The URL can be used to link to this page

12-12-05 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005 REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING RICHFIELD WATER PLANT CONFERENCE ROOM 6221 PORTLAND AVENUE 7 P.M. AGENDA Call to order 1. Approval of minutes of (1) Special Concurrent HRA/City Council/Planning Commission Worksession of November 16, 2005 and (2) Regular HRA Meeting of November 21, 2005 Notes: 2. FiRA approval of agenda 3. Consideration of resolution authorizing purchase of real property at 6400-15th Avenue through New Home Program Staff Report No. 47 Notes: 4. Consideration of status report on completion of City Bella improvements, including settlement of financial obligations Staff Report No. 48 Notes: 5., Executive Director report 6. Claims and payroll Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA ITEM # [F REPORT # 48 STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Status report on completion of City Bella improvements, including settlement of financial obli ations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consider the options being presented by the Redevelo er, Cit Bella LLC and rovide direction to staff II. BACKGROUND City Bella construction is very close to being completed. Four units remain unsold in the tower, which contains a total of 117. All 16 units in the villa are sold. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and Redeveloper, City Bella LLC (also known as Gramercy Corporation) originally entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment in 2001. In 2005, as the project is being completed the Redeveloper has requested consideration by the HRA of outstanding financial obligations. To summarize: • In June of 2004, the HRA authorized an agreement with City Bella LLC to provide $500,000 in Livable Communities funding from the Metropolitan Council to pay for a portion of the $1.2 million expense for plaza improvements. The 121905 City Bella HRA has received the funds from the Metropolitan Council and is prepared to pay City Bella LLC pending the result of HRA action on December 19, 2005. • City Bella LLC agreed to contribute $500,000 in a deposit account for a future skyway upon receipt of the plaza funds from the HRA. According to the attached agreement, the funds would be held in a separate account for ten years as a portion of the amount needed to build a skyway between City Bella and Woodlake Centre. If at the end of 10 years the skyway has not been built, the funds revert to the Redeveloper. The $500,000 is in addition to an estimated $250,000 in building and infrastructure improvements already'made to accommodate a skyway in the City Bella building. (Woodlake Centre is also constructed to receive a skyway.) • The total committed by City Bella LLC to a future skyway is $750,000. It is estimated that $1.5 million in additional funding is needed for a skyway to proceed. • The project is essentially complete and financial settlements are being finalized. • The Redeveloper seeks to mitigate some of the costs in' excess of those anticipated for some of the improvements. • The death in 2003 of -Mike Conlan, President of Gramercy Corporation permanently modified the Redeveloper partnership and limited the financial flexibility for City Bella LLC and Franna and Sons Inc. Jan Susee was hired to take a lead role in the completion of the 16 unit Villa and crosswalk portion of the project and to help market the tax increment revenue note. • In September 2003, the City Council authorized aroadway/crosswalk design for Lake Shore Drive; requiring a flasher unit at the crosswalk area, handicapped spaces on street, turn and through lanes, a raised median and a side walk extension to the Nature Center. The Redeveloper has stated that the specifications added $73,000 in costs; a total cost of $96,000. Mike Conlan agreed to install the improvements as requested. • In the summer of 2004, Franna and Sons installed the improvements to the intersection at 67th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Even with some assistance from the City for the purchase of signal equipment, the costs of the intersection improvements exceeded the estimate of $100,000 by $31,828 as reported by the Redeveloper. Lou Stocco, acting President of Gramercy Corporation at the time, objected to the increase and reluctantly agreed to install the improvements as requested. • The total excess improvement costs as reported by the Redeveloper are $104,828. The Redeveloper has proposed this amount be drawn from the proposed deposit. • The Contract for Private Redevelopment requires the Redeveloper to reimburse the HRA for staff and consultant costs incurred during the project. There is an outstanding balance of $65,850 due the HRA. The Redeveloper proposes that this amount be drawn from the proposed deposit. • Jan Susee has proposed that an additional $100,000 be released from the proposed deposit account. With these additional funds there is an opportunity in 2006 to make further improvements adjacent to City Bella: • A portion of the funds could be used to upgrade the front pedestrian entrance to the Nature Center (approximately $25,000). • A portion of the funds would add planters, street furniture, sculpture and similar streetscape improvements along Lyndale Avenue between 66th Street and 67th Street. Jan Susee will be attending the HRA meeting on December 19th to respond to questions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The partnership of the HRA and City Bella LLC is based on a Contract for Private Redevelopment. • An additional "Agreement Regarding Skyway" has been drafted as the basis for a deposit of funds by City Bella LLC for a future skway. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Redeveloper is asking for the HRA to evaluate the additional costs that have been assumed ($104,828), costs that are pending ($65,858), and opportunity costs to further improve the project ($100,000), and adjust the required deposit amount from $500,000 down to $250,000. • A deposit of $250,000 plus the $250,000 in building improvements already made to accommodate a future skyway would still represent a $500,000 contribution by the Developer. • Mike Conlan's death removed the visioning for the project and altered the financial resources of the project significantly such that without personal financial contributions by the partnership of Roger Schnobrich (Gramercy) Peter Donnino and Gary Franna (Franna and Sons, Inc) the project might not have been completed. Gramercy Corporation has no assets and their office in Richfield has closed. C. FINANCIAL • All other obligations of the Redeveloper have been met. • The amount of funds to be placed on deposit for the skyway has been $500,000 and the Redeveloper is requesting an adjustment to meet other financial obligations. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the "Agreement Regarding Skyway" and the agreement represents satisfactory terms for the management of funds to be deposited. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Authorize an "Agreement Regarding Skyway" that has a $250,000 deposit requirement. Authorize staff to use the balance of funds to cover present and future obligations as outlined. • Authorize an Agreement that has a $500-,000 deposit. The Redeveloper has indicated there are insufficient resources to meet other financial obligations or opportunities. • Consider a different deposit amount and respond to some but not all of the Redeveloper's request. • Delay action or choose not to act. The $500,000 has been obligated to the Redeveloper and without some agreement, there would be no deposit. If the HRA does not provide the $500,000 to the developer for the plaza improvements, the funds must be returned to the Metropolitan Council. V. ATTACHMENTS • Agreement • Letters (three) from City Bella LLC and Franna and Sons, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jan Susee, City Bella LLC AGREEMENT REGARDING SKYWAY THIS AGREEMENT REGARDING SKYWAY is entered into this day of 200_, by and between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (""the HRA") and City Bella, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company ("City Bella"). RECITALS A. City Bella is working with Gramercy Corporation, now known as Cooperative Agency, Inc., in the completion of the City Bella development in the City Bella district ("the Project"). B. City Bella is committed to the success of the Project. C. In the development of the Project, the HRA has requested that the Project be constructed so as to permit the construction of a future skyway from the Project across Lyndale to existing commercial properties and that the Project contribute to the potential skyway. D. The Project was designed and constructed to accommodate such a skyway. E. City Bella has agreed to provide a deposit in a segregated account in the amount of $ as a contribution to fund the skyway if constructed within ten (10) years, which the HRA has agreed will be an appropriate contribution on behalf of the Project. F. City Bella and the HRA wish to reflect their understandings in this Agreement. G. City Bella has contributed substantial sums of money in excess of $1,500,000.00 to cover the costs of completion of the Project, including the Plaza and walkways. IT IS AGREED: 1. City Bella shall deposit $ approved by the HRA. in an account or investment 2. The account shall remain in place until September 1, 2015, or such earlier time as the HRA may designate for the construction of a skyway upon the execution of a contract by the HRA or the City of Richfield for the construction of such a skyway. 3. Accrued interest on the account or investment shall be paid to City Bella 4. If a contract for the construction of a skyway is not entered into on or before September 1, 2015, the monies in the account or investment shall be the property of City Bella, which may disburse the account or investment at its discretion, and the Project and its owners shall be relieved of any requirement to contribute to the cost of a skyway. AGREEMENT REGARDING SKYWAY.doc HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY: Chairman And Executive Director CITY BELLA LLC BY: Its Chief Manager 2 AGREEMENT REGARDING SKYWAY.doc August 10, 2004 City of Richfield ATTN: John Dean 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield MN 55423-2599 ^ RE:. City Bella Skyway Dear John: During the course of construction of City Bella, its owners, City Bella, LLC have•spent approximately $250,000 to prepare for the eventual installation of a skyway between City Bella and the M & I Bank building. All of the space and infrastructure has been installed to accomplish the skyway on the City•Bella side of the street. To that end, City Bella, LLC is willing to pledge for ten years up to $500,000 towards the cost of a new skyway. I would note that this pledge relates only to City Bella, LLC and does not. effect any liability on the co-op or commercial space at City Bella. It is the intent of City Bella, LLC to maintain an account of $500,000 for ten years in order to fund the possible construction of a skyway. City Bella, LLC makes .this pledge on behalf of the developers of City Bella, LLC. Failure to finalize the construction of a skyway would be a disappointment and a waste of resources to City Bella in view of the infrastructure which has been placed in the building in order to accommodate the skyway. City Bella, LLC looks forward to working with the City to develop and improve the area surrounding 66th and Lyndale, including the installation of the skyway, Yours very truly, BY CITY BELLA, LLC Roger Schnobrich Chief Manager /cc C:\Documents and Settings\BNordquist\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OI,K1\Richfield-Dean2.doc FRANA AND SONS, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS 633 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, HOPKINS, MN 55343 PHONE: 952-935-8600 • FAX: 952-935-8644 December 14, 2004 Lou Stocco Gramerc} Corporatio~i 6b01 L}udale Ave S. #110 Richfield, MN ~~423 RE: Lyndale Avenue South Median Revisions Dear Lou: The fallo~-ing is the cost breakdown to revise the south median on L}-ndale A~~enue and install the C'ih~ supplied street lights as designed b}- SEH Engineers. 1. Mobilization, testing, street stveepi.ng, temporar}• safch- lights, barricades and supervision 56.026.00 Z. Demolition of curb, sidewalks, bituminous sidewalks and concrete paving. Removal of signage, sprinklers, sa~~f cutting & excavation. $5 000.00 ~. Bituminous paving & stripping. $8.314.00 4. Concrete paving, rebar, sidewalk, curb and gutter. SZy 88.00 S. Reinstallation of sprinkler s}'stem. $2,680.U0 6. Readjustment of catch basin. $991.00 7. Revision of signal s}-stem. 574 971.00 (I~lote: materials supplied b}- Cih~ of Richfield) , 8. Less allowance for relocation of Wrest side street Lights included in Cit}' Bella bid. f$8.000.00~ Subtotal $119,844.00 O & P 1.1.984..00 Subtotal Sinoerel}-, $131.828.00 FRANA AND SONS, INC. Stuart ~V. Bestul Vice President FRANA AND SUNS, INC. GENERAL CUNTRACTURS 633 SECOND AVENUE SQUTH, HOPKtNS, MN 55343 PHONE: 952-935-8600 • FAX: 952-935-8644 Apri127, 2004 Lou Stocco Gramercy Corporation 6601 Lyndale Ave S. #110 Richfield, MN 55423 RE: LAKESHORE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Dear Lau: The cost to provide the Lakeshore Drive improvements as detailed by SEH Architects in the plans and project manual dated September 76, 2003 is {596,000.00} Ninety-Six Thousand Dollars and NOII Q0. Our price includes all items as outlined in their bid proposal from sheet number 2 and the following clarifications: I. Excludes Frana and Sons, inc. overhead & profit costs, which will betaken from the credit for the City Bella tenant finish allowance. ?. Excludes General Requirements except for items directly used for the work. Supervision will be used from City Bella 3. The existing pavement markings will be painted over (black) in lieu of removed. 4. Excludes Builders Risk Insurance, performance & payment bonds. 5. Includes General Liability Insurance covered under Cih~ Sella contract. If 5rou have any questions or concerns regarding the above, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, FRANA AND SONS, ING. Stuart ~. Bestul Vice President Cc: Peter Donnino AGENDA ITEM # 3 REPORT # 47 J STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2U~5 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECT ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing the purchase of real property located at 6400 15th Avenue for a New Home Pro ram Pro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the purchase of real property located at 6400 15th Avenue through the New Home Pro ram. II. BACKGROUND In September 2005, the owner of 6400 15th Avenue approached staff and expressed interest in selling their property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The house at 6400 15th Avenue South was built in 1930 and. is a 768-sq. ft. one-story structure with a detached, single-car garage. It is in need of considerable repairs. The lot is 47 x 134 ft. If approved, the HRA would purchase the property, demolish the existing buildings, and enter into an agreement with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (HFH) to construct a new home on this property under the HRA's New Home Program. The agreement and house plans would be presented to the HRA for a summer 2006 construction start. HFH would construct a new home to be sold to a low- to moderate-income buyer. 6400 15th Ave The purchase price of the property has been determined to be $140,000 based on an independent appraisal report prepared by Ron Lachenmeyer. Mr. Lachenmeyer is experienced in valuing property in the Richfield area. Hennepin County has made "Affordable Housing Incentive Funds" available to cover $40,000 of the acquisition cost. The remaining $100,000 would come from the HRA's Housing Fund. This expense was anticipated in the 2005 Revised Budget. There are not sufficient Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available for use by the New Home Program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A stated goal of the Richfield 2020 plan is to "sustain, expand, and continuously improve our housing assets." Acquiring this property would allow the replacement of a functionally obsolete and deteriorated property with a newly constructed affordable home. • The HRA has demonstrated success through its New Home Program and Richfield Rediscovered program in removing housing in poor conditions and providing affordable replacement housing for families. • The purchase would require the Planning Commission to consider a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The HRA would not acquire the property if this finding is not made. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The owner has expressed a need to sell and requests an action by the HRA at this time. A poor quality house will be replaced by a new home. C. FINANCIAL • Funding is available to acquire the property as outlined above. D. LEGAL • The HRA's standard form purchase agreement will be used to acquire the property. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not authorize the purchase of the property. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6400 15TH AVENUE SOUTH UNDER THE NEW HOME PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("the HRA") desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the New Home Program, said property being described as: Lot 1, Block 3, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Girard Parkview; and WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.012 to acquire real property within its area of operation; and WHEREAS, a purchase price of $140,000 has been established based on an independent appraisal; and WHEREAS, $40,000 in Affordable Housing Incentive Funds are available for acquisition from Hennepin County, and $100,000 in HRA Housing Fund funds are available for acquisition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority: 1. The purchase price for 6400 15th Avenue South is approved for $140,000. 2. The Chairperson and. Executive Director are authorized to execute a purchase agreement and other documents to allow purchase for the amount set forth in this resolution. The acquisition is contingent upon the Planning Commission finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 19th day of December, 2005. Thomas E. Harms, Chair ATTEST: Suzanne M. Sandahl, Secretary CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21,2005 REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING RICHFIELD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7 P.M. AGENDA Call to order 1. Approval of minutes of (1 ).Regular HRA Meeting of September 19, 2005; (2) Special Concurrent HRA/City Council/Planning Commission Worksession of September 26, 2005 and (3) Special Concurrent HRA/City Council/Planning Commission Worksession of October 19, 2005 Notes: 2. HRA approval of agenda 3. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the HRA in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further HRA action is necessary. However, any HRA Commissioner may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for HRA discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval A. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with Dave Schaffer for remodeling advisor services S.R. No. 40 B. Consideration of approval of continuation of contract between HRA and Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to deliver housing programs and services S.R. No. 41 C. Consideration of approval of contract with Architectural Consortium for services of Kathy Anderson to assist with design services related to Cedar Corridor redevelopment project S.R. No. 42 Notes: 4. Consideration of resolution authorizing modification to Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifications to Tax Increment Financing Plans for Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and. B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts and resolution establishing housing redevelopment project Staff Report No. 43 Notes: 5. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing Business Subsidy Agreement between HRA and Ryan Companies US, Inc. for Cedar Point project Staff Report. No. 44 Notes: 6. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain real properties for redevelopment pursuant to Richfield Redevelopment Plan; Cedar Point project Staff Report No. 45 Notes: 7. Consideration of future of Candlewood outlot parcel located at 301 West 77th Street Staff Report No. 46 Notes: 8. Executive Director report 9. Claims and payroll Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # [E f, STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAMR. TITI.F DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR R REVIEWED BY EXECUTNE ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration to direct staff with regards to the "restaurant parcel" aka Candlewood outlot arcel, located at 301 West 77th Street. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Direct staff with regards to the future of the Candlewood outlot, located at 301 West 77th Street. II. BACKGROUND In 1992 the former site of Lampert Lumber was purchased. The site buildings were vacant. Shortly thereafter adjacent excess land was purchased from the CP Railroad. The parcels were reconfigured into; one containing 104,600 sq. ft. for a motel and the second a 49,000 sq. ft. parcel containing a 9,600 sq. ft. pad for a restaurant. (Community leaders desired a sit down tablecloth restaurant.) The larger parcel was sold to the Candlewood Hotel Company in 1998. In 1998 and 1999 attempts to market the site for a restaurant were not successful. Brokerage listings with Grubb & Ellis and Cambridge Commercial Realty resulted in no sale. This was a period when many restaurants were seeking sites in the I-494 Corridor. The brokerage firms actively marketed to many potential restaurant companies. The lack of interest was primarily due to low traffic volumes on 77th Street. The high volumes on Lyndale Avenue were not significant due to distance from the site. 112105 Restaurant Parcel Since that time people have expressed interest for a variety of uses but none have come to fruition. In 2003 people seeking a Culvers restaurant franchise expressed interest. In June of that year, staff approached the HRA about proceeding with Culvers. The HRA directed staff to continue discussions. At a subsequent point, staff was informed that Culver's Corporate had rejected the site. In 2004 a different group of individuals approached staff about locating a Culvers restaurant on the. site. Apparently the position of Corporate had changed in the interim. Those discussions were ended when a moratorium was placed on new construction in the I-494 Corridor in February 2005. (Persons seeking the site for a Culvers attended the first open house in September:) The Culvers concept has been a one story single use building. During the course of the corridor visioning study the consultant, Mark Koegler and staff have become aware of the need that Richfield Bloomington Honda has to expand. The Honda dealership to the west an the Hopkins area and the one to the east in west St. Paul are in an expansion mode. The Richfield dealership must expand. Both the consultant and staff have had discussions with the dealership management. The dealership. desires to stay at their current site. The dealership management has participated in the open house process and as the result of the discussions is aware of the vision process which is moving in the direction of land use intensity versus simply extensive land uses. Staff has viewed. a car dealership in Colorado Springs, Colorado with interstate frontage, which successfully utilizes a parking ramp like structure for both new and used car sales as well as customer parking. It is a Dodge dealership. In the past few weeks it has literally become apparent that the new Walzer BMW dealership will be operating out of a multi story structure in the southeast corner of the intersection of I-35W and I-494. The Honda dealership management has also observed this structure and is interested in determining the feasibility of such structures for their use as well as opportunities for acquiring additional site area. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA owns the parcel • The moratorium on the issuance of permits is in place now and expires in February 2006. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The visioning process is not yet complete so the final concept with regards to density and type of development appropriate for this area is not yet established. • The Culvers people may begin to express interest in the site again. • The Richfield Bloomington Honda dealership .may be interested in the site. However, they would need to have their project underway before they could make a preliminary determination about their interest or need for the site. It will likely be well into 2006 before that determination can be made. • With the relationship of this parcel to the existing Honda dealership it is not readily apparent how the site could benefit the dealership but .that is because a design study has not yet been done. • If the site is sold to another party before the Honda dealership makes their design determination .their use of the site is precluded. • The Culver and Honda concepts are a contrast in density. C. FINANCIAL • The most recent appraisal from June of 2005 determined the value of the site to be $660,000 or $13.50 per sq. ft. D. LEGAL • The land use regulatory portion of the visioning process have not yet been established. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Delay providing staff direction until a later meeting. Provide staff with other directions. V. ATTACHMENTS • Aerial photo VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives of Culvers and Richfield Bloomington Honda have been informed of the agenda item. Aerial Photo N 0 30 60 120 180 240 Feet AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # /{ ~ STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution regarding authorization for eminent domain proceedings for the Cedar Point ro'ect. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public .hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution which authorizes eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain real properties for redevelopment pursuant to the Richfield Redevelopment Plan -Cedar Point aroiect. II. BACKGROUND In July 2005. the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a contract for private development with Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Developer) for the Cedar Point area. Under the contract the Developer is responsible for purchasing 33 houses and the HRA and City are responsible for purchasing five properties. The HRA is using the Multi-Jurisdictional Program (MJP) grant from Hennepin County to purchase 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue (two parcels, one which is undeveloped, and the other contains a small 112105 Cedar Point -Eminent Domain commercial building. Both have the same owner). MJP funds are also being used by the HRA to purchase 6500 and 6528 Cedar Avenue. The building at 6528 Cedar Avenue contains 12 units and the HRA has recently purchased that property. The building at 6500 Cedar Avenue is the sod facility. The City utilized funds from the $10 million grant from MAC/FAA to purchase 6400 Cedar Avenue, afour-unit apartment building. The Developer is planning on closing on their property purchases in approximately April 2006. Site clearance and construction would begin shortly thereafter. Therefore, the property being purchased by the HRA and City needs to be available at approximately the same time. To meet that schedule 6300 and 6320 Cedar Avenue as well as 6500 Cedar Avenue need to be considered for eminent domain action. The quick take process requires 90 days and additional time is needed for preparation of documents and filing with District Court. Action by the HRA at their November 21 meeting would be necessary. Attached are two items related to this matter. A chart in summary form indicates specific activities related to each of the properties being proposed for eminent domain. It indicates that ample time and contacts have taken place with the owners or their representatives. For example, some 150 days will have passed between the time the owner received the offer letter and consideration of the use of eminent domain by the HRA in November. The second attachment is the draft of the proposed resolution to be .considered for adoption by the HRA at the November 21 meeting. It is a compilation of virtually the complete history of events in the corridor during the last few years. It includes entries related to legislative action funding planning and the recent amendment to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan. Note that Exhibit A attached to the resolution lists five properties for eminent domain. Two of the five actions are .needed to correct gaps in title. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY On July 27, 2005, the HRA entered into a Contract for Private Development with Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Developer). • Under the contract the Developer is responsible for purchasing 33 houses and the HRA and City are responsible for purchasing two apartment buildings and three commercial properties. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • .The Developer is planning on closing on their property purchases in approximately April 2006. Site clearance and construction would begin shortly thereafter. In order for the Developer to move forward with necessary steps in the development process, according to the development schedule, the timely passage of the attached resolution is required. C. FINANCIAL • The. HRA received a $2 million Multi-Jurisditional Project (MJP) grant from Hennepin County to acquire the subject properties. D. LEGAL • The attached resolution was prepared by legal counsel. • State law requires a public hearing to consider eminent domain proceedings. • Legal notice was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on November 10, 2005. • The property owners have also been directly notified of this public hearing. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject or defer approval of the attached resolution. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Activity summary on three subject parcels • Map • Copy of letter from property owner of 6300 Cedar Avenue VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Robert Lindall, Kennedy & Graven RESOLUTION NO.OS- AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners is the official governing body of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield ("HRA"); and WHEREAS, the HRA is a public body corporate and politic under Minnesota Iaw and is authorized by law to acquire real estate which it may deem necessary for its purposes, after a public hearing and adoption by it of a resolution declaring that the acquisition of the real property. is necessary; and WHEREAS, the real estate which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Subject Property") is located in the northeast corner of Richfield in the Cedar Point Area which is made up of nine full or partial city blocks, comprising one hundred properties, bounded by 63ra Street on the north, 66~` Street on the south, 17a' Avenue on the West, and Trunk Highway 77 on the east, all of which is within the Richfield Redevelopment Plan Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Richfield Redevelopment Plan was approved by the Board of Commissioners of The .Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the City of Richfield (HRA) on May 17, 1993 (in its Resolution No. 476), determined to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan by the City's Planning Commission on May 23, 1993, and approved on June 14, 1993 by the City Council of the City of Richfield (in its Resolution No. 8030); and WHEREAS, 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 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) ,and included representatives from the Governor's office, Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Metropolitan Airport Commission, Minnesota Department of Finance, Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan Council, and the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Burnsville; and WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force Report found 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 MSP; and WHEREAS, in Laws of 1999, ch. 243, Article 16, § 35, subd. 1, the Minnesota Legislature established an Airport Impact Zone which includes that part of the City of Richfield, lying east of Bloomington Avenue, between the north city limits and the south city limits, encompassing approximately 50 blocks of residential and light commercial uses along Richfield's east border and stated: $~-267451v3 CI25-260 Subd. 2. AIRPORT IMPACTS DEFINED. The legislature finds that: (1) 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; .. . (3) appropriate measures to mitigate those adverse impacts include but are not limited to housing replacement activities; and (4) the state legislature has authorized the expansion of the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport in order to accommodate the future economic growth of the state. The environmental quality board has adopted findings that identify the need to make land uses in the area identified in subdivision 1 compatible with airport uses. WHEREAS, the Cedar Point Area is entirely within the Airport Impact Zone established by the Legislature in Laws of 1999, ch. 243, Article 16, § 35; and WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force Report stated that it anticipated that the new North/South (17/35) Runway will cause iow frequency aircraft noise impacts upon adjacent communities. The Governor's Task Force Report characterized low frequency noise 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 Governor's Task Force Report further stated that low frequency noise 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; and WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force Report predicted that the new MSP North/South Runway would generate 300-400 jet airplane operations daily (one every 3.6 minutes, lasting as long as 30-45 seconds per flight) and that these jet airplane operations are expected to create audible rattling inside residences in eastern Richfield, including some residences that had undergone acoustical insulation treatments for over flight noise. 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"; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield expressed concern to the Governor's Task Force 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, the City advised RJ1.r267451v3 2 RCL25-260 the Task Force that 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. 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; and WHEREAS, in order to prevent this degradation of -the Airport Impact Zone 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 could 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; and WHEREAS, the Law Frequency Noise Policy Committee was formed as part of a December 18, 1996 agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. That agreement azose out of the City's concern regazding the potential impact of low frequency noise. from the new North/South (17/35) Runway on the established residential neighborhoods in east Richfield. Deliberations of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee 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; and WHEREAS, the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee reviewed previous noise studies pertaining to operations at other airports azound 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 "FLNPC Report"), noted that both the U.S. 