The URL can be used to link to this page

11-22-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS RICHFIELD CITY HALL AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1999. PRESENTATION INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA , AGENDA APPROVAL 2. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA AIRPORT BUSINESS 3. STATUS REPORT FROM MIKE SANDAHL REGARDING LOW FREQUENCY NOISE 4. CONSIDERATION OF STATUS OF RUNWAY 4-22 LITIGATION IN MINNESOTA STATE COURT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 274 5. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR 6. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 1710 EAST 78TH STREET, PHASE III, 77TH STREET PROJECT C.L. 275 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CORRECTING LIST OF PARCELS INCLUDED IN RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT C.L. 276 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION REGARDING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE C.L. 277 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AT 1208 EAST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 278 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PHASE III OF LYNDALE GATEWAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNCIL LETTER NO. 279 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 6225 BLAISDELL AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 280 10. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FOR GENERAL CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS SUBSIDIES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 281 11. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FOR BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT WITH RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY TO FUND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AT WOODLAKE CENTRE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 282 12. PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING LAYOUT FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 AND 66TH STREET INTERCHANGE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 283 13. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING UNDER BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 284 PROPOSED ORDINANCES 14. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF TRANSITORY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY AT 7645 LYNDALE AVENUE TO RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING, INC. FOR LYNDALE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 285 RESOLUTION 15. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FORGIVING REMAINING BALANCE ON 1990 INTERFUND LOAN FROM LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FUND TO RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 286 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 16. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ATTENDANCE POLICY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 287 CORRESPONDENCE 0 17. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 18. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 19. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 20. RECESS TO SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM AT CITY HALL FOR DISCUSSION OF CONDEMNATION AWARD FOR NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES PARK PROPERTIES 21. CONSIDERATION OF CONDEMNATION AWARD FOR NEW FORD TOWN AND RICH ACRES PARK PROPERTIES 22. 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. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 287 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration and discussion of Council attendance policy. Background: Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code establishes an attendance policy for Council Members. The policy requires attendance to be taken at every regular and special meeting of the City Council and provides for the imposition of a monetary penalty for unexcused absence from a Council meeting. The policy may be annually invoked by resolution of the City Council. For 1999, that Resolution is No. 8669. At the October 25, 1999 Council meeting, Council Member Sandahl raised a question about the application of Resolution No. 8669 to Special Council meetings called when a quorum or more of the Council may be present at community events and similar functions. At the direction of the Council, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance and Resolution No. 8669 and is recommending that the Council consider amending the ordinance and adopting a revised resolution. The proposed ordinance and resolution are attached for the Council's consideration. Subsection 205.15 requires that the attendance policy apply to all Regular and Special Council meetings. The ordinance does not distinguish between Council meetings called for the purpose of conducting City business and those called for purposes that are ceremonial (such as ribbon cuttings) or informational (such as a League of Minnesota Cities training session). The proposed ordinance would modify subsection 205.15 by requiring that the attendance policy apply to all Regular Council meetings but only to those Special Council meetings that the Council specifies in its annual resolution. Under the current Resolution No. 8669, the requirement for taking attendance and obtaining Council approval for an excused absence applies to all regular and special meetings, but the monetary penalty is imposed only for unexcused absences from regular meetings or special business meetings of the Council. The proposed resolution would remove the requirement for taking attendance at special informational and ceremonial Council meetings. The proposed resolution also clarifies that special business meetings are intended to include special work study sessions and special meetings called for the purpose of conducting public hearings (which otherwise might be considered informational meetings). The proposed ordinance and resolution also delete a provision that allowed notices of special meetings to be mailed to the Council Member's voter registration address. The City Attorney recommended removing that provision, because it is inconsistent with the provisions of subsection 205.03 of the City Code, which requires personal service of meeting notices. If the Council wants to allow that form of delivery of special meeting notices, an amendment to subsection 205.03 would be appropriate. Recommended Motion: Discuss proposed ordinance and resolution and set a date for first reading of the proposed ordinance and formal consideration of the resolution. The Council may direct the City Attorney to revise the ordinance and resolution prior to the date for first reading of the ordinance. 1 tp-' Basis of Recommendation: The Council has indicated that the present attendance policy should not be applied to special meetings that are informational and ceremonial in nature. Alternative Recommendation: Take no action on the proposed changes, and leave the current ordinance and resolution unchanged. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter is submitted to the City Council for discussion and decision. The Council is not under a specific time deadline to make a decision. Respec ully submitted, a Orduno City Manager SO:cak L` 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBER ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS; AMENDING SUBSECTION 205.15 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 205.15. Attendance at council meetings. Attendance of council members at meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members. Member presence to participate in the hearings, deliberations and decisions of the council is essential to the proper discharge of the member's official duties. Recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present at all meetings, and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters occasional absences are excusable, the following rules apply to absences of council members from meetings when invoked by resolution of the council: (a) such rules shall remain in effect until the end of the calendar year during which the resolution is passed unless revoked prior to that time by resolution of the council; (b) unless excused by a majority of the city council, a member of the council may not be absent from any regular 9F duly Galled speGia meeting or from such special meetings as the council may specify in the resolution; (c) {4}(g) for each unexcused absence from a regular or special meeting of the council each council member shall be penalized by a fine of not to exceed $75, and the mayor may be penalized by a fine of an amount not to exceed $100, but the resolution may specify a lesser penalty for absence from a special meeting than a regular meeting; f ojM any member of the council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible give advance notice to the manager, stating (i) the meeting at which the member will be absent, (ii) Ws the member's reason for being absent and, (iii) the member's location during the meeting. Sec. 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of ,1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. // 3 RESOLUTION REGARDING ATTENDANCE ((? BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the attendance of Council Members at meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members; and WHEREAS, member presence to participate in hearings, deliberations and decisions of the Council is essential to the proper discharge of the member's official duties; and WHEREAS, recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present at all meetings and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters, occasional absences are excusable; and WHEREAS, Subsection 205.15 of the Richfield City Code establishes rules for attendance at City Council meetings that may be invoked by resolution of the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the following rules apply to absences of Council Members from meetings during calendar year 1999: 1. This resolution applies to all regular meetings of the Council, as defined in Subsection 205.01 of the Richfield City Code. This resolution also applies to duly called special business meetings of the Council. The resolution does not apply to special informational or special ceremonial meetings. Special Council meetings are those called pursuant to Subsection 205.03 of the Richfield City Code. For purposes of this resolution, special meetings are further categorized as: a) Special business meetings. Special business meetings include: Special meetings called to conduct official business of the City where the Council considers action requiring a vote of the City Council; special work study meetings; and special meetings called for the purpose of conducting a public hearing. b) Special informational meetings. Special informational meetings are those called for the City Council to receive information or to participate in discussion but where no official action of the City Council is taken, except that the term does not include special work study meetings or meetings called for the purpose of conducting a public hearing. c) Special ceremonial meetings. Special ceremonial meetings are those called for ceremonial activities but where no official action of the City Council is taken, including ribbon cuttings, community celebrations and similar activities. 2. Any member of the Council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible, give advance notice to the City Manager stating i) the meeting at which the member will be absent; ii) the member's reason for being absent; and iii) the member's location during the meeting. • /10-4 3. At the beginning of each regular or special business meeting, the Clerk shall call the roll. If a member is absent, the City Manager shall report any communication from the absent Council Member regarding the reason for absence. The Mayor shall request the Council Members to determine whether the absence is excusable or inexcusable. 4. For each unexcused absence from a regular or special business meeting, the absent member shall be penalized by a fine of $25 and the Mayor, if absent, shall be penalized by a fine of $50. The fine shall be automatically deducted from the next Council Member payment unless otherwise directed by a majority of the City Council Members present. 5. This resolution remains in effect until December 31, 1999 unless revoked prior to that date by resolution of the City Council. This resolution supersedes Resolution No. 8669. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of '1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 286 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Approval of a resolution forgiving the remaining balance on a 1990 interfund loan from the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Tax Increment Fund to the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program. Background: In 1990, when the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program (formerly known as the Expanded New Home Program) was established, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and City Council determined that three sources of revenue would be provided as an interfund loan to initiate the program. The three sources were the Sewer Utility Fund, Water Utility Fund, and Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Tax Increment Fund. The total amount borrowed from the funds was $762,550. Each fund provided one-third of the necessary revenue or approximately $254,183.33. As of December 31, 1998, the total amount paid back to the funds has been $388,255.79. The recent approval by the HRA for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 New Construction Program proposed the City issuing a variable rate demand general obligation bond to further fund the program. In their financial analysis, the HRA's development consultant, 0 Ehlers & Associates, Inc., proposed that future tax increments generated from the 1999 cycle of new homes be pledged to pay debt service on the bonds. Ehlers also proposed that old Richfield Rediscovered parcels generating increment would contribute toward debt service on the bonds as well as debt service on the interfund loans for the Sewer and Water Utility Funds. In order to allow more funds to flow to new Richfield Rediscovered projects, the LHN Tax Increment Fund would no longer be repaid. Since the LHN district was able to pool its revenue to Richfield Rediscovered for eligible project costs, it was proposed under the bond funding strategy that the remaining balance, or $124,763.39, on this interfund loan be forgiven. The City's auditor's, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd, recommends that before the LHN interfund loan is forgiven, the HRA and City Council adopt a resolution which ratifies this decision. The HRA adopted a resolution on this matter at their meeting of November 15, 1999. Therefore, attached is a resolution for Council consideration. Recommended Motion: It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution that forgives the remaining balance on a 1990 interfund loan from the LHN Tax Increment Fund to the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The LHN Tax Increment Fund has the ability to pool its revenue to other projects for eligible project costs. 16-) 2. The HRA and City Council were already presented with the financing strategy for 10 Richfield Rediscovered 1999 which included this element in order to better cashflow the program. 3. This is a very appropriate use of the LHN funds. 4. On November 15, 1999, the HRA adopted the same resolution on this matter which is now before the City Council. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not allow the forgiveness of the remaining balance on the interfund loan. 2. Defer this item to another City Council meeting for consideration. 3. Propose an alternative solution to cashflow the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 New Construction Program. Discussion/Decision Mode: Forgiving the remaining balance of the interfund loan will allow the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 New Construction Program to maintain its cashflow and meet its obligations related to funding the new cycle. Respec lly submitted, m a Orduno City Manager sO:ds • %5-g RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FORGIVING THE REMAINING BALANCE ON A 1990 INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE LHN TAX INCREMENT FUND TO THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, in 1990, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") established the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, formerly known as the Expanded New Home Program (the "Program"); and WHEREAS, the HRA together with the City Council (the "Council") provided $762,550 in interfund loans from the Sewer Utility Fund, Water Utility Fund, and Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) Tax Increment Fund (the "Funds") to initiate the Program; and WHEREAS, as of December 31, 1998, $388,255.79 has been paid back to the Funds by the Program; and WHEREAS, a new funding strategy for the continuation of the Program has recently been approved by the HRA and Council; and WHEREAS, the funding strategy contemplates to forgive the remaining balance on a portion of the Funds, or $124,763.39 to the LHN Tax Increment Fund; and WHEREAS, forgiving the remaining balance on a portion of the Funds will allow the Program to meets it's debt service obligations, as proposed and approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's staff, HRA's staff, the HRA's development consultant, Ehlers &Associates, Inc., and the City's auditor's, HLB Tauges Redpath, Inc. shall be authorized to take such action as is necessary to cause the forgiveness of the remaining balance of the 1990 interfund loan from the LHN Tax Increment Fund in the amount of $124,763.39. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of -November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 285 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the City owned real property located at 7645 Lyndale Avenue to Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. for the Lyndale Gateway Redevelopment Project. Background: On October 18, 1999, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Richfield Senior Housing, Inc., also know as Twin City Christian Homes (Developer), for the Lyndale Gateway Project (Gateway Project). The City-owned real property located at 7645 Lyndale Avenue is part of the redevelopment site area necessary for the project. The subject parcel was originally acquired by the City in 1993 by eminent domain for the 77th Street Right-of-Way Expansion Project (77th Street Project). After site clearance for this project, the remnant parcel was paved and landscaped. Since then, a portion of the parcel has been leased to Fred Ryan, an adjacent property owner, for seven parking spaces. The lease with Fred Ryan will be terminated as a part of the sale process. In order to facilitate site assembly for the Gateway Project, it is proposed that the City sell 7645 Lyndale Avenue directly to the Developer for its appraised, re-use value of $37,100. The public hearing and second reading of the transitory ordinance for land sale are proposed to be held on January 10, 2000 so that a land sale closing transaction may occur after the transitory ordinance's effective date of February 17, 2000. If it is necessary for the developer to enter the property prior to February 17, the Council will be presented with a Right of Entry Agreement the time of the public hearing on January 10, 2000. Recommended Motion: Conduct a first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the City-owned real property described in the attached ordinance and set a public hearing and. second reading of the transitory ordinance for January 10, 2000. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City acquired 7645 Lyndale Avenue for the 77th Street Right-of-Way Expansion Project in 1993. 2. The HRA has contracted with a developer to undertake redevelopment within the Gateway Project Area. 3. The subject property is necessary for site assembly purposes 4. The appraisal by BCL Appraisals, Inc. established the value of this remnant parcel at $37,100. Alternative Recommendation: 10 The City Council may choose not to undertake a transitory ordinance for the land sale at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: The first reading of the transitory ordinance at this time will expedite redevelopment. A public hearing and second reading of the transitory ordinance are proposed to be held on January 10, 2000. Publication of the transitory ordinance would occur shortly thereafter and would be effective 30 days after publication. A sale transaction will occur after the effective date. ectfully submitted, y, d/ F Samantha Orduno City Manager SO:cak Attachment • 0 / q . - D- BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA 7645 LYNDALE AVENUE The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, Sunset Terrace Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to an easement for 77th Street, and having a street address of 7645 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota Section 2: The Mayor and Acting City Manager are hereby authorized to take all actions as required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of by the Richfield City Council Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 284 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: As a condition of acceptance of funding under the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program, the City of Richfield agreed to establish a grant advisory board and to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed use of the grant funds. The required legal notice of this hearing has been published. Background: The City has applied for and received a total of $77,529 through the 1998 and 1999 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program ($37,250 for program years 1998-2000 and $40,279 for years 1999-2001). These funds are made available to local law enforcement agencies to "reduce crime and improve public safety." LLEBG funds require a 10% local match and must be used to supplement not supplant existing funding sources. One condition of the grant award requires the City to establish an advisory board to meet and discuss the proposed use of grant funds. This advisory board is charged with making non-binding recommendations to the City for the use of LLEBG funds. The board has representation from a variety of community groups and organizations. On September 21, 1999 the Richfield Grant Advisory Board met to discuss the City's use of 1998 and 1999-year LLEBG funds. The Grant Advisory Board consisted of the following representatives: Law Enforcement Dan Scott, Director of Public Safety Vaughn Lambert, Police Captain Jill Mecklenburg, Crime Prevention Specialist Scott Williams, Planning & Research Specialist Pam Taschuk, Youth Resource Specialist Prosecutor Martin Costello, Richfield City Prosecutor Court System Deb Spindler, Hennepin County Probation Officer Schools Deb Holmann, Richfield High School Student Services Coordinator Community Joe Menning, Treasurer, Richfield Crime Fund The Grant Advisory Board reviewed a list of proposed projects and equipment which had been prepared by the Richfield Public Safety Department that meet LLEBG requirements. The following were identified as the most appropriate items/programs to receive funding through the current LLEBG grants: • A Crime Victims Rights Facilitator position to be staffed on a part-time basis by a law student or other advanced college student, who would be employed and 10 supervised by the Richfield City Prosecutor, Hughes & Costello, and would maintain office space at the office of the Hughes & Costello law firm. This 3-I individual would interface with Richfield victims of crime and facilitate compliance with the Crime Victims Rights Act. • Supplemental instructional and promotional material for the GREAT program, coordinated by the Public Safety Department's School Liaison Officers. • Supplemental instructional and promotional material for the Neighborhood Watch and other crime prevention activities, coordinated by the Public Safety Department's Crime Prevention Unit. • Purchase of additional "Varda" alarms to be used by the Crime Prevention Unit and other units of the police divisions. These are portable alarms that can be quickly installed at high-risk burglary and robbery locations to increase the likelihood of suspect apprehension. • Video surveillance equipment for use by the Police Divisions. • Purchase of additional MCDs (Mobile Computing Devices) for installation in vehicles of the police divisions. These units provide direct access to federal, state, county, and city information related to vehicles, drivers, and individuals. Recommended Motion: Council to hold a public hearing on November 22, 1999 to accept any comments from the public related to the use of 1998 and 1999 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) funds. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The condition of the BJA award of LLEBG funds requires the holding of a public hearing regarding the proposed uses of the grant funds prior to the obligation and expenditure of any LLEBG funds. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not hold a public hearing and forfeit the awarded funds. Discussion/Decision Mode: Public hearing and public input, as well as staff recommendations, for the disbursement of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program funds presented for Council consideration at this time. Respec ly submitted, Sa a Orduno City Manager SO:cak 0 r p?_ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 283 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing related to consideration of approving the layout for the Trunk Highway 77 and 66th Street interchange. Background: At the November 8, 1999 regular City Council meeting, Council considered a resolution approving the proposed layout that widens 66th Street to eight lanes by adding a new bridge to the north of the existing bridge and replacing the four ramps from 66th Street to Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77). Council also considered directing City staff to prepare an interim plan to address the effects of traffic diversion from Cedar Avenue onto residential streets until redevelopment occurs. Although City Attorney Thomson stated there is no specific requirement for a public hearing for this action, Council took action to continue consideration of a resolution approving the proposed layout for the TH 77 and 66th Street interchange to the November 22, 1999 City Council meeting and to schedule a public hearing on that date. After City Council approval of a layout for the 66th Street and TH 77 interchange, City staff will arrange for a relocation consultant to begin informational interviews with property owners and occupants who will be displaced. Recommended Motion: Close the public hearing, approve the attached resolution approving the proposed layout that widens 66th Street to eight lanes by adding a new bridge to the north of the existing bridge and replacing the four ramps from 66th Street to TH 77, and direct City staff to prepare an interim plan to address the effects of traffic diversion from Cedar Avenue onto residential streets until redevelopment occurs. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Notice of the public hearing was placed in the November 17, 1999 issue of the Richfield Sun/Current newspaper. A press release about the November 22 public hearing was issued to the Richfield Sun/Current newspaper, the City's website, and the Richfield bulletin board on cable television. Written notice of the November 22 public hearing was mailed on November 12 to approximately 1,800 property owners in the mitigation area. A copy of this mailing, which includes a summary of responses to comments from the public, is attached. A complete list of comments and responses is also attached to this letter. 2. The proposed layout is consistent with the.Memorandum of Understanding approved by the City Council in August. 3. The proposed layout provides adequate traffic capacity for expansion of the airport and redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area. a- 4. The new interchange improves safety for all four entrance and exit ramps to and from TH 77. 5. The improved access to the regional highway network will increase the attractiveness of the Cedar Avenue area for redevelopment. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Close the public hearing but table any other action. The City Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) need to approve the plans before construction of 66th Street/TH 77 improvements may begin. Plans need to be approved in 1999 for construction to begin in 2000. Construction is expected to last two to three years. 2. Reject all plans for a new interchange until the MAC, Federal Aviation Administration and the State Legislature provide full funding to assist the City in redeveloping the entire Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area. However, City staff does not believe that this position will produce the desired effect. It will take a number of years for redevelopment of the entire area to occur and redevelopment financing will have to be identified for each development phase. Furthermore, it appears that airport expansion will occur regardless of City opposition. A new interchange will improve the chances for redevelopment occurring. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council can choose to table any action until the next Council meeting on the proposed layout if concerns about the proposal have not been adequately addressed. submitted, ha Orduno nager SO:sdr Attachments E / C?2- a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LALYOUT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 AND 66TH STREET INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield have long discussed the making of improvements to the interchange of 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 1999 the Richfield City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Airports Commission outlining the roles and responsibilities of each agency on this project; and WHEREAS, the proposed layout provides traffic capacity for expansion of the airport and redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the proposed layout provides improved safety for all four entrances and exit ramps to and from Trunk Highway 77; and WHEREAS, the proposed layout provides improved access to the regional highway network and will, thereby, increase the attractiveness of the Cedar Avenue area for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, upon approval of the proposed layout, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will prepare design drawings needed for construction, which would be anticipated to begin in 2000, and for right of way acquisition and relocation also anticipated to begin in 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield approves, as presented at the November 8, 1999 regular City Council meeting, the proposed layout that widens 66th Street to eight lanes by adding a new bridge to the north of the existing bridge and replacing the four ramps from 66th Street to Trunk Highway 77. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Public Works Department November 12, 1999 Subject: Notice of a Public Hearing on 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Dear Richfield Resident: MAYOR You are cordially invited to a public hearing on the proposed improvements to the MARTIN J. KIRSCH 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77) Interchange, on Monday, Nov. 22, 7 p.m., in CITY COUNCIL the Council Chambers of the Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. SUSAN ROSENBERG Staff will be available at 6:30 p.m- to answer questions about the plan. SUZANNE M.SANDAHL - KRISTAL STOKES This is the same plan presented at the August 25 Open House at the MnDOT RUSS SUSAG Maintenance Facility. The purpose of the public hearing is to gather any additional public input prior to the City Council making a decision on the project. The interchange improvements are needed in order to accommodate the expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the resulting need to convert the Cedar Avenue Airport Mitigation Area to a land use compatible with an airport. Comments and questions submitted at the August open house have been compiled and presented to the City Council. A summary of the comments and questions are attached. Some revisions to the layout that were made in response to the comments are: • The parcel of land in the northeast corner of 66th and 17th Avenue was changed from a partial taking to an acquisition. • Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists were added (for example a connection from the old Cedar Avenue frontage to 66th Street). If you are unable to attend the November 22 public hearing, you can either write to me at City F-iali or call meat 612-8861-9791 to ask questions and share your views about the project. Sincerely, Thomas Foley Transportation Engineer The Urban Hometown 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9749 w .d ichfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS is-5-- COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE • 1] Do not do any construction on west side Anonymous Some interim roadway of (Richfield) until money is available for improvements will be made on the redevelopment of the mitigation area. the west side of TH 77 as Do it once. illustrated in the recommended Do not do the interchange on the west side William Duffee plan, independent of the of Hwy 77 until we have a total 6515-18th Avenue redevelopment of the mitigation redevelopment package in place. Richfield, MN area. These improvements are I don't think you should do the Richfield M: J. Peterson designed to mitigate the traffic side until it is a package deal with the 6533-18th Av. So. impacts associated with the homes in that area. Richfield, MN redevelopment of the Air Cargo Where to move/When do we move Art Brisson facilities that are part of the 10701 Morgan S. North-South runway project. Bloomington, MN The City of Richfield staff will (6529 Cedar) be developing a plan to mitigate the impacts on residential neighborhoods of traffic diversion from Old Cedar Avenue to 17th Avenue. The Metropolitan Airports Commission will advance the City of Richfield the necessary funds to finance the acquisition of the land necessary for the west side roadway improvements. November 18, 1999 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ?a-?9 COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE • • I am looking forward to your helping me Dr. Judy St. Clair In acquiring the right-of-way find suitable, affordable office space in 1714 E. 66th St. necessary for the west side Richfield. Richfield, MN improvements the City of My name is Michael Davis and I own Michael Davis Richfield will comply with the Golden Beach Tanning. We have been in 6539 Cedar Ave. Uniform Relocation Assistance business for a little over one year now. In So. and Real Property Acquisition order for me to move I need walls put up, Richfield, MN Policies Act of 1970. These beds moved and the electric wired. I 55423 policies provide direction on spent quite a lot of time and money property acquisition and building my business up and need to. stay Cedar Beach relocation assistance. A in the area. I need info now because it Tanning representative from the City of seems right now I will lose everything. Richfield will be meeting with Our warehouse @6421 Cedar is in the Greg Peterson each affected property owner interchange. We want to relocate within 6150 Lyndale S. prior to acquisition to explain the the City of Richfield. We could go to a Richfield, MN process and determine the 25-35,000 sq. ft. facility by combining our property owners and tenants other office warehouse. Please give me Peters Billiards needs. Property owners or the opportunity either here or within the tenants with questions prior to City. this meeting may contact Perry Mostly it seems doable - Concern is in Susan D.Stemme Thorvig, (612) 861-9780. next phase and if my house is purchased 6433 18th Ave S. what provisions if any are made for the Richfield, MN fact that I operate a home based business out of my house/garage. We feel positive about this project, our Tom and Dawn only concerns would be acquisition and Morris move out deadlines. 1800 E. 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 November 18, 1999 2 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 0 COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE • E Rollies Barbershop didn't get notice of Rollies Barbershop The City of Richfield, MAC, and this meeting. He found out from a 6537 Cedar MnDOT are committed to customer. I hope that all - MnDOT, City Richfield, MN keeping property owners, tenants of Richfield, etc. are honest with business and the public informed as this because there is a lot involved here. This project moves forward. The City meeting was helpful. has verified that this property is on their mailing list for future notices. We live at 17th and Diagonal. Are we Don Koelln An exact time frame has not asking too much to want a commitment to 7103 17th Avenue been established for the buy us out in a couple of years or maybe 5 So. redevelopment of the mitigation years? If this is a highway department Richfield, MN area. The City of Richfield staff event only only then I do not expect an 55423 is developing a plan to mitigate answer. If this is a highway event only the impacts on residential we really like the new plan. It is needed. neighborhoods of traffic diversion from Old Cedar Avenue to 17th Avenue. Mike came and talked to us and said our Andrew Dykstra This property has been added to house was in this project. I am looking at 1700 E. 66th St. the right-of-way acquisition map the map and our house is the cut off. I Richfield, MN and will be acquired as part of don't know what to think. Right now I the west side roadway am a little confused and frustrated because improvements. I don't know what is going on. November 18, 1999 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS la-8 0 COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE E • I and my bicycle club (Twin cities Bicycling Club) would like to see a pathway cut through the cul-de-sacs on each side of Cedar @ 66th Street. This currently is a major thoroughfare to south Minneapolis using Cedar across 66th Street. Andrew Hartle 6332 17th Ave. So. Richfield, MN A pathway will be added to the recommended interim roadway plan connecting the cul-de-sacs on Old Cedar Avenue on each side of 66th Street. The path will cross 66th Street at the intersection of the west side I want to make sure as all these new roads Suzanne Sandahl ramps with 66th Street. This are built that we make sure pedestrians 7001 Bryant intersection will be signalized. and bicyclists are safely provided for. Richfield, MN The design of all roads will consider the safe design for pedestrians and bicyclists. A 10 foot walk will be provided on the widened bridge. In the long term a bike path along the new north/south arterial at approximately 17th Avenue is planned. 