09-02-99 agenda~~r
CITY OF RICHFIELD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND
CITY COUNCIL
5:00 P.M.
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
I. CONSIDERATION OF TERMS OF PROPOSAL TO POTENTIAL. END-USER
(DEVELOPER) FOR INTERCHANGE WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
HRA LETTER NO. 55
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 861-9702.
. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 55
Agenda September 2, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of the terms of a proposal to a potential end-user of the Interchange West
site.
Background:
At the August 16`Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) meeting CSM
Properties, Inc. (CSM) announced that a potential end-user had been identified for the
Interchange West site. This potential end-user has selected Interchange West as one of
four locations which they are considering for their corporate headquarters. At the
meeting, the members. of the HRA concluded that this end-user represents CSM's best
prospect for moving forward with the development. The HRA directed staff to verify the
viability of the proposed end-user and to draft a revision to the Contract for Private
Redevelopment in order to allow for the development to proceed.
It has since come to the attention of staff that the end-user will be discussing each of
the four sites which they are considering at a meeting on September 7. The end-user's
broker has suggested that the City of Richfield put together a proposal which outlines
the public financing that the City would be willing to provide in order to successfully
• compete with the other locations which are being considered.
Staff and consultants have identified the significant points which have an economic
impact on the project. These points represent options rather than recommendations. A
brief outline of each of the identified points are as follows:
Tax Increment General Obligation Bond
The end-user's broker has stated that the site assembly costs must be paid up-front
rather than through a "pay as you go" note. The most plausible source of up-front
funding for the site assembly costs would be through a public bond. Sid Inman from
Ehlers Publicorp, Inc. (Ehlers) has estimated that the site assembly costs could be paid
from the proceeds of a tax increment general obligation bond. The amount of this bond
has been estimated as $40 million. The debt service of the bond could be covered by
the tax increment generated by the development and that the bond could be retired in
seventeen years. Upon the retirement of the bond, the tax increment financing Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) district could then be decertified. An analysis of the bond
issuance is included as Exhibit A.
As an added measure of security that there will be sufficient tax increment to pay the
debt service, the end-user should be required to sign an assessment deficiency
agreement. A 20% debt coverage ratio is also assumed in order to provide additional
security.
• Among the negative impacts of the issuance of a $40 million tax increment general
obligation bond is the potential that it could adversely affect the City's bond rating.
Pay as You Go Note to Car Dealership
The newly proposed development concept continues to show an upscale car dealership
located on the site. The site assembly costs of this portion of the development could be
paid through the issuance of a $750,000 "pay as you go" note to the car dealership.
This note would be funded completely through the increment generated on that portion
of the development.
Commercial Development of the Entire Site
The current concept includes commercial development only on the south half of the
redevelopment area with townhome development located on the northern portion.
Because of the large size of the development which is now being proposed (1.5 million
sq. ft. of office space) this concept may be cost prohibitive.
The construction of this development on only the southern half of the redevelopment
area would require buildings in excess of 75 ft. in height. Buildings beyond 75 ft. require
that the entire building meet high rise code requirements, which adds approximately
20% to the cost. The development on only the southern portion of the site would also
require a large proportion of structured parking which is much costlier to construct than
surface parking.
If the development were "spread out" to include the entire site, buildings could be
constructed below the threshold for meeting high rise code requirements and there
would be fewer levels of structured parking. It has been estimated that by using the
entire Interchange West site for commercial development, the construction costs would
• be decreased by approximately $22 million.
The development of the entire site as commercial will eliminate 68 houses and 87
apartment units on the site. For the .purpose of housing replacement in the community,
however, staff is recommending that 15% of the tax increment generated be placed in a
housing trust fund. It has been estimated that the contribution to this housing trust fund
will be $480,000 annually beginning in 2002 and will total $7.2 million (present value) by
the time the TIF district would expire in 2019. The housing trust fund would be used to
promote the construction and rehabilitation of market value and affordable housing
throughout the community.
Fiscal Disparities
One option available in order to make the proposal as competitive as possible would be
to spread the increased fiscal disparities contribution throughout the community instead
of having it generated from within the development. If the project did not contribute to
the fiscal disparities fund, that would result in an overall land cost of $12.8 million to-the
end-user. If the development did contribute, then the land cost would be $22.3 million;
a cost which may not be acceptable to the end-user.
Spreading the fiscal disparities contribution throughout the community would impact the
property tax burden of each property owner in Richfield. The amount of increased tax
liability to property owners is estimated in Exhibit B. As an example, in the most likely
• scenario property taxes would be expected to increase by $49 a year on a residential
property with an assessed market value of $125,000.
Spreading the fiscal disparities contribution throughout the community rather than
generating it on site results in a $9.5 million savings on land costs to the end-user. The
. impacts on the community, however, also represent a significant impact; with a typical
residential property owner in Richfield paying an additional $49 a year in property taxes.
The concept of paying fiscal disparities outside of the development is not a
recommendation, but rather an option for presenting the most competitive proposal.
Revision of TIF Boundaries
The amount of tax increment generated in a TIF district is the tax capacity of the new
development minus the base tax capacity that had previously-existed. Staff has
determined that the amount of tax increment increases by reducing the size of the
redevelopment district to include only the area covered by buildings and not the area
covered by surface and structured parking. The reason for this is twofold: the area
covered by parking has a higher base tax capacity, and; non-income producing parking
lots pay little or no taxes.
Penn Avenue Bridge
The Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494 is currently beyond its capacity and is in need of
replacement. The development of the Interchange West site by this end-user will most
likely be seen as an impetus for this bridge replacement. Public Works staff has made
a preliminary estimate of $10 million for right-of--way acquisition and bridge construction.
A total of at least $4 million could be expected to be paid by the City of Bloomington,
Hennepin County, MnDOT, and the end-user. Staff intends on applying for $5.9 million
from a federal ISTEA or CMAQ Grant. In the event that these grant applications are
unsuccessful, however, the remaining $6 million could be supported by 20 year tax
increment general obligation tax exempt bond. In the attached bond analysis from
Ehlers (Exhibit C), the $6 million bond proceeds are shown to have additional costs of
$1.1 million in capitalized interest and fees.
Timing & Schedule
The schedule that had been presented to, and accepted by, the HRA in July included all
contingencies being removed by December 31 and closing on properties in April 2000.
When CSM proposed a development with the end-user currently being considered at
the August 16 HRA meeting, it was stated that this would possibly affect the schedule.
Staff has since learned that, due to the large size of the user, the permitting process
may take up to 12 months due to additional environmental impact analyses. This would
mean that closings on residential properties could probably not occur prior to August
2000.
Recommended Motion:
Determine whether any, or all, of the following terms should be included in a proposal to
be presented to the potential end-user prior to September 7:
• Issuance of a general obligation tax increment bond in the amount of $40 million and
using the bond proceeds for site assembly costs.
• Issuance of a $750,000 pay as you go note to the proposed car dealership to offset
site assembly costs.
. • Allow commercial development of the entire site..
• Do not require the development to contribute to the fiscal disparities account.
• Revise the TIF boundaries to include only portions of the development on which
occupied buildings are located.
• Issuance of a $7.1 million general obligation tax exempt bond for the construction of
the Penn Avenue/1-494 bridge.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Interchange West site has long been identified for redevelopment.
2. At the July 28 HRA meeting it was decided that, despite delays which had occurred,
there was a desire of the Interchange Westarea to continue the redevelopment
process.
3. At the August 16 HRA meeting CSM stated that a potential end-user had selected
Interchange West as one of four sites being considered for their. corporate
headquarters. The HRA concluded that this end-user represents the best chance
for the development to proceed.
4. Among the benefits of this large corporate user would be:
• Revenue source for replacement housing through its contribution to the housing.
trust fund.
• Redefines the southern. edge of Richfield with a corporate .image.
• Represents a significant employment base (approximately 3000 employees).
5. The end-user will be considering proposals from the four sites that they are
considering at a meeting on September 7; staff is hopeful that a final decision will be
made by the end of September.
6. The end-user's broker has indicated that the primary disadvantages of the
Interchange West site are the high site assembly costs, the high costs of structured
parking which would be necessary and the concern that the Penn Avenue bridge
cannot handle more capacity.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not provide a proposal to the potential end-user prior to their September 7 meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Sid Inman will be available to discuss the financing related issues.
R pe tfully submitted,
e n L. evich
Acting Executive Director
• SLD:ds
Attachments
Exhibit A
Ehlers & Associates
Public Finance
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Par Amount of Bonds ..... ................................. 840.000.000.00
TOTAL SOURCES ............................................. 540.000.000.00
USES OF FUNDS
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.2500 .................... 500.000.00
Costs of Issuance ......................................... Ii0.000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund ................ 1.441.117.04
Deposit to Project Construction Fund ...................... 31.705,226.00
Rounding Amount ......... ................................. 243.556.96
TOTAL USES ................................................ 840,000,000.00
HFIELD.SF-interchangel- SINGLE PURPOSE
8/?1/1999 1:18 PM
M City of Richfield
Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bond, Series 2000
CURRENT MARKET RATES -SUBJECT TO FLUCTUATION
NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S FISCAL TOTAL
6/01/2000 - - - - - -
2/O1/2001 - - 2,012.356.67 2.012,356.67 (2.012.356.67) - -
8/O1/2001 - - 1;509,267.50 1:509,267.50 (1,509,267.50) - -
2/O1/2002 - - 1.509.267.50 1,509.267.50 (1.509.267.50) - -
8/01/2002 - - 1.509.267.50 1.509,267.50 (1..509,267.50). - -
2/01/2003 - - 1.509.267.50 1.509.267.50 (1.509.267.50) - -
8/01/2003 - - 1.509.267.50 1.509.267.50 - 1.509,267.50 -
Z/O1/2004 1.395,000 .00 7.000% 1.509.267.50 2,904,267.50 - 2.904.267.50 4.413.535.00
8/01/2004 - - 1.460.442.50 1.460.442.50 - 1.460.442.50 -
2/01/2005 1,495,000 .00 7.000% 1.460.442.50 2.955.442.50 - 2.955.442.50 4.415.885:00
8/01/2005 - - 1.408.117.50 1.408,117.50 - 1.408.117.50 -
2/01/2006 1.595.000 .00 7.200% 1.408.117.50 3.003.117.50 - 3.003.117.50 4.411.235.00
8/01/2006 - - 1,350,697.50 1.350.697.50 - 1.350,697.50 -
2/01/2007 1,710,000 .00 7.200% 1,350,697.50 3,060.697.50 - 3,060.697.50 4,411.395.OU
8/01/2007 - - 1,289.137.50 1.289.137.50 - 1.289.137.50 -
2/01/2008 1.835.000 .00 7.200% 1.289,137.50 3.124.137.50 - 3,124,137.50 4,413.275.00
8/01/2008 - - 1.223.077.50 1.223.077.50 - 1.223.077.50 -
2/O1/2009 1.970,000 .00 7.400% 1.223.077.50 3,193.077.50 - 3.193,077.50 4.416.155.00
8/01/2009 - - 1.150.187.50 1,150.187.50 - 1.150,187.50 -
2/01/2010 2.115.000 .00 7.400% 1.150,187.50 3.265.167.50 3,265.187.50 4.415.375.00
8/01/2010 1,071.932.50 1.071.932.50 = 1,071.932.50
2/01/2011 2,270,000 .00 7.400% 1.071,932.50 3.341.932.50 - 3.341.932.50 4.413.865.00
8/01/2011 - - 987.942.50 987,942.50 - 987.942.50 -
2/O1/2012 2.440.000 .00 7.600% 987.942.50 3.427.942.50 - 3.427,942.50 4,415.885.00
8/01/2012 - - 895.222.50 895.222.50 - 895.222.50 -
Z/O1/2013 2.625.000 .00 7.600% 895.222.50 3,520.222.50 - 3.520.222.50 4.415,445.00
8/01/2013 - - 795,472.50 795,472.50 - 795.472.50 -
2/01/2014 2,825.000 .00 7.600% 795.472.50 3,620,472.50 - 3.620.472.50 4,415.945.00
8/01/2014 - - 688.122.50 688.122.50 - 688.122.50 -
2/01/2015 3,035.000. 00 7.700% 688.122.50 3.723.122.50 - 3.723,122.50 4,411.245.00
8/01/2015 - - 571.275.00 571.275.00 - 571.275.00 -
2/01/2016 3,270,000. 00 7.700% 571,275.00 3.841.275.00 - 3,841.275.00 4.412,550.00
8/01/2016 - - 445,380.00 445,380.00 - 445.380.00 -
2/01/2017 3.525.000. 00 7.800% 445.380.00 3.970.380.00 - 3,970.380.00 4,415.760.00
8/01/2017 - - 307.905.00 307.905.00 - 307.905.00 -
2/01/2018 3.800.000. 00 7.800% 307.905.00 4.107.905.00 - 4.107,905.00 4.415.810.00
8/01/2018 - - 159.705.00 159.705.00 - 159.705.00 -
2/01/2019 4.095.000. 00 7.800% 159,705.00 4,254.705.00 - 4,254.705.00 4.414.410.00
Total 40,000.000.00 - 38,677.196.67 78.677.196.67 (8,049.426.67) 70.627,770.00
Ehlers & Associates File = RICHFIELD.SF-interchangel- SINGLE PURPOSE
Public Finance 8/31/1999 1:18 PM
CJ
-D
m
Exhibit B
a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~m\ ~~ ~
n \ ~ ~' ~ ~ \ \ \ ~ d \ \
'~ y ~ y\OOOOO~OOOO~~OOOtNiiOtVT~0~0~0 ~ ~ ~ n• m
~ ~- ~ ,~~ ~O O O O 0~0 0 0 0\O O O O O 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 G a ~ ~ ~
y~v a\ooooo\oooo \ooooo0000 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`~ `~ ° \ \ \ y ~ m
~' ? w \V V W Ut?\w W A VNi rn\w OJD .WA rn c~0 N A v O N~ -` V~ C~ \~
~ = o~~tNO(V71<W71cOD\OWirnrnOWi~\~~OOOtOOtVOt;'DC0[WOtWG N V O ~ ~~-I m
~ y ~ ~\ \ \ f \~ Q'\
- a~~tC~~j\~~A~(~71~C~000GVDOOD V V V ~~~N ~ ~ C N ~~d ~\
\ \ ~
\GJ(Jip~~\V V ONN~NNOO<O(O(OODW V ~ ? V O SOD ~~ rn\
\ \O CO \1 ~ ~ \ ~ 7 \ ~.
OOD A N j ~\O O O O O~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ~
\O~ W ~~\V A10D~\(OJtC~T1t~110?(NOAtpAt00~ ~ V ~ N ~\
\ \ \ ~ \.