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"; and WHEREAS, with respect to the Cedar Point Area, the FLNPC 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 contaur, 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 recommended 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; and RJL-267451v3 3 RC125-260 WHEREAS, 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 neighborhoods inside of the 87 dB contour" (thus including the Cedar Point Area); and WHEREAS, 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, in 1999 the City of Richfield adopted a modification to the redevelopment plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area that expanded its redevelopment project area boundary to include the Airport Impact Zone extending to Trunk Highway 62 to the north and Trunk Highway 77 to the east. Since the Redevelopment Project Area was expanded in 1999, additional studies were completed in 2000 by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee (described above) which produced a revised low frequency sound Ievel contour map defining a >87 dB level for the easternmost area of the Airport Impact Zone which includes the Cedar Point Area; and WHEREAS, in February, 2004, the 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 approved by the HRA 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 first phase of the Master Plan is the Taft Park Greenway, bounded by Taft Park on the north, 66a' Street on the south, 16~` Avenue to the west and Trunk Highway 77 to the east. This area includes the Cedar Point Area. In the Cedar Point Area, the Master Plan continues to identify regional retail as the preferred use; and WHEREAS, on .July 26, 2004, based on the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan, the Planning Commission amended the City's Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of properties in the Cedar Point Area from Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential High Density, and Community Commercial to Regional Commercial/Office; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2004, based on the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution changing the designation of properties in the Cedar Point Area from Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential High Density, and Community Commercial to Regional CommerciaUOffice; WHEREAS, on November 1, 2004, the City received notice from the Metropolitan Council that administrative approval was granted to the Comprehensive Plan amendment and that no further formal action by the Metropolitan Council (or City Council) was needed to effectuate the Comprehensive Plan amendment; WHEREAS, in 2000 the City received a grant in the amount of $5,000,000 (representing over 6% of the required acquisition funds) from the Minnesota Legislature to acquire properties in the low frequency noise area. Since 2000, the City also received a grant in the amount of $10,000,000 from MAC (on behalf of the federal government) to acquire homes in the low R.TL-267451v3 4 RC125-260 frequency noise area. In 2005, the City received a grant in the amount of $2,000,000 from Hennepin County to continue acquisition of properties in the low frequency noise area. Through all of these funding sources, the City has acquired 52 single-family homes, 5 apartment buildings (containing 72 units) and 28 commercial buildings in the low frequency noise area. WHEREAS, in 2005, the HRA retained Dan Cornejo of Cornejo Consulting to evaluate the extent to which blighting conditions are present within the Cedar Point Area. The resulting report, entitled."Blight Assessment Report, Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification, Cedar Point Area, Richfield, Minnesota, June 3, 2005 ("Blight Assessment Report"} details the conditions present in the Cedar Point Area and the extent to which they constitute blight. WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 469.002, subd. 11 defines "Blighted area" as follows: "Blighted area" means any area with buildings or irnprovements 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. WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 469.028, subd. 3 further defines "blighting conditions" to include: Open, undeveloped, unused, or inappropriately used lands with unusual and difficult physical characteristics of the ground, the existence of faulty planning chazacterized by the subdivision or sale of lots laid out in disregazd of the contours or of irregulaz 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. WHEREAS, the Blight Assessment Report includes a detailed field survey and investigation of all of the parcels in the azea, observation of the exterior conditions of all buildings and public improvements, and a review of building permits over the past ten years. Qualifying blight conditions throughout the study area were identified and analyzed on a pazcel-by-parcel basis to produce a chart showing blight conditions present in the study area. Photo documentation of each property is also included in the report as well as a review of relevant prior studies of this azea and its physical context. WHEREAS, most of the single family detached houses in the Cedaz Point Area were built in the 1940s and 1950s. Of the 100 properties, as of June 3, 2005, sixty-two properties were vacant (a majority of which had been cleared), thirty-three were occupied single family homes, three were occupied apartment buildings and two were occupied with commercial businesses (a landscaping business and a freight handling business). The properties that front 17~' and 18~' Avenues comprise a uniformly platted area characterized by approximately 10,000 sq. ft. lots. The lots that front the west side of Cedar Avenue aze irregularly-sized (ranging from approximately 7,150 squaze feet to 27,500 square. feet), and are generally larger because they accommodate apartment developments, RJL-267451v3 5 RC125 260 or did so in the past, as well as commercial businesses. The lots that front the east side of Cedar Avenue are also of irregular-size; approximately half are around 6,000 square feet, with the remainder from 12,000 to 19,000 square feet; WHEREAS, the ,surrounding context in which Cedar Point is located is described in the Blight Assessment Report as follows:. To the north lies Taft Park, a 42-acre community playfield .and athletic complex, with Highway 62 as the park's northern boundary. To the south aze commercial properties. (municipal liquor store, multi-tenant office building, dental office, and one single-family home, all fronting onto 66~' Street, with single-family homes extending southward from the commercial properties). To the west are single-family homes, and to the east are Trunk Highway 77 and the western boundary of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The Cedar Point 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 Point Area) -believed to be the closest that a similar runway has been built to an existing. residential azea in the country. It is scheduled to become operational in late 2005. The placement and configuration of this new runway provide no room to establish a buffer or transition. zone between the Cedar Point Area and the new North/South Runway. WHEREAS, the Blight Assessment Report considered nine different criteria for a finding of blight among the properties in the Cedar Point Area and summarized the consultant's findings as follows: L Dipalidation Ten (10) properties (six single-family homes, two apartment buildings, and two commercial operations) exhibit deferred maintenance. 2. Obsolescence The thirty-eight (38) properties that have improvements on them exhibit a combination of functional obsolescence (not able to be adequately soundproofed to mitigate airport noise) and economic obsolescence (decline in relative desirability in the residential market place). 3. Overcrowding There is no evidence of overcrowding. 4. Faultv Arrangement or Design The two. (2) commercially-used properties exhibit faulty arrangement or design, exemplified by the overflow of parking, storage, and other operations onto the public rights-of--way. 5. Lack of Ventilation. Light, and Sani Facilities There is no evidence of lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities. RJL-267451v3 6 RC125-260 6. Excessive Land Coverage The two (2) commercially-used properties exhibit a deficiency of land area to accommodate off-street parking of vehicles and adequate loading facilities. 7. Deleterious Land Use There is no evidence of deleterious land use. 8. Obsolete Lam All one-hundred (100) properties exhibit inappropriate platting for new commercial or residential uses that could be constructed and laid out to meet the required higher noise mitigation standards. 9. Other -Environmental All one-hundred (100) properties exhibit degradation from the current operations of the MSP Airport. The remaining residential properties cannot be physically and economically soundproofed to mitigate the low frequency noise to be generated from the operations of the new runway. WHEREAS, the Blight Assessment Report indicates that 38 of the properties in the Cedar Point Area exhibit 3 or more blighting factors to a moderate or strong extent, that 10 additional properties exhibit 4 blighting factors and that 2 additional properties exhibit b or more blighting factors; and WHEREAS, based on the conditions which the consultant found in the Cedar Point Area (as described in the Blight Assessment Report), the consultant reported that he had reached the following conclusions: 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 fiurther 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 Point. 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 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 to vary and mix uses and activities. Although each lot or potential redevelopment site may be buildable, in the aggregate these RJL-267451v3 7 RC125 260 lots are largely economically dysfunctional because they simply do not. meet contemporary site design or investor requirements. Some of the homes in the Cedar Point Area exhibit deferred maintenance. However, most of the remaining residential structures are not dilapidated or poorly maintained. The remaining two commercial structures are deteriorated, and their operations require more land area to function properly and without negative impacts to adjacent and nearby properties. Therefore, the overall 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 such that the larger community is evidently committed to changing the study area's social, physical, and economic character. In conclusion, the evidence of qualifying blight conditions found in the study area and documented by this study provide a strong basis for finding that the Cedar Point Area meets the statutory definition fora `Blighted Area," as defined in Minnesota Statutes. WHEREAS, the purpose of the Blight Assessment Report was to document the conditions present in the Cedar Point Area and thereby support consideration of a proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Based on the. Blight Assessment Report, on June 13, 2005 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City; WHEREAS, based on the Blight Assessment Report, on June 14, 2005, after due notice, the City Council held a public hearing and approved City Council Resolution No. 9627 approving modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point Development); WI~REAS, based on the Blight Assessment Report, on June 20, 2005, the Board of Commissioners of the HRA approved HRA Resolution No. 948 approving Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richf eld Redevelopment Project Area (Cedar Point Development) and making the following findings: 1. the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; 2. the Modified Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of the areas by private enterprise; and RJL-267451v3 RC125 260 3. the Modified Plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the city as a whole; and 4. based on the information contained in (the Blight Assessment Report), and information presented at the hearing and otherwise known to the Authority, the portion of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area comprising the proposed Cedar Point Development is blighted within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 498.028. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan as modified now contains the following goals (paragraphs 7 and 8 were added by the June, 2005 Modification relating to the Cedar Point Area): 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 revitalization. 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. WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan as modified now contains the following objectives (Paragraphs 23 through 30 were added by the June, 2005 Modification relating to the Cedar Point Area): 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 m;nimi~.e vehicular circulation conflicts or congestion. RJIr267451v3 9 RC125-260 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. 7. To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from incompatible Land use relationships, especially between 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 commerciaVoffice 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 billboards 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 communucation 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. RJL-267451v3 1 ~ RC125 260 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 entities to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them. 21. Encourage local business. expansion, improvements, rehabilitation, and development, whenever possible and provide financial incentive 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 (within) 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, .inappropriately 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, landspacing features. WHEREAS, acquisition of the real estate which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Subject Property") is necessary in order to enable redevelopment of the Subject Property and other real estate in the City of Richfield in accordance with a Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and Ryan Companies. US, Inc. ("Redeveloper"), which contract was entered into by those parties as of July 27, 2005, and to facilitate redevelopment of RJL-267451v3 1 1 RC125-260 the Cedar Point Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ("Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment, the Redeveloper has agreed to redevelop the Cedar Point Area by, among other things, acquisition of 62 properties, removal of the present improvements, replatting the various properties. to simplify property descriptions, and construction of Minimum Improvements including a Super Target store, a Home Depot store and an additiona161,200 square feet of free standing retail development; WHEREAS, the HRA desires to facilitate completion of the redevelopment .activities which are contemplated by said Contract for Private Redevelopment and to implement the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Development Area; and WHEREAS, the HRA finds that, even though the Redeveloper is a private parry which will benefit from the redevelopment pursuant to the Project, the Project will result in substantial public benefits, which outweigh the private benefits, such that acquisition of the Subject Property through use of eminent domain for the Project is primarily for the public benefit; WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Richfield that title to and possession of the Subject Property be acquired for the furtherance of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1N AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that it is the considered judgment of the Board of Commissioners that the Subject Property be acquired for the stated public purposes and, if necessary, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director and. the Attorney for the HRA are authorized to take all steps necessary to acquire the Subject Property by filing an action in eminent domain and to acquire title and possession thereof pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 prior to the issuance of the award of damages therefor by the Court Appointed. Commissioners. The foregoing resolution was moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted against: Commissioner was absent. RJir267451v3 12 RC125-260 Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield this _ day of November, 2005. Thomas Harms, Chair ATTEST: Clerk R.n,-z6~asi~3 13 RC125 260 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Subject Property ... ;s .ri.:....a„v.k ....._....: ...c. .,... ,....-: .. ..... ,.¢.. ... ..::..,. .:...,..:.:....:,:;.:.....-.: _....:,:... :A ... ..~. ;. ::.qi~~,a -. - ,. 'SF ,o .`1;de tlfi tion-gl~iti : .'Pt'.. ,.~... ca ¢r3.:". tii^t:'Kx.. `-~co ~=` e rah,:..' + :~Le `a1-:D {;~.~~~w ~_:.... _ escri ~tion~.;: „~:.> ~:;:~.,~ - - _.:: ~~: 6300 Cedar Avenue South. 26-028-24-11-0061 The North 33 feet of Lot 4, Block 3; All Richfield, MN of Lot 5, Block 3; and the South 17 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, all in "Iverson's Third Addition," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract property) 6320 Cedar Avenue South 26-028-24-11-0060 The South 67 feet of Lot 4, Block 3, Richfield, MN "Iverson's Third Addition," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract property) 6500 Cedar Avenue South 26-028-24-14-0057 All of Lot 6, and the North 25 feet of Lot Richfield, MN 5, Block 1, "Iverson's Third Addition," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract property) Unassigned (Gap adjacent to Unassigned Lot 2, Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition, and immediately south of except the North 46 feet thereof and 6528 Cedar Avenue) except the South 50 feet thereof Unassigned (Gap between Unassigned Lot 4, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition, 6300 and 6320 Cedar except the North 33 feet thereof and Avenue) except the South 67 feet thereof RJL-267451x2 RC125-260 Activity Summary on the three subject. parcels: Activit 6300 & 6320 Cedar Ave 6500 Cedar Ave .Owner contacted about purchase May 18, 2005 May 12, 2005 Conworth HRA sets .Just Com ensation June 20, 2005 June 20, 2005 What was Just Compensation? $430,000 Real Estate $215,000 Real Estate $12,820.00 Fixtures $15,855 Fixtures Offering letter mailed or hand- June 23, 2005 June 23, 2005 delivered? Number of contacts with owner 0 ~ Have had 15 or 16 phone, meeting, or before we were notified they had an written contacts attorne When were we told they had an City knew prior to Conworth's N/A (Attorney selected week of attorne ? meetin on Ma 18 November 7, 2005 How many contacts have we had 2 or 3. Was told by them to 0 .with the attorne ? wait for their a raisal Relocation referrals made Yes Yes Other Data N/A Owner re uested condemnation CEDAR POINT AREA a Y Z F- i TH T I ~ + 6501 6500 6501 0 ~ 6501 6509 6508 6509 0 6515 6514 6515 ~ 6511 6521 6520 6521 `° 6521 6527 6526 6527 N u~ 6533 6532 6533 CO I j O O ~ N 0 O 1820 I r r ~- r ~ . J 66TH ST -~- ---~ I I ~ r ! I I I CEDAR POINTAREA ^ PROPERTIES PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN 0 120 240 480 720 960 N Feet 11 /14/05 !~ Received 11/04/05 ~- ~~ Aug. 19, 2005 Dear Representative Wilkin, This letter is being written in response to the recent U.S. Supreme court decision of Kelo vs. New London. As you well know public outrage over this blatant disregard for individual property rights is overwhelming. I voice my opinion with them. This decision will personally affect my employees and me. (have operated an air freight forwarding company for Twenty five years at 6300 Cedar Ave. So. in Richfreld. The city is currently using the power of eminent domain to take over my building and proper ~y. This is being done for the purpose of economic gain to the city and a private developer who will redevelop -the area south of Co. Rd. 62 and west of Co. 77. Initial contact was made May 15, 2005 under the guise of Airport Noise Abatement Program: However two things prove this~to be a false pretense. First the city is selectively choosing what buildings may or may not stay. Two buildings, one behind mine and another directly across the street are staying. Also others south of 66th St. will stay and selectively others will Ere forced to sell - all at the whim of the city and the redeveloper. Secondly noise will be an issue for those buildings that are left as well as to the newly developed properties. Airport noise has never been a problem for my building, it is sound insulated. T he city plan indicates that my buiiaing and land will become part of a parking lot for some super store. (currently have seven fulltime employees who along with their salary receive generous health benefits Aware Goid at no cost to employee) and a profit sharing plan (25% of yearly compensation. Where will they go to receive comparable compensation? Not many employers offer these kinds of perks any mare, certainly not the super stores who will replace us. Finally the city's offer to purchase my building and land is below tax market value. They could offer me three times more and I would still be reluctant to sell. "Location, location, location" is .always the number one rule in real estate. This is an ideal location for my business! I cannot:find a comparable building in the nearby vicinity. One possible site `that I have found is miles away and is three times more expensive than what Richfield has offered in compensation. The city would also like to do bore tests, and if there is any environmental clean up to be done they want me to pay for it. Two Environmental Impact Studies were done - when. we purchased the building. I don't want to move! Neither do I want to go so deeply inzq debt at this stage of my life. it is seriously looking like i may need to close the company. I am sure that this is 'an unjust usage of the power of eminent domain! It is more like thievery under deceptive means. am asking you as a State Representative to place a moratorium on all instances in the state where eminent domain is being used for purpose of economic gain. 1 am also asking you to pledge yourself to ertactirig law to protect individual ' praperty righfis. Lastly join your peers that have already introduced Legislation and pass it as quickly as possible to keep this type of injustice from continuing. Sincerely, Marv Johnson. Air Care-Go, Inc. 6300 Old Cedar Ave. Richfeld, MN 55423 612-869-2186 AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # !F4 STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a Business Subsidy Agreement between the Housing and Redevelo ment Authorit and R an Com anies US, Inc. for the Cedar Point ro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving a Business Subsidy Agreement .between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield and Ryan Companies US, Inc. II. BACKGROUND In 1999 the Minnesota State Legislature approved the Business Subsidies Act. This law requires that certain types of developments that receive more than $100,000 in public assistance must enter into a business subsidy agreement with the government entity providing such assistance. The contents of a business subsidy agreement are based, in part, on the business subsidy criteria established by a government entity. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) .established its subsidy criteria in 1999 and amended it in 2002. It .has been .determined that the commercial redevelopment planned by Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan Companies) is to receive public assistance to a degree 112105_6 usi nessSu bsidyAg reement_Ceda rPoint which requires a business subsidy agreement. The public assistance that Ryan Companies will receive is tax abatement. With tax abatement, the City rebates its portion of property taxes to the- property owner who then uses. it to help offset development and/or redevelopment costs. The public purpose of the subsidy is to increase the tax base and redevelop an area occupied by property that has been significantly impacted by airport operations. The redevelopment will establish a mixed commercial development that is designed to be compatible with the impacts and will serve as a- buffer to land uses west of the redevelopment area. The attached Business Subsidy Agreement. reflects the public assistance to Ryan Companies that has been previously approved by the HRA as part of the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Ryan Companies. The subsidy, as identified in the. agreement, is not to exceed $6,889,750. It is also consistent with a resolution adopted by the City Council May 24, 2005, agreeing to provide the abatement. The Business Subsidy Agreement includes a set of performance standards in the Remedies section. These performance standards have been agreed upon in the Contract for Private Development between Ryan and the HRA. If Ryan does not construct a Target store or a Home Depot store or operates them less than five years, or any combination thereof, Ryan has to repay the HRA a specified amount of the business subsidy as specified in this section. The amount of business subsidy that is unprotected is reduced whenever Ryan has achieved a performance standard. III. BASIS. OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The business subsidy consideration by the HRA is required by the Contract. • The Business Subsidy Agreement sets the level of assistance that will be treated as a business subsidy in accordance with State law. • The HRA has previously established business subsidy criteria. The Agreement has been prepared to comply with the established criteria. • After a business subsidy is considered by the HRA, it is required by the Business Subsidies Act that the City Council approve the HRA's agreement. However, a public hearing is not required by the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Public funding for the Ryan Companies redevelopment of the Cedar Point area cannot proceed without the approval. of a Business Subsidy Agreement. • City and HRA staff have worked closely with financial analysts at Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in order to conclude that private redevelopment will not occur without public financing. • This proposed project meets the following business subsidy criteria: o Increase in tax base. See attached chart from Ehlers indicating estimated total new taxes at $1,131,233. The previous taxes from this area are estimated at $170,447. o The redeveloped area will encourage economic and. commercial diversity within the community. o. The redeveloped area will contribute to the establishment of critical mass of commercial development within the area. o The redeveloped area will provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast-growing or high technology business location or expansion. o The area will promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup. o The redeveloped area will promote additional or spin-off development within the community. o The redeveloped area will encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. C. FINANCIAL • The public funding identified in the attached Business Subsidy Agreement has been previously approved by the HRA as part of the Contract for Private Redevelopment with Ryan Companies for the Cedar Point area and by the City in the aforementioned resolution.. • Without public assistance, private redevelopment is unlikely to occur in this area. • The subsidy, as identified in the agreement, is not to exceed $6,889,750. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the Business Subsidy Agreement and supporting resolution. • A legal notice was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on November 10, 2005 IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the Business Subsidy Agreement. • Defer approval of the Business Subsidy Agreement to a later date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. Project Value Information, prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Business Subsidy Agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative of Ryan Companies US, Inc. HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND RYAN COMPANIES US INC. BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "HRA") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 On or about July 27, 2005, the HRA and Ryan Companies US, Inca (the "Redeveloper") entered into that certain document entitled, Contract for Private Development (the "Contract"). 1.02 Section 4.5 of the Contract called for the parties to enter into a separate Business Subsidy Agreement as required by the Business Subsidy Act, setting the level of assistance that is treated as a business subsidy under the Business Subsidy Act. 1:03 There has been presented before the HRA a proposed business subsidy agreement (the "Agreement") between the HRA, and the Redeveloper, setting forth the terms and conditions of the business subsidy to be provided to the Redeveloper. 1.04 The HRA has on this date conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the business subsidy agreement at which all interested persons were give an opportunity to be heard. 1.05 The HRA has reviewed the Agreement, and finds that the execution thereof by the HRA and performance of the HRA's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. 1.06 The HRA has determined after a previous public hearing that the creation or retention of jobs is not the -goal of this redevelopment effort. Accordingly, the wage and job goals are set at zero. Section 2. HRA Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01 The HRA approves the Agreement. 2.02 The Executive Director and Chair are authorized to take all steps and do all things necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this resolution and the Agreement. 2.03 The Executive Director is authorized to present the Agreement to the Richfield City Council for its consideration as required by the Business Subsidy Act. Approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21 st day of November, 2005. Thomas E. Harms, Chair ATTEST: Suzanne M. Sandahl, Secretary N O fa d 0 J W LL 2 V LL O ~_ V O O O N Lf> r r r 000000 0 0 0 0 0~ o ~ ~oooeroco L _~ O ti d! d7 M N~ r 00 r r r ~ ~ ~ ~OI~~GOrN ~ ~ O r Net r r ~ N r o o ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 X +~ N N N N N N ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o l() Ln Ln In lt') Ltd r l~ r r r r ~ O O O 00 O M r O O M M N O d' ~ ~ O v? t0 ~ r M d! 1~y r CA r ~ r +~+ Q. M N O ti N N E R V ;~ O d' O~ O O M a N d' ~ lf) d' ~ Cfl 1~ Z~_ ~ I~ O M B r r Ln ~ V ~ N ~ M Q ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ O ~ M OD tC CA O ~ 000 O OMO h tN tO0 Z y 0 f~ N 1~ d~ ~ r W +~~' K t~D M 00 ~ M M M J ~„ ~ r Q H U W '~ L O ~' d LL CO dO O I~ r r d to O O O O O d7 H t6 LL O~ ~ N O O M p O CO ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ 0 M r ~ M N ~ r-. cC W O O 0 0 0 0 ~ O O to ~ I~ ~ ++ ~ In L(') Ln ~ N ~ ~ r r ~ Ln N N i `- r r ~ ~ N N ~ d E~> FR ER ff} ER E!3 N -.. N ~ ~- C ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ U '(6 ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N (a N OHH2O~m~ 000 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 o cc o ca ~ N O~~ M O~ N 1~ ~O ~ O M N ~! tC~ O~ ~ N Q N 0) K y+ 1` O 1~ 00 0 d' d' Qs ~ ~ ~ ~ COGOti 'Od' r r tC N ~+ Q. 7 N N R R 3 O~0 ~ ti M ~ . 1n 00 ~ N i ~ ~ ti M N r r ~ r. d a L _d t W T 0) L Q. J ~ ~ n. zz Q 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z U 2 2 N O W W ~ J Z W Q ~ J (9 Z Q Z - H C9~~ Z W W H ~ _ W EXECUTION COPY BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2005 by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (the "HRA"), and RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer"). Section 1 Business Subsidv Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement constitute the "business subsidy agreement" for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act. (a) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (1) For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms used in this Agreement which are defined in the Contract for Private Development between the parties and dated as of July 27, 2005 (the "Contract") shall have the meanings given them in the Contract. (2) .The subsidy provided to the Developer consists of (i) the sum of financing provided by the Authority and City in the form of the -Note, and (ii) conveyance of a portion of the HRA Property by the Authority to Developer for less than fair market value. Each disbursement, payment or waiver described in such Article represents a forgivable loan that is repayable by the Developer in accordance with this Section. As of the date of this Agreement, the aggregate business cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty, however, in no event will total amount of the business subsidy payable under the Contract exceed $6,889,750 million (in present value terms). (3) The public purposes of the subsidy are to redevelop an area that has been significantly impacted, and will continue to be impacted by airport operations on land adjacent to the Development Property, establish a mixed commercial development that is designed to be compatible with the impacts, and which will serve as a buffer to land uses to the west of the Development Property and to implement the City's land use goals identified in the comprehensive plan. (4) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure completion of the Minimum Improvements of the Development .and the related Public .Improvements by the Completion Date for that Phase, and to operate the Minimum Improvements for at least five years as described in clause (6) below. (5) If the goals described in clause (4) are not met, the Developer or its successors and assigns must make the payments to the Authority described in Section 6.4(c). (6) The subsidy is needed because the cost of land acquisition, demolition and site clearance, does not make the development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible without public assistance, all as determined by the Authority and City. (7) The Developer and its successors and assigns must continue operation of the Minimum Improvements for at least five years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of .Completion for the portion of the Minimum Improvements covered by the certification.. For the purpose of this Section, space will be considered to be maintained in operation if it is leased, or available for lease, to any person or entity, or occupied by Developer for use in its trade or business. (8) The Developer does not have a parent corporation. (9) The Developer has not received, and does not expect to receive, financial assistance. from any other "grantor" as defined in the Business Subsidy Act, in connection with the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements. (b) Job and. Wage Goals. In accordance with Section 116J.994, subdivision 4, the Authority has determined after a public hearing that the creation or retention of jobs is not the goal of this redevelopment effort. Accordingly, the wage and job goals are set at zero. (c) Remedies. 1. If the Developer .fails to commence construction of the Minimum Improvements within the time provided in the Contract, the Developer shall repay the Authority the full amount of the business subsidy. 2. If the Developer commences construction of the Minimum Improvements within the time provided in the Contract, the amount of the business subsidy will be reduced to $2,500,000. 3. If -the Developer commences construction of the Minimum Improvements as provided in the Contract, but fails to complete construction within the time period provided in the Contract, the Developer shall. repay the Authority $2,500,000. 4. If the failure of the Developer under either subparagraph 1, 2, or 3 above relates only to the Target Store, or only to the Home Depot Store, then the amount of repayment due under such subparagraphs will be equal to the percentage of the square footage of the non-performing portion to the square footage of the Minimum Improvements multiplied by the full amount of the Business Subsidy under (c) 1, and $2,500,000 under (c) 2 or 3. 5. If the Developer commences and completes construction of the Minimum Improvements within the times provided in the Contract, the amount of the business subsidy will be reduced to $1,000,000. 