The URL can be used to link to this page

01-22-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HEREDIA ROOM 6:15 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Interview of persons interested in serving on City's advisory commissions Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. . AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Roll call Approval of minutes. of (1) Special Joint Civil Service Commission/City Council Meeting of January 4, 2001; (2) Special City Council Meeting of January 5, 2001; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of January 8, 2001; (4) Special City Council Meeting of January 10, 2001; and (5) Special City Council Meeting of January 11, 2001 PRESENTATIONS 1. Update on proposed Crosstownll-35W road improvements 2. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes) Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Additional opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda will be at the end of this meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Notes: :.AGENDA-APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by 'the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are .recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of purchase of five new squad cars from Superior Ford, Inc. in amount of $105,755 S.R. No. 24 B. Consideration of approval of temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement, itinerant food and public dance licenses with fees waived for Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street, annual Sno-Ball family event on January 27, 2001 S.R. No. 25 C. Consideration of approval of resolution pertaining to filing of Pay Equity Report with Minnesota Department of Employee Relations S.R. No. 26 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 5. Consideration of appointments to fill expiring or vacant terms on City's advisory commissions Staff Report No. 27 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Continuation of November 27, 2000 public hearing and consideration of resolution modifying Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and .modifying Tax Increment Financing Plans for Gramercy Tax Increment Financing .:-Oistract; l~rban Village Tax Increrraent-F-inancing:.D~strict,.-Richfiead-Redis~cov~r~ed 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, A-5 Tax Increment Financing District, and B-5 Tax Increment Financing District Staff Report No. 28 Notes: 7. Public hearing -and consideration of resolution adopting modification to Tax -- Increment Financing Plan for Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax .Increment Financing District Staff Report No. 29 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8. Consideration of resolution authorizing acquisition of 6444 Clinton Avenue and first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of property to HRA for rehabilitation Staff Report No. 30 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS. 9. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 7039 Fifth Avenue; four cats Staff Report No. 31 Notes: 10. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 7412 Colfax Avenue; four dogs Staff Report No. 32 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS • 11. Airport-status-report Notes: HRA BUSINESS 12. Housing and Redevelopment Authority report Notes: 13. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes) Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. . COUNCIL CHOICE 14. Council discussion items Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls 16. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 3 2 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 ~~ REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ r~_Jj J 'rp SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ /~~G~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Gary and Stacy Berres, 7412 Colfax Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny a request for a new residential kennel license for Ga and Stac Berres, 7412 Colfax Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2000, Gary and Stacy Berres submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. They own four dogs. Mr. and Mrs. Berres' application contains the signatures of three contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on November 9, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Staff received three phone calls regarding this application. Two calls were opposed to the issuance of a license. The concerns included issues with barking and general upkeep of the property. Staff did not initiate a mediation session because opposed neighbors were not interested in mediating. The third caller had no issues 0122BerresKennelLicense with -the applicants' animals and was in favor of the issuance of the requested license. Environmental Health staff has not received any complaints for this address. The Public Safety Police Division has not received any complaints for this address. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Responses were received from three neighbors: two opposed, one in favor of issuing the license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. • Staff. has been unable to determine if Mr. and Mrs. Berres have proven that the keeping of more than two dogs would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gary and Stacy Berres • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 31 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ . ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Patricia Jallen, 7039 Fifth Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny a request for a new residential kennel license for Patricia Jallen, 7039 Fifth Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 5, 2000, Patricia Jallen submitted ah application for a new residential kennel license. She owns four cats. Ms. Jallen's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on November 6, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. This property has a history of Environmental Health complaints and was recently placarded as uninhabitable due to accumulation of trash and debris. Animal feces did not appear to be a contributing factor to the trash and debris. 0122JaIlenKennelLicense . III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received two phone calls regarding this application. Both calls were agreeable to the issuance of the requested license. Both callers stated that they never see the cats outside and that they don't seem to be any sort of nuisance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. • Staff has been unable to determine if Ms. Jallen has proven that the keeping of more than two cats would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Patricia Jallen • L~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 Prop. Ordinance 8 30 PAMELA BOOKHOUT, REPORT PREPARED BY: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAn~E, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:. /~ , ~~%~C-~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing acquisition of 6444 Clinton Avenue and first reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of the property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for rehabilitation. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the purchase of real property located at 6444 Clinton Avenue and conduct the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for rehabilitation. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has redeveloped sites under the New Home Program with affordable housing for low to moderate income families for over 20 years. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines low income as at or below 80 percent of the median income, for example $45,200 annually for a family of three. Homes developed under this program, whether remodeled or built new, are sold to families meeting that definition. In order to fully utilize federal funding for acquisition, the City must purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to re-sell at the appropriate time. The City would use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for this acquisition. 01226444-Clinton The existing property is a 976 sq. ft. rambler that is in good structural condition. The owner of the property died in October 1999. The family has asked the City and HRA if the home could become part of a program to help out another person in need of affordable housing. The purchase price of the property has been determined to be $126,000 based on an independent appraisal report.. A potential buyer has been identified who meets income requirements, and is seeking an accessible home. Improvements are yet to be determined, but likely will include general updates such as new siding and electrical repairs, as well as remodeling the kitchen, bath and entrances for accessibility. CDBG funds will also go towards improvements. No City general funds would be used. It is anticipated that the City could acquire the property by the end of February. Sale of the property to the HRA could occur by the end of March 2001 if the transitory ordinance is approved at the February 12, 2001 City Council meeting. The HRA would be responsible for any holding or maintenance costs incurred at the property after acquisition by the City. Remodeling. would begin this spring after the property is transferred to the HRA. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The property trustee is interested in selling the property to the City/HRA for purposes of providing affordable housing to a low to moderate income buyer. • To fully utilize federal dollars, the City must acquire the property and transfer the property to the HRA. City-owned property requires the adoption of a transitory ordinance to effectuate a sale #o the HRA. • The acquisition and disposition of the property are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A. C. FINANCIAL • Funds have been budgeted for acquisition and rehab from federal CDBG funds and proceeds of sale to the end buyer. The CDBG funds must be utilized for these purposes, and the site must be used to provide a new home for an income-qualified buyer. D. LEGAL • The sale from City to the HRA will require a public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance scheduled for February 12, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City can choose not to acquire the property. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Transitory Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6444 CLINTON AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") has considered the purchase of 6444 Clinton Avenue South with CDBG funds on behalf of the Richfield HRA for $126,000. The property is further described as: Lot 6, Block 2, Ralph Milner's Second Addition; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to sell real property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the""HRA") for $1:00 in furtherance'of HRA`housing programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the City is authorized to sell its property following a public hearing for which notice was published not less then ten days before such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those actions necessary to purchase 6444 Clinton Avenue for $126,000. 2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance regarding the sale of the land to the HRA on Monday, February 12,.2001. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such heanng in the official newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (6444 CLINTON AVENUE SOUTH) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lot 6, Block 2, Ralph Milner's Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 6444 Clinton Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all-action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this day of 2001 by the Richfield City Council. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 29 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 ;~ • REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAMr, TirLr• REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~/~~~ REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution adopting the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution adopting a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. II. BACKGROUND On June 14, 1999, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing the adoption of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the. Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; and establishing the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District therein and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto. A few months after this, CSM Corporation (developer) of the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment 10221WestTlfMod • Financing (TIF) District withdrew from the project. Shortly thereafter, Best Buy/Opus (new developer) identified a new use which lead to the need to modify the existing tax increment financing plan. The current proposed modification to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Plan (Modified TIF Plan) includes revisions to the description of the facilities to be developed and increases in budgeted expenditures for the Interchange West portion of the TIF District. Specifically, the proposed redevelopment of the subject. site area consists of office buildings, related parking, utility; street and infrastructure upgrades to accommodate a corporate campus for Best Buy. The proposed campus setting under the expected level of development would consist of approximately 1.5 million square feet of office space located within four buildings and parking facilities for 7,500 cars. Following is a summary of changes to the Modified TIF Plan: Estimated Tax Increment Page 2-2 of the Modified TIF Plan indicates the amount of estimated annual tax increment. The Best Buy project will generate $7.1 million as opposed to $6.2 million under the previous proposal. Also, the figures for the Lyndale Gateway portion of the project have been revised to reflect changes in tax class rates. • The proposed project itself has not changed. The total estimated tax increment between the two projects is $7.82 million. Sources and Uses of Funds Pages 2-2 through 2-4 indicate. the changes in uses and sources of funds, respectively. For Interchange West, the expense budget has increased by 13% (or $14,222,000) from $108,780,000 to $123,002,000. New budget line items include the housing trust fund and public improvements. The Penn Avenue Bridge is included in the budget. The cost of interest has increased slightly by 2% while administrative costs have been reduced by approximately 55%. Administrative costs are now estimated to be approximately 4% of the revised Interchange West budget. The composite expense budget for Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway is now $141,839,000. The uses of funds are balanced against the sources of funds. Please note that the tax increment line item in the Sources of Funds table on page 2-4 includes bonding for the new Penn Avenue Bridge. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Pages 2-4 through 2-6 include the revised impacts of the proposed projects to the other taxing jurisdictions such as the county, school district and the city. The TIF Plan, as originally approved on June 14, 1999, consisted of one composite analysis for both Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway. Since the Interchange • West proposal changed, the. impact analysis was separated into two parts and re-run for the Interchange West project. Lyndale Gateway's analysis remains unchanged. The basic premise remains that the Interchange West project would not have been constructed without tax increment financing and, therefore, there is $0 impact to the taxing jurisdictions. "But For Finding" The "But For" analysis, beginning at page 2-6, Section 2-25 entitle "Municipal Approval and Public Purpose of the Interchange West Portion of the TIF District", has been updated to reflect the current proposal for Interchange West. Please note that Hennepin County has favorably commented with respect to the Modified TIF Plan. The County's report is attached hereto. The County requests that this report be entered into the record of public hearing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is the City's policy to comply with the State of Minnesota's Tax Increment Financing Act and the administrative rules issued from time to time by the Office of State Auditor. i B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Modification to the TIF Plan is being recommended as the project. within the Interchange West portion of the TIF District has changed. • The HRA approved a resolution on the Modified TIF Plan on December 18, 2000. • The Planning Commission approved a resolution finding that the Modified TIF Plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City on January 9, 2001. • All necessary notices to the County Commissioner, County Board of Commissioners, and School District Board required under the Tax Increment Financing Act has been complied with. C. FINANCIAL • Budget revisions, taxing jurisdiction impact analyses and cashflows were undertaken based on updated project information by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., legal counsel, and staff. • D. LEGAL • Legal counsel, Ehlers & Associates, and staff have reviewed the Modified TIF Plan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174-469.179, inclusive, as amended. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Delay or do not approve the proposed Modified TIF Plan. However, this will impede staff s ability to implement the Interchange West project portion of the TIF District. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (a scattered site redevelopment district) within The Richfield Redevelopment Project Area • Letter from Leonard, Street and Deinard. Mr. Gunn apparently thought he HRA was considering the modification on January 16 when in fact it was considered and approved December 18, 2000. It is being provided to the City Council as a courtesy. Report from Hennepin County for public hearing record entry. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers.&Associates, Inc. • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA") have heretofore adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan ("TIF Plan") for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District"). 1.02 Due to changes in the Statement of Objectives, Project Budgets and the Estimated Impact on. Other Taxing Jurisdictions in the TIF Plan, the City and HRA have proposed#o modify the TIF Ilan for the TIF District, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive as amended (the ..Act,. )• 1.03. The Council has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared the modification to the TIF Plan on file in City Hall (the "Modification"). 1.04. The City- has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to in the TIF District, notice of the proposed modification of an existing redevelopment district to the county commissioner who represents the area in the district, a review of and written comment on the Modification by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law: Section 2. Findings for the Approval of the Modification 2.01. In connection, with the Modification, the Council hereby finds that (a) the TIF District remains a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1) based on the findings made upon adoption of the original TIF Plan, (b) the proposed development (as revised by the Modification) in the opinion of the City Council would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan, (c) the TIF Plan, as modified by the Modification, conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole, and (d) the TIF Plan, as modified by the Modification, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Redevelopment Project by private . enterprise. 2.02. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Modification and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Approval of the Modification; Filing. 3.01. The Modification is hereby approved, and shall be placed on file in the office of-the HRA Director. 3.02. City staff are authorized and directed to file the Modification with the appropriate governmental bodies as required under law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Draft as of January 12, 2001 f~ MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a scattered site redevelopment district) within THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA • RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: June 14, 1999 Adopted: June 14, 1999 Modified: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55 1 13-1 105 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION II MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ..................................................... ............2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword ....................................................2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives .................. ..... .............. 2-1 Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ................ 2-1 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ............................ ................... 2-2 Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .......................... 2-3 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ...................... 2-4 Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose of the Interchange West Portion of the TIF District ....................................... 2-6 APPENDIX A -PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. A-1 APPENDIX B -MAPS OF PROJECT AREA AND TIF DISTRICT .......................... B-1 APPENDIX C - CASHFLOW ........................................................ C-1 APPENDIX D - BUT/FOR FINDINGS ................................................ D-1 APPENDIX E -MEMO REGARDING BUT/FOR FINDINGS .............................. E-1 r SECTIONII MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. Foreword (Modified to add the following as of Jauuary 22, 2001) The Plan for. the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District was approved by the City Council on June 14, 1999. The Plan is now being modified to revise the description of the facilities to be developed and budgeted expenditures.. The modification does not reduce or enlarge the geographic area of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the TIF District or designate additional property to be acquired. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives (Modified to delete the first paragraph and add the following as of January 22, 2001) The Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District consists of 98 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The Interchange West project was created to facilitate the redevelopment of the area generally bounded by 76"' Street to the north, Interstate Highway 494 to the south, Knox Avenue to the east and Penn Avenue to the west. The proposed redevelopment of the site area consists of office buildings, related parking, utility, street, and infrastructure upgrade to accommodate a corporate headquarters for the Best Buy Company. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the site in a campus setting by constructing: (a) four or five office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars (the expected level of redevelopment). Best Buy expects that initial employment at the Best Buy Campus will be 5,500 to 6,500 persons, rising to 7,500 persons in subsequent years (the expected level of development). Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment (Modified to read as follows as of January 22, 2001) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2000. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. For a complete description of the tax increment financing projections, see Appendix C. r City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-1 Interchange Interchange Lyndale Lyndale Total West West Gateway Gateway (As (As Approved (As Modified (As (As Modified Modified 6/14/99) 1/22/01) Approved 1/22/01) 1/22/01) 6/14/99) Project Estimated Tax $4,627,058 $5,225,286 $802,197 $534,156 $5,759,442 Capacity upon Completion of Project (PTC) Original Estimated Net 504 008 ~*1$504,578 94 594 (*)$ 88,006 59$ 2,584 Tax Capacity (ONTO) Estimated Captured 4,123,050 4,720,708 707,603 446,090 5,166,798 Tax Capacity (CTC) Estimated Annual Tax $6,221,847 $7,154,470 $1,067,801 $673,168 $7,827,638 Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) (*) Already Certified by County Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds (Modified to read as follows as of January 22, 2001) • Currently under consideration for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a proposal to facilitate redevelopment of existing buildings. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility ofthe development or redevelopment of property in and around the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is outlined in the following table. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-2 S Uses of Funds Interchange Interchange Lyndale Total West West Gateway (As Modified (As Approved (As Modified (As 1/22/01) 6/14/99) 1/22/01) Approved 6/14/99) Land Acquisition, Site $50,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 Improvements, Public Improvements, Public Utilities, and Other Public Improvements Land Acquisition -Office Project $50,000,000 50,000,000 Land Acquisition -Housing Trust 7,200,000 7,200,000 Fund (15%) Public Improvements 12,000,000 12,000,000 Interest 47,902,000 48,902,000 7,953,300 56,855,300 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 10,878,000 4,900,000 1,883,700 6,783,700 TOTAL $108,780,000 123,002,000 $18,837,000 $141,839,000 Estimated budget costs associated with the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District are subject to change among line item categories without a modification to this Plan. The cost of ''+ all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the indicated budget pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which may be spent outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. It is the intent of the City to spend up to 15 percent of the Interchange West tax increment outside the District on housing projects. All expenses will comply with M.S. Section 469.1764.J, except to the extent otherwise permitted by the law. Subsection 2-11. Sources of RevenueBonded Indebtedness (Modified to read as follows as of January 22, 2001) Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-3 Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by spay-as-you-go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing, including any pay-as-you-go notes, will not exceed $70,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA. The estimated sources of funds for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District are contained in the table below. Sources of Funds Interchange Interchange Lyndale Gateway Total West West (As Approved (As Modified (As Approved (As Modified 6/14/99) 1/22/01) 6/14/99) I/22/Ol) Tax Increment $103,600,000 $117,150,000 $17,940,000 $135,090,000 Local Contribution 5,180,000 5,852,000 897,000 6,749,000 TOTAL $108,780,000 $123,002,000 $18,837,000 $141,839,000 • Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions (Modified to read as follows as of January 22, 2001) The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HIZA, the following estimated impact of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: r City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-4 IMPACT ON TAIL BASE FOR INTERCHANGE WEST 1999/2000 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) (*) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Enti , Total Hennepin County 925,993,876 7,126,810 0.7696% I.S.D. No. 280 24,774,702 7,126,810 28.7665% City of Richfield 17,777,731 7,126,810 40.0884% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1999/2000 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.409940 27.17% 7,126,810 2,921,564 I.S.D. No. 280 0.721270 47.80% 7,126,810 5,140,354 City of Richfield 0.285940 18.95% 7,126,810 2,037,840 Metro 0.060350 4.00% 7,126,810 430,103 Other 0.031540 2.09% 7,126,810 224.780 Total 1.509040 100.00% 10,754,641 w • (*) The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity assuming a complete construction and appreciation in market value at a rate of 1.725% annually through 2006. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1999/Pay 2000 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2026 figures. The Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is certified. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-5 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR LYNDALE GATEWAY 1997/1998 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Enti , Total Hennepin County 925,993,876 446,090 0.0482% LS.D. No. 280 24,774,702 446,090 1.8006% City of Richfield 17,777,731 446,090 2.5093% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1998/1999 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.409940 27.17% 446,090 182,870 I.S.D. No. 280 0.721270 47.80% 446,090 321,751 City of Richfield 0.285940 18.95% 446,090 127,555 Metro 0.060350 4.00% 446,090 26,922 Other 0.031540 2.09% 446.090 14,070 Total 1.509040 100.00% 673,168 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the certified rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 1999 figures. The Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is certified. Subsection 2-25. Munic~al Approval and Public Purpose of the InterchanEe West Portion of the TIF District (Modified to read as follows as of January 22, 2001) The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Interchange West portion of the •Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a) (1). The tax increment financing district remains a redevelopment district based on the findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on June 14, 1999. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax incrementfrnancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing City a€'I2i3hfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 2-6 • District permitted by the Plan. At the time the Best Buy Company redevelopment was proposed, the City/HRA already had abut/for analysis prepared. (Appendix E) This analysis was used to assist the City/HRA in its review of the need for tax increment. The analysis estimated the total cost of land acquisition and presented the result in as a "Cost Per Square Foot" and a"Cost Per Acre." The City/HRA reviewed these costs as compared to other possible development sites to arrive a estimated difference in cost of $35,900,000. This difference is the extraordinary development cost of the site. At that time is was also determined that certain improvements would have to be made to the Penn Avenue-Hwy 494 Bridge. The total estimate for the cost was around $7,000,000. When all sources of revenue were reviewed it was determined that $7,000,000 for the bridge would have to be paid for from the tax increment district. Therefore, due to the extraordinary development cost, the City/HRA determined that without assisting the development by providing tax increment, the proposed development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Since the first review of the project, it is now estimated that the cost of land acquisition will increase in excess of $10,000,000 of the original estimates. In addition, the Penn Avenue-Hwy 494 Bridge is now estimated to be over $22,000,000 of which $14,000,000 must be paid for through tax increment because no other funding source is available. Therefore, the City reaffirms its finding that the development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Further the City reaffirms its finding that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the presentvalue oftheprojected tax incrementsfor the maximum duration ofthe TIFDistrictpermitted by the Plan. A new comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $192,146,500. The present value of tax increments from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $60,372,145. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $131,774,355 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. In fact, for the reasons described above, the HRA believes that no significant redevelopment of any kind is likely to occur without tax increment financing assistance. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cash flow in Appendix C). City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway T[F District 2-7 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan at that time conformed to the general development plan ofthe City. The Plan, as modified to reflect the revised development proposal, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2001. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conformed to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The City Council affirms its finding that the project to be assisted by the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota; the replacement of substandard properties, increased tax base ofthe State and the addition of a high quality development to the City. • • City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District Z-g APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Modified to delete the first paragraph and add the followiug as of January 22, 2001) The Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District consists of 98 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The Interchange West project was created to facilitate the redevelopment of the area generally bounded by 76"' Street to the north, Interstate Highway 494 to the south, Knox Avenue to the east and Penn Avenue to the west. The proposed redevelopment of the site area consists of office buildings, related parking, utility, street, and infrastructure upgrade to accommodate a corporate headquarters for the Best Buy Company. Best Buy proposes to redevelop the site in a campus setting by constructing: (a) four or five office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars (the expected level of redevelopment). Best Buy expects that initial employment at the Best Buy Campus will be 5,500 to 6,500 persons, rising to 7,500 persons in subsequent years (the expected level of development). • APPENDIX A-l • • APPENDIX APPENDIX B MAP OF PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B_~ ~Z 8 ~ ~~0 ~~~~00~~ ~~ ~~ ~~DDODO~D/~/~CI~~O ~ ~l ~r~~~~0 ~~Q~ DO M9l IJ0~0 ~~~~~~~ a 45l ~~; °no~~ooo°o°o~o~°oo ~ ~` 0000000000000 4Ll J o0o aoooo Nll w ill ~ 000 000000 40l Z ~ 40l ~ o0o aooooo b o ~ ~ 000000000 '°"H ~ ~' 0000000000 ~ ~ zd Q . ,~,~ ooo~ooooo -~ ~ ~ ~ _ 0000000000 ~ ~ J o~oooeoo~ ~, c~ ~ a ooooooeoo ~~ oo ~j ~ o 0 0~~ooooD L~1 C~ ~ ~BBO~L~ 0~0~~0~~0 pt ` pl , ~~~~BBQ~~ D y3TppN. ~. ~' ® oo eeeoo ~ ~ J ,~,:, N ~ ° O~ ~-~~ ,xusvae arrow ^C~ D~~O ~ o~ ~.I -a w ~ ~, _ Sao- o „~, ~ ~ ~ ® ~aaaoo°° ~~ :-:rte ~ ~ O~0 aav~,a 8~~0 D ,~ ,c,oew~ ~CID~~D~oo Q ~ ~~0~ DODO '°°"°' ~ D ~ DD ~, ~ N.~, ~ ~D~C~ QOD row 1 0000ODOC7 r~aow ooooadoooo 0000 00000 ooo~oooo ~; o ~~e~ o ~ Q e~~ o ~~ ~o ~, ~ oa e~~o 00^0 ,~ $ 1P67NN J ~0 ~~~ ~ D ~~ ~N ~ N~ISMl1 ; ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~( ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ I ~ /II ~ ~ • • APPENDIX APPENDIX C CASHFLOW c-~ 1129/00 cxy a Ricl4~aa - Imercnan9e weal Para 1 • BASIC ASSUMPTIONS -SET t0A ~, t INTERCHANGE WEST (COUNTY7282) '~. m Rate Every i years 1.7250%' NES NOTE ISSUED: 02/01/2001 NES FIRST TAX INCREMENT FOR INTERCHANGE WEST IN : - 2001 '. 1AES LAST TAX INCREMENT IN: 2026 NES CLASS RATES OF: 2.0%I3.0 NES MARKET VALUE PER SOUARE FOOT OF: 141.64 NT NEEDED CURRENT ESTIMATES: 8 22,800,000 C 8,110,134 30,910,134 Ni OF PAY AS YOU GO NOTE: 48,073,127 DIFFERENCE: 17,162,993 NT NEEDED DEVE. AGREEMENT: B 22,800,000 C 13,070,116 35,870,716 NT OF PAY AS YOU GO NOTE: - 48,073,127 DIFFERENCE: 12,203,011 TAX CAPACITY: 438,903 :You Go Rate 8.00% Disp. Contribution Ratio Pay 2000 t 8.503% rpacily (Extension) Rate -AREA WIDE RATE -Est 1.500000 tPachY (Extension) Rate -CITY RATE -FROZEN 1.515550 r>ar-Try (Extension) Rate -CITY RATE -Est Pay 2001 1.330000 PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Market Value Sq. Ft. Taxes Per Total Tax Capacity Total Tax Tax Market TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Captured Semi-Annual State Aud. Semi-Mnual Admin Housing Tax Exempt P.A.Y.G. Total Payment Date Base Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Payment Tax Fund Fund G. O. Bond Note Taxes Ending Period Yrs Mth. Yr. C ac' Ca aci C i Increment 0.25N Increment 5.00% 15.00% Pa ant A Paid Yrs. Mlh. Yr. . 0 0 02-01 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 OB-01 2001 . 0 5 08-01 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02-01 2002 . 1 0 02-01 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 2002 . 5 1 08-01 2002 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02-0T 2003 . 2 0 02-01 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 08-01 2003 . 5 2 08-01 2003 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 02-01 2004 . 3 0 02-01 2004 438,903 5,193,265 4,754,382 3,161,651 (11,886) 3,749,765 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,386,814 $4.337,797 3.5 08-01 2004 . 5 3 08-01 2004 438,903 5,193,265 4,754,362 3,161,651 (11,886) 3,149,765 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,386,814 $4,337,797 4.0 02-01 2005 . 4 0 02-01 2005 438,903 5,262,849 4,843,946 3,221,224 (12,110) 3,209,114 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,446,163 $4,412,624 4.5 08-01 2005 . 5 4 08-01 2005 438,903 5,282,849 4,843,946 3,221,224 (12,110) 3,209,114 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,446,163 $4.412,624 5.0 02-0i 2006 . 0 02-01 2006 438,903 5,373,976 4,935,075 3281,825 (12,338) 3,269,487 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,506,536 $4,488,742 5.5 OB-0i 2006 5 08-01 2006 438,903 5,373,978 4,935,075 3,281,825 (12,338) 3,269,487 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,506,536 $4,486,742 6.0 02-01 2007 .0 02-01 2007 438,903 5,466,679 5,027,776 3,343,471 (12,569) 3,330,902 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,567,951 $4,566,173 6.5 08-01 2007 6.5 OB-01 2007 438,903 5,466,679 5,027,776 3,343,471 (12,569) 3,330,902 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,567,951 $4,566,173 7.0 02-01 2008 7 0 02-07 2008 438,903 5,560,980 5,122,077 3,406,181 (12,805) 3,393,376 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,630,425 $4,644,940 7.5 OB-01 2008 . 7.5 OB-01 2008 438,903 5,560,980 5,122,077 3,406,181 (72,805) 3,393,376 (105,283) (317,768) (340,500) 2,630,425 $4,644,940 8.0 02-01 2009 8 0 02-01 2009 438,903 5,856,906 5,218,003 3,469,972 (13,045) 3,456,927 (705,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,693,976 $4,725,065 8.5 08-0t 2009 . 8 5 OB-01 2009 438,903 5,656,906 5,218,003 3,469,972 (13,045) 3,456,927 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,693,976 $4,725,065 9.0 02-01 2010 . 9 0 02.01 2010 436,903 5,754,488 5,315,585 3,534,864 (13,289) 3,521,575 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,758,624 $4,806,572 9.5 08-01 2010 . 5 9 08-01 2010 438,903 5,754,488 5,315,585 3,534,864 (13,289) 3,527,575 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,758,624 $4,806,572 70.0 02-0i 2011 . 10 0 02-01 2011 438,903 5,853,753 5,414,850 3,600,875 (73,537) 3,587,338 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,824,387 $4,889,485 10.5 08-0i 2011 . 70 5 08-01 2011 438,903 5,853,753 5,414,850 3,600,675 (13,537) 3,587,338 (105,283) (377,168) (340,500) 2,824,387 $4,889,485 71.0 02-01 2072 , 11 0 02-01 2012 438,903 5,954,730 5,515,827 3,668,025 (13,790) 3,654,236 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,891,285 $4,973,829 71.5 08-0t 2072 . 11 5 OB-0i 2012 438,903 5,954,730 5,515,827 3,668,025 (73,790) 3,654,236 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,891,285 $4,973,829 12.0 02-01 2013 . 12 0 02-0i 2013 438,903 6,057,449 5,618,546 3,736,333 (14,046) 3,722,287 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,959,336 $5,059,628 12.5 08-01 2013 . 12 5 08-01 2013 438,903 8,057,449 5,618,548 3,736,333 (74,046) 3,722,287 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 2,959,336 $5,059,628 13.0 02-07 2014 . 13 0 02-01 2014 438.903 6,161,940 5,723,037 3,805,820 (74,308) 3,791,512 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,028,561 $5,146,906 13.5 08-07 2014 . 13 5 08-0t 2014 438,903 6,161,940 5,723,037 3,805,820 (14,308) 3,791,512 (105283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,028,561 $5,146,906 14.0 02-01 2015 . 14.0 02-01 2015 438,903 6,268,234 5,829,331 3,878,505 (14,573) 3,861,932 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,098,981 $5,235,690 14.5 08-0i 2015 5 14 08-01 2015 438,903 6,268,234 5,828,331 3,876,505 (14,573) 3,887,932 (105,283) (377,168) (340,500) 3,098,987 $5,235,690 15.0 02-01 2016 . 0 15 02-01 2016 438,903 6,376,361 5,937,458 3,948,409 (14,844) 3,933,566 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,170,615 $5,326,006 15.5 08-0i 2016 . 15 5 08-01 2016 438,903 6,376,361 5,937,458 3,948,409 (14,844) 3,933,566 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,170,615 $5,326,006 16.0 02-01 ~ 2017 . 16 0 02-01 2017 438,903 6,486,353 6,047,450 4,021,554 (15,119) 4,006,436 (705,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,243,4&5 55.417,880 16.5 OB-01 2017 . 18 5 08-01 2017 438,903 6,486,353 6,047,450 4,021,554 (15,119) 4,006,436 (705,283) (317,168) (340.500) 3,243,485 55,417,880 17.0 02-01 2018 . 17 0 02-01 2018 438,903 6,598,243 6,159,340 4,095,961 (15,398) 4,080,562 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,317,611 55,517,338 17.5 08-01 2016 . 17 5 08-01 2018 438,903 6,598243 6,159,340 4,095,961 (15,398) 4,080,562 (105,293) (317,168) (340.500) 3,317,611 $5,511,338 18.0 02-01 2019 . 0 18 02-01 2019 438,903 6,712,062 6273,159 4,171,651 (15,683) 4,155,968 (105,283) (317,168) (340.500) 3,393,017 $5,606,409 18.5 OB-01 2019 . 18.5 08-01 2019 438,903 6,712,062 6,273,159 4,171,651 (15,683) 4,155,968 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,393,017 55,606,409 19.0 OZ-01 2020 78 0 02-01 2020 438,903 6,827,845 6,38!1,942 4,248,647 (15,972) 4,232,674 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,469,723 55,703,119 19.5 08-01 2020 . 19.5 08-01 2020 438,903 6,827,845 6,388,942 4,248,647 (15,972) 4,232,674 (105,283) (317,768) (340,500) 3,469,723 55,703,119 20.0 02-01 2021 20.0 02-01 2021 438,903 6,945,626 6,506,723 4,326,971 (16,267) 4,310,704 (105,283) (377,168) (340,500) 3,547,753 $5,801,498 20.5 08-01 2021 20.5 OB-0i 2021 438,903 6,945,626 6,506,723 4,326,971 (16,267) 4,310,704 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,547,753 $5,801,498 21.0 02-01 2022 21.0 02-01 2022 438,903 7,065,438 6,626,535 4,406,646 (16,566) 4,390,079 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,627,128 $5,901,574 27.5 08-01 2022 21.5 OS-01 2022 438,903 7,065,438 6,626,535 4,406,646 (16,566) 4,390,079 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,627,128 $5,901,574 22.0 02-01 2023 22.0 02-01 2023 438,903 7,187,317 6,748,414 4,487,695 (76,871) 4,470,824 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,707,873 56,003,376 22.5 08-01 2023 22.5 OB-01 2023 438,903 7,187,317 6,748,414 4,487,695 (16,871) 4,470,824 (105,283) (317,168) (340,500) 3,707,873 56,003,376 23.0 02-0i 2024 23.0 02-01 2024 438,903 7,311,298 6,872,395 4,570,143 (17,181) 4,552,962 (105,283) (317,168) 0 4,130,511 56,106,934 23.5 08-0i 2024 23.5 08-01 2024 438,903 7,311,298 6,872,395 4,570,143 (17,781) 4,552,962 (105,283) (377,168) 0 4,130,511 56,106,934 24.0 02-07 2025 24.0 02-01 2025 438,903 7,437,418 6,996,515 4,654,012 (77,496) 4,636,516 (705,283) (317,168) 0 4,214,065 56,212,279 24.5 OS-01 2025 24.5 08-01 2025 438,903 7,437,418 6,998,515 4,654,012 (17,496) 4,636,516 (105,293) (317,168) 0 4,214,065 56,212,279 25.0 02-01 2026 25.0 02-0t 2026 438,903 7,565,713 7,126,810 4,739,329 (17,817) 4,721,512 (105,283) (317,168) 0 4,299,061 $6,319,441 25.5 08-01 2026 25.5 08-01 2026 438,903 7,565,713 7,126,810 4,739,329 17,87 4,721,572 105,283 317,168 0 4,299,061 56,319,441 26.0 02-01 2027 TOTALS 179555,527 675,021 178,880,506 4,843,078 14,589,728 13,620000 145827760 242.394610 PRESENT VALUE 60,372,145 (7,200,005) 48,073,127 103,968,207 1 i ___ RIf00- Prepared fry Ehlers -Please review all assumptbns. BUT-FOR-I-WEST.W K6 • .APPENDIX D BUT/FOR FINDINGS • • APPENDIX D-1 11RAg0 Cl y d RkhfleW - Idercham~e West Pa9a 2 r: BUT /FOR ANALYSIS -ASSUMES 2.0% aBd 3.4% Class Rates Current Market Value -Est. 20,313,500 New Market Value -Est. 212.460.E Difference 192,146.500 • Present Value of Tax Increment 60,372,145 Difference 131,774,355 Value Like to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 131,774,355 • gH00- PreparetlM Ehlers -Please review all assumptbns. BUT-FOR-I-WEST.WK4 • APPENDIX E MEMO REGARDING BUT/FOR FINDINGS • APPENDIX E-~ • E H LE RS & ASSOCIATES INC TO: Bruce Palmborg -City of Richfield John Stark -City of Richfield FROM: Sid Inman -Ehlers & Associates Mark Ruff -Ehlers & Associates DATE: March 15, 2000 MEMO-RANDOM RE: Interchange West Project -But For Analysis As requested, we have continued to review the "but/ for" analysis for the Interchange West project. The transaction as currently purposed is described at the top of the attached page. Of the approximately $59,000,000 in available tax increment, around 40% is being retained for fiscal disparities and city housing projects and tax increment district administration. The remainder is provided to the user with a combination of up front payment and a pay as you go note. In the past we have completed our "but/for"analysis using developers' pro forma's and comparing various • rates of returns that the developer would receive given various levels of tax increment assistance. Since this will be an owner occupied building and since the entire assistance given will be used for land write down our method of analysis is different. In this case we compared the cost of the land in the Interchange West project and compared it to what would be standard for a similar project. Since the final cost for land and structured parking are not yet finalized, we have used a range of cost for our analysis. Also, we have attempted to compare the cost of the land on a site that does not require structured parking and one that does. You will note that on the site with structured parking (after taking into account the tax increment assistance), the owner is paying between $17 and $24 a foot for land. On the site with out structured parking (after taking into account the tax increment assistance), the owner is paying between $5.00 and $8.09 a foot for land. Both of these cost are in our opinion on the high side of cost we see in the market place. Please let us know if you have any other questions or comments. from the desks of Sid Inman ~ Mark Ruff Ehlers ~ Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Point Drive Roseville, MN SS113 Phone: (6S1J 697-8507 Phone: (651f 697-8SOS • Fax: (6S1) 697-SSSS C:\W INDOWS\TEMP\BUT-FOR-2.wpd CITY OF RICHFIELD But/For Analysis -Interchange West Site • • • Total Land Size -Acres (Approximately) Total Land Size -Square Feet 40.0 1,742,400 Break Down Of Tax Increment Application ~ Fiscal Disparities Pool 15,300,000 City Housing Projects And TIF District Administration 8,500,000 G.O. Taxable Bond 22,800,000 Pay As You Go Note 8,100,000 Pay As You Go Note - (Non-Tif Funds Pay For Bridge) 5,000,000 Total Tax Increment Available 59,700,000 Net Cost With Structured Parking Cost Lowest Estimate Highest Estimate Land Acquisition Structured Parkin 44,500,000 22,500,000 50,000,000 28,000,000 Gross Total Land Costs 67 000 000 78 000 000 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Sq. Ft. 1,675,000 38.44 1,850,000 44.76 Minus Tax Increment 35,900,000 35,900,000 Net Total Land Costs 31 100 000 42 100 000 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Sq. Ft. 777,500 17.85 1,052,500 24.16 Net Cost With Out Structured Parking Cost Lowest Estimate Highest Estimate Land Acquisition Structured Parkin 44,500,000 0 50,000,000 0 Gross Total Land Costs 44 500 000 50 000 000 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Sq. Ft. 1,112,500 25.53 1,250,000 28.69 Minus Tax Increment 35,900,000 35,900,000 Net Total Land Costs 8 600 000 14100 000 Total Cost Per Acre Total Cost Per Sq. Ft. 215,000 4.93 352,500 8.09 Butfor.123 LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD txOTlSSIONAL AffOC1AT10N • ... January 16, 2001 Bradley J. Gunn 612-335-1671. bradley.gunn(a3leonard.com BY FACSIMILE AND MESSENGER Chairman Thomas Harms and Members of the Board of Commissioners Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6700 Portland Avenue Soutb Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Proaosed amendment to Intere6an~e West tax increment district sud__ T Dear Chairman Harms and Commissioners: i am writing on behalf of R.J. Walser, Paul Walscr, Andrew Walser, Walser Auto Sales, Inc. and Motorwerlcs, Inc., to object to the proposed amendment of the Interchange West and Lyadalc ` Gateway Tax Increment District and Plan. The specific grounds for thin objection are as follows: • ] , The proposed expenditures of public funds for the Best Buy project are not primarily for a public Purpose, as required by Minnesota Isw, but rather are predominantly for the private purpose of benefiting or subsidizing Best Buy. 2. The Interchange West arcs does not qualify as a "redevelopment district" under Minn. Stet. § 469.174, Subd. 10, for the following reasons: a. The City of Richfield andlor the I3RA failed to use thou "best efforts" to cflnduct interior. inspections of the properties within the district, as required by Minn. Stet. § 469.174, Subd.10(c). b. The evidence does not support a 'teasonable conclusion" that the properties where no interior inspections were conducted were structurally substandard, as required by Minn. Stet. §469.174, Subd. 10(c). c. Over 50 percent of tho buildings in the interchange West district are not "stinichitally substandard,,' as required by Minn. Stet. § 469.174, Subd 10(a). rSo SovTll YIrrN STR/ST Svgs s;oo MtNNaA>'oLtt. MINNttOTA SS4os ni 6a-;ls•isoo Ywz 6ts-315-=637. • 2076SOIY1 LAw OTTICEi tN ri1Nt~EAt'OL16. TAINT MUL AND MwN1CAT0 Char Thomas Harms and Members of the Board of Commissioners January 16, 2001 • Page 2 d. The allegedly structurally substandard buildings within the Interchange. West district, as found by the HRA's consultants, are-not `5reasonably distributed" throup~out the district as required by Minna Stat. § 469.174, Subd. 10(a). 3. The TIF Plan does not conform to the general plan for development of the municipality as a whole, or alternatively, the City's and the I;R,A's actions with respect to the Tff Plan, prior to December 11, 2000, did. not conform to said general plan, as required by Minn. Stat. § 469.175, Subd. 3(3). =~, 4. The actions of the City and the HRA with respect to the proposed redevelopment of the Interchange West -area violate the Minnesota Bnvironmcntal PoUcy Act, Minn. Stet. Chap. 11bD, and the implementing regulations, including Mina R. 4410.3100, Subp. 1 and 2, by tending to prejudice the decision on the Environmental Statement for the Best Buy project. 5. The proposed amended TIF Plan is otherwise improper and unlawful because the Interchange West district is not blighted, the Best Buy pro}ect is speculative and not necessary, and the so-called `but for" tests undo Minn. Stet. §469.175, Subd. 3 have not been met. • These issues have been the subject of rocent litigation between the Walsers, the City, and the HRA, in: Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield v. Walser Auto Sales. ct al.. Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County), File No. CD-2604, which was litigated on December 4-6, 2000, and Walser Auto Sales et al v City of Richfield, et al., Fotutl- Judicial District (Hennepin County), File No. AP OQ11927, which was tried on December 26- 27, 2000. In now objecting to the proposed'~'iF aatendment, the Walsets=specifically incorporate - by reference, and make a part of the record herein, the exhibits; testimony,. memoranda, and proceedings in these two actions. Please let me know if you would like further information or documentation. Very truly yours, N T AND DEINARD B ey J. Gunn BJGaaf cc: Bruce MaUcerson ~~- .- ~, _ ,o • I036sowt ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department • A-600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060 i ; L /_-.~ f I ~-~ ~I ~ JAN 1 7 2001 1,:- E Janua 12, 2001 ~ V ry Sid Inman Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Re; Richfield Modification to the Interchange Wesf and: Lyndale Gateway TIF District .Dear Sid: Enclosed is a report from Richard P, Johnson, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator, to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, concerning the proposed Richfield: Modification to the .Interchange West: and Lyndale Gateway TIF District. Please arrange to have the report entered into the record of the public hearing of the Richfield City. • Council on Monday, January 22, 2001, to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by Minnesota Statutes„Section 469.175, Subd. 2. If you have any questions about this information, please. call meat 348-5076. Sincerely, ~~. min, ~~ ~~c~~~~~~~ Jean M. Bierbaum, Senior Administrative Assistant Financial Analysis and Support Division CC Katia Medvetski, Richfield HRA RevuRichfieldModtolnterchangeWestLyndaleGateway1222001 JTransmittalLetter • An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper cycled Paper QATE January 12, 2001 TO: Board of Commissioners /~ FROM: Richard P. Johnson, Deputy Administrator Re: Proposed Modification to the Richfield Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 1281/1282 The following hearing is scheduled: Monday, January 22, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall. HISTORY: Richfield created the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District-(County No. 1281/1282) on June 14, 1999, to provide funding assistance for redevelopment of 135 parcels north of interstate 494,. between .Harriet. Avenue South on the east and Penn Avenue South on the West.. The proposed redevelopment was to have provided 1) a 350-room motel; 2) a 375,000 square foot office building; 3) up to 120,000 square feet of retail; 4)251. apartment units (60 Jow-moderate income); and 5) 280: townhomes. The duration of the TIF District was to have been for the maximum 26-years of tax increment generation. MODIFICATION REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The proposed Modification to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District (No. 1281/1282) will not geographically enlarge the TIF District, but it will increase the budget, modify the Statement of Objectives, Uses of Funds and Captured Net Tax capacity, and will update the Sources of Revenue and Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The proposed development for the 98 parcels in the Interchange West portion of the TIF District, which is the area generally bounded by 75"' Street and Interstate Highway 494 to the north and south, and Knox and Penn Avenues to the east and west, will be changed to provide for office buildings, related parking, utility, street, and infrastructure upgrade to accommodate a corporate headquarters for the Best Buy Company. Best Buy proposes construction of four or five. office buildings with a minimum of 1.5 million square feet and parking facilities for 7,500 cars. Best Buy expects that initial employment at the Best Buy Campus will be 5,500 to 6,500 persons, rising to 7,500 persons in subsequent years. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There has been a shift in estimated tax capacity and annual tax increment for the Lyndale Gateway and Interstate west portions or me I Ir ulsmct. Estimated Captured Estimated Annual Tax Capacity Tax Increment Interchange West (6/14/99) 4,123,050 $6,221,847 Interchange West. Proposed 4.720.708 $7.154.470 + 597,658 +$ 932,623 Lyndale Gateway (6/14/99) 707,603 $9,067,801 Lyndale Gateway Proposed 446A90 $ 673.168 (261,513) $ (394,633) Cumulative Total: + 336,145 +$ 537,990 • January 12, 2001 Board of Commissioners Proposed Modification to the Richfield Interchange West and' Lyndale Gateway TIF District (1281/1282) page 2 Lyndale Gateway Interchange West Interchange West Sources of Funds: 6/14/99 6/14/99 Proposed Tax Increment $17,940,000 $103,600,000 $196,300,000 Local Contribution 897 000 5180 000 5 800 000 Total Sources of Funds $18,837,000 $108,780,000 $122,100,000 Lyndale Gateway Interchange West Interchange West Uses of Funds: 6/14/99 6/14/99 Proposed Land Acquisition & Site Improvements & Public Improvements & Public Utilities & other Public Improvements $ 9,000,000 $50,000,000. Land Acquisition(OfFice) $50,000,000 Land Acquisition(Housing Trust Fund) 7,200,000 Public Improvements 12,000,000 Interest 7,953,300 47,902,000 48,902,000 Administrative Costs(up to 10%) 1.883.700 10.878.000 4.900.000 Tota! Uses of Funds $18,837,000 $108,780,000 $122,100,000 In .part, Richfield determined the need for tax increment for the Best Buy Campus by comparing land acquisition • costs. of the proposed site with other possible development sites. The estimated difference in cost is $35,900,000: Some of that difference is the cost for structured parking, which will be necessary at the Richfield site. The Modified proposal projects an annual tax increment increase of $537,990, or an increase from $7,289,648 to $7,827,638 of tax increment annually. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD COSTS: The current proposal states that, "Since the first review of the project, it is now estimated that the cost of land acquisition will increase in excess of $10,000,000 of the original estimates. In addition, the Bridge is now estimated to be over $22,000,000 of which $14,000,000 must be paid for thti (sic) tax increment because no other funding source is available " Jim Grube, Hennepin County Transportation Department, states the following: "Of greatest interest to the Transportation Department is the commitment of $14,000,000 in TIF funds for CSAH 32 (Penn Avenue)1-494 bridge reconstruction:' "Representatives from the Transportation Department have been involved with aMulti-Agency Task Force to examine the roadway needs on CSAH 32 to accommodate the redevelopment proposal. The capacity and safety needs will require a major upgrade of the roadway including the construction of a single-point diamond interchange at 1-494" "Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175, Subd.1(a), allows the County to require thafithe City pay the costs of road. improvements arising out of increased use of county roads related to the development within a TIF District under certain conditions" "The designation of TIF funds for roadway improvements is supported by the Hennepin County Transportation • ..Department, since the redevelopment will have significant impacts to CSAH 32:' January 12, 2001 Board of Commissioners Proposed Richfield Modification to Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District 1281/1282 • page 3 SUMMARY: The proposed Modification entirely changes the development plan for the Interchange West portion of the TIF District. Instead of a mix of a 350-room motel, a 375,000 sq.ft. office building, 70,000 sq.ft. of retail and a 100-unit apartment and 250 town homes, the parcels will be developed entirely as the headquarters campus for the Best Buy Company, providing five office buildings and structured parking for 5,500 to 7,500 employees.. The Lyndale Gateway proposal for 151 apartments(60 units of low to moderate-income housing), 30 townhomes and 50,000 sq.ft. of retail appears to have remained intact. The proposal provides for up to 15% of the lnterchange West tax increment to be deposited into a Housing Trust Fund to be spent on housing projects outside of the Interchange. West TIF District The Estimated Captured Tax Capacity for the Penn Avenue/Interstate West Best Buy Company development has been increased by 597,658 (14.5%), while the Estimated CTC for the Lyndale Gateway development has been scaled back by 261,513 (37%). Overall, the estimated annual tax increment for both components of the TIF District has increased by $537,990, from $7,289,648 to $7,827,638. It is noteworthy that while the original proposal did not include road costs for the Penn Ave S/I-494 bridge, the Modfication proposal acknowledges that $14,000,000 of the#otal $22,000,000 road costs for work on the bridge must be paid for with tax increment. Site acquisition costs, due in large measure to the need for structured parking for the 7,500 Best Buy Company employees, will be $35,000,000 more at this Richfield site than they would be at a site where structured parking would not be required. Documentation indicates that the entire tax increment assistance given to the developer will be used for land write down to make development at this ite cost-effective. Development of a corporate .headquarters of the proposed magnitude, to accommodate 7,500 employees, could • .not be cost-effectively constructed at this site without public assistance for land write-down and to pay a substantial portion of the necessary roadway/bridge construction work needed to handle the nearly 17,000 trips added to Penn Avenue South. This volume oftrips-doubles the current traffic load. The Modification proposal makes it clear that tax increment is a financing tool of last resort to accomplish the development of the Best Buy Company corporate headquarters at Penn Avenue S and 1-494. Tax increment is necessary bothfor land write-dawn and for roadwork improvements necessary to carry the increased volume of trafficon Penn Avenue South: Based on this assertion, the Modfication proposal appears to satisfy the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for use of tax increment financing, as ident~ed in Resolution 92-10- 917R1,adopted 10/27/92 that states in part: "...Cities use tax increment as a financing tool of last resort..." A copy of this report will be sent to the Cityof Richfield with a request that it be entered into the public record of the January 22,2001, public hearing to reflect the County's position on this proposal (revuRichfieldModtonterchangeWestlyndaleGateway1222001 J) • • AGENDA SECTION: public Hearings AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 2 $ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST Nance, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Nance, TITLE ~_ I J ITEM FOR COUNCIL~6iQSIDERATION: Continuation of a public hearing from November 27, 2000 and approve a resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District; A-5 Tax.Increment Financing District; and B-5 Tax Increment Financing District. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the public hearing from November 27, 2000 and by motion: Approve a resolution modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and modifying the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District; A-5 Tax Increment Financing, District; and B-5 Tax Increment Financing District. 0122RRTifMod • II. BACKGROUND The City Council opened a public hearing on November 27, 2000 for consideration of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District; A-5 Tax Increment Financing District; and B-5 Tax Increment Financing District. At that time, legal counsel recommended the continuation of the public hearing to January 22, 2001 so that the Modification to the Tax " Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered .1.999 be revised so as to clarify the fact that not only were parcels being added to the acquisition list but that these same parcels will become part of the scattered-site Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, thus increasing the number of parcels in the TIF District. (While this was clearly the intent of the modification it was'not clearly stated in words.) In general, the Modification to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999-Tax Increment ~` ~`- ~ -~- Financing "Di"sect allows-for ttie ixse"of'inter~und' loans, increasing the numberof parcels in the district by ten, and recognizes the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 District. The proposed Modification to the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan and the Modification to the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan includes • additional parcels of land to be acquired and allows for the use of interfund loans. The Modification to the A-5 Tax Increment Financing District and Modification to the B-5 Tax Increment Financing District includes removal of some parcels from those districts. Please note that Hennepin County has commented with respect to the Modified TIF Plans. The Country's report is attached hereto. The County requests that this report be entered into the record of public hearing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is the City's policy to comply with the State of Minnesota's Tax Increment Financing Act and the administrative rules issued from time to time by the Office of State Auditor. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Based on legal counsel's recommendation, the HRA approved a • resolution on the corrected plans prior to the City Council's public hearing of January 22, 2001. • All necessary notices to the County Commissioner, County Board of Commissioners, and School District Board required under the Tax Increment Financing Act have been complied with. • All necessary reviews and approvals by the HRA and Planning Commission have been undertaken. C. FINANCIAL • There are no additional fiscal and economic implications due to the Modifications to the Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B-5 Tax Increment Financing -Plans which occurred after November 27, 2000. The School Board and County Board of Commissioners, however, were notified of the changes after November 27, 2000. • At the HRA's direction, staff has removed the references to the City Bella project from the proposed Modification to the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan. City Bella is still under concept development and will appear within the context of a tax increment financing plan at a later date. D. LEGAL • All matters relating to the continuance of the public hearing, including the HRA's review and approval of a new resolution on this • matter, have been undertaken upon the recommendation and direction of legal counsel IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay or not approve the proposed plan modifications at this time. However, this will delay staff s ability to continue the momentum of Richfield Rediscovered and specifically, the purchase and sale of property under the proposed plan modifications. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered, A-5 and B-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts. • Report from Hennepin County for public hearing record entry. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND .MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; A-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the .City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") has heretofore adopted the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, Modification to the Tax Increment Financing. ("TIF") Plan for the Gramercy TIF District, Modification to the TIF Plan for the Urban Village TIF District, Modification of the TIF Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District, Modification of the TIF Plan for the A-5 TIF District, Modification of the TIF Plan for the B-5 TIF District (collectively, the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with existing law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.00.1 through 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Council's consideration. • 1.02 The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Plans. 1.03- The City and HRA have performed all actions required by`law'to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the Plans, including, but not` limited to, notification of Hennepin. County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property in the Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, q-5, and B-5 TIF. Districts, notice of the modifications to the local county commissioner, a request for review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission, and the holding: of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. The A-5 and B-5 TIF Plans are modified solely to clarify that certain identified parcels are not included in those districts, but are instead added to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. 2.01. In connection, with the Plans, the Council hereby finds that (a) each TIF District remains a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1) based on the findings made upon adoption of each original TIF Plan, (b) the proposed development as described in each TIF Plan, as modified by the Plans, in the opinion of the City Council would not reasonably be expected to occur. solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of • tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the .present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the • respective TIF Plans, (c) each TIF Plan, as modified by the Plans, conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole, and. (d) each TIF Plan, as modified by the Plans, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. 2.02. The Council further specifically finds that each parcel added to the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District meets all the requirements for establishing a redevelopment district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(a)(1). 2.03. The- reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. Approval and Adoption of the Plans 3:.01 The Plans as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.. 3.02. The geographic boundaries of the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District are expanded to add the parcels identified in the TIF Plan for that district; and the A-5 and B-5 TIF Districts are modified to remove the identified parcels from those districts for inclusion in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. The Redevelopment Project boundary and the boundaries of .all the other referenced TIF Districts are not changed.. by this action. • 3.03. City staff are authorized .and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Director of Property Taxation, together with a request to certify the original tax capacity of the parcels added to the Richfield Rediscovered TIF District, and to remove the identified parcels from the A-5 and B-5 TIF Districts; and to file the Plans with any other governmental bodies as required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22"d day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • Draft as of January 9, 2001 • MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • \ RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: January 22, 2001 Adopted: • r r EH~ERS & ASSOCIATES INC. P epa ed by , E H L E R S 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 a ASS 0 C I A T E S ~ N c (651) 697-8500 fax: (651) 697-8555 Hrvuw.ehlers-inc.com • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ........ ...................... .:.. 1 Introduction ... .... .......................................... .. ... ... .. ..1 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ............................ . 2 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT ............. 3 Introduction. .......... ............... .............................:.. 3 Property to be Acquired .................. . ................... .. • . .... . 3 Duration of the District ....................:...... ...............:............ 5 Municipal Approval and Public Purpose .... ....:.. ...... ..... ....... 5 MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TIF DISTRICT ....................:.. ............ ....... 8 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ....... 10 Introduction ........... ... ....... ..... ...................... .... 10 Property to be Acquired ..................... _ ........................ ..... 10 Sources of Funds ................ ....... .................:................ 12 Municipal Approval and Public Purpose .......................................... 12 MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TIF DISTRICT ...............................:....... 15 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIF DISTRICT ..............:..................................... .. ... 16 Introduction ......................... ................................... 16 .Legal Description of Property in Richfield Rediscovered 1999........... ............ 16 Propertyto be Acquired ................................................. .... 18 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................................... 20 Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ......................... ............ 20 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIF DISTRICT .............:........... 22 SUBSTANDARD FINDINGS FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED TIF DISTRICT ........ 23 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE A-5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 24 Statement of Objectives ............................................... ...... 24 Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A-5 ................. 24 MODIFICATION TO THE TIF PLAN FOR THE B-5 TIF DISTRICT ..................... 25 Statement of Objectives ............................................... ..... 25 Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B-5 .................. 25 MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN • FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Introduction The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area originally adopted by the Richfield City Council on June 14, 1993, and revised subsequently thereafter. Generally, the substantive changes in this plan modification include the following modifications, all in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area: a. Modifying the parcels to be acquired with tax increment from-the:-Gramercy Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, Urban Village TIF District and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District; b. Modifying the sources of funds to include interfund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District; c. Modifying Richfield Rediscovered 1999 by expanding the geographic area by adding 10 parcels; d. Modifying the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A-5 TIF District and B-5 TIF District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan-for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, • adopted July 16, 1990, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department of the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. • MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA • • 2 • Q V W O a a O W W ~: J W V L! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ ~~ wn ~~~ ~~ ~-~ w~- ,~ 00~ fflrlfriaD ~ItlVd dgV~11b0 71WOiV1LY01 HLC NlY wo~riu arc oWc ~~ ~ anrunooN ~~ .rn~,rd ~~ a~ ~~ ~nvarai++ti irrraw wvrwe xvtw~ ,rawor. arvwo io~owww ownr~ awn xn~a wroo~ tnouow ao~x+ rrnno ~v~oa " N'9f10 3 ~eanr Nolen ,~ 3 NWNNM ~ TT 'lAV4~ffYifC ` 1 ~ c ~~~~ t t ~~~t~ t r' t t ~Z _ _ ri r- w ~ ~i ~ ~ w C ~ H Z 7 V O (] m H ~ ~ p c a~ env rvcao ~ c cca ~.- -~~ ~ c ~ ws- ~ -,oicprwoa d _ ~ ~ ~~ E ~- c c ~" ...E E "'z` c as e . aa~ ~, F- 71Wd Q1 ~.. ~ arvanro ~ ~ S 911V 0tA/LL110d ~ a ~' !{t- ~ ~ C NOltM70 I a~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ / 1sOCN18 ~ ~s• I ~ os~~no in ~~~,~-, iawcrr 11NIWY N ~ xv~ a ~ «o~~ ~ ta~aw~nr ~ N ~ eNNw C ~ Z a4n~re ~ ~ C xoeoi O N ~a~+ ~ Z > ~o ~ C 3nvnae .p ~ p. ~assrw m ~ ~ -Nauo~s >p ~ ~ No,an Oy ~ O ~ c SZ of S s MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District (the "Gramercy TIF Plan" and "Gramercy TIF District"). The Gramercy TIF District. is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richf eld Redevelopment Project Area. The Gramercy TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Pazcels") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan"), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ("the Council") on October 11, 1999, and. subsequently revised by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Pazcels") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; c. allow the use of Gramercy TIF District increment (the "Gramercy Increment") for eligible. project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Pazcels; • d. .recognize the. possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan :and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition pazcels; and e. allow interfund loans to pay eligible project costs for Gramercy TIF District activities prior to the receipt of Gramercy Increment. f. clazify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District. Property to be Acquired The Acquisition Parcels listed in the RR 1999 TIF Plan and New Acquisition Pazcels, including all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels, aze listed for reference purposes and made part of the Gramercy TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that Gramercy Increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue Parcel Numbers 27-028-24-11-0001 27-028-24-42-0073 3 6625 3'~ Avenue 27-028-24-41-0084 • 6637 5'" Avenue 2'7-028-24-41-0105. 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27-028-24-34-0016 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27-028-24-31-0007 6833 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0086 6833 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-33-0070 7036 lu Avenue. 34-028-24-12-0015. 7241 2"~ Avenue 34-028-24-13-0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34-028-24-14-0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34-028-24-23-0129 7544 2"d Avenue 34-028-24-42-0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-13-0090 6928 14~'Avenue 26-028-24-43-0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28-028-24-22-0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0075 • 0126 24 21 28 028 6306 Irving Avenue - - - - 6320 Girard Avenue. 28-028-24-12-0033 6645 Knox Avenue 28-028-24-31-0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28-028-24-33-0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29-028-24-44-0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0170. 6833 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0171 6901 12~' Avenue 26-028-24-43-0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-44-0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-34-0045 • 4 New Acquisition Parcels: • Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26-028-2433-0103 1015 East 69`b Street 26-028-24340050 6616 Second Avenue 27-028-2442-0064 7232 Second Avenue 34028-2413-0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 27-028-24-41-0028 28-028-2411-0049 28-028-24240009 33-028-24-42-0077 28-028-24340064 27-028-24-42-0070 It is the City's intention to acquire other pazcels when necessary, at a later date, add such pazcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Gramercy TIF Plan, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the Gramercy District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of the Gramercy District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. -Thus, it is estimated that the Gramercy District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or I-iRA does reserve the right to decertify the Gramercy District prior to the legally required date. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 310(a)(1). The tax increment financing district remains a redevelopment district based on the findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on June 22, 1998. • The Gramercy District has plans to redevelop the area for residential and commercial/retail purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Gramercy. District are occupied by s buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Gramercy District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree • requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix E). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected taz increments for the maximum duration of the Gramercy District permitted by the Plan. The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on June 22, 1998. Those findings are as follows: The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is .supported by the fact that the development .proposed in this plan is a senior housing cooperative that meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. The HRA currently owns certain property within the VFW facility and the mixed-use commercial/retail and housing component site area, but the cost of site and public improvements and acquisition of the other properties in the district by the developer makes the proposed development infeasible without City assistance. The developer of the senior housing cooperative and VFW facility has submitted a pro forma on file in City Hall demonstrating the need for the assistance, and the developer has certified to the City that financing for the project would not be available but for the tax increment assistance to be t provided under this plan. The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected taz increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and acquiring the property adds to the total redevelopment cost. Since the late 1970's/early 1980's the HRA has intended to redevelop the subject site area. The majority of the area south of 66th Street and west of Lyndale Avenue has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. In the late 1970's.the HRA purchased property which subsequently provided a site for the lake Shore Condominiums Since that time various proposals have been advanced for other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Historically, site development, costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the housing development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Gramercy District, the total increased market value would be up to $50,335,744. The present value of the'tax increment from the Gramercy District is estimated • to be $12,110,673. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $38,225,071 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon. evidence from general .past experience with the high cost of • acquisition and public and site ~mpravements in the general area of the Gramercy District (see the but/for analysis in the cashflow in Appendix C). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment. Financing Plan for the Gramercy District conforms to the general plan for the redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City and approved the Plan on May 26, 1998. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District will `afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on June 22, 1998. Those findings are as follows:. The project to be assisted by the Gramercy. District will.result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State, the addition of a high quality development to the City and provide certain housing components to the City which do not exist. Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. • • MAP OF THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • • • g • • C{Z ~ a w 0 a Z a 0 0 J W V DC ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ m 0 Z anvwc~ ~~ rut- ~~ wcia+Mao~ ws~ Z, ~t ~ wt~ ~p ~~ ~~- ~..~ m ~ s ~~ m «u ~ C ~. ~ M~ a ~, ~°"~; a. ~~ o wrcMUeM ~ ,~ ~ F- anrs~aui ~a~uar ~-~ ~, xvsioo ~HOra Nos~eMe ,a ~,~-+ ~~~ ~"° ~ ~~ ~ N8f~1/M ~ (\ 71W O ~~~~~~~~ ~~_~~~€~ • MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The Urban Village TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: The City of Richfield (the "City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (the "Urban Village TIF Plan" and "Urban Village TIF District"). The Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition (the "Acquisition Parcels") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan"), originally approved by the Richfield. City Council ("the Council") on October 11, .1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels for acquisition (the "New Acquisition Parcels") to the Gramercy, Urban Village and RR 1999 TIF Districts; c. allow the use of Urban Village TIF District increment (the "Urban Village Increment") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Property to be Acquired The parcels to be .acquired that are financed by tax increments from the Urban Village District are being modified to include the parcels listed below, including all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels. Please see the map on page 15 for further information on the location of the Urban Village District. Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6220 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-11-0001 6608 Stevens Avenue 27-028-24-42-0073 6625 3`~ Avenue 27-028-24-41-0084 • 6637 5~' Avenue 27-028-24-41-0105 io 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27-028-24-34-0016 • 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27-028-24-31-0007 6833 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0086. 6833 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-33-0070 7036 1s1 Avenue 34-028-24-12-0015 7241.2"d Avenue 34-028-24-13-0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34-028-24-14-0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34-028-24=23-0129 7544 2"a Avenue 34-028-24-42-0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24_13-0090. 6928 14th Avenue 26-028-24-43-0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28-028-24-22-0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0126 6320 Girard Avenue 28-028-24-12-0033 • 028 24 31 0032 28 6645 Knox Avenue - - - - 6800 Logan Avenue 28-028-24-33-0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29-028-24-44-0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0170 6833 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0171 6901 12~'Avenue 26-028-24-43-0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-44-0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-34-0045 New Acquisition Parcels: Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0103 1015 East 69th Street 26-028-24-34-0050 • u • 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue 27-028-24-42-0064 34028-2413-0121 27-028-24-41-0028 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt • 28-028-2411-0049 28-028-24240009 7517 Humboldt 33-028-2442-0077 6919 Logan _ 28-028-2434.-0064 6600 Stevens' 27-028-24-42-0070 ' `~ It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the Urban Village TIF Plan, and finance-the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Sources of Funds Interfund loans from the City, HRA or other districts may be used to cover project expenses of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. It is the City's intention to pay back these interfund loans with tax increment from the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Urban Pillage Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The tax increment financing district remains a redevelopment district based on the findings .made upon adoption of the original tax increment financingplan on November 23, 1998. Those .findings aze as follows: Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District consists of 21 pazcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the pazcels in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in Urban Village Tax Increment Financingbistrict, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandazd to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F in the original plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in • the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the l2 present value ofthe projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. • The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on November 23, 1998. Those findings are as follows: The proposed development, in the opinion ofthe City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the. fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. In order to facilitate the project, the developer must buy single family homes at a price higher than rental town house project will support. Further, since this is an urban setting, no land is available for parking. Therefore, the`developer must build approximately 600 car parking ramp. Due to this high cost of redevelopment, this,project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter as justification that he would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix G in the original plan). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of constructing site improvements, a public ramp and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore,. the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind • is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the total increased market value would be up to $21,828,175. The present value of tax increments from Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $8,579,438. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $4,469,236 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon - evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, public improvements, site improvements and public utilities in the general area ofthe Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D in the original plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. - The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1998. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan ofthe City. The Plan, as modified to reflect the revised development proposal, was reviewed by the Planning • 13 Commission on November 27, 2000. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. • 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban village Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. - The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on November 23, 1998. Those findings are as follows: The project to be assisted by Urbane Village Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota; the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. • • ~a MAP OF THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING DISTRICT • • QZ ~ C7 • ~~ a V a Z W a 0 0 w o~ 0 J V ;+.~ ~~~~~~~~ w~- H10~ aNr~vo ~-vaNrtit+oe ILL4 Hif ~' ~~ ~ ~~ HlYCM1111~iM ~~ ~~~,~-, HOAIQi~ sHr~uw xM~oo iNOerw ~~ iHOw~ away taiowrrw oHU~u a~nr x~ wool Hvouon HO1MiN taiu~o ~nrHH3e ~ ~~ ~scnu war~+s =undo Homan JIA~MA NWI~CYM ~-vsa~c ~ r W O 2 -3nr wa3~ twt Hilt ,~- ~, ~ ~- ~ ~ Hlfl 7 N Hut p ~ HlZL .c ~ Hilt ~ ~ wog m ~ larro ~ c ,iw~ Q i-i aHr~ •- ~ E d ~atHrp arc p, C aHC o ~ l „~ m ~ I „ aH+roo avwru ~ ~ ~/q/Z1YOiA1 HOIaQ11l ~HVw~ xirnoo caaaaws o ir~onra+ a awry yv~o~rw o~i ~ saw ~aaa wool -NOron NouMaN a~nra ~r~ 4 Inc $F HNOe~+e Q ~MnoHl 8 mien •- NWWiVM O '\ 31Wl~l0®C S C .- A ~ _ _-- • • .7 MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Introduction The City of Richfield (the "City"),the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to facilitate a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan" and "RR 1999 TIF District"). The RR 1999 Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment tax increment .financing district located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan is being modified at this time to specifically: a. incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition. (the "Acquisition Parcels") from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "RR 1999 TIF Plan"), originally approved by the Richfield City Council ("the Council") on October 11, 1999, and subsequently revises by Council on November 22, 1999; b. add 10 new parcels (the "New Acquisition Pazcels") to the RR 1999 TIF District; c. allow the use of RR 1999 TIF District increment (the "RR 1999 Increment") for eligible project costs on RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels. and New Acquisition Parcels; and d. expand the geographic area by adding 10 pazcels; and e. recognize the possibility of future modifications to the RR 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the RR 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of RR 1999 Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Legal Descr~tion of Property in Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Richfield Rediscovered 1999 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed below. Property in Richfield Rediscovered: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 3`" Avenue 6637 5~' Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 6744 Blaisdell Avenue Parcel Numbers 27-028-24-11-0001 27-028-24-42-0073 27-028-24-41-0084 27-028-24-41-0105 27-028-24-34-0016 27-028-24-31-0007 l6 • • 6833 Park Avenue 6833 Grand Avenue 7036 1 n Avenue 7241 2"d Avenue 7316 Clinton Avenue 7301 Garfield Avenue 7544 2"~ Avenue 7333 Emerson Avenue 6928 14~' Avenue 6315 Newton Avenue 6310 Irving Avenue 6306 Irving Avenue 6320 Girard Avenue. 6645 Knox Avenue 6800 Logan Avenue 6912 Penn Avenue 6933 Queen Avenue 6833 Penn Avenue 6929 Queen Avenue 6901 12~' Avenue 6945 Clinton Avenue 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 26-028-24-33-0086 27-028-24-33-0070 34-028-24-12-0015 34-028-24-13-0150 34-028-24-14-0086 34-028-24-23-0129 34-028-24-42-0104 33-028-24-13-0090 26-028-24-43-0069 28-028-24-22-0097 28-028-24-21-0075 28-028-24-21-0126 28-028-24-12-0033. 28-028-24-31-0032 28-028-24-33-0001 29-028-24-44-016 L 29-028-24-44-0170 28-028-24-33-0045 29-028-24-44-0171 26-028-24-43-0082 27-028-24-44-0108 34-028-24-34-0045 Additional Parcels as of January 22, 2001 Modification: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 69`° Street 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue Parcel Numbers 26-028-24-33-0103 26-028-24-34-0050 27-028-24-42-0064 34-028-24-13-0121 t~ 6620 Fifth Avenue • 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 27-028-24-41-0028 28-028-24-11-0049 28-028-24-24-0009 33-028-24-42-0077 28-028-24-34-0064 27-028-24-42-0070 The above list of 10 parcels added to the RR-1999 TIF District includes. the following parcels that were located in previous Richfield Rediscovered TIF .Districts but were not certified: As noted in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the A-5 TIF District and in the Modification to the TIF Plan for the B-5 TIF District, the Plans are being modified to clarify that these parcels are no longer in the A-5 TIF Plan and B-5 TIF Plan, and they are included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6616 Second Avenue 27-028-24-42-0064 6620 Fifth Avenue 27-028-24-41-0028 6440 Humboldt 28-028-24-24-0009 • It is the City's intention to acquire other parcels when necessary, at a later date, add such parcels to the property in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District, and finance the eligible project costs for the parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. Property to be Acquired The following RR 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New Acquisition Parcels, including all .property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels, are listed for reference purposes and made part of the RR 1999 TIF District's list of parcels proposed for acquisition in order that RR 1999 Increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels: Acquisition Parcels: Address 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 3`" Avenue 6637 5~' Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue • 6744 Blaisdell Avenue Parcel Numbers 27-028-24-11-0001 27-028-24-42-0073 27-028-24-41-0084 27-028-24-41-0105 27-028-24-34-0016 27-028-24-31-0007 is 6833 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0086 • 6833 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-33-0070 7036 15` Avenue 34-028 24-12-0015 7241 2"d Avenue 34-028-24-13-0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34-028-24-14-0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34-028-24-23-0129 7544 2"d Avenue 34-028-24-42-0104 ' 7333 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-13-0090 6928 14~'Avenue 26-028-24-43-0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28-028-24=22-0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0126 6320 Girard Avenue 28-028-24-12-0033 6645 Knox Avenue 28-028-24-31-0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28-028-24-33-0001 • e 0161 24 44 29 028 6912 Penn Avenu - - - - 6933 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0170 6833 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0045. 