~ ~ ~ V NNW ~ ~ V N t0 ~ OD ~ N ~ N C t0 V CTt ~ N 1 O ~ ~ N tli ..
a \ \ N COT7 pOj V (Jl \ O V N O O\ V C77 W V 1 CT lD W V -` V ~~ A~
-.
a
ro
•
C~
m
a~
m
a
m
m
a
y
N
O
n
G:
CD
y
3
A
n
v
N
N
W
3 ~"'m~ ~ ~~ I ~ \
~ o o ~~ n ~ a
~ Qd~ o~ ~3 ~ an.~ ~a
~ y ~ a \ \ \ ~ \ a'
\ \
~ a~ ~\-°--° o o °~o 0 0 0 °°\o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ob o o h w '~` c `~ ~ \
H ~ ~ a \ o° °o °o o° °° \ °o °o o° °o ° \ °o °o o° °o o° °o °o o° °o ° 00 ~ ~ °~~' a Q 3
v s~\ \ \ W 3 c o m \~ ~
vi ~ ^\-' V W CTA\W OAN~~CCV OUtAA W NN~f/9 ,,,~ =V,~ ~~[ ~n•
~• ?' ~\~ IV V W O\CC ~ ~ ~ ~\i ~ O O O ~ ~ CAC tC CWC tOCI N V O p O \Q,
~ ~ ~\OCCCJIOCC\O \ ~\ ~ 7 \X v\
^ ~' n~N ~ cC A ~~W -+ 1 0 OWN N j i j j 0 0 0 0 p O A i ?~ ~N ~
\~ ~ NW ~ v\~ ~ A i UA1\tOC tC OVO OOD v V V ~ ~ ~ ~ COJI A C ~ ~ \v rn \
~ ~•
~ o \f
A v A tC N~ CC W tC A N C CD GO IV ~ 1 Vt tC W W V7 1 W ~ O ~O -p \~ m
W O CC W O\ CJI '~ O CC O\ V A O W VOW O CC (T c ~\ ~~
~- \ \
owi~ j
SOD A N -+ ~.~0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O A~ ~- ~
O~ W OV N\ V A 1 0 1\ COIF CW1i CATS O A CNC ? tC A cOC 0 ~ ~ O N CAD
\ \ CO \ \ O CAp \ N ~ \ ~:
\ \ \ \ ~
'~ W COC CJJI ~ \ (AC W tVC UA1 OND \ v 1 ~ ~ OOD VVi N tAD OWi W ~ W CO dl j ~ \
V ~
~ ~rnrn~Orn\~~owcCOi~\N~WOOVOrnw1~wrn~ <° ~~ ~ °1 \ \:
~ ~ \ \ ~ \
Exhibit C
City of Richfield
G.O. Tax Increment Bond, Series 2000
CURRENT MARKET RATES -SUBJECT TO FLUCTUATION
Dated 06/01/2000
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Par Amount of Bonds ........................................ 87.100.000.00
TOTAL SOURCES .............................................: 87.100.000.00
USES OF FUNDS
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250X)....... .............. 88.750.00
Costs of Issuance .......................................... 75,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund ................. 892.196.46
Deposit to Project Construction Fund ....................... 6.000.000.00
Rounding Amount ............................................ 44.053.54
SOURCES & USES
TOTAL USES ........................:........................ 87,100.000.00
Ehlers & Associates
Public Finance
ELD.SF-interchangeexem- S1N6L£ PURPOSE
8/31/1999 1:23 PM
•
City of Richfiel d
G.O. Tax Increment Bond, Series 2000
CURRENT MARKET RATES -SUBJECT TO FLUCTUA TION
NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New 0/S FISCAL TOTAL
6/01/2000 - - - - - - -
2/O1/2001 - - 241.283.33 241.283.33 (241,283.33) - -
8/O1/2001 - - ,180,962.50 180,962.50 (160.962.50) - -
2/O1/2002 - - 180:962.50 180,962:50 (180.962.50) - -
8/01/2002 - - 180.962.50 180,962.50 (180,962.50) - -
2/01/2003 - - 180.962.50 180,962.50 (180.962.50) - -
8/01/2003 - - 180.962.50 180.962.50 - 180:962.50 -
2/01/2004 225,000.00 4.000% 180,962.50 405,962.50 - 405.962.50 586.925.00
8/01/2004 - - 176.462.50 176,462.50 - 176.462.50
2/01/2005 230.000.00 4.100% 176,462.50. 406,462.50 - 406.462.50 582.925.00
8/01/2005 - - 171.747.50 171,747.50 - 171.747.50 -
2/O1/2006 240.000.00 4.200% 171,747.50 411.747.50 - 411.747.50 563,495.00
8/01/2006 - - 166.707.50 166.707.50 - 166,707.50 -
2/O1/2007 250.000.00 4.300% 166.707.50 416.707.50 - 416.707.50 583,415.00
8/01/2007 - - 161,332.50 161.332.50 - 161.332.50 -
2/O1/2008 260.000.00 4.400% 161,332.50 421.332.50 - 421.332.50 582.665.00 i
8/01/2008 - - 155,612.50 155.612.50 - 155.612.50 -
2/O1/2009 275.000.00 4.500% 155,612.50 430.612.50 - 430.612.50 586,225.00
8/01/2009 - - 149,425.00 149,425.00 - 149.425.00 -
2/O1/2010 285,000.00 4.600% 149,425.00 434,425.00 - 434.425.00 583.850.00
• 8/01/2010
2/O1/2011 -
300.000.00 -
4.700% 142.870.00
142.870.00 142.870.00
442.870.00 - 142.870.00
442,870.00 -
585.740.00 `.
8/01/2011 - - 135,820.00 135.820.00 135.820.00 -
2/O1/2012 315,000.00 4.800% 135.820.00 450,820.00 - 450.820.00 586.640.00
8/01/2012 - - 128,260.00 128.260.00 - 128.260.00 -
2/01/2013 330,000.00 4.900% 128.260.00 458.260.00 - 458,260.00 586.520.00
3:'01:'2013 - - 120.175.00 120,175.00 - 120.175.00 -
_ 2/01/2014 345.000.00 5.00% 120,175.00 465.175.00 - 465,175.00 585.350.00
8/01/2014 - - 111.550.00 111,550.00 - 111.550.00 -
2/01/2015 360,000.00 5.100% 111.550.00 471,550.00 - 471,550.00 583.100.00
6/01/2015 - - 102.370.00 102.370.00 - 102.370.00 -
2/01/2016 380,000.00 5.200% 102.370.00 482.370.00 - 482.370.00 584.740.00
8/01/2016 - 92.490.00 92.490.00 - 92.490.00 -
2/01/2017 400,000.00 5.300% 92,490.00 492,490.00 - 492.490.00 584.980.00
8/01/2017 - - 81,890.00 81.890.00 - 81.890.00 -
2/O1/2018 420,000.00 5.400% 81.890.00 501.890.00 - 501,890.00 583.780.00
8/01/2018 - - 70,550.00 70.550.00 - 70,550.00 -
2/01/2019 445.000.00 5.500% 70.550.00 515.550.00 - 515.550.00 586.100.00
8/01/2019 - - 58,312.50 58,312.50 - 58.312.50 -
2/01/2020 470.000.00 5.600% 58.312.50 528.312.50 - 528.312.50 586.625.00
8/01/2020 - - 45.152.50 45.152.50 - 45.152.50 -
2/01/2021 495.000.00 5.700% 45.152.50 540,152.50 - 540,152.50 585,305.00
8/01/2021 - - 31.045.00 31.045.00 - 31.045.00 -
2/O1/2022 520.000.00 5.750% 31.045.00 551.045.00 - 551.045.00 582,090.00
8/01/2022 - - 16,095.00 16.095.00 - 16.095.00 -
2/01/2023 555,000.00 5.800% 16.095.00 571,095.00 - 571,095.00 587.190.00
Total 7,100.000.00 - 5.562.793.33 12.662,793.33 (965.133.33) 11.697.660.00 - I
Ehlers & Associ ates File = RICHFIELD.SF-interchangeexem- SINGLE PURPOSE
Public finance 8/31/1999 1:23 PM
3;
3~,w
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1999
REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
X:
RICHFIELD CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR HRA MEETING OF JULY 27, 1999
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON
THE AGENDA
2. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT WITH CSM PROPERTIES, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
INTERCHANGE WEST AND ASSOCIATED "BUT FOR" ANALYSIS
HRA LETTER NO. 46
3. CONSIDERATION OF AMOUNT AND FORM OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO BE
USED FOR COMPLETION OF LYNDALE GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
HRA LETTER N0.47
4. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
SALE OF 7520 COLFAX AVENUE TO STEVEN MARLIN GRANT HOMES, INC.
HRA LETTER NO. 48
5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
SALE OF 6600 OAKLAND AVENUE TO CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY
SERVICE FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM
HRA LETTER NO. 49
6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF 6901-
12TH AVENUE, 6929 QUEEN AVENUE AND 6933 QUEEN AVENUE UNDER
RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROGRAM, AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE 6933 QUEEN AVENUE
HRA LETTER NO. 50
7. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FOUR YEAR FUNDING PLAN
FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED AND TRANSFORMATION HOMES
PROGRAMS AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE SALE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS
HRA LETTER NO. 51
8. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
• CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR MERIDIAN CROSSINGS, PHASE II
HRA LETTER NO. 52
9. CONSIDERATION OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT TO TRANSFER
PROPERTY FROM MERIDIAN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
L.L.C. D/B/A TOLD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO THE STATE TEACHERS
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO; MERIDIAN CROSSINGS OFFICE
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, PHASE II
HRA LETTER NO. 53
10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 2000 HRA
BUDGET AND CERTIFYING 2000 TAX LEVY AND RESOLUTION REVISING
1999 HRA BUDGET
HRA LETTER NO. 54
11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
12. CLAIMS AND PAYROLL
ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 612-861-9702.
•
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
,• HRA Letter No. s4
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Approval of proposed property tax levy for payable year 2000 for certification to
Hennepin County and set optional date for public budget hearing for the 1999
Revised/2000 Proposed budget and tax levy.
Background:
As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation, each taxing authority must certify its
proposed tax levy for the payable year 2000 to the County Auditor on or before
September 15, 1999. Taxing authority for the purpose of this requirement includes all
counties, school districts, cities, towns and special taxing districts such as an HRA. No
local unit of government is exempt from this requirement. In addition, certain taxing
authorities must certify to the County Auditor the dates that have been selected for a
Truth in Taxation hearing and for a continuation hearing (if necessary) by September
15, 1999. In those instances, the dates must not conflict with hearing dates of the
county or the school district in which that taxing authority is located. Such hearings
must be scheduled between November 29 and December 20, 1999.
However, the Truth in Taxation law does not require the HRA to hold a Truth in
Taxation hearing prior to adoption of a final levy. Instead, the final levy is adopted as
part of the City's final certification process.
The HRA could, however, decide to hold a public hearing on the HRA budget and levy
at some point in the future prior to the City's adoption of a final levy. It is currently
anticipated that the City will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing in early December. The
HRA could hold a public hearing at its regular November meeting.
The Proposed 2000 HRA levy represents a 5.54% increase from the previous year's
levy and is approximately $18,400 less than the maximum HRA levy established by law
of .0144% of the City's total market value.
Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt the attached resolution approving the 2000 Proposed and 1999 Revised
Housing and Redevelopment Authority General levy.
2. Set a public budget hearing for 7:00 p.m. on November 15, 1999
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Minnesota Truth in Taxation law requires adoption of a preliminary levy from
each taxing authority.
•
2. The recommended levy is allowed under Minnesota levy limits, which are still in
effect for housing and redevelopment authorities.
3. The budget and accompanying proposed levy for 2000 are ready for
consideration.
4. There is adequate time to meet the deadline for submission to Hennepin County.
5. Even though a Truth in Taxation hearing is not required by the State Statute, it
would still be appropriate for the HRA to hold a public hearing on the budget and
adopt a final levy sometime in November prior to the City's consideration of a final
levy if the HRA desired to do so.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The HRA could adopt a preliminary levy less than the one proposed herein.
However, that would not provide for programs which are recommended in the
1999 Revised/2000 Proposed budget.
2. The HRA could select a different date other than November 15 (regular November
meeting) to conduct a public hearing and adopt a final levy.
3. The HRA could simply proceed at a future date to adopt the budget and levy
without holding any public budget meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action by the HRA on August 16 is necessary to certify a preliminary levy to the County
within the Truth in Taxation statute time frame.
Respec#fully s
n L. ~c ~~
Acting Executive Director
SLD:cak
•
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED 2000 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 2000 TAX LEVY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
Section 1. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
General Fund of Richfield for the year 2000 in the amount of
$1,242,820 is hereby ratified.
Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority General Fund of Richfield from all sources, including
general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year
2000, and as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive
Director's official copy of the budget for the year 2000, in the
amount of $1,134,390 are hereby approved.
Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of
Richfield an ad valorem tax in 1999, payable in 2000 for the
following purposes:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority $195,250
Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County
Auditor.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF THE 1999 BUDGET OF THE
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, .Resolution No. 678 appropriated funds for personal services and
other expenses and capital outlay for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the
year 1999, and
WHEREAS, The Acting Executive Director. has requested a .revision of the 1999
budget as detailed in the 2000 budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
Section 1. That the 1999 appropriation for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority General Fund be revised as follows:
$578,860 Increase
Section 2. Estimated 1999 gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority General Fund from all sources, as the same are more fully
detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the 1999 budget
document, are hereby revised as follows:
$1,054,570 Increase
Section 3. That the Executive Director bring into effect the provisions of this
resolution.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 53
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Acknowledgment and consent to the transfer of property from Meridian Properties Real
Estate Development L.L.C., d/b/a TOLD Development Company to The State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio; Meridian Crossings Office Redevelopment Project, Phase
II.
Background:
Meridian Properties Real Estate Development L.L.C., d/b/a TOLD Development
Company (TOLD) is preparing to sell Phase II of Meridian Crossings to The State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (Purchaser). The Contract for Private
Redevelopment by and between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(HRA) and TOLD, dated on November 6, 1995, (Redevelopment Contract) provides for
the consent of the HRA as to certain assignments. At this time, TOLD is seeking the
following approvals and consent from the HRA for the aforementioned sale transaction:
1. Approval of the CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT agreement which assigns Meridian
Crossings, Phase II, property to Purchaser does not constitute a default under the
Redevelopment Contract nor does it alter or affect any payment due under the
Limited Tax Increment Note to TOLD;
2. Approval of the CERTIFICATION AND ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE which (a.)
acknowledges the HRA's consent of the transfer of property; (b.) acknowledges
compliance with the Redevelopment Contract except for provisions relating to Land
Sale, Construction of Minimum Improvements, and Wage and Job Covenants; (c.)
acknowledges that there are no outstanding defaults or claims; and (d.) verifies
outstanding special assessments, balance due under the Limited Tax Increment
Note, and current market value of property; and
3. HRA consent to the GENERAL WARRANTY ASSIGNMENT OF PROJECT
CONTRACTS AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT which assigns all of TOLD's
project contracts, representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements relating
thereto for Phase II to Purchaser.
These documents are attached for review. Also, TOLD will continue to manage the
property utilizing the management services of Escom Properties, Inc.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the HRA adopt a motion which does the following:
1. Approves the Consent to Assignment;
2. Approves the Certification And Estoppel Certificate;
3. Consents to the General Warranty Assignment of Project Contracts and Assumption
Agreement; and
4. Authorizes the Chairperson and Acting Executive Director to take any and all actions
necessary to execute the agreements in order to carry out the implementation of the
actions requested by TOLD.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Redevelopment Contract provides for the consent of the HRA as to certain
assignments, including the sale of the project property.
2. TOLD has requested that the HRA approve and consent to certain agreements
necessary for the sale transaction of Meridian Crossings, Phase II, to the
Purchaser.
3. TOLD is intending to close on the sale of Meridian Crossings, Phase II, on or about
August 27, 1999.
4. The HRA took similar action regarding- the transfer of property with Phase I.
Alternative Recommendation:
There is no alternative recommendation for this action as this activity is permitted under
the Redevelopment Contract.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
TOLD requested the approval and consent of certain agreements in order to process
the Phase II sale transaction in a timely manner.
Re a tfully sub ed,
L. Devich
Aeti g Executive Director
SLD:cak
Attachments
•
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT
This CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT ("Assignment") is made as of the day of
1999 by and among MERIDIAN CROSSINGS II LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company ("Redeveloper"), OTR, an Ohio general partnership, acting as nominee
for The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, a public pension fund created pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised Code ("Purchaser") and THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA,
a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (the "HRA").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Redeveloper's predecessor in interest, Meridian Properties Real Estate
Development LLC, and HRA entered into that certain contract for private redevelopment dated
November 6,1995, as amended by that certain first amendment to contract for private redevelopment
dates as of March 18, 1996, and as further amended by that certain second amendment to contract
for private redevelopment dated as of September 6, 1996, that certain third amendment to contract
for private redevelopment dated as of Apri121,1997 and that certain Letter of Understanding dated
March 19, 1996 (as amended, the "Contract") which assignment of said Contract to Meridian
Crossings II LLC ,was consented to by the HRA on as to property more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" (the "Phase II Property"); and
WHEREAS, Purchaser has agreed to purchase the Phase II Property and all improvements
thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Contract provides for the consent of HRA as to certain assignments; and
WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings attributed to them in the Contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. Consent to Assignment. HRA acknowledges that the Redeveloper's obligations
under the Contract accruing subsequent to the date of transfer of Redeveloper's interest in the
Property to Purchaser as to the Phase II Property is to be assigned to Purchaser and hereby gives its
consent thereto. Such assignment shall not constitute a default under the Contract nor in any way
alter or affect Redeveloper's rights to obtain any and all payments due under the Note described in
Article VII of the Contract, which right is specifically reserved by Redeveloper and not assigned
to Purchaser.
2. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the Benefit of the successors
and assigns of the parties hereto; provided that the Redeveloper shall not assign its rights and
obligations hereunder without the consent of both the HRA and the Purchaser.
3. Only Written Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified in any manner or
terminated except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto.
4. Governing_Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the month,
day and year first written above.
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS II LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company
By:
Its:
Bryant J. Wangard
Manager
Address: Meridian Crossings II LLC
6385 Old Shady Oak Road
Suite 120
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Telecopy No.:
OTR, an Ohio general partnership, acting as nominee
for The State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, a
public pension fund created pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised Code
By:
Its:
Address: OTR
The State Teachers Retirement System
of Ohio
275 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
ATTN: Director of Real Estate Assets
Telecopy No.:
2
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
'~' AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By:
Its:
•
By:
Its:
Address:
Telecopy No.:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Personally came before me this day of , 1999, the above-named
Bryant J. Wangard, as the Manager of Meridian Crossings II LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, and to be known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged the same in such capacity.