6. If the Developer commences and completes construction of the Minimum Improvements within the times provided in the Contract, but fails to continue operation of all or a divisible portion of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall repay the Authority a portion of the business subsidy (adjusted in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 above, as applicable) equal to the percentage of square footage of the non-performing portion. to the square footage of the Minimum Improvements and prorated by the remaining portion of the five-year operation period as of the date of default. Any demand for repayment must be in writing and is subject to the cure provisions of the Contract. Payment shall also include interest at the implicit price deflator as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.50, subd. 2, accrued from the Closing Date to the date of payment Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the Authority's remedies under Article X of the Contract in the event of a violation of any other provision of the Contract, but the remedies set forth in this paragraph (c) are the exclusive remedies for failure. to comply with the terms of this Agreement. In addition to the exclusive remedy described in this Section, the Developer agrees and understands that it may not a receive a business subsidy from the Authority or any grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Developer satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first.. (d) Reports. The Developer must submit to the Authority a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2007 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated Section 1(a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period- described in Section 1(a)(7); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section 1(c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the Developer regarding the required forms. If the Developer fails to timely file any report required under this Section, the Authority will mail by certified mail return receipt requested to the Developer at the address set forth in Section 11.7 of the Contracfi a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 30 days after receipt of the warning, the Developer fails to provide a report, the Developer must pay to the Authority a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. Failure by the Authority to deliver a timely warning notice will not relieve the Developer's obligation to pay a penalty within 30 days after receipt of a notice to pay. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this Section is $1,000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HRA and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives. as of the date first above written. HOUSING. AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its Chairperson By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA . ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005 by Thomas E. Harms, the Chair of the Housing and development Authority in and for. the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005 by Steve Devich, the Executive Director of the Housing and Development Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota; on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. By. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Its The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2005 by ,the US, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public day of , of Ryan Companies AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~i STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 4 43 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, 77TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR R REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of (1.) Resolution approving a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts: and (2.) Resolution establishing a housing development project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: (1.) Approve a resolution authorizing a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and 6-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts; and (2.) Approve a resolution establishing a housing development project. 112105 ModRedTifPlans II. BACKGROUND • In August 2005 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) received a report from financial consultant Ehlers & Associates that the HRA's tax increment programs were financially sound. • Because of the availability of tax increment through redevelopment, resources are available to support HRA housing programs. The HRA is responsible for administering three housing programs: Transformation Home Loan Program (Transformation Program), Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program (RR Program), and Kids @ Home Program. Thy Trnr+rf~rmotinn Prnr~r7m~~Irt~A[C CI Ih1StAtltltll t"P.~'1A~'11~ItAtlntl of P.XIS~[I 1C1_000ie deficient single family homes. The RR Program allows removal of substandard single family homes that are not cost effective to rehabilitate, followed by higher valued new construction. The Kids @ Home Program provides shallow rent subsidy to lower income families with children in Richfield schools. • These housing programs are funded primarily by the Housing Fund, which is comprised of tax increment from the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts. As it relates to the Transformation Program and RR Program: • Housing issues are found on a scattered site basis throughout the City; deferred maintenance, an aging housing stock and lower valued homes provide an opportunity to replace, improve, and expand. The present boundaries for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) do not match the scattered site program experiences to date and future opportunities based on homeowner requests for program participation. See map in Attachment A. Each property must be inspected and code deficiency and blighting conditions documented before eligibility for both Transformation and Richfield Rediscovered. Yet, the exact house and the qualifying conditions can only be determined when a program request occurs from an owner. Based on 15 years of program experience and the inventory of the housing stock prepared in 2004, eligible properties do exist throughout the City. The actions being requested of the HRA (and City Council) allow needs and programs to match. • The current Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan) for the Richfield Project Area if modified, widens the service area of the Transformation and RR Programs. This entails an expansion of the Project Area's boundary to the city's boundary to allow the use of tax increment for the housing programs on a citywide basis. (See Attachment A -Maps). The modification also expands the goals and objectives to reflect the HRA's greater experience with housing program opportunities. The expansion of the Project Area requires a finding of blight in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. These findings are summarized in the attached Blight Assessment Report. The summary establishes blighting influences and conditions as part of a comprehensive housing report prepared for the HRA by Community Partners Research. The report was originally presented to the I•iRA at a special work session for the HRA, City Council and Planning Commission on October 26, 2004. As it relates to the Kids @ Home Program: The Kids @ Home Program is an income-restricted program that more appropriately operates within the statutory definition of a housing development project rather than a redevelopment project. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469, a housing development project needs to be established for the Kids @ Home Program. The expenditure of increment would occur within the HRA's area of operation (essentially the entire city), rather than within the confines of a defined redevelopment project area. However, with the proposed boundary expansion, both areas would now be the same. • In tandem with the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and establishment of a housing- development project, modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Districts are necessary to authorize the use of increment within the proposed, modified boundary area on a city-wide basis for each of the housing programs. • Finally, Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 are being undertaken to clarify that increment from these districts may be spent on the payment of debt service for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 bonds. This modification would align plan document information with the annual tax increment reporting now required. for the State Auditor's Office. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The HRA's housing programs are creative responses to meeting community needs with available resources. The proposed changes allow the HRA to continue to match needs and programs. • Following HRA consideration and in accordance with Minnesota State Statute the City Council is required to hold a public hearing for modifications to redevelopment plans and tax increment financing plans. • Establishment of a housing development project is prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. B. CxITICAL ISSUES • The action requested of the HRA is the administrative mechanism that- provides program resources to all eligible Richfield homeowners. • The Blight Assessment Report confirms that within the Project Area on scattered sites, there are substandard and code deficient homes. Only by homeowner request to evaluate a home for program eligibility would blight be confirmed by a thorough on-site inspection. • Acceptance of the Blight Assessment Report does not mean that all single family homes in the expanded Project Area are blighted. • A notification of the proposed plan modifications and date of public hearing was made to Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson by letter on October 28, 2005. • The notification of fiscal/economic implications to School Board and County Auditor/County Board was made by letter on November 9, 2005 and subsequently corrected on November 14, 2005. (There are no negative impacts with the proposed Modifications.) • The schedule calls for the following actions to still occur: Planning Commission review and consideration, including modifications to conformance with City's Comprehensive Plan on November 28, 2005; Publication of notice of public hearing in local newspaper on December 1, 2005; and City Council consideration including public hearing on December 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL • With the proposed plan modifications for the housing programs in place, tax increment from the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway TIF Districts will be able to be spent. city-wide thereby expanding the service area of the housing programs. D. LEGAL • The plan modifications and approving- resolutions were prepared by the HRA's financial consultant, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, and staff. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Some single-family homeowners will not be able to participate in housing programs if the Plan Modifications are not approved. • The Kids @ Home Program cannot continue if the housing development project is not established. • Delay the proposed actions. V. ATTACHMENTS Maps. • .Resolutions (2) • Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area • Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway, Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts. • Blight Assessment Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. o M n € £ € £ £ £ n ' ~ ~ € £ 5 r m ~o ~ is ~ n m io in ~~ ~ n n n n atlO3O 438E 4;L L 419E NOlON1WOOl8 41SL 414E 41EG Q 43ZL Q 41LL Z 430E lOlll3 O O'JtlOIHO snewnloo W ~latld Q ON`dlXtlO W ONtlllaOd 41S Q 414 NO1NIlO V P1E W PAZ SN3A31S O ;6t 13llOOIN /~. 113OS1b'l8 HlaOM1N3M Z AanBSllld W 1NtlStl3ld ONtlaO 131aatlH O Ol31datlO 3ltlONAI W HOIaOItl 1NtlAa8 W XtldlOO Q 1NOdnO W NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad aatlalo 0 loloewnH W ~Nlnal _ S3WbT XON>i NtlcJOI U Ntl~JaOW NO1M3N a3N1O NN3d N33nO ll3SSna NtlOla3HS StlWOHl NOldn 1N3ONIA NanBHSVM S3Xa3X ®® ®®® ®® ®®® lam ®®® ~T LL~WJ JJ"JJI ao6t atlO3O ® ® ~ v o0gt 418E ®® OOLI 41LL O ~ ~- ®® Doer 4151 0 ~ ®®® ® 9ZSt OOSL NOlONIWC 4751 ®® /// ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ OObt 434E /!lI III I I I I I I I I I I II III®I ~ OOEL 4lEL ® OOZE ®® 43ZL ®®® 00 LL 41LL ~ ~ ®®® OOOL 410E ®®~ 008 lOlll3 - ®®® 008 O~JtlOIHO ®®® °~ snewnlo _ o0c Natld ' ®®® pgg ONb lNdO ' G ®®~ ~ Dog ONtl 1J.aOc ®®~ ® 005 415 ~ OOb bZE 41b NOlNllO ®® ®®L Q WI LLL1 OOE P1E . OOZ PAZ 00 V ®®® bZL SN3g31S f ®® OOL ;sL _ ®® ~ .000 Oa 1311OO1N 1130S1tl18 C ® ®®® ® Opt HlaOM1N3l ppg AanBSllld ~. OOE 1NtlStl3ld ® o0b ON'da°J, ®~ OOS 009 131aatlH Ol31datlO ~7y70yl~Iy~~~ ® OOG 3ltlONAI ""a."""' ® ® ®~. ppg 006 HOIaOI'd 1NtlAa8 ® illlflllllll®® OOOt XtldlOO Rrm-rmn ®~ OOII iNOdnO D OOZt NOSa3W3 ~ ~~ ooEt o0bt 1NOW3ad aatlalo ®®® ~ peat laloewnH ... ~ ~' 0091 ONIAaI ~ C ~ OOGt S3WM Q y""' OOBt XONX ~ 0061 NtlOOI ~ O OOOZ Nb'~JaOW C O OOtZ NO1M3N G ~ .- OOZZ a3AllO ~ (Q N r ~ OOEZ N 3d ~ 0 ~ ' OObZ N33n C ~ 0 OOSZ ll3SSna ~ m '. m ~ 0092 NtlOla3HS OOGZ SVWOHl s_ OOgZNOldn Q m OO6Z 1N3ONIA ' OOOE NanBHStlM I ' DOLE S3Xa3X ' Z ~ °c 'O = °c ~ t ~ N °r n ~ ~ ~ io ~ ip co so ^ ~ n n ~ r n ~ atl03D 4i8 L 41LL 419E NO1`JNIWOplB 415 L 434E 43EL Q 41ZL Q 41LL Z 410 L O'JtlOlIHO O O snewnloo W ~ Xavd Q ~ ONtllXVO W Q ONtl'I1.aOd /~/ O 41S Q 414 NOlNllO V (n wE W W PAZ SN3n31S O O lsl T 1311O0IN i ll3OSltll9 O HlaOM1N3M ~ AanBSllld Z ~ 1NtlStl3ld Q ONtla`J 131aatM Ol3idatlo O O 3ltlONAI W ~ Holaaltl ` (n 1NVAaa W Z Xtldl00 Q Q 1NOdn0 W ~ NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad Datlalo Q ~ laloawnH J ~ oNlnal W s3wtlr '- XONX NtloOl I 1 Ntl'JaOW •~/ NOLN3N '1.111) ~ ~/ ~ ~~ ®~ ®~_ / ~~~ ~®® m ~~ ~~ \ \ b ®~®®® ®~®®® ®®®®~®]~~\.J ~~®®W~LLLJI ~ III ®®®®®~ 0061 atl030 0091 418E 00[t y1LL 009E 439E atst NOloNIWO( Oust 41SL 004t 434E OOEI 41EL OOZt 41ZL aott 43LL OOOL 410E OpS lOlll3 009 O`JtlDIHO ozL snewmo: wL Xavd OL9 ONtllXtlO. 009 _ ONtlllaOd OOS 41S Opy 414 4ZE NOlNilO ooe wE OOZ POZ >zt SN3n31S OOt isl Op0 13llOOIN OS 1130Sitl18 OOL H1aOM1N3M ppZ~. AanBSllld 009 1NtlStl3ld 006 ONtla~J OOS 131aatlH 009 Ol31datl0 oo[ 3ltlONAI boa Holaaly 006 1NtlAa8 Door Xtldl00 DOLL 1NOdn0 OOZE , NOSa3W3 OOEL 1NOW3ad ~VL Davalo post laloewnH N 0) O LL' on a3nllo NN3d N33n0 ll3SSna NtlOla3HS SVWOHl NOldn 1N30NIn NanBHSHM S3Xa3X ~~ ~O O 0 O O O O O N O O O O C :~ U LL post oNlnal = O oou s3wvr ~ ~ ~ o0et XONX ~ U L OO6L Ntl`JOl U ~= (A ~ U OoOZ NtloaOW ~ U CC G - 00tZ NOLN3N ~ . - a ~ aozz a nno ~ ~ ooez NN3d ~ O 6osz N33nD ~ ~ ~ ~+ (0 0092 ll3SSna O m y, 009z NtlOla3HS m ~ 00[Z SYWOHl L ~ ~ ~ Ooez NOldn ~ m OOBZ 1N30NIn ' 000E NanBHSVM I ' • note S3Xa3X ' HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE GRAMERY, URBAN VILLAGE, CITY BELLA, INTERCHANGE WEST/LYNDALE GATEWAY AND RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, AND B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") in and for the City of Richfield (the "City") that the HRA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway and Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts (known collectively herein as the "Modifications"), all pursuant to and in conformity-with existing law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Modifications and presented for the HRA's consideration; and WHEREAS, the HRA has investigated the facts relating to the Modifications and has caused the Modifications to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Modifications, including but not limited to the preparation of a Blight Assessment Report, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property in the Gramercy, Urban Village, City Bella, Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway and Richfield Rediscovered A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts, notice of the proposed Modifications to the local county commissioner, a request for review of and written comment on the Modifications by the City Planning Commission, and a request that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Modifications upon published notice as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The HRA hereby makes the findings set forth in the Modifications, which are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Blight Assessment Report is received and accepted and is to be on file and of record in the City of Richfield Community Development Department. 3. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Counal following its public hearing thereon, the Modifications, as presented to the HRA on this date, are hereby approved and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 4. Upon approval of the Modifications by the City Council, the Executive Director of the HRA is authorized to forward a copy of the Modifications to the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21 st day of November 2005. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Suzanne M. Sandahl, Secretary, 112105 ModRedTifPlans HRA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") is authorized to carry out "housing development projects" as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, under the HRA Act, a housing development project includes any work or undertaking to provide housing to persons of moderate income and their families; and WHEREAS, such work or undertaking may include the planning of buildings and improvements, and the acquisition of real property; and; WHEREAS, under the HRA Act, real property includes lands and improvements and including every estate, interest, and right in real property; and WHEREAS, the HRA determines that the carrying out of a housing development project is necessary to carry out the objectives of the HRA Act, including, without limitation, those contained in Section 469.017 of the HRA Act; and to provide services permitted by the HRA Act to persons of low and moderate income as defined by the H RA. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. A Housing Development Project is hereby established to be located within the geographic limits of the area of operation of the HRA. 2. The HRA shall have all of the powers conferred on it with respect to housing development projects under the HRA Act. 3. In furtherance of the authority granted the HRA under the HRA Act, the HRA shall specifically have the power to provide shallow rent subsidies to landlords for qualifying tenant programs approved by the HRA. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21st day of November, 2005. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Suzanne M. Sandahl, Secretary 112105 ModRedTifPlans The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Dated: October 17, 2005 Proposed Approval by Richfield HRA on 11/21/2005 Proposed Approval by Planning Commission on 11/28/05 Public Hearing and Proposed Approval by City Council on 12/13/2005 Prepared By: City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopmenf Authority Communify Development Deparfinent 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (Housing Programs) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Foreward 1 B. Statement of Public Pur ose 1 C. Statuto Authorit -Redevelo ment Plan Modification 2 D. Statement of Goals and Ob'ectives 2 E. Description of Redevelopment Project Area 5 F. Develo ment Activities and A reements 5 G. Public Redevelo ment Costs; Proceeds; Financin 6 H. Pro osed Land Use - - - I. Ac uisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 6 J. Environmental Considerations - - - K. Administration of Project Area - - - Appendix A: Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Current and Pro osed Appendix B: Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area As Revised MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE. RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A. FOREWARD The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (Modified Plan) for the Richfield Redevelopment Project .Area (Project Area). The Modified Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as most recently revised on June 14, 2005, and adds new goals and objectives relative to housing programs administered by the Housing- and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (HRA). The Modified Plan also provides for a boundary expansion of the Project Area to widen the service area of said housing programs. The continued operation for the housing programs and expanded service area are further described in the "Blight Assessment Report - Richfield Redevelopment Project -Area Modification -Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement." For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopmenf Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, and subsequently revised, is recommended and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. B. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE A Comprehensive analysis has determined that the aging housing stock throughout the City on a scattered site basis displays blighted conditions within the meaning of Minnesota Statute, Section .469.002., Subd. 11. A copy of the "Blight Assessment Report -Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Housing Rehabilitation", dated October 17, 2005, is on file and available in the. Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. 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 on scattered sites throughout the residential areas of Richfield to sustain and improve the housing stock and achieve established goals and objectives. These goals and objectives include participation in the 1996-2010 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254 which requires the establishment of affordable and life cycle housing goals and objectives. 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 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 current Modified Plan adds four (4) additional goals (shown in bold face). 1. To provide a revenue base to meet the needs of Richfield. 2. To develop job opporkunities for area residents. 3. To develop strategies to encourage revitalization. 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. 2 11. A greater variety of apartment/condominium choices. 12. Affordable housing opportunities. The current Modified Plan adds six (6) additional objectives to the list (shown in bold face). 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. 7. To eliminate or reduce the conflicts which result from incompatible land use relationships, especially between 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 billboards 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. 3 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 entities to pay for governmental services and programs. requ-fired to be provided by them. 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, inappropriately used or contains incompatible land uses. 4 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, landscaping 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 financial 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. 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 Richfeld Redevelopment Project Area is being enlarged. This Modifed Plan is intended to address primarily the HRA's housing programs that require a wider service area than the Project Area currently serves. The new Project Area in being extended to include the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. See Appendix A for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, in current and proposed, revised format. Appendix B depicts the Project Area as revised. 5 F. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS The objectives of the Modified Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by Minnesota Statutes.. Contained within the 1993 Richfield Project Area Plan are a list of 11 private. development activities, which are consistent with established goals and objectives. It is the intention of the HRA that the majority of activities are directly undertaken by private residential land owners with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA: To that end, the HRA has additionally established rehabilitation advisor and education services. to support initiatives consistent with goals and objectives. G. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING The HRA determines that the primary source of funds related to this Modified Plan is the Housing Fund (tax increment) and Development Account revenues established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Additional resources are provided from a variety of local, county, metropolitan, state and federal sources, including and not limited to: loans, grants, purchase money mortgages, and equity financing available to private residential landowners separate and independent of HRA resources.. Annually, $1.5 million is the estimated amount to be provided by the Housing Fund and Development Account. Historically, this financing has leveraged five fold to six fold ($7 to $9 million) in other resources annually to achieve stated goals and objectives. I. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATIONACTIVITIES Rehabilitation Activities The maintenance of Richfield's housing stock is primarily a private activity,- The activity would occur in any established housing area of the city where private residential landowners seek a partnership and financial assistance of the HRA to meet housing stock goals and objectives. Those activities are allowed citywide and the basis for those activities are established by the "Blight Assessment Report - Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification -Housing Rehabilitation" dated October 17, 2005 and on file and available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. 6 APPENDIX A MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (Current and Proposed) A-1 i W O a cn ~; 0: O XF..KR%ES WASHBURN ViNGENT UPTON fFdOK4?ES SNERIDAN RU§SELL O[JEEN AEriN O1,RFER NEWTON MORGAN LOGAN xNDX .LAMES ' IRU9NG ' HUMBOI:DT .. ~ GIR.4~R0 ~^n ~ F@EMON7 ~'~. EMERSON: -~ © ~ Ol1FONT y GOLF~ ~ , . ~ ~. tiRyANT C7 ~ ALURiCki.. ~ ~ ~YNo~itE IlT ~ GA,QFIEt:O ~NAhRlfi~l' ~ r~ : GW,sfJ6 _.~ O plEiiSAiNT ~ PICl58UR`V m WE'mNORYH m z a~s~Eu L! ~ N1COU:ET` O 9Ti;YtENS' 2~ m n ~ ~Z ,' ~ ~CLRJ70N 1 ~ S A .m ~ t ~ *y `PbRTLAND :~ .(~ RAK4AN0 rn ~ PARK ~, C ~ t:oiu..MSws ~~ ~'~ CRICAGO ~ ~ ~ E LUO'f ~ _ m ~ 1arh Q ~ 17th, 1?~ ~~ Zr idfh 45th >~, _ODMINGTON ~ '18111 Z 17th IEth CEDAR 7 ~ IV C XERXES WASNBURN VIND~I3T UPSAN TFiorzaAs SNERID'AN RUSSELL ~4f£cN PENN OLIVER NEWTON F10RGAN IOGAN KNtTX JAMES IR171tdG NUfdBOC6T GIRARD PfiE'?ONT EMERSON DUPpNT GOLFN( l3RYAt!'1' awt~.;crF LYNDgt.;{• GAfiF~c^tR NARRfET OE{ANtj P7-FAS9NT P.ILLSBGlRY YVEN7YYOR71 •BLAISElEC1 NtCOLLET S7EYENS 2~ 3rsf LIN'fON Eth: ipt !OF1'fLAND. )AKIAND Marc ~DEtiMBUS NICRGO LL10T 9th Ith !ffi nFt tFt tri OOMINGTC ffi ~ _ ft h DAR m ~. ~. rn ~: ~. wAh' W o Z G1 4 7 ~ 5 9 s ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~" S• 3 :~ APPENDIX B MAP OF RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (As Revised) B-1 V ~l V O q m Y N N. tr ~ N ~ ti i. o b. 0, ~ 0 N, i ~. .N XERXES: NL~ASFt9iJL2M VINDENr UPTt7N THOMAS SHERipA. N~ AUSSELI 4UEEN PENN OLfVER NE`NTObF MQRCiAN lOOAN KNflX' JAMES tRViNC`t' Hi1M8QLR7 GIRARA i'LP ~~tErviCN 9AER$OY 'Ot1P0'NT rn COtJiAX (Tl aRrANt {- Q Al{SRI~"itl YN(SALE- (n :GAf2PiElt0. z HAPtR1ET G`f.T!}NO ,~'~. RL~1(5ANr Q. PlLL53U~tY L, ~- WENiY7ORTCi~ ~. BLAISdELL A fil1COLLET tat D sTSV~Ns 2hd y.~y.~ ~ 1.J C QUNraN Q 47h 5Ci ~~J POR'1'[:AND ~'1 CfAKLi1Np PARK: COLUMBUS CNiCAG4 ELL[OT 10th ~ i f[h' m ,~,; ~} f3th 'R ~ 9lth 1:Sth W f" .OQMINGTON n teEh ~ [71 171h _ t5th CEDAR .~ IV 47 XERXES MiASH9URN V(IVCENt LIPTON THOMAS SHERIDAN RUSSELL QUEEN ~i PENN OUVER ~y~ NEVfTON i~qy MORGAN ri~iiyl LOGAN IcNax n~ JAMES ~+ IRVING HUMBOLOT ~: GIRgRD PREMONi E~tERSOta DUPONr r+n co.IFAX 1r~ l BfZYA,NT `~.. ALDRICH LYVOALE a..,~ HARfftET • ` ~ GRAN4 PIEASANr PILLS9URY ~. WENTYVDRT! BVtISOELt i NlCOCLET _~_ ,at m STEVENS ~... Itid 3itl CLINTCjN ~_ 4th 5th PORTifiNO QAKtANO Vi'/ PARK DOL;JMBUS. C~ CHIDAGO ELUOr 10th l fth ' tnh f3fh ~: dth 5th IIOOMINCiTC 8tfv 7th 9th EDAR v v a .~ a s 'r s ~ _ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ v x r~ Y Y°a s r a a MODIFICATION N0.4 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY 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 Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/22/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 10/11/1999 Modification No, 3 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 6/17/2002 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area anal Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program.. that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New .Construction Program,. as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the Gramercy TIF District may be spent to acquire property withiri the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Gramercy TIF District ~ ~ -,g S ~ A XERXES 31N -~ YVASH9URN 307D Q' ~ 1~NCENT ?~ C (p t1P70N 2809 ~ ^~ THOOMAS ~. ~ ~ - SHERIOAN 3600 (S) - 7~C RiFS$ELL 3500 +~'h .~ .QUEEN ?'~ PENN- 2506 d ~ OLIVEft Z30k NEWTON 21 Q;3 ,.y.. MORGAN ~20C4 LOGAN 7900 ~' KNtlX 1800 ~ ~~ :FAMES !706 ~ C7 -~ ~ {RYIMC tBGP HWMBOIDT 7300 Ui Q Off6pRP t1pp ~~„ ,~-« ~ttEMONT iag3 '~; EMERSC,SN i~QB. pUPONT 7ta0 COLFRX t000 aRhiyil4 980 pL~R3CH eo0' ~IYNOgLE 760 GARPIELp 600 HARttiE.T sob GRANC f00 P[:EASpNT 300- PILLSBURY ~?' ~ WENTiiVORTH 100 BL?ASOELL ~ NIC~I.CET D00 ° tai ibo 0 ~TEVENS 17;f 2na zoo 0 3ca cuNroN ~+ 4V7 '~ Sth s00 PORTUANO. ~OAfFLFaN.O. 626 p .PARK 700 N COLUM911S rz0 O O CIiICAGt2 908 ELllOT 109i t?~ 11 tl1 1f0tl ~ 12p1 11,0.0 ~ 1391 130D C O t46f 1.0G 1591 1600 BLOOMINGFOy 193 1~+ 1608 Y71h I;Op ao 1891 -ceDO ~ ~O ~ CEDRR 19D0 N i W O ~ ~_ ~ g a 3 S a d L° n7 B 3 3 ~ 4 ~ '~ R o XERXES WASHBURN VINCENT t1PTE1N THOMA6 sHERIOAN RUSSELL .QUEEN PENN OLIVER NEWTON MaRt;AN LOGAN KNOIC JA61ES ^ ~~ M I aka • ~ IRV1yC ~ H M ~ U BOLOT ~ '~ also m y~ ~ r PREML~HT +~ i ~ ! EMERSON ~ ~ ~ ~' ouPONr COLFp]C {n!~a~ SRYANT 7~ ALDFI7CH LYND~AIE ~ ~ ,~/ ~ ` ~ 6ARFIELO ~ T. ~~ FdA[2[21Er~ ~ cw,iab PLE`tISANT (~} P1LL58URY r i WENTVf(9RTH ~' A ' ~ SSDELL - Ck ~ ~r~ • . y)GQLI ET lwrt• may , 1st ii~ BTEVENS~ ~q ~ ~f !V 3[if >, ¢UNLON :41h /'!11 S1D' ~ 1:/^E E PORTLAND OAILLAD7© ~ PARK. . COLUA76WS p}. CHICAGb ELLIQT YOth tl91 129! t3th Sdm 15tl+ 3LOOtAlNCTON litn 1191 99! :EDATt a ~ ~ n g "-' c MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE .URBAN VILLAGE 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 Originally Adopted By City Council: 11/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 10/11/1999 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax IncrementFinancing District Introduction . Page 1 .Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered. New Construction. Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment .within .the ,Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist .activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project: The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, .provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the Urban Village TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Urban Village TIF District i S 3 S~ S S ~ ~. ~ a n't rZ~~ S .~ ~ g 4 XERXE$ 3t00 '~- ~ kVASHBURN 9000 VINCEI`IT 290Q ~ UPTON 2eoo C ~ moMAS 21oa "SHERIOAN 1800 ~_ 'CD RUSSELL ~ ~ . i.~ ~ OUEEii 2480 X PENN 2300 ~ OLIVER 2200 ~~ ~ NENRON 2t00- D MORGAN 2000. : ~ LOG/\N 1540 ~ ~ KNOX 1800 . .JAMES 1700 ~ ~ ~ ~ IRVING 7800 HUMBOLDT +`~ (JJ~ ~ GIRARO taon Q fREMOtiT t7o0 Q ~~ EMERSON 't2a4 OUPO[dT 1100 - COLfAX fJ06 BRYANT gp0 ALORiCN &'14. LYNOAI:E ?00 OARFIELO ~e?0 HARRIET 504 GRAND 400 PLEASANT 304 PILLSBURY -~? O VvEN.T1MORTH {~ B.LA7SOELL '0 NICpLLET o49 1st :04. b STEVENB 134 , 2nd 200 ~ _ D 9fd "~ :CUNTOfl ?~ ~m sm =oc FORELAND bYJ OAKUINO. 524. ~ PARK 700 :O COIUMHUS 72q CHICAGO EOb F1:LI07 9Cfl t0di 1000 tam it00' 72fit t200 T"t O 19m 1300 O 140! tqW 15M t500 BIOOMIN~TON 1514 istti •304 1 T$t 1704 ~~ -ia 18th .804 „T, ~~ O CEDAR -I9Cm V W Z" ~* O tJi XERXES 4YASHBURN fliryG£NT UPiON Ti+oraas BHERiDAN RUSSELL OVEEN PENN OLNER NEYVfON MCRGAN LOGAN .,dtirr• KNQX ~ JA0.4E5 } •~w R ~ / . iRWING ~ y~~ y ~ ai/ ~ r MUMBOtD7 twM1 'GiR15R0 ~ . FREM1f9NY ~. 1 . EMERSON ws:i ` OUPON7 COLFAX ~ ~~. BRYANT F ORICN U ~' . . LFNOALE. t3ARfilELD HARRIET ~ ~. GRAND „ (~y/~' ~ . PLEASANT ~ PILL6)3URY WENT}tVORTFi ~: ~ - BLAISOEEL ~ Ci ~ ' Ni 2t<LET ~. 7$t •Illpt STE1fENS : ~ :2riii ~ /x W ~I 3rd GUNTON ^'•"• 4th t a/ TT1f / ~ -.91ii , ~ ~PORTLACf.D ~ ~. OAKLANq ~ ~• ~ , PARK ~ COLUMBUS CHICAGO • ~ _ try ~~ ELC70T toot tiiti t2ft1 13th tom 15m BLOOMINGTON 16th 1701 tBm CEDAR a bt N g ~ a n v v > m 4 S 5 ~ 4 g' c ~ o ~ ~ ~ .g S ~ c '3' c MODIFICATION N0.2 THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CITY BELLA 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 Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/11/2002 _ Modification No. 1 Adopted: 2/18/2003 Proposed Modification No. 2 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and City Bella Tax Increment Financing District Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the City Bella Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction . Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the .Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project. The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly. and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue from the City Bella TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the City Bella TIF District ,. 3 3 g ~ g v N av m m ~ ~ n nl ' ~ g ~ ~ 3 3 Y ~ ~~ X3RXE$ 3'"" (p ry; WASHBURN 3< `~ ~ VINCENT ~ LiPTQN. Y& ('~ ~ THOMAS 3 ~ >SHERIDAN a5C (~} ')f RUSSELL 23C QUEEfiI t10 _~'.y. PENN 230 0, ~ OWt/ER Z20 n N NEWfQk isa •'" ~ ~ MOR6AN 200 (k ~ LOGAN t9o! ~ ~. KNO% i8fk ~: JAME$ f70f '7 ~ (RVING ttx3 _~ v HUMBAL6T ~YAo ~.. GLR7SRD~ 1100 a-1- Q. -Z.' F#tF,MpAIT 1300 ~ EMERSON /~00 DuPIiJJr GOLPAX aaoa s1~Yi,~vr :<~ ALORICH ~ 4Y.FIESALE 700 GiXRF1ELd 600 HARRIET SDO BRFNO e3p FLEABANE 300 PILLSBURY ~~ ~ WEN7Y1fDRTH `too y BLySDELt °W (r4 N1C,tJLCET X40 tas fem. 0 ST6VEFIS Yi~~ aia sr.0 tV b GLINTDN :324 a~ aa0 'S1h 5d0 PC'ATLASUD 600- - OAKLAND 620. ;p, P1aRK '7ti0. p ~GOLUMBUS ,720.. O CyffSAGO .8U0 EWgT topi iaoo tith sfoo 07 12th G2iip ~'~''~ 19tR f~p0. O 34th fe00 tSM 1500 BLOQMINGTQN Y62g 16U1 te¢0 tTth f905 ~. :w TBth teou O `CEDAR f5pti. 3 ~~ W: Z ~. - ,~-.. XERXES WASHBURN VINCENT UPTON TH:OtvfAS. - SHERIDAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN OLIVER NEWTON MORGAN LOGAN ~~ KNOx" n JAMES !: ~ ~a iR1ffNG f~F HUM@OLgT ~~ GIRARt1 ~ ~w~~ FREM.ONT ~ 1 EMERSON ~~ -- v DUPdNT co1J=Ax BRYAMT ALDRICH i~r LyNgALE ~: GARFfELD HARRIET I GRAND PLEASANT PILLSBURY ~. WENTWORTH ~ :11~!!''~~''~[~ BLAISDELL. ! ~ [ ' twcouET tax ~ ""'~ STEVENS zna ;,.~ kd ~• CANTON IlRS1. ; itM1 $th m.i PORTLAND DAKLANO ARK ~~ ;OLUMSUS ~~ . Hl$AGO _LLtor am t fn 2fh SN ilh tth .OOMINGFON fh m >, DAR a' rn a A g g ~ a m g ~ ~ a .MODIFICATION N0.3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST/LYNDALE GATEWAY 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 Originally Adopted By City Council: 6/14/1999 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/10/2002 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange WestJLyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Property to be Acquired Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District Introduction There is a need to undertaken certain housing program activities which requires a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Ptan (TIF Plan) for the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (TIF District). The housing programs that are specific to this modification include the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (HRA) Transformation Home Loan Program, Kids at Home Program, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, and the authorization of expenditure of tax increment within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to acquire or otherwise assist activities of the Richfield Housing Development Project: The Transformation Home Loan Program is an incentive loan program that provides tax increment revenue resources to Richfield residents for major home rehabilitation and renovation. The Kids at Home Program provides tax increment revenue resources to qualifying residents for rental assistance thereby stabilizing households, reducing the number of households in transition at Richfield schools, and referring. households to various counseling, tutoring, and mentoring programs provided by public or private sources. Finally, the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, as revised, provides tax increment revenue in the form of a grant as an incentive for private, site assembly and new construction activities. Property to be Acquired Tax increment revenue- from the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway TIF District may be spent to acquire property within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as revised. Appendix A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Interchange West/Lyndale Gateway TIF District i -~~~~~wNr~ y $ ~ 3'~ > o A 1 a ~ ~ ~ I ~~ XERXES 37-` (p ~ iNASHSURN 3C VINCENT 2S7 LIPTON ~dei THOMAS 27( 3 ~ -SHERIDAN 2~! ~(~} ~ RUSSELL 250 r~- Cf! QUEEN 24a y = PENN 2}~ ~0, ~~ OLIVER 27N NEWTON .2701 ~1:~.' .. LOOAN 19M KNOX 7900 JA1dES 170a IRVINE t600 .