1. Request bike-pedestrian crossing of Larry Wosniczka 66th Street at Cedar (between cul-de- 6744 Wentworth S. MAC will not own any land on sac) Richfield, MN the west side of Cedar Avenue 2. Will MAC get ownership of land west 55423 after this project. of Cedar if diversion issue is ruled against Richfield? The funding needed to implement the mitigation 3. Why are MSA funds not used for redevelopment plan was ramp development acquisitions so as estimated assuming acquisition to leave more funds for of the properties needed for the redevelopment? west side ramps. Any remaining right-of-way not used for the west side roadway improvements will be made available to the City of Richfield for redevelopment. This issue is really independent of the proposed roadway project. 4. (Other concern) Freight operations at However, MAC is in the process night need special restrictions to keep of putting in place field rules that runup/taxi noise tolerable. will address this issue. November 18, 1999 • E • 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE I think it is a waste to spend money on Steve Mlynarek A large percentage of the traffic this interchange without making changes 1529 Fern Drive at the 66th Street/TH 77 to the Crosstown and 494. Traffic volume Richfield, MN interchange will be coming from is at a maximum now-where is the and going to the south and increased traffic from commercial therefore will not be affected by development along Cedar Avenue going the TH 62 congestion. Also an to go? - Sit at the ramp to 494 or auxiliary lane is being added to Crosstown? northbound TH 77 between the on-ramp from 66th Street and the exit ramp to eastbound TH 62 that will allow traffic from 66th Street eastbound on TH 62 to bypass the congestion. Stop Lying to us- You want our house for Steve Wilmes No Response economic reasons, not because of sound. 6827 16th Ave. S. Our lives are on hold because of politics. Richfield, MN Erdict 32 years could not have forecast Airport Growth. This will be a disaster for our grocery Al Holtbein No Response store at 7034 Cedar Avenue 7034 Cedar Ave Richfield, MN It's about time- it will be one No Response improvement to compensate for losing Ford Town Thank you for clearly defined maps- K. Stokes No Response approachable people and MAC involvement. November 18, 1999 5 66TH STREETMIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE • 1] Is while I am still in my home and construction Brian Case The City of Richfield begins on 66th St. and 77th. What noise impact 6620 18th Ave. S. staff will be developing & increased traffic on 18th will occur? Richfield, MN a plan to mitigate the I feel the people living on 18th Avenue between Clara Gmach impacts on residential 66th and 67th have done enough in the last 11 6632-18th Avenue neighborhoods of years. Our street has been used for parking by Richfield, MN 55423 traffic diversion from the dental employees. Right now we have piles Old Cedar Avenue to of leaves on the street because of the parked 17th Avenue and 18th cars. Oh, yes we've heard it before they would Avenue. The plan will clean early in the morning. The only time they address traffic volumes, cleaned the street early was when the City had a traffic noise, parking, new toy in the middle of October, when there cut-through traffic and weren't any leaves on the street. We put up with traffic calming. cars using our driveways for turn-arounds morning, noon and night. There are young children next door catching buses while its still dark. We don't need trucks using our street. Isn't that the reason we have streets such as 66th and Portland. The houses on the south side of 66th @ 17th Bill Kilian Avenue need on street parking. With 17th 6620 17th Ave. S. becoming the only way to turn west on 66th Richfield, MN 55423 from the south the traffic will be much greater. We should not restrict parking on 17th, but should have some type of traffic calming to assure safety of residents. Your map indicates that traffic from the David Eiosmo interchange redevelopment will now be funneled 6600 17th Ave down my street. When I bought the property in Richfield, MN 55423 1977 I didn't choose to live on Nicollet or Lyndale Avenue because of traffic. As I see it my street will now become a thoroughfare. Buy my property and put up a gas station. This project will increase traffic on 18th and Roger H. Sanders 17th Avenue. What will be done to protect 6508 17th Ave. So. home owners for traffic and noise from Airport. Richfield, MN November 18, 1999 6 66TH STREET/HIGHWAY 77 PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS / Q_/ / • • COMMENT NAME/ADDRESS RESPONSE You need to construct this project so that traffic Dick Zieme MAC's Long Term leaving the east side of Cedar cannot go west on 6400 Vincent S. Master Plan and the 66th Street ever. (Permanent block). Richfield Richfield, MN City's Comprehensive has been and is a doormat for traffic short-cuts Plan shows no aircraft and we don't need more. Also, guarantee no west of Cedar Avenue. aircraft will ever cross this bridge or any other to the west side of Cedar. November 18, 1999 7 a i ?z hil ° x; l J J S at' i t t? If j C fr/?\ kkt ty x,; J/ vii ! rr 7 { ?? ? ! ?? ?a 1 31 i t W ? ? •--•.-,ti J` ?! ? ' v zj ? ? ! t E „fit ? ? 7 ?. ? , i.-- i ?: ? `i ? '-`----n ...a.?% 1` 3 _ ___'_......_... _.? y- ? i i iz{1p . 11117777,... I '_. o 9 3 ? Vr O C7 y ? Vi ? 4 + M y D M?1 m 4 ! v sa r1 ' B ?r 1 5 `r! M co r t ,-? a • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 282 Agenda November 22,1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution for a business subsidy agreement with Richfield State Agency to fund storm sewer improvements at Woodlake Centre. Background: In September the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) received a request from Richfield State Agency (RSA), the developer of Woodlake Centre, to cooperatively explore ways to finance unanticipated but needed storm sewer improvements. The HRA reviewed and approved this Business Subsidy Agreement at their November 15 meeting, following the approval of the Business Subsidy Criteria. The City is being asked to consider an agreement with RSA because the City Engineer has identified a City benefit to the proposed improvements. Storm sewer capacity is sufficient for the new development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the old McDonald's parking lot. However, it was recently discovered that there is insufficient capacity within the existing Grand Avenue storm sewer. To deliver runoff from the greater neighborhood and the new development to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue requires a large diameter pipe. With the parking ramp already in place, a direct line between the neighborhood, the future central plaza area and the old McDonald's storm sewer is not available. The developer's engineering firm, BRW, and the City's consultant, WSB, have devised a response: Increase the Grand Avenue sewer capacity and add a line running east to west along 66th Street that connects to the old McDonald's storm sewer which drains into Richfield Lake. The proposed sewer would provided sufficient capacity for a ten year storm and will be studied in the field during installation to improve overflow alternatives that minimize the chance of flooding. The increased capacity also improves storm water removal which presently backs up into the residential neighborhood. The estimated total project cost for the additional storm sewer improvements is $142,900. The City Engineer has calculated the neighborhood share of flow, the improved capacity which the neighborhood benefits from, and arrived at the prorated share of cost of $35,000. This calculation represents the City Engineer's determination of the City's responsibility within the proposed storm sewer system. The City would use the storm sewer utility account to fund its share. The HRA is paying $97,900. The remaining $10,000 is being provided by the developer. The assistance being proposed is now regulated by a new State law, and the City's Business Subsidy criteria. The City is required to determine that the proposed assistance meets a public purpose, that criteria has been established for providing business subsidies, and that there is an agreement for achieving the goals for the subsidy. This determination takes the form of a Business Subsidy Agreement between Richfield State Agency and the City. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution, which authorizes a Business Subsidy Agreement for funding $35,000 in storm sewer improvements at Woodlake Centre. 01 Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Engineer has calculated a City benefit/City cost to the proposed storm sewer of $35,000. H-I 2. Other sources have been identified for $107,900 of the $142,900 estimated cost. 3. The proposed storm sewer improvements are anticipated and needed and all other available resources have been contributed. 4. Business Subsidy Criteria have been established by the City to regulate the procedures for approving the type of assistance that the City is considering for Woodlake Centre. 5. The HRA approved of Business Subsidy Criteria and a Business Subsidy Agreement on November 15 in support of the proposed storm sewer project. 6. A public hearing has been arranged even though the $35,000 request is below the threshold of $100,000, given this is the first agreement of its type for the City. Alternative Recommendation: Seek additional resources from the HRA or Developer. However, resources are limited and the City does share a responsibility for the flow and opportunity for improved flow that this project offers. 2. Defer discussion of business subsidies to a future time and continue to evaluate funding options. Discussion/Decision Mode: The improvements can be implemented once the funding source and supporting agreements are finalized and all statutory requirements have been met. Resp Ily submitted, amant Orduno ager 4' SO:cak Attachment • //-a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT WITH RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City") as part of its operations, provides economic assistance to individuals who are engaged in the development and redevelopment of land within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to legislation enacted this year by the State of Minnesota, ("Business Subsidy Act"), the City Council is required to enter into an agreement with any recipient of a business subsidy conforming to the requirements of the Business Subsidy Act prior to granting such assistance; and WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency, Inc. ("RSA") has requested business subsidy assistance and the City Engineer has evaluated the request for certain utility work required in connection with RSA's Urban Village development; and WHEREAS, the amount of business subsidy assistance has been determined to be $35,000 which will be paid from the storm sewer utility account in accordance with a business subsidy agreement with RSA; and WHEREAS, the Business Subsidy Act further provides that the approval of such an agreement must be preceded by a public hearing on the matter in situations where the subsidy exceeds $100,000 and legal counsel has advised that public hearings may be held for amounts in excess of $25,000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A public hearing on the approval of a business subsidy agreement with RSA has been held before the City Council on November 22, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the Richfield City Hall located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota after proper notice. 2. A business subsidy agreement in the amount of $35,000 is approved. Adopted by the City Council for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November 1999. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Exhibit A 0-3 DRAFT NOT APPROVED BY CITY SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION PRIOR TO ADOPTION BUSINESS SUBSIDY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 22"d day of November, 1999, by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("Grantor"), and RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. a Minnesota corporation, ("Grantee") • WITNESSETH: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield ("Authority") and Grantee are the parties to that certain instrument entitled Contract for Private Redevelopment dated November 16, 1998, and subsequently amended on September 20, 1999 and November 15, 1999 ("Contract"). 2. In order to successfully carry out the project contemplated in the Contract, it will be necessary for the City to provide the Grantee with assistance which qualifies as a "business subsidy" for the purposes of the Business Subsidy Act (Chapter 243, Article 12, Laws 1999) ("Act"). 3. The Act requires that a business subsidy may not be provided until the parties have entered into a business subsidy agreement that complies with the requirements of the Act. 4. This Agreement is intended to constitute a business subsidy agreement for the purposes of the Act. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and in the Contract, -it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows. C7 11-? (a) Definitions. The terms used in this agreement shall have the meanings given them in the Contract and the Act unless a different meaning is clearly indicated. (b) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows: (1) The subsidy provided to the Grantee involves use of funds currently available to the Grantor for the payment of costs incurred by the Grantee in performing certain utility work on the Redevelopment Property. The subsidy has an estimated value of $35,000. (2) The public purposes for the subsidy are as described in the Business Subsidy Criteria adopted by the Grantor. (3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure development of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property; to maintain such improvements for at least 5 years as described in clause (6) below; and to create the jobs and wage levels in accordance with Section (c) hereof. (4) If the goals described in clause (3) are met, the Grantee shall have no obligation to repay the payment to the Grantee described in the Agreement (5) The subsidy is needed because site development costs make development of the Minimum Improvements financially infeasible without public assistance, all as determined upon approval of the TIF Plan. (6) The Grantee must continue operation of the Minimum Improvements for at least five years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion. (7) The Grantee does not have a parent corporation. (c) Job and Wage Goals. Within two years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion of the Minimum Improvements (the "Compliance Date"), the Grantee shall cause to be created at least five new full-time equivalent jobs on the Redevelopment Property (excluding any jobs previously existing in the State as of the date of this Agreement and relocated to this site) and shall cause the wages the jobs created on the Redevelopment Property to be no less than $24,000, exclusive of benefits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if the wage and job goals described in this paragraph are met by the Compliance Date, those goals are deemed satisfied despite the Redeveloper's continuing obligations under sections (b)(6) and (e). The Grantor may, after a public hearing, extend the Compliance Date by up to a year, provided that nothing in this Section will be construed to limit the Grantor's legislative discretion regarding this matter. (d) Remedies. If the Grantee fails to meet the goals described in Section (b)(3), the Grantee shall repay to the Grantor upon written demand from the Grantor (a) a "pro rata share" of the amount of subsidy expended by the Grantor. The term "pro rata share" means percentages calculated as follows: (i) if the failure relates to the number of jobs, the jobs required less the jobs created, divided by the jobs required; (ii) if the failure relates to wages, the number of jobs required less the number of jobs that meet the required wages, divided by the number of jobs required; (iii) if the failure relates to maintenance of the facility in accordance with Section (b)(6), 60 less the number of months of operation as the required facility (where any month in which the facility is in operation for at least 15 days constitutes a month of operation), commencing on the date of the certificate of completion and ending with the date the facility ceases to be so operated as determined by the Grantor, divided by 60; and (iv) if any more than one of clauses (i) through (iii) apply, the sum of the applicable percentages, not to exceed 100%. Nothing is this Agreement shall be construed to limit the Grantor's remedies otherwise available to it. In addition to the remedy described in this Section and any other remedies available to the Grantor for failure to meet the goals stated in Section (b)(3), the Grantee agrees and understands that it may not receive a business subsidy from the Grantor or any grantor (as defined in the Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Grantee satisfies its repayment obligations under this Section, whichever occurs first. (e) Reports. The Grantee must submit to the Grantor a written report regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2000 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated in Section (b)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period described in Section (b)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in accordance with Section (d). The report must comply with Section 116J.994, subdivision 7 of the Act. The Grantor will provide information to the Grantee regarding the required forms. If the Grantee fails to timely file any report required under this section, the Grantor will mail the Grantee a warning within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of the • warning, the Grantee fails to provide a report, the Grantee must pay the Grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. The maximum aggregate penalty payable under this section is $1,000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name by its duly authorized officers; and the Grantee has caused this Agreement to be executed all as of the date first above written. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor And by . Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this a Notary )ss. day of , before me, Public within and for said county appeared and , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY, INC. By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , by the of Richfield State Agency, Inc. a corporation under the laws of Minnesota by and on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public I"'1 U is ID CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 281 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution for general criteria for business subsidies. Background: A new Minnesota law that regulates business subsidies by local units of government became effective August 1, 1999. Legal counsel has drafted criteria that will be used as the basis for agreements between the City and developers. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) reviewed and approved similar criteria and agreements on November 15. The law requires the City hold a public hearing prior to establishing the criteria. In September the HRA received a request from Richfield State Agency (RSA), the developer of Woodlake Centre, to cooperatively explore ways to finance unanticipated but needed storm sewer improvements. Storm sewer capacity is sufficient for the development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue in the old McDonald's parking lot. However, it was recently discovered that there is insufficient capacity within the existing Grand Avenue storm sewer. To deliver runoff from the greater neighborhood and the new development to 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue requires a large diameter pipe. The developer's engineering firm, BRW, and the City's consultant, WSB, have recommended that the Grand Avenue sewer capacity be increased and also that a line running east to west along 66th Street be connected to the old McDonald's storm sewer which drains into Richfield Lake. The proposed sewer would provide sufficient capacity for a ten-year storm and will be studied in the field during installation to improve overflow alternatives that minimize the chance of flooding. The increased capacity also improves stormwater removal, which presently backs up into the residential neighborhood. The estimated total project cost for the additional storm sewer improvements is $142,900. The City Engineer calculated the neighborhood share of flow, the improved capacity which the neighborhood benefits from, and arrived at the prorated share of cost of $35,000 to the neighborhood. The City would use the storm sewer utility account to fund its share. The HRA is paying $97,900. The remaining $10,000 is being provided by the developer. To consider the request, state law requires the City to first establish criteria for assistance of this type to a project. The criteria have been drafted by legal counsel to conform to the new law. A draft of the criteria has been attached (Exhibit A) which outlines the purpose, goals and objectives, specific criteria, and compliance and reporting requirements. Generally, the State legislature wants cities to provide • developer assistance when there will be improved tax base, jobs, and economic vitality. b-I Following the public hearing on the criteria, the criteria would be used to evaluate requests for assistance that exceed $25,000. When the request exceeds $100,000, a public hearing is required. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and adopt the business subsidy criteria. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A new business subsidy law now regulates the procedures for approving the type of assistance being considered for Woodlake Centre. 2. Legal counsel has drafted criteria that complies with the law. 3. At their October 25, 1999 meeting the City set a public hearing date on this matter for November 22, 1999 and complied with the posting and notice requirements. 4. The HRA held a public hearing and approved the criteria at their November 15, 1999 meeting. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Continue the public hearing to gather more information. 2. Refuse to consider the matter. Discussion/Decision Mode: The improvements can be implemented once the criteria and supporting agreements are finalized and all statutory requirements have been met. Ily submitted, Aha Orduno anager SO:ds Attachments / . 0-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF CRITERIA FOR PROVIDING BUSINESS SUBSIDIES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City"), as part of its operations, may provide economic assistance to individuals who are engaged in the development and redevelopment of land within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to legislation enacted this year by the State of Minnesota, ("Business Subsidy Act"), the City Council is required to adopt criteria for awarding business subsidies prior to granting such assistance; and WHEREAS, the Business Subsidy Act further provides that the adoption of criteria must be preceded by a public hearing on the matter. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A public hearing on the adoption of Business Subsidy Criteria has been held before the City Council on November 22, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the Richfield City Hall located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota after proper public notice. 2, The Business Subsidy Criteria are adopted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 • Exhibit A /0-3 DRAFT CITY OF RICHFIELD BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA Purpose This document includes the criteria to be considered by the City of Richfield ("City") to evaluate requests for business subsidies. It is the intent of the City in adopting these criteria is to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993-116J.995 (the "Act"). The City hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Act for application in the criteria. II. Goals and Objectives It is the City's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: a) All projects, by not later than the benefit date, must be consistent with Richfield's comprehensive plan and any other plan or guide for development of the community or a sub-area of the community. b) Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the grantee must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test. The grantee will be required to provide all documentation necessary to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. c) Grantees will be required to enter into an agreement with the City that is consistent with statutory requirements, including a commitment to continue the business at the site for a minimum of five years after the benefit date and compliance with the specific jobs and wages goals established for the project. III. Business Subsidy Criteria The City recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or shall establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The City reserves the right to modify these criteria from time to time and to evaluate each project as a whole. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: a) Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole grounds for granting a subsidy, the City believes it is a preferred condition for any subsidy. b) Jobs and Wages. It is City's intent that the grantee create livable wage jobs at the site. This may include jobs to be retained but only if job loss is imminent and demonstrable. c) Economic Development. Projects should promote one or more of the following: (o-4 1. Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; 2. Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development within an area; 3. Provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods .and services available or encourage fast-growing businesses; 4. Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; 5. Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; 6. Promote additional or spin-off development within the community; 7. Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. IV. Compliance and Reporting Requirements. a) Any subsidy granted by the City will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the Richfield city council. b) It will be necessary for both the grantee and the City to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. 0 0 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 280 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right-of-way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue. Background: The owner of 6225 Blaisdell Avenue is petitioning to vacate right-of-way located to the north of this property. The City typically retains a 12-foot boulevard area behind the curb of the street. On the north side of this property, there is a boulevard area that ranges from 20 to 30 feet. The property owner is seeking to vacate a portion of this area. The City would retain a 12-foot area behind the street curb and a five foot drainage and utility easement on the east end of the vacated area. Attachment A provides an illustration of the proposed vacation area. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and hold second reading of a transitory ordinance vacating right-of-way adjacent to 6225 Blaisdell Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The right-of-way is not needed for street or sidewalk purposes. 2. The Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewed the request and determined that the right-of-way is not needed for freeway purposes. 3. There are no City utilities located in the area. 4. Notification of the petition to vacate has been sent to the private utility companies. No utility company objected to the vacation. 5. The property owner currently maintains the area. He is considering expanding his home to the north, which the vacation would enable him to do. 6. The City Council accepted the vacation petition and held first reading of the transitory ordinance on September 27, 1999. 7. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Deny the vacation. 2. Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for Monday, November 22, 1999. Ily submitted, Qam ha Ord no City Manager SO:cak q- / BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY (62nd Street) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public right-of-way purposes: A Parcel of land lying North of the north line of Lot 10, Block 1, Betcher's Addition to the City of Richfield described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence northerly along the northerly extension of the west line of said Lot 10 a distance of 20.50 feet, thence southeasterly to a point 10.00 feet north of the northeasterly corner of said Lot 10 as measured along the northerly extension of the east line of said Lot 10; thence south along last described line 10.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 10; thence west along the north line of said Lot 10 a distance of 133.63 feet to the point of beginning. 0 (refer to herein as the "Vacated Area") Sec. 2. The adjacent property owner has petitioned for vacation of the Vacated Area. Sec. 3. The Council finds that there will no longer be a public need for a right-of-way easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, provided a drainage and utility easement is maintained over the east five feet. Sec. 4. The easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this ordinance, is hereby vacated, reserving to the City an easement over the east five feet. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: C? Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk W. BROWN LAND S1URVE'YlN G INC. 8030 Cedar Avenue South Suite 228 WOODROW A. BROWN, R.LS. Bloomington, MN 55425 President Phone (612) 854-4055 q,) Fax (612) 854-4268 S1IV@Y FOT NORTH John Hawkins ATTACHMENT A I 132.2 TO BE VACATED X 132.4 T.C. "'FROM BACK OF CURB W 0 D qx Z tV -- W Q • NOTE: No Search Was Made For Any Easements. Lot 10 and the northerly 20 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, BETCHERS ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. June 15, 1999 Dated: 63-99 Woodrow A. Brown, R.LS NO. 15230 60/71 J W V) GO m *q X If 1 / `1 __133 IO 25.0 28.2/ N p 1 m Fro e E 0 r #6225 t` M 131.0 C X 31.2 T. C. / I f/1 1 T o p l_V i O ?E O 00 0 1 .,T r< N' L V I v 131.5 J 0 1 N ICq LOT 10 30, Maple LOT 9 P32.6 W133.88 29.3 133. X38 I 1 Story Brick 1 T #6229-V 1 0 Denotes Iron Monument. T.C.= Top Curb ( = Centerline 130.Ox Denotes Spot Elevation PROPERTY DESCRIPTION u Scale: 1 "=30' 1 Of 1 S, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 279 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a preliminary plat for Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway planned unit development (PUD) plan. Background: Ron Clark Construction dba Minnstar Builders, Inc. is submitting a preliminary plat for the 40-unit condominium development on the east side of Garfield Avenue, Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway PUD plan. The preliminary plat shows four lots of approximately the same size. In the final plat, the individual units will be shown, each constituting a separate lot. The condominium association will own the land, and individual owners will own the units. Easements and covenants governing the use and maintenance of common areas will accompany the final plat. The final plat will be filed once units are constructed. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat for Phase III of the Lyndale Gateway PUD plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council approved the final development plan (FDP) and conditional use permit (CUP) for the development on November 8, 1999. A condition of the FDP is that the property be platted. 2. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current. 3. The final plat will establish building location and easements and include covenants governing the use of the common areas. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the preliminary plat. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, November 22, 1999 in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. ResppG#ully submitted, SamarA(ia Orduno nager is SO:cak J-/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR MINNSTAR BUILDERS, INC. WHEREAS, Minnstar Builders, Inc. has requested preliminary approval to combine several tracts of land bounded by 76th Street on the north, Garfield Avenue on the west, 76th Street on the south and a line 134 feet east of Garfield Avenue; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as Lyndale Gateway Second Addition; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat of Lyndale Gateway Second Addition was held on November 22, 1999 at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of Lyndale Gateway Second Addition satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary approval is granted to Minnstar Builders, Inc. for the plat of Lyndale Gateway Second Addition, subject to the following conditions: a. That easements and covenants be established governing the use and maintenance of common areas and that the easements and covenants be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. b. That the final plat show building location. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of January, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk - -----?--- - - -- 76TH STREE T 1 I I 1 LOT 16 LOT 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - _ 1 I \.1 S T I i LOT 15 LOT 2 I -'- I - --- - - - - - - _ - _. ' - -- 1 I LOT 14 LOT 3 I I I r LOT 13 LOT 3 I -- I --. - - - - - - - -- - - - - j LOT 12 9 LOT 5 , I ! i LOT 11 LOT 6 _ - 1 I -- - - - - -- - - - ---- I - - - - LOT 10 LOT 7 • -- I 1 I I I - -- --- _.__ r t N I 1 l s 1 I 7M STRE ET 9--l ? 0 • LJ r tI i f i LYNDALE GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION i? 1 ?Z! RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 278 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Cancel a public hearing on a conditional use permit to allow a gas station/convenience store at 1208 East 66th Street. Background: Ogren Properties submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow a gas station/convenience store at 1208 East 66th Street. The public hearing was scheduled for November 8, 1999, but the applicant requested that it be continued to November 22, 1999. The applicant has since withdrawn the application. Recommended Motion: Cancel the public hearing on a conditional use permit to allow a gas station/convenience store at 1208 East 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has requested that the application be withdrawn. 2. The public hearing was continued from November 8 to November 22. The City Council must formally cancel the public hearing. • 3. Notice of the cancellation was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet.of the subject property. Alternative Recommendation: There is no alternative recommendation Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing was scheduled for November 8, 1999 and continued to November 22, 1999. The hearing is cancelled. Respec Ily submitted, oaaOrduno City Manager SO:ds 0 6C • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 277 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution approving a joint powers agreement for Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC). Background The City of Richfield has had a joint and cooperative agreement with the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina for the past 28 years to provide human service planning in South Hennepin and for the past five years to provide family services collaborative activities. In 1991, this agency was reorganized to establish the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA). Famil-ink, the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative, began in 1994 to more effectively meet the needs of families and children in South Hennepin. Famil-ink formally incorporated in 1998 and contracted with SHeRPA to provide administrative and fiscal services to Famil-ink. In August, 1999, the SHeRPA Board of Directors, consisting of the four City Managers, and the Famil-ink Board, consisting of the four City Managers, the four School Superintendents, a representative of Hennepin County, and a representative of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, voted to merge the two organizations into one entity called Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC). 0 The principle elements included in the restructuring include: The separate entities SHeRPA and Famil-ink are abolished. In their place is one entity entitled Hennepin South Services Collaborative. The SHeRPA Board of Directors and the Famil-ink Board of Directors will be abolished. In their place is one Board of Directors consisting of the four City Managers and the four School Superintendents. General powers of the board include employing staff, entering into contracts, applying for and receiving financial support, investing funds, approving annual work plans and budgets, ensuring fiscal accountability, establishing policies, resolving conflicts between commissions and delegating responsibilities to the commissions. • The new organization will have two divisions: Research, Planning and Coordination (RPC) and the Family Services Collaborative (Famil-ink). The RPC commission establishes policies and objectives for the HSSC's research, planning and coordination activities. The RPC commission is composed of one member and one alternate appointed by each city, and one member and one alternate appointed by each district that chooses to participate in RPC activities during the budget year. In addition, non-voting liaisons may be appointed to the commission. • The Famil-ink commission establishes policies and objectives for the HSSC's family services collaborative activities. The commission is composed of one representative from the HSSC board, four community council chairs, two Famil-ink provider partners, one Hennepin County representative, one Community Action for Suburban ?Oc- I Hennepin representative, one Intermediate School District #287 representative, one public health representative, and eight city and school liaisons. Recommended Motion: Approve the joint powers agreement. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The current structure is complicated, confusing and duplicative, especially for the four cities, which participate in both entities. Additionally, some of the cities find it difficult to explain and seek support for their participation in two separate entities. 2. SHeRPA and FamiLink need to consider formal agreements and contracts between each other. This is additional administrative work and, given the current structure, sometimes the nature of these agreements is unclear and raises legal and liability questions. 3. Contrary to a primary goal of the current structure, which was to maintain a streamlined administration for both SHeRPA and FamiLink, some administrative costs are duplicated (e.g., audits). Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council may decide not to approve the joint powers agreement and cease providing regional human services planning and family services collaborative Is activities. 2. The Council could decide to develop their own human services planning capacity and cease participating in family services collaborative activities. 3. The City could attempt to join another regional planning effort and/or family services collaborative. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for Council consideration at the meeting of November 22, 1999. ectfully submitted, Samantha Orduno- City Manger SO:cak Copy: Becci Akin 0 • • RESOLUTION NO. 6C-,;L A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE WHEREAS, the current structure of the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and FamiLink is complicated, confusing and duplicative, especially for the four cities, which participate in both entities; and WHEREAS, that reorganizing the two organizations into one entity will streamline administration and avoid duplicative overhead costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to enter into a joint powers agreement with the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina to establish the Hennepin South Services Collaborative. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 (? C 3 0 HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subdivisions 1 and 11 (1998). II. GENERAL PURPOSE Section 2.1. The parties have formed this Agreement for the purpose of providing an organization to accomplish the following: (a) To provide human services research, planning and coordination, both public and private, throughout the territory of the governmental parties to this Agreement, and (b) To contract with other governmental units and private entities as necessary to establish and operate a family services collaborative, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 124D.23 (1998), for the purposes of monitoring and addressing human service needs and providing coordinated family services. Section 2.2. The organization formed by this Agreement shall not be used or operated for the pecuniary gain, directly or indirectly, of any party or any member of its board. The organization shall not participate or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. III. NAME The name of the organization created by this Agreement is Hennepin South Services Collaborative. The name may be changed in accordance with Section 14.1 of this Agreement. DPD-159436 1 RC 145-327 (oC A IV. DEFINITIONS 0 Section 4.1. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Section 4.2. "Hennepin South Service Collaborative" or "Agency" means the organization created pursuant to this Agreement. Section 4.3. "Appointing Authority" as used in sections 10.1 and 11.3 of this Agreement means the governing body of the member or the director to whom the governing body has delegated the authority to appoint commission members. Section 4.4. "Board" means the board of directors of the Agency, as established under Section 6.1 of this Agreement. Section 4.5. "Director" means a member of the Board of Directors of the Agency, except that "executive director" means a staff person employed by the Agency who shall not be a member of the Board of Directors. Section 4.6. "FSC Commission" means the Family Services Collaborative Commission as established under Section 11.1 of this Agreement. Section 4.7. "FSC Participant" means a governmental unit or private entity that is not a member of the Agency but that contracts with the Agency for purposes of creating a family services collaborative under Minn. Stat. § 124D.23. Section 4.8. "Governing Body" means the policy-making and decision-making body of a governmental unit that has the authority to enter into contracts of this type. For example, with respect to a city, it means the city council; with respect to a county, it means the county board; and, with respect to a school district, it means the school board. • DPD-159436 2 RC145-327 (oG? Section 4.9. "Governmental unit" means any political subdivision of the State of Minnesota including, but not limited to, a home rule or statutory city or school district. Section 4.10. "Human services" includes but is not limited to services and facilities to deal with and serve human needs. Section 4.11. "Private entity" means any private corporation, agency, association or foundation that provides human services to individuals and families, including, but not limited to, a private nonprofit community action agency under Minnesota Statutes, Section 268.53. Section 4.12. "RPC Commission" means the Research, Planning and Coordination Commission as established under Section 10.1 of this Agreement. Section 4.13 "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entity" means any private entity that enters into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Family Services Collaborative. V. MEMBERSHIP Section 5.1. Any governmental unit located in the metropolitan area is eligible to be a member of the Agency. Section 5.2. The initial members of the Agency are: City of Bloomington, a home rule charter city and public health entity; City of Eden Prairie, a statutory city; City of Edina, a statutory city; City of Richfield, a home rule charter city; Independent School District No. 271, a school district; Independent School District No. 272, a school district; Independent School District No. 273, a school district; and Independent School District No. 280, a school district. Section 5.3. A governmental unit may enter into this Agreement by resolution of its governing body and by execution of a copy of this Agreement by its proper officers. The governmental unit must file an executed copy of the Agreement with the executive director of the • DPD-159436 3 RC 145-327 Agency. The resolution authorizing the execution of the agreement must also designate the first director for the Board. Section 5.4. A governmental unit wishing to become a member after the effective date of this agreement may be admitted only upon the favorable vote of two-thirds of the votes of the Board present and voting at any regular or special meeting. The Board may, in its by-laws, impose conditions upon the admission of additional members. Section 5.5. A change in the governmental boundaries, structure, classification or organization of a governmental unit does not affect the eligibility of that governmental unit to become or remain part of the Agency. VI. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 6.1. The governing body of the Agency is its Board of Directors. Each member is entitled to select one director to serve on the Board and one alternate to carry out the duties of the director in his/her absence. Each director is entitled to one vote. In the absence of a director, the designated alternate for that director may vote. Section 6.2. A director is appointed by resolution of the governing body of the member. A director serves until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Directors serve without compensation from the Agency, but nothing in this section is to be construed to prevent a member from compensating its director for service on the Board if such compensation is otherwise authorized by law. Section 6.3. Vacancies in the office of director will exist for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 351.02, or upon a revocation of a director's appointment by the appointing member duly filed with the Agency. Vacancies are filled by resolution of the governing body of the member whose position on the Board is vacant. • DPD-159436 4 RC 145-327 6 C-,-7 • Section 6.4. A majority of the votes of the Board of Directors constitutes a quorum. VII. EFFECTIVE DATE; ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS Section 7.1. This Agreement is effective on the date when the last of the executed agreements and authorizing resolutions of all of the initial members listed in Section 5.2 of this Agreement has been filed as provided in Section 5.3 of this Agreement. Section 7.2. Within 30 days after the effective date of this agreement, the director appointed in the authorizing resolution of the City of Richfield must call the first meeting of the Board, which meeting must be held no later than 60 days after the effective date of this agreement. Section 7.3. The first meeting of the Board will be the organizational meeting of the Agency. At the organizational meeting, and at each annual meeting thereafter, the Board must elect from among the directors a chair, a vice-chair, and a secretary-treasurer. A director may hold more than one office. Section 7.4. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the Board must adopt by-laws governing its procedures, including the time, place, notice for and frequency of its regular meetings, procedure for calling special meetings, and such other matters as are required by this Agreement. The Board may amend the by-laws from time to time. The Board must meet at least once each year and on such other dates as may be provided in its by-laws. The annual meeting is held in the month of May unless otherwise provided in the by-laws. Section 7.5. The Board may create an executive committee and other committees, as it may deem necessary pursuant to its by-laws. The executive committee may be authorized to exercise specified powers of the board of directors between Board meetings, subject to the limitations imposed upon it by the Board. 1? DPD-159436 5 RC 145-327 ? c-8 Section 7.6. The Board must create a Research, Planning and Coordination Commission • ("RPC Commission") and a Family Services Collaborative Commission ("FSC Commission") in accordance with Articles X and XI of this Agreement. Section 7.7. The Board may create advisory councils, as it deems necessary pursuant to its by-laws. VIII. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 8.1. The powers and duties of the Board of Directors include the powers set forth in this Article. Section 8.2. It may employ a person to act as executive director of the Agency. Section 8.3. It may make such contracts as are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. Section 8.4. It may employ such other persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its powers and responsibilities. Persons may be employed on a full-time, part-time or consulting basis, as the Board determines. Section 8.5. It may apply for and receive financial support in the form of grants from any organization or agency in order to accomplish its purposes and may enter into the agreements necessary to obtain the support. Section 8.6. It may invest and reinvest funds not needed for current operating expenses, if any, in the manner applicable by law to statutory cities. The Agency may not incur obligations in excess of funds available to it. Section 8.7. It may contract for space, materials and supplies. Section 8.8. It must make a financial accounting and report to the parties at least once each year. Its books and records shall be available and open to examination to authorized representatives • DPD-159436 6 RC 145-327 of the parties at all reasonable times. Provided, however, that data classified as "not public" and related to either the research, planning and coordination function of the Agency or to the family services collaborative function of the Agency shall be available only to those members or FSC Participants who are involved in the function to which the data relates. Section 8.9. It shall secure insurance to protect the Agency, the Board, the officers and employees of the Agency and the parties in such form and amount as are agreed by all parties. Section 8.10. It shall establish policies and procedures with respect to the creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination of government data, as may be required by applicable federal and state law. Section 8.11. It shall resolve conflicts or inconsistencies that may arise between the operations of the RPC Commission and FSC Commission. Section 8.12. It may exercise any other power necessary and convenient to the 0 implementation of its powers and duties under the provisions of this Agreement. Section 8.13. The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, national origin, color, religion, age, or disability, and will conform to all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, etseMc. IX. OFFICERS Section 9.1. The officers of the Board are a chair, a vice-chair, and a secretary-treasurer elected by the Board for a term of one year and until their respective successors are elected and qualify, at the annual meeting. New officers take office at the adjournment of the annual meeting at which they were elected. An officer must be a duly qualified and appointed director. • DPD-159436 7 RC145-327 ?(no Section 9.2. A vacancy in the office of chair, vice-chair, or secretary-treasurer occurs for • any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of director occurs. Vacancies in these offices are filled by the Board for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 9.3. The chair presides at meetings of the Board. The vice-chair acts as chair in the absence, disqualification or disability of the chair. Section 9.4. The secretary-treasurer is responsible for keeping a record of the proceedings of the Board, for custody of funds, for keeping of financial records of the Agency and for such other duties as may be assigned to the secretary-treasurer by the Board. Persons may be employed to perform such services under the supervision and direction of the secretary-treasurer as may be authorized by the Board. The secretary-treasurer must post a fidelity bond or other insurance against loss of Agency funds in the amount specified by the Board, the cost of such bond or insurance to be paid by the Board. The Board may provide for compensation of the secretary-- treasurer for services to the Board. Section 9.5. In its by-laws, the Board may establish such other offices, as it deems necessary, in addition to those set forth in this Article IX. X. RESEARCH, PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMISSION Section 10.1. The Research, Planning and Coordination Commission ("RPC Commission") establishes policies and objectives for the Agency's research, planning, and coordination activities. At the organizational meeting required under Section 7.3 of this Agreement and, thereafter, at or prior to the Board's annual meeting of each year, each member must elect whether it will participate in the Agency's research, planning and coordination activities for the succeeding budget year. Section 10.2. The RPC Commission is composed of commissioners appointed in the manner and in the number as specified in the by-laws of the Agency. The by-laws must, at a C] DPD-159436 8 RC145-327 R minimum, provide: (a) that the appointing authority for every member who elects to participate in the RPC Commission activities may appoint at least one commissioner; and (b) that each member participating in the Commission has one vote, regardless of the number of commissioners that the member may have on the Commission. RPC commissioners are appointed for the budget year in which the member has elected to participate in the Commission. The by-laws may also provide for non-voting representatives or liaisons to the Commission and may permit the appointment of member's employees to serve as commissioners. Section 10.3. A vacancy in the office of an RPC commissioner occurs for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of director occurs. Vacancies are filled in the same manner as initial appointments of the RPC commissioners. Section 10.4. The RPC Commission shall have those powers and duties delegated to it by the Board, as further. specified in the by-laws of the Agency, all of which must be related to the research, planning and coordination function of the Agency. In addition, it may establish and register a trade name for the RPC Commission. Section 10.5. By majority vote of those commissioners present and voting, the RPC Commissioners shall select a commission chair to serve as the presiding officer of the RPC Commission and a vice-chair to serve in the absence of the chair. XI. FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE COMMISSION Section 11.1. The Family Services Collaborative Commission ("FSC Commission") establishes policies and objectives for the Agency's family services collaborative activities. Section 11.2. At the organizational meeting required under section 7.3 of this Agreement and, thereafter, at or prior to the Board's annual meeting of each year, each member must elect whether it will participate in the Agency's family services collaborative activities for the succeeding 0 DPD-159436 9 RC145-327 ? 