Notary Public, State of Minnesota
My commission:
STATE OF )
SS
COUNTY OF )
Personally came before me this day of , 1999, the above-named
as the
of OTR, an Ohio general partnership, acting as nominee for The State Teachers Retirement Board
of Ohio, a public pension fund created pursuant to the provisions, and to me known to be the person
who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same in such capacity.
Notary Public, State of
My commission:
STATE OF )
SS
COUNTY OF )
Personally came before me this day of , 1999, the above-named
as the
of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota, and to
me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same in
such capacity.
Notary Public, State of
My commission:
4
•
EXHIBIT "A"
Phase II Property
r~
Lot 2, Block 3, CLOVERLEAF ADDITION
Richfield, Minnesota
•
C~+ RT11~~C'AT.IOIy' ESQ°®PP~L CET~I~'~CA~'~
August , 1999
OTR, an Ohio general partnership
c/o State Teachez~s Retirement hoard of Ohio
275 E. ~zoad Street
Columbus, Ohio X3215
lte; Contract for Private Redevelapxnent 13y and Eetuveen The pausing and
.Redevelopment Authority in and foa• the City ofRichf eld (" C"~ and Meridian
Properties ,Real Estate Developrne;~t L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company
dba Told I3evelopment Company ("li~[eridiaa") dated IOTovembex 6, 19.95 as recorded
by First Amendment to Contract-fox Private Rede~velnpanent dated March T~, 1996;
Second Axtaendment to Contract dated September 6, 1996; and a Third An9endznent
to Contract for Private Redevelopment dated April 21, 1997 (the agreement as
amended is hereinafter refex~•ed to,as the "~edevel®pme~at A~eea~.en.t°')
C,`rentlemen:
This Certification and Estoppel Certificate is being executed by I;iRC in connection g~ritli
the acquisition by OTR, an Ohio.general partnership ("®TR"}, ofthe Phase T Properly {as
defined in the Redeveloprmertt Agreement} from Meridian with thela'iowledge that OTR, and its
successors and assigns, are relying upon the same in completing said acquisition.
1. HRC hereby consents to the transfer of the Phase p[ Property to OTR.
2. Meridians and/or 1Vleridian Crossing, I...I...C, a. Minns§ota limited liability company
{hexeina~fter collectively "li~eridian") l~a~re complied with all of the obligations of the
.Redevelopment Agreement as they pertain to the .Phase Ii Property including but not lunited to
those contained in Article Ill and I'V and Section ] 1.5 thereof..
3, There are no e~.isting or claimed defaults on the pant of Meridian or the undersigned
under the terms. of the Redevelopment Agreeanez~t; and there are no existing or claimed
conditions that dvith the passage of time or,natice, Would constitute a default on the part of
Meridian or the. undersigned under the terms thereof.
4. E~ccept as set forth above, the Redevelopment Agreement has not been amended,
anodified, supplemented or superseded.
5. >~pan its acquisition of the Phase 7Y Property, ®TR shall have no obligations undex the
T•Cedevelopra.ent .Agreement with respect to the Redevelopment Property as that term is defined
therein.
•
uion.~oia25a5aa v~
• 6. As of fhe date hereof, the total ana,ount of the special assessments which have or will
be levied against the Phase ZI Property in con~zeotion .with its current development is ~
7. ~s ®f the date hereof, the current arraount owed t® Meridian under the Lianited
Revenue Tax Increment l~iote for the Phase lI property is ~
8. The current gnaxket value assessed for the Phase IT Property and improvements thereon
for ad valorem tax gutposes is ~
s, SRC ac~.no~wledges that:
(a) 4~TR is ptuchasing Meridian's interest in the .Phase Ty Property,
(b) ®TI$ and its successors and assigns will be relying upon the cez~tifaeation and
statements contained herein arid; except for the assura~,ces and certi;~cations. set
forth herein, ®'PR would not zraake the purchase.
1 Q, This Certification and Estoppel Ce~#ificate shah enure to the benefit of l7'1'R and its
successors and assigns grid shall be binding upon the undersigned its successors and assigns.
~'he dousing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of 12ichfield, Minnesota
~y: -
Its; Chairmarn
ley:
Its: Executive 1)zrector
91977. flNM25253a vl
F ! Lt No . t5~b U25/ 11 `Jy 1 b =1 ~ 1 U = I ULll lltVtLUYI ItIY I Ol G liN t ~ t q
• GENERAL WARRANTY ASSIGNMENT OF PROJECT CONTRACTS
AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
I'FiUC L
This General Warranty Assignment of Project Contracts and Assumption Agreement (this
"Agreement"} is made and executed this _ day of August, 199f3 {tlte "Closing Daie"}, by and
between Meridian Crossings LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company having a business and mailing
address of 6900 Wedgwood Road, Suite 100, Mapie Grove, Minnesota 55311 ("Assignor"}, and
OTR, an Ohio general partnership, acting as nominee for The State Teachers Retirement Board of
Ohio, a public pension fund created pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised
Code, having its principal place of business at 275 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215
("Assignee").
Recitals:
A.. Assignor and Assitrtee have entered into a Purchase Agreement, dated 3uly J 0, 1997
(the "Purchase Agreement"`), pursuant to which Assignor has agreed to convey to Assignee that
certain tract of land more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement {the "Land"), together
with such other property interests as constitute the "Property" (as defined in the Purchase Agreement).
B. Assignor desires to assign and to transfer to Assignee all of Assignor's ri fht, title, and
interest in, under, and to all of the "Project Contracts" (as hereinafter def ned}, and Assignee desires. to
accept such assignment, subject to the terms and conditions of this A~eement and the Purchase
Agreement.
C. The Land is commonly known as Meridian Crossings Phase 1.
NOW, THLSEFORE, for good and valuable consideration to Assignor in hand paid by
Assignee, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor and Assignee,
intending to be legally bound,, do hereby agree as follows:
Section i. Assignment of Assignor's Interest in ProjecE Contracts. Assignor hereby
assigns, transfers, and conveys to Assignee, effective as of the "Closing Date" (as defined in the
Purchase Agreement}, all of Assignor`s rigtrt, title, and interest ~ under, and to all of the service and
maintenance contracts, management agreements, and other written agreements, including alt
amendments and modiScations thereto, entered into by Assignor or its agents on it's behalf in
connection with the maintenance, ownership, and operation of the Property that survive the "Closing"
(as defined in the Purchase Agreement}, as more fully described on Schedule i attached hereto and
made a part hereof (cotlectivety, the "Project Contracts").
Section 2. Assignor's Representations, Warranties, Covenants, and Agreements.
Assignor represents and warrants to Assignee as follows:
ti197T.WA1'NXM~1 Y
r l Lt NO . bC~ VtS~ 11 - yy 10 -10 l L• I ULU UC V CLUr1 ICiv I V l c 4G V r V f 4 r HUC J
• (a) that each of the Froject Contracts, true copies of whie6 have been delivered by
Assignor to Assignee, arc in ful! force and effect;
(b) that Assignor has good right and power to assign the Project Contracts;
(~) that the interests hereby assigned to Assignee are free and clear from alt encumbrances
and that Assignor does warrant and will forever defend the same to Assignee against
the Lawful. claims and demands of alt persons whatsoever; and
(d) that no material default exists under the terms of any of the Project Contracts in
connection with any of the conditions, covenants, and. other provisions of such Prajeet
Contracts on the pan of Assignor to be kept and perfomded and that no event has
occurred or condition exists that, with the passage of time, the giving of notice, or
both, tray result in an occurrence of a material default under the terms of any of the
Project Contracts.
Section 3. Assignee's Covenants and Agreements. Assignee hereby accepts the foregoing
assi~mment and, by its acceptance, Assignee hereby assumes and covenants and agrees to keep and to
perform all of the terms, conditions, covenants,. agreements, anti provisions of the Project Contracts to
be kept and performed by Assignor and accn,ing after the Closing Date.
Section 4. Counterparts. This A~~reement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shaft for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and afl of which are identical. AH such
counterparts together shall constitute but one instrument.
Section 5. Parties in Interest. This Agreement shalt be binding upon, and shall inure to the
benefit of, Assignor, Assignee, and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
Section 6. Captions. The captions or headings at the beginning of each section of this..
Agreement are merely guides or labels for the convenience of the parties to assist u~ identifying those
sections, are not intended to be a part of the context of this Agreement, and shall not be deemed to
modify, to explain, to enlarge, or to restrict any of the provisions of this Agreement.
ii97~.91i!'Hhrol v 1
F1Lt No. t5~~ UtSill "yy lb-1b lll~IULll lltvtLUF'rltNl olc uc~ r~r~ rHUt ~
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed and delivered this General
Warranty Assignment of Project Contracts and Assumption Ageement on the date first written above.
ASSIGNOR:
Meridian Crossings LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company
By:
B 1. an and
ana e
ASSIGNEE:
OTR, an Ohia general partnership, acting as
nominee for The State Teachers Retirement Board
of Ohio, a public pension fund created pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 3307 of the Ohio Revised
Code
By:
Stephen A. Mitchell, general partner
stun.&A~~woo~.i 3
r 1 Lt IVO . t~GO UZSr l l yy 1 V • 1 V ! U • ZULU UC V CLUI""I ICIV I V 1G 4GV l V (9 YHUC J
•
SCHEDULE 1
Project Contracts
e~sn.a(w~eoee+.~
•
I-11..t NO . b~~ Ut5/11 ~ yy lb ~ lb l ll = I ULll UtVtLUNI ItIV 1
F l LE rac . 3a9 U7i3U ' 98 1 d : GG 1 D ~ TfJLD DEVELUFt1EN'1'
yiuzak ![.invited Partnership
--Music Servicas
t)1L 4CV f~f4
bit a~C1 75i ~I
Contract for private Redwetopment doted Novembor 6, t495 "'•
First Amendment to Contract far Private Redevelopment dated March 18, 1996
Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelaptnent dated September 6, t996
Third Amendment to Contract for private Redevelopment dated Aprit 21, 1997
Letter of Understanding dated March t9, i996
Assignment evnsented tv by IRA on March 24, 1997
"'* (The Asi~ggment ofdiis Contrser iv speciticaily Ruhject m Assignor's retention nfsll psymcnrs Clue rlovr snd in ehr:
luture pursuant to nnicte T of aRid Contrrct for Privote itedevelopnitnc.)
F'Hlat b
PAGE 2"{
•
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
• HRA Letter No. 52
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Issuance of a Certificate of Completion for Meridian Crossings, Phase II.
Background:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment with Meridian Properties Real Estate Development L.L.C., d/b/a TOLD
Development Company (Contract), for construction of the Meridian Crossings office
redevelopment project on November 6, 1995. Subsequent amendments to the
Contract followed on March 18, 1996, September 6, 1996, and April 21, 1997. Section
4.7 of the original Contract discusses the Certificate of Completion. It indicates that a
certificate is to be issued for each phase with the issuance process being initiated by
the developer.
TOLD recently requested the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for Meridian
Crossings, Phase II, as it intends to close on the sale of Phase II to The State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio (OTR) on August 27, 1999. OTR was also the buyer of
Phase I in August 1998. The HRA approved concept plans for the project in 1995 while
the Certificate of Completion for Phase I was approved by the HRA on July 20, 1998.
Construction of Phase II is substantially completed. TOLD still has some outstanding
work relating to landscaping, drainage, grading, curbwork and sidewalk. In accordance
with legal counsel's opinion, the Certificate of Completion will not be released to TOLD
until these items are completed. Should some of this work still remain outstanding at
time of closing, funds and/or documents may be escrowed to ensure the completion of
this work, or closing may be delayed.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a motion to approve the attached resolution which authorizes the execution of
the Certificate of Completion for Meridian Crossings, Phase II, by the Acting Executive
Director and Chair, contingent upon the completion of the outstanding work or other
evidence to perform in lieu of completion.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Construction of the Phase II improvements is substantially complete and in
accordance with the approved concept plans but some outstanding issues remain.
2. TOLD has requested issuance of the Certificate of Completion for Meridian
Crossings, Phase II.
3. TOLD is intending to close on the sale of Meridian Crossings, Phase II, on August
27, 1999.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny approval of the Certificate of Completion until the outstanding issues are
completed.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
TOLD requested issuance of the Certification of Completion for Meridian Crossings,
Phase I I, in order to process the Phase I I sale transaction in a timely manner.
Re a tfully submitted,
e en~wich
Acting Executive Director
SLD:cak
Attachment
•
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR
MERIDIAN CROSSINGS, PHASE II
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment
(Contract) with Meridian Properties Real Estate Development L.L.C., a Minnesota
limited liability company, d/b/a TOLD Development Company (Developer), dated
November 6, 1995, pursuant to and in furtherance of the ILN Redevelopment Project
heretofore adopted by the City and the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Contract obligated the Developer to construct certain
improvements to the property identified in that Contract; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.7 of the Contract required the HRA to furnish the
Developer with a Certificate of Completion upon completion of the Phase II construction
in accordance with Concept Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Contract establishes the form for the Certificate of Completion in
Exhibit B; and
. WHEREAS, staff has found the improvements to be in accordance with the
terms of the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield that the Acting Executive Director and HRA
Chair are directed to execute the Phase II Certificate of Completion and deliver same to
the Developer.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
•
L~
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Lot 2, Block 3, CLOVERLEAF ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
L~
EXHIBIT B
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
The undersigned hereby certifies that Meridian Properties Real Estate
Development L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company, d/b/a TOLD Development
Company has fully and completely complied with its obligations under Article IV of that
document entitled "Contract for Private Development," dated November 6, 1995,
between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND -FOR THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD and MERIDIAN PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company, d/b/a TOLD Development Company, with
respect to construction of the Improvements located on the tract of land described in
the attached Exhibit A in accordance with the requirements of such document and is
released and forever discharged from its obligations to constructing the Improvements
under such above-referenced Article on the above-referenced tract.
DATED:
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Its Chairperson
By
Its Acting Executive Director
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
• HRA Letter No. 5~' -
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Authorization of a four year funding plan for the Richfield Rediscovered and
Transformation Homes Programs and a request to the City Council to authorize the sale
of general obligation tax increment revenue bonds.
Background:
On July 27, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) authorized a
Richfield Rediscovered and Transformation Homes Program funding plan. Under the
proposal the HRA is requesting the City Council to authorize the sale of general
obligation tax increment revenue bonds that provide $1.4 million in program activity over
two years. The City Council is scheduled to consider the request at a public hearing on
August 23.
Ehlers and Associates (Ehlers), the HRA's financial advisor, has been working on the
bond structure. Ehlers recently concluded that a $2.8 million issue spread over four
years provides better program continuity, a better interest rate and a $20,000 savings in
costs of bond issuance. A memo from Ehlers (Exhibit A) describes their analysis in
greater detail.
The initial bond issue size, $1.4 million or less, does not change. However, approving
the issuance of more debt than presently needed, to $2.8 million, provides the flexibility
to issue an additional $1.4 million in debt for years three and four by working within the
original bonding structure. Using the original bond structure for a longer period of time,
perhaps at a lessor rate of interest, saves future costs of issuance and provides longer
term funding of the programs. Additional bonds up to the ceiling of $2.8 million would
be issued approximately two years into the future. The HRA and City Council would
monitor the program activity in two ways: the annual budget process and through the
annual report on tax increment obligations prepared by Ehlers.
Sid Inman of Ehlers will attend the HRA meeting to present more detailed information
and answer questions. Exhibit B, attached, provides the original two year plan.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the four year funding plan, requesting the City Council to authorize the sale of
general obligation tax increment revenue bonds and authorize the HRA Chair and
Acting Executive Director to execute agreements related to the funding plan for the
Richfield Rediscovered and Transformation Homes program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Doubling the amount of debt from $1.4 million to $2.8 million provides the flexibility
to generate operating funds for a longer period at an overall lesser cost of interest
and issuance.
2. The issuance of $1.4 million this fall and again in approximately two years under
one bond structure provides 26 to 28 new homes and 60 to 80 transformations.
3. A four year funding plan has been developed by Ehlers, reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be an improved course of action over the two year plan previously
approved.
4. All bonds are a general obligation of the City; however, it would be 100 percent
supported with tax increment and land proceeds.
5. The HRA, through a pledge agreement, covers debt service with future Richfield
Rediscovered tax increment and from the housing trust funds provided by Gramercy
and Urban Village tax increment districts.
6. Richfield Rediscovered is important because it removes small, substandard and
obsolete homes and provides new homes for people at all income levels.