~ ~'C HUM60LDT 13?0 ~• ~ GIRARO. 14"u0 (~ >C FREMONT tOpO ~ EMERSON t2Ja DUPONi t7IXt ~J COLFAX td04 BRYANT g00 ~-- ACDRICH Bfio LYNDALE 7C0 ~ GRRfIELD 84: HARRIET ~• GRANO etg PLEASANT 30a ~ PILLSBURY ~ '1. N7ENTW4JRTM 100 r~-t- BLAISDELL ~ ' .~. NICOLLEY !x? T.it 1a1 7 Q STEVENS 124 2nd 2d7' TO CT Std ~ GL7NTON ~4. 4th. Stlf 300 PORTLANp HI:O OAKLAIJO etq ,p PARK 7,~ O COLUMBUS 771 CHICAGO 8W EWOT t~ ?Opt 7W0 11111 Ot OC ~ 12th 1200 W 7~]ftt 13Z(} 0 0 1{th 1400 151h 1'wb BLOOMINGTON 733< I t6df 1^00 17th 1700 ~ 16N TeGJ ~ CEOM t~ D 0 ~ `!:~"r. vt XERXES YlASH9URN VINCENT UPTGN THOMAS > SHER7AAN _ RUSSELL QUEEN VENN OLfVER NEN?ON MORGAN 106AN ~~ FiN03( JAMES IRVINE ~. ~ HUMBOLOT GIRARD ~ _ fREMpNT V~ ~~ 'EMERSON ~~ , OUP.~ONY C.OCFAX ~~ ER1'AN7 C iMk ALQRICN ~Y LYNOAkE ;6ARFIEL4 rf"' HARRIET ifI ,~ flIYAND~ ~ /~~y y~~~ #i/ Pk.EASANT PlCLSBURY M!ENTWORTH BLNSD64l ~ ~ 7 ~ N1.epLLET 1st ~~ ~' ..fie STEVENS -~ Mi .2nd xa ~ ~ ~.C1.gyFON . h1h 6 th ~ Pi7RT1:ANU OAKLAND ~' PARK GOta1MB41S CHIGIGO ELLIOT /w~ ~a• fOLh~ ill t+r~ .~i L 11th i 12M1 ca ~~ ~.. 4ih SCi ~ ~ COCS(~tINGTON / ~ ~`~ !~}~ itli 17h ICi EpAR 4 ~ n ~ ~ s .e a v ~ 3 4 s a ~: ?; MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-1 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/23/1990 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 8/24/1992 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing. Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A-1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield , Rediscovered A-1 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A-1 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A-1 Tax Increment Financing District ~- ~ : s 3 g S S v nl ,. r3 3 5 g ~ g %ERXFS 3104 ~+ VJASFIBURN 3000 VINCENT 2986 (~y UPTON 2800 ~- iHOMAs 7iao SHERIOA.N 2~ O.. RUSSELL 2S6C .~~h ~ GUEEN 24W ~] Q PENN 23oC -~ 0 ~ OLiVER zz0.7 NEN70N 2106 b MORGP.N 20.,0' n " J LOGAN tech ~ ~ KNOX teCC~ ', ~ ~ JAMES 1700 IRV7Nq t6.P0 ^f HUMBOLDT t50C N~ ~ GIRARp (p ~ FREMONT t3QC _~ EMER39N 't20R pUP17NT tiflD coL~Ax ipb0 ~ BR1"flNT 90U ~~ AIDRICH 8w LYNDALE 7A0 G 1HFlELD btr0 -~. .HARRIET i'Oo DRANO d00 PLEASANT' aoc PILLSBURY ?ar ~ WEN,TW.OTFTH' aa" $LAtSD)=L,L 1a NIGffLLET tat tC0 -Q STEI~EJ~I5 124 and 304' N 3t5 3M > CI:tNTON: 52.1 *th 40b $W 600 PDR7LANp. ePC OAKLAND ~- Js PA12f( i00 -~9 COLUM8U5 C9 EMICA6SJ 800 EIUOT soo tom tooo tiih tttiu rn t2n1 t2M ~ - 139h 1300 O idth t400. t51tt~ asod BLOOMINGTON 1524 18th t60B: t7M i7D0 Ct) ?A, teCl 1$OD W a CEDAR t9AC w W ~.. ~ ~ ~ O' (71 XERXES WASHBURN VINCENT UPTpN iHQMAS SHERIOAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN ~. OUVER~ NEWfQN .. Mortcnta /~}~y~"" LOGAN •~ '~ t~ %NO%' JAMES IRVINO /IA RUMBOLOT GIRARO ~~ . FREMONT ~ 1... EMERSOA DUPONT ~~~yyy COLFAX HRYANT ALURICH ~. LYNOALE ~ , (?ARFIEIp , 1'fARItJET ~t G3YlNp ~ ~. PLEASANT PILLSBURY ~' WENTVJORTH~ ~.~ BLAISpEtt ~ ~A ~~1 NICOLLET tst @TES/ENS 2nd era !i~ r'" ct.Iry7oN .~. 410 ~ 1 " E SM /~ PORTLAND r~rr ^~ OAKLAND ~" PARK k COL;JAIBUS ~/~~ rn GNiCAGO iii j t ~ EWOT 'r t'I y~ ' ~ 'fin^/ 71ih ~,M,,,h. tzth "Z l3fh ~" a4m +"~, 45th BLOOMINGTON t81h 17th 18M CEDAR g ~ ~ 5. 8 $ ~ .tea H ~ S '~ o °'. _ ° $ °° $ ~°!., B a .. g 3 _ _ 3 ~ S o n MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT fINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-2 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 Originally Adopted- by City Council: 8/24/1992 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A-2 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A-2 Tax Increment Financing Plan is .being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A-2 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A-2 Tax Increment Financing District ~_ rti~ ~~ ~~ ,am _ I ® 5 4 s S- S S ~r~l. ... ~ g ~ S S 5 h T XERXES 3f00 n vJASN9URN '2oc0 VINCENT 290E (d UP'fON 2806 0 TQTf THDMxs z~66 N - StIERIDAN 2800 (p Q fdUSSELI 2366 ~ ~ QUEEN 34C0 PENN .ZSp O N OLIVER. 2200 Q. NEWf~N 2160 r- 1y `D MORGAN 2660 ~ i LOGAN 1900 _~ ~ KNOX 4eo6 ,( - JAMES 1703 3 IRVING f800. ~ ~h't HUM90LOT 1566 (jJ ~ GIRARD ~+~ FF2EMOh1T 1>DO ro ~.~-f EMERSON 12W OUPONT- if00 3 eoLFAx 1006 iU eRYAN7 90B ~~ ALDRICH t~q ~-t LvNpALE Tm . ~~ GARFIELD 6a6 HARRfET 500 ~. GRANO <00 PLEASANT 300 PIt:LS9URY ?~! ~ WENTWORYH :~ 9LA50ELL `+~6 _ N(COLIET nv0 ~ 1st lop o sTEVENS. ir<' 2nC 706 N 3ta 3p6' C0 -~ CLINTON sza Nh 30p. 5th 506 PORTLAND 660 OAKLAND 82S ~ PARK HOC -gyp COLUM9US Ti0 O CHICAGO t100 ELUOT 906 t01h '4600 tiro 11pc 'm 12th 4200 L'' is6, Iw6 0 c 44111 tlp0. 15th 450,0 91G0lttNGTON. 1523 16}b 7806.: 1)th .700 £1D- `~ 18711 iB06 O CEDAR 4900 .~. W 7L. O Cat XERXES VWSlIEURN VINCENT UPYON THOhIAs SHfiRIDAN RUSSELL nUEEN PENN ~e OLIVER '~ NEWTON =~ MORGAN /~}~y~~ LOGAN' 1jfr~ KNOX. .: ': JAIARS "' IRVINE /~!- HUM90LOT ~ ~~ GIRARD "` i•F-~ FREh10NT ~ 'jl~~~ EMERSON ~ ~~/. DUPONT ~ ~- coLFnX -~ rn BRYANIT ~ ~_ ALDRICH LTNDfil;E GARF4ELD HAlil31ET~ GRACiO PLEASANT +~ RILl59UR.y WEhTWORYH ^~` 9LFUSUEIL tifCOLLET \'~ ~~ .. -1st S7EYENS 2nq ~ 14I. 310 ~4 /I ~LIN70~N ~~/ 4,19 +~i 8di PORTLAND ~ . OAKiANO PAi2K "^' COLUMBbS ~CHICRGO ELLIOT LON r'~ t1ei. 12th ..Y, 13th 1Ath ~'" 15th 8LOCIAINGTON 16jh 17th teM OEDAR ~ ~ y N 3 - n 3 ~ _ ... 3 ~ ~ ., g ~ c c a MODIFICATION N0.4 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-3 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and- Richfield Rediscovered A-3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A-3 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A-3 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A-3 Tax Increment Financing District V O ® + v v v r v ~ ~ 'J' c u m er S } g g ~ a r3 .. ~ 3 5 4. 3 S 4 T XERXES 31a~ ~: /V YVASHBURN 9a~C ~' ~ NNCENT 28D0 (~ LIPTON 78~ ~- THOMAS 27W ~~ ~ - SHERIDAN 2600 ~~ Q. RUSSELL 79CD (~~ QUEEN 7roc _ T 0 PENN 2300' Q. ~ pLIVER 7200 ~. ~ NEYJTON 2100 r~~h: D ~ YfORGAN GOOD I ~ (~ LDGAN is0o ~. -~ KNO)[ teUO ~_ )~'( JAMES 1700 ' ~ n IRVING 16C0 C 1 HLIMBOLD7 iu4 _ (/~~ ~ GIRARD i'~ ~~ FREMONT t3G0~ h EMERSON 12m DUPONT nOo ~ COLF4X 7Q'A eRYANT 9D0 ALDRIGf1 600 L1'NpALE 7~ ?~•/ GARFIELD 6C0 '"~ HARRIET 600 .-~~1- GRkyD 40c PLEASANT 300 ` wLLSeuR4 ~ WEN'FWORTH r06. BLlSSDELL '~ _ NlCOti£T o0D '~ t51 IDD O ~r~vEns ixa 2ntl 2l70 IJ 3ra ~ -~? 6LINT~'1N L34 HI: 100 SUt `~ PORTLAND BW OAKLAFJb R1o ,Q PARK lac .~~ COLUMBUS rp O CHICAGO 8'JC ELLIOT ~ 1Mh 1000 tith 1/00 ' .~ 12M 12Dc -~ ; ~ ~ ~ t 31h t300 O t4N il90. t3th 750D 9LOOMlNGTON 1674 tGUI '.900 tlih 1700' ,'~ 1'8d1 !800 .m O~ GEOAR t3J0 a N ~s~ W 7 ~. XERXES WA.~FSSURN VINCENT LIPTON THOMAS SH£RIDAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN /~ OLR/ER 1' t• NEWT ON MORGAN "' LOGAN ~ ~'~, >r~ KNOX ~~~'yy~~rr^^ /~~ JA}RES ~ir~/ IRVING. i ~HUfiH6LDT wrr GIRARO FREMONT ~~ 1. EMERSON ~ O DUPONT tOLFAX SRYANT ALbRIC11 LYNL2ALE ~ . J GARFlEI.D ' HARRIET - GRAYJO ~ 'i PLEASANT ~ ~~~ PILLSBURY ~>r!/EN3~4VORTH w~ BL~usa~u NICCkLLE7 tsl sTEiY~NS ~._ 2nq {~ CLINTS)tJ ~. '• fih ~ /~ .PORTLAND ~ ~~ j pAKLAND .~1 PARR w+[ COLUM6U9 ..M/~~.y~ CHtGAC6 \iht ELLIOT ~ ~ A SOth t••~r~ itch- ~` ~~ t7dt u.~rs M~t}i t41h ~~ 75tli BLOOMINGTON 4Stli 179i iSfFi CEDPR ~ ~ 4 ~. Cs $ 5 $ '~ ' v ~ m m cx ~ -pra ~ ~. g ~ a _ ~ S ~ ~ 5: 5 ~ c 'c MODIFICATION NO.3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-4 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/10/1995 Modification. No. 1 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing Plan is .being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered A-4 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. N } 3 g S 3 4 ¢ *'i '1 rl g ,3 S S 3 ~. XERXES 3fi (p ~• WASHBURN as Q" ~ VINCEµi 20f1 (p UPTON •280 {p ~ TH6MA5~ ?70 SkfERIDAN 2Wi {D ~_~ RUSSELL 25C VJ•. ."~ (~ QUEEN zsec PENN 230( -~ OLIVER 220C n Q NEWTON 2fOC D MOrtGAN 20IX ~ ~ LOGAN 1000 KNOX 16W ~} ,~( JAMES 1700 ~: 1 ~ tRVINa 16u8 ~ HUMBOL~DT aSUD (n' ~ GIRARD 100 ~: .(~ FREhiONT -130D EMERSON 1260 DUPONT if~M ~~ COLFAX TOW ~ BRYAtVT gpp. ~• A1DRICH soo © UYNt)ALE 70u ~• GARFIELD 600 HARRIET 3G. ~i .~... GRAND Y00. PLEASANT' 39P PiLl.SBURV 20C O ,NENTWORTH ,06 BLRISDELL ~ NI6oLLET 800 C tat ,06 CT 0 sTEvENs 12< ?.nd t60 N O 3tq 3~ CUNTON a?a am ao 5m soo PGRTLliNO sou. OAKLAND 6'26 Q ?N21C ~p NO, cgLUMSUS rm: b C}1tCAG0 fWQ ELLfOT ~ 10th fUDO O1 12m 120b ~ 13m ,300 O 0 Tam faoo t3th l5no. 9LOOMINGTON 1524 iSm t¢O6 irtn ,ro4 Go ;A 16m tso0 O CEDAR 19W m !v ~„ t'il XERJSES WASHB,URtiR VINCENT UPTOµ T}IOMAS SHERIOAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN paa OLiYER +k i/ NEWTON MORGAN #• LOGAN 'l1r KNOX JAMES IRVINE NUMEtOLDT ~ ~~ G1RAR0 !~ . FREMONT ~ ,~ :EMER'SpN ;~ - DUPONT COLFAx $RYANT ~F4!- ALDRICH ~ ~. LYNDALE Ity,~._ GARfIELb HARRIET GRAND ~y~ ~, PLEASANT ~! PILLS$URY WEµTW01?TH ~w BWSDELL ~ +1~~*~~. NICpLLE7 ~ 't+i 1St STEVfNffi. 2nd •ara ~ ~. rF C9<ItJTON am sm F?.gRTLAND OAKLAND 11 PAglf .r./. COLUjY!8US ~~/~/~~ }~~ CH1C:9t,0 fit( } t, ELUOT '{~~1 ,~. tom tam -~ 12m ~. tam ~• lam ~' $m I1.00R11NGTON 6Yh rm: Bm EDAR ~ N g 4 3 a w ~, MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED A-5 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/1312005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered A-5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered A-5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered A-5 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from. the Richfield Rediscovered A-5 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered A-5 Tax Increment Financing District N ~~ p~~ g > ~ 3 n A~ A S 5 3 3 S T XERXES 310f ~• WAQHB4/RN aoa .~~ ~ VINCENT 29^.J {p UPlF,1N 2BN: ~- THOM9S~ t)tl0 .. -SNfiR1DAN 26G0. t4 ~. ~ RUSSFI.L Z#6[ r~-f• ~~ 'QUEEN zaoo . ~ Q PENN 23fIC C ~• ~ DUyEft 2240 NEyJTON 21 W ,~ MO!?GAN 2UC0 ~ 1 ,(ji - 400AN vSCa ~~ ~ KNGX xe~ K JAWIES 17U0 ~ ~ tEtV1NG 16p6, HUMSOLDT tSOG _ VJ• ~ GIRARD +~. .Q ~ - FREh10NT 1?~0 rs• EAIERSAN 7205 4uPOrtT ,1m ~ CtJLFAX lalm :~ ~6RYAyT 9pp AL.DRICH 80U .lYND111.E TGG; • GARFIELD 6'W ~. 'IiAREtIET 500' GRHN© !US RLEASANT 3W. PI.143919R1' 3G0 ~ -13+E1.iTV~tOR7t1 1~ BLAISDELL N1COLi£'f _ ~? t9 1st [tic 'SJl C3 ~ST£SiEtJS +Ti 2nd 2CU N O 3iq g00 o .CLINTON a2a' ~~ $dl ~. PORTLAND _~q OtiKfAND 620 d? ~~ TpD. ~O CO'LI~AiEUS 720. CMICAC4 1lOd-. ELLIOT ~ .10th. tGbG: 11tit ittig ~ 421h t2AQ `~ 13N1 13[10 d 14th 1~oC 1511 tsoe BLtfOMINOTON 152a 18th 18DC. 191[1 't#t$t ~~„ . ttY1h iiean C3 m O.- ~CE[dAt? i~c -# 1. w ~ `` cn N ~ 3' S d- ~ XERXES WASHBURN VINCENT LIPTON 7HOFdA3 SHERIDAN RU59ElL QUEEN PENN /~~ OUVER F f NEVJfON MORGAN ra• LOGAN KNOX f~!~ JAMES ~ ~* ~ IRVING }}~ HUMBOLDT a GIRARD ~y~~ /mom FRENfONT ;"~ EMEi2SflN a 9j OUPONT COLP7tlt: ORYANT irtt~ ALDRICH. IYNDALE OARfiEiD ^ GRAkP wr~ .PLEASANT PILLSBURY WENT4tiDRTFi ..^~ BUtISDELL •Y1+/ ~j NICOLLE7 ,`SI ~4Jw t51 ~ '""7 STEVEN5 2na ~ ~!I 3rq ~ ~!'.!'1~ii/ CLINTON ~ ~- 4th i ~!~ ;5th ~ ~~ , e t?ORTLANO OAKLAND sK PARK ~Y COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELL10T v 10M /raw 11fh 1201 ~~, 13th lath ~ 13th BLDOtAiNGTON Ism 17th t81h CEDAR V'. V V 3 g' $ 9 S g o. c MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-1 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/23/1990 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 8/24/1992 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B-1 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-1 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-1 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the .Richfield Rediscovered B-1 Tax Increment Financing District I -~ ~ v ~ ~ a 7f. A g ~ g g t xERxES 3+a' ~ - (~ ~~ VYASHBURN 30f9 VINCENT 20ai (p UP.TON ~28q Q Q THOMAS ?~ ~ ~ - SHERIDAN 7600 Q RUSSELL 3300 .~~r (~'? OUEEN 29f~ _ PENN R3Ctl Q N OLIVER 22ai+ '',.. ~ Q NENRaN ~2iOJ MORGAN 20:9 ro ,~ LOGAN +~ --~ KNbx +eoo N X JAMES 1700 IR1/!NG 1606 ~' ~ HUMBOLOT +~ ., ~ ~ GIRARO +~ Q (p FREMONT +~ .~i. EMERSON 1208 DUPONT ++~ ~ COLFAX 1000 BRYANT 400 ~} ~~ ALDRICH 806 LYNDALE ?~ ..~~... GARFIELD 800 '"~ !1ARFSIE7 SCO 1 ,nom GRAND aoe PLEASANT 80C P1LlSBURY ~0 - O ~ U/ENTWORTH rbc BINSDELL NICOLLET OW a Tst +oo O STEBENS 124 2nd 200 N C 3rd ?~ CLINTON 334 4N ~ 5th. PORTLAND Gal OAKLAND ^~ ,P PAR!( 70p o cot:uhsBUS rm O CHICAGO BP7 ELLI07 90D 10th if)U6 77th 1+00. ~ T2d+ 1200 - ~ 15th txlo O O 14y1 1400 15th 1500 BLOOMINGTON +6?! 16N +800 17th +700 W A t6tl+ +800 D. O CEDAR +000 N N W ~ ~. XERxES iNASHBURN VINCENT WRTON THOtdAS SHERIDAN RUSSELL _ QUEEN. PENN y~~ DLIVER NEyYTON MDRGAN ~~ LOGAk ~~ xNOx JAMES IRVINE J!\ HUMeQkaT ~ .~ GIRq,RD ~~ #'~ FREMONT EMERSON ~ v~ DtAPONT ~ a~ COLFAX 6RYANT' /}~ ALDRICH LYNDALE 'GARFIELD ~' HARRIET "'~I`t ~~ GRAND PLCA,$ANT P114$BURY NJEN'MJO1iTH ~. BLAI51JE4.L ~ ~. HIOOLLET "'~ tat STEVENS - ~ ~'~. ~ .~/ ~ --.CLINTON wl~.~ ~. 4tlt ~. Slf+ PORTLAND OAKLAND PARK `~` COLU{.iB115 . CHICAGO ELLIOT - ~ ~~ 100+ ~~ t19+ , T2th r..+• 13th 14th ~~ t5N BI:DOMINGTON 16th 17th IBC1 :EDAR ~ Y N g d c 3 S 3~ 5 3 s c 4 4 g 8'i 'O' rn of } g g a N s MODIFICATION NO. 5 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-2 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 8124!1992 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 6/14/1993 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 4 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 5 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 5 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-2 Tax Increment. Financing. District Introduction . Page 1 ' Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B-2 Tax Increment Financing :District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-2 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-2 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B-2 Tax Increment Financing District V J V ~ 4 ~ N V _V O V O~ w 3 3 .g ~ 4 S n n'Z ~ wl~ S ~ 441 $ ..Rm XERXE$ 3100 ' ~. ~~ WASHBURN ~306C ~. ~ VINCENT 2900 '~ N tiPTON ~ ~. ~' TI10MA$ 7/00 ~• SHERIDAN 25CC N 'S3, RussELL zs6o ~ ~• QUEEN zao0 Q PENN 2:M0 C ~~ OLIVER 7100 Q NEWTON 2}00 MORCgN 2060 ~~ { IOGAN 1500 .-~ KNCIf i0g0 ~ ~~ JAMES 12x1 iRVtNG tw6 ,~• HUMBOLOT t60a _ .(1} ~ GIRARD ta00 EREMONT t3C6 ~. ~} .~-- £6fER50N 1200 _~ pUPONT 7700 ~' 40LFAX to00 Q) e1tYtU•tT gp0 ~:. AIORIQH lYyDgLE 700 . CiARRIELD hU0 e~,# ~ HARRIET 560 '~ GRAN6 406 ?LEIluRNT 500 PILL$8{~jR~' 200 . ~ VQENTI!JtlR.TH afro. BLNSDEIL ~ NIGOLLET OOU` ° 1st. 160 O ST.E'vEN@ 1za: 2~e Zoo 3rtl ?90 0 ~~ GLINTON a2a am +~ Sm 500 PoRivwo ego OAIf41Np ego ,P PARK .740 ,:~_6 COLUMBUS jp `G CHICAGO 860 ELUOr tom too6 11th 9too ,~ t2m t2o6 _ eW t3m 4360 O O 14th 1400 15th 1500 BLOQMiNGTON t52x t6m 1500 17m 174ti =~ tSlh '^.e00~ A _ O ~GEOAR 1806 IV r CW Z XERXES wF5yBURN VIN;CEN7 LIPTON rrtDnias SMERIDAN E3U$SELL OUE~N PENN /y OLiA/ER~ NEWTOAI MOF:GAN LOCiAN ~ ' KNOX ~ JAMES r~r~ ~ ~ + iRV1N0 . ~ HUMBOIAT GIRARD r• EREMpHT ~ ,~ , EMERSON ~ -~ DuevNT C ++~ ~ /+y/ COLFA7( ~ eT31`ANT ALD RIOH / !~ . LY{~DALE GARFIEiA' HARRIE T GRAN6 ~ PLEASANT ~. PILLSSLIRY ~ Vi~EMTWOR7'N ~ ~ i$DELL SU t~tGQt.IET 1st- -'7 -57E'V.EtiS~ ara (~} "'7'~ uo a"~: CUHT"6N 3th a•• I ~l sm PCRTlAN17~ QAKk1.yNA ~ PAR}C ! COLUMBV5 .. GHl.OAGQ ~ ~1 [ isuoT ,~r ~ tt 12th ".~` ism aY~e ~~ tim rStti BLODAITNGTDM tam t7m 1Hm CEDAR g g +~ rv a a v " v v rn ~ $ '3 S 4 9~ c _ 3 S g g g '~' 3 cma N n n MODIFICATION N0.4 TO THE TAX .INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-3 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/25/1994 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 3 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 4 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 4 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B-3 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-3 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-3 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B-3 Tax Increment Financing District J I V V ~! v V ~. ~ v W ® ~ 3 ~ g ~~ 5 ~ n r3 R ~ 5 ~ g ~ XERXES 7104 WASH8URN ?CQO ~ ~ VINCENT2968 (p~ UPiON 2808 _0 ~ ?HOMAS ~Y7~0 .. SHERIDAN 26M (p ~ FtUS$ELL 2500 OUEEN 1000 d PENN 23E0 ~ OIIVER 2260 ~• Q Nc'YVTgN 2T00~ rh D ~ MORGAN 2006 f (~ lOGAN 1900 -i KNOX 7860 ~ X JAMES 1700 IRVINE f800 ~ HUMBOlOT '1`~ ~~ ~ G.IRARD 1a~ (~ ~FREMONT ~3d4 r~-h EMERS.ON 4300 _~ OWPONT f!L'6. ~ COIFAX t660 ~ BRYANT 80D ~~~ ALORICH 800 ~~T LYNOAIE 760 GARFIELD 60.` HARRIET 500 - ~ GRAND 400 PLEASRNT 300 PIl,USBURY 200 ~ WENTWORTH 160 BLAISDELL -~ 7JIC4Ll`'T 000 ~~ tat :Oo 0 STEVENS f24 2nd 100. Iv' ad ~. ~ ~ CUNTOIV 32s 4jh !~ :Sin sog Poa~LANO 5aq OAKLAND ~ A PARK Tqb - o coLUMeuS nc. O CIi1CAG0 -800 ELUOT ~ tan ~~ 1tm 1100 run 7200 w lam ,300 0 0 14m f400 15m 1500 BIOOMING70N- T81s i6m !800 nm n0o w :A ibm t800 C CEDAR 7900 O IV ~ ~ I/j//1 W XERXES WPSHBURN WNCEN7 UP70N THOMAS SHERfOAN RUSSELL OUEEN PENM ~~ ouvER NEYVfON MORGAN ~~ LOGAN ~~ KNOX JRMES T IRVINO 'AtT~ RUMBOLOT ~Ii1 GIRARD ~j~y{F ' FREMON7 EMERSON /~, ~\j DUPONT 1 COLFAX y"~ ~R BRY/SNT ~~,rrJ~ ALORiGH ~ ~~ IYNDALE GARFIELD H/VRRIET W GRANO a^^~RR.t PLEASANT ili! PILLSBURY wENTwoRr~i ~' BLAIS[OELL raw NICOLLET - 4st STEVENS 2na ara ~ 1"tiA~ CLfNT.ON 4m Sm ~' !...!!~ PORTLAND QAKOANO PAR% rrs COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELUOT T bn 1Tm Tzm ~~ 17m ~"" 14m P'r'y -. ism BLOOMINGTON ifim 17m 4BN CEDAR 4 n S a ~ ~ g 3 a c MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-4 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 7/10/1995 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004 Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . _ .Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1.75, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B-4 Tax Increment Financing District ~ 3 ~ 4 S o w~1 o m 5 a n ~ T ~ XER%ES 31OU ~ YVASHflURN 300a ~ vtNCErrt 29uc (p uarON z~ O ~- THOMAS 2700 -- SHBRIDAN 2600 (~ E3. tW$SELI ?500 M ~ ~ QyIEEN 2400 Q PENN tbo Q. ~ ouuER yiod , NEWTON 2100 A ~ MORGAt4 2000 LOGAN 1800 ~ --~ KNOk 160.0 aj ~ x JAMES 1700 ~RtnNG -1690 't HL'MEOI~DT 1500 .. ~ ~ fa1RAR0 t4~ [:t ~ FREMONT t ~ . -r EMERSON 1~?00 OUPOt4T 1100 GOLFA% 1000 eRYAN'f .800' h. ~^ AIDRIGN~ 9W ~` tYNDAt,E JW GARFIELO SCA! ^~' HRRRtEf. 50¢ ~~ ^..RANO 498 __ PLEASANT 300 PIL56WRY '~~ ~ +TiENT~ypgRTN t30 BLRISDELL `~ NICOLkET ~~ '~ 18t 700 O SYEvENS ran, znn 300 N r+ Sui ' O. CLIN?ON~ 8u I 4th cao BHI SO¢ PORT'!: WND 6C0. OflKLAND, 524. ,A ~ 'EARL( Y00 O COLUM6US 7+~y Cf11CAGb 900 ElUOI ~ 10yf 1090 11th i1 ~ 12tH 1200 fi] O 13tH 1300 O 14th f4d0 15th b600 OLOOMINGTON 1524 16tti ifiOC .. 1 F1h 1200 ~ 18th +eoo ,p p CEDAR i9p0 (D ~. O G77 i '~ S ~ s ~ g n g ~ 3 J W a -w '.m J - 3 3 ° a XERXES wASneuRN VINCENT UFTUN THOMAS SHERIDAN RUSSELL 4UEEN PENN ~y~~ OUVER i I NE4YiON ~~.. MORGAN ~~ LQGAN .~~ KNOX /~~ JAMES .j;f i~t~/ 1RVING ~ yy~{ HUMROLDT GiRARO ^` }rn~ ' FREMONT ~ / .,.. EMERSON ~ D OUPONT COlFA7C BRYANT ALDRICH LYNDALE .~ . .GARFIELD- {ice, HARRIET GRAND ~ . .PLEASANT PILLSBSJRY ~ .r~r NIENTU!(ORTFI ~i !'~':*iT 6LAISgEkI /h • t Tst "~' STEVFNS ~ ~- 2n~, 3rtl ~ CLTN.TON ~ ~~. '~, Atn r.~, M~14 .sin ../ ~~ ~ 1 `PORTLAND ~OAKLANO PARK '"'^`~ 'COLUM9US yyw~~ CHIOAGO Iii ELLIOT T"S -~ n0in V btth. ~~ 1201 13th ~• t41h ~~ i5th BI:O.QMINGTON 18th t Tin tam CEDAR MODIFICATION NO. 3 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING P-LAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED B-5. 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 Originally Adopted by City Council: 2/23/1998 Modification No. 1 Adopted: 1/22/2001 Modification No. 2 Adopted: 12/14/2004. Proposed Modification No. 3 Consideration: 12/13/2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Modification No. 3 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered B-5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction . Page 1 Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds Page 1 Appendix A -Map of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Richfield Rediscovered B-5 Tax Increment Financing District Introduction The Richfield Rediscovered B-5 Tax Increment Financing- Plan is being modified to conform to tax increment financing annual reporting requirements per Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 6. Estimate Amount of Obligated Funds Tax increment revenue from the Richfield Rediscovered B-5 Tax Increment Financing District may be expended on debt service for the bonds issued for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment District. APPENDIX A Map Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Richfield Rediscovered B-5 Tax Increment Financing District MERXES 31vf (p ~• WASHBURN 3001 ~ 1fiNCENT 2900 (p• l1PTON. 26v1i O fl- THaMAS 2100 BWERIDAN 2fil:0 ZD (p Q RU95ELl ^~,oo :~• QUEEN 2a00 ~EJ C PENN 2300 0• ~ aLIVER 2290 'Q. NEWTON 2+00 +~„• ~ MORGAN 2000 Y 1 (~ LOGAN vsao _~ -~ KNOX 18i1b ~~} X JAIi1E5 1?00 IRVING i~0 -~, Hu~aaoLDr ,$~ ~ GIRARD }~ - ~• ~: ~ FREMQNT ~~~ .-il- EMERSON fsoo '?T DUPOM '1+W ~ cat;FAac 7ego aRVnplr yoo ALDRIGH 8a0 LYNDALE goo 0 ~GARKIELQ 500 "~' HARRIET 500 -s rt GRAND av0 PLEASANT 300 PI[:LSBURY © WENTWORiH 100 aL.41SDEL4 ='0 N(tvOLkET ~3 O- 151 im O STEVENS 1?t 2nd zao N3 3ra xa ~ CLIIJTON 32? 41h ?00 Svi 500 RORTLFJViI 600 OAKUI.NO- 520 .~ PARK 7fA - ;; fd CGI:UMSUS J20 GHiCAGO tuo ELLIOT 9G0 9pv1 s1iG:) 11th 1100 ~ 12Lh 12x0 ~ 13th f:pv O O UtA ta00 15th 1500 ELOt0h1INGTON t6za 161,h 7900 17M t pa 05 '~; 18ps iaoo ~ CEQAR 1'.100 ~ O j J ~+:1 ~~. XERXES WASHaORN VINCENT UPTON rHai7+As SHERIDAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN ^~ Ol1VER NEWTON MORGAN ~~ LOGAN ~~ . 7KNOX' !1!w9 . JAMES ~ a~ IRVING /1~. y M " JIUMEOLDT { . ~GIRARlJ ~, m FREMQNT EMERSON DUPONT GDLFax BRYANT 1i ~ 1/ ALDRICH ~i ~ "~' LYNDALE 1 a l i~~M ~ ~ GARFIEI;D ° y T'!"! ~ HARRIET ~ 1 GRAND ~ PLEASANT / +~ ~ PILLSB RY ~ ~ U ~ YYENTWORTF{ ~ aLAiSDELL NICQLCET 19f STEI7ENS 2ntl ~' . 3ra ~ . r~ 'CCINTON ~ ~ 6tl, ~. PbRTI,AND ~ >~ -OAKLAND ~ /1 ~. ~ PARk ~ COLUMBUS CHII.AGO ~ ~ - .. EL'_ 10T i 1)If1 1fi ~, 12th ~• f3pt ~~ Nlh 45th 3LOOMINarON 6tl, 7Yt 8th EDAR W 0 N, g ~ n n g 4 3 ~ ~ 4 c _ ~ a z 3 S H a N T ~ 6 Blight Assessment Report Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Modification Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement Prepared by the Richfield Community- Development Department For the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority October 17, 2005 1. Introduction Purpose of Report and Definition of Blight The purpose of this report is to analyze and report the conditions of scattered sites where single family homes in Richfield are located and determine if these sites have conditions, which meet the following definition for "Blighted Area" according to the criteria defined in Chapter 469, Section 469:002, Subd. 11, of Minnesota Statues: "Blight 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 facts, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. 2. Methodology There are two elements to the assessment of blighting conditions. a. A housing inventory completed in October, 2004 which provides a detailed reporting of the age and condition of the existing single family housing stock. The title of the report is "Richfield's Housing Assets". The following relevant sections of the report are attached: - Existing Housing Stock Data Section - Single Family Housing S#ock Data - Neighborhood Single Family Housing Stock Data - HRA History and Accomplishments - Richfield in Comparison b. Program maps of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority since 1990; housing rehabilitation and replacement programs. Each single family site represents an inspected and blighted location determined prior to the commitment of financial resources to the correction of field verified conditions. S 0 SI T D~,X. SE ~~ Existin Housing Stock Dato ~ existing .Mousing Stock I~xst of Tables Page Overview 2 Section Highlights 3 Housing Inventory by Year of Construction 4 Housing Units by Structure Type - 1990-2000 Census 5 Census Housing Vacancy 6 Census Housing Vacancy -Change from 1990 to 2000 7 New Housing Construction Activity g Median Gross Rent Median Home Value Estimates 9 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price 11 Richficld's Noosing Assctso Opportunity at Every Door 1 Existing Nouaing Stock Date I~ Existing Housing Stock Overview This section provides general information about the existing housing stock in the City of Richfield. Later sections of this document provide more detail on specific components of the City's housing inventory, such as single family houses, rental housing, and housing stock. by neighborhood. This section is intended to provide a City wide, summary data. Much of the information used in this section has been taken from the U,S. Census. However, to update this information since 2000, other data sources have been used. These more recent sources include building permit issuance since 2000, a recent rental housing survey, conducted by the Richfield HRA, and residential sales data compiled by Hennepin County. ® Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door Z Existing Noustng stock Data 111 Existing Housing Stock Secti®n Highlights ' The age of the occupied housing stock in Richfield reflects the City's rapid growth in the 1940x, 1950x, and 1960s. According to the Census, over half of the City's owner occupied housing was built between 1950 and 1959. The biggest decade for rental housing construction was the 1960x, when more than 39% of the rental units were constructed, based on age data in the 2000 Census. Other data sources, such as the Hennepin County property tax database, show an even larger percentage of the City's rental housing constructed in the 1960x. By Hennepin County estimates, over 75% of the City's rental housing was constructed between 1960 and 1969. ' Between Januaxy 2000 and August 2004, the City issued buildin construction of 556 new housing units. Most of these units are m multifam ly buildings, and are condominium units intended for owner occupancy. New unit construction activity since 2000 already exceeds production of new housing units in the 1990x, based on Census records. ' Starting in 1999, Richfield began to see the construction of.larger, multifamily housing projects. Generally condominiums, these projects were part of redevelopment efforts that often required the clearance of existing structures. For the five full years between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged 123 new units per year in multifamily structures. ' Due to linuted availability of sites for single family construction, there has been very limited production of this housing type in recent decades. For the five year period between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged approximately 17 single family houses per year. This construction activity was also often tied to redevelopment efforts, that involved the removal of an existing house to facilitate new construction. The 2000 Census recorded very low vacancy rates in the City. Since that time, rental vacancy rates have increased, but there is no evidence that the low vacancy rate in owner- occupancy housing has changed. ' The I3RA's 2004 rental survey indicates that rent levels have increased in recent years, despite an increasing level of vacancy. For 1 bedroom units, approximately 97% of all units had a gross rent between $500 and $750 in 2004. In 2000, approximately 77% of units were in this price range. For two bedroom units, the prevailing rental range in 2004 is between $750 and $1,000 per month, compared to a prevailing range between $500 and $750 per month in 2000. Based on the HRA's survey, nearly 89% of two bedroom units now have a gross rent of $750 or more. Strong demand for home ownership opportunities both within the City and in the larger Twin Cities region has resulted in a consistent increase in home values. Analysis of a recent 12 month sales sample, indicates that the median home sale price was just under $200,000. In the 2000 Census, the City's median home value was identified as $128,500. Using recent sales as the best indicator of true market value, a large majority of the City's single family housing is in a price range between $175,000 and $225,000. Only a small percentage of houses have a market value under $150,000 in 2004. ~ Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Existing Hausing_S~ock data t Housing Inventory by Fear of Construction Table 1 Richfield Occupied Housing Units by Year Built 1939 and Earlier 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1989 1990-2000 2000-2004* Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented 611 a,.....,.,.. ~nn 165 n i+ 8,234 1,311 790 3,031 396 350 143 42 556 0 *The tenure and occupancy status for units constructed since 2000 is not exactly known. This table assumes tenure based on the best available information. 2004 data is through August. The age of the occupied housing stock in Richfield reflects the City's rapid growth in the 1940x, 1950s, and 1960x. Over half of the City's owner occupied housing was built between 1950 and 1959. The biggest decade for rental housing construction was the 1960x, when more than 39% of the rental units were constructed. ® Hennepin County records show an even larger percentage of rental housing construction in the 1960s, as will be discussed in the Rental Housing section later in this document. d Between 2000 and August 2004, the City issued building permits for the construction of 556 new housing units. Most of these units are in multifamily buildings, and are . condominium units intended for owner occupancy. New unit construction activity since 2000 already exceeds production of new housing units in the City in the 1990s. Occupied Housing Units by Year Built -~ Richfield 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 L ~ Owner Occupied Renter occupied ^ Richticid's Nollsillll Assetso Opportunity at Every ilaor ~ Pre-1940 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-2000 2000-2004 Existing Housing Stock Data I~®usin~ Units ~y Structure 'T'ype -1990®2000 census The following table presents information from the 1990 and 2000 Census on occupied housing units in the City by structure type. Table 2 Richfield Occnp~ied Housing Units $y Number of Units in Structure Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 1990 Census 2000 Census Unit Change 1990-2000 1990 Census 2000 Census Unit Change 1990-2000 1 Unit Detached 9,837 9,589 -248 407 345 -62 1 Unit Attached 100 87 -13 217 135 -82 2 Units 40 62 22 145 123 -22 3-4 Units 17 19 2 103 107 4 5+ Units 323 347 24 4,223 4,189 -34 Mobile Home 43 70 27 13 0 -13 Total 10,360 10,174 -186 5,108 4,899 -209 UVU11:G. V.J. 1.G11J UJ - Since Richfield is a `fully developed' community, there has been only limited change in the number of occupied units in the community. However, there was a slight reduction in number of households between 1990 and 2000. - The largest numeric loss in occupied units was in the single family stock, both detached and attached units. According to the Census, there were more than 400 fewer occupied units in 2000 than existed in 1990. ®ccupicd Housing ~Tnits - 1990-2000 Mobilc Homc 5+ Unit 3-4 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit Attached 1 Unit Detached Bichfieid's Housing ^ssots: Oppartunity of Euory Door 5 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 1990 ~ 2000 ExistinD Housing Stock Data ~ census H®usin.g Vacancy The 2000 Census provided information on the occupancy/vacancy status at the time the Census was taken. Table 3 Vacant Housing iJnits o 20Q0 Total Vacant Vacant For Sold/Rented Seasonal/ Other Vacant For Rent Sale but Not Occasional Vacant Units Occupied Use Richfield 284 121 39 27 34 63 Herne in Co. 12,695 4,250 1,474 1,573 2,491 2,907 Cnnrce• ~nnn f'A,. ~,... The Census reported that there were 121 vacant rental units in April 2000, The Census also reported 4,889 occupied rental units at that time for an approximate rental housing inventory of 5,010 rental units. The 121 vacant units represented a rental vacancy rate of 2.4%. For all of Hennepin County, the rental vacancy rate was 2.7%. The Census reported only 39 units that were vacant and for sale in 2000. This represented an approximate vacancy rate of 0.4%. For all of Hennepin County, the vacancy rate was 0.5% . Vacancy surveys completed since 2000 show that rental vacancy rates have increased since the Census was completed. However, strong demand for home ownership opportunities and a steady rise in home sale prices would indicate that the ownership vacancy rate has changed very little from the 20001eve1. Vacant Housil~g Units - 2000 s°i° 4% 3% 2% 1% L~ Richfield Hennepin County ~ Minnesota ~ Richfield`s Housing Assots: Qpportunity at EYet71 Door 6 Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale ~~isting kousing Brack ~ra~r8 ~ census 1=lousing ~~acanc~ - change from 1990 ~0 2000 The following table compares vacancy information from the 1990 and 2000 Census. Table 4 ltichfielel Vacant Housing Units e 1990 t® 2000 Total Vacant Units Vacant For Rent Vacant For Sale Sold/Rented but Not Occupied Seasonal/ Occasional Use Other Vacant 2000 284 121 39 27 34 63 1990 543 333 9~ ~a ~ 51 source: tuuu census At the time of the 1990 Census, the City had 333 vacant rental units and 5,145 occupied rental units, for a total rental inventory of approximately 5,478 units. In 2000, the City had 4,899 occupied rental units and 121 vacant units, for a total inventory of 5,020. between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census, it would appear that the City lost as many as 458 rental housing units. There may also have been a decrease in owner occupancy units between the 1990 and 2000 Census. In 1990 there were 10,502 owner occupancy housing units that were either occupied of vacant, compared to 10,223 in 2000, for a net loss of 279 units. Vacant Housing Units ®1990-2000 350 300 250 200 150 100 - x ~ :, ~_~_ For Rent Foi Sale Rrnted/Sold Vacant Seasonal Use Other Vacant ~~ 2000 ~~ ] 990 pr Richfield's kousing Assers: Opporruni~t !!t ~uerk Ooor ~ ~1(ISt1110 H®I~~iCI~ S10Ck ~8t~ l~Tevv ~Io~xsin~ Construction activity Table S Housing Unit Construction AcHrvit}= - 2000 to 2004* Housing Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* TOTAL Single Family 12 34 16 4 18 0 84 2 Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-417nit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5+ Unit 13 8 239 0 0 23 8 7 622 TOTAL Snnrre• TT C f4.., ~,,.. 7]...., 150 ...,, n..a a:__ 273 r____ ~,._ ... .... ,. 16 . 4 . 256 7 706 _ -_-^_ ... ,........b ........w ~v v~ in Dui iruyii t1u~+uS6 e Starting in 1999, Richfield began to see the construction of larger, multifamily housing projects. Generally condominiums, these projects were often part of redevelopment efforts that required the clearance of existing structures. For the five full years between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged 123 new units per year in multifamily structures. ® Due to limited availability of sites for single family construction, there has been very limited production of new houses in recent decades. For the five year period between 1999 and 2003, the City averaged approximately 17 single family houses per year. This construction activity was also often tied to redevelopment efforts, that involved the removal of an existing house to facilitate new construction. Annual construction activity has varied greatly, frown a high of 273 units in 2000, to a low of only 4 units in 2002. Housing Unit Construction - 1999-2004 zso woo ]so loo 50 0 _~ Single Family Multifamily ^ Rich~ieid°s Housing Assets: OpporruoitY et Euery Door @ iyyv 2000 200] 2002 2003 2004 Existing housing Stoek dote ~stirna~ted G>~®ss l~e~t ®2004 A 2004 rent survey conducted by the Richfield HRA collected information on current rental rates within the City. The following table compares this information with data from the 2000 Census. It is important to note that the HRA's survey had limited responses for some unit types. The 2000 Census used wide increments, of up to $250. To allow for comparison, the rent ranges used in the 2000 Census have been utilized in the following Table. Table 6 Gross Unlt Rents - 2000 to 20Q4 2000 Census 2004 HRA Survey Unit Size Under $500 $500- $750 $750- $999 $1000+ Under $500 $500- $750 $750- $999 $1000+ 0 Bedroom 27.0% 67.2% 4.1% 1.7% 9.1% 90.9% 0% 0% 1 Bedroom 15.9% 77.1% 5.1% 1.9% 0.05% 96.8% 3.0% 0.2% 2 Bedroom 4.8% 58.8% 29.1% 7.3% 0% 11.1% 68.1% 20.8% 3 bedroom 3.9% 14.6% 41.4% 40.1 % 0% 0% 5.2% 94.8% Source: U.S. Census; Richfield HRA As would be expected, unit rents have continued to increase since 2000. The HRA's 2004 rental survey received the most responses from 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom rental units. For 1 bedroom units, approximately 97% of all units had a gross rent between $500 and $750 in 2004. In 2000, approximately 77% of units were in this price range. For two bedroom units, the prevailing rental range in 2004 is between $750 and $1,000 per month, compared to a prevailing range between $500 and $750 per month in 2000. Based on the HRA's survey, nearly 89% of two bedroom units now have a gross rent of $750 or more. Gross Unit 1Zents _ 2004 ioo% ao°i° 6o°i° 40% 20% One Bedroom ~; Two Bedroom ~ Richfield's Housing assets: Opportunity at Even boor 9 Under $500 $500-$750 $750-$1000 $1000+ Exmsting ~wousinN Suck ®ata 1~ Median ~®me Value Estimates The 2000 Census provided information on home values. Information from the Census has been compared to more recent data from home sales activity and from County estimated market values. Hennepin County continually tracks and records residential sales as they occur. The 12 month. sales period used in the following table is through Apri12004. Sales reports used in some other sections of this document often reflect the State standardized 12 month sales period ending September 30, 2003. - - -•--- -----r~~•~ -.