6929 Queen Avenue 29-028-24-44-0171 6901 12~'Avenue 26-028-24-43-0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-44-0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-34-0045 Additional Acquisition Parcels as of January 22, 2001 Modification: Address 6856 Park Avenue 1015 East 69"' Street 6616 Second Avenue 7232 Second Avenue Parcel Numbers 26-028-24-33-0103 26-028-24-34-0050 27-028-24-42-0064 34-028-24-13-0121 19 • 6620 Fifth Avenue 6309 Bryant 6440 Humboldt 7517 Humboldt- 6919 Logan 6600 Stevens 27-028-24-41-0028 28-028-24-11-0049 28-028-24-24-0009 33-028-24-42-0077 28-028-24-34-0064 27-028-24-42-0070 It is the City's intention to acquire-other parcels when necessary to-add such pazcels to the list of acquisition parcels in the RR 1999 TIF. Plan, and to finance the eligible project costs- for the-parcels with tax increment revenues after the appropriate plan modification. - Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions There aze no changes to the impact on other taxing jurisdictions due to the modifications of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan. The Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Program was created to acquire a total of 14 houses in two years - 7 houses per year. The impact on the taxing jurisdictions will remain the same as long as only 14 houses. are acquired. Additional pazcels are being added to the district so there is a larger pool of houses to choose from when identifying the 14 houses that will be acquired. • Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts. supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 aze as follows: 1. Finding that Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The tax increment financing district remains a redevelopment district based on the findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on October 11, 1999. As part of this January 22, 2001, modification, the HRA is adding 10 additional parcels to the Richfield Rediscovered 1997 district. The HRA finds that each noncontiguous parcels meets the requirements for a redevelopment district because each pazcel is occupied by improvements (which means at least I S% of the area is improved), and each parcel is occupied by a single family house that is structurally substandazd to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. (See page 22) The findings are based on an analysis of each parcel conducted by staff or consultant, on file in City Hall. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the • 20 present value of the projected tczz increments for the maximum duration of Richfield • Rediscovered .1999 permitted by the Plan. The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on October 11, 1999. Those findings are as follows: Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 and the use `of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development whichis proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Richfield Rediscovered 1999, the total increase in market value would be up to $1,960,000 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,478,866 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 (see Cashflow in Appendix C in the original plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 28, 1999, and the Planning Commission found that the Plan is in conformance with the general development plan of the • City. The Plan, as modified to reflect the revised development proposal, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2000. The Planning Commission found the Plan in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Taz Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The Council reaffirms its findings made upon adoption of the original tax increment financing plan on October 11, 1999. Those findings are as follows: The project to be assisted by Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. • 21 MAP OF THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • • • • ~.~ pO ~ ~Z S l+f r r0 n ~ = i ~ s ~ W ~ ~ ~ m g ~ s s ~ ~ ~ w 3 V N Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `" c ~ c ~~ ~ c ntn j ~C~ C Htu ~ ~ ~ ~ r Nau»~moow c c N1t- Nun NILL ~ E E N«< a NWI 0 c ~ F - ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~IiNd Q1 ~ ~ ONVDNO anvaNruaoe ~ y n ~ c NlL Ntr tC NO11p10 ~ aZlt ~ A '^ NR ~uu Q N1Ll ~~ N19t ,w~ ~~~ Nub "`-`~ W N~o- 7 ~ O °°,~ Cfl/IltllO~ ~tlrd a °~° ~nra+vuyod ~ Nis J W NotNlla Z ~` G OtlC ONL a O '~` ~ J 3nv,3„oow W "~'r'° N1tloHUraM Atlf1aST11d W ~~" ~ a~~ W J911itlVN a~iatlvo 3nr3~raN,-i Q nowoT+ iNV,we .J xr~a> W NOStl3M3 ~ tNOratl~ = owwo 1010YNf W '/~~// ONWN ~i. ia1M1' koNH NV001 NVDUOW N02MdN tl91Y70 3nrNNad 3 N~flo 3 ~rscsna Nvar~+s svNONi Nolen sr~t~n -, ~ Ntlfl6SYM ~ '3Ar93XYiX TM~llal8 u~ ~-rJ3„OOIN "~, I ~u .. ONVtlO ,JItltl1IN ~ ~~ ~» anr3ivorui -ultlolY tNV~ttla ~ ~ xviwa d ~ ~ ~ E ° ~ '"°'~'~ o atlnao ia~pgwnN y C N ' C ENNW i9M! ~ Z . 700NM ~ 0 ; ~ NIPJIpW O~ ~ ~ M911110 ~ C OV Q l7 3ArNN3d '~ Nano d ~. Q S NVOINiNQ > ~ ~ cvwau ~ ~' ~ Noidfl G7 Ntlt10LVM ~ o 9Ari3Ktl9fC fi. a a ~ Q ~ S G ~ T • LL 'i SUBSTANDARD FINDINGS FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIF DISTRICT • • • • SUMMARY OF PROPERTY EVALUATIONS FOR PROPERTIES TO BE ADDED TO THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROGRAM 1. Additional Properties. Following is the list of properties to be added as part of the modification to the 1999 TIF Plan: 2. Parcel Improvements. Per Minnesota Statute, a minimum of 15 percent of the area of the parcel must contain improvements. Following is the percentage of site • coverage, as determined in the property evaluation reports: 3. Substandardness. Building structures on the properties listed all exhibit substandard conditions and code violations which are not cost effective to correct within the existing structures. • Address Parcel Numbers 6856 Park Avenue 26-028-24-330103 ' 1015 East 69` Street 26-028-24-34=0050. 6616 Second Avenue 27-028-24-42-0064 7232 Second Avenue 34-028-24-13-0121 6620 Fifth Avenue 27-028-24-41-0028 6309 B ant Avenue 28-028-24-11-0049 6440 Humboldt Avenue 28-028-24-24-0009 7517 Humboldt Avenue 33-028-24-42-0077 6919 Lo an Avenue 28-028-24-34-0064 6600 Stevens Avenue 27-028-24-42-0070 Address Site Covera e 6856 Park Avenue 17% .1015 East 69` Street 41 6616 Second Avenue 19% 7232 Second Avenue 25% 6620 Fifth Avenue 24% 6309 B ant Avenue 22% 6440 Humboldt Avenue 22% 7517 Humboldt Avenue 15% 6919 Lo an Avenue 20% 6600 Stevens Avenue 15% zsn • • • MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE A-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives District A-S currently consists of 53 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. District A- Swas created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District A-S consists of S3 lots with the potential for a total of SS new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District A-S, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District-A-S does assume'that S'S new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in theModification.to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District A-S and Redevelopment Project Area A. Generally, the Modification includes removing 2 parcels, that were not certified, from the District. Subsection 2 5 Leal Description of Proner+ in Tax Increment Financinsf District A-5 The following property and all adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District A-S but are not certified in the District. These parcels are being removed from District A-S and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. Address Parcel Number 6616 Second Avenue 27-028-24-42-0064 6620 Fifth Avenue 27-028-24-41-0028 Za ti MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN • FOR THE B-5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives District B-5 currently consists of 29 pazcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. District B-5 is created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District B-5 consists of 291ots with the potential for a total of 30 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District B-5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District B=S does assume that 30 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project. Area B. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District B-5 and Redevelopment Project Area B. Generally, the Modifications include removing one parcel, which was not certified, from the District. Subsection 2-5 Leval Description of Pronerty in Tax Increment Financing District B-5 The following property. and all adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed below are included in District B-5 but aze not certified in the District. These. parcels are being removed from District B-5 • and included in the RR 1999 TIF Plan, as modified. ' Address Parcel Number 6440 Humboldt 2&028-24240009 • 2s Hennepin CountyTaxpayer Services Department • A-600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060 ~~~L1 V D JAN 1 7 2001 January 12, 2001 Sid Inman Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Re: Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan and TIF District Modifications - Dear Sid: .Enclosed is a report from Richard P. Johnson, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator, to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, concerning the proposed Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Plan modifications and Modifications to the Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and 6-5 Tax Increment Financing Districts. • Please arrange to have the report entered into the record of the public hearing of the Richfield City Council on Monday,: January 22, 2001, to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. If you have any questions about this information, please call me at 348-5076. Sincerely, ~4 Jean M. Bierbaum, Senior Administrative Assistant Financial Analysis and Support Division CC Katia Medvetski, .Richfield HRA JMB:jb RevuRichfieldGramercyUrbanVillageRediscovered1999A5651222001JransmittalLetter • An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper • ~`~Mem~ GATE .January 12, 2001 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Richard P. Johnson, Deputy Administrator ~ P /~ V Re: Proposed Modification to the Redevelopment. Plan for the Richfield. Redevelopment Project Area and Modifications to Gramercy, Urban Vllage, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B-5 TIF Districts The following hearing was scheduled:. Monday, November 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City HaIL The modifications were not approved on that date, and the hearing has been continued to: Monday, January 22, 2001., at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall e The following review is substantially the same as the review submitted for the November 13,2000, public hearing - with the notable exception. that the proposal has been. modified to provide for geographic enlargement of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF. District. • RECENT HISTORY FOR THE. RICHFlELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: This plan was modified on October 11, 1999, to enlarge the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by adding eight blocks between 62nd and 66"' Streets and Stevens and Clifrton Avenues South, and three blocks between 62n" and 63'd Streets and Garfield and Pleasant Avenues South. The purpose of the modification wasto permit the use of tax increment generated by the Gramercy and the Urban Village TIF Districtsfor development of properties. within the enlarged Redevelopment Project Area. The properties to be developed, in part with tax increment from Gramercy and Urban Vllage TIF Districts, were part of the .proposed Richfield Rediscovered .1999 TIF District. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The current proposal will:. 1) Modify the parcels to be acquired with tax increment from the Gramercy TIF District, the Urban Village TIF .District, and the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District; 2) Modify the sources of funds to include intertund loans in the Gramercy TIF District and Urban Village TIF District; 3) Modify the Statement of Goals and Objectives and the Legal Description of Property for the A 5 and B-5 TIF Districts; and 4) Modify Richfield Rediscovered 1999. by expandingthe geographic area by adding 10 parcels. RECENT HISTORY OF GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The. Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District, located on the southwest quadrant of Lyndale and 66,"' was created. on 6/22/98. It provides for tax increment of $30,875,000 for construction of a senior cooperative housing project, a new VFW facility, medical offices and clinic, a new hardware store and another retail store. The. Use of Funds portion of the Gramercy TIF District budget was increased by $4,827,586, on October 11, 1999, to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt to support the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: ~!, The Gramercy Tif bistrict will be modified as follows: 1) Add 28 parcels for acquisition from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District and add 10 other new parcels for acquisition, so that Gramercy tax increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels; 2) .Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Gramercy TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Gramercy Increment to pay eligible project costs for the: acquisition parcels. 3) Allow interFund loans to cover eligible project expenses incurred prior to receipt of Gramercy increment 4) Clarify the duration of the Gramercy TIF District. - Continued... • • • January 12, 2001 Proposed Richfield Modifica#ions to Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A 5 and B-5 TIF Districts Page 2 RECENT HISTORY OF THE URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The 25-year Urban Village Redevelopment TIF District was created on November 23, 1998 and certified by Hennepin County on 7/15/99. It is located roughly between 66"' and 67"' Streets and Lyndale and Pleasant Avenues South, and provides for tax increment of $26,250,000 for redevelopment of the site with 132 rental apartments with. underground parking; approximately 78 units of senior assisted living; 80,000 square feet of commercial space on three levels, connected by a condor to a 500 to 650 car parking ramp for on-site and general public parking needs. The Use of Funds portion of the Urban Village TIF District budget was increased by $4,827,586, on October 11,1999, to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt for the purpose of suppofing the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE URBAN VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: 1) Add 28 parcels for acquisition from the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District and add 10 other new parcels for acquisition, so that Urban Village tax increment may be used to pay for eligible project costs for these parcels. 2) Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Urban Village TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Urban Village Increment to pay eligible project costs for the RR 1.999 TIF Plan acquisition parcels. RECENT HISTORY OF7HE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Ichfield Rediscovered Housing program created its first TIF. District on July 23, 1990. The purpose of this program is to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable home-buyers to construct new houses on the lots through the program administered bythe HRA. Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District contains 28 scatten:d-site. parcels that have been certified by the County as tax increment generating parcels. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: 1) .Incorporate the list of 28 parcels for acquisition from. the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan; 2) Add 10 new parcels for acquisition; 3) Allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District increment for eligible project costs on Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan Acquisition Parcels and New acquisition parcels; 4) F~cpand the geographic area byadding 10 parcels; and 5) Recognize the possibility of future modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TI Plan and list of acquisition parcels and the need to simultaneously modify the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan to continue to allow the use of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Increment to pay eligible project costs for the Richfield Rediscovered TIF Plan acquisition parcels. Richfield anticipates no additional impact on the taxing jurisdictions as long as no more than 14 houses are acquired for redevelopment. The addition of 10 parcels to the TIF District provides a larger pool of houses to choose from when identifying the 14 houses-that will be acquired for redevelopment. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE A-5 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Plan for TIF District A-5 is being modified to clarify that two parcels included in the TIF Plan, but for which no request for certification was received by the County, are to be removed from the A-5 TIF District Ptan and are to be included in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan. Therefore, while the certfied geographic boundary of the A-5 TIF District is not being changed, the potential for use of A-5 tax increment for the acquisition or development of the two parcels has been eliminated. These two parcels are included on the list of 10 parcels for acquisition added by modification to the Gramercy, Urban Village and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Districts. This change means that tax increment from these three TIF Districts may be used for acquisition and development of the parcels. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE B-5 REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT: The Plan for TIF District B-5 is being modified to clarify that one parcel included iri the TIF Plan, but for which no request for certification was received by the County, is to be removed from the B-5 TIF District Plan and is to be included in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Plan. Therefore, while the certified geographic boundary of the B-5 TIF District is not being changed, the potential for use of B-5 tax increment for the acquisition or development of the parcel has been eliminated., The parcel is included on the list of 10 parcels for acquisition added by modification to i the Gramercy, Urban Village and Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF Districts. This change means that tax increment from these three TIF Districts may be used for acquisition and development of the parcel. Continued--- .January 12, 2001 Proposed Richfield Modifications to Gramercy, Urban Village, Richfield Rediscovered 1999, A-5 and B-5 TIF Districts Page 3 • SUMMARY: The modfications to these five TIF Districts are interlaced and provide authority to spend tax increment for parcel acquisition and development by the TIF Districts with enough tax increment to cover the expenses.. The Rediscovered 1999 TIF District is being geographically enlarged by' 10 parcels to provide a larger pool from which to select 14 houses for redevelopment by TIF funds from the District. The Rediscovered 1999 TIF District has a goal of replacing dilapidated, undersized or inadequate housing with new, larger, moderately-priced homes in order to attract and retain young families in Richfield. Whilethe housing stock replacement wiA not increase low-income housing, it will create larger, family-sized, moderate-priced homes in a first ring suburb. The modifications are technical in nature. Therefore, there is no basis for measurement of these modifications as to adherence to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners' preference for the use of tax increment, as identified in .Resolution 92-10-917R1, adopted 10/27/92. A copy of this report will be forwarded to the City of Richfield with a request that it be entered into the public record of the January 22, 2001, public hearing to reflect the county's position on these proposals. (w:rewRichfieldGramercyUrban~IlageRediscoven~d1999A5B51222001) • • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Reports AGENDA ITEM # S REPORT # 2 ] STAFF REPORT COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 22, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. MARTIN J. KIRSCH, MAYOR SIGNATURE 1~ r _ cs1.L.--"~/l~ .0. /1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Appoint persons to fill the expiring or vacant terms on the City advisory commissions III. BACKGROUND ~ Several terms of City commission members expire on January 31, 2001. In addition, there are mid-term vacancies due to resignations that need to be filled. Vacancies were advertised in the Richfield Sun-Current, cable television channel 16, the message board outside City Hall, the City's web page, and as a feature article in the December Your city. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or • resolution. Terms are for three-years and are staggered. Several terms expire on January 31 annually. The Council directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies. Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. These 0122appointments Council meetings were posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Applicants were. interviewed at Special City Council meetings on January 10, 11 and 22, 2001. • Terms of several commission members expire on January 31, 2001. • There are mid-term vacancies which need to be filled. • In order to ensure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made on January 22, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Defer appointments to a later Council meeting. • If appointments are not made at the January 22 meeting, quorums may not be present at future meetings. V. ATTACHMENTS • Commission vacancy list. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ne expected. • • • J 0 N N r N W_ U Z Q U Q Z O U N~td'd' O O O O O O O O N N N N ~~~~ M M M M ~~~~ (Q f6 f6 f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C ~ (a f6 (~ Rf ~~~~ ~U C (6 •U fa H J W ~ 2 ,~? O ~ .~ O~ ~~ 0 a O O N r M of C (~ >+ U C tiS U to Z 0 N N O W w J V N d'~ d' O O O O O O O O N N N N ~~r-c- M M M M ~~~~ Rf (~ (Q (Q ~ ~ ~ 7 C C C C tQ f6 (a (6 ~~~~ a~ ~U C (0 U ca d' Z _~ U~ N ~1-+ W~ V .~ n. ~~ w= ~~ z M~t~d'~t O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N ~~~~~ M M M M M ~~~~~ fa f~ R5 f6 (6 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C C C f0 (6 ttf (a (6 ~ ~ ~ ~ M N ~U C ca U f~ Z O^ ,A~ VC_/ ~ C ~. O •Q V x N~ _~ z 2 O O O N N N ~~~ M M M ~~~ R f~ (iT ~ ~ ~ C C C (II f6 (6 ~~~ N ~U C Rf U (~ M Z /O VI N V z z z J a Md'~d' O O O O O O O O N N N N ~~~~ M M M M ~~~~ (6 Rf ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ C C C C (a RS (B t0 ~~~~ N ~U C fa U (~ Z 0 '~ ~ v+ ^L` C _W C O V x ~~ c v~ a~ °z W • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 4C REPORT # 26 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DAWN WEITZEL, _ HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Nance TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution pertaining to filing of the Pay Equity Report with Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution pertaining to filing of the Pay Equity Report with Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. III. BACKGROUND ~ Minnesota Statutes require that every municipality file a report with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) once every three years to indicate equitable pay relationships between male and female employees. The data compiled for the report is done in accordance with strict standards determined by DOER and is reported in a summary format for submission to DOER. The City has completed its work on the Pay Equity Report for the period ending December 31, 2000 and is ready for the report to be signed by the Mayor and sent to DOER. The preliminary summary results would indicate that the City continues to be in compliance with the Minnesota Pay Equity Act. However, DOER will make an official determination after the report is analyzed. 0122PayEquity STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY All cities must file a report with the State once every three years to comply with the Pay Equity Act. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The report has been completed and seems to indicate that Richfield male and female pay relationships are in compliance with the Pay Equity Act. C. FINANCIAL • Any reports not postmarked on or received by DOER on or before January 31, 2001 will be found out of compliance and subject to a penalty. The penalty is a 5 percent reduction in state aid payments, or $100 per day, whichever is greater. D. LEGAL • Richfield must file a report with DOER. on or before January 31, 2001 based on data as of December 31, 2000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • • The report is based on actual data and must be filed with the State in accordance with the statutory timeline. V. ATTACHMENTS • Pay Equity Statistical Findings VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO FILING OF THE PAY EQUITY REPORT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WHEREAS, State statutes require that every municipality file a report with the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) once every three years to indicate equitable pay relationships between male and female employees; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction is submitting a pay equity implementation report to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations as required by the Local Government Pay E ui Act, Minnesota Statutes 471.991 to 471.999; and a q tY. WHEREAS, this report has been completed and seems to .indicate that Richfield. male and female pay relationships are in compliance with the Pay Equity Act; and WHEREAS, Richfield must file a report with DOER on or before January 31, 2001 based on data as of December 31, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall accept the findings of the Pay Equity Report and forward it to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of January, 2001. • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Pay Equity Implementation Report Send completed report to: Pay Equity Coordinator Department of Employee Relations 200 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155-1603 (651) 296-2653 (Voice) (651) 297-2003 (TDD) For Department Use Only Postmark Date of Report Jurisdiction ID Number c ; Name of Jurisdiction City of Richfield ,~ . $~ City O County ^ School ^ Other: ~ ~ ~ = Address 6700 Portland Ave So City Richfield State Z'p 55423 a ~ a ~° Contact Person Steve Devich Phone (612 ) 861-9702 ~ The job evaluation system used measured skill, effort, ©No salary ranges/performance differences. responsibility and working conditions and the same system was used for all classes of employees. ^ Check here if both of the following apply; otherwise, leave Check the system used: blank. a. Jurisdiction does not have a salary range for any job ^ State Job Match class. ^ Designed Own (specify) b. Upon request, jurisdiction will supply documentation showing that inequities between male and female _ O Ll Consultant's System (specify) classes are due to performance differences. +~ PDI , Inc . Note: Do not include any documentation regarding v performance with this form. ;~ ^ Other (specify) .~ Q An official notice has been posted at City Hall bulletin boards & City site: © Health insurance benefits for male and female classes ~ of comparable value have been evaluated and: (prominentlocation) informing employees that the Pay Equity Implementation p ^ There is no difference and female classes are not Report has been filed and is available to employees upon at a disadvantage. request. A copy of the notice has been sent to each exclusive m representative, if any, and also to the public library. The report W ~ There is a difference and the maximum salaries was approved by: d .reported include the. monthly amount paid by the City Council employer for health insurance. (governing body) lete and accurate ort is com m ti n i this re Q I f Martin J . Kirsch . p p n or a o n (chiefe/ectedofficial, printl Q The report includes all classes of employees over which the jurisdiction has final budgetary approval (chief elected official, signature) authority. Mayor 1- 22 - 20D 1 (title! (date! Result from Salary Range Worksheet CV ~' ~ .• W ~ ~ ~ 83.70. % is the result of average years to salary range maximum for male classes divided by the d H ~ average years to salary range maximum for female classes. p H Results from Exceptional Service Pay Worksheet 4 q C ~, ~, p ~ ad •"; ~ o• ^ 20% or less of male classes receive ESP. d ~" ~ ~ Wixom 82.93 % is the result of the ercenta a of female classes receivin ESP divided b the ercentage P 9 9 Y P in =' °' of male classes receiving ESP. W W o ~ $12 , 629 , 868.5 ~ the annual payroll for the calendar year just ended December 31. 4. '_ •1 _ 'tea (Part F on Back) payegrpt.p65 • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 4B REPORT # 25 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER:. DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAM&, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: .ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by the Church of the Assumption for temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement, itinerant food, and public dance licenses, with fees waived, for their annual Sno-Ball famil event to be held Saturda , Janua 27, 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a request by the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, for temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor, itinerant place of amusement, itinerant food and public dance licenses, with fees waived, for their annual Sno-Ball family event to be held on Saturday, January 27, 2001. • II. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2001, the Church of the Assumption, 305 E. 77th Street, submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor. They also submitted requests for itinerant place of amusement, itinerant food, and public dance licenses for January 27, 2001. They are requesting that any fees be waived, as they are a religious organization. They will be serving such food items as sloppy foes, hot dogs, pizza, popcorn, and soda. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City 0122SnoBallEvent of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will • work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. This event will take place from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. There will be a private crew on to address any issues that may arise. The City has previously issued similar licenses to the Church of the Assumption. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicant will supply proof of liquor liability insurance for this event prior to January 22, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • N/A • D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Church of the Assumption staff • • AGENDA SECTION:. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4A REPORT # 24 ~~ STAFF REPORT COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 22, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICK BEANE, GARAGE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE :7 • REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~ ~ ~~~i REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a purchase of squad cars in excess of $50,000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a purchase order to Superior Ford Inc., in the sum of $105,755 for five new squad cars. II. BACKGROUND Five full size sedans (Units No. 9571, 9893, 9900, 9901, 9902)_ being used by the Public Safety Department are scheduled to be replaced in 2001. The five squad cars currently in use were purchased in 1995, 1998, and 1999 and all will be fully depreciated in 2001. -The extent and nature of the use of squad cars indicates atwo-year replacement program. Purchase of the new vehicles has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. 0122SQUADS III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City Council .policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. Superior Ford, Inc. submitted the lowest bid to the State of Minnesota. The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the January 22, 2001 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the new squad cars. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2001 budget contains $120,000 for this purchase. • Actual cost per marked squad car in 2000 was $20,749 per-squad (plus a delivery charge of $7.50 each), or $103,932.50 total. The actual cost per squad car in 2001 will be $21,151, totaling $105,755 for the five cars. • Upon delivery of the vehicles, charges for transfer of police equipment such as radios and logo applications will be deducted from the remaining • funds budgeted for this purchase. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may delay approval for one Council meeting. • No action by Council on this purchase will eventually compromise safety for police officers driving old squad, cars: V. ATTACHMENTS • None. II. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. •