7. The Transformation Homes Program is important because a small amount of
incentive deferred loan financing from the HRA helps provide more family-style
housing and encourages homeowners to improve rather than move.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Proceed with the original two year plan as approved on July 27.
2. Continue to evaluate alternative funding sources.
3. Further modify the proposed four year plan.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The City Council will consider the bond issue following a public hearing on August 23.
A negotiated bond sale would occur 60 days thereafter. Funds would be available in fall
1999.
Re p c Ily submitted,
eve . Devich
Acting Executive Director
SLD:cak
Attachments
•
EXHIBIT A
•
FREERS
b ASSOCIATES IP1C
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: .Bruce Nordquist, City of Richfield
]FROi1~1: Mark Ruff -Ehlers & Associates
DATE: August 9, 1999
RE: Principal Amount for Richfield Rediscovered Financing
The (:ity and HRA are considering tl~e issuance of G.O. Tax Increment Variable Rate Bonds for the
continued. funding of the Richfield Rediscovered program.. Previously, t}te HRA has discussed a maximum
principal amount of bonds equal to approximately $1,400,000. This amount would carry the program for
approximately two years.
The HRA does have an option which may save finance costs in the future due to the unique structure of
variable rate debt. The HRA could authorize the issuance of up to $2,800,000 of principal, which would
carry the program for four years instead of two years. While the initial bond issue would only be enough
to fund the immediate costs of the program ($1,400,000 or less), the higher authorized amount could allow
the City and .HRA to issue "subseries" of bonds in future years. The subseries concept is similar to a line
of credit at a bank. The total amount would not be drawn immediately, but the HRA would have authority
to draw more in the future. The subseries would avoid approximately 520,000 in new legal opinion, rating
agency, and financial advisor costs.
The subseries options does not diminish the HRA's control over the total amount of debt to be issued. The
HRA could implement a process which requires HRA approval and a new set of financial projections prior
to the issuance of a new subseries of debt.
We do recommend that the maximum amount of debt be increased to $2,800,000 to offer the HRA the most
flexibility in options for future Richfield Rediscovered needs.
from the des~E of
Mark Ruf f
'Vice President
Ehlers ~ Associates, Inc.
3060 Cenae Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN SS113
Phone: (6SiJ 697-BSOS
Fax: (6SI) 697-8SSS
Entail: mark(~ehlen•inc.com
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bruce Palmborg -City of Richfield
Bruce Nordquist -City of Richfield
Pam Bookhout -City of Richfield
Steve Bubul -Kennedy and Graven
FROM:. Sid Inman - Ehlers/Publicorp Inc.
DATE: July 19, 1999
RE: Richfield Rediscovered Finance Plan
As per your request, we have been reviewing the long term funding options for the Richfield
Rediscovered Program. In the past the program has had a variety of funding sources and each
year it was uncertain that the project would be funded . Your objective was to find a secure funding
source for at least five years.
At the current time the city's funds are committed to other capital projects and therefore not
available to the HRA for this project. The HRA has to look to its own funds in order to continue the
project.
Due to the lack of city funds we determined that the HRA would have to borrow the funds needed
from another source. We first determined that we needed to establish base line data as to the
annual need of the project. We established the goal of 7 homes a year and $200,000 for the
Transformation Program. Following are the sources and uses for the project:
SOURCES
Land Sale Income 210,000
Other 000.000
TOTAL SOURCES 210,000
USES
Acquisition Cost 455,000
Admin and Demo 42,000
Other Costs 28,000
Transformation Program 200.000
TOTAL USES 725,000
TOTAL GAP 515,000
Funding the project presented two problems. First, we needed to borrow funds upfront for the full
$725,000 needed to complete one year of the project. But, we would receive $210,000 within a
year and a half. Therefore we only needed to borrow long term for the balance or $515,000. The
second problem was finding a source of revenue to support the borrowing.
In order to solve the problem of the short term need for $210,000, it was determined to sell short
term General Obligation variable rate bonds. These bonds are resold every month and allow the
city to pay back any or all of the debt every 30 days. These bonds are sold at short term rates and
will cost the city far less then a fixed rate 20 year term bond. For example, at the time of writing
this memo the short term rate is around 5.3%. The 20 year fixed rate debt would. cost the city
around 6.3%.
We have identified 5 revenue sources that we can use for the debt.
1. Tax Increment from Urban Village 15% housing trust fund. $118,000 Pay 2001
2. Tax Increment from Gramercy 15% housing trust fund. $40,000 Pay 2001
3. Existing Tax Increment from Richfield Rediscovered Projects. $12,500 Pay 1999
(Available for only 10 years if we shut the existing districts down).
4. New Tax Increment from new Richfield Rediscovered Projects. $10,800 Pay 2003
5. Interest on cash in the housing trust fund.
Attached are cash flows that assume that the City sells one bond issue. This is enough bonds to
fund two years of the project, or enough for 14 houses. You will note that we have sized the bond
as a fixed rate -- not a variable rate bond. This is due to the fact that we want to use the most
conservative assumptions when forecasting the cash flows. After two years we would re-evaluate
our cash flows and determine if we can issue bonds for 14 more houses.
Please review this information and if you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to call
me.
•
hom the desk oh.
Sld Jnman
Development Consultent/Flnsnda/ Advisor
Ehlers and Assodstss, Mc.
3060 Cenlsr Polnb Drive
Rosevl/M, AVIV 55119
• N:1MinnsaaUtichGeldUtREDISUtRMEM0.2.wpd
(651) 6978507
FAX: (651)697.8555
E,MII L• skJOeJhfers~Can
~~
t
~_
City of Ridtfdeld
Richfiel d Radacoved Ptojeet
24-AAay-99
- ---
------ -
- ---- Debt
- Service Cash Fbw
----•-----
~aymaotFtan Payttant PaytnaotFtom ~a~n+MtetFrarn ~-- •------
•
Taal
Gp Metattrat
Milatoot
Tait Ntenntaret
Tatt MteneneK ,
Toga
i YEAR PaAod Annual Anewal Prinefpat i Sa10 MYlfh On liirttaad Rwawa Ravanw PayanaMs
~ Peinolpal Mtanst kitatoat lnt4foal flood Proeooda ttaw That Farad
~, Paynant Rab Paynant Payntartt fasw L00% C4strkt Dbtrkts
1999
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 _
0.00
. 2000 1.00 72.410.00 72.410.00 72,410.OD 13,000.00 0.00 0.00 87,410.00;
2000 1-50 54.307.50 54.307.30 '54.307.50 15,000.00 500 0.00 69,307.50
! 2001 2.00 51.307.50 54,307.50 54,307.50 000 0.00 0.00 54,307.50'
~ 2001 250 51.307.50 54.307.50' 54.307.50 0.00 500 0.00. 54,307.50.
2002 3.00 55.000.00 5.80% 11,320.00 96.320.00 0.00 500 0.00 96.320.00 96.320
00
2002 3.50 39.725.00 39.725.00 0.00 0.00 5.100.00 31.323.00 .
39.725.001
2003 4.00 60.000.00 5.80% 39.725.00 99.725.00 500 500 5.400.00 94.325.00 99.725.00.
2003 4.50 37.955.00 37,9BS.00 ~ 500 QOD 10.500.00 27.165.00 37.955.00
2004 5.00 60.000.00 5.90% 37.955.00 97.965.00• 0.00 0.00 t0.a00.00 57,155.00 97,9a5.00~
2004 5.50 36,215.00 36.215.00 0.00 0.00 10,500.00 25.1/5.00 36.215.00 ~
2005 6.00 65,000.00. 5.90% 36,215.00 101,211.00 0.00 500 10,500.00 90,415.00 101,2/5.00
I 2005 6.50 34,297.50 34.217.50 0.00 0.00 10,800.00 23,197.60 34,297.50 ~
2006 7.00 70.000.00 6.00% 34,297.50 104.297.50 500 0.0D 10.500.00 93.497.50 104,297.50
2006 7.50 32,197.50 32.197.50. 0.00 0.00 t0,a00.00 21,397.50 32,197.50
2007 5.00 75,000.00 6.00%
32.,97.50
107,197.50
0.00
O.oo
,0.800.00
96.397.60
,07.,97.801
2007 8.50 29.947.50 29,947.50 _ 500 500 10.800.00 19.117.00 29,947.30
2008 9.00 80,000.00 6.10% 29.947.50 109.947.50 0.00 0.00 10.800.00 99.147.50 109,947.50.
l 2006 9.50 27.507.50 27,507.50 500 0.00 10,600.OD 16,707.50 27.507,50!
2009 10.00 85,000.00 6.10% 27,507.50 112,507.50 O.OD 0.00 10.800.00 101,707.50 11$507.501
1 2009 10.50 24,915.00 24,918.00 0.00 Q00 10,80500 14,115.00 24,913,00
j 2010 11.00 90,000.00 B.20% 24,915.00 114,915.00 500 500 10,60500 101,115.00 1/4,915.001
2010 11.50 22,125.00 22.125.00: 500 0.00 10.800.00 11.323.00 22.125.00
2011 12.00 95,000.00 6.20%_'. 22,123.00 117,125.00 500 0.00 10,800.00 106,325.00 117,123.00
2011 12.50 19,180.00 19,150.00' 0.00 550 t0,a00.00 0.350.00 19,160.00!
2012 13.00 100,000.00 6.30% 19,180.00 119,160.00 500 500 10,60500 106,360.00 119/6500!
2012 13.50 16,03500 16.030.00. 500 500 10,600.00 5,230.00 18,000.001
2013 14.00 105,000.00 6.30% 18,030.00 121,000.00 500 0.00 10,80500 110,230.00 121,000.00
2013
~ 14.50 12,722.50 12,M2.50'
' a0D 500 10.800.00 1,922.50 12,72250!
2014
' ,s:oo „o,aoo.oo 6.10% 12,72250 122.722.50 0.00 500 10,800.00 111,92250 122,72250
To1a
zols 1s.so
16.00
1zo,ooo.o0
6.4ox 9,2o2.so
9,202so 9aa2.so~
129.202.50; oao
0.00 aao
0.00 a.2o2.so
10
60500 aao
115
102
50 9,20230,
/29
20250
2015 16.50 5,36250 5.362.50' 0.00 0.00 ,
5,362.30 ,
.
000 ,
3,36230
2016 17.00 125,000.00 6.50% 5,362.50 130,362.50: 0.00 500 10,500.00 119,562.30 130,362.3
2016
17.50
1,300.00
1,300.00 ~
0.00
0.00
1,300.00
0.00 0
1,300.00
2017 18.00 40.000.00 6.50% 1,300.00 41,300.00 0.00 0.00 10.600.00 30,500.00 41,300.00.
2017 18.50 0.00 0.00: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001
2018 19.00 0.00 6.60% 0.00 0.00; 500 500 500 500 0.00
~ 2018 19.50 0.00 0.00 ~ 500 .
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2019 20.00 0.00 6.60% 0.00 0.00 ; 500 0.00 500 0.00 0.00
.nd~.vAc4
Prepared by Ehlers7Publioorp, loc.
PAGE t
City of Richfibld
Richfield Redscoved Project
24-May-99
• ---
YfJ1R
_
ood -
Meted
d9
Belanp --~ ---
Ta
M1a~nelnt
Roroeww
Urban
YWepe -- Atra98ble Tax IrtCrentertt Cash Flow _
Ta Ta Ta
Ineeoeewnt Mtee9enent Nrcrom~M
Roveiwo Reawnue Rewiweo
Gkaeerrry EabW1p New
_ Yglopo Rtetdlold Red. RkMMd Rid. -__
Ta
IrKeenrnt
Mihr9st
4,Opl~ •--
Mynneet
Yado For
Bond
Debt
Sorvfeo A - -
Paymen7
61ade For
Bond
poet
Seevko d -.• --.--
-' ~'
PeNfod
~0
daleeteo
1999 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,250.00 O.OO 000 0.00 0.00 8.0.00
2000 1.00 8,250.00 0.00 0.00 8.250.00 0.00 125.00 0.00 0.00 12.825.00
2000 1.50 12,625.00 0.00 0.00 6,250.00 0.00 252.50 0.00 0.00 19,127.50
2001 2.00 19,127.50 0.00 0.00 8,250.00 0.00 362.SS 0.00 0.00 25,760.05
2001 2.50 25,760.05 58,967.00 19,849.00 8.250.00 0.00 51520 0.00 0.00 111,311.25
2002 3.00 111,311.25 58,967.00 19,849.00 6,250.00 0.00 2226.83 (96.320.00) 0.00 102,314.08
2002 3.50 102,311.08 58,967.00 19,849.00 6,250.00 0.00 2,01628 (31,325.00) 0.00 155,101.36
2003 4.00 155.101.36 58.967.00 19.849.00 6,250.00 0.00 3.102.03 (94.325.00) 0.00 118.944.38
2003 1.50 148.941.38 58.967.00 19.849.00 6.250.00 0.00 2,97x69 (27.165.00) 0.00 209.80427
2004 5.00 209,80427 58,967.00 19,819.00 6,250.00 0.00 1,196.09 (67,165.00) 0.00 211,881.38
2001 5.50 211,881.36 58,967.00 19,849.00 6,250.00 0.00 1237.83 (25,413.00) 0.00 275,769.98
2005 6.00 275,789.96 58,987.00 19,849.00 6,250.00 0.00 S,51a10 (90,415.00) 0.00 27S,93a38
zoos aso rs,936.36 56,967.ao 19,84a.ao 6250.00 0.00 S,s1a73 (23,197.50) aoo 343,OQ3.s1
2006 7.00 3W,023.81 58,967.00 19.819.00. 6250.00 0.00 6.860.17 (93,497.50) 0.00 311,IS2.S8'
2006 7.50 341,452.58 58,967.00 19,819.00 8,250.00 0.00 6,829.06 (21,397.50) 0.00 411,950.14
2007 8.00 411.850.14 56.967.00 19,619.00 6250.00 0.00 6239.00 (98,7.50) Q00 408.657.81
2ao7 eso 408:857.61 56,967.00 19.619.00 6250.00 0.00 6,1n.1s (19,1aso) a0o 462,953.29:
2008 9.00 182,95329 56.987.00 19,819.00 6250.00 0.00 9,659.07 (99,1Q.S0) x00 476.530.86
2008 9.50 478.530.86 58.967.00 19.849.00 6250.00 0.00 9,570.62 (16.707.50) 0.00 558,159.97
. 2009 10.00 556,459.97 58,967.00 19,819.00 8250.00 000 11,12920 (101,707.50) 0.00 550,917.87
2009 10.50 550,917.67 58,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 0.00 11,O/a9S (14,11x00) 0.00 826,867.63'
2010 11.00 628.667.63 58.967.00 19.649.00 0.00 0.00 12,533.35 (101,11x00) 0.00 813.901.96
2010 11.50 613,901.96 58,987.00 _ 19,M9.00 0.00 0.00 12276.01 (11,325.00) 0.00 893,671.02'
2011 12.00 693,671.02 58,987.00 19,419.00 0.00 0.00 13,073.42 (106,325:00) 0.00 880,035.M ~ ~
tot t 12.50 680,035.14 56,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 0.00 13,600.71 (6,360.00) 0.00 764,072.15
2012 13.00 764,072.15 58,967.00 19,419.00 0.00 0.00 15261,44 (100,360.OD) 0.00 749,769.59•
201? 73.50 719,769.59 56,967.00 19,819.00 0.00 - 0.00 1s,99x79 (5230.00) 0.00 636,371.36E
2013 14.00 838,371.38 58,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 0.00 16,767.13 (110,230.00) 0.00 823,724.61
2013 14.50 823,721.81 56,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 x00 16,174.50 (1,922.50) 0.00 917,092.81:
2014 15.00 917,092.81 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 x00 16,341,06 (111,922.50) x00 902,326.18 ~ /
2014 15.50 902,320.16 56,987.00 19,849.00 0.00 1,597.50 16,046.58 x00 0.00 1,000,76623; t
2015. 16.00 1,000,786.23 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 0.00 20,015.78 (116,402.60) x00 981217.49'
' 2015 16.50 981217.48 56,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 5,137.50 19,624.35 0.00 0.00 1,085,095.34
2016 17.00 1,085,085.34 58,987.00 19,849.00 0.00 0.00 21,701.91 (119,562.50) 0.00 1,066,050.75
2016 17.50 1,068,050.75 56,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 9,500.00 21,321.01 0.00 0.00 t,t7b,667.78:
~ 2017 18.00 1,175,W7.76 58,967.00 19,619.00 0.00 x00 23,513.76 (30,300.00) 0.00 1247,317.52
2017 18.50 1,247,577.52 58,967.00 19,419.00 0.00 10,800.00 24,950.35 0.00 x00 1,362,063.07 ~
~ 2018 19.00 1,362,083.87 58,967.00 19,619.00 0.00 10,800.00 27241.86 0.00 0.00 1,470,941.55!