••••••~ • ••••+v s~ouause~ea ~ ~WV ~V 6V1hi 2000 Census Median Value 2004 Estimated Market Median Price of Recent Value Sales $128,500 $188,000 w li ~~„~~,, ~ ,~y~;; , -__....,,,,.....~,....y, ~.,,...~.u.,,~y rai~iica~ xesearcn, inc. The table above uses three different sources to estimate the median home value in Richfield. These different sources indicate a rapid increase in home values in recent years. The median sale price, for home sales between May 2003 and Apri12004, probably provides the best indication of estimated value. At just under $200,000, this indicates an increase in value of nearly 56% since the 2000 Census. Median I-~®rn~ ~Talue Estimates ®2000 ®2004 200000 lsoooo looooo soooo 0 Median Home Value ^ Richfield's Noosing Assets: Opportunl~[ at Even Door 1~ 2000 Census 2004 EMV 2004 Sales Ex~st~nD liohsilrg Stork d~t~ Singlc Family Detached Douses by Sale Plrice The following table looks at sales data from May 2003 to April 2004. The sales information is not limited to "good" sales that are fair market transactions. In an attempt to remove some of the sales that have occurred for less than fair market value, we have only examined sales for $100,000 or more. We have also limited the sales information to homesteaded single family detached houses. Please note that the 12 month sales period used for this table is different from the 12 month period used in the Comparison Section of this Study. Table 8 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Median Sale Frice - 2004 Sale Price 1Vumber of Sales Percent of Sales Less than $150,000 10 1.9% $150,000 - $174,999 37 7.1% $175,000 - $199,999 220 42.5% $200,000 - $224,999 170 32.8% $225,000 - $249,999 56 10.8% $250,000+ 25 4.8% Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Based on a 12 month sales sample, a large majority of Richfield's houses are valued between $175,000 and $225,000. Houses within this range accounted for more than 75% of recent sales. Only a small percentage of houses appear to remain in the price ranges below $150,000. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Sale Price so°i° 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 ^ Richfinid°s Housing Assets: Upoartunit~ at Evcrlt Dear 11 Under $150,000 $150,000-$174,999 $175,000-$199,999 $200,000-$224,999 $225,000-$249,999 $250,000+ ~~ f ~ ~. Single Family_fi®using Stock Data Single Farrlily I~®using Dist ®f Tables Page Single Family Housing ®vervie~v 2 Single Family Housing Section Highlights 3 Qwner ®ccupied Housing Units by Structure Type - 2004 5 Single Family Detached Houses by Style ®2004 6 Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms - 2004 7 Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms - 2004 8 Single Family Detached Houses by Stories ®2004 9 Single Family Detached Houses by Livable Space 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Finished Basement Space 11 Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot 12 Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Market Value 13 Single Family Detached Houses by Actual Age 14 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age 15 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective and Actual Age 16 Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning 17 Single Family Detached Houses by Garages 18 Single Family Detached Houses by Garage Parking 19 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Width 20 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Area 21 Single Family Detached Houses by ®verall Condition 22 Richfield°s Housing Assetsc Opportunity at Euery Door 1 Single Family Noosing Stock Data Single Farr]<ily Housing ®ver°vi~w The section that follows provides detailed information on the City's stock of detached, single family housing. This information for this section has been obtained from the database maintained by Hennepin County for property tax assessment purposes. The database was current through the summer of 2004, although there may be a "data lag" for some properties, as the inspection schedule used by Hennepin County does not provide for an annual viewing of all houses within the City. However, a rotating inspection schedule does attempt to view each house at least once in a four year period, and building permits and other records are used to update property information between scheduled inspections. Other than the first table in this section, the following pages focus on a subset of all single family houses in the City, those which appear to be owner occupied. We have elected to use the "homestead" tax classification as an indicator of owner-occupancy. We have also focused on detached houses in this section, and have not included other owner-occupancy unit types such as condominiums, townhomes, or other forms of attached single family housing. The City does have an increasing number of condominium units, but many of these have just been constructed, or are still under construction, and are not yet included in the Hennepin County database. This section contains specific references to house styles and terminology used by the Hennepin County Assessor's Office. A short definition of some of the commonly used terms include: Ramblei° - A rambler is by definition a one story house, generally built in a rectangular or L- shaped pattern. Often referred to as a ranch or California ranch, it has been a common house style since the mid 1930s, but reached its peak popularity in the 1950s and 1960x. Expansion Bungalow -Often referred to as a bungalow or craftsman bungalow, this style dates to the 1870s in the U.S., but is more commonly dated to the 1900s and forward. Most often constructed with a partial second story that has from one-quarter to three-quarters of the usable square footage of the main floor. Split Level and Split Entry -These house styles are an off-shoot of the ranch or rambler style, and are sometimes referred to as a raised ranch. These house styles attempt to provide added living space through use of the lower level. In existence since the mid 1930x, these styles are still popular today, but were very common in the 1960x, 1970s and 1980s. Actual Age -The year the house was actually constructed. Effective Age -This is a somewhat subjective rating determined by the Hennepin County inspector. When significant improvements have been made to a house, the inspector must determine how these improvements have changed the effective age of the structure. For example, a house with an actual age in the 1950s, may have alarge-scale kitchen remodeling done in the 1990x. This could potentially raise the effective age of the structure by 1 to 10 years. Changes to effective age are dependent on the number and type of improvements completed, the quality of these improvements, the compatibility of the modifications with the remainder of the structure, functionality of the improvements and other similar factors. Houses that have had no significant improvements over time will generally have an effective age that is very similar to the actual age of construction. Houses that have not been properly maintained may have an effective age that is older than actual age, in the view of the Assessor. ~ Richfield's Noosing Assets: Opportunity at Euery Door 2 sinpie tnmiiy IMousinQ sto~~ Dojo Single family Housing Secti®n Highlights Single family detached houses represent the vast majority of owner occupied units in Richfield. Between 94% and 95% ofowner-occupants live in a detached, single family type of housing unit, and between 5% and 6% live in an attached unit, such as a double bungalow, town house or condominium. In recent years, a number of new condominium projects have been constructed, or are under construction in the City. These newer units are generally not included in 2004 property tax data. m Much of the City's detached single family housing was constructed in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and reflects the styles that were popular at that time. Nearly 93% of the houses in the City arc identified as either a "rambler" or "expansion bungalow" style. Fewer than 4% are identified as "split level" or "split entry" houses. - Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, nearly 82% had three or more bedrooms in 2004. Fewer than 1% of the houses had one or fewer bedrooms. Tables in this section showing bedroom count include bedrooms that may exist in basements or second stories of the house, provided they are legal bedrooms, with adequate egress. - Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, over 41 % had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. This count includes all bathrooms, including basement bathrooms, and counts all bathrooms equally, whether it has fixtures that define it as a half-bath, three-quarter bath or a full bath. - With the large number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the majority of homesteaded single family houses have only 1 or 1 '/~ stories. Only 11% of the City's houses have 1 % or more stories above grade. - With most houses having fewer than 1 '/z stories, this translates into a limited amount of above-grade living space. Approximately two-thirds of all the homesteaded houses have less than 1,200 square feet of finished, above grade living space, and nearly 28% of all houses have less than 1,000 square feet above-grade. - Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space fmished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17% of houses have more than 50% of the basement f~xiFSl~~~l. - Over 70% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City have an estimated market value between $100 and $125 per square foot . Ilowever, 1.1 % of the housing stock has a value per finished square foot that is less than $75. It would appear that these 105 houses arc the lowest quality units in the City. - In 2004, nearly 73% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City had a total estimated market value of $175,000 or more. Only 3.5% of the housing stock had a value of less than $150,000. Over 32% of houses were valued at $200,000 or more. ~ Richfield°s Housing Assots: Opportunity at Eucry Door 3 Single ~amiiy Housing Stock Data Effective age is a rather subjective term that characterizes changes to a house that effectively makes it older or newer than its actual date of construction. The large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. Although many of these houses have had good maintenance and repair work performed over the years, it does not appear that large-scale renovation or remodeling has been completed that would substantially improve the effective age of the home. Comparing effective age to actual age of construction, it is apparent that many houses have made some improvements and changes that have positively impacted the effective age of the structure. However, the improvement in effective age is generally limited to a few years. For example, over 4,000 houses that were built prior to 1960 have an effective age that is after 1960. Yet it appears that most of these have an effective age of less than 1970, and fewer than 50 of these houses have an effective age of 1980 or newer. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City had central air conditioning in 2004. Of the major house styles, expansion bungalows were the least likely to have central air, with nearly 21% lacking this feature. Split entry houses were the most likely to have central air, with more than 95% having this feature in 2004. In recent years, a sound-proofing effort near the airport has resulted in a program that provides central air conditioning for houses on the eastern side of the City. The eastern neighborhoods have a heavy concentration of ramblers, which probably contributes to this style of house often having central air. The most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses had detached garage parking only. Approximately 33% of all houses had some attached garage parking. Only 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. Nearly 58% of the homesteaded houses in the City have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. However, nearly 3,500 single family homes have garage parking for only 1 vehicle. Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. There are 372 lots that are less than 50 feet in width. Approxunately half of the homesteaded houses in the City have a total lot area between 7,500 sq. ft. and 9,999 sq. ft. Just over 26% of residential lots are 10,000 sq. ft, or more in area. There are 351 residential lots in the City that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. Over 68% of the homesteaded houses in the City were rated as being in "average" condition in 2004. Average condition is the middle rating on the 5 point scale. Overall, 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. Only 98 houses, or 1,0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. iD Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Event Door 4 ®~ne~ ~clx~i~ci I3~usin ~x~its bey t~u~tur~ ~"yp~ ~, 2004 The Hennepin County property database provides detailed information on residential structures with 1 to 3 units. The following table presents infor°Ination on all such units by structure type and property tax status in 2004. After this table, this section will focus on owner occupied (homesteaded) units only. T~bl~ 1 Richfield lElou~ing Units by stt°uctu~e Type end I~oxnest~ad status Structure Type Homestead Status I~lon-Homestead Total Units Single Family Detached 9,477 333 9,750 Half Double Bungalow 5 ~ 3 11 Double Bungalow Unit 76 76 152 Townhouse 19 0 19 Condominium 456 15 471 Total 10,006 427 10,433 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Homestead status will generally indicate that the owner of the unit is the occupant, and non-homestead status will often indicate that a unit is renter occupied, or vacant for the specific tax year. IVlost of the 1 to 3 unit structures iri Richfield would appear to be owner occupied in 2004. Single family detached houses represent the vast majority of owner occupied units. Between 94% and 95% of owner-occupancy housing options are in this type of housing unit, with between 5% and 6% in an attached unit. l~ie~ifiel Units by Structure Type Condominium 'T'ownhouse Double Bungalow Unit Half Double Bungalow Single Family Detached 2000 4000 6000 5000 10000 I~lon-Homesteaded ~~ Homesteaded Richtioid~s Housing Assets: Opportunity nt E~retY Door 5 Singlo ~amiiy No~rsing Stock ®otu ^ Single family I)~tacl><ecl ~®uses by Style ®2004 With single family detached houses representing over 94% of the ownership opportunities in the City in 2004, the following tables provide greater detail on this segment of the housing stock. ,•. ~~~ Table 2 Richfield Detached Single Family Rntases by Style ~ ~_~` House Style Total Units Percent of Units Rambler 5 497 58 2% Expansion Bungalow 3,238 34.3% Split Level 211 2 2% Split Entry 122 1.3% Colonial 78 0 8% Other 301 3.2% Total C,,.,, ve 9,447 100% -- -----r--- ---^-•-y -•~y~••y =u~. +~a~uvao~.~ ~.vuiutuuuy rai tuCiS iCG5C8rCri~ 1riC. ® Much of the City's detached single family housing was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and reflects the styles that were popular at that time. Nearly 93 % of the houses in the City are identified as either a "rambler" or "expansion bungalow" style. Fewer than 4% are identified as "split level" or "split entry" houses. The "other" designation represents a number of different house styles, including colonial, contemporary, cape cod and other miscellaneous styles. Richfield's Single Fa.rnily Houses by Style Other Colonial Split Entry Split Level Expansion Bungalow Rambler Homesteaded Single Family Houses ^ Richfield's Nousing Assctsw Opportunity at Every poor 6 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Single ~~milY fi®~sir~p St®cl~ D~t~ ~ ir~~l~ ~~.rnily I)~l:~ched I~c~useS by ~edr~®m~ ®004 `The following table loops at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single family detached houses in the City in 2004. Table 3 Richfield ~etacltecl Single IFarnlil5r Hr~suses by Beclr®®ms House Style O Bedroom I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Rambler 0 52 1,291 2,742 1,410 Expansion Bungalow 1 8 335 1,925 969 Split Level 0 0 8 122 81 Split Entry 1 0 9 52 60 Colonial 1 0 2 23 52 Other 0 i 16 99 185 61 1,66.1 4,96.E ~,, ~`~ ~ Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. ® The table above counts all bedrooms in the house, inchxding basement bedrooms. ® ®f the homesteaded single family houses in the City, nearly 82°/® had three or more bedrooms in 2004. Fewer than 1 % of the houses had one or fewer bedrooms. Richfield's Single ~an~lily I~o>zses by Total Bedr®®ms iaTo bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 or more bedrooms ltomesteadcd Single Family Houses ^ Richfieid`s Housing Assets: Opportunill~ of Euer~ Door 7 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Single EetniiY Housup Stock Duta ^ Single Falc~il3, ~etac~ieci I~®~s~s ~~ ~ath>~®ams m 2004 The following table looks at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single farruly detached houses in the City in 2004. All bathrooms are counted, including those in the basement. This table counts all bathrooms equally, although some may only be half baths, three_quarters baths or master baths accessible through a bedroom. Table 4 Richfield Detached Siu~le 1F°amily Douses by Bathe°ooms House Style 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 or more Bathrooms Rambler 2,373 2,934 190 Expansion Bungalow 1,461 1,523 254 Split Level 12 163 36 Split Entry 11 93 18 Colonial 1 30 47 Other 36 145 117 Total 3,594 4,591 662 -r--- -'---"~ "•,r•,~•y •~.•• •.••, ~,• > uvwiuuiti~y till lllGI51CG5e3tCIly 111C., Of the homesteaded single family houses in the City, over 41 % had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or Ynore bathrooms. This table includes all bathrooms, including basement bathrooms, and counts ahalf--bath as equal to a full bath. Richfield°s Single Family Houses by Total Bathrooms 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 L~ Homesteaded Single Family Houses ~ Richfield°s Housing assets: Opportunity at EuerY Door R 3 or more bathrooms 2 bathrooms 1 bathroom ~i~p~~ ~~reif~ d®usir~p Rt®c~ ®at~ ^ i~~l~ ~`~>~xily ~e~a~~ed. FI®l;~ses ~y ~t~-a~i~s m ~~04 The following table looks at the number of stories above-grade. Split entry and split level houses have not been included in this table. Certain house styles, by definition, have a set number of stories. For example, a rambler has a single story above-grade. ®ne story houses styles have been included to better define the limitations that exist for above-grade square footage within the existing single family stock. Ti able 5 F~ichiielcl Detaehetl Singh Family Hauser by Stories House Style 1 Story 1..25 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.75 Stories 2 or more Stories Rambler 5,497 0 0 0 0 Expansion Bungalow 2 2,525 640 67 4 Colonial 0 0 0 0 78 ®ther 13 9 29 21 229 Total 5,512 2,534 669 88 311 source: tienneptn t;ounty rroperty Tax iJatabase; l:ommumty Partners xesearch, inc. With the large number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the majority of homesteaded single family houses have only one or one and a quarter stories. ®nly 11% of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. ~Zic~.~ield~s Sir~~le Family FI®uses by St®ries 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 U Homesteaded Single Family Houses ^~ Richfield's dousing Assetsa Opportunity at Eue~ Door R 2 orlVlore Stories 1.75 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.25 Stories 1 Story Sinyie Family Noosing Stocl~ Data SYn~le ~~~.mily l~etac~ed I3®uses by Livable Space The following table looks at the above-grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. This would include livable square footage on second or third stories, but would not include any basement space, even if this below-grade area is finished. Table 6 Richfield Detached single Family Houses b~~ Livable Square )Feet House Style Under 800 800-999 1,000-1,199 1,200-1,399 1,400+ Rambler 371 1,632 2,153 936 405 Expansion Bungalow 18 578 1,326 740 576 All Other 7 19 150 147 382 Total Rrnimw~ uPnn Pnin r-~,..,.,.., n_..._ 396 ,._._ 2,229 3,629 1,823 1,363 - ~ - -r---d ---- ------~--~ ~............y i auuG1J 1\G3G41Udl, inc. e With the substantial number of ramblers and expansion bungalows in the City, the large majority of homesteaded single family houses have only one or one and a quarter stories. This translates into a limited amount of above-grade living space for most houses. Approximately two-thirds of all the homesteaded houses have less than 1,200 square feet of finished, above grade living space, and nearly 28% of all houses have less than 1,000 square feet above-grade. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Living Space 1,400 or more feet fl,200 to 1,399 feet 1,000 to 1,199 feet 800 to 999 feet Less than 800 feet u Ramblers jj Expansion )3ungalows All Other ~ Richfield's Noosing Assets; Opportunity at Every Door '~ 0 500 1000 ]500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 sr~g~~ ~~Itii~Y f~OUSy~t~ st®GI~ ~~~~ ^ Single F~nlily 1)etac~l~d ~~~~s~s by ~inish~d ~ase>l~ent S~a~~ The preceding table looked at above grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. The following table looks at the percentage of basement square footage that is finished space. Hennepin County records this information on a percentage basis only. "ral~ie 7 Itichiiel~ I~efacheel single Family H®~uses by Finished 1~3aseffie~t spacc House Style No Finished Space 1% to 30% Finished 31% to 50% Finished More than 50% Finished .Rambler 718 802 2,881 1,096 Expansion Bungalow 660 618 1,628 332 All Other 120 150 246 196 Total 1,498 1,570 ~~ _ __ ~~ i ;'~ _ __~ 1,~~~ source: nennepm County Property Tax llatabase; Community Partners Research, Inc. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. ~ Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17%"have more than 50% of the basement finished. Lichfield's Single Family FI®uses by Finished ~asen~ents More than 50% 30% to 50% 1% to 30% No Finished Space Raanblers _ Expansion Bungalows All Other Ri~hfioip°s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Euer~ door ~1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 ~inglo Fatniiy tio~rsinp, Stocll Rota ^ H®uses by Estix~aatec~ l~Iar~et Value Pe>~ Square ~®~t While total livable space is an important indicator of the desirability and function of a house, the quality of finished living space cars. vary greatly. The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for structures only, divided by the livable, above grade square footage in the house. It is possible that contributory structures, such as a highly valued garage, can skew this calculation, but for most houses, the value per square foot is an indicator of overall quality, condition, and market desirability of the house. Table $ Richfield Detached Single Family Houses ~y Value per Square Fa®t House Style Under $50 $50-$75 $75-$100 $100-$125 _ $125+ Rambler 1 21 701 4,256 518 Expansion Bungalow 2 31 1,027 2,124 54 All Other 3 47 251 252 159 Total 6 99 1,979 6,632 731 ------__r--- ___~., °.,,Y,,.,y .,,,, ~,..~u.,uu ~,~^uiuu~~y rniuicra accsearcn, inc. ~ Over 70% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City have an estimated market value between $100 and $125 per square foot. However, 1.1 % of the housing stock has a value per finished square foot that is less than $75. It would appear that these 105 houses are the lowest quality units in the City. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot $125+ $100-$125 $75-$100 $50-$75 Less than $50 ~~ Ramblers ~ Expansion Bungalows All Other ~ Richtiold's Nousinp Assetse Opportunity at Every Door 12 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 sin~i~ Fs^ily H®~si~p st~cs ft~t~ ^ ~il~l~le ~all~ily Detacl~ed~ I-~~>u~s~s ~~ "Total ~sti>irjat~el ~arl~et ~al~~ The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for the entire tax parcel, including both land and improvements. Estimated Market Value will generally lag behind current market value because annual sales are analyzed and than used to make adjustments. However, collecting, analyzing and applying the sales data results in a delay between sales activity and a reflection of this activity in the County's valuation of similar style houses. Table 9 Richfield Detached dingle Family l3ouses by Tatal Value House Style $100,000- $124,999 $125,000- $149,999 $150,000- $174,999 $175,000- $199,999 $200,000+ Fgambler 18 244 1,536 2,144 1,555 Expansion Eungalow 3 49 679 1,542 965 All Other 0 12 26 124 550 Total 21 305 2,241 3,810 ~~ ~~_~-. ~ ~~'70 autarce: nennepm ~ounry rroperty r ax Latanase; t;ommumty rartners Kesearch, lnc. ® In 2004, nearly 73% of the homesteaded single family houses in the City had a total estimated market value of $175,000 or more. ® Only 3.5% of the housing stock had a value of less than $150,000. ® Over 32% of houses were valued at $200,000 or more, 1Zichfield's Single Family H®uses by 'T®tal Estimated Value $200,000+ $175,000-$199,000 $150,000`$174,999 $125,000-$149,999 Less than $125,000 U Ilamblcrs Expansion Bungalows ~ ~ All ®ther ^ Richfiold°s liollsilrg Assetso Opportunity at Elscry Door 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Single Family Housing Stock Date ^ Si>~x~le I~ amil~ Detached I~®u~es bey Actual ~1~e The Hennepin County database includes the 6Gactual age", or year of construction, for each house in the City. The following table provides a summary of actual age within 10 year increments. Table lO ltic6~eld Detached Single Family Houses by Actual Age House Style 1990-2004 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 Pre-1960 Rambler 26 7 51 270 5,143 Expansion Bungalow 3 0 4 37 3,194 Split Level 16 8 6 39 142 Split Entry 26 12 42 38 4 Colonial 18 1 6 15 38 Other 39 3 3 18 238 Total 128 31 112 417 8,759 ----r--- --- -.~ -•~y-••~ •.~i. .+u~uvwo ~ vuauluLL L~' r41 L11G1J tCCSCA7C11~ 1nC. According to Hennepin County's records, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an actual age of 1959 or earlier, Based on this source, nearly 93% of all houses were constructed prior to 1960. Less than 2% of the City's single family stock has an actual age of 1980 or newer. l~ichfield's Sin~lc 1Family I-1®uSeS by Actual Abe loooo sooo 6000 4000 2000 0 ~~ Homesteaded Single Family Houses ^ Richfield°s Housing Assets: Qpportunity at ilrer~ Door 14 Pre-1960 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-2004 singi~ F~l~t~y li~using stocf~ ®1it~a ^ Single Family l)e~~~l~~cl ~-I~x~ses by effective .age The Hennepin County database includes an estimate of "effective age" for each house in the City, which reflects renovation and improvement activity completed since the date of consty-iuction. The following table provides a summary of effective age ratings within 10 year increments. Effective age is a subjective rating, and is determined by the inspector. T'~ble 11 l~ielnfield I'let~ched Single Faro~ily H®uses by Effective Age House Style 1990-2004 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 Pre-1960 Rambler 27 38 458 2,378 2,596 Expansion Bungalow 5 14 182 1,110 1,927 Split Level 16 13 44 92 46 Split Entry 27 23 48 22 2 Colonial 18 6 22 17 15 Other 39 18 53 83 10$ Total 132 112 807 3,702 4,694 Source: Ilennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The large majority of the City's homesteaded single family .houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. Although many of these houses have had good maintenance and repair work performed over the years, it does not appear that large-scale renovation or remodeling has been completed that would substantially improve the effective age of the home. Richfield`s Single Family I~®uses by Effective Age sooo 4000 3000 zooo 1000 0 ~~ Homesteaded single Family houses ^ Richfield°s Housing Assetso Opportunity at EuerY Doot 15 Pre-1960 1960m1969 1970-1979 19801989 1990-2004 Single Farniiy Noosing StocN Data s ~ingYe F'a~ily ~etac~eei ~®~~s~s by ~ffectfv~ al~d A.ct~xal Age The previous page looked at the effective age for each homesteaded single family detached house in the City. The following table compares actual age to effective age, 'fable iZ H;icbfield Detached Single Family Houses by Effective and Actual Age Detached Houses 1990-2004 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 Pre-1960 Effective Age 132 112 807 3,702 4,694 Actual A e 128 31 112 417 8,759 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Comparing effective age to actual age of construction, it is apparent that many houses have made some improvements and changes that have positively impacted the effective age of the structure. However, this impact is limited. For example, over 4,000 houses that were built prior to 1960 have an effective age that is after 1960. Yet it appears that most of these have an effective age of less than 1970, and fewer than 50 of these houses have an effective age of 1980 or newer. Richfield's Single .Family ®lases by Actual and effective 1~ge 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 Effective Age Actual Age ~ Richfield's Noosing ~ssetse Opportunity et Euery Door 1D Pre-1960 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-2004 ~inglC Family Housing ~toclc Data ^ Single Farnil~r I~etachec~ Houses by Central Air Conditioning The following table looks at the number of houses with central air conditioning systems. This has been provided by detailed house style. 'T"able 13 Richfield Detached Single Family Rouses by Central Air Conditioning House Style With Central Air Without Central Air Rambler 4,744 753 Expansion Bungalow 2,564 674 Split Level 195 16 Split Entry 116 6 Colonial 66 12 Other 247 54 Total 7,932 1,515 Uvu14G. 11G11llGYll1 l.V Ull Ly tl UIJGI L~/ 1QX L$I3°35ej ~ommumry rartners xesearch, lI1C. - Ivlearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City had central air conditioning in 2004. Of the major house styles, expansion bungalows were the least likely to have central air, with nearly 21 % lacking this feature. Split entry houses were the most likely to have central air, with more than 95% have this feature in 2004° l~ichfielel's Single Family ~-louses by Central Air other Colonial Split Entry Split Level Expansion Bungalow Rambler Without Central Air ~ With Central Air Richfield"s Housing assets: Opportunity at Every Door 1T 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Singfo ~~InilY Housi€nD SYOCI~ ®uto ^ Si~~le Family I~e~ached H®us~s la-y Gai~°a~es The following table looks at the number of houses with either attached garages, detached garages, or both. This table does not identify the car parking capacity of garages, but only the presence of a garage on the property, Table 14 Richfield lletacbed Single Family Houses >Uy Garages 1=louse Style Attached Detached Both Attached Garage Only Garage Only and Detached 1~To Garage .Rambler 1,778 3,571 73 75 Expansion Bungalow 825 2,317 50 46 Other 421 272 11 8 Total c„ i7m n,. 3,024 6,160 134 129 ----- --------r--- ~-r»--•~ ++~y~+~y +un i+a~avaac, l.uuull ulu ly YdICRG%S K0S02rCi1~ 1riC. The most common form of garage is a detached garage. ®ver 65% of houses had detached garage parking onlya ® Just over 33% of all houses had some attached garage parking. ®nly 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. iZiehfield°s Single ~`amily I-louses by Type of CJa~age 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 ~_~ Homesteaded Single Family Houses ^ Richfield°s Housing Asscts: Oppartunft~ of E~aet~{ Door 10 Attached Garage Detached Garage Both Attached and Detached ~o Garage dingle FnrniiY ii®u~sing St®~i< Dntn ^ ing~~ ~ai~y I~etacT~ec~ I3®~s~s ~ G~lr~g~ Ca~aa~~t-~ The following table looks at the number of garage parking spaces for cash detached single family house. This table counts all available covered parking spaces in either attached garages, detached garages, or a combination of both, w.__°~able 15 Iticl~~eld Detachccl Slr~gic Faraxaly I~arascs by C9aragc Parking C:apacity~ House Style Parking for 1 Car Parking for 2 Cars Parking for 3 or More Cars 1®To Garagc Rambler 2,061 3,183 178 75 Expansion )3ungalow 1,279 1,791 122 46 Other 155 504 45 8 Total 3,495 5,478 " ~ ~ ~' source: nennepm Lounty rroperty 1 ax liatabase; c:ommunrty Partners Research, Inc. - I~learly 58% of the homesteaded houses in the City have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. However, nearly 3,500 single family homes have garage parking for only 1 vehicle. ® Only 1.4% of houses have no garage on the property. lZichfield's Single Farrl~ly FI®uses by Garage Parking 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Rambler ~. ~ ;! Expansion bungalow ~~ Other ~ HichfielH°s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 19 1 Car 2 Cars 3+ Cars I~io Garage Singh lomiiy llonsinp Stock Ooto ^ Single Family Detached. I3®uses by L®t'~icltll The following table looks at the frontage of lots for each detached single family house. The table on the next page looks at total lot area, Table 16 Itichficld Detached Single Family Hoaxes l,y .Lot Width House Style Less than 50° Frontage 50' to S9' Frontage 60' to 74° Frontage 75° or More Rambler 197 1,061 1,825 2,414 Expansion Bungalow 135 857 789 1,457 Other 40 204 267 201 Total ~(1llTCP.' HP.T Tlenin ('nnn4.r D«.... 372 e«~-.. T.. _. n_._i____. 2,122 2, 881 4,072 _ ,. ~ -~ _-__ . ___.._„ ~ ,.,............,..y a as ~ua.aa 1~GJG41 t~ldy Lll(:. - Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development, Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot widths There are only 372 lots that are less than 50 feet in width. Although in compliance with current codes, there are 2,494 lots in the City with a frontage width between 50 feet and 59 feet in width. . sooo 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Richfield's Single Family Houses by Lot Frontage ~~ Other ~ Expansion Bungalow Rambler ^ Richfield°s Noosing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 20 Less than 50' S0' to 59' 60' to 74' 75' or more Sipple F~r~nt~y H®us~np Sgpck p~t~ ~ 5~~1~ ~a~il~ ~e~ach~~ I3®uses by ~~~ ~~~~. The following table looks at the total square feet of lot area for oath detachod single family house. TB~~~ ~7 ~IC~A~1~1(l ~~~BCIl~f1 .~A17~1~ FSiillll~' ~IOUSCS 1)3' ~~~ ~~°0~ I-louso 5tylo Loss than 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq. ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 or More sq. ft. rambler 191 898 3,068 1,340 Expansion Bungalow 126 805 1,332 975 Other 34 191 323 164 Total 351 1,894 ~'- ~~; ~x Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. - Approximately half of the homesteaded houses in the City have a total lot aroa between 7,500 sq. ft. and 9,999 sq. ft. - Just over 26% of residontial lots are 10,000 sq. ft. or more in aroa. '- There aro 351 rosidential lots in the City that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. Richfield's Si~~le ~~.rnily douses by Lot Area sooo 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 L~ ®ther Expansion Bungalow ~~ l~.ambler ^ Richfield's liousinp Assetsa Oppo~tunit~ of EYet~p D00~ 2l Less than 6,000 sq.ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq.ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq.ft. 10,000+ sq.ft. Singly family Wausinp Stack Data ^ Sixi~~~ Faxrl~tly Det:~~hect Houses by ®ve>rall ~;®xldit~a~xx The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition, The following table provides this condition rating for each detached single family house. Table 18 Richiield Detaehed Single gamily lElo~xses by overall Condition Douse Style Excellent Condition Good Condition Average Condition Fair Condition Poor __ Condition Rambler 11 1,688 3,748 46 3 Expansion Bungalow 1 795 2,401 36 3 Other 23 356 313 10 0 Total 45 2,839 6,462 92 6 _~ _ __r ___~ -».. ._. »,.,..,...,..~ .,.,,.....uu«y ini ~uci~ 1CCSGAiC:II, LI1C. - Over 68% of the homesteaded houses in the City were rated as being in "average" condition, the middle rating, in 2004. Overall, 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. - Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. - Only 4 of the 45 houses rated as being "excellent" were actually constructed prior to 1990 and only one of these houses was constructed prior to 1980, l~ichfield's Si~g1e Family Houses by ®verall Condition 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Other ! Expansion Bungalow ~_~ Rambler ^ Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity of Even Door 22 Excellent Good Average Fair Pooi° f~ r~ i Richfield Wards N W ~E 03114!02 i:lgisicore datarprnjectslwardrn I ® 4000 8000 12000 Feet ~< - ' Ncighborhood Single Family Housiug StocN Data lvei~hborhooel Single Family TIousir~g List of 'Tables Page Overview 2 Section Highlights 3 Single Family Houses by Homestead Tax Status 6 Single Family Detached Houses by Style - 2004 7 Single Family Detached Houses by Bedrooms - 2004 8 Single Family Detached Houses by Bathrooms - 2004 9 Single Family Detached Houses by Stories - 2004 10 Single Family Detached Houses by Livable Space 11 Single Family Detached Houses by Finished Basement Space 12 Houses by Estimated Market Value Per Square Foot 13 Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Market Value 14 Single Family Detached Houses by Effective Age 15 Single Family Detached Houses by Actual Age 16 Single Family Detached Houses by Central Air Conditioning 17 Single Family Detached Houses by Garages 1S Single Family Detached Houses by Garage Parking Capacity 19 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Width 20 Single Family Detached Houses by Lot Area 21 Single Family Detached Houses by Overall Condition 22 Single Family Detached Houses by Sale Price 23 l Richfield°s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 1 Neighborhood Single Family Housing Stock Data ~_~ 1~Teigl~borhoocl dingle ~Farnily :Mousing ®v~rv-ie~v The preceding section provided detailed information on the City's detached, single family housing stock that is owner-occupied. This section provides additional information for three defined neighborhoods in the City. These neighborhoods, defined as "East", "Central"' and "West" .Richfield, roughly divide the City into thirds along major transportation corridors. East Richfield includes all of the City that Lies east of Portland Avenue. Central Richfield includes the area that is west of Portland Avenue and East of Interstate 35-W. West Richfield is the area of the City that is west of Interstate 3.5-W. The boundaries for these three neighborhoods are very similar to the three designated wards within Richfield. The only exception is a portion of Precinct 8 in Ward 3, which lies to the west of Portland Avenue, and south of 74`h Street. This area, which covers approximately 10 to 12 City blocks, is part of Central Richfield for this analysis, while the remainder of Ward 3 is included in the East Richfield neighborhood, All of the information used in this section has been taken from the database maintained by Hennepin County for property tax assessment purposes. The database was current through the summer of 2004, although there may be a "data lag" for some properties, as the viewing. schedule used by Hennepin County does. not provide for an annual inspection of all houses within the City. However, a rotating inspection schedule does attempt to view each house at least once in a four year period, and building permits and other records are used to provide as much information as possible between scheduled viewings. Hennepin County uses the neighborhood designations only for detached single family houses, as away to track sales patterns. As a result, this section only provides neighborhood-level data for single family detached houses. There is no similar information on multifamily units, such as apartments, or attached single family housing, such as double bungalows, townhouses and condominiums. ~ Richfield's Nousing Assets: Opportunity at Eaery Door Z Neighborhood Sim Family Housing Stock Data l~eighb®rhooel Single Family Housing Section Highlights The three neighborhoods are very similar in terms of single family housing stock. Each neighborhood has between 30% and 37% of the City-wide total for homesteaded houses, and between 32% and 35% ofnon-homesteaded single family homes. The highlights that follow focus on the homesteaded detached single family houses. While the neighborhoods are relatively similar for housing unit counts, there is greater variation in the style of construction, which probably reflects the years that most development occurred within each neighborhood. In the East, ramblers represent over 73% of all houses, while this style represents approximately 62% of houses in the West. In Central Richfield, expansion bungalows are the most common style, representing over 50% of this neighborhood's houses. The Central neighborhood has nearly 54% of all the expansion bungalows City-wide. The neighborhoods remain relatively even on the availability of bedrooms in the existing stock. For example, East Richfield has 30.4% of all houses in the City, and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. Central Richfield has 36.7% of all houses, and 36.6% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. West Richfield has 32.9% of all houses, and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. It does not appear that house style has a significant impact on bedroom availability, as the Central neighborhood, which has a majority of expansion bungalows, has similar bedroom distribution patterns to East and West Richfield, which have higher percentages of ramblers. As with bedroom mix, the number of bathrooms per house was relatively consistent across the 3 neighborhoods. The only notable exception was the relatively small number of houses in East Richfield that had 3 or more bathrooms. Only 20.5% of houses with 3 or more bathrooms were in the East neighborhood, although 30.4% of all the City's houses are in this neighborhood. City-wide, over 41 % of houses had only one bathroom in 2004. Only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. The variation in house styles between neighborhoods does result in differences in the number of stories above-grade. The East and West neighborhoods have a large number of ramblers, which, by style definition, have only 1 story. The Central neighborhood has a majority of the City's expansion bungalows, which typically have one and a quarter stories or more. City-wide, only I l% of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. In general, expansion bungalows have the potential for more finished living space since they will often have a partial second story, compared to ramblers which have only one story above-grade. Central Richfield, which has the greatest number of expansion bungalows, has over 40% of the houses City-wide with more than 1,200 square feet of living space above-grade. East Richfield, which has the highest number of ramblers, has the smallest percentage of houses with more than 1,200 square feet of living space. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 3 Heighborhood Single ~amiiy Noosing Stoci~ ~k ~.~i`t' ~ ~.:. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished, and more than 17% have more than SO% of the basement finished, There are no large differences between neighborhoods in the use of basements as finished living space. It appears that age of construction and house style may have a slight impact on value per square foot. East Richfield, which has the highest proportion of post-1950 built houses and the largest number of ramblers, has 34% of the houses with a value of $100 or more per square foot. However, it is also possible that this statistic is somewhat misleading, since it is based on a valuation for all above-grade square footage in the house, including second stories, where they exist. It is possible that the average value per square foot is slightly lower in expansion bungalow houses, since the upper floor square footage is viewed as less valuable space, when compared to main level square footage. When looking at total estimated market value for houses, there are some differences between neighborhoods. East Richfield has the smallest distribution of higher valued homes, $200,000 or more, despite the fact that the value per finished square foot is generally above average. This is due to the fact that this neighborhood also tends to have houses with less square footage than other neighborhoods, which limits the total value of the structure. The highest concentrations of Iower valued homes, under $150,000 are in East and Central Richfield. There are some differences in the effective age of the housing in Richfield's neighborhoods, which probably reflects the development pattern of the City in the 1950s and 1960s. Central Richfield has nearly 42% of the City's housing with an effective age prior to 1960, although Central Richfield has less than 37% of all houses. East Richfield has nearly 37% of the City's houses with an effective age of 1970 or newer, while this neighborhood has just over 30% of the City's total houses. City-wide, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. The actual age of construction patterns show the development of the City during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As mentioned previously, the timing of development in each neighborhood has had some impact on the style of units that exist. Central Richfield has the largest number of pre-1950 houses and over half of the houses in this neighborhood are expansion bungalow style. East Richfield has the largest number of houses built after 1950 and approximately 73% of the houses in this neighborhood are ramblers. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City have central air conditioning in 2004. City-wide, expansion bungalows are the least likely to have central air among the prevalent house styles, with nearly 21 % lacking this feature. With the largest concentrations of expansion bungalows in Central and West Richfield, these neighborhoods have a larger number of houses without central air. These two neighborhoods also have a higher percentage of older houses, built prior to 1940. East Richfield has benefitted from airport noise reduction programs that have provided central air conditioning to many houses on the eastern edge of the community. ~ Richfield°s Noosing Assefso Opportunity at Every Door ~ Neighborhood Single Family Housing Stocic Data The distribution of garages by type is relatively consistent between the neighborhoods. City-wide, the most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses in Richfield have detached garage parking only. By neighborhood, 66.9% of the houses in East Richfield, 64.8% of houses in Central Richfield, and 64.1 % of houses in West Richfield have detached parhitxg only. City-wide, only 1.4% of houses have no garage on the property in 2004. There are no major differences in the number of covered parking spaces by neighborhood, but some minor differences do exist. West Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with only 1 garage stall, East Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 2 garage stalls, and Central Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 3 or more garage stalls available. City-wide, 58% of the homesteaded houses have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. - Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. Current City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. City-wide, only 372 homesteaded houses have a lot frontage of less than 50 feet. Most of these lots are in the Central and West neighborhoods. City-wide, over 43% of lots are 75 or more feet in width. - Lot sizes do show some variation between neighborhoods, and probably reflect the City standards that were in place when most of the construction occurred. In East Richfield, for example, nearly 70% of the residential lots are between 7,500 and 9,999 Square feet in size, and very few lots are smaller than 7,500 square feet. In contrast, over 31% of the lots in Central Richfield are less than 7,500 square feet in size. ® City-wide, there are 351 residential lots that have less than 6,000 total sq. ft. Most of these lots are in Central. and West Richfield. - The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. Overall, house condition ratings were very similar between the three neighborhoods. The percentage of houses rated as "good" was slightly higher in the East and West neighborhoods than in the Central Neighborhood, but the percentage difference was small. City-wide, 68% of the homesteaded houses were rated as being in "average" condition, the middle rating, in 2004, and 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better for overall condition. Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. Despite some differences in the median home value for property tax purposes, the sample of recent house sales shows remarkably similar home values between the three neighborhoods. The difference in the median sale price was less than 1%. ® Bichfield's Housing Assetsa Opportunity at Every Door 5 Neighbr~rda~ti Sl~ngl~ ~~mi~~ wo~lsin0 Stock Date r~ Si><1l~le Family Rouses ~y ~iormestead T'ax Status The Hennepin County property database provides detailed information on single family residential structures within defined neighborhoods in the City. Multiple neighborhoods have been combined to form three larger neighborhoods that are very similar to the 3 political wards in Richfield. The following table presents information on all units by property tax status in 2004. Subsequent Tables will focus on the homesteaded, or owner occupied houses only. Table 1 Richfield Single Family Houses by Neighborhood and Homestead status Neighborhood Number Percent of all Houses in City Homestead Non-Homestead Homestead Non-Homestead East 2,874 107 30.4% 32.1% Central 3,464 116 36.7% 34.8% West 3,109 110 32.9% 33.0% Total c,.., H 9,447 333 100% 100% e. ennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. The three neighborhoods are very similar in terms of single family housing stock. Each neighborhood has between 30% and 37% of the City-wide total for homesteaded houses, and between 32% and 35% ofnon-homesteaded single family homes. For Homesteaded single family houses only, the Central Richfield neighborhood is the largest, with 3,464 homes, and East Richfield is the smallest, with 2,874 homes. Richfield I-douses by 1~Tei~hborhood West Richfield Central Richfield East Richfield Non-Homesteaded CJ Homesteaded ^ Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportuuit~ et Every Door 6 U 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Neighporilaod Si~Oi~ ~omilY flaus~n0 Stoc1~ Data ^ Si~~Ie ~~r~ily I)etac~ee~ H®uses by Style ®2004 With single family detached houses representing over 94% of the ownership opportunities in the City in 2004, the following tables provide greater detail on this segment of the housing stock. Table 2 Rfch~eld IFiornesteaded Uetacltied Single Family fIouses by Style .house Style East Central West Total Units Rambler 2,106 1,468 1,923 5,497 Expansion Bungalow 591 1,739 908 3,238 Split Level 85 43 83 211 Split Entry 23 46 53 122 Colonial 11 37 30 78 Other 58 131 112 301 Total 2,874 3,464 3,109 9,447 gouroe: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. - While the neighborhoods are relatively similar for housing unit counts, there is greater variation in the style of construction, which probably reflects the patterns of development. In the East, ramblers represent over 73% of all houses, while this style represents approximately 62% of houses in the West. In Central Richfield, expansion bungalows are the most common style, representing over 50% of this neighborhood's houses. The Central neighborhood has nearly 54% of all the expansion bungalows in the City. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Style 1 oo°io 8o°i® 6o°io 4o°i® 20°i® 0 West Central ~ ~ East ~ Richfield's Hol~sinp Assets: Opportanity at Ever Door 1 Rambler Expansion Bungalow Other Styles fieigh~arNgod ~in~ic ~>1r11i1y H~~s~rl~ St®ck path ,_. - Single ~~n~ily I)et~cl~eci houses by bedrooms The table below counts all bedrooms in the house, including basement bedrooms. Table 3 Richfield ~3e#ached Single Family Houses by Bedrooms House Style 0 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom East 2 19 405 1,504 944 Central 1 25 616 1,843 979 West 0 17 642 1,616 834 Total -~---- 3 61 1,663 4,963 2,757 _....___. _.,,......r....,.,.,..~y , ..,Y,,.~y , aA ,_,Q~a„asc, ~,vuununa[y rar[ners xesearCh, 1nC. The neighborhoods remain relatively even on the availability of bedrooms in the existing stock. For example, East Richfield has 30.4% of all houses in the City and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. Central Richfield has 36.7% of all houses, and 36.6% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms, West Richfield has 32.9% of all houses and 31.7% of all houses with 3 or more bedrooms. It does not appear that house style has a significant impact on bedroom availability, as the Central neighborhood, which has a majority of expansion bungalows, has similar bedroom distribution patterns to East and West Richfield, which have higher percentages of ramblers. Lichfield`s Single Family Mouses by ~edroorns sooo 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 West Central ~ East ~ Richfield°s Housing Assets: lipportunit~ et Edery Door ~ 0 Bedroom l Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Neighdarh®od Singio F~millf 19o~sing Sock DOtp ~~n~le Farxxily ~3et~checi I~o~ses by ~~thr®®rr~s The following table looks at total bathroom count for homesteaded, single family detached houses in the City in 2004. All bathrooms are counted, including those in the basement. This table also counts all bathrooms equally, although some may only be half baths, three quarters baths or master baths only accessible through a bedroom. 7°able 4 Richfieldl Detached single Family Hauser by Bathrooms House Style 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 or more Bathrooms East 1,159 1,579 136 Central 1,425 1,74 291 West 1,310 1,564 235 Total 3;b~~ ; ~', Jl 662 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. As with bedroom mix, the number of bathrooms per house was relatively consistent across the 3 neighborhoods. The only notable exception was the relatively small number of houses in East Richfield that had 3 or more bathrooms. Only 20.5% of houses with 3 or more bathrooms were in the East neighborhood, although 30..4% of all the City's houses are in this neighborhood. City-wide, only 7% of houses had three or more bathrooms. City-wide, over 41% of houses had only one bathroom in 2004. 1Zichfield's Single Family Houses by Total Bathrooms 2000 1500 1000 500 0 L _~ East :.~ Central ~ West ^ Oichfioid's Housing Assetse Opportunity at Euerg Daor 9 3 or more bathrooms 2 bathrooms 1 bathroom tfoig~6arh®®d Sig01e Fernff~ Noosing StocK ®ata r S~n~l~ Family ~eta~hecl ~Ious~s by Stories ~ 200~~ The following table looks at the number of building stories above-grade. Split entry and split level houses have not been included in this table. Certain house styles, by definition, have a set number of stories. For example, a rambler has a single story above-grade. ®ne story houses styles have been included to better define the limitations that exist for above-grade square footage within the existing single family stock. Table 5 Ttich~eld Detached Single Family >Fiouses by Stories fIouse Style 1 Story 1.25 Stories 1.5 Stories 1.75 Stories 2 or more Stories East 2,106 476 115 10 59 Central 1,474 1,367 346 50 139 West 1,932 691 208 28 114 Total C,, u„ 5,512 2,534 669 88 312 --^---• -------~y• .,.,,...~y +auYaa~y aan LaL4V(tJG~ l.uII1i11LLR1iy Y3TLri0TS KOSeaTCYl, 1riC. The variation in house styles between neighborhoods does result in differences in the number of stories above-grade. The East and West neighborhoods have a large number of ramblers, which have only 1 story. The Central neighborhood has a majority of the City's expansion bungalows, which typically have one and a quarter stories or more. ® City-wide, only 11 % of the City's houses have 1.5 or more stories above grade. IZieh~eld's Single Family H®uses by St®ries 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ~_ j East ~ Central ~ West li Ricflfieid's housing Assets: Opportunity at Egely Door 1p 1 Story 1.25 Stories 1.5 or more Stories I~cig~~~r~~od Si~glc ~~milY H+bu~lrll~ Sr~c~: llsr ^ Single ~an~ily I)et~cl~~cl ~I®uses by I~iv~ble Spice The following table looks at the above-grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. This would include livable square footage on second or third stories, but would not include any basement space, even if this below-grade area is finished. Ta>fle 6 Iticlg~eld Detacl~ecl Single IFamily Houses ~y i.ivalfle s~gware I°eet House Style iJnder 800 800-999 1,000-1,199 1,200-1,399 1,400+ East 91 734 1,228 533 288 Central 135 721 1,322 691 595 West 170 781 1,079 599 480 ~:; 390 2,236 3,629 1,823 1,363 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. - In general, expansion bungalows have the potential for more finished living space since they will often have a partial second story, compared to ramblers which have only one story above-grade. Central Richfield, which has the greatest number of expansion bungalows, has over 40% of the houses City-wide with more than 1,200 square feet of living space above-grade. East Richfield, which has the highest number of ramblers, has the smallest percentage of houses with more than 1,200 square feet of living space, ~Zichfield's Single Fam~~y I~~uSes by Living Space 1,400 or more feet 1,200 to 1,399 feet 1,000 to 1,199 feet 800 to 999 feet Less than 800 feet ~_~ East Central ~ West ^ RiclBfield°s Housing Asscts: Opportanit~ ~t EucrY Door 11 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 f~~iphb®rhogri Singi~ ~ntrriiy lioas~np St®cl~ ®ntn ~ Sz~lgie ~ar~ily T~etached ~Ious~s by IFimishett ~aserriertt Space The preceding table looked at above-grade square footage of homesteaded single family detached houses. The following table looks at the percentage of basement square footage that is finished space. Hemiepin County records this information on a percentage basis only. 'Table ?Richfield Detatb.ed Single Family .Mouses by Finished Basement Space House Style Igo Finished Space 1 % to 30% Finished 31 % to 50°/® Finished More than 50% Finished East 400 386 1,606 482 Central 608 633 1,621 602 West 490 551 1,528 540 Total C.....,. u., n---~ 1,498 1,570 4,755 1,624 ------r- ------., --Ord-•r •••~ •~••«••~~ , .,.,u~.uu.~y rci ~ucr~ ntlSearCn, 1nC. Over 84% of the single family houses in Richfield have some portion of the basement space finished. Approximately half of all houses have between 30% and 50% of the basement finished. ® Over 17% have more than 50% of the basement finished. Ttichfield's Single Family I~®uses by Finished Basements More than 50% 30% to 50% 1 % to 3 0% No Finished Space East Central ~ West ^ Bichfieid's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Ooor 1Z 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Noipili~®r~io®~ Siogio homily woosiop S~oc~ Dots ^ ~-I~u~ses ~y ~stilr~atec~ l~a>r~et Valrxe Pe1~ Sq>~a>~°~ ~®®t While total livable space is an important indicator of the desirability and function of a house, the quality of finished living space can vary greatly. The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for structures only, divided by the livable, above grade square footage in the house. It is possible that contributory structures, such as a highly valued garage, can skew this calculation, but for most houses, the value per square foot is viewed as an indicator of overall quality, condition, and market desirability, '>l'able 8 Rfcltfield Detached Sfngle Fa~-~Iy mouses by V$Yue per Square Foot House Style Under $50 $50-$75 $75-$100 $100-$125 $125+ East 0 16 354 2,249 255 Central 5 45 976 2,215 223 West 1 38 649 2,168 253 Total 6 99 1,979 6,632 731 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. It appears that age of construction and house style may have a slight impact on value per square foot. East Richfield, which has the highest proportion of post-1950 built houses and the largest number of ramblers, has 34% of the houses with a value of $100 or more per square foot, However, it is also possible that this statistic is somewhat misleading, since it is based on a valuation for all above-grade square footage in the house, including second stories, where they exist. It is possible that the average value per square foot is slightly lower in expansion bungalow houses, since the upper floor square footage is viewed as less valuable space. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Value per Square Foot $12s+ $l0o-$12s $75-$]0 $50-$7 Less than $5 East ,,~ Central ~ West ^ Ric6fiold°s Noosing Assets: Opportoniiy at Euory Door 1~ 0 1.000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 IiEigllb~r~gol~ ~iltg~a ~a~mir~ Hoysirlq Stoclr gate Houses by T®tal Estimated 1Vlarl~et `Value The table that follows examines the County's estimated market value for the entire tax parcel, including both land and improvements. Estimated Market Value will generally lag behind current market value because annual sales are analyzed and used to make adjustments. However, collecting, analyzing and applying the sales data results ui a delay between sales activity and a reflection of this activity in the County's valuation of similar style houses. Table 9 Richfield Detached Single Famfly Houses by Total Value House Style $100,000- $124,999 $125,000- $149,999 $150,000- $174,999 $175,000- $199,999 $200,000+ East 11 119 746 1,310 688 Central 6 117 771 1,421 1,149 West 4 69 724 1,079 1,233 Total 21 305 2,241 3,810 3,070 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. When looking at total estimated market value for houses, there are some differences in the data from previous pages. East Richfield has the smallest distribution of higher valued homes, $200,000 or more, despite the fact that the value per finished square foot is generally above average. This is due to the fact that this neighborhood also tends to have houses with less total square footage than other neighborhoods, which limits the total value of the structure. The highest concentrations of lower valued homes, under $150,000, are in East and Central Richfield. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Total Estimated Value $200,000+ $175,000-$199,000 $150,000-$174,999 $125,000-$149,999 Less than $125,000 ~ ~ East ~ Central ~ West ^ Richfield's Rousing Assots: Opporianiiy at Euery Door 14 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 koighkor~®od Single Fanrify iiot~sin Stock Leto ~ir~~le Family Detached H®uses by Effective Age The Hennepin County database includes an estimate of "effective age" for each house in the City, which reflects renovation and improvement activity completed since the date of construction. The following table provides a summary of effective age ratings within 10 year increments. Effective age is a subjective rating made by an inspector, that changes the value of houses to reflect upgrades that have been made since the date of original construction, Table la Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Effective Age 1=louse Style 1990-2004 1980-1989 1970-1979 1960-1969 Pre-1960 East 34 25 328 1,378 1,109 Central 49 37 227 1,189 1,962 West 49 50 252 1,135 1,623 p{ ._.._- _ r .. s.. ,. 1 .._ .. __._ 3,701 4,69 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. There are some differences in the effective age of the housing in Richfield's neighborhoods. Since actual age does have an impact on the starting point for effective age, neighborhood development patterns can be reflected in effective age. Central Richfield has nearly 42% of the City's housing with an effective age prior to 1960, although Central Richfield has less than 37% of all houses. East Richfield has nearly 37% of the City's houses with an effective age of 1970 or newer, while this neighborhood has just over 30% of the City's total houses, City-wide, the large majority of the City's homesteaded single family houses have an effective age of 1969 or earlier, and nearly 50% have an effective age of 1959 or earlier. iZichfield's Single Family Mouses by Effective Age 2000 1500 1000 500 0 East Central ~ West ~ Oictlfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity of Every Ooor 15 Pre-1960 1960-1969 1970-2004 Neigbhorho®d Sin~ie family Housinh ~toc~ DBtg ~in~le ~°am~ly Detached ~I®~xses ~y Actual A~~ The previous page looked at the effective age for each homesteaded single family detached house in the City. The following table examines actual age. f Table l 1 Rach~eldl Iyetschecl Bangle l~ ~mal~ 1F3ouses by Actual Age 1Jetached Houses 1980-2004 1970-1979 19601969 1950-1959 Pre-1950 East 36 26 87 2,351 374 Central 60 42 162 1,612 1,588 West 63 44 168 1,494 1,340 Total 159 112 417 5,457 3,302 --~-.--..-~--.-~r..~ ti~u==~y ~.~Y~.~y ~a~ Lo~a~a~c, wuixuuna~y rarmers acesearcn, Inc. - The actual age of construction patterns show the development of the City during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960x. As mentioned previously, the age of development has had some impact on the style of units that exist in each neighborhood. Central Richfield has the largest number of pre-1950 houses and over half of the houses in this neighborhood are expansion bungalow style. East Richfield has the largest number of houses built after 1950 and approximately 73% of the houses in this neighborhood are ramblers, Richfield°s Single Family ~~®uses by Actual Age zsoo zooo lsoo looo soo 0 ~~ East Central ~ West ^ Richfield"s Housing insets: ~pportunit~ et E~rery Door 16 Pre-1950 1950-1959 1960-2004 liaidhr~ardaad Sisals family liausin~ Stael~ data lit ~in~le F"aZnily Detached ~-Iouses ~y Central fir Conditioning The following table looks at the number of houses with central air conditioning systems. Table 12 Lichfield Detached ~irygle Fnnrily Houses by Central Air Conditioning House Style With Central Air Without Central Air East 2,574 300 Central 2,797 667 West 2,561 548 ~~ i ~,~ ~~ ~_ .~~~___.____~- _ _-~ t. _. ~~ - _. _r_, i,932 - _ ~ _ ~~ 1,515 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Nearly 84% of the detached single family houses in the City have central air conditioning in 2004. City-wide, expansion bungalows are the least likely to have central air among the prevalent house styles, with nearly 21 % lacking this feature. With the largest concentrations of expansion bungalows in Central and West Richfield, these neighborhoods have a larger number of houses without central air. These two neighborhoods also have a higher percentage of older houses, built prior to 1940. An airport noise reduction program being implemented in eastern Richfield will provide central air conditioning as part of sound proofing efforts. The smaller number of houses in East Richfield without central air conditioning maybe due in part to this program. Richfield's Single Family Houses by Central 1~ir loo°i° 8o°i° 6o°i° 40°/® 20% Without Central Air ~ With Central Air r Richfield's Housing wssets: Opportunity at Even Doar 17 East Central West Ne~yhfjorhood Sitlgle ~~nli[Y Housing ~toc~c ®gth Sir~~le ~+ amil~ ~elachecl I-~®uses by Ga.ra~es The following table looks at the number of houses with either attached garages, detached garages, or both. This table does not identify the car capacity of garages, but only the presence of a garage on the property. Table 13 RicbReld Detached Single Family Houses by Garages House Style Attached Garage Only Detached Garage Only Both Attached and Detached 1Vo Garage East 892 1,923 29 30 Central 1,109 2,244 55 56 West 1,023 1,993 50 43 Total 3,024 6,160 134 129 .--......~. -.,,....,,Y.., ~.,u.,~y ri~Yci~y ~ as Lain°ase; ~,ommuntry rarmers xesearcn, lnc. ~ The distribution of garages by type is relatively consistent between the neighborhoods. City-wide, most common form of garage is a detached garage. Over 65% of houses in Richfield had detached garage parking only. - By neighborhood, 66.9% of the houses in East Richfield, 64.8% of houses in Central Richfield, and 64.1% of houses in West Richfield had detached parking only. - City-wide, only 1.4% of houses had no garage on the property in 2004. Richfield's Single ~°amily Houses by Type ®f Garage 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 [__f East Central ~ West ^ Richiioid's Hollsinp Assetsm Opportllnit~ at Eucr~ Door 1d Attached Garage Detached Garage Both Attached and Detached No Garage Neighborhood Single Famii9111ousing St6ck beta Sr>l~~~e ~`am.i~y Detached I~~uses by Gar°a~e Parking rapacity The following table looks at the number of garage parking spaces for each detached single family house. This table counts all available covered parking spaces in either attached garages, detached garages, or a combination of both. Table 14 Richfield Detached single Family Houses b~' Garage Larking Capacity House Style Parking for 1 Car Parking for 2 Cars Parking for 3 or More Cars 1®To Garage East 946 1,825 73 30 Central 1,306 1,957 145 56 West 1,243 1,696 127 43 :~~1~ '' ' ~ `, ~ ~ 129 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, lnc. ® There are no major differences in the number of covered parking spaces by neighborhood, although there are some minor differences. West Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with only 1 garage stall, East Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 2 garage stalls, and Central Richfield has the highest percentage of houses with 3 or more garage stalls available. ~ City-wide, 58% of the homesteaded houses have garage parking for 2 cars, and nearly 4% have parking for 3 or more cars. Lichfield's Single Family H®uses by Garage Parking ioo°io ao°i° 6o~io 40% 2l)% 0 3+ Car ~ 2 Car 1 Car r_~ 0 Car ^ Richfield®s Nousing Assets: Opportunitg at Even Door 19 East Central West Neigh~ar~ood Single ~nmiiy Ho~rsin0„Stock 6at~ Sin~l~ Family Detached mouses by .Lot ~iclth The following table looks at the frontage of lots far each detached single family house. The table on the next page looks at total lot area. Table 15 Richfield Detached Single 1+amily Horses by Lot Width House Style Less than s0' Frontage S0' to s9' Frontage 60' to 74° Frontage 7s° or More East 41 395 1,006 1,432 Central 186 963 663 1,652 West 14s 764 1,212 9gg Total C.,,,~..o uo n_ 372 2,122 2, 881 4,072 --.---- -----',, "-~y---•~ ~.... .~..w.,.. ~ a~.u..auui~y rni utGl9 RGJCA.ICR~ lI1C. ® Lot frontage is generally dependent upon the practices in place at the time of development. C~rrrent City codes require a minimum 50 foot lot width. City-wide, only 372 homesteaded houses have a lot frontage of less than s0 feet. Most of these lots are in the Central and West neighborhoods. City-wide, over 43% of lots are 7s or more feet in width. Lichfield's Single Family ~-I®uses by Lot Frontage 2000 lsoo looo soo 0 `_~ Less than 60°' _ ~ 60' to 74' ~ 75' or more ~ RichfielA°s No~rsing Assets: Opportunity at Evcty Door 20 East Central Nest Neighborhood Single E~~i~Y Nousin~ Stock ~atN Single Fam~~y ~etach~d I~~~ses b~ L®t area The following table looks at the total square feet of lot area for each detached single family house. 't'able 16 Rielxfield Detached Single Fa~tily Douses by Lot Area House Style Less than 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 to 7,499 sq. ft. 7,500 to 9,999 sq. ft. 10,000 or Vlore sq. ft. East 15 264 2,004 591 Central 169 910 1,176 1,209 West 167 720 1,543 679 Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. - Lot sizes do show some variation between neighborhoods, and probably reflect the City standards that were in place at the time of development. In East Richfield, for example, nearly 70% of the residential lots are between 7,500 and 9,999 square feet in size, and very few lots are smaller than 7,500 square feet. In contrast, over 31% ofthe lots in Central Richfield are less than 7,500 square feet in size. - City-wide, there are 351 residential lots that have less than 6,000 total square feet, lvlost of these lots are in Central and West Richfield. Richfield°s Sin~~e Family Pleases by L®t Arca 100°~° so°i° 60% 40% 20% 0 Lots in Total Sq. Ft. 10,000+ ~ 7,500-9,999 6,000-7,499 ^ Less than 6,000' ~ Richfield°s Nousing Assetse ppportunity at Every Door 21 East Central West lieighborho~~ ~inpi~ ~a~r~iiy Nousin0 Stoci~ i~~ta Single ~al~ily Detached ~®uses by overall Conditi®n The County Assessor's Office includes an "overall condition" rating for each house in the City. The rating is based on a five point scale, from excellent to poor condition. The following table provides this condition rating for each detached single family house, Table 1.71~ich1°ield Detaehed Single Family Illouses by ®~verall Condition House Style Excellent Condition Good Condition Average Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition East YO 905 1,939 19 1 Central 14 934 2,472 39 3 West 21 1,000 2,051 34 2 Total n_.