0-- / CQ_ budget year. If the FSC Participants and members that have agreed to participate in the FSC • Commission for that budget year do not satisfy the minimum requirements under Minnesota Statutes Section 124D.23, the FSC Commission shall be inoperative for that budget year, and the Agency shall not conduct any family services collaborative activities in that year. Section 11.3. The FSC Commission is composed of commissioners appointed in the manner and in the number as specified in the by-laws of the Agency. The by-laws must, at a minimum, provide: (a) that the appointing authority for every member who elects to participate in the FSC Commission activities may appoint at least one commissioner; (b) that the appointing authority for every governmental-entity FSC Participant may appoint at least one commissioner; (c) that the appointing authorities for the participating members and governmental-entity FSC Participants must select any other commissioners; and (d) that every private-entity FSC Participant is entitled to at least one commissioner, to be selected as provided at clause 11.3(c). FSC commissioners are appointed for the budget year in which the Commission will operate. Each FSC commissioner is entitled to one vote. The by-laws may also provide for non-voting representatives or liaisons to the Commission. Section 11.4. A vacancy in the office of FSC commissioner occurs for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of director occurs. Vacancies are filled in the same manner as initial appointments of FSC commissioners. Section 11.5. The FSC Commission shall have the following powers and duties: a. It may establish and register a trade name for the family services collaborative to be operated by the FSC Commission. b. It may exercise any of the powers of a family services collaborative, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.23; provided, however, that it may not assume the is DPD-159436 10 RC145-327 6c-l3 duties of another agency as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.23, subdivision 3, without prior approval of the Board. C. It shall perform all of the duties required of a family services collaborative, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.23. d. It shall have those powers and duties delegated to it by the Board, as further specified in the by-laws of the Agency, which must be related to the family services collaborative function of the Agency. Section 11.6. By majority vote of those commissioners present and voting, the FSC Commissioners shall select a commission chair to serve as the presiding officer of the FSC Commission and a vice-chair to serve in the absence of the chair. XH. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 12.1. The fiscal year of the Agency is the calendar year. Section 12.2. The Board shall establish separate accounting funds for the research, planning and coordination function of the Agency (the "RPC Fund") and the family services collaborative function of the Agency (the "FSC Fund"). Section 12.3. The RPC Fund shall consist of funds available from grants, gifts, private revenues, voluntary contributions of members, or required contributions from members, if it is determined by the Board by a two-thirds vote, by written action or at a regular or special meeting, of all votes of then existing members, that such contributions are necessary. Section 12.4. The FSC Fund shall be an integrated fund, which may consist of federal, state, • local or private resources, including contributions from members and FSC Participants as required under Section 12.5 of this Agreement. DPD-159436 RC145-327 11 6 C'-) q Section 12.5. Each FSC Participant and each member who elects to take part in the family . services collaborative function of the Agency in any budget year must make a minimum cash or in- kind contribution of $500.00 to the FSC Fund for that budget year. Section 12.6. The Board shall determine in its annual budget the portion of general overhead and operating expenses that are attributable to each fund. Section 12.7. Agency funds may be expended by the Board and the FSC Commission in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts shall be signed, and other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Agency as provided in the by-laws. Section 12.8. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in conformance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of optional Plan B cities and for such purposes the executive director, if any, shall be deemed to occupy a position equivalent to that of a city manager. Any contract in excess of $10,000.00 must be approved by a two thirds majority of the Board. Section 12.9. The Board (1) is strictly accountable for all funds received and for funds expended by it, (2) must have an annual audit of its books, and (3) must make an annual report of all of its receipts and disbursements to each of the parties to this Agreement and to each FSC Participant. Section 12.10. The RPC Commission and FSC Commission must each recommend a proposed annual budget for their respective operations and submit their recommended budget to the Board by May 1 of each year. The Board must formulate a proposed annual budget for the Agency and submit it to all members and FSC Participants on or before June 1 for their approval. The budget shall be deemed approved by a member or participant unless, prior to August 1 of the year • DPD-159436 12 RC 145-327 6C-1 involved, the member or participant gives notice in writing to the Agency that it does not approve the budget. The budget shall be revised and resubmitted to the members and participants until it is approved; provided, that approval by FSC Participants is only required for those portions of the budget that relate to the activities of the FSC Commission. Final action adopting an annual budget shall be taken by the Board on or before September 1. The members shall be obligated to pay the amount specified as their contribution in the budget unless that member has withdrawn pursuant to Article XIII. FSC Participants shall be obligated to pay contributions as specified in their contracts with the Agency. Section 12.11. Except as authorized by law, no member of the Board or other public officer of the organization who is authorized to take part in any manner in the making of any sale, lease or contract may voluntarily have a personal financial interest in such transaction or personally benefit financially therefrom. A director may not be employed to perform or be compensated for the performance of services for the Agency. XIII. DURATION AND DISSOLUTION Section 13.1. The Agency will exist, and this agreement is in effect, for an indefinite term until dissolved in accordance with Section 13.3 of this article. Section 13.2. A member may withdraw from the Agency effective as of December 31 of any year by filing a written notice with the secretary-treasurer on or before August 1 of such year. However, any member which is a public school district shall comply with Minn. Stat. § 123.35, subd. 19 and notify the agency members of its intent to withdraw on or before February 1 of any years, and the withdrawal shall be effective June 30 of the same year. A withdrawing member shall be obligated to pay the Agency its budgeted contribution for the year in which the notice of withdrawal is given. The withdrawing member shall continue to be a party to this Agreement until is DPD-159436 13 RC 145-327 the effective date of such notice of withdrawal. A notice of withdrawal may be rescinded at any time by a member. If a member withdraws before dissolution of the Agency, the member will have no claim on the assets of the Agency. Section 13.3. The Agency must be dissolved whenever the withdrawal of a member reduces total number of members in the Agency to less than three. The Agency may be dissolved at any time by unanimous vote of all member representatives of the Board of Directors. Section 13.4. In the event of dissolution, the Board must determine the measures necessary to effect the dissolution and provide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Upon dissolution of the Agency all remaining assets of the Agency, after payment of obligations (including obligations to FSC Participants), must be distributed among the then-existing members in proportion to their respective contributions. If there have been no contributions by any parry, surplus monies of the Agency shall, upon termination of the Agency, be first allocated between funds related to RPC activities and FSC activities; allocated funds shall be returned to the parties in proportionate shares, which shall be determined by attributing orie share for each year that the party elected to participate in the respective RPC or FSC activity. The Agency will continue to exist after dissolution for the period, no longer than six months, necessary to wind up its affairs but for no other purpose. XIV. TRANSITIONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS Section 14.1. The name of the organization created by this Agreement may be changed when deemed appropriate by the Board, but only upon a two-thirds majority vote of all the votes of the Board of Directors taken at a regular meeting of the Board or by written action. If the name of the organization is so changed, the Board must provide in its by-laws for necessary measures to effect the change in official and unofficial documents, papers, and other essential respects. • DPD-159436 14 RC145-327 • .7 • 6C-IA7 Section 14.2. The South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency was formed by a Joint Powers Agreement among City of Bloomington, a home rule charter city and public health entity; City of Eden Prairie, a statutory city; City of Edina, a statutory city; and City of Richfield, a home rule charter city on The South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative was formed by a Joint Powers Agreement among South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency; County of Hennepin; Independent School District 271; Independent School District 272; Independent School District 273; Independent School District 280; Community Action for Suburban Hennepin on March 25, 1998. It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that the organization created hereby is the successor to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative in existence on the day prior to the effective date of this Agreement. It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that the organization created hereby is the successor to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative in existence on the day prior to the effective date of this Agreement. It is further the intention of the parties that any funds made available to the organization created by this Agreement from the assets of the former South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the former South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative must be used exclusively for the purposes of this Agreement. The adopted budget of the former South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative remains in effect until revised and until the new annual budget is adopted. The adoption of this Agreement does not affect or modify the obligation of members of the former South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative to make contributions authorized by the former South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency and the former South Hennepin Family Services Collaborative. DPD-159436 RC 145-327 15 6 ?,-f g, I A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental unit or private entity has caused - 0 this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf. By_ Its Dated: '199 By_ Its Filed in the office of the of this day of 1199. • 9 DPD-159436 16 RC145-327 6g CITY OF RICHFIELD Council Letter No. 276 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution correcting the list of parcels to be included in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District. Background: On September 20, 1999, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) approved the establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") and creation of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") related thereto. Subsequently, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the establishment of the District and Plan on October 11, 1999. In preparation for parcel certification by the County, it was discovered that the incorrect parcel list was attached to the Plan. Certain parcels listed within the Plan were already certified by the County under previously established Plans. The following parcels currently need to be deleted from the Plan before certification is requested from the County: Address PID Number 6915 13th Avenue 26-028-24-43-0064 7133 Lyndale Avenue 34-028-24-22-0055 7025 Nicollet Avenue 34-028-24-12-0022 6855 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0146 As parcels are being eliminated and not added to the Plan, and because the net tax capacity of the eliminated parcels has not changed since the approval date, this action will not require a formal public hearing or further notice to the County or School District. At this time, the City Council is being requested to also adopt a resolution correcting the parcel list at their November 22, 1999 meeting. The corrected Plan is attached for your reference (Exhibit A). The new parcel list is shown on page 4-2. The map at Appendix A has also been corrected to reflect the elimination of the four referenced parcels. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution, which corrects the tax increment parcel list for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District. Basis of Recommendation: 1) The HRA approved the establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District and Plan relating thereto on September 20, 1999. 2) The City Council held a public hearing and approved the establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District and Plan relating thereto on October 11, 1999. 0 3. The TIF Plan requires correction to the parcel list before the County Auditor may certify the parcels. 4. The HRH's development consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. in conjunction with legal counsel, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, have reviewed the issue and determined that no public hearing or further notice to the County or School District is required to undertake this Plan clarification. Alternative Recommendation: Delay action until a future time. Discussion/Decision Mode: The proposed correction to the parcel list was approved by the HRA on November 15, 1999. Approval of the resolutions by both the HRA and City Council will allow the tax increment parcels to be certified by the County Auditor so that parcels may be made available for purchase, site clearance, and new single family home construction opportunities. ly submitted, man a Orduno City -Manager SO:ds Attachments 0 RESOLUTION NO. & "' r?_ RESOLUTION CORRECTING THE LIST OF PARCELS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHEREAS, on September 20, 1999, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") approved the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, on October 11, 1999, the City Council (the "City") held a public hearing and established the District and approved the Pan; and WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, the District has not been certified with the County Auditor of Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the Plan included certain parcels that the HRA and City did not intend to include in the District; and WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to correct the Plan, as approved by the City on October 11, 1999, by deleting the following parcels: Address PID Number 6915 13th Avenue 26-028-24-43-0064 7133 Lyndale Avenue 34-028-24-22-0055 7025 Nicollet Avenue 34-028-24-12-0022 6855 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0146 WHEREAS, aside from the above-described amendment, the City desires the Plan, as corrected to be certified with the County Auditor of Hennepin County as otherwise approved on October 11, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's staff, HRA's staff and Ehlers &Associates, Inc. shall be authorized to take such action as is necessary to cause the County Auditor of Hennepin County to certify the Plan as corrected herein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Is Attest: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Exhibit A (vU-3 10 Draft as of October 28, 1999 Draft for City Council Review. MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) III J RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: October 11, 1999 Adopted: October 11, 1999 HRA Review Clarification: November 15, 1999 City Council Review Clarification: November 22, 1999 Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 Phone: (651) 697-8500 • Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com ( '08-? L? TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ...................... 1-1 Foreword ...... ............................................................1-1 Subsection C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area ......................... 1-1 Subsection G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities .............................. 1-2 SECTIONH - MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .......................... 2-1 Foreword ............. ................... ...... ..........................2-1 SECTION III - MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ..................... 3-1 Foreword .....................................................................3-1 SECTION IV - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .................................... . 4-1 Subsection 4-1. Foreword ................................................. .4-1 Subsection 4-2.- Statutory Authority ........................................... . 4-1 Subsection 4-3. Statement of Objectives ........ .............................. . 4-1 Subsection 4-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .................................. . 4-1 Subsection 4-5. Subsection 4-6. Legal Description of Property in Richfield Rediscovered 1999 ......... Classification of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 TIF District ............. . 4-2 . 4-3 Subsection 4-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate .............................. . 4-4 Subsection 4-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ............... . 4-5 Subsection 4-9. Property To Be Acquired ....................................... . 4-5 Subsection 4-10. Uses of Funds ................................................ . 4-5 Subsection 4-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ......................... . 4-6 Subsection 4-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................ . 4-7 Subsection 4-13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 ..... . 4-7 Subsection 4-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ..................... . 4-7 Subsection 4-15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... . 4-8 Subsection 4-16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 . 4-8 Subsection 4-17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ........................... . 4-8 Subsection 4-18. Fiscal Disparities Election ...................................... . 4-9 Subsection 4-19. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... . 4-9 Subsection 4-20. County Road Costs ............................................ 4-10 Subsection 4-21. Summary ................................................... 4-10 APPENDIX A - BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TIF DISTRICT ...................... A-1 APPENDIX B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .. B-1 i APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ........................................ C-1 REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX • INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .......................................... D-1 • C7 ??Jv SECTIONI MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Foreword The following text represents a Modificationto the RedevelopmentPlan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the boundaries of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area as specified below. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted July 16, 1990, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department of the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area The modified boundary lines for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area are as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the north city boundary line of Richfield and the center line of Trunk Highway 77, thence southerly along said line-to its intersection with the southern city boundary. Thence, westerly, along said city boundary, to its intersection with the centerline of Penn Avenue. Thence, northerly, along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 781 Street. Thence, westerly more or less along said centerline to its intersection with the center line of Thomas Avenue. Thence, northerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 771 Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Sheridan Avenue. Thence, northerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 76d' Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Knox Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to its intersection with the north lot line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1037. Thence, easterly along said lot line to its intersection with the center line of Interstate 35W. Thence, northerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 731 Street. Thence, westerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Penn Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 741 Street. Thence, westerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Sheridan Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 761 Street. Thence, westerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Xerxes Avenue. Thence, northerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of West 66' Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Queen Avenue. Thence, northerly, more or less, along said center line to its intersection with the north line of 65" Street. Thence, westerly along said north line to its intersection with the west lot line of Lot 2, Block 1, Harry Tickner's Subdivision. Thence, northerly along said lot line, as extended, to the south right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 62. Thence, easterly along said south right-of- way line to its intersection with the center line of the west roadway of Pleasant Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 631 Street. Thence, westerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of Harriet Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to its intersection with the center line of 64-1/2 Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to its intersection with the west lot line of Lot 2, Block 6, Lyndale Oaks Addition. Thence, southerly along said lot line to the • north line of Hauser's Second Addition. Thence, easterly along said north line to its intersection with the Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A 1-1 l196-17 east line of Pleasant Avenue. Thence, continuing easterly along the north boundary of PID No. 27-028-24- 24-0005 and PID No. 27-028-24-24-0004 to its intersection with the east line of Pillsbury Avenue. Thence, northerly along said east line to the south block line of Block 6, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition. Thence, continuing east along said south block line of Lot 6, through the south lot line of Lot 7 and to the middle of Block 8, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition. Thence, northerly along the east lot lines of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 8, Rearrangement of Nicollet Homes Second Addition to its intersection with the center line of 64th Street. Thence, easterly along the said center line to its intersection with the west line of Lot 15, Block 8, Town's Edge Addition. Thence, southerly along said west line past Lots 14, 13, 12 and 11, Block 8, Town's Edge Addition to its intersection with the east line of First Federal Richfield Addition. Thence, southerly more or less along said east line to the center line of 651 Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to the center line of I I Avenue. Thence, southerly along said center line to the center line of 661 Street. Thence, easterly along said center line to the center line of 11I Avenue. Thence, northerly along said center line to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 62. Thence, easterly along said south right-of-way to its intersection with the north city boundary line of Richfield. Thence, easterly to point of beginning. Subsection G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities Acquisition In furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff maintained standards set forth in previous years to identify property for acquisition. As in the past, residential property owners were contacted and surveyed to determine (a.) whether or not they continued to express an interest in selling their property on a voluntary basis and (b.) if interested, within which time frame. Additional means of obtaining candidate properties were made by (a.) property owners contacting the HRA requesting that their property be considered for the program and (b.) referrals by the City's health and inspections department. Candidate properties were further evaluated for program eligibility and inspected. The properties identified for acquisition are listed in Appendix A of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District. Relocation The HRA accepts as binding its obligations under provisions of federal and state law (M.S., Chapter 117) for relocation. • Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A 1-2 66-9 SECTIONH MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1.Foreword is • The City of Richfield ("City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite a modification to the Tax Increment FinancingPlan forthe Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment FinancingDistrict("the GramercyDistrict"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The following Modification represents a modification to the budget to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt for the purpose of supporting the Richfield Rediscovered activity. The primary activity will take place in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, to be created on October 11, 1999. This plan is being amended to incorporate modifications to the following sections. Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds The budget for Gramercy is amended as follows: Richfield Original Redis. Uses of Funds Gramercy Project 2 Project 3 Total 1999 Land Acquisition $1,425,000 $2,903,520 $4,277,537 $8,606,057 $1,820,000 Demo./Relocation $85,000 $755,000 $800,000 $1,640,000 $280,000 Rehabilitation As Amended $10,426,057 $1,920,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Site Work $623,093 $360,000 $400,000 $1,383,093 Utilities/Roads/Walks $98,850 $750,000 $800,000 $1,648,850 Permits $872,000 $500,000 $600,000 $1,972,000 Interest $14,000,000 $1,500,000 Admin.(up to 10%) $3,250,000 $107.586 TOTAL $3,103,943 $5,268,520 $6,877,537 $32,500,000 $4,827,586 Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness $1,383,093 $1,648,850 $1,972,000 $15,500,000 $3,357,586 $37,327,586 The City intends to issue bonds for this activity. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $37,400,00 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. The sources of funds for the Gramercy District are amended as follows: Richfield HRA Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 ?Ls-q Sources of Funds Original Total Richfield Redisc. 1999 Amended Total Tax Increment $30,875,000 $1,075,860 $31,950,860 Local Contribution $1,625,000 $53,793 $1,678,793 Land Sales $840,000 $840,000 Other Tax Increment $2,857,927 $2,857,927 TOTAL $32,500,000 $4,827,580 $37,327,580 is • Richfield HRA Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 (06-10 SECTION III MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 3-1.Foreword. The City of Richfield ("City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The following Modification represents a modification to the budget to allow for additional expenditures and the issuance of debt for the purpose of supporting the Richfield Rediscovered activity. The primary activity will take place in the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District, to be created on October 11, 1999. This plan is being amended to incorporate modifications to the following sections. Subsection 3-10. Uses of Funds The budget for Urban Village is amended as follows: Uses of Funds Original Total Richfield Redis. 1999 As Amended Land Acquisition $2,000,000 $1,820,000 $3,820,000 Site Improvements 2,000,000 $2,000,000 Demo./Relocation $280,000 $280,000 Public Improvements - 7,000,000 public road $7,000,000 Public Utilities - parkway 2,000,000 $2,000,000 Trust Fund 2,000,000 $2,000,000 Rehabilitation $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Interest 8,750,000 $1,500,000 $10,250,000 Admin (up to 10°/U) 2,500,000 $107,586 $2,607,586 TOTAL $26,250,000.0 $4,827,586 $31,077,586 Subsection 3-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness The City intends to issue bonds for this activity. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $31,100,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. The sources of funds for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are amended as follows% • Richfield HRA Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 3-1 Sources of Funds Tax Increment Local Contribution Land Sales Other Tax Increment TOTAL Original Total Richfield Redisc. 1999 Amended Total $25,000,000 $1,075,860 $26,075,860 $1,250,000 $53,793 $1,303,793 $840,000 $840,000 $2,857,927 $2,857,927 $26,250,000 $4,827,580 $31,077,580 9 Richfield HRA Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 3-2 (6-ia- SECTIONIV i TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 4-1.Foreword The City of Richfield ("City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District (" Richfield Rediscovered 1999"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 4-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.'), Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for Richfield Rediscovered 1999. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 4-3. Statement of Objectives Richfield Rediscovered 1999 consists of 28 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable home buyers to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. The funding, as currently proposed, allows for the potential construction of up to 28 new homes. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 and Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 4-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Properly to be Acquired - Selected property located within RichfieldRediscovered 1999 may be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan. 2. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer selected properties that they may acquire within Richfield Rediscovered 1999. 3. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, 40 construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-1 within Richfield Rediscovered 1999. Subsection 4-5.Legal Description of Property in Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Richfield Rediscovered 1999 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below. Please see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of Richfield Rediscovered 1999. PID Number 6220 Clinton Avenue 6608 Stevens Avenue 6625 3'd Avenue 6637 5' Avenue 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 6833 Park Avenue 6833 Grand Avenue 7036 V Avenue 72412 "d Avenue 7316 Clinton Avenue . 7301 Garfield Avenue 7544 2"d Avenue 7333 Emerson Avenue 6928 14' Avenue 6315 Newton Avenue 6310 Irving Avenue 6306 Irving Avenue 6320 Girard Avenue 6645 Knox Avenue 6800 Logan Avenue 6912 Penn Avenue 6933 Queen Avenue 6833 Penn Avenue 6929 Queen Avenue 6901 12' Avenue 6945 Clinton Avenue 7615 Pillsbury Avenue Address 27-028-24-11-0001 27-028-2442-0073 27-028-2441-0084 27-028-24-41-0015 27-028-24-34-0016 27-028-24-31-0007 26-028-24-33-0086 27-028-24-33-0070 34-028-24-12-0015 34-028-24-13-0150 34-028-24-14-0086 34-028-24-23-0129 34-028-2442-0104 33-028-24-13-0090 26-028-2443-0069 28-028-24-22-0097 28-028-24-21-0075 28-028-24-21-0126 28-028-24-12-0033 28-028-24-31-0032 28-028-24-33-0001 29-028-24-44-0161 29-028-2444-0170 28-028-24-33-0045 29-028-2444-0171 26-028-24-43-0082 27-028-24-44-0108 34-028-24-34-0045 • Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-2 6913,14 Subsection 4-6. Classification of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that Richfield Rediscovered 1999, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (])parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to juste substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property, and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard... (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. (n For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire are of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: Richfield HRA Tix Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-3 ¦ Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a redevelopment district consisting of 28 parcels. • ¦ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the area of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 consists of parcels in Richfield Rediscovered 1999 that are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection ofthe buildings located within Richfield Rediscovered 1999 finds that more than 50 percent ofthe buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. Because Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. (See Appendix D) Subsection 4-7.Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for Richfield Rediscovered 2000 is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 1999 for taxes payable 2000. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. change in the use of the property and classification; _ 5. change in state law governing class rates; or 6. change in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. It is expected that the original local tax rate for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2000. The estimate below is payable 1999. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 appear in the table below. Original Tax Capacity Value $4,550 Percent Retained by City 100% Original Local Tax Rate 1.50904 Subsection 4-8.Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of Richfield Rediscovered 1999, within Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2001. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Project Estimated Tax Capa upon Completion of Project $48,538 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-4 66-110 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 4.550 • Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 43,988 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $66,380 Subsection 4-9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within Richfield Rediscovered 1999 including interior and adjacent street rights of way. The parcels are listed in Subsection 2-5. 1. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and . related costs. Subsection 4-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a proposal to facilitate the acquisition and demolition of substandard houses and enable home buyers to construct new houses on the lots. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around Richfield Rediscovered 1999. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of Richfield Rediscovered 1999, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with Richfield Rediscovered 1999 over the life of the district is outlined in the following table. Uses of Funds Total Land Acquisition $1,820,000 Site Preparation/Demolition/Grading 280,000 Rehabilitation 1,120,000 Interest 1,500,000 Administrative Costs (up to I0%) 107,586 TOTAL $4,827,580 Estimated costs associated with Richfield Rediscovered 1999 are subject to change. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will be spent on . activities related to development or redevelopment outside of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 but within the boundaries of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-5 to be spent outside of Richfield Rediscovered 1999) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 4-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Acquisition and site preparation costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project may be financed by a bond issue or loans. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $4,827,580 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA may issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or BRA. The estimated sources of funds for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 over the life of the district are contained in the table below. 0 Sources of Funds Total Tax Increment Land Sales Other Tax Increment Local Contribution $1,075,860 840,000 2,857,927 53,793 TOTAL $4,827,580 Subsection 4-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177, 2. the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible. or intangible, purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. repayments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and 4. interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. 0 Subsection 4-13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-6 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]-and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that Richfield Rediscovered 1999, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify Richfield Rediscovered 1999 prior to the legally required date. Subsection 4-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of Richfield Rediscovered 1999. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated impact of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 1998/1999 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 925,993,876 43,988 0.0048% I.S.D. No. 280 24,774,702 43,988 0.1776% City of Richfield 17,777;731 43,988 0.2474% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1998/1999 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.409940 27.17% 43,988 18,032 I.S.D. No. 280 0.721270 47.80% 43,988 31,727 City of Richfield 0.285940 18.95% 43,988 12,578 Metro 0.060350 4.00% 43,988 2,655 Other 0.031540 2.09% 43.988 1.387 Total 1.509040 100.00% 66,380 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1998/Pay 1999 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 1999 figures. Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will be certified under the actual 1999/200 rates, which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Subsection 4-15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 enlargement with a listing of all properties within Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-7 Richfield Rediscovered 1999 or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd 4, the City is in the process of reviewing the area to be included in Richfield Rediscovered 1999 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and I3RA. Subsection 4-16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Administration of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Richfield. Subsection 4-17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a) (1). Richfield Rediscovered 1999 consists of 28 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by 41 buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in Richfield Rediscovered 1999, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district criteria have been met. (See also Appendix D) 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 permitted by the Plan. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Richfield Rediscovered 1999, the total increase in market value would be up to $1,960,000 0 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,478,866 would Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-8 occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of Richfield Rediscovered 1999 (see Cashflow in Appendix C). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 28, 1999 in order to find that the Plan is in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by Richfield Rediscovered 1999 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. Subsection 4-18. Fiscal Disparities Election No commercial/industrial property is expected to be constructed in Richfield Rediscovered 1999. Subsection 4-19. State Tax Increment Financing Aid Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, fortax incrementfinancing districts for which certification was requested after April 30,1990, a municipality incurs a reduction instate tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC) of the tax increment financing district. Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA penalty. Richfield Rediscovered 1999 is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year. The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant-in-aid which may be spent for general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes. The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA- HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4A to 5 percent of annual tax increment for Richfield Rediscovered 1999, subject to the limitations described above, in any year in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in form of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this Plan or other costs related to that development or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made in the form of public improvements financed by the City or HRA or other unit of government with unrestricted funds. Subsection 4-20. Countv Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan. In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan. Subsection 4-21. Summary The City of Richfield is establishing Richfield Rediscovered 1999 to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre of Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (651) 697-8500. 0 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Richfield Rediscovered 1999 Tax Increment Financing District 4-10 • 4 r APPENDIX A &,6-aa. BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT APPENDIX A-1 • bb-1;0 ? ? ? ? t ? ?3 ? ohn HSKWlS CHU 1SLZ Hioz HL6L HLBL Ru' HM N0 LEMY00,8 HLSL HIK HLBL HLZL HLLL HM- lanl3 OJVOIHO, w snenmo0 MJ'dd aNrDroo cB anv aNruzlod /? HS - (L HL4 3 No1Nn0 ade j CW ONZ C SN3A3LS 1SL ' anV 131lOOiN Teasnrre ? HL80MI 6M AarIBSTlld i 1NVSV3,d \ aNv 1I a,3arvj J 3nva,vnru, -. HOWN XVd,oO 'Y' INOdno W NOSLSM 1NMNMU mr UPD V 1a,osnnH N S3mWt/r S XONN NVDO, a NVE)" N01AA3N ?mno -SAV NN3d 3 NMM J? NVOrd3HS "OIL 4? NO1dn 1N30NIA 1 N'drlEwM 1 3AV S3X2flX `i 175 ?- CI <IZ -MVNVCM HaL FULL Q H 19L O NOlJNVM-E $N A FUSI H L 7 4 HL?t N O I???C?u? HLOL lorre m cu 2>1 t5 ODYINHO Snermoo )RNd fn C CNYD4vo (.q i5 '3AVONYI JOd '2 ???Ou Q C HS 17 Hit s s .2 _2 NOINnO LL X00 n SN3A3LS ISL MV13110'JIN ,-easlv,e ai ai c ? CD HLNOA&UaM _?????? 14VSV3,d ONY4Z jar&w am--km ? anv 3lbCWA-l ca 0 HONOW 1NVA2l8 .. xvMo ¦ ?0? • Nosa3w3 ' ?Q 1Now3ad • aavalo 1,moaNnH SNVWI s3Aror 3w LL XOMI Nb'JO, y LL NVE)" N01AA3N LGAn0 to an NMW N33rID TES NVt3kB-IS N -J SVWOFLL ?._ r -l NWMWM 3AV S3XLfa)C ?JW O 0 a 17, ?i ???? APPENDIX B6° ? -40 ? '40 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Address PID Number 6220 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-11-0001 6608 Stevens Avenue 27-028-24-42-0073 6625 3rd Avenue 27-028-2441-0084 6637 5' Avenue 27-028-2441-0015 6800 Pillsbury Avenue 27-028-24-34-0016 6744 Blaisdell Avenue 27-028-24-31-0007 6833 Park Avenue 26-028-24-33-0086 6833 Grand Avenue 27-028-24-33-0070 7036 V Avenue 34-028-24-12-0015 72412 "d Avenue 34-028-24-13-0150 7316 Clinton Avenue 34-028-24-14-0086 7301 Garfield Avenue 34-028-24-23-0129 75442 nd Avenue • 34-028-24-42-0104 7333 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-13-0090 6928 14' Avenue 26-028-2443-0069 6315 Newton Avenue 28-028-24-22-0097 6310 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0075 6306 Irving Avenue 28-028-24-21-0126 6320 Girard Avenue 28-028-24-12-0033 6645 Knox Avenue 28-028-24-31-0032 6800 Logan Avenue 28-028-24-33-0001 6912 Penn Avenue 29-028-2444-0161 6933 Queen Avenue 29-028-2444-0170 6833 Penn Avenue 28-028-24-33-0045 6929 Queen Avenue 29-028-2444-0171 6901 12' Avenue 26-028-2443-0082 6945 Clinton Avenue 27-028-24-44-0108 7615 Pillsbury Avenue 34-028-24-34-0045 APPENDIX B-1 or)5 APPENDIX C ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 0 • APPENDIX C-1 09/08/99 Page 2 a( CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT - RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED C? TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW • • Base Project Captured Semi-Annual Admin. Semi-Annual Local Match Years PERIOD BEG INNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax at Net Tax at Of PERIOD EN DING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity Increment 10.25% Increment 5.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. I 0.0 08-01 1999 4,550 4,550 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 02-01 2000 0.5 02-01 2000 4,550 4,550 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 08-01 2000 1.0 08-01 2000 4,550 4,550 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 02-01 2001 1.5 02-01 2001 4,550 12,135 7,585 5,723 (587) 5,136 286 0.5 2.0 08-01 2001 2.0 08-01 2001 4,550 12,135 7,585 5,723 (587) 5,136 286 1.0 2.5 02-01 2002 2.5 02-01 2002 9,100 24,269 15,169 11,445 (1,173) 10,272 572 1.5 3.0 08-01 2002 3.0 08-01 2002 9,100 24,269 15,169 11,445 (1,173) 10,272 572 2.0 3.5 02-01 2003 3.5 02-01 2003 13,650 36,404 22,754 17,168 (1,760) 15,408 858 2.5 4.0 08-01 2003 4.0 08-01 2003 13,650 36,404 22,754 17,168 (1,760) 15,408 858 3.0 4.5 02-01 2004 4.5 02-01 2004 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 3.5 5.0 08-01 2004 5.0 08-01 2004 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 4.0 5.5 02-01 2005 5.5 02-01 2005 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 4.5 6.0 08-01 2005 6.0 08.01 2005 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 5.0 6.5 02-01 2006 6.5 02-01 2006 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 5.5 7.0 08-01 2006 7.0 08-01 2006 18,200 48,538 30,338 22.891 (2,346) 20.544 1,145 6.0 7.5 02-01 2007 7.5 02-01 2007 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 6.5 8.0 08-01 2007 8.0 08-01 2007 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 7.0 8.5 02-01 2008 8.5 02-01 2008 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 7.5 9.0 08-01 2008 9.0 08-01 2008 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 8.0 9.5 02-01 2009 9.5 02-01 2009 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 8.5 10.0 08-01 2009 10.0 , 08-01 2009 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 9.0 10.5 02-01 2010 10.5 02-01 2010 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 9.5 11.0 08-01 2010 11.0 08-01 2010 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 10.0 11.5 02-01 2011 11.5 02-01 2011 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 10.5 12.0 08-01 2011 12.0 08-01 2011 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 11.0 12.5 02-01 2012 12.5 02-01 2012 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 11.5 13.0 08-01 2012 13.0 08-01 2012 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 12.0 13.5 02-01 2013 13.5 02-01 2013 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 12.5 14.0 08-01 2013 14.0 08-01 2013 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 13.0 14.5 02-01 2014 14.5 02-01 2014 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 13.5 15.0 08-01 2014 15.0 08-01 2014 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 14.0 15.5 02-01 2015 15.5 02-01 2015 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 14.5 16.0 08-01 2015 16.0 08-01 2015 18,200 48,538, 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 15.0 16.5 02-01 2016 16.5 02-01 2016 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 15.5 17.0 08-01 2016 17.0 08-01 2016 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 16.0 17.5 02-01 2017 17.5 02-01 2017 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 16.5 18.0 08-01 2017 18.0 08-01 2017 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 17.0 18.5 02-01 2018 18.5 02-01 2018 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 17.5 19.0 08-01 2018 19.0 08-01 2018 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 18.0 19.5 02-01 2019 19.5 02-01 2019 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 18.5 20.0 08-01 2019 20.0 08-01 2019 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 19.0 20.5 02-01 2020 20.5 02-01 2020 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 19.5 21.0 08-01 2020 21.0 08-01 2020 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 20.0 21.5 02-01 2021 21.5 02-01 2021 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 20.5 22.0 08-01 2021 22.0 08-01 2021 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 21.0 22.5 02-01 2022 22.5 02-01 2022 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 21.5 23.0 08-01 2022 23.0 08-01 2022 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 22.0 23.5 02-01 2023 23.5 02-01 2023 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 22.5 24.0 08-01 2023 . 24.0 08-01 2023 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 23.0 24.5 02-01 2024 24.5 02-01 2024 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 23.5 25.0 08-01 2024 25.0 08-01 2024 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 24.0 25.5 02-01 2025 25.5 02-01 2025 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20,544 1,145 24.5 26.0 08-01 2025 26.0 08-01 2025 18,200 48,538 30,338 22,891 (2,346) 20 544 1,145 25.0 26.5 02-01 2026 Totals 1,075,860 110276 965,584 53,793 Present Values 481,134 (49,316) 431,818 Ehlers and Associates. Inc. Plant.wM 09/08/99 (o&0-77 0-7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT - RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS Interest Rate: 6.000% Tax Extension Rate: 1.50904 Estimate Inflation Rate: 0.0000% BASE VALUE INFORMATION Tax MV Per Unit # Units Market Value Capacity Various Parcels 65,000 28 1,820,000 18,200 Total 18,200 PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Type of Tax Increment District: Housing Number of Units: 28 Class Rates: Single Family <$76k 1.0000% Single Family >$76k 1.6500% Estimated Market Value On all Projects: Estimated Total Market Value per Unit Estimated Tax Capacity Per Unit: Estimated Tax Capacity Total: Estimated Taxes: Estimated Taxes Per Unit: Estimated Tax Increment: Estimated Tax Increment Per Unit: 3,780,000 (7 a year for four years) 135,000 1,734 48,538 (7 a year for four years) 73,246 2,616 11,445 409 BUT / FOR ANALYSIS Current Market Value - Est. 1,820,000 New Market Value - Est. 3,780,000 Difference 1,960,000 Present Value of Tax Increment 481,134 Difference 1,478,866 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 1,478,866 • Page I Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Planl,wk4 APPENDIX D ?-a? REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED 1999 TAX 1 INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The HRA staff has provided the opportunity for property owners to allow access to the property in order to undertake an interior inspection. Each property has been reviewed to determine property substandardness in accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10. All findings are on file for review at the City of Richfield, Community Development Department. • • APPENDIX D-I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 275 ?Q Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 1710 East 78th Street, Phase III, 77th Street Project. Background: Phase I II will provide the tunnel and link 77th Street to the frontage road on the east side of TH 77. The properties to be acquired in total for this project includes the subject property at 1710 East 78th Street, also known as Normark, as well as Motel 6 and apartment buildings at 7600 Cedar Avenue and 7625-18th Avenue. The funding concept for Phase III has been agreed upon by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Richfield. Each organization will provide 80 percent, 15 percent and 5 percent respectively of the project funding. The Memorandum of Understanding on the funding has not yet been finalized and MnDOT has yet to approve the right-of-way plan. However, the owner of the Normark Property (1710 East 78th Street) has requested an early acquisition due to economic hardship related to continued ownership of the property. Accordingly, the property has been appraised by Patchin Messner Appraisals at $650,000 and by BCL Appraisals at $617,000. According to MnDOT rules, these appraisal reports were evaluated by a review appraiser, Donald Hennessy, who concluded that just compensation should be set at $617,000. Owners and occupants may also be eligible for relocation benefits in accordance with MnDOT rules. Staff is seeking establishment of just compensation and authorization to purchase so that when MnDOT authorizes the offer to be made, it can be forwarded to the owner immediately. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which sets just compensation at $617,000 and authorizes the property purchase at that value. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The property has been identified for purchase as a part of Phase III of the 77th Street Project. 2. The owners would like to relieve an economic hardship. 3. MnDOT procedures are being followed. 4. By approving the resolution, the offer can be made immediately following MnDOT authorization. Alternative Recommendation: Delay action. Discussion/Decision Mode: An offer will be made to the owner following MnDOT authorization. Ily submitted, aSO:cak RESOLUTION NO. (AP-4 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY 1710 78TH STREET WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described as follows: That part of the N. 180.26 feet of the S. Y2 of the S.E. % of the S.E. Y4, Line E. of the W. 722 feet thereof, except road and highway. In Section 25, Township 028, Range 24, in Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; and WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real property; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and WHEREAS, continued ownership of this property is an economic hardship for the current owner; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation if any is determined to be $617,000. 2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to submit the offer and commence negotiations for the purchase of said real property following MnDOT approval. 3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements for the amount of just compensation set forth in this resolution. 4. That following MnDOT approval, the City Manager is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of subject property that the City intends to acquire this property and establish eligibility for relocation benefits. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield Minnesota this 22nd day of November, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 274 Agenda November 22, 1999 Issue Statement: Status of 4-22 litigation in Minnesota State Court Background: Recent developments regarding the City's pending 4-22 litigation include the following: This item was originally brought forward at the June 28, 1999 City Council meeting. The issue arose out of a contact by the presiding judge who inquired about the status of the litigation to Richfield Attorney Chuck Dayton. At that time, Council authorized the Richfield attorney to dismiss the litigation, without prejudice, which would have permitted the City to reinstate the lawsuit at a future date. In discussions between MAC and Richfield attorneys, MAC has indicated that if the City dismisses its 4-22 litigation without prejudice MAC will pursue reimbursement for costs incurred in the preparation of materials. However, if the City is willing to dismiss with prejudice MAC will not seek reimbursement. By dismissing with prejudice under these terms the City would have no further liability on this matter and will not be able to reactivate this suit in Minnesota State Court. This matter was brought to the City Council a second time at the September 13, 1999 meeting to see if the Council wished to authorize that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice. However, at that time, the Council was uncomfortable with making the decision without further analysis by City staff. Since that date, City staff has had additional conversations with attorney Steve Pflaum regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit. In analyzing the potential advantages and disadvantages of dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, Mr. Pflaum is convinced that on balance, the City is in a better position to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. With the construction of the North/South Runway, it is impractical to use the 4-22 Runway for noise spreading. Further, MAC has acknowledged that they would need to do further environmental review before they could use the runway for noise spreading. Therefore, it seems a relatively safe position to proceed with dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. Recommended Motion: Authorize Richfield attorneys to dismiss with prejudice the 4-22 litigation filed in Minnesota State Court. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City will have no further liability on this matter. q___ 1 2. In MAC's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the extension of the 4-22 Runway, MAC indicated that they are no longer considering the use of the 4-22 Runway for noise mitigation. 3. With the construction of the North/South Runway it is impractical to use the 4-22 Runway for noise spreading, because of the difficulty in conducting operations across the parallel and North/South Runways. 4. MAC has acknowledged in the 4-22 EA that they would need to do further environmental review before they could use the 4-22 Runway for noise spreading. Richfield's legal team concurs with this position. If needed the City could legally challenge and further environmental work done on this issue. Alternative Recommendation: File a motion to dismiss without prejudice and litigate over any incurred expense: Discussion/Decision Mode: This items is presented for City Council consideration at their November 22, 1999 meeting. RespectluUy submitted, Samanth Ordun ager SO:cak 11