2018 19.50 1,478,911.55 58,967.00 19,819.00 0.00 10,600.00 29,S7a83 0.00 0.00 1,/598,136.36!
2019 20.00 1,598,136.38 58,987.00 19,649.00 0.00 10,600.00 31,962.73 0.00 0.00 1,719,715.11;
2019 20.50 1,719,715.11 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 (285,865.00) 31,394.30 0.00 0.00 1,547,060.41 ~
2020 21.00 1,547,060.41 58,967.00 18,849.00 0.00 10,600.00 30,91127 0.00 QOO 1,667,617.62•.
2020 21.50 1,667;817.62 58,967.00 19,819.00 0.00 70,800.00 33,352.35 0.00 0.00 1,790,585.97
2021 22.00 1,790,585.97 58,967.00 19,419.00 0.00 10,800.00 35,611.72 0.00 0.00 1,916,013.89;
2021 22.50 1,916.013.69 58,967.00 19,419.00 0.00 10,600.00 38,32027 QOO 0.00 2,Oq,949.96
2022 23.00 2,043,949.96 58,867.00 19,849.00 0.00 10,600.00 40,879.00 0.00 x00 $174,141.98
2022 23.50 2,171,4M.96 58,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 10,800.00 43,486.90 0.00 0.00 2,307,549.68
2023 24.00 2.307,549.86 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 10,800.00 46,151.00 0.00 .0.00 2,113,316.68;
' 2023 24.50 2,413,316.86 58,967.00 19,619.00 0.00 10,800.00 18,886.34 0.00 0.00 2,561,799.19.
2024 25.00 2.581,799.19 58,967.00 19,649.00 0.00 10,800.00 51,635.98 0.00 0.00 2,723,OSi.iB;
2021 25.50 2,723,051.18 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 10,600.00 54,181.02 0.00 0.00 2,887,12820]
2025 26.00 2,867,128.20 58,967.00 78,649.00 0.00 10,800.00 57,312.56 0.00 0.00 3,014,086.76
2025 26.50 3.014,066.76 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 10,800.00 60,261.71 0.00 0.00 3,163,984.50'
2026 27.00 7,163,984.50 58,967.00 19,849.00 0.00 10,800.00 63279.69 0.00 0.00 3,316,880.19
2026 27.50 3,316,880.19 0.00 0.00 -_ 0.00 10,800.00 66,337.60 0.00 0.00 3,394,017.79'
2.948.350.00 992.450.00 125.000.00 (74.930.00) 1,180.227.79 (1.777.080.00) 0.00
T-bond~.wk4
Prepared by Ehbrs/Publieory, Inc.
PAGE 2
i`
•
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Taxable Variable Rate G.O. Bonds
(Richfield Rediscover Project)
Series 1999
SOURCES b USES
Dated 06/01/1999 Delivered 06/01/1999
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................ 51,730,000.00
TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................ 51,730,000.00
USES OF FUNDS
Total Undennrriters Discount (1.500°k) .............................................. 25.950.00
Costs of Issuance .............................................................................. 30,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund ......................................... 221,594.30
Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................ 1,450.000.00
Rounding Amount ................................................ ......................... 2,455.70
TOTAL USES .................................................................................... 51,730,000.00
Ehlers b Associates File =RICH-RED/SCOVER.SF-Redis 2b- S/NGLE PURPOSE
Leaders in Public Finance
5-?4H99911:01 AM
•
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Taxable Variable Rate G.O. Bonds
• (Richfield Rediscover Project)
Series 1999
DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE
ate Prinapal Coupon 4+tsrast ToW PN FISCAL TOTA1
6/01/1999 - -
~12~ - - 72,410.00 72,410.00 72,410.00
8!01/2000 - - 54.307.50 54.307.50
2/01/2001 54.307.50 54.307.50. 108.615.00
8/01!2001 - - 54.307.50 54,307.50 -
2/012002 55,000.00 5.600% 54,307.50 109,307.50 163,615.00
8/01/2002 - - " 52,712.50 52,712.50 -
?/01l2003. 60,000.00 5.800% 52,712.50 112,712.50 /65,425.00
8/01/2003 - - 50.872.50 50,9M.50 -
?J012004 60,000.00 5.900% 50,972.50 110,972.50 161,945.00
8/012004 - - 49,202.50 49,202.50 -
2/01/2005 65,000.00 5.900% 19,202.50 114,202.50 163,405.00
8/01/2005 - - 47,285.00 47,285.00 .
2/01/2008 70,000.00 6.000% - 47,285.00 117,285.00 164,570.00
4101/2006 - - 45.185.00 45,185.00
?/01/2007 75,000.00 6.000% 45,185.00 120,185.00 185,370.00
8/012007 42.935.00 42,935.00 -
2/01/2008 80,000.00 6.100% 42,935.00 122,935.00 185,870.00
8/01/2006 - - 40,495.00 40,495.00 -
2/012009 85.000.00 6.100% 40,495.00 125,494.00 165,990.00
4/012009 - - 37,902.50 37.902.50 .
2/012010 = " 90.000.00 6.200% 37.902.50 127.902.50 185.805.00
8ro12010 - - 35,112.50 35,112.50 -
?l012011 95,000.00 6.200% _33,112.50 130,112.50 165,225.00
8/012011 - '32,167.50 32,167.50 -
?/012012 100,000.00 6.300% 32,167.50 132,167.50 164,335.00
8!012012 - - 29,017.50 29,017.30
. ?/012013 105
000.00 6.300% 29,017.50 134,017.50 163,035.00
ero1no13 - 2s,Tlo.oo 2s,Tloao
2/012014 110,000.00 6.400% 25,710.00 133,110.00 181,420.00
8/012014 22.190.00 22,190.00 -
2/012015 120,000.00 6.400% 22,190.00 142,190.00 164,360.00
8/012015 - 18.350.00 16.350.00 -
2/012016 125,000.00 6.500% 16,350.00 143,350.00 161,700.00
8/012016 - 14,287.30 14,287.50
2/012017 135,000.00 6.500% 14,287.50 149,267.50 163,575.00
8/012017 - 9.900.00 9.900.00
2/012018 145,000.00 6.600% 9,800.00 154,900.00 164,800.00
8/012018 - - 5,115.00 5,115.00 -
2/012019 155,000.00 6.600% 5,115.00 160,115.00 185,230.00
ToW 1,730.000.00 - 1,406,720.00 3,136,720.00
YIELD STATISTICS
Bond Year Ddlars .................. ...................... 122,058.33
Average Life .......................... ....................... 12.750 Years
Average Coupon .................... ...................... 6.3772724%
Net Interest Cost (NIC) ................................. 6.4949150%
True Interost Cost (TIC) ......... ...................... 6.5322321%
Bond Yield for Art„traps Purposes ............... 6.3497563%
AI Indusive Cost (AIC) ........... ...................... 6.7483063%
IRS FORM sons
Net Interest Cost ................... ...................... 8.3772724%
Weighted Average Maturity .... ...................... 12.750 Years
Ehlers 6 Assodstss ft7e : ~gt;py~g~~-~, ~~ p
. Leaders in Public Fanance 524/1999 1 t bf AAf
S.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 50
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the acquisition of 6901-12th Avenue, 6929 Queen
Avenue and 6933 Queen Avenue under the Richfield Rediscovered Program.
Background:
Three properties have been identified for purchase under the Richfield Rediscovered
Program. The property at 6901-12th Avenue is currently owned by HUD and has been
vacant for some time. The house is a one bedroom, and consists of 772 sq. ft. The
house has suffered deterioration to its roof and foundation during its vacancy as well as
water damage. The detached garage has suffered storm damage, including the impact
of a large tree limb which continues to lie on the roof. HUD's sale price is $60,000. It is
anticipated that the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) will receive
another ten percent deduction (reduced to a sale price of $54,000) at closing due to its
status as a local unit of government. The $60,000 amount is contained in the resolution
in the event the deduction is not available.
The property at 6929 Queen Avenue consists of a small 640 sq. ft. house and a single
car detached garage. The house lacks a basement. The deteriorated roof has caused
interior water damage. The flooring, walls and fixtures are deteriorated and dated.
Although. its estimated market value is $75,000, the owner is willing to sell the property
for $69,500 due to the extensive repairs required.
The property at 6933 Queen Avenue consists of a 496 sq. ft. "garage" house, set back
deep from the front of the lot, with serious structural problems. Its estimated market
value is $45,000. The owner has considered remodeling the house, which would need
to include installing proper footings and reframing wall and roof to provide proper interior
ceiling height. Because these are not cost effective solutions, the owner has also
considered moving a house onto the front of the lot.. However, the owner's pursuit of
houses available from New Ford Town and Urban Village did not lead to
redevelopment. Because the house is uninhabitable, the owner has not occupied it
since purchase in 1995, and the substandard conditions remain. Further, the property
at 6929 Queen Avenue when purchased by the HRA, cannot be developed to its full
potential given that substandard conditions remain at 6933 Queen Avenue.
The owner of 6933 Queen Avenue has been provided opportunities to voluntarily sell to
the HRA but has not been interested in selling. The HRA, through eminent domain,
could acquire and redevelop the properly, removing both the deteriorated property at
6929 Queen Avenue and the vacant, uninhabitable property at 6933 Queen Avenue.
The HRA, in authorizing acquisition through condemnation, is following a consistent
process within the Richfield Rediscovered Program to allow acquisition without
voluntary sale when significant substandard conditions exist. The HRA last authorized
Richfield Rediscovered condemnation when acquiring 7520 Portland and 6205 Morgan
Avenues. Funds, to be borrowed from the development account, are available to
acquire 6901-12th Avenue from HUD. The proposed Richfield Rediscovered bond will
provide for the purchase of 6929 and 6933 Queen Avenue contingent until funds are
available. The bond proceeds would also reimburse the development account for the
purchase of 6901-12th Avenue.
• Recommended Motion:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of the properties at 6901-12th Avenue
for $60,000; 6929 Queen Avenue for $69,500; and 6933 Queen Avenue for $45,000.
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire the real
property located at 6933 Queen Avenue.
3. Authorize the Acting Executive Director and. HRA Chairperson to execute Purchase
Agreements and other documents to effectuate the acquisitions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The properties meet program requirements for acquisition.
2. Bonding for Richfield Rediscovered has been authorized by the HRA, and will be
considered by the Council in August. A contingency will be included in the
purchase agreements to ensure that bond funds must be made available to proceed
with acquisition.
3. The property at 6901-12th Avenue has been vacant for a long time, and it is
necessary to purchase quickly from HUD when property becomes available.
Waiting for bond funds to be available will cause the transaction to fail.
4. The owners of 6901-12th and 6929 Queen Avenues have voluntarily indicated an
interest in selling the properties to the HRA.
5. The purchase price of 6901-12th Avenue has been established by HUD at $60,000.
The purchase of 6929 Queen Avenue was negotiated based on the estimated
market value and determined to be $69,500..
6. The property at 6933 Queen Avenue is vacant and uninhabitable. The 6229 Queen
Avenue property cannot be developed to its full potential if substandard conditions
remain at 6933 Queen Avenue.
7. Unless directed differently by the court during the condemnation process, the cost
of acquisition is $45,000. A voluntary sale by the owner would yield the same price:
8. Eminent domain proceedings effectively end the problem of a vacant substandard
property with any and all liens that may be present. At any time prior to the
completion of the proceedings, a voluntary sale by the owner would be accepted.
Acting Executive Director
• SLD:cak
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not authorize acquisitions.
2. Do not authorize eminent domain proceedings.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Agreements to purchase are ready to be prepared in final form. The opportunity to
purchase the properties on Queen Avenue is contingent on bond funds being made
available.
R ctfully submitted,
n L. Devich
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6901-12TH, 6929 QUEEN AND 6933 QUEEN AVENUES
FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in
furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment Project (Project) heretofore
adopted by the City of Richfield (City) and the HRA, said real property being described
as follows:
Address Legal
6901-12th Avenue: Lot 10, Block 4, Richlands
6929 Queen Avenue: Lot 17, Block 16, Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Third
Addn
6933 Queen Avenue: Lot 16 and the North %i of Lot 15, Block 16, Tingdale
Bros.' Lincoln Hills Third Addition; and
WHEREAS,. the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.012 to
acquire real property within its area of operation; and
WHEREAS, the properties meet all program requirements for acquisition;. and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, seller of
6901-12th Avenue, is selling the property at a cost significantly reduced from its
estimated market value; and
WHEREAS, the negotiated purchase price of 6929 Queen Avenue is based upon
its estimated market value; and
WHEREAS, the purchase price of 6933 Queen Avenue is based upon its current
estimated market value; and
WHEREAS, purchases will not be made without the availability of funds for
program acquisitions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopement
Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota.
1. The purchase price of 6901-12th Avenue is approved at $60,000.
2. The purchase price of 6929 Queen Avenue is approved at $69,500.
3. The purchase price of 6933 Queen Avenue is approved at $45,000.
4. The Chairperson and Acting Executive Director are authorized to execute a
Purchase Agreement or other documents to allow purchase for the amounts
set forth in this resolution.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
• ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6933 QUEEN AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) is a public body corporate and politic and a subdivision of
the State of Minnesota organized and operating under Minnesota law, as amended, and
is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Ch. 469 and other laws to acquire real estate by
exercising the power of eminent domain under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Ch.
117: and
WHEREAS, the HRA has previously established a program pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.011 et se . To provide for the acquitions of land and
construction of decent, safe and sanitary housing; and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment of certain real property located in the City at
6933 Queen Avenue, and legal described as Lot 16, and the North 'h of Lot 15, Block
16, Tingdale Bros.' Lincoln Hills Third Addition; according to the recorded plat thereof
and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota ("Subject Property") is consistent and in
furtherance of the HRA's programs and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has determined that it is necessary to acquire title to and.
possession of the Subject Property by the earliest date permitted in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 117.042.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the HRA, as follows:'
1. It is necessary to acquire the Subject Property as described in this resolution in
order for the HRA to carry out the purposes for which it was established.
2. Acquisition of the Subject Property by eminent domain, in the manner provided by
Minnesota Statues, Chapter 117, is deemed to be necessary and for a public
purpose and is hereby authorized.
3. The HRA deems it necessary, to proceed without delay under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 117.042, to acquire title to and possession of the Subject Property prior to
the filing of a final report of commissioners.
4. The HRA's attorney and staff are authorized and directed to commence eminent
domain proceeds to acquire fee simple absolute title to the Subject Property,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.042 and to pay to the owner(s) into
court, a sum of money to secure compensation to the owners of the Subject
Property, which amount shall be equal to petitioner's approved appraisal of value as
determined by HRA staff
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
• ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 49
Agenda August 16, 1999
• Issue Statement:
Public hearing and authorization to sell 6600 Oakland Avenue to Cornerstone Advocacy
Service.
Background:
In October 1998, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the
securing of funds from the HOME Investment Partnership Program (Federal HOME
funds) through Hennepin County. The funds would be used for Cornerstone. Advocacy
Service (Cornerstone) to purchase the property at 6600 Oakland Avenue from the HRA
for their transitional housing program. Subsequently, Housing Trust Fund money from
the Minnesota Housing- Finance Agency (MHFA) .was applied for and received for
remodeling the home and Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
have been designated for demolition of the commercial space. The Richfield
Remodeling Advisor developed the scope of improvements in cooperation with
Cornerstone staff. Pro bono architectural assistance was provided for the new north
entry that will be constructed after removal of the commercial space.
Following the HRA public hearing and sale, Cornerstone will be contracting with D & J
Remodeling Service to do the remodeling. Work will include replacing all of the
windows, moving the garage onto the new slab, installing new roof shingles and siding.
on the house and garage, constructing a north entry where the commercial space
currently exists, interior painting, asbestos abatement, separation of utility services that
had been shared between the commercial and residential spaces, and updating
electrical, plumbing and heating.
+ An agreement between the HRA and Cornerstone provides for the sale and
rehabilitation of 6600 Oakland Avenue by Cornerstone. A Cooperation Agreement was
developed by HRA legal counsel as an addendum to the Purchase Agreement between
the HRA and Cornerstone which specifies the HRA's role in securing funds and
developing the scope of improvements and Cornerstone's responsibility to implement
the scope of improvements, properly landscape the property, and comply with federal
and state reporting .requirements for the terms of the various funding sources.
A summary of the financial elements of the project follows:
Acquisition:
Property Acquisition by HRA $180,000
Removal of Commercial Value and Structure 40 000
Future Estimated Value Upon Remodeling Completion $140,000
Sale Proceeds from Cornerstone (HOME funds) $ 50,000
HRA Deferred Second Mortgage for Balance 90 000
Total Return to the HRA $140,000
(HRA "write down" estimated to be $40,000)
Improvements:
Demolition of Commercial Area and Remodeling $110,000
HRA Grant for Demolition and Rebuilding North Wall $ 20,000
(CDBG)
Ten Year Remodeling Deferred Loan (MHFA) 90 000
$110, 000
During the first ten years, the MHFA loan is reduced on a prorated annual basis as the
HRA deferred loan steps up an equal amount each year. In the tenth year, the amount
Cornerstone owes MHFA is zero and the amount owed the HRA is $90,000. The HRA's
$90,000 mortgage is recovered when the property is sold or transferred at some .future
time.
Recommended Motion:
Following a public hearing, adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of 6600 Oakland
Avenue to Cornerstone Advocacy Service in accordance with a Cooperation
Agreement.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Planning Commission and City Council have approved a conditional use permit
for the property to be used residentially. It is zoned commercial.
2. Federal HOME funds have been secured for the acquisition of the property by
Cornerstone. HOME funds received now as land proceeds when combined with a
deferred loan in the form of a second mortgage to the HRA, return the estimated
value of $140,000.
3. MHFA State Housing Trust Fund monies have been secured to finance the
remodeling; a 10 year $90,000 deferred loan with a prorated amount reduced over
the loan term until nothing is owed.
4. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds have been secured for
demolition of the commercial space; a $20,000 grant from the HRA to cover parts of
the project that do not provide a value return.
5. Cornerstone has a need for more transitional. housing, given that they have lost two
units recently due to changes in HUD funding.
6. Cornerstone has provided services to families in crisis for many years,. and provides
a much needed housing opportunity.
7. The neighborhood has been kept informed of all public actions related to the
property. Neighbors also received a letter from Cornerstone, with a brochure on
.Cornerstone's services enclosed, inviting them to a meeting to discuss any
questions. The neighborhood has been supportive.
8. The HRA purchased the property to discontinue commercial uses, restore the
residential character and maximize the amount of funds that can reimburse the HRA
for its cost of acquisition. The project, as proposed, maximizes the return to the
HRA over the 30-year life of the project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not authorize sale to Cornerstone. However, all funds identified for the project
were secured in cooperation with Cornerstone and would be lost.
•
2. Consider other redevelopment options.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The purchase agreement has been prepared in final form. The contractor could begin
worlS,after execution of agreements and conveyance to Cornerstone.
Acting Executive
SLD:cak
Attachments
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
6600 OAKLAND AVENUE TO CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
FOR ITS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) desires to sell certain real property pursuant to and in
furtherance of its goal to remove blight and provide affordable housing, said real
property being described as follows:
Address: 6600 Oakland Avenue
Legal: Lot 18, Block 1, Auditor's Subdivision Number 340
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized to sell real property within its area of
operation after a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Cornerstone Advocacy Service desires to provide services in
Richfield in accordance with its transitional housing program, and in accordance with
Federal HOME and CDBG guidelines and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
rehabilitation loan guidelines for funding; and a Cooperation Agreement with the HRA;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held after proper public notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield:
1. A public hearing has been held and 6600 Oakland Avenue is authorized to be
sold for an initial sale price of $50,000 in HOME funds and a $90,000
deferred mortgage by the HRA to Cornerstone Advocacy Service and in
accordance with a Cooperation Agreement with the HRA.
2. The Chairperson and Acting Executive Director are authorized to execute a
Purchase Agreement and other agreements as required to effectuate the sale
followed by a rehabilitation project by Cornerstone Advocacy Service.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
•
66TH STREET- - 6500 OAKLAND
WALK AVENUE
•
REMOVE ASPHALT 70.00' --- -
AND CURB CUT
1 40.5' 28.T 1
1
~ Im
r DEMOLISH ~- ~ Z ~
~ -RETAIL SPACE
N
i~ i i
I~ ~ I
L ~.
~.
~ ~
t
.-
i
W
Z
J
}
H
W
a
O
la
e
N
.. .~
~
LL'f
G
RENOVATE
GARAGE
~~n C
O~!-t ~r Of
iinwamnNa~a=,
PLANNING
ZONING
NORTH
..
SCALE: 1' = 20' DATE: 10-17-98
i
W
Z
W
al
0
z
Y
Q
0
I
I
SITE F
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
• HRA Letter No. 48
Agenda August 16,1999
Issue Statement:
Public hearing and authorization to sell 7520 Colfax Avenue to Steven Marlin Grant
Homes, Inc.
Background:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) acquired the property under the
Richfield Rediscovered Program. It is proposed that the HRA sell 7520 Colfax Avenue
to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. for the development of anew single family home.
The proposed home will be two stories, over 1,900 finished sq. ft., and will have three
bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths, a fireplace, and main floor laundry. The end value is estimated
at $213,500. The project would be conducted in accordance with a development
agreement.
Recommended Motion:
Following a public hearing approve a motion which adopts the resolution authorizing the
sale of 7520 Colfax Avenue to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc. has built several homes under the Richfield
Rediscovered Program. This company has provided evidence of experience,
capability and financial security.
2. The HRA acquired 7520 Colfax Avenue for the Richfield Rediscovered Program.
3. The terms of the development agreement have been negotiated and are in
conformance with program guidelines.
4. Notice of public hearing on sale of the property was published on August 4, 1999 in
the Sun-Current.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not proceed with the development agreement with the recommended builder and
direct staff to find another buyer.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Closing would occur in August with construction starting soon afterwards.
tfully sub fitted,
to en L. evich
Acting Executive Di ector
SLD:cak
Attachment
•
HRA RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7520 COLFAX AVENUE
TO STEVEN MARLIN GRANT HOMES, INC.
WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the
City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) desires to develop certain real property pursuant to
and in furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Program adopted by the HRA, said
real property being described as follows:
Address Leaal Description
7520 Colfax Avenue Lot 6, Block 22, Irwin Shores
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized to sell real property within its area of
operation after a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the purchaser of the described property has been identified and a
development agreement negotiated as follows:
Performance
Address Sale Price Securi Builder
7520 Colfax Avenue $35,000 $35,000 Steven Marlin Grant
• Homes, Inc.
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held after proper public notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield:
A public hearing has been held and 7520 Colfax Avenue is authorized to
be sold for $35,000 to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc.
2. The Chairperson and Acting Executive Director are authorized to execute
a Contract for Private Development and other agreements necessary to
effectuate the sale to Steven Marlin Grant Homes, Inc.
Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of August, 1999.
Thomas E. Harms, Chair
ATTEST:
Michael Sandahl, Secretary
~o~u ~o~rax wvenue
•
_ - -~ ~ ...~, a--~~~~
.n
_~~o~IIO~o Q.o
o~oooaat~
_aaQQOOno ~~
oaoa~~c~o
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
•
.1
~. 1}
r:f
1
+~
' i r ~ 1
~~ ~ _ _~
~. , . ~
~~ - ~ ~.
_ ..., .. ~
• _J
/ F•+ti
~\
.. ; _ ~C)
-f= 'd- J. 'I II ~ ~~
.I - u.
~ .~
~~ , ..
:7
J
Second Floor
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 47
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of the amount and form of public assistance to be used for the completion
of the Lyndale Gateway development.
Background:
On January 19, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved a
Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM Properties, Inc. (CSM) for the
redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway area.- In Apnl,-the HRA approved-GSM's
concept plan for the area which included Lyndale Avenue, the east side of Aldrich
Avenue and the west side of Ga~eld Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. The
proposal on the west side of Lyndale Avenue included a mix of retail and office uses,
while the primary use proposed on the east side of Lyndale was a senior complex with
152 units plus. office space. Property owners on the east side of Garfield Avenue had
expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the development on their
properties. In an effort to address these concerns, CSM resubmitted their concept plan
in June to include the acquisition of those homes and the construction of townhomes on
the site.
When the HRA selected the CSM concept as the preferred proposal for Lyndale
Gateway at the November 16, 1998 meeting, a significant "gap" ~n the financing was
identified. The gap consists of site assembly costs which exceed the increment to be
generated by the development. At that time the gap was estimated at approximately $3
million. Since that time, staff has worked with CSM and Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
(Ehlers) in determining whether that gap could be reduced or eliminated.
CSM was able to eliminate approximately $700,000 from the development costs by
making changes to the site plan for the development which they had originally proposed
and by making changes to their financial structuring of the development. Unfortunately,
however, staff from Ehlers continue to estimate a $1.9 million gap m the overall
development.
A summary and brief financial analysis of each component are as follows:
Senior Apartments & Office Development
Twin City Christian Homes (TCCH) has been identified as the sub-developer of this site,
which is on the east side of Lyndale Avenue extending back to include the property on
the west side of Garfield Avenue. The apartment portion of the development will
contain 152 units. TCCH has stated that at least 40% of the units would be offered at a
reduced rent in order to provide "affordable" housing. The tenants of the 35,000 sq. ft.
office portion of the TCCH development have been identified as Tushie-Montgomery
Architects, Weiss Builders and the offices of Twin City Christian Homes. Ehlers staff
have concluded that this development generates sufficient tax increment to offset the
site assembly costs; therefore, there is no gap on this component of the development.
Retail & Professional Office Development
This portion of the development is located on the west side of Lyndale Avenue and
would extend back to the east side of Aldrich Avenue. CSM intends on developing this
portion of the development. CSM continues to show afree-standing drug store and a
second building contammg a dental office, a retail store space and four smaller retail
spaces. CSM has been in discussion with the primary tenants, but does not yet have
any signed commitments to lease any of the space. Ehlers staff have estimated a $1.3
million gap on this component. The primary reason for the large gap is due to the high
site assembly costs, including the relocation of 17 businesses. Past proposals and
current analysis of the west side of Lyndale Avenue indicate that this gap cannot be
reduced further.
Townhome Development
This portion of the development was planned in response to the concerns of the
homeowners on the east side of Ga~eld Avenue regarding their perceived negative
impact on their property by the TCCH senior. apartment development. Ron Clark
Homes has been identified as the sub-developer and builder of the townhomes. The
concept plan which was approved in June showed 30 units on this site. Ron Clark
Homes is now proposing 40 units. Staff, however, believes a 40 unit townhome
development on this site is too intensive and is recommending that the development
contain no more than 32 townhomes.: With 32 .units, the gap:for this component of the
development has been estimated as $621,000. -When the concept for the townhomes
was accepted, it was under the premise that they were self-sustaining and there was no
gap. The townhomes would be paced at $129,000 to $149,000 each.
Sid Inman of Ehlers has submitted a memorandum (Exhibit A) which analyzes the need
for public financing necessary for this project to occur. This letter verifies that the
development could not occur "but-for"- the use of tax increment financing.
In order for the development to proceed as a whole, additional sources of public funding
must be identified. A potential source for this additional funding would be the increment.
generated from the Candlewood Hotel site. This site is conservatively estimated to
.generate $1.2 million in increment (present value) prior to the retirement of the TIF
,district in 2012.. Even with the Candlewood tax increment, the entire project continues
to have a gap of $722,000. A potential funding source for this remaining-gap would be
the development account which contains revenues from prior land sales, although use
of development account funds in this amount would severely limit the administrative and
project funding for redevelopment activities in the future.
-The method of utilizing the Candlewood increment which has been discussed would use
the proceeds of City issued general obligation tax increment bonds to reimburse the
developer for eligible redevelopment costs. The bonds would be retired using the
increment from Candlewood and .backed by a general obligation of the City in the event
that there is insufficient increment for the debt service.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a motion which:
1. Approves assistance only for the senior apartment and attached office development
which is proposed for the east side of Lyndale Avenue and for the commercial
development which is proposed for the west side of Lyndale Avenue; and,
2. Approves the use of tax increment financing (TIF) for the development in the
approximate amount of $3,930,000 in the form of apay-as-you-go note issued to the
developer(s) as reimbursement for eligible redevelopment costs; and;
3. Stipulates that the tax increment assigned to the Twin City Christian Homes
component of the development be reduced proportionately in any year that the debt
service coverage exceeds 130%;
4. Requests that the City Council issue general obligation tax increment bonds in the
approximate amount of $1,250,000 to be retired from the tax increment generated by
the Candlewood Tax Increment Financing District, the proceeds of which would be
reimbursed to the developer(s) for eligible redevelopment costs;
5. Approves the use of development account funds of up to $100,000 for
reimbursement to the developer(s) for eligible redevelopment costs which exceed
the amount of TIF and bond proceeds which are to be provided.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Lyndale Gateway has long been identified as an area in need of redevelopment
activities.
2. The HRA approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM on January 19
for the redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway Area.
3. The HRA approved a concept plan onJune21, 1999 which.identified.a senior
apartment complex and attached office development on the east side of Lyndale
Avenue, commercial development on the west side of Lyndale Avenue and
townhome development on the east side of Garfield Avenue (under the premise that
the development of the townhomes would not result in an additional gap).
4. A tax increment financing district and plan was established on June 14, 1999 to
include the Lyndale Gateway area.
5. The HRA and staff have been aware since its initial proposal that the development
did not generate a sufficient amount of increment to offset all of the. site assembly
costs and that additional :forms of public assistance were probably necessary for
this or any other development to occur in the Lyndale Gateway area.
6. The townhome development has a gap of nearly $700,000 and the only potential
funding source for this gap is the development account. Use of development
account funds in this amount would severely limit the administrative and project
funding for redevelopment activities in the future, beginning in 2000.
Alternative .Recommendation:
1. Adopt a motion which approves the use of tax increment financing only for the
senior apartment and attached office development which is proposed for the east
side of Lyndale Avenue. This would not require additional public assistance beyond
the tax increment which would be generated by the development.
2. Adopt a motion which approves the use of tax increment financing for the entire
development including the 32 townhomes on the east side of Garfield Avenue. This
would require approximately $1.9 million in additional assistance beyond the tax
increment which would be generated by the development. In addition to the
Candlewood general obligation tax increment bonds, this would also require the use
of up to $700,000 of funds from the development account; this would severely limit
the administrative and project funding for relocation activities in the future.
3. Adopt a motion which approves the use of tax increment financing only for the
senior apartment and attached office development which is proposed for the east
side of Lyndale Avenue and for the townhome development proposed for Garfield
Avenue. This would require approximately $621,000 in additional assistance
beyond the tax increment which would be generated by the development.
4. Adopt a motion which denies the use of tax increment financing for all components
of the proposed development.
5. Defer a decision until the September 13 meeting.
DiscussionlDecision Mode:
1. The denial of financial assistance for the townhomes on the east side of Garfield
Avenue would cause a great deal of concern to the existing residents. While the
developer has not made any formal offers on these properties, preliminary
discussions have begun which have probably led to an expectation on their part that
the developer will be purchasing their property. Recent sales records from
throughout the city indicate that market interest in this area should continue to be
strong.
2. Should the HRA approve the use of assistance for any portion of this development,
there are still several. issues which need-to be addressed before the development
could occur. Among these issues are the final commitment from the tenants of the
drug store and the dental facility which have been proposed, and the approval of the
Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and other City approvals.
Re a ully submi ,
to en L. D ich
Acting Executive Direc or
SLD:cak
Attachment
•
FREERS.
& ASSOCIATES INC
TO: Bruce Palmborg - City of Richfield
John Stark -City of Richfield
FROM: Sid Inman -Ehlers & Associates
Mark Ruff- Ehlers & Associates
DATE: August 12, 1999
MEMORANDUM
RE: South Lyndale Project -But For Analysis
As requested, we have completed the "but for" analysis for the south Lyndale project.. The primary
methodology for accomplishing .this analysis included a review of all three developers' pro forma's.
Additionally, we prepared individual tax increment cash flows to determine the amount of increment
available for each project.
The TCCH senior housing project is proposed to be financed by housing revenue bonds. The senior housing
pro forma demonstrates that 90% of the expected tax increment from the senior housing units and the
• commercial development connected to the senior housing is necessary to provide adequate coverage on the
debt. Debt service coverage is a function of total revenues (including tax increment) less operating expenses
divided by annual debt service. The typical debt service coverage for these types of financing aze 115% to
120%, plus an allowance of 5% vacancy for the housing units. The expected coverage on the TCCH project
is 118% in the first year and increasing as rents are inflated. Therefore, the 90% level of assistance is
justified. We do recommend that the tax increment assistance be reduced or eliminated in any yeaz ifthe debt
service coverage is over 130%. This will allow TCCH some cash flow for reinvestment in the property and
for affiliated programs while also ensuring that-the tax increment provided is not excessive.
Attached is a gap analysis chart for the CSM commercial project and the town home project. While our
review indicated a need for the amount of tax increment requested, the district does not produce sufficient
tax increment to fill the financing gap. The chart shows the amount of land acquisition cost, land sales
income, tax increment income and the remaining gap. The present value of the tax increment for the
commercial project over 25 years is $624,8201eaving aremaining gap of $1,300,180. The present value of
the tax increment for the town house project over 25 years is $521,1281eaving aremaining gap of $621,452.
One possibility for filling the gap for either the commercial or townhome project is to utilize the tax
increment produced by the Candlewood development in the LHN district. The first increment from this
parcel is expected in 2000 in an annual amount of $186,000 for 12 years. CSM has indicated that it would
not be willing to increase its pay-as-you-go note to finance the additional assistance. Therefore, the HRA
is being requested by the developers to provide the assistance "up-front".
The HRA has two choices for up-front assistance. The first is a tax increment revenue bond placed with a
• bank or underwriter. The City and HRA would have no financial obligation from sources other than the
project tax increment for the revenue bond. We did contact the underwriter who is working with TCCH on
financing parameters on a revenue bond. The assumptions for a revenue bond would provide funding for
• approximately $950,000 to $1,050,000 of net proceeds to cover the gap. In addition to the Candlewood
increment, the underwriter also requested any increment above 130% for TCCH as additional security for
the revenue bond.
The other alternative would be for the HRA and the City to issue atax-exempt G.O. Tax Increment Bond.
The G.O. Tax Increment Bond would provide funding for approximately $1,200,000 of gap financing. The
reason that the G.O. bond is able to yield more than the revenue bond is due to three factors:
O The G.O. carries an interest rate of .5% to .75% lower than a revenue bond due to the full faith and
credit of the City behind the project.
O The revenue bond would require 150% coverage while we would be comfortable recommending a
125% coverage for the G.O.
O The revenue bond would require a one year debt service reserve while the G.O. would not require
a one yeaz debt service reserve.
In summary, the TCCH project appears to be self-supporting with tax increment, and may not require all of
the tax increment if vacancy levels are low in the future. The CSM commercial gap is approximately
$1,300,000 and the townhome gap is approximately $622,000 for a total gap of $1,922,000. The
Candlewood tax increment pledge could reduce the gap by from $950,000 to $1,200,000, to depending upon
if the HRA and City are comfortable with the issuance of G.O. bonds. This would leave a net gap of from
$722,000 to $972,000. The only other source of funds that are available to fill this gap would be cash .
Please let us know if you have any other questions or comments.
from the desks of
Sid Inman ~
Vice President
Ehlers ~ Associates, Inc.
3060 Centre Point Drive
Roseville, MN SS113
Phone: (6S1) 697-8507
Fax: (6SI) 697-8SSS
C:\WINDOWS~TEMP~GAP-(r(EMO.4.wpd
08/12/99 Coy of Richfrea - Lyndab Avs project -BOTH SIDES p~ 1
------~ - -- -- -- -- BASICASSUMPTIONS --- . ._ - . -
OistriU: New Rsdevebpmant District
trMlation Rats 0.0000%
Pay As Yau Go Rate -Office -CSM 8.00%
Pay As You Go Rats -Office -TCCH 0.00%
Pay As You Go Rats -Apt Housing 6.75%
Pay As Yau Go Rate -Town Homes 8.00%
Fispl Oisp. COntr~tRiort Ratio 17.176% 1999
Focal Disp. ContrbWion Rath 18.176% 2000
fiscal Oise. CantrbMion Ratio 19.176% 2001
Fisch Oisp. CantrbtAion Ratio 20.176% 2002
Final Oisp. Contnbtrtion Ratio 22.176% 2003
Tax Capably (Extension) Rate -AREA WIDE RATE 1.620000 EST
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rats -CITY RATE 1:515550 certified
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate - Cf1Y RATE 1.352900 2001
•
BASE TAX CAPACITY
CERTIFIED FROZEN i
BASE BASE
MARKET PROPERTY TAX I
33-028.24.440036
33-028.24-44-0037 168,000
174,000 241tr3.4%
2.4%3.4% 4,212
4,418 7600
760&12 Wsst4.yn
West-Lyn
33.028-24-44-0038 260,000 2.4%3.4% 7,340 761418 West-Lyn ~
33-028-24440039 265,000 2.4%3.4% 7,510 762046 Wssl-Lyn
33028.24.44.0040 109,000 2.4%,1.4% 2,816 7632 Wsat-Lyn
33-028.24-44-0Wt 89,000 2:1%3.1% 2,138 7628 WssbLyn
33-028444.0042 110,000 2.4113.4% 2,640 7630 Wsstlyn
33-028-244-0043 101,000 2.4%-3.4% 2,424 7634-36 Wsst-Lyn
33-028-24.14-0044 92.000 2.4%-3.4% 2
208 7638.40 Wsst-Lyn
33028-2444-0045 120.000 24%3.4% ,
2.880 7642 Wsat~yn
33-028-2434-0046 118,000 2.4%-3.4% 2,832 7644 West1
CSM Sub~Total 1,608,000 41,214
IN DISTRICT 12S1aLN 34-028-2433-0078 122,000 2.40% 2,928 7601 East-Lyn
' IN DISTRICT 1251-ILN 34-028.24-33-0077 235,000 240% 5,640 7609.11 East-Lyn ~
IN DISTRICT12S1aLN 34-028-24-33-0073 0 2.40% 0 0
34-028-2433-0084 315,000 240% 7,560 7615.27 East-Lyn
IN DISTRICT 1231aLN 34-028.24-33-0074 147,000 2.40% 3,526 782933 Esst1
• TCCH Sub~Total 819,000 19.656
33-028-2444-0058 137,000 2.4%-3.4% 3,288 7601 Aldrich
33028-24-44-0055 89,200 2.4%-3.4% 2,141 7609 Adrich
33-028-24.44-0054 82,000 2.4713.4% 1,96t1 7615 Adrich
33-028.24-44.0053 79,000 2.4%.9.4% 1,896 7621 Aaridl
33-028.24-44-0052 87,580 2.4%3.4% 2,102 7627 Adrich
33-028-24.440051 87,000 2.1%3.4% 2,088 7633 AarirJl
33-028-24.440050 81,000 2.4%-3.4% 1,944 7639 Akltieh i
CSM Sub-Total 642,780 15,427
34-028-2433-0065 84,000 2.40% 2,016 7600 W1'asrfrea
a`~vco-c'1-au~nJVV ~vo,NnJ [.w/T [Ayc /0V6 YY-laanleq ~
3x-028.24-33-0067 90.000 2.40% 2,160 7614 w-Garfiea
34.028-2433-0069 9x,000 2.40% z,256 762s w~,arf»a
344n6-2433-007o e6,aao 2.40% z,osa 7632 w-carrea
34-026-2433-0077 105,000 240% 2.520 7638 w~carfrea
TCCH Sub•Total 670,091 76,082
34-028-24330058 84,000 1.00%-1.65% 892 7639 E-Garfiea
34-028.2433-0059 77,000 1.00%-1.65% 777 7633 E-Garfield
~ 34-028.2433-0060 87,204 1.00%-1.65% 945 7627 E-Garfisa
34-028-2433-0O6t 81,000 7.00%-1.65% 892 7621 E-Garfield
34328.24-330062 82,000 1.00%-1.65% 859 7815 E~GarfiNd
34-028.2433-0063 84,000 1.00%-1.65% 892 7609 E~Garfisa
34-028.2433-0064 95,000 1.00%-1.B5% 1,074 7601 E~aarfield
Ron Clark Sub•Total 593,204 6,330
Total 4,331,075 98,709
~ Texas Total Taxes Tea Capcity ToW Tax
Phase Dsvekrpment Sq. FL Per krckafirq Mirxtt Capacty Tax Market
Type Units Sq FLAh+it Fis. Ois. Fg.0is. Rats Vak» Payab
CSM ~ RetaA - 0 50.00 0 0 0 2.4%3.4% 0 2002
CSM Retail -Drug Store 15,120 111.50 68,010 38,590 48,344 24%3.4% 1,466,000 2000
CSM Retail - Other 14,824 14.50 68,768 37,885 47,460 24%3.4% 1,440,000 2002
CSM ORia Dentist 14,500 15.00 72,506 41,141 51,510 24%3.4% _ 1,560,000 2002
TCCH ORx» 35,400 :5,00 176,825 100,334 125,694 24%-3.4% 3,741,000 2002
TCCH Apts-East Lyn 108 12,14299 231,413 171,072 171,072 2.10% 7,128,000 2002
TCCH Apts-East Lyn 52 51,000.26 52,014 34,320 31,320 1.00% 3,432,000 2002
Ran Cork TowManea 8 12,657.77 21,262 15,716 15,716 1.00%-1.65% 1,192,000 2002
Ron Cork Towrrhornes
24 52,211.32 53,072 39,228 39,228 1.00%-1.65% 3.096,000 2002
TOTALS _ 711 898 478 286 533 371 23 055 000
Taxsa ort Apts Based on Market Valor of 66,000 Per lhwt
Taxes on TowrYwmes 8aaed on Market Valved U/9,000 Per that 2~ar
• Taxes on TowManes Based on Market Valued 129,000 Per (Jnit 1-Car
RIt00-26 Prepared by Ehbrs Irx. - Pbass review aM assumptbns. am99•aWK4
08/12/99 City of Richfield - LyrWaN Ave Pr
o)ea - 80TH SIDES p~ 2
8epiminp Period
Yrs. Mlh. Yr.
Amual
Base Tu
Capacity
Project
Tu
Capadty TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW • HOUSING - TCCM
SemfMrrral
Captured SemfArxwal Admin Trust Fund Net Tu
Tu Gross Tu Payment payment k>crement
Capacity kwemeM 10.25% 0.00% 6.75%
Local
Match
5.00%
rs. --'
Ending Period
Mth. Yr. ~
0.0 02-01 1999 26,389 26,389 00.01 1999
0.0 08-01 1999 26,389 28,389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2000 '
0.0 02-01 2000 26,389 28,389 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2000 ;
0.0 08-01 2000 26,389 26,389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 ~
0.0 02-01 2007 28,389 28,389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 00-01 2001
0.0 OB-01 2001 26,389 26,389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0201 2002
0.0 OZ-01 2002 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 108,875 6,054 0.5 00-01 $002 ;
0.5 OB-0t 2002 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,088 (12.411) 0 108,675 6,054 1.0 02-01 2003 ,
1.0 02-0t 2003 28,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,054 1.5 08.01 2003
1.5 08-01 2003 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 2.0 02-01 2004 .
2.0 02-0t 2004 28,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 2.5 00-01 2001
2.5 08-01 2004 28,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 .108,875 8,054 3.0 02-01 2005 ,
3.0 02-01 2005 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 3.5 08-01 2005
3.5 OB-01 2005 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 100,875 6,054 4.0 02-01 -2006
4.0 02-0T 2006 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 4.5 08-01 2008
4.5 08-01 2006 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 5.0 02-01 2007
5.0 02-01 2007 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6.054 5.5 08-01 2007
5.5 08-01 2007 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,054 6.0 02-01 2000
8.0 02-01 2008 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 6.5 00-01 2000
6.5 OB-01 2008 28,389 205,392 178,003 127,086 (12,411) O 108,675 8,054 7.0 02-01 2008 r
7.0 02-01 2009 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,OS/ 7.5 08-01 2009 `.
7.5 08-01 2009 28,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,054 0.0 02-01 2010
8.0 02-01 2010 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 100,675 6,054 8.5 08-01 2010
~ 8.5 08-01 2010 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 9.0 02-01 2011 ;
9.0 02-01 2017 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 9.5 08-01 2011
9.5 08-01 2011 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 100,675 BOSS 10.0 OZ-01 2012 f
. 10.0 02-01 2012 26,389 205,392 179.003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 B,OS7 10.5 08-01 2012 ;
10.5 08-01 2012 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,066 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 11.0 02-01 2013 I
11.0 02-01, 2013 26,369 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 100,675 6,054 11.5 08-01 2013 ;
11.5 08-01 2013 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 12.0 02-01 2014 I
12.0
12
5 02-01
08-01 2014
2014 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 12.5 OB-Ot 2014 '
. 28,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,054 13.0 02-01 2015 ~
13.0 02-01 2015 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 13.5 08-01 2013 ~
13.5 08-01 2015 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,417) 0 108,675 8,054 14.0 02-01 2018 1
14.0 02-01 ZOt6 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8.054 14.5 08-01 2016 i
1d.5 08-01 2016 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8,054 15.0 02-01 2017 I
• 15.0 02-01 2017 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 15.5 08-01 2017
15.5 08-01 2017 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 16.0 02-0/ 2018 I
76.0 02-07 2018 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 16.5 08-01 2010 !
16.5 08-01 2018 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 108,675 6,054 17.0 02-01 2019 ~
17.0 02-01 2019 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 17.5 08-01 2019 ;
17.5 OB-01 2019 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 108,675 6,054 18.0 OZ-01 2020
18.0 02-01 2020 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,066 (12,417) 0 108,675 6,054 18.5 08-01 2020 i
18.5 08-01 2020 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 19.0 O?-0t 2021 ~
19.0 02-0t 2021 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 19.5 08.01 2021
19.5 08-01 2021 26,389 205,392 179,003 721,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 20.0 02-01 2022
20.0 02-01 2022 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 20.5 08-01 2022 '
20.5 OB-01 2022 26,369 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,875 6,054 21.0 02-01 2073
21.0
! 21
5 02-01 2023 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12.411) 0 108,675 13,054 21.5 OB-01 2075
. 08-01 2023 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6.054 22.0 02-0t 2024
22.0 02-01 2024 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 8.054 22.5 08-01 2024 j
22.5 08-01 2024 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 23.0 02-01 2025
23.0 02-01 2025 26,369 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 6,054 23.5 08.01 2025 r
23.5 08-01 2025 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 100,675 8,054 24.0 02-01 2028
24.0 02-01 2026 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 108,675 0,054 24.5 00-01 2028
24.5 08-01 2026 26,389 205,392 179,003 121,086 (12,411) 0 100,875 0.054 25.0 02-01 2027
•
RI100-Z6 Prepared by Ehlers Inc. -Phase review all assumptions. pmgggWK4
X12199 Oily of Richfield • Lyndab Avs Project • BOTH SIDES paw 3
TAX INCREMEM CASH FLOW -COMMERICAL - TCCH
Semi-Arrwal Semi-14err~
Bepinr$np Period Annual Project Captured $emHArnual Admn Trutt Fund Net Tau Net Tax Local Endap Period
' Base Tax Tax Tax Cxoss Tax Payment Paymerri
_Yrs. MM. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity Irx:remeM 10.25% 0.00%
0.0 02-01 1999 9,349 9,349
0.0 08-01 1999 9,349 9,349 0 0 0 1
~ 0.0 02-01 2000 9.349 9,349 0 0 0 1
~ 0.0 08-01 2000 9,349 9,349 0 0 0 1
i 0.0 02-0i 2001 9,349 9,349 0 0 0 1
i 0.0 OB-Ot 2001 9,349 9,349 0 0 0 I
i 0.0 02-01 2002 9.349 100,334 90,985 61.547 (6,309) I
i 0.5 OB-01 2002 9,349 100,334 90,985 61,547 (6,309) 1
~ 1.0 02-01 2003 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) 1
1.5 08-01 2003 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (6,131) I
2.0 02-01 2004 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (6,134) 1
2.5 08-01 2004 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (8,134) 1
' 3.0 02-01 2005 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) 1
' 3.5 08-01 2005 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) 1
' 4.0 02-01 2006 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (6,134) 1
~ 4.5 08-01 2006 9,349 97,620 88,471 59,847 (6,134) 1
' S.0 02-01 2007 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,131) 1
5.5 0601 2007 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) t
8.0 02-01 2008 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) 1
~ 8.5 08-01 2008 9,349 97,820 88,471 .59,847 (6,134) 1
~ 7.0 02-01 2009 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) (
j 7.5 08-01 2009 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) t
8.0 02-01 2010 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (8,134)
8.5 08-01 2010 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
9.0 02-01 2011 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
9.5 08-01 2011 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
j 10.0 OZ-01 2012 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
j 10.5 08-01 2012 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) f
11.0 02-01 2013 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (8,134) f
11.5 08-01 2013 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
12.0 02-01 2014 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (8,134)
12.5 08-01 2014 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
j 13.0
' 02-01 2015 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) t
13.5 08-01 2015 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) t
14.0
14
5 02-01
08-01 2016
201 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (8,134) t
.
