Loading...
06-14-99 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • MONDAY, JUNE 14, 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 (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 1999; (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 24, 1999; AND (3) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF JUNE 7, 1999 PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO 1999-2000 MISS RICHFIELD AMBASSADOR CANDIDATES 2. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE AND RESOLUTION TO STATE SENATOR DAVE JOHNSON RECOGNIZING HIS WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DURING 1999 LEGISLATIVE SESSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 123 3. ACCEPTANCE OF TREE CITY USA THIRTEEN YEAR AWARD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 124 INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 4. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL r 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA 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 --J ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. ' A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 1998 LHN REDEVELOPMENT AREA MAINTENANCE AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1999 C.L. 125 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS OF 2000 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS FOR LHN REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1999 C.L. 126 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 1998 77TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT AREA MAINTENANCE .AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1999 C.L. 127 .._ D.. CONSIDERATION OF.AP,PROVAL OF.RESOLUTLON PROPOSL~IG l"O SPECIALLY ASSESS COSTS OF 2000 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS FOR 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1999 C.L. 128 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL_OF RESOLUTIONS DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998, ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL AND SETTING DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1999 C.L. 129 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESCINDING AUTHORIZED AGREEMENT WITH OSM AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT"ION ENGINEERING SERVICES IN AMOUNT OF $125,000 AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH WSB AND ASSOCIATES FOR FINAL DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $104,803 FOR PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS I-35W NORTH OF 76TH STREET C.L. 130 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP CO. FOR 1999 SEALCOATING PROJECT IN AMOUNT OF $124,155.10 C.L. 131 H. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF BITUMINOUS PARKING LOTS AT LYNDALE LIQUOR STORE, CITY HALL AND FIRE STATION II AND IMPROVEMENT OF ASPHALT PATHS AT DONALDSON AND TAFT PARKS IN AMOUNT OF $124,816.35 C.L. 132 I. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO JAY BROS. INC. FOR POND GRADING AND APPURTENANT WORK AT 69TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE IN AMOUNT OF $72,060.40 C.L. 133 J. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6812 EMERSON LANE C.L. 134 K. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN 2000 TO 2002 C.L. 135 L. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION GRANTING LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE, WITH FEE WAIVER, FOR CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION, 305 EAST 78TH STREET C.L. 136 M. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER, FOR RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT FOR . ANNUAL SAFETY CAMP EVENT AT COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER AND VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ON JUNE 15 AND 16, 1999 C.L. 137 PUBLIC HEARING 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERCHANGE • WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN; AND REMOVAL OF PARCELS FROM ILN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 138 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AMENDMENTS TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 400 AND 405, UPDATING CITY BUILDING REGULATIONS TO LATEST VERSION OF STATE BUILDING CODE AND MINNESOTA UNIFORM FIRE CODE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 139 RESOLUTION 9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CALL OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1991 DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1991 IN TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $5,615,000 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 140 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 10. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CITY OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 141 11. CONSIDERATION OF POND CONSTRUCTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR STORM WATER POND LOCATED AT ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS, 66TH STREET AND PILLSBURY AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 142 AIRPORT BUSINESS 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF RICHFIELD MEMBER TO GOVERNOR'S AIRPORT COMMUNITY STABILIZATION FUNDING TASK FORCE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 143 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 14. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 15. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 16. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 17. 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 lp~~ Council Letter No: 143 C1`-` Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: City Council appointment of a member to the Governor's airport community stabilization funding task force. Background: Legislators representing communities neighboring the airport believed that their airport impact protection concerns were left unheard. As a result, during the last days of the 1999 legislative session a "governor's airport community stabilization funding task force" was created. The task force was given the responsibility of identifying and recommending funding sources for implementation of noise mitigation measures identified in the MSP Noise Mitigation Program Report (1996),-and recommendations made by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. Funding sources that the group will consider will include, but are not limited to, federal, state, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and local sources. The Governor will be appointing task force members that include members of: ^ the MAC chair or designee and one other MAC board member; ^ one member from the Governor's staff; ^ the commissioner of finance or the commissioner's designee; ^ representatives designated by the following cities: Bloomington, Minneapolis, Burnsville, Eagan and Richfield; ^ two at-large designees appointed by the Governor; and ^ the commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development or the commissioner's designee. . The Governor's task force will be administered and supported by the Department of -Trade and Economic Development. The first meeting will be convened no later than July 31, 1999 and the recommendations of the task force are to be provided to the Governor and legislature by January 15, 2000. The Richfield City Council should -make an appointment to this task force sometime in June in order to be prepared for the convening of the task force group. Recommended Motion: Appoint a Richfield member to the Governor's airport community stabilization funding task force. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Richfield needs a member to be appointed by City Council. 2. The first meeting of the task force will be no later than July 31, 1999. Alternative Recommendation: Defer appointment to another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Council meeting of June 14, 1999. R ctfully s b ed, ~~~~ • e is Acting City Manager SLD:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 142 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of Pond Construction and Lease Agreement for storm water pond located at the Academy of Holy Angels at 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. Background: The 66th Street/Pillsbury Avenue intersection was identified in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan as a flooding problem area because of regular street flooding. Staff seeks to improve drainage in street flooding areas as opportunities, such as street reconstruction or redevelopment, present themselves. On August 10, 1998 the City Council approved an off-street parking contract with the Academy of the Holy Angels (AHA) which included a stipulation that the pond along 66th Street be improved. Several storm water alternatives to the AHA pond at 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue were discussed at the May 10, 1999 Special City Council Study Session. As noted at the May 10 .Study Session, City staff continues to work with AHA staff to construct a shared pond on AHA property. At the June 7 Study Session the AHA discussed the proposed lease agreement related to: (1) City contribution to construction cost; and (2) Maintenance issues, including an issue about responsibility for water quality or S seepage.. The City Attorney and AHA Attorney have prepared a Pond Construction and Lease Agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached for Council review. AHA may have minor changes to paragraphs 8 and 9 regarding maintenance responsibilities. A summary of the conditions of the agreement is as follows: • The AHA will construct the pond. • The AHA will maintain the pond to the following criteria: • Turf established around perimeter of pond to prevent erosion. • Maximum height of grass: six inches. • All City ordinances apply. • The AHA meets the City's storm water management requirements on the site with the .construction of the pond. • .The City will provide hydrologic designs for the pond. • The City pays $50,000 for construction of the pond and for rent until 2026. • The City maintains the piping system at the 66th Street outlet. • Insurance, indemnification and warranty issues are clarified. The $50,000 cost share of the pond is an accurate reflection of the City benefit received. The $50,000 figure is the high end of the $25,000 to $50,000 cost share • range identified at the August 10, 1998 City Council meeting in a stipulation to the AHA off-street parking contract. The estimate was based upon aCity-built dry pond. The wet pond plan now being advanced by AHA provides a maximum amount of storm water flooding protection as well as the additional aesthetic value of a wet pond. City staff is recommending that the $12,000 City/consultant costs spent to date be paid through the storm drainage utility, as has been the practice with developers. The unusually high administrative costs are due in a large part to the unusual nature of the shared responsibilities of the pond, differing views of aesthetics and maintenance difficulties of dry/wet ponds, and the third party ownership of land on which the pond is located. Although the negotiations have lingered on for a long time and have, at times, been challenging, City staff and the drainage consultant believe that, in the end, the City's storm drainage system and the 66th Street/PillsburyRvenue low area receive sufficient benefit to warrant the $50,000 expenditure. The City's cost share of this project is not only being used to assist in the construction of the pond but is also being applied to buy the right to use the land for storm water storage purposes. The City's storm water consultant and staff agree that the City is receiving sufficient benefit, However, because other storm water problem areas are of a higher priority and the City is simply taking advantage of an opportunity that has presented itself, the City's share should be limited to $50,000. If the AHA can't complete the project with this cost split, they can adjust their plan and proceed on their own. The additional aesthetic of a wet pond is a bonus, albeit a subjective one. Almost a year has passed since the August 10, 1998 stipulation and the high-end number takes inflation into account. Recommended Motion: Approve the Pond Construction and Lease Agreement with the Academy of the Holy Angels for the storm water pond in the vicinity of 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue and authorize the Mayor and Acting City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City and AHA have discussed this drainage pond issue for several months. 2. The Pond Construction and Lease Agreement addresses questions and concerns which were posed by the AHA and by the City. 3. The Pond Construction and Lease Agreement has been drafted and reviewed by attorneys for the City and for the AHA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The. City Council may want to consider limiting the City's contribution to the pond to $43,000. This amount represents the $50,000 high end estimate less $12,000 City/consultant costs as of May 1, 1999 plus $5,000 inflation in the construction industry since last year. City staff has spent an unusually large amount of time dealing with this particular pond and a case can be made that some of these costs should be borne by the AHA. l1-~, 2. Request revision(s) of the agreement as deemed appropriate. The drainage pond issue at 66th Street/PillsburyRvenue must be addressed in some fashion with or without direct City participation. 3. Do not participate in any agreement related to storm water and the AHA pond at 66th Street and Pillsbury Avenue. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council is requested to take action at the June 14, 1999 Council meeting. However, additional information may be requested or revisions to the agreement may be suggested. It is likely the construction of the pond will be delayed for a time proportionate to a delay in execution of the agreement. Ily submitted, i n _..: _ ~~ ng City Manager SLD:cak • • POND CONSTRUCTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE entered into this day of May 1999, by and between the Academy of Holy Angels ("Academy"), a Minnesota .nonprofit corporation having its principal place of business at 6600 Nicollet Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, and the City of Richfield ("City"), a Minnesota municipal corporation having its principal office at 6700 Portland Avenue S., Richfield, Minnesota. Recitals A. The Academy leases the real property legally described at the attached Exhibit A from the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. B. The Academy intends to reconstruct an existing storm water drainage pond located on that portion of the Academy's property as legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Premises"). The existing storm water drainage pond is required in order to meet applicable storm water drainage requirements for certain improvements that the Academy has constructed on other portions of its property at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South. C. The City has identified a need for an additional storm water drainage area in the vicinity of 66~' Street, to be incorporated into the public storm water drainage system. The City has proposed to the Academy that the Academy accommodate the City's storm water drainage needs by increasing the holding capacity of the existing storm water drainage pond on the Premises and installing certain control structures in the reconstructed drainage pond (the "Pond Facility"). The City has represented to the Academy that the control structures and increased holding capacity of the Pond Facility will enhance the operation of the public storm water drainage system by allowing storm water to accumulate in the Pond Facility before it floods 66tH Street in the immediate vicinity of the Premises. D. Based on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Academy is willing to lease to the City, and the City is willing to lease from the Academy, the Premises, in order to accommodate the City's public storm water drainage needs. Lease Terms In consideration of the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement, the Academy and the City agree as follows: 1. LEASE OF PREMISES. The Academy hereby leases to the City and the City hereby leases from the Academy the Premises according to the terms of this Lease Agreement. 2. TERM. The initial term of this lease shall be _ years and _ months, commencing as of , 1999, and expiring July 31, 2026 (which date is the termination date of the Academy's lease with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet). The parties agree that, if the Academy's lease with the Sisters is extended or renewed, the parties will negotiate in good ~ ~' faith for the extension or renewal bf this lease, for an effective rent that is substantially as favorable to the City as the terms of this lease. 3. DESIGN OF POND FACILITY. The City has retained an engineering consultant to design a Pond Facility that will accommodate storm water drainage from the Academy and the City. The Academy has the right to use the City's plan of the Pond Facility and to draft final plans and specifications for the construction of the Pond Facility ("Final Plans"). The City reserves the right to review and approve the Final Plans for the Pond Facility, and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF POND FACILITY. The Academy is responsible for constructing the Pond Facility according to the Final Plans, at the Academy's cost. The City shall have the right to enter upon the Premises at all reasonable times during construction of the Pond Facility for the purpose of observing the work, but the Academy shall be responsible at all times for ensuring that the contractor's work is performed in accordance with the Final Plans. 5. RENT. As and for rent, the City shall: (a) contribute $50,000.00 toward the construction cost of the Pond Facility; (b) pay the City's own out-of-pocket costs related to the preparation of the pond design, the City's staff time incurred in the review and development of the plans and specifications; and the cost of the outlet pipe previously installed on the Premises; and (c) perform the maintenance obligations under paragraph 8 of this lease. The parties acknowledge that items (a) and (b) represent the City's contribution to the construction of the Pond Facility, and that. item (c) represents the rental for the City's ongoing use of the Pond Facility over the term of this Agreement. 6. NON-EXCLUSIVE LEASE. The parties understand that the City will not have exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Premises. The Academy and the City will contemporaneously use and occupy the Premises. The City may not make use of the Premises except for the express purposes stated herein, and the Academy may not make any use of the Premises that interferes with the City's use of the Premises as a public storm water drainage facility. A use is deemed to interfere with the City's use if it has a material detrimental impact on the water storage capacity or the water quality of the water in the Pond Facility. 7. ALTERATIONS TO PREMISES; APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Academy agrees to notify the City at least 30 days prior to constructing or erecting any alterations or improvements on the Premises, in or about the Pond Facility. The Academy acknowledges that no alterations may be made to the Pond Facility without the City's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8. CITY'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN. The City shall be responsible at all times to maintain and repair the control structures for the Pond Facility and to perform any other maintenance or repair of the Pond Facility, including but not limited to dredging as needed for storm water retention, at the City's sole cost and expense. The parties acknowledge that, depending upon weather conditions, algae or other vegetative matter may accumulate in the Pond Facility from time to time. Periodic algae formation is natural and expected, and neither party shall be required to correct such a condition. DPD-154719 2 RC 160-4 l~-$ i 9. ACADEMY'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN. The Academy shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain that portion of the Premises lying outside of the Pond Facility, including, without limitation, removal of papers and debris, elimination of noxious weeds, keeping perimeter vegetation neatly trimmed, and maintaining and repairing any retaining walls or other improvements on the Premises. The Academy shall also be responsible for removing debris from the Pond Facility. The Academy shall be in compliance with its obligations under this paragraph so long as: (1) grass turf or other ground cover is maintained around the perimeter of the Pond Facility, in order to prevent erosion or gully washes; (2) the height of the grass on the Premises does not exceed six inches; (3) paper and debris are collected and removed from the Premises as needed to maintain the area in compliance with City ordinances; and (4) the condition of the Premises and the improvements thereon do not violate any ordinance of general applicability in the City. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to modify the Academy's obligation ofnon-interference under paragraph 6 of this lease. 10. ASSIGNMENT. The City may not lease the Premises to other persons or assign this lease. 11. ENCUMBRANCES. Neither the City nor the Academy will permit any liens to encumber the Premises except, that the Academy may encumber the Premises by liens which are expressly subordinate to this lease. 12. INDEMNIFICATION BY BOTH PARTIES. Except for claims arising out of the willful or negligent act of the other party or its representatives, each party shall indemnify and defend the other party against all claims, expenses and liabilities incurred, including reasonable attorney fees, related to claims for loss of life, personal injury, and/or damage to property arising out of any occurrence in, upon or at the Premises, or the occupancy or use thereof by said party, or occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of said party, its agents, employees, contractors, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by the City of any liability limits available to it under state law. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the Academy shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify the City for any damage to persons or property that may occur on property other than the Premises as a result of flooding. 13. CITY WARRANTY. The City warrants to the Academy that the City has the responsibility and associated liability for damage to persons or property that that may occur on property other than the Premises as a result of the design, maintenance, and operation of the City's public storm water drainage system, including the design, maintenance and operation of the Pond Facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall relieve the Academy, however, of its obligation under paragraphs 6 and 9 of this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall operate as a waiver by the City of any liability limits available to it under state law for claims related to damage to persons or property occurring on property other than the Premises. 14. INDEMNIFICATION BY THE ACADEMY. The Academy shall indemnify and defend the City against any and all claims, expenses and liabilities incurred, including • reasonable attorney fees, related to claims for loss of life or personal injury occurring on the DPD-154719 3 RC 160-4 6 Premises that are the direct result of improvements installed upon the Premises at the sole direction of the Academy, including but not limited to, pedestrian walkways, retaining walls, statuary, seating areas, fountains, or any other similar improvement that is located outside of the Pond Facility on the Premises. 15. PROTECTION FROM SUBROGATION. Anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, neither Academy nor City shall be liable to the other for any personal injury, loss of life or property damage occurring on the Premises caused by the negligence or other fault of the Academy or City or of their respective agents, officers, or employees to the extent that such loss or damage to property or injury to or death of person is covered by or indemnified by proceeds received from insurance carried by the other party (regardless of whether such insurance is payable to or protects Academy or City or both) or for which such party is otherwise reimbursed; and Academy and City each hereby respectively waive all rights of recovery against the other, its agents, officers, and employees, for any such personal injury, loss of life or property damage to the extent the same is covered or indemnified by proceeds received from any such insurance, or for which reimbursement is otherwise received. The Academy's and City's respective policies of insurance shall each contain a waiver of subrogation provision incorporating the above covenant and providing that the insurance shall not be invalidated by the insured's written waiver prior to a loss of any or all right of recovery against any party for any insured loss. 16. INSURANCE. .The City and the Academy shall both maintain "all risk" insurance in an amount necessary to cover any damage to the Premises caused by either the City's or the Academy's use of the Premises. Both parties shall also maintain comprehensive . general public liability insurance against any and all claims, demands, actions,. judgments, expenses, and liabilities that may arise out of or result, directly or indirectly, from the City or Academy's use and occupancy of the Premises. The policies shall name the other party as an ..additional insured. The policy involving liability against claims by third parties shall provide coverage in .the same amounts as set forth at Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04, subd. 1, asthat statute may be amended from time to time in the future. Both parties shall provide a certificate of insurance to the other before modifying the Premises. Both the City and the Academy shall thereafter provide current certificates of insurance upon the request of either party. 17. WARRANTY OF ACADEMY. The Academy warrants that it has the authority to enter into this lease agreement and that neither the making of the lease agreement or the terms hereof violate any provision of the Academy's lease with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet for the Property. 18. NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication that may or shall be given or served by the parties, shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: If to the City: Director of Public Works, City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423; If to the Academy: Principal, Academy of the Holy Angels, 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This lease constitutes the entire • agreement between the parties, and no other agreement prior to this lease or contemporaneous DPD-154719 4 RC 160-4 11-7 herewith shall be effective except as expressly set forth or incorporated herein. Any purported • amendment shall not be effective unless it shall be set forth in writing and executed by both parties. This paragraph is not intended to supersede applicable requirements under the City's zoning code and does not alter or affect any zoning approval related to the Property, including but not limited to conditional use permits and off-street parking permits issued for the: Property. ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS By_ Its CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Acting City Manager DPD-154'719 5 RC 160-4 II-S STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this this day of May 1999, by ,the of the Academy of Holy Angels, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Notary public • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this day of May 1999, by Martin J. Kirsch and Steven L. Devich, the Mayor and Acting City Manager of the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public DPD-154719 RC 160-4 6 /1 -9 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Premises The West 420 feet of the North 90.00 feet of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section _, Township _, Range _, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except roads and except the West 25 feet thereof. • DPD-154719 7 RC 160-4 1(~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No: 141 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998. Background: The City's auditing firm of HLB Tautages Redpath, LTD completed the audit of the City's fiscal year ended December 31, .1998 in April 1999. The CAFR has been submitted to the State of Minnesota as required. and to the Government Finance Officers Association for compliance review. The action to be taken at the June 14, 1999 City Council meeting is the official receipt of the CAFR by the City Council. The City's auditors, HLB Tautages Redpath, LTD, have made an in-depth presentation of the 1998 financial information at the City Council Study Session on June 7, 1999. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ended December 31, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial records for the year ended December 31, 1998 and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanation of their findings. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the June 14, 1999 City Council meeting. The CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law. Ily su g City Manager SLD:cak • Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. i4o Agenda June 14, 1999 • Issue Statement: Resolution providing for the call of the General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1991 dated September 1, 1991, in the total principal amount of $5,615,000. Background: Upon staffs request, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the Gity's bond issues for refunding opportunities and the potential for an early defeasance of bonds. The Series 1991 Bonds was a combined refunding. of the $1,940,000 General Obligation (G.O.) Improvement Bonds, Series 1985 and the $6,265,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1985. After completing the review, Ehlers & Associates identified the G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1985 portion, of the Series 1991 General Obligation Refunding Bonds as eligible to call. The call of this issue would provide present value debt savings of approximately $8,000. This net savings would be after fees for the call of the bonds were paid. The call date for the bonds is August 1, 1999. While the net present value savings is not substantial, it does represent an opportunity for a modest savings and the early redemption of these bonds. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the partial call of the $5,615,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1991, dated September 1, 1991. Basis of Recommendation: 1. An analysis of the outstanding bond issue projects in net present value savings if the bond is called. 2. There is sufficient cash available in the debt service fund to call the bond. Alternative Recommendation: Do not call the bond issue and continue to retire the current debt. Discussion/Decision Mode: A resolution authorizing the call of this bond issue should be considered at the June 14, 1999 City Council meeting to allow proper notification of the call to all bond holders. All bond holders are required by law to be notified at a minimum of 30 days prior to the call. Re ully submi , ~ ~ +. .Devi h Acting City Manager SLD:cak RESOLUTION NO. -l RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT AND • REDEMPTION OF CERTAIN OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City has issued and sold its General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1991, dated September 1, 1991 (Bonds) in the total principal amount of $5,615,000. Bonds maturing after February 1, 2000 are subject to redemption and prepayment on that and on any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. 2. It is determined that it is in the best interests of the sound financial management of the City that Bonds maturing on February 1 in the years 2003 to and including 2006, and that Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $30,000 maturing on February 1 in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, be prepaid and redeemed on August 1, 1999 and those Bonds are hereby called for redemption on that date. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish, in accordance with law, a notice of call for redemption of the Bonds in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and to mail a copy of the notice to the registrar for the Bonds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk C, S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No. 139 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of changes in the Richfield City Code Section 400 and 405 to update the City building regulations to the latest version of the State Building Code and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Background: The Minnesota State Building Code has been adopted by Minnesota Statues Section 168.61 as a uniform building code applicable throughout the State. From time to time, the codes, appendices, standards and supplemental materials adopted as references are revised. The action requested here incorporates the latest changes. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of the amendments to the City Code stating the latest version of the State Building Code and schedule the public hearing and second reading for July 12, 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Uniform State Building code has been adopted and is to be enforced throughout the seven county metro area. 2. The Uniform Fire code has been adopted and is to be enforced throughout the seven county metro area. 3. Formal adoption in this manner with clearly stated references avoids conflict and confusion. Alternative Recommendation: None.. Minnesota Building Code requires that the City be compliant with the State building code. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council approval of the changes to the Richfield City Code, Sections 400 and 405, which would bring the City building regulations into compliance with the State Building Code and Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, and scheduling of the second reading, public hearing, on July 12, is requested at this time: Ily submitted, ~~ • City ..Manager SLD:ds ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~- f AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1998 BUILDING CODE; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 400.03, 400.21, 400.25 • AND 405.07 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 400.03, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Adoption by reference. .The X951998 edition of the Minnesota State Building Code, as amended, adopts by reference certain codes, appendices, standards .and supplemental materials. The following codes, appendices, standards _ and supplemental materials are adopted by reference and incorporated into this code as if fully set out at this point: (a) 1300 Minnesota State Building Code; (b) 1301 Building Official Certification; (c) 1302 State Building Construction Approvals, (d) 1305 Adoption of the a-941997 Uniform Building Code including Appendix. Chapters (1) 3. Division 1, Detention and Correctional Facilities irn ~ ~ n.., i Q_ n {3)~ 12, Division II, Sound Transmission Control (3) 15. Reroofing (4) 16. Division I Snow Load Design {43~ 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures {~)~ Appendix Chapter 31, Division II -Membrane Structures {#)~ 1307 Elevators and Related Devices {g)~f 1315 Adoption of the 1996 National Electrical Code {I~}~ 1325 Solar Energy Systems {+)~h,) 1330 Fallout Shelters {}}~ .1335 Floodproofing Regulations {-~3~ 1341 Minnesota Accessibility Code . {+}~ 1346 Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code {~~ 1350 Manufactured Homes ~~~ {~}~ 1360 Prefabricated Buildings (n) 13611ndustrialized/ModularBuildings {-p)~ 1370 Storm Shelters (Manufactured Home Parks) {q~~ 4715 Minnesota Plumbing Code (-~)~ 7670 Minnesota Energy Code (r) Optional Appendix Chapter 33 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code Excavation and Grading (s) Optional Chapter of Minnesota Rule 1306 Special Fire Protection Systems with Option 8 Section 2, Subsection 400.21 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 400.21. Fire prevention code: adoption of fire prevention code. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, including the X9941997 Uniform Fire Code, as amended, and the 13 volume national codes, volumes 1-13 of the National Fire Protection Association (herein referred to as the "fire prevention code") are hereby adopted by reference as though fully set out in this subsection. Subsections 400.21 to 400.35 are the fire prevention code of the city. (Amended Bill No. 1997-7) Section 3, Subsection 400.25 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: 400.25. Prohibition of storage of flammable liquids outside above ground tanks bulk storaae of liauified petroleum gases and storage of explosives and blasting agents. The storage of the substances defined in sections 7901 and X848201 of the fire prevention code in the manner described therein, is prohibited within the city. (Amended Bill No. 1997-7) Section 4, Subsection 405.07 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read. as follows: 405.07. Housing code adopted. The X21997 edition of the uniform housing code is adopted by reference. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this th day of July, 1.999. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor C7 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ip+~ ,AJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 138 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of resolutions regarding approval of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and Tax Increment Financing Plan; and removal of parcels from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District. Background: The resolution being considered would establish the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and TIF Plan.. A description and brief history of the projects included in the TIF District and Plan is as follows: Interchange West CSM Properties, Inc. was selected by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment HRA (HRA) in 1997 to conduct a redevelopment feasibility study of the Interchange West area. An extensive neighborhood participation effort was undertaken to seek the opinions of homeowners as to whether or not they should be included in the redevelopment. Surveys were conducted and the final results showed that the majority of the homeowners would prefer to have their homes purchased if the commercial area were redeveloped. Based on those results, CSM created a redevelopment concept which includes the area bounded by Penn and Knox Avenues and by 76th and 78th Streets. The HRA entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM in October 1998 for the Interchange West area. CSM presented their concept plan at the February 16, 1999 HRA meeting. The primary elements of this concept plan included a 350-room hotel, 375,000 sq. ft. of office space in two connected buildings, a restaurant site, an upscale car dealership, 175 to 250 townhome units and a 100-unit apartment building. The estimated market value for the proposed Interchange West development is approximately $130 million. This represents an increase of $108 million over the current assessed market value. The gross annual increment has been projected at over $6 million. Appendix D of the Tax Increment Plan (Exhibit E) provides additional, detailed cash. flow information. LyndaleLyndale Gateway The Lyndale Gateway is bordered by the alley east of Garfield Avenue and Aldrich Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. This area was first identified for redevelopment in the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment Plan which was completed in 1985. Several components of that plan, most notably the Shops at Lyndale development, have been completed. In 1996 the Hoisington-Koegler Group completed a new plan for South Lyndale Avenue. The plan, which was conducted with a high degree of community participation, recommended a complete redevelopment of Lyndale Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. Since 1996, there have been several concepts for redeveloping South Lyndale Avenue. In 1998, the concept proposed by CSM Properties, Inc. was selected by the HRA and a Contract for Private Redevelopment was adopted in January 1999. Subsequently, a concept plan for the redevelopment was submitted to the HRA on April 19. This `~~ 1 concept plan included a drug store and an additional 44,000 sq. ft. of retail-and office ~, space on the west side of Lyndale Avenue. On the east side of Lyndale, CSM has proposed a 151-unit senior complex adjoining 37,000 sq. ft. of office space. The development on both sides of the street contains a mixture of surface and underground parking. Additionally, the Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Plan allows for townhome development on the east side of Garfield Avenue between 76th and 77th Streets. While this area is not currently designated in the concept plan, its inclusion in the tax increment financing (TIF) plan is to allow for the development to occur if the majority of homeowners in that area demonstrate a preference to sell their homes. The estimated market value for the development of Lyndale Gateway is $25 million. This represents an increase of nearly $21 million over the current assessed market value. The gross annual increment has been projected at $707,600. Appendix D of the Tax Increment Plan provides additional detailed cash flow information. A provision of both the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Contracts for Private Redevelopment is an agreement on "the form of the Tax Increment Plan, which, following agreement as to form, shall have been considered and adopted by the City." Additionally, the contract requires the identification of "the nature and the form of public assistance which is necessary in order to facilitate the development contemplated in the Concept Plan." Both of these conditions of the contract are addressed by the resolution which is being considered.. Essentially, the form of public assistance is the tax increment to be generated on the site and the use of public assistance will be for reimbursement of site assembly costs. Twenty parcels which are included in the proposed Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District are currently a part of the ILN TIF District. If the new TIF district is established, these parcels will be "decertified" from the ILN TIF district. In addition to the cash flows detailed in Appendix D, it is recommended that the executive summary (Exhibit D) be reviewed: Other Modifications to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area There are several additional modifications to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area which are not related to the Interchange West or Lyndale Gateway areas. The purpose of these modifications is to expand the boundary of the project area so that it corresponds to the redevelopment planning areas within the City. Specifically, these areas are the Richfield Lake Area (REAP) and the Airport Mitigative Area. The additional modifications are included to recognize previous redevelopment opportunities that were available to the HRA. The following opportunities came in the form of early property acquisitions from willing sellers for substandard property. These acquisitions include the former Hat Trick Hockey property, the former FINA gas station at 66th Street and Elliot Avenue, and a residential property located at 7608 Pillsbury Avenue. Seven single family residential properties located at 6913-6937 Penn Avenue were also purchased by the City as part of a stormwater mitigation program. These properties will be conveyed to the HRA for redevelopment of market rate townhomes on residual land after the stormwater retention pond has been implemented by the City. There may also be the opportunity to redevelop parcels including to, and adjacent to, the City's Garage. The purpose of this redevelopment would be to either expand the City Garage at its current location or to relocate the Garage and redevelop the site. In ~~ addition to the property currently owned by the City, this. would include three single family homes and a commercial property. These properties are included as a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area at this time to negate the necessity of an additional project area modification in the future. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached two resolutions which: • approve a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan; • establish the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; • androve the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Plan; • decertify 20 parcels from the ILN TIF District in order to allow their inclusion in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District Basis of Recommendation: 1. Both the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway areas have been identified for redevelopment. 2. The HRA entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with CSM for the redevelopment of the Interchange West area on October 19, 1998 and for the redevelopment of Lyndale Gateway on January 19, 1999. 3. The approval of the plan documents is consistent with the requirements of both of the Contracts for Private Development. 4. On May 17, 1999, the Richfield HRA adopted a resolution to modify the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establish the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and Plan. 5. On May 25, 1999, the Richfield Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that the modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and Plan is consistent with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. 6. Proper notice of the TIF district and plan has been provided to the County Commissioner, County Board and School District. The response from the Acting County Administrator is included as an attachment to this letter (Exhibit C). (An analysis of the County response from Ehlers & Associates, Inc. is attached as Exhibit C1). 7. The redevelopment and tax increment plans meet the requirements of state law and established procedures within Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution to adopt the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and Plan. 2. Amend the resolution to eliminate those portions of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District which are related to either to the Interchange West or Lyndale Gateway projects. ~~ 3. Delay approval of the modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or +• the establishment of the new TIF District and Plan. 4. Seek alternatives to the proposed project. Discussion/Decision Mode: Sid Inman of Ehlers & Associates, lnc. and Murray Kornberg of CSM Properties, Inc. will be present at the City Council meeting and will be available to discuss the attached plan documents. Additional information regarding Interchange West is included in Exhibit A and additional information regarding Lyndale Gateway is included in Exhibit B. fitfully submitted, City Manager SLD:cak Attachments 1) Resolution authorizing elimination of parcels 2) Resolution authorizing adoption of modification a. Attachment A to Resolution b. Attachment B to Resolution 3) Exhibit A, Additional Interchange West information 4) Exhibit B, Additional Lyndale Gateway information 5) Exhibit C, Memo from Sandra Vargas, Acting Hennpin Cty Administrator 6) Exhibit C1, Ehlers response to Hennepin Cty memo 7) Exhibit D, TIF District Overview 8) Exhibit E, Modification to Redevelopment plan (6/3/99) • ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM THE INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. WHEREAS, on November 12, 1985, the City of Richfield (the "City") created its Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District (the "ILN TIF District"); and WHEREAS, the proposed Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (the "Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District") includes the following parcel numbers which were previously certified in the ILN TIF District: Parcel Identification Number 33-028-24-44-0036 33-028-24-44-0037 33-028-24-44-0038 33-028-24-44-0039 33-028-24-44-0041 33-028-24-44-0042 33-028-24-44-0040 33-028-24-44-0043 33-028-24-44-0044 33-028-24-44-0045 33-028-24-44-0046 33-028-24-44-0047 33-028-24-44-0048 34-028-24-33-0078 34-028-24-33-0077 34-028-24-33-0084 34-028-24-33-0075 34-028-24-33-0076 34-028-24-33-0074 34-028-24-33-0073 Address 7600 Lyndale Avenue South 7608 Lyndale Avenue south 7614-16-18 Lyndale Avenue South 7620-26 Lyndale Avenue South 7628 Lyndale Avenue South 7630 Lyndale Avenue South 7632 Lyndale Avenue South 7634-36 Lyndale Avenue South 7638-40 Lyndale Avenue South 7642-42a Lyndale Avenue South 7644-44-1/2 Lyndale Avenue South 7646 Lyndale Avenue South 7648 Lyndale Avenue South 7601 Lyndale Avenue South 7609-11 Lyndale Avenue South 7613-27 Lyndale Avenue South 7625 Lyndale Avenue South 7619 Lyndale Avenue South 7629-33 Lyndale Avenue South 7645 Lyndale Avenue South WHEREAS, the City has proposed to hold a public hearing on June 14, 1999, on the creation of the Interchange West ancl' Lyndale Gateway TIF District within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, as proposed to be modified; and WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to cause the elimination of the following parcels (collectively "the Parcels") within the ILN TIF District: '1-5 • Parcel Identification Number 33-028-24-44-0036 33-028-24-44-0037 33-028-24-44-0038 33-028-24-44-0039 33-028-24-44-0041 33-028-24-44-0042 33-028-24-44-0040 33-028-24-44-0043 33-028-24-44-0044 33-028-24-44-0045 33-028-24-44-0046 33-028-24-44-0047 33-028-24-44-0048 34-028-24-33-0078 34-028-24-33-0077 34-028-24-33-0084 34-028-24-33-0075 34-028-24-33-0076 34-028-24-33-0074 34-028-24-33-0073 Address 7600 Lyndale Avenue South 7608 Lyndale Avenue south 7614-16-18 Lyndale Avenue South 7620-26 Lyndale Avenue South 7628 Lyndale Avenue South 7630 Lyndale Avenue South 7632 Lyndale Avenue South 7634-36 Lyndale Avenue South 7638-40 Lyndale Avenue South 7642-42a Lyndale Avenue South 7644-44-1/2 Lyndale Avenue South 7646 Lyndale Avenue South 7648 Lyndale Avenue South 7601 Lyndale Avenue South 7609-11 Lyndale Avenue South 7613-27 Lyndale Avenue South 7625 Lyndale Avenue South 7619 Lyndale Avenue South 7629-33 Lyndale Avenue South 7645 Lyndale Avenue South and, thereby, reducing the size of the ILN TIF District; and WHEREAS, since the current net tax capacity of the parcels to be eliminated from the ILN Tax Increment Financing District may be less than the certified original net tax capacity of the parcels, the holding of a public hearing is required by .Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 4. NOW THEREFOREE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Parcels are hereby eliminated from the ILN TIF District and the City's staff shall take such action as is necessary to notify the County Auditor of the reduction in the geographic area of the ILN TIF District caused by the elimination of such Parcels. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk r~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND ESTABLISHING THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATED THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project") and adopted the Redevelopment Plan with respect thereto and it has been proposed that the HRA establish within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and. approve the Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto (the "TIF Plan") and the modification to the existing Redevelopment Plan related thereto (the "Modification"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469:001 through 469.047 and 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Modification and TIF Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Modification and TIF Plan and has caused the Modification and TIF Plan to be prepared. 1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification and TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; notice of a potential redevelopment district to the local county commissioner; a review of and written comment on the Modification and TIF Plan by the City Planning Commission; and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Modification and TIF Plan 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Modification and TIF Plan, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modification and TIF Plan, which are hereby incorporated .herein. ~~~ Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing. District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1). 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan; that the Modification and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Modification and TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the .development or redevelopment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise. 3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399. 3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and. has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.05. The City of Richfield elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Section 4. Public Purpose The adoption of the Modification and TIF Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serve a public purpose. • ~~~ Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Modification and TIF Plan. 5.01. The Modification and TIF Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed. on file in the Community Development Department. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Modification and TIF Plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, as described in the Modification and TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City of Richfield is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, for which building permits have. been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The City is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Modification and TIF Plan with the Commissioner of Revenue. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~~ • ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION RESOLUTION # The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the. Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). Interchange West portion consists of 98 parcels, with. plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements. and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, is structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix. F of the TIF Plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future- and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value _of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of commercial/industrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, .this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix F of the TIF Plan). The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Thereforee, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. ~-)o Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Interchange- West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $129,303,942. The present value of tax increments from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $28,175,217. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $101,128,725 would occur without tax increment assistance in this districfi within 25 years. .This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the .Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent .with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. C ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION ~`~~ RESOLUTION # The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are. as follows: Finding that the Lyndale Gateway project in .the. Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interchange West and. Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District consists of 37 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Lyndale Gateway project is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Lyndale Gateway project, not including outbuildings, is structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the -City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange -West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of commercial/industrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix F of the TIF Plan). The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the /~ present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TlF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for at least 14 years without success. Thereforee, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $24,646,406. The present value of tax increments from the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $4,339,493. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $20,306,913 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment 'in the general. area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing. Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District .conforms to .the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of .the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. • ~-/ 3 Exhibit A Additional Information regarding the proposed Interchange West development Public Notice and O ortunit for Partici ation Since July 1997, there have been 22 letters sent out to each property owner, household and business in the Interchange West area. An informational hotline has also been operational since last summer and has been updated regularly. The purpose of these communications has been to inform affected parties of upcoming meetings; the results of meetings; changes to the schedule; opportunities for participation and provide an update of the project. CSM's real estate consultant has also sent seven project updates to residential property owners since October 1998. There were three neighborhood meetings to discuss the redevelopment concept and the ability to "vote" fora number of redevelopment options. A survey was also conducted to identify neighborhood concerns and desires. There have also been 11 public meetings relating to CSM's development of the Interchange West area. Acquisition of Property CSM issued purchase offers to all 68 residential property owners on February 15, 1999. Since that time,. all of the homeowners have accepted purchase offers. In March, mediation services were offered, free of charge, to all residential property owners. One household utilized mediation services, and another three were identified as "hardship cases" by CSM, thereby receiving special consideration. All commercial property owners have received purchase offers. Several have accepted their offer while others have not had sufficient time to negotiate. CSM will continue working with commercial property owners. ~ Housing Diversity ~ The Concept Plan for Interchange West includes a minimum of 270 .units of housing of varying. styles, sizes and costs. Included in the plan is a 100-unit apartment complex. This complex will house a mixture of one and two bedroom units and will have provisions for housing families living below median income levels. CSM is also proposing at least 170 .units of housing for sale. This too will vary in terms of design, size and cost. Many of the units will be multi-story townhomes, while others will be single story."flats" located above. It is intended that these units will vary in price • ~-i~- from $130,000 to $1.80,000. The TIF Plan specifies that there will be a component of • affordable housing in these units. Traffic The engineering firm of SEH has conducted a traffic analysis. of the Interchange West area based on the development of the concept plan. The SEH study provides several transportation elements that will lessen the impact of the increased traffic flow on existing City streets. According to the traffic study, the level of service at key intersections may actually improve over existing conditions if the recommendations are followed. Many of the recommendations of the SEH study are reflected in the current concept plan. The remaining issues will be addressed by staff, the developer and the traffic. consultants prior to a rezoning of the property. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Use A portion of the Interchange West area is located in the Twin Cities' Transit Zone, meaning that it is located within a quarter mile of the regional transit network. The transit network is designated as such due to the availability on non-automobile transportation alternatives present. The development itself is designed with sidewalks throughout and roadways of an ample width for bicycle travel Comprehensive Plan The Richfield Comprehensive Plan. designates this area as Regional Commercial/Office, Neighborhood Commercial and High Density Residential. On May 25, .1999 the Richfield Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that he modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and Plan is consistent with with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The developer is currently in the process of completing an environmental assessment worksheet. The rezoning necessary for the development cannot be enacted before this EAW is complete and has been reviewed by the public and by local and regional policy- makers. Recreational/Communit Facilities Included in the development is a large water feature that is intended to serve a dual purpose as both a community oriented park setting and as stormwater retention. The pond will contain natural vegetation and will be encircled with pedestrian trails. Cost°of Services to New Development • ~ -/ ~ While the development will contain more units of housing and square footage of commercial space, those areas will be designed to modern specifications. Public Safety staff have reviewed the plans several times and have ensured that 1) the site is designed using "crime prevention through environmental design" techniques; 2) streets are designed properly for emergency vehicles; 3) sprinkler systems will be added to the building where appropriate; and 4) building materials are used that will minimize fire hazards. These modern standards equate to fewer service calls per unit. Assessed Market Value & Increment Generated by Development The current assessor's estimated market value for the properties in the district is $22 million. The market value of the project is estimated as $130 million, representing an increase of $108 million. The gross annual increment has been projected at $6.2 million. The history of the estimated market value for the Interchange West area prior to redevelopment is as follows: 1995 1996 1997 1'9.98 1`999 $18,390,800 $18,612,600 ~ $19,492,200 $20,313,100 $21,608,300 Tax Capacity Captured in Richfield as Compared to Other Similar Communities The percentage. of total tax capacity within the City of Richfield which was captured as increment was 12.26 percent for taxes payable in 1998 (data for 1999 is not yet available for comparison). The following graph compares Richfield's percentage of tax capacity which is captured as increment with other similar communities: Captured Tax Capacity in Other Similar Communities ta.oo% 16.00% 14.00% I 12.00% -1- 9.76% to.oo% e.oo% 6.00% a.oo% z.oo% 17.os°i° 15.46% 13.11% 12.26% 10.25% 9.65% 9.44% 8:02% - oc ~~c ~' tie .~°'~ Gec Qa e`°r \~F ~~ oo~~ ~`a~ 0 ~~oo ~c O\JC~ G 12.13% 12.33% ~~~ T T ,~ a~~~ ~~cy ~m~a aa~ e~~0 Qa2F- Qao G~ ae J ,Z,oQ ~~r o~,~Sy X05 ~o~.y a~o~` 5a 5° 7~11~ The percent of captured tax capacity is one way to measure redevelopment activity. Older aggressive communities generally have a higher captured percentage. Reasons Why Richfield Redevelops • To Keep Residential Neighborhoods Vital • To Retain and Attract Residents • To Maintain a Stable and Growing Population • To attract Investment • To Compete with Developing Suburbs • ~ ~~~ Exhibit B Additional Information regarding the Proposed Lyndale Gateway Development Public Notice and O ortunit for Partici ation Since November 1998 there have been seven letters sent out to each property owner, household and. business in the Lyndale Gateway area. The purpose of these communications has been to inform affected parties of upcoming meetings; the results of meetings; changes to the schedule; opportunities for participation; and provide an update of the project. There have also been four public meetings relating to CSM's development of the Lyndale Gateway area. Acquisition of Property CSM intends to issue purchase offers to all property owners in the Lyndale Gateway prior to June 21, 1999. During the negotiation period, mediation services will be made available at no cost to property owners. Housing Diversity The 151 units of assisted living senior housing meets a housing need in Richfield which is currently unsatisfied. Seventy-eight of the units will be two bedroom and seventy- three will be one bedroom. The facility will meet the needs of many seniors who fall. below specified income levels; up to 40 percent of the .units will be offered at a reduced rent. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Use The Design Guidelines contained in the1996 Lyndale Gateway Plan state that development in this area should: make public transit an essential part of the solution; establish a character which is pedestrian in scale; and place buildings at the street frontage so that the area is more focused to bicycles and pedestrians rather than the automobile. This development would accomplish these guidelines in many ways, primarily by including transit stops as an integral part of the plan; offering pedestrian plazas; and setting the parking behind the buildings. Comprehensive Plan The Richfield Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area . On May 25, 1999 the Richfield Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding that the modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District and Plan is consistent with with Richfield's Comprehensive Plan. ~' Cost of Services to New Development While the development will contain more units of housing and square footage of commercial space, those areas will be designed to modern specifications. Public Safety staff has reviewed the plans several times and have ensured that: the site is designed to using "crime prevention through environmental design" techniques; that streets are designed properly for emergency vehicles; building will be sprinklered where appropriate; and building materials are used which will minimize fire hazards. Additionally, the senior apartment complex will have on-site medical personnel. These modern standards equate to fewer service calls per unit. Assessed Market Value & Increment Generated by Development The current assessor's market value for the properties in the district is $4.4 million. The market value of the project is estimated at nearly $25 million, representing an increase of $21 million. The gross annual increment has been projected at $707,600. The history of the estimated market value for the Interchange West area prior to redevelopment is as follows: 1995 1':996 1991 I `199$ i 1999 $3,973,000 $4,012,000 $4,122,000 $4,298,000 $4,424,000 Tax Capacity Captured in Richfield as Compared to Other Similar Communities The percentage of total tax capacity within the City of Richfield which was captured as increment was 1.2.26 percent for taxes payable in 1998 (data for 1999. is not yet available for comparison). The following graph compares Richfield's percentage of tax capacity that is captured as increment with other similar communities: Captured Tax Capacity in Other SimilarCommunities 18.00% 1a.oo% ~ 15.46% 1 a.oo% 13.11% 1~.os°i° ~ ~ 12 26% 12 .33 % t2 oo% . 12 .13 % . 10.00% 9.76% 10.25% 9.65% 9.44% _ 8.02% 8 00% ' . - - -- ~_ 6.00% 4.00% r _ z.oo% o.oo% ~ ~_ ~,~oo ~~ee QaL~ aa ~`ce ~e\a ,\o Qai~- QaJ\ 0r~~ ~~ • ~\e~ e S Q y ~ G ~ e G o ~~~ ,~~o oy J~0 a`c~ J e ~ ~ c ~ `~ ~~ °~ ~~a `ae °~ ~ ~'o r 0 o ~o o Q- ti ~o ~ ~F G a~c o'` ~ o~ 5 G 50 ~~! The percent of captured tax capacity is one way to measure redevelopment activity. Older, aggressive communities generally have a higher captured percentage. Reasons Why Richfield Redevelops • To Keep Residential Neighborhoods Vital • To Retain and Attract Residents • To Maintain a Stable and Growing Population • To attract Investment • To Compete with Developing Suburbs • .,j~ ; He ' ~r: ~ nnep In Count` 11~~ryrya''','' ` J~~i~H June 10, 1999 '"p~-V Exhibit C An Equal Opponun,ty Empbrcr Sid Inman Financial Advisor Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive .Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Re: AMENDED MtESPONSE TO INCLUDE COUNTY ROAD ISSUES Proposed Richfield Interchange West snd Lyndab Gateway RedevelopmentTlF Plan Dear Sid: Enclosed is an AMENDED REPORT from Sandra Vargas, Ailing Hennepin County Administrator, to the Hennepin County Board, concerning the proposed Richfield Interchainge West and Lyndale Gateway RedevelopmentTax Increment Finance Plan, and potential County road issues that may result from this development. Please arrange to have the AMENDED REPORT entered into the record of the public hearing of the Richfield City Council scheduled for Monday, June 14, 1999, at 7:OOp.m., to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2. If you have any questions aboutthis information, please calf me at 348-5076. Sincerely, ~' ~~ !~~ Jean M. Bierbaum. $eniorAdministrativeAssistant Financial Analysis and Support Division cc John Stark, City of Richfield JM8 jb RevuTranamdtalLetter ?axpayer Scrvices Deparrment A-600 Henntpin County Government Center Rrcycr<d Pin Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060 C, ~`fiMemo f ~ June 10, 1999 To:: Board of Commissioners ~' From: Sandra L. Vargas, Acting County Administrator Re: Proposed Richfield Interchange West and Lyn to Gateway TIF District Amended Response to Include County Road Issues ~~~ The folbwinq hearing is scheduled: Monday, June 14, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Richfield proposes redevelopment of 135 parcels near Interstate 494, between Harriet Avenue South on the ease and Penn Avenue South on the west The redevelopment will occur in two project areas: 98 parcels in the Interchange West project and 37 parcels in the Lyndale Gateway project. Cumulatively,. the redevelopment will provide 1) a 350 room motel; 2) a 375.000 square foot office building; 3) up to 120,000 square feet of retail; 4) 251 apartment units(60 tow-moderate income); and 5) 280 townhomes. The redevelopment tax increment finanang district will generate tax increment for 25 years from receipt of the first increment, or a total of 26 years. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The following outlines the sourres and uses of funds, and the amount of development expected to occur with input from tax increment, vs. the inaximum amount of development that might occur without tax increment The City will be using sown: of the tax increment designated for land acquisition to provide down payment .assistance to a variety of pnspective home buyers. As presenNy proposed, the project wilt be financed by spay- as-you-go note, but if bonds to be repaid from tax increment an: issued, they will not exceed $59,000,000 without a modification to the plan. Sources Of Funds: Uses of Funds: Tax Increment 5121,540,000 Land Acquisition & Site Improvements & Local Contribution 6,077.000 Public Improvements 8~ .Public Utilities 8 $127,617,000 other Public Improvements $ 59,000,000 Interest 55,855,300 Administrative Costs 12.761.700 $127,617,000 Projected Increased Estimated Market Value with Use of Tax Increment Financing: Interchange West Project $129,303,942 Lyndale Gateway Project 24_~~ $153,950,348 Maximum Increased Estimated Market Value that would occur without Tax Increment Financing: Interchange West Project: $101,128,725 Lyndale Gateway 20.306 913 $121,435,638 • -tea June 10, 1999 Board of Commissioners Proposed Richfield Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TIF District Arnended page 2 The redevelopment is projected to generate annual tax increment of $7,289,649. Hennepin County's "contribution" to that annual tax increrrtemt will be $1,980,278, or $49,506,950 over the life of the district. The 135 parcels to be included in the of district have a pay 1999 estimated market value of $23,581,100 and will generate $911,397.48 in tax dollars in 1999. Recent TiF History In Richfield: Relatively recent of improvements in Richfield include: 1, The 25-year Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment TIF district #1250, certified 1y17R5. The L-H-N of district has generated $30,629,730 of tax increment from 1977 through 1997, and-has 11 'i4 move years of bx increment - approximately 530,530,970 -until termination on 8/1/2009. Devebpmentthat has occurred within this of district includes: a. the HUB shopping center b. The Lake Shore condominiums on the s.w. quadrant. of Lyndale/66'" St, at the north end of Wood Lake; c. A hi-rise complex with adjacent pharmacy, restaurant and shops on the n.w. quadrant of Lyndale/ 68" St d. Rainbow Foods adjacent to the HUB shopping center, and e. K-Martin the Northeast quadrant of Lyndale and 66~' Street 2. The 25-year Interchange Redevelopment TIF distrkt in the northwest quadrant formed by Interstate Highways 35W and 494, provides for tax Increment of E16,197,808 for development of the former Naegle Building panel with a 2-story retail building, occupied by Galyan's. 3. The newly approved 9-parcel, 25-year Gramercy Redevelopment T1F district, on the southwest quadrant of Lyndale and 66°1, provides for tax increment of 53Qt37i3,000 to assist in the construction of a senior cooperative housing project, a new VFW facility, medical offices and clinic, a new hardwarestore and another retail store. 4- The 25-year Urban. Village. Redevelopment TIF dlstriet located roughly between 66"and 6T" Streets and Lyndale and Pleasant Avenues South, provides for tax increment of 52ti,250,0~ for redevelopment of the site with 132 rental apartrr~nts with underground parking; approximately 78 units of senior assisted living; 80,000 square feet of commercial space on three levels, connected by a corridor to a 500 to 650 car parking ramp for on- site and general public pari<ing needs. The McDonald's currently located on the lower level of the commercial building on the site will be re-located to the corner of Lyndale and 67"' Street. SUMMARY: Three of the of districts identified above include senior or senior assisted living, and the proposed Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway TtF district includes 531 apartment or townhome units, 60 of which will be designated for low to moderate income residents. These tlf districts are scheduled to generate approximately the following tax increment over the next 25 to 27 years: Lyndale Nub Nicollet $ 30,520,970 Interstate $ 16,088,894 Gramercy $ 30,875,000 Urban Village $ 26,250,000 Interstate West 81 Lyndale Gateway 121 540 000 $225,010,279 Richfield's recent aggressive use of of may be indicative of the aging of first ring suburb residents,-for which there is greater need for senior and senior assisted living facilities, and tow to moderate income apartments, a5 well as the aging of homes and commercial buildings that are no longer conducive to drawing and holding residents, tenants or customers. However, the plan does not provide indication that the 350-room Marriott would not be built in Hennepin County without of assistance, or that the area is in short suppy of high quality retail, or that the office tower will draw a tenant from outside the county or state so that new jobs will be created In-the region. Only 11 %, or 60, of the 531 housing units will be paced for low to moderate income residents. ~-a3 June 10, 1999 Board of Commissioners Proposed Richfield Interchange West and Lyhdale Gateway TIF District Amended page 3 The finished product, with an added market value of 5153,950,348, will indeed be a "...high quality development (for) the City." Qf great concern th Hennepin County is the fact that the proposal clearly states that, without of assistance, deveopment with added value of 5121,435,638 would likely occur over the next 25 years- Thus, captured tax dollars of 5225,010,279 will yield only $32,514,710 of value more than would occur without of assistance. This proposal does not satisfy the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners preference, (Resolution 92-10- 91781,adopted 1027/92,) that °..Cities use tax increment as a financing tool of ast resort, .targeting public assistance to renewal and redevebpment projects of greatest need and lower income housing projects of demonstrated need." Note; A photocopy of a porlron o/ the Proposed development, for the north6ast quadrant of the intersection of 1.494 at Penn Avenue South, is attached. SUMMARY REGARDING ROAD COSTS ATTR113UTABLE TO THE INTERCHANGE WEST TtF DISTRICT: Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 1a, provides that the County .Board may require a tax increment authority to pay all or a portion of the cost of county road improvements out of increment revenues, provided that the needed improvement is not pelt of the approved county capital improvement plan. The proposed mixed commercial deveopment i~r the Interchange West TIt= District is estimated to add nearly 17,000 tops to Penn Avenue (CSAH 32), approximately a doubling of current traffic. This additional traffic will most likely result in a need for reconstruction of the I-d94lPenn Avenue bridge, and interchange ramp revision3. Since none of these improvements are part of the aunty capital improvement plan, the improvement cost should be financed out of increment revenues. The county staff is available to work with the city in its review of the imp,3rts of this development on the roadway system as well as other multi-modal services such as bike and bus transportation. A copy of this AMENDED report will be forwarded to the City of Richfield with a request that it be entered into the public record of the June 14, 1999, public hearing to re}lect the county's position on this proposal. (w~revuRichfieldlnterrhangeWest!LyndateGatoway61499mod 1) • • 7-a~ c: ~. TOTAL P.95 ;.,:a Exhibit C1 ~-"~~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Bruce Palmborg -City of Richfield FROM: Sid Inman -Ehlers DATE: June 3, 1999 RE: Hennepin County Memo -Dated May 17, 1999 As per your request, I have reviewed the memo from Hennepin .County regarding the proposed Richfield Interchange West and Lyndale •Gateway TIF Districts: The memo has three areas that will comment on. First, page one of the memo has a reference to "Maximum Increased Estimated Market Value that would occur without tax Increment Financing" .This concept is again referred to in the second to. the last paragraph which. attempts to calculate the amount of value. that would occur without tax increment financing. This is a reference to Subsection 2-25-2 and Subsection~2-26-2 of the tax increment financing plan. The statute requires that this statement be included in the plan. It is a But/For test that is included to insure that the City Council is aware that the project increases the market value. of the area. The memo refers to two statements in the paragraphs. The first is In Subsection 2-25-2, Paragraph 2: "It is the CounciPs finding that no development with a market value of greater than_ $'101,128,725 would occurwith-out tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years." The second is )n Subsection 2-26-2, Paragraph 2: "It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $20, 306,913 would occur with-out tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years." The county memo is assuming that the Council is also making the alternative finding that these amounts would occur with out tax increment financing. This assumption is incorrect. In that in Subsection 2-25-2 Paragraph 1 and in Subsection 2-26-2 Paragraph 1 the Council explicitly finds that "the City reasonablely determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increase market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is 0$." Second, in the first paragraph on page two the memo refers to the "County's contribution". This statement describes the impact on the county only in the event that the project would have happened with-out tax increment assistance. Section 2-14 of the tax increment plan clearly states that because the City believes the project would not have occurred without tax increment financing assistance, the impact to other entities is 0$. ~-~ Third, the last paragraph on page two states that "the plan does not provide indication that the 350-room Marriott wound not be built in Hennepin County without of assistance or that the area is in short supply of high quality retail, or that the office tower wiN draw a tenant from outside the county or state so that new jobs will be created in the region." 1 believe that you are aware that when creating a redevelopment district, the tax increment statutes do no require you to prove that retail is in short supply or that this project will cr8ate jobs. Further, Section 2-14,Subsection 2-25 and Subsection 2-26 dearly state that the project (including the hotel) would not be build with out tax increment assistance. Last, the City of Richfield has always required the developer to provide detailed needs analysis to determine that assistance is needed and the amount and term of the assistance. Please let me know if you have other questions or comments regarding this matter. Isom the desk of: Sid Moran Development ConsWtent/Finsncia/ Advisor Ehkys and Assocbtas, Mc. 3060 Center Pointe Drive RosevlliS, IIIN 65t 13 (65lj 897-4507 FAX: (6b!) 89T-Q555 t~AtNL•ddf~S/~1ersMC.oom C:1SII?tRYCt~ff1D~Ntd.MAT~fO.wpO Exhibit D ~~~ _. ing District Overview , ~_, , . City of Richfield- The Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District .Ehlers and Associates Tax Increment Financ Proposed action: Establishment ofthe Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax . Increment Financing District and the adoption of a plan. Redevelopment Plan: Modify the Redevelopment Program for the Richfield Redevelopment Project. Area to .include the projects proposed within the Tax Increment District. Type of TIF District: A "Scattered Site" Redevelopment District Parcel Number: See attached parcel lists Location: See the attached maps Proposed development: The Interchange West project is created to facilitate redevelopment of existing buildings in the City ofRichfield. The anticipated use is a 350 room motel, approximately 375,0000 square foot office building, a 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of retail, 100 unit apartment and up to 250 town homes. The Lyndale Gateway project is created to facilitate 50,000 square feet of retail space, 151 unit senior housing complex and the potential for up to 30 town. homes Estimated annual tax increment:. Interchange West: $6,221,847 Lyndale Gateway: $707,601 Proposed uses: See the attached budget Form of financing: The project will be financed with apay-as-you-go note. Maximum duration: The duration of the Tax Increment Financing District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment. The date of receipt of the first tax increment will be approximately 2002. Thus, it is estimated that the Tax Increment Financing District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2001 due to inflation, the District will terminate in 2025 Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Fiscal Disparities: The-City ofRichfield will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. 7-as • TIF District Overview LGA/HACA penalty: The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-RAGA penalty. Contribution for an redevelopment district is 5% of annual tax increment. The contribution can be made annually or in larger contribution throughout the life of the district. 3 Year Activity Rule At least one ofthe following activities must take place in the District within (469.176 Subd. la) 3 years from the date of certification: ^ bonds have been issued ^ the authority has acquired property within the district ^ the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is June, 2002. 4 Year Activity Rule If after four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (~ 469.176 Subd 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel. in the District: ^ demolition ^ rehabilitation ^ renovation ^ other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by the approximately June, 2003, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must (,¢ 469.1763 Subd 3) be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following occurs: ^ the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity ^ bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under §. 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund ^ binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation ^ costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to reimburse a pay for payment of the costs, including interest on unreimbursed costs. Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately June, 2004, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The previous summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Page 2 ~-a9 • TIF District Overview The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defrned in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a) (1). Interchange West portion consists of 98 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F). 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 incrementfinancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely throughprivate investment within the reasonablyforeseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount ofcommercial/industrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward withouttax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix F). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax incrementfrnancing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to resultfrom the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIFDistrictpermitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the .Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which. is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Interchange West project ofthe Interchange West and Page 3 ~-~ T1F District Overview Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $129,303,942.. The present value of tax increments from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $28,175,217. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $101,128,725 would occur without tax increment assistance in this districtwithin 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. • Page 4 ~1-~3 ~ • TIF District Overview The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defrned in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a) (1). The Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District consists of 37 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Lyndale Gateway project are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Lyndale Gateway project, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F). 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 reasonablyforeseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. . The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely throughprivate investment within the reasonablyforeseeablefuture: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of commerciaUindustrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward withouttax incrementassistance (see attachment in Appendix F). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax incrementfrnancing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to resultfrom the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for at least 14 years without success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Interchange. West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be Page 5 ~-3~ • TIF District Overview assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $24,646,406. The present value of tax increments from the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $4,339,493. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $20,306,913 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Page 6 ~-3~ • TIF District Overview BUDGET FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Uses of Funds Interchange L ndale Land Acquisition, Site Improvements Public Improvements, Public Utilities And Other Public Improvements $50,000,000 $9,000,000 Interest 47,902,000 7,953,300 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 10,878,000 1,883,700 TOTAL $108,780,000- $18,837,000 • • The City will be using some of the tax increment designated for land acquisition to provide down payment assistance to a variety of prospective home buyers. Page 7 ~-3`} C7 • TIF District Overview PARCEL LIST OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Page 8 7-3~ Interchan eg West • Address Address PID 7601 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0037 7609 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0036 7615 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0035 7621 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0034 7627 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0033 7633 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0032 7639 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0031 7649 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0012 7600 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0021 7604 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0022 7610 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0023 7614 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0024 7620 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0025 7624 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0026 7628 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0027 7634 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0028 7638 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0029 7644 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0030 7601 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0064 7609 Oliver Avenue 33-028 24-33-0063 7615 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0089 7621 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0088 7627 Oliver-Avenue 33-028-24-33-0087 7633 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0062 7639 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0061 7645 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0060 7600 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0052 7608 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0053 7614 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0054 7620 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0055 7626 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0056 7632 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0057 7638 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0058 7644 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0059 7601 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0078 7605 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0079 7611 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0080 7617 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0081 7623 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0082 7629 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0083 7633 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0084 7639/41 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0085 7643/45 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0086 7600 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0038 `?-3(n r~ • • 7608 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0039 7614 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0040 7620 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0041 7624 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0042 7628 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0043 7634 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0044 7638/40 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0045 7642/44 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0046. 7601 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0090 7609 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0091 7615 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0047 7621 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0048 7625 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0049 7629 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0050 7639/41 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0051 7645147 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0004 1915 76th Street 33-028-24-33-0001 7608/10 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0002 7614/16 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0015 7620/22 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0016 7626/28 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0017 7632/34 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0018 7636/38 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0019 7644/46 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0020 7601 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0006 2015/25 77th Streeet 33-028-24-33-0008 2101 /09/15/21 77th Streeet 33-028-24-33-0010 7615 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0005 7629/35 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0014 7639/45 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0015 7700 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0005 7701 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0007 7708 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0006 7600 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0002 7608 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0003 7626 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0009 7700 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0010 7701 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0013 7745 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0014 7701 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0009 2100 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0011 2026 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0067 2024 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0066&65 2022 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0068 2020 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0069 2016 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0070 2000 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0007 1920 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0093 ~-~~ L~ r~ 1900 78th Street W 33-028-24-34-0013 7701 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0094 7705 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0095 7713 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0077 7725 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0072 • ~-38 Lyndale Gateway • Address PID 7600 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0036 7608 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0037 7614-16-18 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0038 7620-26 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0039 7628 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0041 7630 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0042 7632 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0040 7634-36 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0043 7638-40 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0044 7642-42a Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0045 7644-44-1/2 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0046 7601 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0056 7609 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0055 7615 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0054 7621 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0053 7627 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0052 7633 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0051 7639 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0050 7601 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0078 7609-11 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0077 7613-27 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0084 7629-33 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0074 7645 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0073 7600 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0065 7608 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0066 7614 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0067 7620 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0068 7626 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0069 7632 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0070 7638 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0071 7639 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0058 7633 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0059 7627 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0060 7621 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0061 7615 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0062 7609 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0063 7601 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0064 • ~-39 • TIF District Overview MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Page 9 p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aavz HSI~NYIS ONLZ r--~-I JSIZ t« H1f)Z H16~ W a V W a H CW G a O J W W W J _W Li. i V n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z~ ~- W Z \ 3Ay S3X2DX ~ C ~ 0 '3AY 2N030 ~ H181 ~ •~ Hlll ~ ~ H19L NOlJNIWOOIB H1Sl H14` a -tea - H1£~ C C - H1Zt o 0 !I HILL ,II .p HJAL - lOR'L3 OJyO1H0 La, a snewmoo ,~,,,, ~, Havel U U ONY'DIVO -any aNY71aQd O O C H1S n- ~- No~ m a~i ~ ~ 4NL ~ 0 sNan3,s ~s~ > > 9Ay 13llOOIN ,~ .a -BOSIYIB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ m aNVao ~ ~ ~31a21vH U U a-olaa~oo ~ ~ anv~YaN~i Holaoirr ~rrvAae • xv~ • 1NOdna :..• Nosa~ 1NOW3LId aayalo 1O108wnH V- oNlnai °o sawvr ~ xoN~ NVE)O'1 OC NYJaOW ~ NO1M3N a3nno oc '3AV NN3d N Nino i~ssna oc NyalznHS o SYWOHl Nolan ~A60NN ~ Nan9SYM 0 3AV S3Xa3X ~ ~""~ ~ /' 3Ay aY030 H181 H1Lt H19L NOl~JNIWOOlB H1SL H1VL H~~~ H1Z~ Hi« ~ H1At~ ~o~~ O~Jd'OIHO 7~ snewmoo Hayd ONy7Hy0 -aAVaNyuaod 3 i No~rb ~ ~ aas ~ aNL i sraA3ls ~s~ > 3Ay 1317001N 1~OSIY'18 HiaoNUNaM ~anasnla ~~ aNyao t3laavH a~ldayo 3nv ~varu-I H~RIOIy 1NVAae xv~lao 1NOana NOSa3W3 ~ow3a~ Qayal'J 1Q70BWnH oNlnal s3wyr xoNH Nv~oi NY'JaOW NO1M3N aaAno ~ 3AV NN3d ~ N33n0 3 -I~ssna ~ Nvala3HS ~ ~ 1A[~'JDIIA NanBSYM ~ ~ s~ e 0 Z H1AL H16L Q MOll3j'JNOI- r V _ '~d~3~ Hl8l / V L i. Hut `` r ~ ~ NOI~JNIWOOlB H19L .~ Q (n Q HioL HuL ~ H1t L ((,,~~ f'- ~ ~ 1 ti13 V Z OJV01H:1- Sf18W(Y100 Q ? ~ Z ~ ONV~~I~vOd 3nvaNV7ia ~ ~ ~3 3 d ~ Z ~"' H~~ NoiNlx~ Z W Z aa¢ ~ W aNz W ~Wy W Li sN3n3ts '3AV 13710JIN o- ~ v O Z „~~,,,~ Hlaonux3nn ~ W _~ A21f18Sllld 1NVSV31d ~ > W [~ ONV2KJ l3RRIVFI W ~ ~" Q '3/1v37aaNAl H~ILg7v 1NVA218 W 1NOdna w Q W NOS213W3 ~~~ ~ aaval~ ~. ~ ~ W L0108W(1H flNUWI ~V/ ~ ~..~ Li. T Q S3WVP ~1 I.f. L. ~ 2f3A110 = 3AV NN3d j N33ftb , Z ~ r+ ~ Nvala3HS ~ ~ ~,In ~ I N21f18SdM T anYSaxa3x ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~.-~ _ _ _ ~ ffi ~ /~ ~~ rn rn Z w z C O '3AV LW30 N Hle~ > 'a ~~ H1Lt ~ f~q H191 m ~~ NOIJNI-Y0018 w ~ tq HlYL ~ ~ ~ U HteL Z` ~` N_ •~ HuL `" 'C ~ D HILL C C HLOL 0 0 C C i 101713 ~ .C C '~j ~ OEWJIHO t6 lC ~ C S~9 ~ Q Q LL LL aNVOnno i i c ~' c anvaavuaod •o o ~ °~ ~ ,`~ a` a` NoUllx~ C C C C a>~ x sran3ts ~ ~ ~ ~"~ isL > > av'i '3AV 1311001N N N ?130SN78 y N m ,M ~ ~ ~ ~ A21f185TNd ~ 'a 1Ntl51/37d ~ ~ ,~ m ~ V V ,~ C 013L~l1VJ ~ ~ C J '3AV31WNA1 ~ • ~ ~ ~ •• H~ILOIV • ~ ~/ '~/~ !lNJQl9 ~ • • XvdlO:) :.: iii •~i 1Ji0dflQ NOSl13W3 aLl/Mp ~ lO'IOeNIfIH tL ONYWI o >P O XOI~DI ~ NtlJ01 p 1'Id`J210W O NO1M3N M >~~ O 3AVNt~3d o N N33f10 -n3ssna o° Nviaa~ls o svwoHl ~' Noldn i1~Nln o NlJf1BSYM anvsaxa3x o 0 0 ~, iii ~ ~ w ~ h w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, w w ~ a o ~ e a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~z ~ (j o~vau-a ~ V W Z . snewmoo Havd ~ aNV'DIVO O ~AV ONV11?X~ ~~ a i-- ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~~ w w ~ Q ~~3AV t3„aolN O Q Z AFIliIOJVIIN3M -~ > ~~ W ` .~~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ / -~-., ~ '. --., ~~ ;,..t., _ ..~---~ r U H1YL~ \ Q W H~t H1ZL~ Hll l ~ ~// IL ''nn V . H1AL ~ Q Z ^ lORl3 '..~ - V OJV~IH~ V snewmoa W ~ HaVd ON1fDN0 ~AV4NYllaod 3 ~/ LL ~ H1S H16 O. !- No1Nna ~ ~,~, Z aas ~ W aNL W ~ sr°"3.>s 1sL W3AV13110'JIN ~. 0 ~ I~OSIV18 Z V H1210MiN3M Q Z ~anesnld w ONYa'J w '~~ o F- ~-~-~ W ~ anv ~vaN~i ~ ~ Q falaaiv .wvula Q xv~oo W 1NOdn° W ~ NOSa3W3 1Nowaad LL. ~ aavals = lmoewnH ~ (jJ ~Nlnal ...1 Q s3wvr xoNH NM'JOl Z NVJaOW / "" N01M3N ~ a3nno ~ ' 3/1V NN3d Nino ~ mssna ~ NvataaHS ~ ~ SVWOHl ~ r NanBSYM ~ i ~ 3AV S~(a3X C' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~_~3 z Q W Z 7 '3Ad 2Na3~ H18t ~ H111 H19L - NOl'JNIWOOlB 'a H1SI. ~ . H14t ~ - H1£L ~ - H1Zl ~ .-. HILL H1AL ~ U 'C N ions ~ ~ 0 = O~J'dJIFq ~ ~ snewmoa o c . HilYd '~ V C ONd~IVO ~ ~ C '3/1V ~NVllaOd ~ HLS HlY V p~ C No1Nra 'o ~ ~ oas a `? aNZ ~ c sN~A71C ~ X lsL ~ 3Atl 13Tt001N O ~ TG30SIV'19 ~ a ~ fuaauur,3M i 3 Aanesnw m aNY21°J 'a m t3laavH ~ ~ ~~a 3AV 31tlONAl ~ J>+ lrlv~ae : "• xv~ 1NOdna • NOSa3'Y3 `~ i 1NOW321d aaval~ lmaewnH ~ ~N~nal LL s3wvr ° xora ° NVJOI v ~~ o N01M3N ° O. a3An0 M r 3nv NN3d o' Nino p° -»ssna ~ Nvala3HS c SVWOHl O ° Nolan 1reoNti Nan831/M p 3AV S3I(a3K O O ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ • Exhibit E ~~~ As of June 3, 1999 Draft for City Council Review ~. ~ .- .. MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA J • RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF 1\~IINNESOTA Public Hearing: June 14, 1999 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 II E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com ~^ `~ ~s 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 B. Statement of Public Purpose ..................................... 1-1 Subsection F. Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area .............. 1-1 Subsection G. Parcels for Acquisition ............................. ........... 1-1 Subsection J. Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area ................. 1-2 APPENDIX A -BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ..................................................................... A-1 • '710 SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDS i~ELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include expanding the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; clarifying parcels to be acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Richfield; and modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to include the establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection B. Statement of Public Purpose See also the State of Public purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993. Subsection F. Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area The boundary for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is being expanded to confrom with current redevelopment plan areas and to include the area in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax IncrementFinancing District... See Appendix A of this Modification to the Redevelopment Program for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection G. Parcels for Acquisition The Housing and Redevelopment Authority may acquire the parcels listed in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. However, it is anticipated that the developers will be responsible for acquisition related to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. City of Richfield Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area 1-1 i~~ In addition, the following parcels have been designated for acquisition: • • Parcel number 26-028-23-32-0033 26-028-23-31-0046 34-028-23-34-0067 34-028-24-34-0070 34-028-34-34-0049 34-028-34-34-0068 34-028-34-34-0052 28-028-24-33-0069 28-028-24-33-0068 28-028-24-33-0067 28-028-24-33-0066 28-028-24-33-0065 28-028-24-33-0064 28-028-24-33-0063 Use Housing Retail space Housing Mortuary Housing Housing City Garage Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Housing and storm water retention Subsection J. Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area The Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is hereby modified to include redevelopment and development activities to facilitate the construction of the following projects: a. Motel Conference b. Office buildings c. Retail Facilities d. Apartments e. .Town homes f. Senior housing City of Richfield Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area I-2 7-~f8 APPENDIX A BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE MODIFIED RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA • City of Richfield Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area A-1 ~~i'n ll~ v' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ HSgNV1S ONZL ~sLZ ~~ H10Z Hl6l NW f.I.. a V W O La r CW G a O J W W 0 W ...~ W LL V ~J nor---~ i ii a ii ~~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~- w Z C S 'C '3AV 2NQ30 V] H181 ~ •~ / HItL ~ ~ H19L ~ ~ NOl°JNIWOOlB H1SL ~ ~' HlYL ,a ,a - H1EL ~ ~ N1Zl O O H1Lt .Q ~ H1Dl ~ ~ lOn'13 n' - OJVJIHO a` snewmo° ,~, ,~ ~avd O N ONVlH1/O •~ •~ 3Ad ONYt121pd ~ OL H1S a n. N011Jn0 ~ ~ O?JE °~ O O sN7Aa1S LSL > > 3Atl 13'nOJIN ~ ~ ~~ H1210M1h13M ~ ~ Aanes~nld -a -aB ~ ~ N aNVao 4= 4=- 13aiaVH U U a~l~avo ~ ~ anv 3lV°NAl ttORIQN .wvure • • • )(1/3100 • ~ • • 1.NOdnO L ..~ N062t3N13 1NOW3?!d aavalo ~ 1vloewnH ~- oNtnal oc s3wvr ov xora NvOOI o NVJ210W ~O NO~M3N a3nno 00 3flV NN3d N N33nb i-ossna o° NvalrnHS o SVWOHl Notdn ~oNln o Nan85YM 3AV S3X213X O 0 n ~ ~ n n n n 3AV S3Xa3X ~ ~ ~ H1SL H1VL Hl£L H1ZL HLLL H10L~ lon-q ~ OJVOIFp snewmoo HLitld ONVlNNO 3nv aNVUaod 3 ~ ,~, 3 C NO d~ ~ [ aNZ ~ sNan~s is L ' 3Ad 13T7001N ,~aslv,e H1aofVUN9M „I~ 1NVSV~d aNVao 13R121VH a-nldavo 3/-V 3lVONAI FtO1LIOly 1NVA?J8 xV3100 1NOdn0 NOS?13W3 ~onead 02~/LIt°J .imoewnH oNlna- s~nrr ~ xoNN NVJOI Nv~aow NO1M3N a3nno ~ 3AV NN3d N33nb ~ssna ~ NvalaaHS ~ ~ SYYYOIi~ ~ r N21n8SVM ~-~o •i~ Draft as of June 3, 1999 Draft for City Council Review ~. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a scattered site redevelopment district) within THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: June 14, 1999 Adopted: • 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 ~- ~l TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION II -TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATE Tf ;4 J"TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .................. 2-1 Subsection ~-1. Foreword ....................................................2-1 Subsection ~-?. Statutory Authority ............................................ 2-1 Subsection ''- ~. Statement of Objectives ...................................... .. 2-1 Subsection 2--1. Redevelopment Plan Overview ................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in the Interchange West and. Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District ................................. 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District .............................................. 2-2 Subsection 2-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............................... 2-3 Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ................ 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired . ..................................... 2-4 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ................................................. 2-5 Subsection 2-11. Sources of RevenueBonded Indebtedness .......................... 2-5 Subsection 2-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues .................. ......... 2-6 Subsection 2-13. Duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District ................................ ........... 2-6 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ... ... ............ 2-7 Subsection 2-15. Modifications to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District .............................................. 2-7 Subsection 2-16. . 2_g Administrative Expenses Subsection 2-17. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Limitation. of Increment . 2_9 Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment .......................................... 2-10 Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... 2-11 Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments ......................................... 2-11 Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ................... 2-11 Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ....................................... 2-12 Subsection 2-23. Administration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District ............................................. 2-12 Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements ............................... 2-12 Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose of the Interchange West Portion of the TIF District ..................................................2-14 Subsection 2-26. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose of the Lyndale Gateway Portion of the TIF District ..................................................2-16 Subsection 2-27. Fiscal Disparities Election ...................................... 2-17 Subsection 2-28. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ..................... 2-19 Subsection 2-29. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... 2-20 Subsection 2-30. County Road Costs ............................................ 2-20 Subsection 2-31. Economic Development and Job Creation .......................... 2-21 Subsection 2-32. Summary ................................................... 2-21 • /~~ APPENDIX A -PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. A-I APPENDIX B -BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE IN'T`ERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TIF DISTRICT ....... B-I APPENDIX C -LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TIF DISTRICT ............ C-I APPENDIX D -ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE G:4TE«'AY TIF DISTRICT .................................................... D-1 APPENDIX E -MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ...... E-I APPENDIX F -REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .................. F-I • ~-s3 • SECTION II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. Fore ~~ o rd 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 Interchange West and Lyndale C,atewdy Tax Increment Financing District ("Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Inclement Financing District"), a scattered site redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the ltichtield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2. 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 the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The Interchange West: project portion of the TIF District currently consists of 98 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The Interchange West project is created to facilitate redevelopment of existing buildings in the City of Richfield. The anticipated use is a 350 room motel, approximately 375,0000 square foot office building, a 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of retail, 100 unit apartment and 250 town homes. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan. for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The Lyndale Gateway project portion of the TIF District currently consists of 37 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The Lyndale Gateway project is created to facilitate 50,000 square feet of retail space, 151 apartments (60 of which will be low to moderate income housing) and 30 town homes in the City of Richfield. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the 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 the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan.Overview 1. Property to be Acquired -Selected property located within the Interchange West • and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District may be acquired by the City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 ~ ~~ • City or HRA and is further described in this Plan. 2. Relocation -Complete relocation services are availablepursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon ap proval ofa development agreement relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer se~iecfed properties that they may acquire within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. -}. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Subsection 2-5. Legal Descriution of Property in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of--way identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C. Please see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway 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, find that the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, 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, orportions ofaproject, within which the authorityfinds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by .buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than SOpercent 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 facil ities 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 inessential utilities andfacilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 ~~~~ partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A buildrn<, i.r not .cr7•ucturally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to fJetir buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 1 ~ Imrcefat of the cost of constructinga new structure of the same square footage and type on the. sift:. The municipality may ftnd that a building is not disqualified as structurally substattdarar under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such us the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural rc~~airs 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 municipality finds 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 1 S percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: ^ Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a scattered site redevelopment district consisting of 125 parcels ^ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F) Subsection 2-7. 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 the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 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 the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 23 • ~-~~ be payable to the City or HRA. The original local tax rate forthe Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be the local tax rate fir taxes payable 1999. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District appear in the table below. Tnterchange West T,ynriale Gateway Original Tax Capacity Value 504,008 94,594 Percent Retained by City 100% 100% Original Local Tax Rate 1.50904 1.50904 CJ Subsection 2-8. 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 the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2000. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion of Project (PTC) 4,627,058 802,197 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTO) 504.008 94.594 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 4,123,050 707,603 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $6,221,847 707,601 Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one or more ofthe following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired maybe acquired: City of Richfiel3'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 7-~5`7 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 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a pro~sal`to facilitate redevelopment of existing buildings. The City and HRA have determined that it ~ti ill be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibi 1 ity o f the development or redevelopment of property in and around the Interchange West and Lyndale Gate«av Tax- Increment Financing District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is outlined in the following table. Uses of Funds Interchange Lyndale Land Acquisition, Site Improvements Public Improvements, Public Utilities And Other Public Improvements $50,000,000 $9,000,000 Interest 47,902,000 7,953,300 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 10,878,000 1,883,700 TOTAL $108 780 000 $18 837 000 The City will be using some of the tax increment designated for land acquisition to provide down payment assistance to a variety of prospective home buyers. Estimated costs associated with the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (includingadministrativeeosts, which are considered to be spent outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2-11. Sources of RevenueBonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 ~~ ~~ . developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves he right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by apay-as-you-go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness relaeed to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $59,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt onl} upon the determination that such action is in the best interestofthe 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 H1Z4 or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer. The estimated sources of funds for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District are contained in the table below. Sources of Funds Interchange Lyndale Tax Increment $103,600,000 $17,940,000 Local Contribution 5,180,000 897,000 TOTAL $108,780,000 $18,837,000 Subsection 2-12. 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. Subsection 2-13. Duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale GatewayTax Increment Financing District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District-will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2002. Thus, it is estimated that -the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2001 due to inflation, the District will terminate in 2025. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertifythe Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 ~-s ~ Increment Financing District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-14. Estimateyd Impact on Other Taxing_Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated impact of the Interchange u"est and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 1997/1998 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity .Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 936,486,071 4,830,653 0.5158% I.S.D. No. 280 26,436,495 4,830,653 18.2727% City of Richfield 17,976,447 4,830,653 26.8721% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1998/1999 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County. 0.409940 27.17% 4,830,653 1,980,278 I.S.D. No. 280 0.721270 47.80% 4,830,653 3,484,205 City of Richfield 0.285940 18.95% 4,830,653 1,381,277 Metro 0.060350 4.00% 4,830,653 291,530 Other 0.031540 2.09% 4,830.653 152.359 Total 1.509040 100.00% 7,289,649 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. The Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be certified under the actual 1998/1999 rates. Subsection 2-15. Modifications to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Richfield RedevelopmentProject Area or the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; 2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 ~~~ or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA; 4. increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or 5. designation of additic~hal property to be acquired by the City or HRA, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District may be Induced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity b~~ the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged; the reasons and supporting facts far the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, para~raplt (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that, notwithstanding M.S.,Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District or the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Modifications to the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Flnancmg Dlstrlct In the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan. Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the City or HRA, other than: 1. amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directlyconnectedwith the physical development of the real property in the district; 2. relocation benefits paid to or services provided forpersons residing or businesses located in the .district; or 3. amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services providedby bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District up to but not to exceed. l0 percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the Richfield Redevelopment Project, Area, whichever is less. City of Richfiela'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange. West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 ~'-lt? 1 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing Di strict. fihe county may require payment ofthose expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., S`ecrion X69. 177, Subd. 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.25 percent of any increment distributed to the City or HRA and the county treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the'state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost ~t financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment Rirsuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or (b) the City or HRA has acquired property within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, or (c) the City or PIRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately March, 2002. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation ofproperty or other site preparation, including qualifred improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment frnancing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from thatparcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall.be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 ~-(02 . district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to thatparcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authorit-• shall cPrfify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shell certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of rerenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing gdi.rb•ict. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision... For purpo,cer n f this, subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or o~erring of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rt~buildiri~ of an existing street. The Cite or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gate~t ay Tax Increment Financing District by approximately March, 2003. Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District for the following purposes: 1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project; 2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget; 4. to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or HRA or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by the developer; 6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both; and 7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be paid by Hennepin County to the City of Richfield for the Tax Increment Fund of said the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The City or HRA will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and. administration. The increment funds not specified to go to the developer as reimbursement will be used for City or HRA administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs ofpublic improvement activities outside the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 7-~3 Subsection 2-19. 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 ~f the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District enlargement with a li stirs ~~ o f all propertieswithin the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 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, Suhd. 3. The CUUnty Auditor shall increase the original value ofthe Interchange West and Lyndale Gate«~ay Tai Increment Financing District by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd 4, the City has reviewed the area to be included in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and found no parcels for v~~hich building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, includingthe amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in M.S., Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following: 1. prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or 4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. In addition, the City or HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance. additional public costs in the Interchange West and Lyndale .Gateway Tax Increment Financing District or the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-21. .Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. S, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement City of RichfielcTax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-i l r ~~ • for the development or redevelopmentofthe property acquired and which provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Scrction 4b9.177, Subd. 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District which estab I i shcs a minimum market value ofthe land and completed improvements for the duration ofthe Tnterchan ~~e `'b'est and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The assessment agreement shall he presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in .the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-23. Administration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District Administration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will be handled by the HRA Director of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements- A. Filing with State Auditor, County Auditor, County Board and School Board: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. S, the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts, including the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. The report shall be filed with the County Board, County Auditor, School Board, and the State. Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall include the following information: 1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account; 2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; 3. .the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding bond indebtedness; 4. the original net tax capacity of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; 5. the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or I-IRA; 6. -the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 7. the tax increment received; and 8. any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment financing plan. B. Newspaper Statement: M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. S also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City showing: 1. the tax increment received and expended in that year, 2. the original net tax capacity, 3. captured net tax capacity, City of RichfielcTax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 4. amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness, ~~ ~S . 5. the amount of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District's increment paid to other governmental bodies, 6. the amount paid for administrative costs, 7. the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, and 8. au~ additional information the City or HRA deems necessary. C. State Auditor filing for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 6, the City or HRA must annually submit to the State Auditor, on ar before August 1, a financial report which sha1L• 1. provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in the Interchange West. and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; 2. permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial reports; 3. permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District or that is funded in part or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other tax increment districts or with public money; and 4. be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial report must also include the following: 1. the original net tax capacity of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District; 2. the captured net tax capacity of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, including the amount of any captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the amount budgeted under the Plan, -and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories (for the reporting period and for the duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District): a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvements or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other similar public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city; e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or other similar public improvements; and - 4. the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for properties sold to developers); 5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. D. State Auditor .filing for all Tax Increment Financing Districts: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, City of ltichfiel3'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 ~~~~ Subd. 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report to the State Auditor before or on August 1 of each year the following amounts for the entire City: 1. the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the prel~ious calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current .calendar year on: O gcncral obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds; and for each ta.~ increment financing district within the City: I . the type of tax increment financing district; 2: the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements and the uses of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended outside of each district; and 6. any additional information that the State Auditor may require. Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by Section 469.175 sudb. 5, 6 and 6a, the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to hold the distribution of tax increment from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. Subsection 2-25. MunicipalApprovaland PublicPurpose oftheInterchange West Portion ofthe TIF District The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West Tax IncrementFinancing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Interchange West portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469. I74, Subd. 10(a)(1). Interchange West portion consists of 98 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent ofthe buildings in the Interchange West portion of the Tax Increment Financing District, not. including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be City of Richfiela'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax .Increment Financing District 2-14 / ~~~ • 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 incrementfi~zancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the pro~nsed devc~lnp>reent after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maxinn~m dr~ration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted 1?.y the Plan. The pr~~posed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur snlc~h t{rrou,~hprivateinvestmentwithinthereasonablyforeseeablefuture: Thisfindingissupported b~~ the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount ofcommercial/industrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements,thisproject infeasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix F). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax incrementfinancing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration ofthe TIFDistrictpermitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $129,303,942. The present value of tax increments from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $28,175,217. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $101,128,725 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. T'he Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. City of RichfielcTax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-IS ~~~~ 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Ta~c Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement of substandard properties, increased tai base of the State and add a high quality development to the City.. Subsection2-2G. MunicinalAnnrovalandPublicPuraoseoftheLvndaleGatewayPortionoftheTIF District The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M. S., Section 469..174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The Lyndale Gateway portion of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District consists of 37 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Lyndale Gateway project are occupied by buildings, streets; utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Lyndale Gateway project, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F). 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 incrementfinancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solelythroughprivate investmentwithin thereasonablyforeseeablefuture: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's- objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limitedamount ofcommercial/industrial property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see attachment in Appendix F). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 ~-~~ of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum durrrti~f2 of the TIFDistrict permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cast of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible «ithout tax increment assistance. This site has been marketed for at least 14 yearswithout success. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly; the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the lnterchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all developmenf which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, the total increase in market value would be up to $24,646,406. The present value of tax increments from the Lyndale Gateway project in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $4,339,493. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $20,306,913 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, site improvements, public improvements and redevelopment in the general area of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 25, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Lyndale Gateway project of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment and housing opportunities in the City and the State of Minnesota, the replacement 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 2-27. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City or HRA may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: City of Richfiel3'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-17 ~~~~ (1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the origin~rl net tar capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net rar capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacrh ~ is lcss than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less arrv portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax incrementfinancing plan, try s{tare with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the ~rutharity. (?~ The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determininglocal taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the Interchange West and Lyndale GatewayTaxIncrementFinancingDistrict)are followed, the following method ofcomputation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the d Terence between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax incrementfinancing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall excl ude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity. of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The City or HRA shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method of computation of fiscal disparities the City or HRA elected. The City of Richfield will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S.,.Section 469.177, Subd. 3: City of Richfiela'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-18 ~-~ I (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect io change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method ira paragraph (b). Subsection 2-28. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the Plan"' The re~~enues shall be used to finance, or otherwise .pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision shall not prohibit the use ofrevenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District must be expended on activities in the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing .District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the. proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. S. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, City of Richfiela'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-19 / ~„" .and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City or HRA, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-29. State Tax Increment Financing Aid Pursuant to M.S.. Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (RAGA) second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured ta.~ 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-RAGA penalty. The Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District is exempt from the LGA-RAGA 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 HIZA, 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- HACApenalty. The City or HIZA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 5 percent of annual tax increment for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District, 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 2-30. County 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. The city has hired traffic consultants to mitigate any traffic impacts on 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. City of Richfield'ax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-20 7-~3 Subsection 2-31. