abandoned vehicles, debris, graffiti or the presence of other forms of vandalism. (b) Buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair. Specific evidence of buildings and paved surfaces in major disrepair includes: ^ Structural deficiencies (foundation, rood or major operational deficiencies (electrical, plumbing, HVAC). ^ Masonry surfaces broken and in need of replacement and/or tuck- pointing. ^ Broken windows, missing panes, boarded-up windows, inoperable windows; doors or windows which are inoperable. ^ Entry/exit stairways and service/loading docks which are broken or failing. ^ Severely cracked, broken and crumbling paved surfaces requiring replacement. ^ Poorly-constructed and/or failing building additions or alterations. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota D-2 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 (c) Deterioration o~e~ublic realm and utilities. Streets, alleys, sidewalks, public parks and parking areas are in need of major repair and replacement. Sewers, water mains, power lines, etc. need major repair and/or replacement. Poor drainage. Twenty (20) properties exhibit dilapidation. As indicated in Attachment C of this report, two (2) of the parcels exhibit "strong" evidence of this criterion, while another eighteen (18) exhibit "moderate" evidence. All twenty (20) of these properties suffer from one to several deferred maintenance issues: The fifteen (15) single-family homes (6309, 6321, 6327, 6415, and 6509 16th Avenue South; 6315, 6321, 6332, 6439, and 6532 17th Avenue South; and 6432, 6526, 6532, 6844, and 7035 1$th Avenue South) exhibit roof and/or siding repair deferral. 6315 17th Avenue also exhibits unkempt outside storage. ^ One (1) duplex (6932-34 Cedar Avenue South) exhibits roof repair deferral. ^ The two (2) brick apartment buildings at 6520 Cedar Avenue and 6528 Cedar Avenue South need repair or replacement of their decorative siding. As this report was being finalized, these properties were in the demolition and site clearance process. The two (2) commercial properties (6300 and 6500 Cedar Avenue South) have unscreened storage of trucks and other vehicles and a deficient area for vehicle parking on site. 6500 Cedar Avenue South also lacks adequate outside storage area for materials and area to efficiently carry out the scale of its operations, with pallets, sod, equipment, and vehicles spilling out onto the sidewalk and adjoining streets. Finally, even though 6320 Cedar Avenue South is deemed vacant, it nevertheless is used temporarily for overflow truck parking and storage for 6300 Cedar Avenue South, on a large unpaved surface area. 2.Obsolescence The criterion of obsolescence has three categories: ^ Functional obsolescence, which means that the property/improvements can no longer be used efficiently or effectively for the use that was originally intended, because of changes in normal use%perations, nor can the property or buildings be physically adapted to a new use without extraordina~~y measures. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota D-3 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 Economic obsolescence, which is the impairment of desirability or useful life arising from factors external to the property, such as economic forces which affect supply-demand relationships in the market. Age or Dated Appearance, which, in the absence of intrinsic historic or architectural significance, or unique building technology, serves to contribute to the decline in reinvestment or market attractiveness. One hundred and seventy-eight (178) properties that have improvements on them exhibit a combination of functional and economic obsolescence. Even though 80 of the 155 single-family homes have been soundproofed through the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) program in the 1990s, these properties, the seven duplexes, and the 13 multi-family apartment buildings are obsolete for continued residential use, because the new low frequency noise levels created by jet airplane flights using the new North/South Runway is not able to be mitigated by soundproofing techniques, and consequently the properties are declining in resale values, as well. The two commercial properties at 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South, now isolated uses, exhibit obsolescence as well. 3.Overcrowding Overcrowding means that there is an overly high density of population relative to the size and design of residential structures. No properties exhibit overcrowding. 4. Faulty Arrangement or Design Faulty arrangement or design usually means that there is an inadequate or deficient design of the building or site arrangement that inhibits the normal use or function of the property, or negatively impacts the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South exhibit faulty arrangement or design. 6300 Cedar Avenue South, used for an air freight operation, has inadequate space around the building for proper parking of trucks and loading operations, and is using a gravel area on an adjacent lot at 6320 Cedar Avenue South for overflow parking and vehicle storage. The sod business at 6500 Cedar Avenue South clearly overflows onto the adjacent sidewalks and streets for its operations and storage of vehicles. 5. Lack of Ventilation, Light, and Sanitary Facilities This means that buildings lack adequate windows or air circulation, garbage storage is inadequate, or buildings lack hot water or adequate bathrooms for the intended uses. No properties exhibit lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota D_4 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 6. Excessive Land Coverage Excessive land coverage, or overcrowding of structures, means that one or more buildings are crowded onto a piece of land that is deemed too small in size, including deficiency of land area to accommodate adequate off-street parking or loading facilities. Two properties exhibit excessive land coverage, namely the two properties noted above for faulty arrangement or design, i.e., 6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South. 7. Deleterious Land Use This criterion refers to land uses that have harmful effects on the land itself, in terms of toxic, noxious, or otherwise dangerous substances, and includes those uses and operational characteristics that have harmful impacts to adjacent and nearby properties, residents, businesses, or users of an area. There are no properties that exhibit deleterious land uses. 8. Obsolete Layout Conditions typically associated with defective street layout include poor vehicular access, egress and/or internal circulation; substandard driveway definition and parking layout (e.g. lack of curb cuts, awkward entrance and exit points); offset or irregular intersections; substandard or nonexistent pedestrian circulation/sidewalks. This condition can also mean faulty lot layout (obsolete subdivision platting, faulty lot shape, or poor access). This criterion can also include unimproved, but platted, vacant land that is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital without government intervention or assistance, financial or otherwise. Two hundred and fifty-nine (259) properties exhibit inappropriate platting for new commercial or residential uses that could be constructed to the higher noise mitigation standards required because of the proximity of the new North/South Runway. A consolidated plat pattern would be required to facilitate a site layout and access pattern to ensure proper building placement, adequate auto access, parking loading provision, and transit services. 9. Other Factors Environmental In some special cases, only one factor may be necessary to qualify properties as blighted, such as: vacant land that is an abandoned railroad yard, unused quarries or mines, areas of chronic flooding, polluted soils, or an area degraded by ambient environmental factors such as smells, noise, illumination, or vibrations. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area -Richfield, Minnesota D-5 CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 Undesirable Nearby Land Uses Some types of nearby or adjacent land uses are not compatible with each other, such as heavy industrial next to residential uses, or major transportation uses such as an airport, bus terminal, or railroad activity very near residential uses, without extraordinary building design or site layout measures. Financial Properties have a tax and/or special assessment delinquency that exceed the fair market value. All two hundred and seventy-four (274) properties exhibit environmental degradation from the existing operations of the nearby MSP Airport. Also, the Low Frequency Policy Committee Report -August 10, 2000 concluded that the >87 dB noise level to be experienced by these properties from the operations of the new North/South (17/35) Runway would be incompatible with existing residential uses. The continued operation of a few (6300 Cedar Avenue South and 6500 Cedar Avenue South) of the remaining commercially-used properties is questionable, as well, given their isolation and limited prospects for expansion. Blight Assessment of Cedar Corridor Area-Richfield, Minnesota j~_( CORNEJO CONSULTING August 9, 2006 Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-1 ATTACHMENT E-1 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-2 ATTACHMENT E-2 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-3 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-3 6439-16tt' Ave 6433-16th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-4 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-4 Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-5 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-5 6338-17th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-6 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-6 6414-17t" Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-7 ATTACHMENT E-7 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6420-17t`' Ave 6426-17th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-8 ATTACHMENT E-8 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6438-17th Ave ~~ 6444-17tt' Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-9 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-9 6508-17th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-10 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-10 6532-17t'' Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-11 ATTACHMENT E-11 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-12 ATTACHMENT E-12 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6709-17th Ave 6721-17th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-13 6801-17`h Ave ATTACHMENT E-13 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-14 6821-17th Ave 6845-17th Ave ATTACHMENT E-14 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-15 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment Taft Park - 6340 18th Ave E-15 6309 18th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-16 ATTACHMENT E-16 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment aw view or n~+~v-va-i~r is tivc Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-17 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-17 o4~a-ia tive Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-18 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment SW view of 6614-20-26-32-38-44 Ave E-18 UJJL-la t1VC Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area Ave (now a roadway) E-19 lv W view of niuu to ni44 is tive ATTACHMENT E-19 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment NE view of 6721 to 6745 18"' Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-20 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-20 na~u-ia tive oavi-ia tive 6808-18th Ave 6809-18t'' Ave Attachment E Ph tos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-21 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-21 6826-18th Ave nazi-ia tive 6832-18th Ave 6827-18th Ave 6838-18t" Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-22 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-22 6915-18t`' Ave 6839-18`h Ave 6845-18th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-23 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-23 7001-18th Ave 6921-18th Ave 6927-18th Ave 4 ny~~-ia tive 6945-18`x` Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-24 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-24 7025-18th Ave 7029-18th Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-25 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-25 iiui-ia tive Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area E-26 ATTACHMENT E-26 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment .. _ ,:. - 7125-27 18`'' Ave iii-~~ is tive Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ~~:::~ 6200 Cedar Ave S E-27 ATTACHMENT E-27 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6244 Cedar Ave S Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-28 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment ~J SE view of 6301-11-15-25-33-41-45 Cedar 6328-44 Cedar Ave E-28 6320 Cedar Ave 6300 Cedar Ave 6412-44 Cedar Ave 6400 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-29 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6405-09-17-21-25-29-37-41-45 Cedar Ave 6500 Cedar Ave E-29 6520 Cedar Ave 6600 Cedar Ave 6501-09-11-21-25-29-33-37 Cedar Ave 6528 CedarAve Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-30 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6730 Cedar Ave 6733-45 Cedar Ave 6733-45 Cedar Ave E-30 6636 Cedar Ave _. _ 6700 Cedar Ave (now roadway) `~. _ _ - 6720 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-31 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6744 Cedar Ave 6800 Cedar Ave 6801 Cedar Ave 6813 Cedar Ave E-31 6808 Cedar Ave 6809 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-32 Cedar Corridor Area B1iEht Assessment 6814 Cedar Ave 6826 Cedar Ave E-32 -~~~_: 6820 Cedar Ave 6825 Cedar Ave 6821 Cedar Ave 6829 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-33 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6838 Cedar Ave E-33 6839 Cedar Ave 6832 Cedar Ave ,~.~~,~ ~~ 6844 Cedar Ave 6841 Cedar Ave 6833 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-34 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 6914 Cedar Ave 6908 Cedar Ave 6932-34 Cedar Ave E-34 6920 Cedar Ave 6900 Cedar Ave 6924-26 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-35 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment E-35 6958 Cedar Ave 6938 Cedar Ave 7000 Cedar Ave 7034 Cedar Ave 7048-50 Cedar Ave 7040 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area ATTACHMENT E-36 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment 7100-02 Cedar Ave 1620-66th Street E-36 ~r ~~ 7116 Cedar Ave 7108 Cedar Ave 7134 Cedar Ave Attachment E Photos of Cedar Corridor Area NE view of 1700-08-14-20 1717-66th Street (view from 18th Ave) 1717-66th Street NE view of 1800-1820 Street NW view of 1800-1820 Street Street E-37 ATTACHMENT E-37 Cedar Corridor Area Blight Assessment ~-_ ~' ,: , AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 RESOLIITIONS 10 195 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Escrow Agreement with R an Com anies US, Inc. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Escrow A reement with R an Com anies US, Inca II. BACKGROUND The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan) are pursuing redevelopment of the Cedar Point Commons area. On June 30, 2006 the City Council, HRA and Ryan entered into an Escrow Agreement. On. July 25, 2006 the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Escrow Agreement that included delivering the Note into escrow. Under the original Escrow Agreement, Ryan was committed to .acquire the Third Party properties by September 30, 2006. To date, Ryan has closed on 19 of the 38 properties. Ryan will not be able to make the September 30th deadline. Therefore, the proposed Second Amendment to the Escrow Agreement changes the possession date to October 31, 2006. The date that HRA closes with Ryan on HRA property is also changed to October 31, 2006. 092606 2nd Amend Escrow -Ryan III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • On June 30, 2006 the HRA and City Council entered into an Escrow Agreement with Ryan to help facilitate the closing on real estate. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Because the HRA is a party to the Escrow Agreement, HRA approval of the amendment to the Escrow Agreement is also required. • For the project to move forward, .the approval of the Second Amendment is required. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Legal Counsel drafted the proposed Amendment. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Approve the proposed Amendment with added provisions or modifications. • Do not approve the proposed Amendment. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Second Amendment to the Escrow Agreement VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Molly Carson, Ryan Companies US, Inc. 1~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on or about July 27, 2005, the Housing Authority in and fior the City of Richfield (the "Authority") and Ryan Companies US, Inca ("Ryan") entered into a Contract for Private Development (the "Contract") calling for the redevelopment of certain tracts of land all as fully described in the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Contract was amended by First Amendment dated June 30, 2006, by Second Amendment dated July 21, 2006,: and Third Amendment dated August 16, 2006; and WHEREAS, on or about June 30, 2006, the HRA, Ryan and the City of Richfield did enter into an escrow agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") .providing for the delivery into escrow of certain instruments and documents to be held in escrow and thereafter delivered all in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement; and WHEREAS, on or about July 21, 2006, the Escrow Agreement was amended by First Amendment on or about July 21, 2006. WHEREAS, events subsequent to the Escrow Agreement have occurred that require the amendments to' the Escrow Agreement for the project to move forward; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to address such matters though certain amendments to the Escrow Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and is familiar with the proposed amendment to the Escrow Agreement entitled: Second Amendment to the Escrow Agreement("Second Amendment"), and is satisfied that the terms thereof carry out the intentions of the parties, .and are necessary and appropriate for the Development. NOW THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Second amendment is hereby in all respects approved. 2. Upon completion of such modifications, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed on behalf of the City Council, after consultation with legal counsel, to take all steps and do all things necessary to effectuate the provision of the Second Amendment. Adopted by the City Council. of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26h day of September 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ MARKED TO SHOW CHANGES 092004 SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT (this "Second Amendment") is made as of , 2006, by and among RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., a Minnesota corporation ("Ryan"), THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (the "HRA"), CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation ("Escrow Agent"). Ryan, the HRA, the City and Escrow .Agent are sometimes.collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS A. Ryan and the HRA are parties to that certain Contract for Private Development dated July 27, 2005, as amended by that certain .First Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated June 30, 2006, that certain Second Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated July 21, 2006, that certain Third Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated , 2006, that certain Fourth Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated , 2006, and as the same may be further amended from time to time (all of which are collectively referred to herein as the "Development Agreement"). B. The Parties entered into that certain Escrow Agreement dated June 30, 2006 (the "Original Agreement"), as amended by that certain First Amendment to .Escrow Agreement dated , 2006 (which, together with the Original Agreement, is collectively referred to herein as the "Escrow Agreement"), related to the deposit into escrow with Escrow Agent of certain documents required by the Development Agreement pending satisfaction of certain terms and conditions in the Escrow Agreement. C. The Parties desire to amend the Escrow Agreement as further set forth below. D. Capitalized terms not defined in this Second Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Escrow Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Additional Conditions to Closing. Section 4 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows: a. The subuara~rat~h under date 9/5/06 in Section 4(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety. b. a-The following subparagraphs under the date 9/30/06 in Section 4(a) are hereby amended as follows: Io-3 (i) Subparagraphs (a), (d), (fl. (il and (fm) are deleted in their entirety. (ii) Subparagraph (1) is amended by deleting .the subparagraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following subparagraph: (1) HRA Closing Documents (as defined in the Development Agreement) and any other documents necessary (as reasonably determined by Ryan and Escrow Agent) to convey the HRA Property to Ryan that are missing from the Escrowed Documents, all. of which shall be .undated when escrowed with Escrow Agent and shall be dated by Escrow Agent as of the date of Closing (as defined in the Development Agreement), shall have been duly executed and, where necessary, acknowledged on behalf of the HRA and been delivered to Escrow Agent pending the Closing. Such HRA Closing Documents and other documents shall be deemed to be Escrowed Documents. c. b--The following new date and related subparagraphs are hereby added immediately after the last of the subparagraphs under the date 9/30/06 in Section 4(a): 10/31/06 (a) Ryan shall have acquired title to the entire Third Party Property as contemplated in Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement. (b) Ryan shall have acquired title to the entire HRA Property immediately after acquiring title to the last Third Party Property. (c) Ryan and Target Corporation shall have executed and delivered all agreements, instruments and other documents as Ryan deems necessary or appropriate for the development of a Target store on the Development Property. (d) All existing streets within Block 1 shall have been vacated by the Citv within one (11 business day after receipt of written notice from Rvan that (i) it has acauired all of the Third Partv Propertv. or (iil that the Third Partv Propertv which has not vet been. acauired by Rvan is closed in escrow subiect only to Rvan's acquisition of the HRA Propertv and the owner of such Third Partv Propertv has vacated his and/or her Propertv. 2 I®~`~ _ (~ The representations of the HRA set forth in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Closing. 2. HRA's Right to Terminate. Section 7 of the Original .Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence in its entirety and replacing it with the following: If any of the conditions in subparagraph (g) under the date 9/30/06 or in subparagraph (a), (b) or (c) under the date 10/31/06 in Section 4(a) above are not satisfied on or before November 30, 2006, then the HRA may terminate this Agreement by providing- written notice to the City, Ryan and Escrow Agent. 3. Closing. Section 9 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by (a) replacing each occurrence of the date "September 30, 2006" with "October 31, 2006"; (b) replacing "the September 30`h contingencies" with "the 9/30106 and 10/31/06 contingencies"; and (c) replacing each occurrence of the date "October 30, 2006" with "November 30, 2006." 4. Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in one or .more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and together which shall constitute one and the same Second Amendment. This Second Amendment may be delivered by facsimile transmittal or other electronic communication of signed original counterparts. 5. Headings. The paragraph and section headings or captions appearing in this Second Amendment are for convenience only, are not a part of this Second Amendment and are not to be considered in interpreting this Second Amendment. 6. Amendment. Except as set forth herein, the Escrow Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. [Signature pages follow] 3 ~o-~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Second Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first stated above. RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. By: _ Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT] 4 (b'~ THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND. FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bv: Its: Chairperson By: Its: Executive Director [SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT] 5 ~~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD By: _ Its: By: _ Its: [SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT] Ib-g OLD 4082478 ~~DOC ()~~6 ()92006 REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: _ Its: ~ b~ ~1 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT] AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # ~ 196 ~: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: r DIltECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of aRight-of--Entry Agreement for use of all City properties in the Cedar Point Commons develo ment area b Ran Com anies US, Inc. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve Right-of-Entry Agreement for use of all City properties in the Cedar Point Commons development area by Ryan Companies US, Inc. prior to conveyance dates of properties to same. III. BACKGROUND At the June 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council approved aRight-of-Entry Agreement that allowed Ryan to enter City-owned properties adjacent to Cedar Avenue in order to relocate utilities (water, storm, gas, cable, and electric) from within the public right-of--way to an area that is outside of the Cedar Point Commons development. The utility work is nearly comp{eted at this time. On September 14, 2006 the City Council approved an amendment to the June 2006 Right-of--Entry Agreement-for Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan). The amendment added additional properties and allowed the placement of job and storage trailers on portions of the southerly lots adjacent to 66th Street between 17th Avenue and Cedar Avenue. 092606-Right of Entry Cedar Point#2 The proposed Right of Entry, if approved, would include all properties owned by the City and the HRA. The Right of Entry would allow Ryan to enter the properties prior to closing in order to perform certain activities, including: removal of trees that are not being preserved, demolition of certain structures, installation of private utilities and abandonment or relocation of public utilities, grading of properties, and the construction of certain trail and street improvements on Park property, near 63rd Street. Ryan will work with the City to minimize the disruption of vehicular traffic on any streets within the development that has not been vacated or closed for public travel. (See Exhibit D of the Agreement). By allowing Ryan to enter the City properties prior to closing, it is expected that Ryan will avoid some construction costs that the HRA might otherwise be required to reimburse to Ryan. (Under an amendment to the development contract with Ryan, the HRA has agreed to reimburse up to $500,000 in additional construction. costs that are incurred as a result of the 21-day delay in obtaining the Metropolitan Airport Commission's approval of certain restrictions.) However, if-the closing does not occur due to a default by either the City or HRA, then the Right of Entry Agreement obligates the City to reimburse Ryan for the utility work and the street and trail work, and it obligates the HRA to reimburse Ryan for other work that Ryan has performed.. The City Council has approved all of the actions .necessary for the City to close, and it is not expected that there will be a City default. The potential for default by the HRA would be the failure of certain occupants to vacate the premises under the timeline required by court orders. Currently there is a trail from the cul-de-sac north to the main east-west trail through the park. With the removal of the cul-de-sac and installation of a 90-degree angle corner, the trail will need to be reconnected at 63rd Street. Also the removal of the cul-de-sac will provide a small additional amount of park land. Ryan will be required to maintain access to the south parking lot of the park at all times during construction. During the fall softball league, staff will ensure that Ryan coordinates with Recreation Services to make sure that the softball leagues are aware of any access changes to the park. (See Exhibit B of the Agreement.) The Director of Recreation Services, Jim Topitzhofer, as well as the Community Services Commission is aware of these modifications and has been involved in the decision making .process. The Right-of-Entry Agreement also allows Ryan to enter on the properties at 1614 and 1620 East 66th Street. The work Ryan will conduct on these two sites is the general due diligence for an environmental audit. Currently 1620 East 66th Street is vacant and owned by the City. The City owns the property at 1614 East 66th Street, but the resident(s) per their purchase agreement with the City can remain until October 26, 2006. Ryan will be allowed on 1620 East 66th Street because it is vacant, but access to 1614 East 66th Street will be worked out with the occupant. The proposed Right-of-Entry Agreement will also require that Ryan receive approval from the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in order to have access to HRA properties within the Cedar Point Commons area. The HRA properties include 6300, 6320, 6500, and 6528 Cedar Avenue. Consideration of approval of the Right-of--Entry Agreement for the HRA properties is scheduled for the HRA special session on Monday, September 25th. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council on September 14, 2006 and June 13, 2006 granted rights of entry to City owned property. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Right-of Entry Agreement is necessary so that Ryan may enter City and HRA owned property to undertake construction work prior to the conveyance of the property to Ryan and help them stay on schedule. The Right-of--Entry Agreement is attached for reference. C. FINANCIAL • The City is obligated to reimburse Ryan for certain costs if the closing does not occur, due to a default by the City or HRA. The risk of default by either the City or HRA is not. considered to be substantial. • It is expected that the Right of Entry may reduce potential construction costs that might otherwise be charged to the HRA. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel drafted the attached Right-of-Entry Agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the Right-of-Entry Agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Aerial photo, showing cul-de-sac and park. • Right-of--Entry Agreement, includes map. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ryan Companies US, Inc. -applicant ~~-i AERIAL PHOTO ~ 60 120 240 360 480 Feet N Created: 9/19/06 f C- ~. AERIAL PHOTO ~;;~ , II,~: fI''¢ I;`+ ~`~~ ,;, ~~ fj ~'~ { j; ~ , , j' j'~ ~. j I, s +~ I ~I ~~ :~, . !'; ,: ~~« l ~' ~~ I i ~~ R~ ~ --ir-- _ ~ ... _~ :~ y ~} .. 8 ~ ~~ Yti s-~-•--~ --. _ Q-.--:---__ = w Legend - Location of trail connection and 90-degree right angle. `~- 3 092206 RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of September, 2006, by and among the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota ("HRA"), and Ryan Companies US, Inc, a Minnesota corporation ("Ryan"), I. RECITALS 1.01. City is the fee simple owner of the real estate located within the City of Richfield, MN, which is legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the "City Property") and other real estate which is legally described in the attached Exhibit B (the "Park Property"). 1.02. HRA is the fee simple owner of the real estate located within the City of Richfield, MN, which is legally described in the attached Exhibit C (the "HRA Property"). 1.03. The locations of the Properties and Park Property are shown in the attached Exhibit D. 1.04 Ryan and the HRA are parties to that certain Contract for Private Development dated July 27, 2005, as amended (the "Contract") pursuant to which Ryan is to obtain the City Property and the HRA Property for the purpose of redevelopment all as is fully set out in the Contract. The City Property and HRA Property are collectively referred to as "the Properties." 1.05. The City has previously granted to Ryan the right to enter onto the City Property for the purpose of utility relocation activities and the placement of construction trailers, pursuant to a Right of Entry Agreement dated June 13, 2006, as amended (the "Original Agreement") I I~'~ 1.06 In order to redevelop the Properties as contemplated in the Contract, and in site plans previously approved by the City, it is necessary for Ryan to remove trees, demolish certain structures, remove and install private utilities and abandon, demolish and/or relocate public utilities, including but not limited to public sewer, water and stormwater facilities, earthwork, including, grade the Properties and erosion control, and undertake other activities in preparation of the Properties for construction of the redevelopment improvements. In addition, as a condition of its land use approvals, Ryan is obligated to construct certain trail and street improvements on the Park Property. The activities described in this Section 1.06 are referred to as the "Site Preparation Activities." 1.07. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the City and HRA desire to grant Ryan, and Ryan desires to secure the consent of the City and HRA to enter the City Property, the Park Property and the HRA Property for the purpose of undertaking the Site Preparation Activities pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.08: It is understood that in executing this agreement, City and HRA will (a) not be granting any permanent interest in the Properties or Park Property to Ryan, and (b) will be granting exclusive use and possession of the Properties and Park Property to Ryan, subject to (i) access by the HRA and the City to perform its normal maintenance and repair work upon reasonable notice to Ryan and to inspect the Site Preparation Activities, (ii) the exclusive use and possession of the existing streets will occur only from and after the date such streets or portions thereof are vacated by the City, (iii) access by the City and the general public to the Park Property from the north on Cedar Avenue and as reasonably approved by the City from the southwest, and (iv) the exclusive use and possession of the property known as the Johnson Property and the Haag Property shall not occur until October 1, 2006. The City agrees to vacate portions of the streets as soon as possible 2 !I-S after such portions of the streets are no longer needed to provide access to owners of the adjacent property other than the HRA and the City. II. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and their mutual promises, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 2.01. Effect on Contract. This Agreement shall not be deemed or construed in any way. to i) alter or modify any of the requirements, conditions or circumstances which must be satisfied or occur prior to closing under the Escrow Agreement, as hereinafter defined, (the "Closing"); ii) suggest that such requirements have been satisfied or occurred; iii) create any obligation on .the HRA or right in Ryan to any extension of time to close or waiver of any preconditions to closing under the Contract and the Escrow Agreement; or iv) alter or amend the provisions of the Original Agreement, which remains in full force and effect as a separate agreement. The parties agree and understand that, except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, the Contract, the Escrow Agreement, the Public Improvements and Special Assessment Agreement dated June 30, 2006 (the "Public Improvements Agreement"), and any other agreements between the parties, in carrying out the Site Preparation Activities permitted hereby, Ryan proceeds at its own risk that it will not close on the purchase of the Properties; and as a result lose the benefit of such activities. 2.02 Right of Entry. Effective upon the dates specified in Section 2.10 of this Agreement, the City and HRA each grant to Ryan, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees the exclusive right to enter upon and possess their respective portions of the Properties and Park Property, for the purpose of undertaking the Site Preparation Activities and for the further 3 II°~ purpose of storing materials, equipment and other items thereon which are needed in connection therewith; provided, however, the exclusive right and possession of the Properties and Park Property is subject to the exceptions as provided in paragraph 1.08 hereof. 2.03 Duration of Right of EntrX. With respect to the Properties, the right of entry shall expire on the earliest of: (i) the date Ryan notifies the HRA and the City in writing .that the Properties are no longer needed for the Site Preparation Activities, (ii) the date on which the Properties are conveyed to Ryan, (iii) the date on which the Contract is terminated, or (iv) November 30, 2006. With respect to the Park Property, the right of entry shall expire on the earliest of: (i) the date that the City accepts the street and trail improvements to be constructed by Ryan on the Park Property pursuant to that separate agreement between the City and Ryan relating to the construction of the street and trail improvements,. (ii) the date on which the Contract is terminated, or (iii) November 30, 2006. 2.04 Conditions . In consideration for such right of entry, Ryan agrees: (a) to use the Properties and Park Property only for the purposes described herein; (b) to do no unnecessary damage to the Properties or Park Property; (c) in the event that the Contract and Escrow Agreement are terminated and Ryan does not close on the Properties, to deliver possession of the Properties and Park Property to the City and HRA in a condition that is not hazardous; (d) to hold the City and HRA harmless from and indemnify them from any and all claims, damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, for (i) liens placed on the Properties or Park Property, (ii) damage to the Properties or Park Property or to personal property, or (iii) personal injury, any of which have been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done by 4 li-~ Ryan pursuant to this Agreement or as a result of Ryan's intentional torts or negligence. (e) Ryan will work with- the City and HRA to minimize, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, the disruption of vehicular traffic on any streets within the Properties that have not been vacated and closed to public travel. 2.05 Costs. The City and HRA will have responsibility for the costs of Site Preparation Activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, only as expressly provided in this paragraph, the Contract, the Escrow Agreement, the Public Improvements Agreement, or any other agreement between the parties. Ryan further acknowledges that in the event closing of the Properties does not take place, it shall have no claim, whether by set off or otherwise, for any value which the Site Preparation Activities may add to the Properties or Park Property in excess of the amount paid by the City or the HRA to Ryan as provided in this paragraph 2.05 and other agreements. If the HRA or the City fails to satisfy -any of the conditions set forth in that certain Escrow Agreement dated June 30, 2006, by and among Ryan, the HRA, the City and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, as amended from time to time (the "Escrow Agreement"), and Ryan exercises its right to terminate the Escrow Agreement, then (i) Ryan shall have the right to cease Site Preparation Activities, subject, however, to Ryan's obligations under Section 2.04(c) of this Agreement, (ii) the City shall promptly pay and/or reimburse Ryan for any work performed and costs incurred by Ryan for the following Site Preparation Activities to the date Ryan ceases Site Preparation Activities: demolish certain structures, abandon, demolish and/or relocate public utilities, including, but not limited to, public sewer, water, and stormwater facilities, and construction of the street and trail improvements on the Park Property, and (iii) the HRA shall promptly pay and/or reimburse Ryan for any work performed and costs incurred by 5 ~~'~ Ryan for the following Site Preparation Activities to the date Ryan ceases Site Preparation Activities: remove trees, remove private utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, and telephone and install private utility service to the Time Warner Building and the Quest Building, and earthwork, including, but not limited to, road removal, grading the Properties, and erosion control. The amount the City and the HRA shall pay Ryan for such Site Preparation Activities shall be equal to (a) work performed, costs incurred and amounts paid by Ryan based on Ryan's time and material, including internal time for design and engineering at its typical rates charged on other projects, plus 8% for profit and (b) amounts paid and/or owed by Ryan to any third party that performs any work or provides any materials for such Site Preparation Activities. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, Ryan's right to reimbursement for (i) Utility Relocation Work, as defined in the Third Amendment to Contract for Private Development dated August _, 2006, other than public sewer, water or storm water facilities, and including Ryan's right to reimbursement for amounts paid or owed by Ryan to CenterPoint Energy to relocate and/or reroute the natural gas pipeline, (ii) the Ryan Utility Work and other work provided for in the Public Improvements and Special Assessment Agreement and (iii) other work provided for in other agreements, shall be governed exclusively by the Contract, Escrow Agreement, Public Improvements Agreement, and other agreements, as each is amended from time to time. 2.06. Additional Limited Right of Entry. In addition to the right of entry granted at section 2.02 of this Agreement, the City grants to Ryan the right to enter the real properties located at 1614 and 1620 66~' Street in Richfield, which are legally described as Lots 2 and 1, Block 5, Iverson's Third Addition, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, for the limited purpose of conducting destructive environmental testing. The right of entry granted under this paragraph is 6 t 6s subject to the provisions of sections 2.01, 2.04.2.07 and 2.08 of this Agreement but is not subject to the remaining provisions of this Agreement. The right of entry granted under this section shall be effective 24 hours after the City gives notice to Ryan that the respective property is vacant and shall expire on the earlier of the date that Ryan completes the environmental testing or November 30, 2006. 2.07 Governing_Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. 2.08. Notices and Demands. All notices, demands or other communications under this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and shall be sufficiently given and deemed given when delivered personally, transmitted by facsimile, or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows: If to City: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Steve Devich, City Manager If to HRA: Richfield HRA 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Steve Devich, Executive Director If to Ryan: Ryan Companies US, Inc. 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 Attn: Bill McHa1e Or to such other persons as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and forward to the other persons entitled to receive notice as provided in this section. 2.09. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by the parties hereto only by written instrument executed with the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of this Agreement. 7 ~-~® 2.10 Effective Dates. After this Agreement has been executed by the City and Ryan, this Agreement shall be effective as to the City Property and Park Property on September 26, 2006. After this Agreement has been duly executed by the HRA and Ryan, this Agreement shall be effective as to the HRA Property on September 26, 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalves on or as of the -above date. CITY OF RICHFIELD RYAN COMPANIES US,1NC. By: Its: Mayor By: Its: By: Its: City Manager HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Chairperson By: Its: Executive Director 4085446 4.DOC 092206 g l1-l~ Exhibit A City Property Leal Description 092206 Lots 3 through 12, Block 15, New Ford Town; Lots 1 through 12, Block 8, New Ford Town, Lots 1 through 10, Block 1 New Ford Town; Lot 1 and the South 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition; Lot 3 and the North 40 feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition; Lots 1 through l4, Block 2, Iverson's Third Addition; Lot 1, and the South 50 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition; Lot 4 and the South 71 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition; Lots 8through 14, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition; Lots 1 through 4, Block 4, Iverson's Third Addition; Lots 14 through 16, Block 5, Iverson's Second Addition; Lot 9, Block 6, Iverson's Second Addition and Lots 11 through 14, Block 6, Iverson's Second Addition A-1 j I --12- Exhibit B Park Property Leal Description 092206 Lot 6, except the North 24 feet. and the South 17 feet thereof, and Lot 7, except the North 24 feet thereof, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition; the North 24 feet of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition, together with all that part of vacated 63rd Street as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition which accrues to said Lots, EXCEPT That part of the North 24 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition and that part of vacated 63rd Street adjoining said Lot 7, lying West of a line parallel with and 118 feet East of the Southerly extension of the West line of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 930; That part of the North 24 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition and that part of vacated 63rd Street adjoining said Lot 7, lying West of a line parallel with and 118 feet East of the Southerly extension of the West line of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 930; Lots 1, 2, 15 and 16, Block 6, Iverson's Second Addition, together with all that part of vacated 63rd Street as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition which accrues to said lots. B-1 ~~-13 Exhibit C HRA Property Legal Description The North 46 feet of Lot 2, and all of Lot 3, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition; All of Lot 6 and the North 25 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition; The South 67 feet of Lot 4, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition and All that part of Lot 4, Block 3, lying Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet South of the North line of said. Lot 4; all of Lot 5, Block 3, and the South 17 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, all in Iverson's Third Addition. C-1 c v z z A m _~~ t~ d r 0 ~~ 0 e~-~- C~ O b ~• ~d A~ b O CD CD A~ b O ~• O O ~~ a 0 ~d 0 ~. ~d 0 CD L__ ---- r-- -----~-- -L-----J ~ __._,r ~~ ~' ~---- -~j,-- ~` I------ L---------~ ---J ~~ ~----- .. !/ \\ \ ST. ---~---- l_~ -------- ~ --- I~ ^ i ~~----------~---- 'j ^ ~ ~ 1---------~---- ~, ;~ I ----- i ~---- --1---- ~(I ~ L--------~---- ~---------T---- ~ ~ t--------- --- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ., c.~-----------~--- ~ ~ ~-0 T- ~ -- --~° ___I AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITE COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 OTHER BIISINESS 12 197 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of renaming 17th Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: B Motion: Consideration of renamin 17th Avenue. II. BACKGROUND The Cedar Point development has requested addresses for its new businesses. Before the addresses are assigned, City staff has suggested renaming 17th Avenue on its new alignment for the following reasons: • The new 17th Avenue intersection with 66th Street needs signage that will provide clear guidance to motorists. • There will be confusion between the existing 17th Avenue located south of 66tH Street and the new 17th Avenue alignment. • The new 17th Avenue alignment south of 66th Street will cross diagonally to Cedar Avenue causing some confusion if the 17th Avenue name is retained. • The new 17th Avenue alignment north of 66th. Street will ultimately connect with Bloomington Avenue causing some confusion if the 17th Avenue name is retained. 0926Rename 17th Parkway City staff discussed the possible renaming of the new 17th Avenue Parkway with the Transportation Commission and the Community Services Commission. They suggested: Cedar Parkway; Cedar~Point Parkway; Taft Parkway and Richfield Parkway. Cedar & Cedar Point were popular in conveying a geographical reference for people. Taft did not generate much support. Richfield Parkway had support on the Community Services Commission but some members thought the name would be better suited to 77th Street/76th Street that extends across all of the City. The Community Services Commission considered honoring a distinguished citizen but believed it ran counter to .Commission policy that opposes naming parks after citizens. If Council chose to name the road in honor of a person, they could contact the City's Historical Society for suggestions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The 17th Avenue Parkway is consistent with the City's adopted Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • To reduce the cost and inconvenience to existing 17th Avenue residents, the City will leave the old street signs in place until redevelopment occurs. The U.S. Post Office indicated that the new/old street names can be used during transition. • Staff will notify key agencies of any street name change for dispatch services and. mapping. C. FINANCIAL • The cost to rename a new street is minimal. D. LEGAL • .The City attorney will be available to answer any questions on renaming a street. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ •: Reject all the proposed names and ask for new candidate names to be submitted by the Commissions.. This will delay the issuance of addresses for Cedar Point businesses. • Council may choose to select a street name on its own. This avoids any. delay in the issuance of street addresses for Cedar Point businesses. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map of 17th Avenue Parkway. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. ~a-~ -~ 66th Street & 17th Avenue Improvements (Stage 2) ~, ~ ~;,~ City of Richfield, Minnesota ~ ~,,~ 1{ AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 198 STAFF REPORT r , CITY.COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER:- DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of .Neighborhood Stop Sign Test Areao r~ THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER 9VAME, TITLE L RECOMMENDED ACTION: B Motion: Approve the roposed stop si n demonstration ro'ect. IL BACKGROUND The Transportation Commission has studied the use of two-way stop signs in residential neighborhoods in response to a City Council directive. Several alternatives were considered including the creation of east-west sub-collectors. The sub-collectors would permit east-west traffic to flow freely by posting stop signs on the north-south avenues at each residential intersection. While the Transportation Commission was unable to agree on a preferred .alternative other than the existing policy, the sub-collector alternative generated considerable interest from both residents and Commission members. Therefore, the City Council .directed the Transportation Commission to test the use of two-way stop signs to create east-west sub-collectors. The City Council .suggested the neighborhood between 11th Avenue and 18th Avenue, and between. 62nd Street- and 66th Street for the stop sign study. 0926 Stop Sign Test Area :This area was selected based on: the reconstruction of Highway 62 Crosstown; the .new Cedar Point development; one fatal crash at an uncontrolled intersection; and, _ resident complaints of speeding. A letter was sent to residents inviting them to attend a public open house on July 12, 2006 or to provide. their comments to staff. Only a few comments were received and the arrangement of stop signs at two intersections were changed based on ..those comments. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION. A. POLICY • ' The City's Comprehensive Plan supports residential trafFc calming. The proposed. stop sign pattern is an attempt to reduce crashes at residential intersections. B. CRITICAL ISSITES • Richfield's development pattern restricts.the view of cross traffic approaching a residential intersection. Vehicles need to reduce their. speed as they near. an intersection to -see approaching cross traffic. The .proposed. stop sign pattern addresses this issue and should reduce right-angle- crashes in residential neighborhoods. C. FINANCIAL It costs approximately $75 to install a stop signor $1.825 for the entire test. area.. • If the City were to install two-way stop signs at all uncontrolled residential intersections, it would cost about $33,000. D. LEGAL • The City has the authority to establish reasonable traffic. control measures under state law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to reject installing the proposed sub-collector concept as a stop sign demonstration area. • Council may choose. to direct the Transportation Commission to propose a different stop sign pattern, such as a basket weave pattern.in the neighborhood. - V. ATTACHMENTS • Map of the. neighborhood showing the proposed stop sign pattern that creates east-west sub-collectors. - VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. ~ ~ i i ' a i i € i -_- _` _ r --- . ;.. _... ~} 3 _ _ ._ `,... _. _. __. _. t __ ___Y _..~... _.. _. ~_ . ..... .. _. ~ 4: _.. .. __ _ .,._ $ '~ - t~ t - ~~~ ~ i 2 ~~ ( i '~ } E ~ f ~-I $ m, 3 t ~ - __, i - _.._ I I _._ \© ~.._._ . __,._ . ..____ ..F...._ __-_ i ~ ! ~ _ . 11TH. _. _ ~ VE, _ _ ~ ; . a ._.. S ! ~ ' ~ i( !, s i 1 ~ i ; ~ ~ ~ i . ' _.. a.. ._ .. .___. .. • _. .._ ._.... w ..__ ~ ~ t z '~ . 3 ~ _° __~.. . .... .. _~_ ~y __ _.._.~2~~ ___.A~E._._._ i • __..,_ S._..j t : 4 j S ;. t ~ ~ i / f s { ttt ~~e I9 ; ~~ f t ~ ~ j _ ~~L i~ \, ' H z _.13~. _ ~i ~ ._ _ _ _~ AVE_ _~~w~ .... - - _ ._._ E f ~ G G ~v ~ ;, ~. O ~ _ ._-._~~~ __. /~ \ ~. __.. ~ a . s ~., ~ ~ y ~ . ~ . __._ t i4rr~_ © ~ ~ . ___ _ .AvE. ,..._. ~ ~~ .____ ~N (~ ;, 17J -~ _ ~ t z ~'o~ ~". ~ i m~ ~ _. _. P _. __t5.T~l_ _ ~, !y O ~ S 1W ~ tf~>e~ ~, ~ r* 1' ~ ~ } ttt ~ r ~ ~ i I O 1 ~ ~ .. ~ 4 ; 1,6TH _._._ _.._ _AVE _ _.._._. ~ - -_----___._. _-- ____ - --- '0 ~ ~ m p ~ ~__. -- ~ ~ o ~ x -~. '; ~; .~ _ _ ~_ _ ~ ~ .. _ _ __,. _. _ ~, ~ fA _ ~ --___ .. ____ .. ____.. __._._ ._ .__... ._1ZTH___ I AVE I _.__ ._ S,__..._ _ .__ } r ~ ~ Q ~~ u.. ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ j ~ I ~ O 's 1 3 i __ _ _. ~, ~ _ .. _ _.__ __ _.. __ _. _ _~,,, . _ _ . __~_ . _ _ _ ___ . _ ._ __ ~, ~~TFi.__ _ ~~J/E_. _~_.. _~,S ~ sv f,~~~'' 3 rh AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 OTHER BIISINESS 14 199 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES,. ORERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME. TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Review design criteria for the new City Maintenance Facility. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is required at this time, however staff is seeking guidance on design criteria early in the design process in order to avoid unnecessary design costs. II. BACKGROUND . At their August 8 meeting, the City Council authorized the hiring of the engineering and architectural firm of Short Elliott and Hendrickson (SEH) to perform the preliminary design for the new City Garage. The architects and staff will introduce .design criteria and options at the meeting for City Council consideration. These criteria should be addressed early in the design process in order to avoid unnecessary- design costs when we proceed into more detailed design of the building. Staff is seeking guidance on items such as: • LEED's (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) criteria and certification • Aesthetics of the exterior Q926Garage • The need for public meeting space • Space for other departments, Public Safety, Building Maintenance, City Clerk or allowance for possible future expansion • Employee fitness and exercise room • Use of an Owners Representative and/or a Construction Manager • 'Any other items for Council consideration SEH and staff will have design and cost implications of the items being discussed available at the meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Timely. decisions on design criteria and design options can reduce design costs and provide a better building. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The architect and City staff are trying to have the design process completed in time to bid the project this winter during prime bidding time to get the lowest bids possible., C. FINANCIAL • Several of the design criteria and options have cost implications that the City Council will take into consideration. D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Nancy Schultz, SEH