t 15.0
02-01 6
2017 9,349
9,349 97,820
97,820 88,471
88,471 59,847
59,847 (6,134) t
(6,134) t
j 15.5 08-01 2017 349
9 97
820 88
471 847
59 (6
134) I
~ 16.0 02-0t 2018 ,
9,349 ,
97,820 ,
88,471 ,
59,847 ,
(6,134)
16.5 OB-01 2018 9,349 97,820 88,477 59,847 (6,134)
j 17.0 02-01 2019 .9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
17.5 08-01 2019 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) C
~ 18.0 02-0t 2020 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) C
18.5 08-01 2020 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (6,134) C
19.0
~ 19
5 02-01
0 2021 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) C
.
j 8-01 2021 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134)
20.0 02-01 2022 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) C
20.5 08-01 2022 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,134) C
21.0 02-01 2023 9,349 97,820 88,171 59,847 (6,134) C
; 21.5 08-01 2023 9,349 97,820 88,471 59.847 (6,134) C
22.0 02-01 2024 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (8,134) C
22.5
23
0 08-0i 2024 9,349 97,820 88,477 59.847 (6,134) C
. 02-01 2025 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (6,734) C
23.5 08-01 2025 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847
24.0 02-01 2026 9,349 97,820 88,471 59,847 (8,134) C
24.5 08-01 2026 9,349 97 820 88 471 59 847 (6134) C
i TOTALS 2,995.727 (307,062) C
•
Increment Increment Match
0.00% 8.75% 5.00% Yrs. MIt1 Yr l
0.0 08-01 1999 ;
I 0 0 0 0.0 02-0i 2000
I 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2000
I 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001
I 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2001
I 0 0 0 0.0 OQ-01 2002:
I 0 55,238 3.077 0.5 08-01 2002 I
I 0 55,238 3.077 1.0 02-01 2003
I 0 53.712 2,992 1.5 0601 2003
I 0 53,712 2,992 2.0 02-01 2004
I 0 53,712 2,992 2.5 0601 2004 ~
I 0 53,712 2,992 3.0 02-01 2005
I 0 53,712 2.992 3.5 0601 2005
I 0 53,712 2,992 4.0 02-01 2008
I 0 53,712 2,992 4.5 08-01 2008
I 0 53,712 2,992 5.0 02-01 2007 j
I 0 53,712 2,992 S.5 0601 2007
i 0 53,712 2,992 8.0 02-01 2008
i 0 53,712 2,992 8.5 00.01 2000
i 0 53.712 2,992 7.0 OQ-01 2009 ;
i 0 53,712 2,992 7.5 0601 2009 '
~ 0 53,712 2,992 8.0 02-01 2010 ~
~ 0 53,712 2,992 8.5 08-01 2010 ~
~ 0 53,712 2,992 9.0 02-01 2011 ,
0 53,712 2,992 9.5 OB-01 2011
0 53,712 2,992 10.0 02-01 2012
0 53,712 2,992 10.5 08-01 2012
0 53,712 2,992 11.0 02-01 2013 I
0 53,712 2,992 11.5 08.01 2013
0 53,712 2,992 12.0 02-01 2014
0 53,712 2,992 12.5 0601 2014
0 53,712. 2.992 13.0 02-01 2015
0 53,712 2,992 13.5 08-01 2015
0 53,712 2,992 14.0 02-01 2018
0 53,712 2,992 14.5 08-01 2018
0 53.712 2,992 15.0 02-01 2017
0 53,712 2,992 15.5 08-01 2017
0 53,712 2,992 18.0 02-0t 2018
0 53,712 2,992 16.5 08-01 2018
0 53,712 2,992 17.0 02-0t 2019
0 53,712 2.992 17.5 0601 2019
0 53,712 2,992 18.0 02-01 2020
0 53.712 2,992 18.5 0601 2020
0 53.712 2.992 19.0 02-01 2021
0 53,712 2,992 19.5 08-01 2021
0 53,712 2,992 20.0 02-01 2022 l
0 53,712 2,992 20.5 0601 2022
0 53,712 2,992 21.0 02-01 2023
0 53,712 2,992 21.5 08-01 2023
0 53,712 2,992 22.0 02-01 2024
0 53,712 2,992 22.5 0601 2024
0 53,712 2,992 23.0 02-01 2025
0 53,712 2,992 23.5 08-01 2025
0 53,712 2,992 24.0 02-01 2028
0
A 53,712
CI7~1 2.992
1 Obi 24.5
it A 0601
M111 2028
ir»s
R1100-26 Prepared by Ehbrs Inc. - Pbase review ap assumptions. csm99-aWIt1
08/12/99 Crty of Richfield - Lyndab Ava Prged -BOTH SIDES
Pam 1
TN( INCREMENT CASH FLOW • COMMERICAL - CSM i
SemfArrwal
8egwx4rp Period Amual Project Captured SamfArrxral Admin Trust Fund Net Tu local Erginp Period.
Base Tu Tu Tu Gross Tu Payment Payment tiaement Match ,
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capadly Capacity Capaciy Ift<fement 10.25% 0.00% 8.00% 5.00% Yrs. Mlh. Yr. ,
0.0 02-01 1999 58.641 56,641 0.0 08-01 1999 .
0.0 06-01 1999 56,841 56,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-07 2000
0.0 02-01 2000 56,641 56,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08.01 21100
0.0 08-01 2000 58,841 56,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 i
0.0 02-01 2001 56,&11 56,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2pp1
0.0 08-01 2001 58,641 56,641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2002
0.0 02-07 2002 58,841 117,616 . 60,975 41,247 (4,228) 0 37,019 2.062 0.5 06-01 2002 .
0.5 08-01 2002 58,641 117,818 60,975 41,247 (4,228) 0 37,019 2,062 1.0 02-01 2003
1.0 OZ-01 2003 56,841 111,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 1.5 08-01 2003
1.5 08-01 2003 58,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 2.0 02-01 2004
2.0 OZ-01 2004 56,847 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 2.5 08-01 2004
2.5 08-01 2004 58,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 3.0 02-01 2005
3.0 02-01 2005 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 3.5 08-01 2005
3.5 08-01 2005 56,811 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 4.0 02-0t 2008
4.0 02-01 2006 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 4.5 08-01 2006 .
4.5 OB-Ot 2006 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 5.0 02-01 2007
5.0 02-07 2007 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 5.5 08.01 2007
5.5 08-01 2007 58,8.41 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 6.0 02-01 2008
6.0 02-0i 2008 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 6.5 08-01 200!! ;
8.5 08-01 2008 58,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,983 7.0 02-01 2009 .
7.0 02-0t 2009 56,641 114,869 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 7.5 08-01 2009 .
7.5 .08-01 2009 58,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 8.0 02-01 2010
8.0 02-01 2010 56,641 tU/,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 8.5 08-01 2010
8.5 OB-0t 2010 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 9.0 02-01 2011 ~
9.0 02-01 2011 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,983 9.5 06-01 2011
9.5 08-01 2011 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 70.0 02-01 2012
10.0 OZ-01 2012 58,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 10.5 08-07 2012
10.5 08-01 2012 56,841 714,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 11.0 02-0i 2013
71.0 OZ-01 2013 56,641 114,6139 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 11.5 08-01 2013
11.5 OB-0i 2013 56,641 111,669 SB,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 12.0 02-01 2014 ~
12.0 02-01 2014 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 72.5 08-01 2014 ;
12.5 08-01 2014 56,841 711,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 73.0 02-01 2015
13.0 02-01 2015 58,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 13.5 08-01 2014
13.5 08-01 2015 58,841 114,669 SB,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,983 14.0 02-01 2018
14.0 OZ-07 2016 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 .35,230 1,963 74.5 08-01 2016
14.5 08-01 2016 56,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 75.0 02-0t 2017 I
15.0 02-01 2017 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 75.5 08-01 2017 ~
15.5 08-01 2017 56,1347 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 7,963 16.0 02-01 2018 ~
16.0 OZ-01 2018 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 16.5 08-01 2018 I
16.5 08-01 2018 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 17.0 02-01 2019
17.0 02-01 2019 56,647 714,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 17.5 08-01 2019
17.5 OB-0t 2019 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 18.0 02-01 2020
18.0 02-01 2020 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 18.5 08-01 2020
18.5 08-01 2020 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 19.0 02-01 2021 ;
19.0 02-01 2021 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 19.5 08-01 2021
19.5 08-01 2021 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 20.0 02-01 2022
20.0 02-01 2022 56,647 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 20.5 08-01 2022 i
20.5 08-01 2022 56,647 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 21.0 OZ-01 2023
21.0 02-07 2023 56,641 114,6(39 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 27.5 00-01 2023
21.5 08-01 2023 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 22.0 02-01 2024
22.0 02-0t 2024 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 22.5 08-01 2024 ~
22.5 08-01 2024 56,641 111,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 23.0 OQ-0/ 2025
23.0 02-01 2025 56,647 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 23.5 08-01 2025
23.5 08-01 2025 56,641 114,6139 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 24.0 02-01 2026
24.0 02-01 2026 56,841 114,669 58,028 39,253 (4,023) 0 35,230 1,963 24.5 06-01 2026
24.5 08-01 2026 56,641 114,669 58,028 39,253 4,023 0 35,230 1,963 25.0 02-01 2027
TOTALS 1,966,653 1,582 0 1,765,071 98,333
PRESENT VALUE (82,105) 0 624,820
RI100-26 Prepared by EAlers Inc. - Pbass review all assumptions. ~9~•~4
08/12/99 City of Richfield . LynCab Ave Project -BOTH SIDES p~ 5
- -...- -------- - ------- - - ----
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW -HOUSING -Town Homes ---~---- ' --
SamfArnual
Beyimirq Period
Amwl
Project
Captured
SemfArrxial
Admire
Trust Fund
Net Tax
Local
p
EndnO enoo
Base Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Payment Payment kx:rornerH Match
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity k+aemenl 70 25% 000% B 00% 5.00% Yrs. Mitt Yr
0.0
02-01
1999
6.330
6.330
-
-
-
08-01 .
1999
0.0 08-01 1999 6.330 6.330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-0t 2000
0.0 02-01 2000 8,330 6.330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2000
0.0 OB-01 2000 6,330 6,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-07 2001
0.0 OZ-01 2001 6,330 6,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0601 2001
0.0 06-01 2001 6,330 6,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2002
0.0 02-01 2002 6,330 54,944 48.614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 0.5 (16.01 2002
0.5 06-01 2002 8,330 54,944 18.614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 1.0 02-01 2003
1.0 02-01 2003 8,330 54,944 18,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 1.5 0601 2003 ,
1.5 06-01 2003 8,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 2.0 02-0t 2001
2.0 02-0i 2004 8,330 54,944 48.614 32,885 (3.371) 0 29,514 1,644 2.5 08-01 2001
2.5
OB-01
2004
8,330
54,944
18,614
32,885
(3.371)
0
29.51d
1,644
3.0
02-01 .
2005
3.0 OZ-01 2005 6,330 .54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 3.5 08-01 2006
3.5 08-01 2005 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,685 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 4.0 02-0/ 2008
4.0 02-01 2006 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 4.5 0601 2006
4.5 OB-01 2006 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 5.0 02-01 2007 .
5.0 02-07 2007 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 5.5 0601 .
2007
5.5 08-01 2007 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,574 -1,644 8.0 02-01 2008 ,
8.0 02-07 2008 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,685 (3.371) 0 29,514 1,644 6.5 08-0t 2008
6.5 08.01 2008 6,330 54,944 18,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 7.0 02-01 2009
7.0 02-01 2009 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 7.5 08-07 2009 I
7.5 08-01 2009 6,330 54,944 18,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 7,644 8.0 02-07 .2010 !
8.0 02-01 2010 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,51d 1,644 8.5 08-01 2010 ~
' 8.5 08-01 2010 .6,330 54,944 .48,614 32,885 (3,377) 0 29,514 1,844 9.0 02-07 2011 ;
9.0 02-01 2011 8,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,574 1,644 9.5 08-01 201i
9.5 08-01 ZOtt 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 10.0 OZ-01 2012
10.0 02-01 2012 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 10.5 08.01 2012
10.5 08-0t 2012 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 11.0 OZ-01 2013
11.0 0201 2013 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,844 11.5 08-01 2013 ;
11.5 08-01 2013 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 .(3,371) 0 29,574 1,644 12.0 02-0i 2014
12.0 OZ-01 2014 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1
644 12.5 06-01 2011 '
12.5 08-01 2014 6,330 .54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,377) 0 29,514 ,
1,644 13.0 02-01 2015
13.0 02-01 2015 6,330 54,944 48,814 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 13.5 08-01 2015 I
13.5 08-07 2015 6,330 54,944 46,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 14.0 02-0t 2018 !
14.0 02-01 2016 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,574 1,644 14.5 08-01 2018 j
14.5 08-01 2016 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 15.0 02-0i 2017
15.0 02-01 2077 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,574 1,644 15.5 08-01 2017
15.5 OB-01 2017 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 16.0 02-01 2018
16.0
` 16
5 02-07
08
1 2018 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,377) 0 29,514 1,644 16.5 08-01 2018
. -0 2018 8,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 17.0 02-01 2018
' 17.0 OZ-01 2019 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 17.5 08-01 2019
17.5 08-01 2019 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 18.0 02-01 2020
18.0 02-01 2020 6,330 54,944 48,674 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,574 1,644 18.5 OB-01 2000
18.5 08-01 2020 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 {3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 19.0 02-01 2021 ,
19.0 02-01 2021 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 19.5 08-01 2021
79.5 08-01 2021 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 20.0 02-01 2022
20.0 02-07 2022 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 20.5 08-01 2022
20.5 08-01 2022 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29
574 1
644 21.0 02-0i 2023
~ 21.0 02-01 2023 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 ,
29,514 ,
1,644 21.5 08-01 2023
• 21.5 08-01 2023 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 _
(3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 22.0 02-01 2024
22.0 02-01 2024 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 22.5 0601 2024
22.5 08-07 2024 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 23.0 02-01 2025
23.0 02-01 2025 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 23.5 08-01 2025
23.5 08-01 2025 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 24.0 02-01 2028
24.0 02-01 2026 6,330 54,944 48,614 32,885 (3,371) 0 29,514 1,644 24.5 08-01 2028
! 24.5 D6-07 202fi s :~~ 4d Odd d0 G1 I 77 f1GG Nl 99~ ~ n ne. e• ~ . w.. w~ w ww w~ ~~
•
RI100-26 Prepared by Ehlers Inc. - Pbase revrew all assumptions. esm99-a7N1C4
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HRA Letter No. 46
Agenda August 16, 1999
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM
Properties, Inc. for the development of Interchange West and consideration of the
associated "but for" analysis.
Background:
On December 21, 1998 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
accepted a Contract for Private Redevelopment (Contract) with CSM Properties, Inc.
(CSM) for the development of the Interchange West area. Delays in the project,
however, rendered the development in non-compliance with the Contract. At the July
27 meeting, the HRA directed staff to draft an amendment to the Contract based on the
schedule which CSM had provided. As part of this direction to staff, the HRA specified
that the Contract was to be amended in a manner that establishes criteria for other
interested developers to propose and for the HRA to consider alternative development
concepts.
Staff has since drafted a preliminary version of the contract amendment. The
preliminary version was sent to CSM on August 3 for their review. The proposed
amendment establishes the schedule for the developer to address the unresolved
issues from the original contract. The draft amendment also specifies the conditions
under which the agreement would become an exclusive one with CSM and establishes
the requirements for the consideration of other proposals as well as the criteria for
evaluating such proposals. The final version of this amendment is being negotiated and
will be presented to the HRA at the August 16 meeting.
The "but for" analysis which establishes the amount of tax increment financing (TIF)
assistance to be provided for the development is currently being completed and will be
presented to the HRA at the August 16 meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt a motion which:
1. Accepts the amendment, as presented, to the Contract for Private Redevelopment
with CSM for the Interchange West area; and
2. Approves the amount of TIF assistance as presented in the "but fog" analysis.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. CSM is currently not in compliance with the Contract for Private Redevelopment.
2. At the July 27 meeting, the HRA directed staff to draft an amendment to the Contract
which addresses the manner and schedule for completing the unresolved issues
from the existing contract and which establishes the manner for the consideration of
other proposals.
3. Staff has drafted the amendment as directed, and the final version will be presented
to the HRA at the August 16 meeting.
4. As outlined in the schedule contained in the draft amendment, CSM will be
presenting the "but for" analysis at the August 16 meeting for HRA consideration.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Do not accept the terms of the proposed amendment and terminate the contract with
CSM.
2. Do not approve the amount of TIF assistance as presented in the "but for" analysis.
3. Consider the information presented on the contract amendment and "but for"
analysis, but defer action until the September 20 HRA meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Murray Kornberg of CSM will be present at the meeting to discuss the contract
amendment and "but for" analysis.
~~ R e tfully subm' d,
L. Devic
Acting Executive Director
SLD:cak
.,