____ 45 2,839 6,462 92 6 ~~»•.~». ++..•d.+vYaaa vvuuL.y 11V~l Gd L~' d [L.i llcLLA.Ui1JG~ ~,ommumry rar~ners xesearcn, lnc. - Overall house condition ratings were very similar between the three neighborhoods. The percentage of houses rated as "good" was slightly higher in the East and West neighborhoods than in the Central Neighborhood, but the percentage difference was small. City-wide, 68% of the homesteaded houses were rated. as being in "average" condition in 2004, and 99% of the City's houses were rated as average or better far overall condition. - Only 98 houses, or 1.0% of all houses, were rated as being in "fair" or "poor" condition. Richfield`s Single Family H®uses by overall Condition 1 oo°ro 80% 60% 40% 20% 0 Excellent Good ~ Average Fair ~~ Poor ^ Richfield's Housing ^ssots: Opportunity at Eves Door 2~ East Central West F~eighber~~od Single Family Iiousinp St~cl~ ®~t~ ~ Sin~ie ~'a~ily I)etacl~ecl H®uses by Sale Price The County Assessor9s database includes information on properties that have been sold in recent years. The following table looks at sales data from May 2003 to April 2004. The sales information is not limited to "g®®d99 sales that are fair market transactions. In an attempt to remove some of the sales that have occurred for less than fair market value, we have only examined sales for $100,000 or more. We have also limited the sales information to homesteaded single family detached houses. Please note that the 12 month sales period. used for this table is different from the 12 month period used in the Comparison Section of this Study. We have also included 2004 County Estimated Market Value medians for comparison. Table 18 Richfield Detached Single Family Houses by Median Sale Price Neighborhood Number of Sales Median Sale Price Median Estimated Market Value for All Houses East 162 $199,900 $184,000 Central 189 $198,900 $188,000 West 167 $200,000 $192,000 Ci -Wide X18 _ _._ `~ 'a~' ~ -- ~ --=.. ' ~ `'.~ _ _~~:_~ Source: Hennepin County Property Tax Database; Community Partners Research, Inc. Despite some differences in the median home value for property tax purposes, the sample of recent house sales shows remarkably similar home values between the three neighborhoods. The difference in the median sale price was less than 1%. As mentioned previously, the median home value for tax purposes tends to lag behind actual sales prices, as there is typically a 1 to 2 year adjustment time between sales activity and the application of this sales data to estimated market values for taxes. Riehfield's Single Family Houses by Value $200,000 $150,000 $1®0,000 $50,000 U Median Sale Value Median Estimated Market Value ~ Richfield°s housing Assets: Opportunity et Every Door 23 East Central West NRA Nist®ry and Accomplishments ^ Fiist®ry and Acc®rr~plishments In 1969, the Richfield Planning Commission prepared a "Central Commercial Area Plan" for the greater HUB shopping area. The community housing characteristics included: 61 acres remained undeveloped A population of 54,678 was forecasted by 1985. ' As a result of new housing starts since 1962, one out of four dwelling units were primarily apartments. In 1975, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was formed to ensure long- term vitality for Richfield's residential and commercial property. Immediately, the HRA began administering a rent assistance program and declining commercial property was replaced with new businesses in the HUB area. The types of project and program responses by the HRA have varied over time. Here are some examples, with fuller program descriptions following. 1970's and 1980's • Loans for the rehab of existing homes (Rehabilitation Deferred Loans) Rehab of problem homes for sale to first time buyers (Hennepin Technical College) •' Insulating homes (The Energy Conservation Pr®gram; First Demonstration super- insulated home) • First time buyer mortgages Federal rent assistance provided locally. 1990's • Buying small, substandard property (voluntary acquisition program) Building market rate homes (Richfield Rediscovered) • First time buyer homes for lower income families. (HTC and Habitat for Humanity) '" Incentives for people to "stay" in Richfield (Transformation Homes; Remodeling Advisor services, "This ®Id House" property tax deferral). '" Annual Remodeling Fair '" Marketing Richfield! (Parade of Homes, Tour of Remodeled Homes, Realtor Workshop, Landscape Good Neighbor Award, portable displays, "Cape Cods and Ramblers: A Remodeling Planbook for Post WWII Houses„) Apartment Remodeling -pilot project with Metropolitan Council. 2000's Mixed-use developments provide more housing choices (e.g. ®aks on Pleasant, Castelle Place, Penn Place Townhouses) • More non-profit developer/housing provider relationships (WHAHLT, GMHC, PPL, Met Council's Holman units). ^ Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door NDA History and Accomplishments ^ ' Richfield's Housing Funda Money for more locally decided housing opportunities ' More Apartment Remodeling _ Minnesota Housing Finance Agency funding ' More marketing and more ideas (Health House, land trusts for housing affordability, Twin Cities Remodelers Showcase in 2004) ' Access to more information on the City's web site In November, 2004 the Richfield HRA has provided housing and redevelopment projects and programs for 30 years. Thirty Years and Three Priorities for the HRA 1. Creating New Homes. ' The Richfield HRA is able to purchase substandard or blighted property from voluntary sellers, demolish the existing buildings, and build new homes on the sites through its Voluntary Acquisition program. ' The HRA cooperates with nonprofit developers to rehabilitate or build new homes, available for sale to first time buyers of low to moderate income (less than 80% of the area median). ®ne or two homes have been developed annually under the New Home Program. From 1978 to 2000, the HRA worked with Hennepin Technical College's building trades program to produce 32 homes. More recently, a home was just competed with Project for Pride in Living, and two homes have become land trusts with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust. ' Another nonprofit developer, Habitat for Humanity builds decent, safe, affordable homes for very low-income homebuyers (50% of the median income). From the first house in 1993 to the most recent in 2003, nine Habitat homes have been built in the community. The Richfield Rediscovered program provides market rate construction opportunities for builder/buyer teams. From 1990 through 2003, approximately 91 new homes have been built under this program. Ten of those have been in the Building Association "Parade of Homes" event. Twenty more were built as part of the Richfield Rediscovered "affordability initiative". From 2000 through 2004, 816 units of housing have been added to the housing stock through mixed-use redevelopment projects. Though same units were lost for those projects to occur, the net gain of 784 units is significant. This adds new housing choices for residents and future residents, including condominiums, various type of townhomes and apartment flats, plus some senior congregate dining and assisted living facilities. ^ Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 2 ~~A Nistor~ and Accomplishments ^ 2. Providing and Improving Existing homes. '" The energy crisis of the late 70's and early 80's included a focus on energy conservation in the home. Over 3,000 energy audits were coordinated. The Richfield HRA was a leader in demonstrating super insulation in housing design. The federal Section 8 Program provides rental assistance to 350 families in Richfield. Of those, 240 originated in Richfield and 110 have moved to Richfield from other communities. "' The Rehabilitation Deferred Loan provides interest-free rehabilitation loans to low-income homeowners (income does not exceed 50 of the median). For some, it provides the only means to stay in the home. From 1997 through 2003, approximately 480 loans have been initiated. In 1997, the First Time Advantage Loan was initiated. Loans are for moderate income owners (income does not exceed 80% of the median) who have been in their home for less than a year. Since most first-time buyers have put the majority of their cash into closing costs and down payment the loan provides a new homebuyer the opportunity to do updating and general improvements. • The Transformation Program provides incentive loans for large scale remodeling in Richfield to encourage households to stay in the community. From 1993 through 2003, 100 loans have been provided. Over $1 million loaned by the HRA through 2003 has leveraged over $7 million of homeowner remodeling. Most participating households remodeled in excess of $50,000, usually adding square footage which allowed them to stay in the community rather than getting their housing needs met by moving to another community. All funds for the program are local. ~' Remodeling Advisory services are free and available to all Richfield homeowners. The Remodeling Advisor provides technical advice on a particular project, cost estimates, and the information on financing options. The Design Advisor provides advice related to aesthetically blending in an addition from the exterior, or creating better function with interior layouts. • Cap Cods & Ramblers: A Remodeling Planbook for Post-World War II Houses was developer by Richfield and 14 other comminutes to develop ideas and vision for homeowners who want to remodel their traditional rambler or cap cod home. The book has received four local and national awards. ~' Apartment Remodeling is a loan for owners of small apartment buildings (usually 4-12 units) to improve the exterior of the buildings, as well as unit interiors. The loans are zero percent interest, and require both a dollar for dollar match by the owner, and future repayment. 3. Improving the Quality of Life. People interested in purchasing a new home in Richfield are referred to a homebuyer education program, facilitated by Community Action for Suburban Hennepin. Other services provided by Community Action include foreclosure prevention and energy assistance. The City/HRH's CDBG funds help provide those services. ^ Richfield°s Housing Assetso Opportunity at Euerfm Door 3 HRA History and Accompiishmonts ^ RedcrCed interest Fate mortgage money has been annually available from MHFA for first-time buyers in Richfield. The City/HRA participates in Hennepin County's application for funds. Eligible buyers' income must be approximately below 30% of the median. Rent Assistance for Family Stabilization (RAPS) is a state program administered by Richfield staff. RAPS is a shallow rent subsidy that is given to families who receive no other rent subsidy and are currenfily participating in aself-sufficiency program with an employment and education plan. Richfield had 17 participants in RAPS, but the program has been discontinued. Anew shallow rent subsidy program- Kids cr Home will assist households in transition that have kids in school. It is estimated 30 household can be assisted. Staff provides monitoring to owners participating in the 4(d) Property Tax Classification Monitoring program. To benefit from the reduced tax classification rate, participating owners must rent units to households with incomes that do not exceed 60% of the median income. In Richfield, 1,061 units have benefited form the 4(d) program. The program was discontinued in 2003, Developers who cannot create at least 10°/® of affordable housing in a development can contribute 15 percent of available tax increment from a development to the Richfield Housing Fund. The fund is used for housing initiatives through out the city, presently supporting the single family scatted site housing programs (Richfield Rediscovered and Transformation Homes Loan) and the new Kids @ Home initiative. ^ Richficld°s Housing Asscts: Opportunity at EucrY Door ~ HRA History and Accomplishments ^ Recognition of Housing Project/Program Efforts Awarding Agency Award Yaar National Association of Housing 2003 Agency Award of Excellence in Program Innovation- 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Woodlake Centre - A New Town Center Begins National Association of Housing 2003 National Award of Merit in Program Innovation-- 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Woodlake Centre - A New Town Center Begins National Association of Housing 2003 Community Development Achievement Award for 2003 and Redevelopment Officials Woodlake Centre Development Project North Central Regional Council (8 state re ion League of Minnesota Cities City Achievement Award for Housing, Economic 2003 Development & Community Spaces: Best Buy Campus Office of the Legislative Auditor: A Best Practices Review: Preserving Housing 2003 State of Minnesota U.S. Department of Housing and 2003 Section 8 Program High Performer 2003 Urban Development State of Minnesota Odyssey For Long-Range Planning and Resulting Housing and 2002 Award Programs for Seniors, Making Richfield a Model for Others U.S. Department of Housing and 2002 Section 8 Program High Performer 2002 Urban Development Minnesota Chapter of the Outstanding Planning Award for Implementation: 2001 American Planning Association Woodlake Centre Commercial Builder Magazine. Grand Award Division V: A Healing Community, 2001 Mainstreet Village, Richfield, MN U.S. Department of Housing and 2001 Section 8 Program High Performer 2001 Urban Develo went U.S. Department of Housing and 2000 Section 8 Program High Performer 2000 Urban Development National League of Cities Investing in Communities Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 American Institute of Architects' Special Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Minnesota Cha ter American Planning Association's Public Education Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Minnesota Cha ter Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Award (Remodeling Planbook) 1999 Preservation Commission National Association of Housing 1997 Agency Award of Excellence in Community 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Revitalization for the Richfield Rediscovered Project National Association of Housing 1997 National Award of Merit in Program Innovation-- 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Community Revitalization: Richfield Rediscovered Project National Association of Housing Regional Award for Excellence in Community 1997 and Redevelopment Officials Development for Changing Housing Markets: Richfield North Central Re Tonal Council Rediscovered Association of Metropolitan Innovative City Award of Merit in Recognition of 1996 Municipalities Richfield's Efforts to Improve the Housing Inspections Division and Assisting First-Time Buyers Association of Metropolitan Innovative City Award: Richfield Rediscovered 1993 Municipalities State of Minnesota Governor's Certificate of Commendation in Recognition of Efforts to 1991 Office Help First-Time Homebuyers ^ Richtiold°s Noosing Assets: Opportunity at Euory Door Nh~ iistorlr and Accomplishments ^ State of Minnesota Department 11th Annual Energy Saver's Award of Excellence 1987 of Public Service Energy Division Association of Metropolitan Recognition Award for Achievement in the Provision of 1985 Municipalities Affordable Housing Opportunities through Creative Re- Use for Housing/Housing Rehabilitation ^ Richficid's Housing Assets: Opportunity at Evcry Door ~`~. New ~~.;:, e,,.i4 Gubbinsdale -[s>. Goltlen Yaley i i .~: Hopbrts Minneapahs Etlrcu 4+Fa,~ . C rr~1 G • ~..- t'!nnnltptnn Ricftfield in Compapison lZichfield in Cornparris®n ®I,ist ®f `Tables Page Overview 6 Richfield in Comparison 2 Section Highlights 3 Population Change 1990 to 2000 5 Population Change 2000 to 2003 6 Household Change 1990 to 2000 7 Household Change 2000 to 2003 8 Average Household Size ®2003 9 Median Age 2000 10 Median Gross Rent 2000 11 Median Home Value ®2000 12 Median Home Value ®2003 13 Change in Median Home Value - 1998 to 2003 14 Change in Median Home Value -1993 to 2003 15 Home Ownership Rate - 2000 16 Median Household Income ®2000 17 Percent People in Poverty ~ 2000 18 Housing Choice Vouchers ~ 19 L Richfield's Housing Assess: Opportunity of Every Door 1 Richfield in Coniporlson lZich~eld in Comp~.~i~on Overview The section that follows provides comparative information for the City of Richfield. A number of different demographic, housing and income variables have been used to compare the City to 11 other communities. Ten of the comparison communities are in Hennepin County, and one is in Ramsey County. The comparison communities range in size from Minneapolis, population 382,295, to Robbinsdale, population 14,26$. Most of the communities are fully developed suburbs, but other communities, such as Eden Prairie, still have land available for development. Despite differences in size and state of development, these communities share some common features with the City of Richfield, in terms of geographic location, first ring suburban status, age of housing, or other similarities. The communities used for comparison were selected by staff from the City of Richfield. Richfield's Housing Assets: Opportunity of Every Door 2 Lichfield in Comparison Richfield xn Comparison Section I~ighlights For most of the comparison items, Richfield is neither the best or worst performer. The following identifies the City's placement for each of the tables that follow. - Richfield ranked 10"' of the 12 Cities for population growth between 1990 and 2000. Only Crystal and New Hope had larger population losses during the 1990s. - For population change from 2000 to 2003, Richfield tied for 9`h with New Hope. Both Minneapolis and Robbinsdale had less population growth over the last 3 years. - Richfield ranked last for household growth between 1990 and 2000. The City was the only community to lose households in that decade. - The City was 7`h for percentage household growth between 2000 and 2003. - Richfield had the 8"' lowest average household size of the comparison communities. Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Roseville and Minneapolis all had fewer people per household. - At the time of the 2000 Census, there were 5 comparison communities with an older median age than Richfield. - Richfield's median gross rent in 2000 was the third lowest of the comparison communities. Only Minneapolis and Robbinsdale had a lower median rent. - Richfield's median home value was the fifth lowest at the time of the 2000 Census. Minneapolis, Hopkins, Robbinsdale and Crystal all had lower median home values. - Based on home sales for the 12 month period ending September 2003, Richfield's median home value has increased, but is still the fifth lowest of the comparison communities. The four Cities with lower median values in 2000 had lower median sales prices in 2003. - Although Richfield's median home value is in the lower half of the comparison cities, the median value, as gauged by sale price, has been increasing at an above average rate. Between 1998 and 2003, the City's median sale value increased by 72.1 %. Only Minneapolis, Robbinsdale and Crystal saw a larger increase in home values during this five year period. - Over the longer-term, Richfield's median sale price has increased at an even greater rate. The City's median sale price in 2003 was up 124.7%. Only the City of Minneapolis had a larger percentage increase over this 10 year time span. - The City's home ownership tenure rate was the sixth lowest of the comparison Cities. Hopkins, Minneapolis, New Hope, Roseville and St. Louis Park all had lower rates of home ownership. iD Richfield®s Housing Assetso Opportunity at Every Door 3 ~ichtitld err Cotllgari~on fit;, The City's median household income was the third lowest in 2000. Minneapolis and Hopkins had lower median household incomes. According to the 2000 Census, Richfield had a large percentage ofpeople living in poverty. Only 1~Iinneapolis, Hopkins and New Hope had a larger percentage of the population under the poverty line. Richfield ranked near the middle in the availability of Housing Choice Vouchers as a percentage of all renter households in 2004. Richfield's Nousing Assets: Opportunity of Every Door 4 R~~hfieid ~o Co~p~risor~ ~r I~icl~~~lcl ir~_ ®~~~ris~r>~ ®~'®~>xiatie~r~ ~ilarn~~ ~g~~ to 2aa~ The following table prescx~ts information on the rate of population change in selected Cities between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. Table 1 P®pulati®n Trends ~ 1990•-2000 City 2000 Population Percentage Change 1990-2000 Numeric Change 1990-2000 Richfield 34,439 -3.6% -1,271 Bloomington 85,172 -1.4% -1,163 Eden Prairie 54,901 39.7% 15,590 Edina 47,425 2.9% 1,355 Roseville 33,690 0.6% 205 St. Louis Park 44,126 0.8% 339 Crystal 22,698 -4.6% -1,090 New Hope 20,873 -4.5% -980 RoblSinsdale 14,123 -1.9% -273 Golden Valley 20,281 -3.3% -690 Hopkins 17,145 3.7% 611 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent Population Change - 1990-2000 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal I~1ew Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 0 O ~- r----, r--~ ~~ O Percent Change ~ RichfieiR's housing Assetse Oppor~unit~ at E~e1~ ®oo~ 5 -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40°/a Oicficid io Comperisoo ^ li~ck~~~ld i>~ Colc>r>lp~.rison ®Po~illl~.~ion C~~~~~ 2000 ~0 2003 The following table presents information on the rate of population change in selected Cities over the last few years, using the Census and 2003 estimates issued by the Metropolitan Council, Table 2 Population Trends ~ 20002003 City 2000 Population 2003 Population Percent Change Numeric Change Richfield 34,439 34,502 0.2% 63 Bloomington 85,172 85,301 1.5% 129 Eden Prairie 54,901 59,325 8.1% 4,424 Edina 47,425 48,156 1.5% 731 Roseville 33,690 34,080 1.2% 390 St. Louis Park 44,126 44,896 1.7% 770 Crystal 22,698 23,012 1.4% 314 New Hope 20,873 20,910 0.2% 37 Robbinsdale 14,123 14,068 -0.4% -55 Golden Valley 20,281 20,736 2.2% 455 Hopkins 17,145 17,643 2.9% 498 Minnea olis 382,618 382,295 -0.1% -323 .,...._......~.N. ~a.uaua liu~cau, ivic~iuYuuiau l.UldnL'll; l.0Ir1ffiUnlry 1'Srtrier5 KC3C&rCll, 1nC, Per~en~ POpulati®n Change ®20002003 Richfield Bloomington ~, Eden Prairie ~- Edina ~---~ Roseville St. Louis Park ~---~ Crystal I01ew Dope Robbinsdale Golden Valley ~ -, Hopkins ~- --~ Minneapolis __ o -2% 0 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Percent Change ~ Richfield"s llollsil~g Assetsa Ohportunit~ of Every Door 6 pich~r~i~ i~ D®~lporis®11 p~ .i~t~elc~ i>~ ~~p-~ris®~1®I-~®se~~d ~han~e 1990 t® 2000 The following table Eresents infoi°mation on the rate of household change in selected Cities between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. °Table 3 Household 'rends - 199®-2d0® City 2000 Households Percentage Change 1990-2000 Numeric Change 1990-2000 Richfield 15,073 -3.1 % -478 Bloomington 36,400 S.5% 1,912 Eden Prairie 20,457 41.6% 6,010 Edina 20,996 5.7% 1,136 Roseville 14,598 7.6% 1,036 St. Louis Park 20,782 4.3% 857 Crystal 9,389 1.3% 117 New Hope 8,665 1.9% 158 Rolibinsdale 6,097 1.5% ~ 89 Golden Valley 8,449 2.1% 176 Hopkins 8,224 3.2% 251 Minnea olis 162,352 1.0% 1,670 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Community Partners Research, Inc. Percent I~®useh®lc~ Chine ®1990®2000 Itichficld Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis r~ - --~ -~ ~--~ 0 0 0 0 ^ Pcrccnt Change Dichfiold's housing Assetsm Opport~nit~ st Euory Do®r 7 -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Ri~~fia~p i~ Car~parisoa ~~ct1~~Td ~ ®~~a>~°isc~~l ~ .~3®us~~.®ld ~-al~~~ X000 t® X003 The following table presents information on the rate of household change in selected Cities over `t~re'ra5~:few years, using 111e ~`U`0`U (:ensus and 2003 estimates issued by the Metropolitan Councils Talble 4 I~ousehold Trends m 2000m2003 City 2000 Households 2003 Households Percent Change 2000-2003 Numeric Change 2000-2003 Richfield 15,073 15 243 9 1.1% 170 Bloomington 36,400 36,553 0.4% 153 Eden Prairie 20,457 22,615 10.5% 2,158 Edina 20,996 21,149 0.7% 153 Roseville 14,598 14,790 1.3% 192 St. Louis Park 20,782 21,358 2.8% 576 Crystal 9,389 9,543 1.6% 154 New Hope 8,665 ~ 8,691 0.3% 26 Robbinsdale 6,097 6,095 -0.03% -2 Golden Valley 8,449 8,776 3 9% 327 Hopkins 8,224 8,498 3.3% 274 Minnea olis 162,352 162,505 0.09% 153 -- - ----- .__..,,r,,...,,...1.,,...,..., ~,v,a,u,uii~ty raiuici~ rccsearcn, inc. Pe~een~ Household thane m 2000®2003 Richfield ~-== Bloomington ~~ Eden Prairie ~ -.----____ __ _____... __._~ Edina L~ Roseville ~---, St. Louis Park r---- Crystal ~-- --, New Hope ~, Robbinsdale Golden Valley ~_: -- Hopkins ~-- - --- Minneapolis o - ~-- -2% 2% 6% 10% Percent Change ~ Richfiol0's Nousiop assotsa Opportuoit~ of Every Door 0 hichf~i~ i~ h~r~psris®~ ~ ic~f end %>~ Co>~~~i~o~l e Avera~~ I-~ouseholcl Size ®203 The following table presents information. on the average household size in selected Cities as reported in the 2003 estimates from the Metropolitan Coixncil. Table 5 Average )€-Youseholcl Size m 2063 City Average Household Size Richfield 2.24 Bloomington 2.29 Eden Prairie 2.61 Edina 2.25 Roseville 2.19 St. Louis Park 2.05 Crystal 2.39 New Hope 2.28 Robbinsdale 2.26 Golden Valley 2,.28 Hopkins 2.02 I~~~;~~eape~il~ ~ i ~-___ Source: Metropolitan Council A.vera~e I~®usel~®ld Size o 2003 Richfield Bloomington Eden 1~rairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins li~inneapolis Average Household Size ! h6chtieid°~ HO~si~s~ Assts: ®pprtlu~it~ ~t Eu011r haor 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Ri~i~fi01H itt Colr~pOrisOn ~ ~li.c~~ielc~ fln C4mpar~~®n ®l~ciian ~~e 240 The following table presents information on the median age of residents in selected Cities as reported in the 2000 Census. 7'a~bie 6 1Vledian Age m 2000 V- 'I City Median Age - 2000 Richfield 37.1 Bloomington 40.1 Eden Prairie 34.2 Edina 44.5 Roseville 41.0 St. Louis Park 35.7 Crystal 3 7.0 New Hope 38.3 Robbinsdale 37.6 Golden Valley 42.7 Hopkins 34.1 Minnea olis 31.2. ~.,..,cc. v.o. ~.cusus nuicau Median Abe ®2000 Census Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Age ~ Ri~hfi01H°s HoOSing Assetse OppOrtun~t~ Ot ~ue~ DOOr 1® 0 10 20 30 40 50 Richfioid i~ Contporisor~ ~ ~ichfi~lt~ x~~ ~axrx~~ris®n ®1l~~clyan Gr®ss lent ~Oa(~ The following table presents information on the median gross rent for each of the selected Cities as reported in the 2000 Census. Table 7 1Vleelian dross Dent ®2000 City Median Rent - 2000 Richfield $63 8 Bloomington $753 Eden Prairie $883 Edina $864 Roseville $688 St. Louis Park $716 Crystal $671 New Hope $687 Robbinsdale $626 Golden Valley $669 Hopkins $710 IVlinnea olis $575 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Median C7r®ss 1Zent ®2000 Census Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal NeW Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Ii~iinneapolis IVledian Gross Rent Richfield°s Housing Asscts~ Opportunity of Euery Door 1t 0 200 400 600 800 1000 I~ICi~~i~id i~ ~on-p~~'isOfY ^ ~ie~l~elcl in C®m~arYSan ®~iedia>l~ I3®me Value ®2000 The following table presents information on the median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities as reported in the 2000 Census. T'~ble ~ 1Vledia~ H®me V$lue - 2000 ,~ City Median Home Value - 2000 Richfield $128,500 Bloomington $144,800 Eden Prairie $193,600 Edina $222,600 Roseville $139,800 St. Louis Park $131,900 Crystal $112,900 IVew Hope $135,900 Robbinsdale $117,000 Golden Valley $158,200 Hopkins $126,100 Minnea olis c,......,._. rto n_.__-__,-. $113,700 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 Median Home Value ^ Richfield's Nousing Assetso Opportunif~ of Edely Roos 1x Median ~-I®m~ Value ®2000 Census ~~cf~f~~~~ i~ ~®~p~~°~S®n ^ I~.i~~fielci in ~~mp~~°is®n ®1'~[eciian I3®e Vai~~ ®203 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities based on sales for the 12 month period ending September 2003. Table 9 1Vledian I3ame Value ]Esti~r~te m 20Q3 City Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Richfield $191,000 Bloomington $202,500 Eden Prairie $23'2,700 Edina $285,000 Roseville $205,000 St. Louis Park $196,500 Crystal $171,900 New Hope $198,600 Robbinsdale $177,000 ' Golden Valley $223,500 Hopkins $165,950 , __s~-_ Minnea olis Source: MN Department of Revenue Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 0 50000 ]00000 ]50000 200000 250000 300000 Median Home Value ^ Richfiold's Rousing assets®Qpportunit~ at Everp Door 1~ li~Iedian I-~®me ~Tal~e ®2003 Sale Ricf~fici~ i~ ~®mpsris~~ Iz~c~fie~.ci i>lr~ C®p~~~s~lr~ ®1l~I~t~ia>~- ~a~~e ®199 t® 2003 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities comparing the ixiediau sale price from 1998 to 2003. Table 10 l~edaar~ )F1ome Sate Price o 1998 t® X003 City Median Value of Home Sales - 1998 Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Percent Change 1998 to 2003 Richfield $1 11,000 $191,000 72.1 Bloomington $125,000 $202,500 62.0% Eden Prairie $155,981 $232,700 49.2% Edina $196,250 $285,000 45.2% Roseville $123,000 $205,000 66.7% St. Louis Park $125,000 $196,500 57.2% Crystal $98,900 $171,900 73.8% New Hope $122,300 $198,600 62.4% Robbinsdale $98,900 $177,000 79.0% Golden Valley $137,100 $223,500 63.0% Hopkins $104,700 $165,950 58.5% Minnea olis $90,900 $185,000 ~ ?~,_ ~~~. ~~..•... L..yraauu~.u~ vi i~cvcuuc, l~u1I11i1UI11 LY YiIILIleIS KOSearC11, 1nC, ~ha~n~e in IO~edian S~.l~ I~rice ~ 1 g9~ t® 2aQ3 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville 3t. Louis Park Crystal blew Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Percent Change in Median Sale Price ~ Richfield°s Housing Assots: ®pdortanity ~~ EYer~ ®®or 1~ 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Cicitfieid io Coloparison Iticl~~eld in C®rn~aris®n ®1Vledian value ®1993 t® 2003 The following table presents information on the estimated median value of owner occupied housing units in selected Cities comparing the median sale price from 1993 to 2003. 'Fable 17. Nleclian Home Sale Price - 1993 to 2003 City Median Value of Home Sales - 1993 Median Value of Home Sales - 2003 Percent Change 1993 to 2003 Richfield $85,000 $191,000 124.7% Bloomington $100,000 $202,500 102.5% Eden Prairie $123,900 $232,700 87.8% Edina $139,950 $285,000 103.6% Roseville $93,500 $205,000 119.3% St. Louis Park $88,278 $196,500 122.6% Crystal $79,000 $171,900 117.6% New Hope $96,000 $198,600 106.9% Robbinsdale $79,000 $177,000 124.1% Golden Valley $114,450 $223,500 95.3% Hopkins $82,790 $165,950 100.4% Minnea olis $75,000 ~ $, C ~ ~,?~ s~_ i j. wurce: iniv i,eparrmem oz xevenue; l;ommunrty rartners xesearcn, lnc. - Over the longer-term, Richfield's median sale price has increased at an even greater rate. The City's median sale price in 2003 was up 124.7%. Only the City of Minneapolis had a.larger percentage increase over this l 0 year time span, Change in Median Sale Price Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis 1993 t® 2003 Percent Change in Median Sale Price ^ 8ichfiold"s Housing Assets: Opportunity at Every Door 1D 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% OicD~ioiD ire Odm~aris0 ~~l~~i~ld in C~-r>c~~>~is®~ ®~Iarn~ Ownership .~~te ®2000 The following table presents information on the ownership tenure rate at the time of the X000 Census. Table 12 Nome ®~vnership Rate - 2000 City Percent Owners Richfield 67.6% Bloomington 70 6% Eden Prairie 78 3% Edina 76.5% Roseville 67.5% St. Louis Park 63.6% Crystal 77 6% IVew Hope 56.1% Robbinsdale 74.0% Golden Valley 81.5% Hopkins 37.9% Minnea olis 51.4% HOn1e Ownership Rate ®000 Census Richfield 131oomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal I~1ew Hope Robbinsdale Goldcn Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Home Ownership Tenure Rate ^ Richfield°s HousinD Assetsa Opportunii~ at ~vor~ Dooe 10 0 20°~° 4o°i° 6o°i° so°i° i oo°i° ~i4hF~~~ its O~p~wi~~~ w~ ~chlie~c~ in ~o~np~~~son ~ I~ec~ian ][~o~sehold Income E 2000 ~'hc following table presents information on the median household income at the time of the 2000 Census. Z°alble 13 ediaa- l~i~useh®1d Inc®Yne - 2000 City Census Median Household Income Richfield $45,519 Bloomington $54 628 9 Eden Prairie $78,328 Edina $66,019 Roseville $51,056 St. Louis Park $49,260 Crystal $48,736 New Hope $46,795 Robbinsdale $48,271 . Golden Valley ~ $62,063 Hopkins $39,203 Minnea olis $37,974 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1Vledian I-Io~xsehold Incorri~ ®000 Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal I®lew Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis Median Household Income ~ Richfolp°~ H~~siog Assctso Opp®r~u~~ty of Every Door 1}" 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Ri~i~tiei~ i~~ Co~perisan ~ ~cl~~iel~ in C~rri~a.l~°is®1~. ®P~rce~t ~~®ple ix~ P~v~rty m 2000 The following table presents information on the percentage of the total population below the poverty level at the time of the 2000 Census, 7'~ble 14 Percent of Population in Poverty p 2000 City Percent Richfield 6.3 Bloomington 4.0% Eden Prairie 3.5% Edina 3.3% Roseville q 2% 5t. Louis Park 5.2% Crystal 4.4% New Hope 6.5% Robbinsdale 4.7% Golden Valley 3.0% Hopkins 9.3 Minnea olis 16.9% Percent of Population in Poverty ®2000 Census Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden `Talley Hopkins Minneapolis ~~ Percent People in Poverty ^~ Ri~hfield'~ Rousing Assets®Oppo~tunit~ et Euer~ ®or 1R 0 5% 10% 15% 20% Ric~~giolp it 9omporiso~ ^ R.~~~~elel i~. ®p~risan a I~®usi~~ ~h~-i~~ v~~~h~rs The following exarrlines the availability of HUI~ Housing Choice Touchers in 2004 as a percentage of all rental households at the tune of the 2000 Census, Talaie 1~ ~®ucller~ as ~ Percent~~e ®t Renter fIouseh®lcis City Percent Richfield 4.6% Bloomington 5.3 Eden Prairie 5.0% Edina 1.4% Roseville 2.8% St. Louis Park 3.5% Crystal 5.8 New Hope 7.1% Robbinsdale 7.6% Golden Valley 1.7% Hopkins 6.2% T~ iiineapolis ; ~.~% Source: Community Partners Research, Inc. I-~ousin~ Choice ~To~chcrs Availability Richfield Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Roseville St. Louis Park Crystal New Hope Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hopkins Minneapolis ~~ Percent of Renter Households With Vouchers ^ Richfield's Housing Assets: Dpportuni~y at Every Door 19 0 1% 2% 3% 4% S% 6% 7% 8% "'I ~_ 0 ~_ N C .~-r ~_ ~T_ N ~_ 0 J+ ~ ~ XERXES 31 p0 WASHBURN 3000 VINCENT 2900 ~~ LIPTON 2900 THOMAS npo SHERIDAN 2600 RUSSELL 2500 QUEEN zaoo PENN 2300 OLNER 2200 NEWTON 2100 MORGAN 2000 LOGAN ts00 I\\~ ~~/ KNOX 7900 ~J JAMES 1~W IRVING 1so0 HUMBOLDT 15W ~~ GIRARD 1a00 FREMONT 1300 a EMERSON 1200 ~~ DUPONT 1100 COLFAX loop LL~[L]L(~~ BRYANT gpp ~I II IlTm 11 ALDRICH Boo LYNUALE 700 GARFIELD sop '`~~ ~~ HARRIET Spa FL-hL~LJ®~ GRAND app PLEASANT Sop PILLSBURY top ~~E WENTWORTH 100 E BLAISDELL ~ ~®E NICOLLET OOp ®~ ,s1 ,pp ~rE STEVENS 12a ~E 2nd 200 ~~ 3rd 300 ~~~Tf~11 CLINTON aza ~~ 4th Opp ~ ~ B 5th 500 PORTLAND Epp OAKLAND 620 ®~~I PARK 700 ~Q COLUMBUS 720 ®Iff~ CHICAGO 800 ®11 ELLIOT sop ~~ 10th 1000 ®[~[ 11th 1100 IIIIIII U LL 12th 1200 ~ rrTrn-,,, 13th 1300 14th 1a0~ II-IT- 15th 1500 ~ ® " BLOOMINGTON 152a ®~ 16th 1600 ~ ~ LLl 17th 17W r~r 18th 1900 > CEDAR lsoo _' s ~ _- n V m N Oi O1 Oi ti ., N ~ ~ s ~ z a ~ a n LLW1111111 ® LQ~~L T~J~7~T~~ IIII~] IIIIIIIIII® m m XERXES 17J LL C7 C7 WASHBURN JT J S] VINCENT LIPTON THOMAS SHERIDAN RUSSELL N O QUEEN T,TID~IiTIfJ~f', p ~Il7 ft rl PENN g Tl®[f~-~ s OLIVER 1111111®I ITT1 ~ NEWTON 9[Tr®Pll(TTIITPTI MORGAN ~~ LOGAN ~ III 9~ "~i~~~i III III III III KNOX ~1 ®~ JAMES O 3®® IRVING ~ ~(TTiJII J ~~ LL77 HUMBOLDT J® ® GIRARD ~ FREMONT . O EMERSON ~T[TJ DUPONT ®JL~W ' COLFAX J m ® BRYANT O [77T ALDRICH LYNDALE O ® GARFIELD N ® (R7J ® HARRIET T F7l1TTT1l ~ GRAND ®~ ®®® ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ a .. ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ n ]~ PLEASANT O 1® PILLSBURY ( ~ a+~ 1 A 1® WENTWORTH 1® 1 BLAISDELL NICOLLET ~ ,st ~ TLTfTfI 11~i 1LII~ STEVENS .. 2nd _ ~ 3rd ~ CLINTON ~ O ~ ] 1111111 4th . 5th / /A //` PORTLAND ,} OAKLAND PARK O COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELLIOT ~"~~ 10th O ® 11th ® 12th N ® 13th 14th LLILL~JJly 15th ~~ BLOOMINGTON - 16th 17th 18th CEDAR J J Z J n > XERXES XERXES s10a IQ- p~rrr fllJ~~q ®~ ®Q~ ®n ®~LI~Lll1l WASHBURN 3000 C[~~,~-I--I®® ~Ii~IIT®7 ~r~~~® WASHBURN TI Z VINCENT 2900 ~Q'~Q~~(~~{`TTC7~y(-((~y7~7{~~~1 ® D~~y-~TyTy1~y7 ~~®I-~~ ~® VINCENT (7 ~ UPTON 2800 """"~TT~T77~7TT~T~~~~i ®~ ~i I~~.~ ~ ~J UPTON _~ ~ THOMAS 2700 ®"""~"' ®~ ®® ® rrylT~fii}}Ty1~~~q ~1T-~1~~rr~yl ~ THOMAS (~ 0 ~®®®® ~`~"-"-`""~ SHERIDAN Q SHERIDAN 26x0 ~~ ®rTj~(A II~~JJII T ~ RUSSELL 2500 ®(T(TTT~¶ ®®~il(]U~~r`_'J~~`7LLL7® RUSSELL N fTTI f I I I J CIIiii WiuWLll o ~ OUEEN Q ~ OUEEN 2400 ~® ®®®®~ ~ O PENN 2300 r~-Ty~~{---T~1~-y ~Q ~T~] ~J ~~[ ] '' PENN C7 (Q OLIVER 2200 '~'-`-`-~ ~ ®~ ®I I I I I I I I I I I IJ~ I I ®I~ffiT®®I~~~I W.ll ~ N l l 11111 ~1~TiT1ji{~ ~ ~ NEWTON 2100 ~ ®®®®®kt-{~®®Lllllllllil®~ NEWTON f1~f1~fT1~f1~~T~f1~ WW Q~ MORGAN MORGAN 2000 ® ®®®®~~1 ~ ®®~ ®U-LLLLU-U Q- = LOGAN i900 ®~®®ffig-~ fI~T1~lT~®~[~ LOGAN ~ KNOX te00 ~TT~T(1®~m Ilan ln1®II ®®®w1L~w® KNOX m~ JAMES 1700 I~I71~-~~f[{~~~{~IlL1]J'~~Il ll fl~l ~"~i~1 JAMES `I ~ ~~ I~J~}~®®®® F~TIIIIII®®® IRVING IRVING 1EW ~ILJ ~f~f~ ®®®®~® CD ~+ HUMBOLDT fA ~ HUMBOLDT laoo ~~-1 ~®]~[®,q®~ ~BT7TP®®®®® GIRARD O T ~ GIRARD 1400 ~y W.Wlllll®II IIII I/~ ~1~~ ®®®® i 3 ~ FREMONT 1300 a ~ `~P~{. FREMONT O .-t EMERSON iz00 ~,~ ®®® EMERSON ~ ~ DUPONT 1100 ~~®® ~(Tl DUPONT ~~D ~®~ GGLFAX ~ ~• COLFAX 1000 ~ ®~TT~~ii~~TTiiT~7~~ W BRYANT 900 ®®`~[lD ®~~ ~I BRYANT O //1 ALDRICH 800 ® ALDRICH ~ iii ®~~® ~ ~ ~ LYNDALE 100 T-1 ~®[~®®® IµT~{J,~Jµ,,1.~_SI~IIr, [~~fITTI LVNDALE ~ v r-r GARFIELD so0 ~ ~ Lllllilllll~]®~~-~~ ®~® GnRF~E~o i+/ < HARRIET s00 ]® ~ii ®®® ~®~ HARRIET ~ GRAND a0o ~fTTTffTT1~~ ~®®® GRAND ~ O PLEASANT 300 ~~qq IILT~IT~T II II II m PLEASANT ®®®®L~~ ~1J®® ®®~ PILLSBURY PILLSBURY 200 ~®®~®~f I III IIIIIIII~I ~. ®®® WENTWORTH 100 ~®®®®11111 IL ®® ®®® WENTWORTH /1 BLAISDELL 60 \ ®®®®® ®uf I I®IIII ~.]®® BLAISDELL \~~ NICOLIET WO L~ (IIII L~III NSCOLLET 1st too ®®®~[®~®]~ ~®~ STEVENS tea ®®®IIII~W1i~J.!~WjLW.JJ_W ®®®L 1L1~ LLLLI STEVENS ®®®~ ~J ~ fI~I ,T;] CI®~®TT7 ®I.1m.J.1JJ~1L T~~JT.f1Jt ~ /~~, 2nd 200 ®F~D~ ~ ® ® ~ I T ! i i ' 1 [L'T~,T~L' W' t~YI 1 ~1®LLLLL.UJJ_LW.W 2nd TI /\~I 3rd 300 ~y~~yk~ ®~T~j®~j~~QQ~~ ~T~ Qom?®QTT~?iiTTTT;;T~!]] ®~7r rrrr n TT"~(1~"1®LLLWJ_L ~ ~'~~ ' 1 ~ ~ 3rd //AV \ V CLINTON 324 I~J~IIII~~.TIh®®fI IITIIII®®~~ CLINTON •QV 1 4th aoo ~~T]1 ~ ~ flail l l l l l II~F''TCT~~T`1L~,~ `1TT~tt~iTt11J ~ C~Tr~I~~H41T1fI{--T1~~~;T~1~n~I I~~~`.T,`T`T'7`T`-~1II® 4th ~A• ~' /^1 5th 500 [__C71 ~ ~T®I~7T~~ jj ®®L-LLLIL((l~~-TT-TT-~~L""LI~~IL~ ~®q L~1j]1.Q~111 I_I1~1f[11JtTJ] 1llJ_J~ 5th V /O `iW PORTLAND 600 ®IIIIIIIII®~®IIT11 IT1 ~71.IJ III VIII 111®® PORTLAND ~ O OAKLAND 620 I~(~' r~ ry~yTtl~tt7ry~ill OAKLAND < PARK 700 ®~ ®®®rrn i r~~~r}~H®T}T}f}~{ ~T®T~1~T®~.."""'-" ~~}tTtt®~IttTy COLUMBUS 720 ®®®®®®(~TTu~'-~LT-[J~a'®~j~111111 fii®"""" PARK CHICAGO 600 ®®®®®®~.1J fL[ II~~III ITT®®®® COLUMBUS /}~ s00 ~®®®®®®I ~III~'IfI~~IT~;TI ICr~I IffI~pII~TT~7TT''"TT~~® ELLIOT O •i/~1i ELL10th loco ®®®®®® Q~JJJ W 7_I-~J_I] ~1ll.i ® 10th 11th 1100 ®~~T®fTT71~®®IIII III lili IIIIIIff7f1i1TlTTl ITi'l7l]l®!"fTTI®T~ 11th 12th 1200 ®LI IIIIIII~®~~'(®~(~TT~~T~® ~~TT~TTT~~TTii~~®~~~{T~T~{~T{[~1~~µ~T{~T~r~®ITTTRI i I ~~T~T~[®~7®~~ 12th ®®®®~TIII] ®~L1i111 LLW1ll1tJ LL LLllW ®® I~I71~ ITjI ICI LLL1J~-LLLj' Imo[]®~]~ ~ I I \ 13th 13th 1300 ~~ ®®~ fTTT1T1'jl f fl?1~fID TffTlit." lTIIffii~I ®®C~Il7lI I1 I I I I I I al]_Ll1_Li 14th t 400 3 ®® ~ ®® LL1L~1L 11 I~J~J ®®~ i I 14th 15th t 500 ~ I ®~TT~~[p1 ~T,~1T11I f~y~ ®RTT!1T~,' ~ ~ ~ frTTR?7 fffTTT~ ~®~ I 15th BLOOMINGTON tsza ~ f~T~IRfIIR"II fl illllll',I~~Illll,ld l~~l~i~®fTT~i J~_®1;TII'IIT1'(~(1TTTIIDL~~ BLOOMINGTON 16th 7s00 ~L.1 ®®~®~ ~®®jl 111111®I®HI~]I~IlIUL~D'J®LI11L,_1J 16th lCGG_ ,h~~J,,,,~(~ `O V 17th 1700 ®®®~~r~-r~T~ W.1J1LlJJJ.LV~® (T_®~ ®~ ®~j 17th 18th 1600 ° ~~ ®L-WJ ®y' \ ' I I ITl I ~C, ~ ®®® 18th CEDAR ts0o ~~' I III IL ~ I I'i11~ ~J®J~ ®®® CEDAR a z ~ ~ ~ ~ n .. ~ s ~ ~ S ~ s n a O ~ \. N Z !/`~/~ J O AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 3C 42 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a contract with Architectural Consortium for the services of Kathy Anderson. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a contract with Architectural Consortium for the services of Kathy Anderson to assist with design services related to the Cedar Corridor redevelopment project. II. BACKGROUND Kathy Anderson, President of Architectural Consortium, is recognized in the retail industry as a creative force in designing and master planning retail /mixed-use developments. Her 20 years of experience and talent as an architect has won numerous design and development awards in commercial retail projects. The potential relocation of the City's liquor store from Cedar Avenue to an alternative location along 66th Street, west of the current site necessitates the formulation of site planning and parcel configurations for the area south of 66tH Street between Cedar Avenue and 16th Avenue. A contract for Ms. Anderson's 112105PSA -Architectural Consortium services would be desirable. The proposal for Ms. Anderson's services is attached. The task is about connecting all of the potential uses and buildings in an integrated and attractive manner. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY , The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), City Council, Planning Commission, staff and the broad community have all expressed a desire for quality design. The HRA approved the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan in 2004, which designates the Cedar and 66th Street as a "Gateway" to the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The services of a recognized design professional for site layout and configuration are needed to help ensure success. C. FINANCIAL Funds in the amount of $10,000 are available to pay Ms. Anderson from the HRA's Development Account. This should be an adequate sum, but it is extremely difficult to assess the amount of time required for this design. effort, D. LEGAL The contract is the standard form used by the HRA for undertakings such as is being proposed. IV. ALTERNATIVE IZECOMMENDATION~S~ Do not authorize the contract. Delay consideration. V. ATTACHMENTS Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Architectural Consortium Professional Services THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "HRA", and Architectural Consortium LLC. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA wishes to purchase the services of Architectural Consortium LLC; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the HRA and Architectural Consortium LLC agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT Architectural Consortium LLC agrees to furnish urban design services to the HRA for the Cedar Avenue Corridor redevelopment. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $10,000 unless amended by the HRA. All reports, memos, and other data produced by Architectural Consortium LLC become the property of the H RA. 2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to Architectural Consortium LLC by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the HRA to determine the line item task being completed. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the HRA. 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Architectural Consortium LLC shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the HRA. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between Architectural Consortium LLC and the HRA or as constituting Architectural Consortium LLC as the agent, representative, or .employee of the HRA for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Architectural Consortium LLC is to be and shall remain an independent contractor. with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium Architectural Consortium LLC represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of Architectural Consortium LLC or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the HRA, and shall not be considered employees of the HRA. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment,. including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Architectural Consortium LLC, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the HRA. Architectural Consortium LLC shall defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, agents, -and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the HRA, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION The HRA operates in accordance with the City of Richfield's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance. status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Architectural Consortium LLC shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A). 5. .INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE Architectural Consortium LLC agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of Architectural Consortium LLC, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of Architectural Consortium LLC to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium 6. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY Architectural Consortium LLC agrees that the HRA, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, .audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of Architectural Consortium LLC and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The HRA agrees to give Architectural Consortium LLC access to data collected or maintained by the HRA as necessary to perform Architectural Consortium LLC's obligations .under this contract. Architectural Consortium LLC agrees to maintain all data obtained from the HRA consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et se . (the "Act"). Architectural Consortium LLC will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the HRA. Architectural Consortium LLC agrees to defend and indemnify the HRA from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted against HRA as a result of Architectural Consortium LLC 's failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph; provided that Architectural Consortium LLC shall have no duty to defend or indemnify where the Architectural Consortium LLC has acted in conformance with the HRA's written directions. Upon termination of this contract, Architectural Consortium LLC agrees to return data to the HRA, as requested by the HRA. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT Architectural Consortium LLC shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the HRA. 9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the. parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium b. Any, material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If Architectural Consortium LLC fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the HRA, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The HRA's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. .This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of Architectural Consortium LLC with the activities of the HRA so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Patrick Smith, Community Development Manager shall manage this contract on behalf of the H RA. In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between Architectural Consortium LLC and HRA staff. Architectural Consortium LLC may also report directly to the HRA. 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium Notices shall be sent as follows: Community Development Department Patrick Smith, Community Development Manager City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Kathy Anderson Architectural Consortium LLC 901 North Third Street, Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Architectural Consortium LLC having signed this contract, and the HRA having duly approved this contract on , 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the: proper HRA officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Thomas E. Harms Chairperson By: Steven L. Devich Its: Executive Director ARCHITECTURAL. CONSORTIUM LLC By: Its Kathy Anderson President 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium EXHIBIT A AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS On January 1, 1988, the Richfield City Council approved an affirmative action program which requires the City "to provide equality of opportunity in employment to all person and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, place of residents, political affiliation, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sex, or age in all aspects of the City's personnel policies, programs, and practices". The program further requires that the City support the various relationships with contractors, subcontracts and vendors. Therefore, requirements have been adopted for contracts as follows: a. The contractor shall submit a signed statement (Exhibit B) signifying that they are in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment. Opportunity Act. b. In accordance with the City of Richfield's Affirmative Action policy, no person shall, on the ground of race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity for which the parties received, or will receive financial assistance under the provisions of any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination. The contractor will furnish alt information and reports if required by the City of Richfield or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No: 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the State of Minnesota for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. c. 1971. Minnesota Statutes 181.59 is made a part of this contract. See Exhibit C. 081505 Contract-Westwood EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for Architectural Consortium LLC, hereby states that Architectural Consortium LLC is in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Dated: By: Its: 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium EXHIBIT C 181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT. Every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school- board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. History: 1941 c 238; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 609 s 11 112105PSA-Architectural Consortium AGENDA ITEM # ~$ REPORT # 41 STAFF REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Consideration to continue the collaborative effort between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Greater Metropolitan. Housing Corporation to deliver housing programs and services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the continuation of the contract with the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to deliver housing aroarams and services.. II BACKGROUND I The Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) specializes in a variety of housing programs and services. GMHC's partnership with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) began in 2004 and ensures a full offering of housing programs and services for the 9,500 Richfield homeowners. To summarize: Richfield HRA GMHC • Transformation Loans • Home Improvement loans (higher income: substantial (middle income remodeling) remodeling) GMHC Deferred Loans (lower income remodeling) Advisor service for above • Construction Management Advisor service for above In 2005, GMHC has provided 138 different services to 104 Richfield residents. GMHC responds to the following identified needs in Richfield: • Richfield needs more MHFA lenders to provide financial resources not being offered by local lenders. GMHC is an approved MHFA lender and offers construction assistance, a service traditional lenders do not provide. • Resources are insufficient to provide more than one or two first-time homebuyer homes per year on a scattered site basis (Habitat, Project for Pride in Living, Hennepin Tech). GMHC has the construction expertise and resources to expand first-time homebuyer buying opportunities There are gaps in services that can be filled with a continued partnership including incentive loans for small amounts of remodeling. Richfield's successful advisor services and one-stop shopping for resources and information serves all homeowners. GMHC has developed new programs like "Senior Housing Regeneration Program" where they buy single family homes from seniors that need to sell, rehabilitate the home, then sell the home to a first-time homebuyers III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. PoLicY The HRA is a leader in collaborative efforts to provide housing programs and services. A partnership between the HRA and GMHC ensures the most rehabilitation resources available to the most homeowner. New opportunities are available because of the partnership, particularly in the area of new and rehabilitated homes for modest income homeowners. B, CRITICAL ISSUES Actions to support more remodeling activity and access to good advice and financial capital are needed. This fall, every homeowner is receiving GMHC information in their water bill. With GMHC, Richfield homeowners receive the most comprehensive support and program offerings in the most cost-effective manner. GMHC offers their package of programs and services in 17 Metro area communities. Richfield needs to offer similar services to remain competitive. C. FINANCIAL The cost for services are $20,000 in 2005 and 2006. Resources are provided in the approved HRA budget in the Rehabilitation Program. Contact with other. communities that participate with GMHC confirm a similar cost for services. D. LEGAL The contract is similar in form and content to the initial contract reviewed by legal counsel IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ The HRA can choose to modify the scope of services, modify the amount, or not provide the services being proposed. V. ATTACHMENTS I Agreement Program Brochure VI PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT entered into the 1st day of January, 2006, by and between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority hereinafter referred to as the HRA, and the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority desires to hire the Consultant to render certain technical, professional, and marketing assistance in connection with such undertakings of the HRA. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide technical rehabilitation advisory services, loan administration and fundraising for the Programs as follows: A. Provide Housing Resource Center services, as directed by the HRA, to residents of Richfield out of its HousingResource Center - Southside office'with scheduled visits to residences when needed and providing staff at City Hall as needed. These services include the following: 1. Administer home improvement programs including the MHFA Fix Up Fund, Community Fix Up Fund, the MHFA Rental Rehab program and the MHFA Rehabilitation Loan Program; 2. Provide construction management services including home. inspections to homeowners considering rehabilitation, preparing scopes of work, educating homeowners on the construction bid process, evaluating bids and work completed to ensure quality and cost effective renovations and monitoring the construction process; 3. Provide housing information to residents including information on emergency assistance, housing rehabilitation, first time homebuyers and limited rental information; 4. Assist the HRA in developing programs to purchase and rehabilitate homes. Term. This Agreement shall be effective from January 1, 2006 and shall continue through December 31, 2006. This Agreement can be terminated by either party with a 30-day notice. III. Compensation. The fee for service by the Consultant will be $20,000. Payment of such fee shall be made by invoice from GMHC. IV. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall obtain and maintain workers compensation, comprehensive general .liability, and automobile liability insurance. Comprehensive general liability insurance shall have an aggregate limit of $2,000,000. Upon request by the HRA, the Consultant shall provide a certificate or certificates of insurance relating to the insurance required. V. Indemnification. Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party and it's officials, agents, and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) arising out of any action of such parties in the performance of this Contract. VI. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, sublet, or transferred without the written consent of the HRA. VII. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant agrees to immediately alert the Executive Director of possible contractual conflicts of interest in representing the HRA, as well as properly owners or developers on the same project. Conflicts of interest may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. THIS AGREEMENT was adopted by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment. Authority on the day of , 20_. ATTEST: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority ItS Chair Its Executive Director THIS AGREEMENT was accepted by day of , 20_. on the WITNESSES: GREATER METROPOLITAN HOUSING CORPORATION, a nonprofit Minnesota corporation Its President ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t = ~ ~ ~ h o a= ~ °'V 3 ~ = V ,,,, ~' ~. ~ ~,~ .~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~ ~~ O O _ ~• ~ ~ ~ V ~ t~ ~°' ~ ZV oV ~~ y .... ° a, o N ~ N ~ L ~ ~ N N y` V a.+ N 0 ~ rn~ ~-o~o(B 3';~~~YUm~ g~m~o~~3~ -~ v N ~ ~ ~'~Z3 U,N ~~~~ o z~ ,~ i~V o ~ o ~ p~cn i U m o ~ ~ ~• .,_,.: ~ v ~zz ~ Off= N ~ cBO•~~ca pcomzm Cm~' ~ O ~ ~ ~ ;~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ p U ~ ~~~ N ~ ~ ~ o ~ .N N ~ fl. C .~ Q ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ S/1 •~ ~ U ~ •iq o 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ O = ~-Q~~~ vim'=m~~ ~ j.~° .tic ~~ Q L~~ y~ N ti o~ «s o ;'a N ~ ~ ~ N v c ~~ O,~ !3 M U N_p ~ N ti N~ N p•~ ~. Z ,~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sg m O C -p ~ O N ~ ~ C .Y L nm X3-0 a N O ~ N ~, U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C 0 _ ~ (D ~ -a C O N _ .> O E ~ N C ~ c ~ o o ~ L _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -F-~ c ~ ~ p -~ N . ~ U Y.. 3 .. J N ~_.. C C U N 0 N y O 'C ~ N ~ ~ t0 ~~p~o~ n N o v, a ~6 vi " ~ ~ o c ~ c a ~ N ~ ~ p ~ ~ O L E n O ~ N~ ~ ~ ~ Q L .Q ~ r0. O ~ ~_ O _ Y~ ~ N O T a~ ! N~ C O O d N t0 E ~ O rr ~ rV _ C , C } r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C O f4 N ~ ~., L C C -O N O Y•~ V O ~ c ~ T E (6 ~ ~ v i p_ (0 _ ~ yy.~~ //~'~ _ WSJ ~ ~ O ~ N O ~ L N ~ ~ Q' rn ro ~ O ~ ~ ~~~ o a~ '~ o ~ ~- >. a~ v ~ O ~ ' c E ~ o io .o rn c ~ ca ~a .C = E N N N 0 ° n o~ cn 0 ~ E . o t ~ .C O ~ L ~ ~ (6 c G1 m ~ p- ~ ~_ ~ c O = .F+ '~f C L. N > ~ p N ' c ~ U p ~~ a a 3 0 3 V ~ C ~ .~ ~ °~ ~°-' c L L ~ ~ C ~ ~ o g'~ ~ p ~' ~~~ ~ N V d ~ U > _ ~_°' ~ ~ p N U ^ '' vI ~ O 0.. ~ ~ C w ~ Q L d ~ Q na ~ Q ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ M O V (0 ~ O O O O j (0' Q~ L O ~ U C N~ ~ T O cJ ~ 3 0 ~ 0 ~,~~ ~ = c ~ a> m C = lL ~ r ~ n. 7 Q~ fA ~ N ~ 0 C .i.: >' U X X 'O ~~ . ~ p ~ ~ C O L C d~ >+ ~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ C X y ~ o o j ~ O .. _~ 0 _ bo a o~~oa~~ W '= ~ 41 ~ r ~ O J ~ Q O ~ O ''~ O '_ ~ C ~ t6 ~ ~ ~ O >, N N >, ~ ~ N C ~ N ~ W ~ ~ ~ (d O" O 7 ~ _ O i ~ ~Z W w S O S a' O ~ ~; K ~ rc ~..~ N ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ '^ ,^ ~ ~-' O N V J ~ N. ° ~ ~ ~ Q~ O ~ ~ ~ t 6 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ . ~ _ L i N~ .L ~ ~""' ~ O N E .U VJ O Q, ~ • -^^• ~ (L5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ O ++ N (0 O V C (B i.... ' = ~ C Q Q~' fn~ ;~ ~ fl) ~ N•~ .~ ~ LL1 ~ ~ O (n O ~ ~ O ~ E O~~ O O O - 0 ~ ~ Uj a ~ E ~ O o ], ,-~ .n ~E ~a~ O ~ ~ V J ° •'J ~ (~ o O ~'~~-~~ ~ ~ ' ~C`~- '-' O~(~ ~ ° ~ C '~ L ~L~ ° ° ..C T Irk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ '° L ~ ~ ~C ~ ° ~ y_ ~ L O t- U 'gin o . ~ N N O E Q. ao C L ` ~_. c~ c~ / ° O a ~" 0 0 C ~ T C N ~ ~ d C ~ ~ ~ C N EA Q O o ~ ~ .C ii ~ ~ ~ _ co o ~ ~ ~ lL ~ . O ~ ~ ~ C C ~ 01 C ~. - d 7 7 C ~ 'O .= O C O O O O ,.-Ea~~~ T d O ~ O N C E 0- + ~+ W ~ N N N O 4- (~0 7. N ~ E O O ~ +' 3 O C ~ ~ .N C O ~ K ~ c6 »= w {d ~ L C L 777 = ~ fR ~ 3 W W W W W O L ~ ~ E ~ O ~ p + ~ G1 s. C C ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ :=' O ~ N '- t V ~ OL ~ ~ O ~ N O ~ E '~ Q O ~ . N ..r ~ M N U1 ~ O L ~ ~- 0 Q C ~ (9 ~ . ~; cn = 0 O 0 - N C O O ~ Q ~ U V ~ ~ ~ O L N ~ ~ •> _ ~' ~ ~ ~ Q ~ L. .. ~ ~ _ CC O ~ d ~ Q L L d V V L O L C .y O AGENDA ITEM # 3p, REPORT # CFO ~~ STAFF REPORT ~ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KELLY BERG, HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR R REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE NAME, TITLE .ITEM FOR HRA CONSIDERATION: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Dave Schaffer for remodeling advisor services. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached Professional Services Agreement with Dave Schaffer for remodelin advisor services. II BACKGROUND I Dave Schaffer has provided remodeling advisory services for the residents of Richfield for the past 12 years. In this capacity he provides information, makes home visits, provides lender contacts and helps homeowners with their remodeling plans. Besides advisory services to Richfield residents, Mr. Schaffer also provides housing inspection services. These services have included property inspections and specification. writing for the Richfield Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program, cost estimation, and staff training. For the last two years Mr. Schaffer has been compensated by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) at $60.00 an hour for advisory services he provides. It is proposed that there be two different levels of compensation, 112105 PSA Dave Schaffer depending on the type of service he provides; $70.00 per hour for remodeling advisory services and $85.00 per hour for the more extensive and technical housing rehabilitation services like inspections and specification writing. The compensation rate would increase as of January 1, 2006. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY To enhance the quality of housing stock and minimize obsolescence and deterioration, it is necessary to actively encourage homeowners to remodel. The Remodeling Advisor is the foundation for all the HRA's remodeling program efforts. Dave Schaffer is a valued asset to the City and Richfield residents. He has performed very satisfactorily for the City for the past 12 years. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The hourly rate is consistent with the rate provided to independent contractors by other communities who receive similar services. C. FINANCIAL The HRA's approved budget will support this additional cost which for 2006 is estimated at approximately $11,000. Of this amount, $10,000 is from CDBG sources and $1,000 is from the HRA General Fund. D. LEGAL The form of Professional. Services Agreement typically used by the HRA has been prepared., IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ Modify. or do not approve the Professional Services Agreement with Dave Schaffer. `I. ATTACHMENTS Professional Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DAVID SCRAPPER THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "HRA", and David Schaffer, hereinafter referred to as "SCRAPPER". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the HRA wishes to purchase the services of SCHAFFER; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the HRA and SCRAPPER agree as follows: 1. TERMS -AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT SCRAPPER agrees to furnish services to the HRA as indicated on the attached Exhibit A dated November 21, 2005. The hourly cost of those services listed as Advisory services shall be $70.00 per hour. The hourly cost of those services listed as Inspection Services shall be $85.00 per hour. Should additional services be required, the datamroduced by SCRAPPER become the property lof reports, memos, and p the HRA. 2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to SCRAPPER by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the HRA to determine the line itemvoi a bet the HRAetPayment shall be made wthin 130 days days of receipt of an in y of receipt of an invoice by the HRA. 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SHAFFER shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the HRA. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between SCRAPPER and the HRA or as constituting SCHAFFER as the agent, representative, or employee of the HRA for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. SCHAFFER is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. SCHAFFER represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of SCHAFFER or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the HRA, and shall not be considered employees of the HRA. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against SCHAFFER, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in noway be the responsibility of the HRA. SCHAFFER shall defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the HRA, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION The HRA operates in accordance-with the City of Richfield's policies against discrimination. No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. SCHAFFER shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the HRA's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall-comply with the HRA's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting (See Exhibit A). 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE SCHAFFER agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the HRA, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from a negligent act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of SCHAFFER, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of SCHAFFER to fully performance in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 2 g. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY SCHAFFER agrees that the HRA, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they. may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of SCHAFFER and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 7. DATA PRACTICES COMPLIANCE This contract is governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 13.05, subds. 6 and 11, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference into this contract. The HRA agrees to give SCHAFFER access to data collected or maintained by the HRA as necessary to perform SCHAFFER obligations under this contract. SCHAFFER agrees to maintain all data obtained from the HRA consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 13.02 et se . (the "Act"). SCHAFFER will not release or disclose the contents of data classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the HRA. SCHAFFER agrees to defend and indemnify the HRA from any claim, liability, damage or loss asserted against HRA as a result of SCHAFFER failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph; provided that SCHAFFER shall have no duty to defend or indemnify where the SCHAFFER has acted in conformance with the HRA's written directions. Upon termination of this contract, SCHAFFER agrees to return data to the HRA, as requested by the HRA. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT SCHAFFER shalt not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the HRA. g. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject -matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 3 10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If SCRAPPER fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the HRA, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The HRA's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of SCHAFFER with the activities of the HRA so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Bruce Palmborg, Director of Community Development, shall manage this contract on behalf of the HRA. In addition, from time to time, meetings shall be held between SCHAFFER and HRA staff. SCHAFFER may also report directly to the HRA. 4 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices shall be sent as follows: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority ATTN: Bruce Palmborg Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dave Schaffer 9500 South Robert Trail Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 SCAFFER having signed this contract, and the HRA having duly approved this contract on November 21, 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper HRA officials .having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN ANF FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Thomas E. Harms Its: ,Chairperson By: Steven L. Devich Its: Executive Director DAVID SCHAFFER By: Its: David Schaffer Principal 5 EXHIBIT A November 21, 2005 SCRAPPER shall perform the following advisory services: Meet with homeowners at their home to assist with the following: a. Property evaluation survey documented on written survey form. b. Identify and discuss needs, wants, and design considerations. c. `Prepare an Action Plan outlining initial scope of work with general cost estimates. d. Explain program procedures and lending information. 2. Follow-up contact after initial homeowner visits to monitor progress. Provide remodeling information to keep homeowners fully informed. 3. Be available to assist homeowner through the various program stages leading to a signed construction agreement. This may include additional design and technical assistance and contractor selection. 4. Be available to attend Open House functions, Remodeling Fair and other promotional events. 5. Meet with various businesses and community groups as requested to promote and implement programs. 6. Submit quarterly written report to the HRA documenting measurable objectives which include: a. Number of homeowners calls made and received. b. Number of homeowner visits. c. Number of information only calls. SNAPPER shall perform the following. inspection services: Conduct housing rehabilitation activities including property inspections, writing Scopes of Work, and project management as requested by HRA staff. EXHIBIT B AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS On January 1, 1988, the Richfield HRA Council approved an affirmative action program which requires the HRA "to provide equality of opportunity in employment to all person and to prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, place of residents, political affiliation, disability, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sex, or age in all aspects of the HRA's personnel policies, programs, and practices". The program further requires that the HRA support the various relationships with contractors, subcontracts and vendors. Therefore, requirements have been adopted for contracts as follows: a. The contractor shall submit a signed statement (Exhibit B) signifying that they are in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. b. In accordance with the HRA of Richfield's Affirmative Action policy, no person shall, on the ground of-race, creed, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity for which the parties received, or will receive financial assistance under the provisions of any and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination. The contractor will furnish all information and reports if required by the HRA of Richfield or by Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No. 4, and by the rules and regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor or the State of Minnesota for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. c. 1971 Minnesota Statutes 181.59 is made a part of this contract. See Exhibit C. EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned, in his/her capacity as agent for SCRAPPER, hereby states that SCRAPPER is in compliance with the standards of equal employment and anti- discrimination as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Dated: BY~ Its: EXHIBIT D 181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT. Every contract for or on behalf of the State of Minnesota, or any county, HRA, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified. in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, HRA, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. History: 1941 c 238; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 609 s 11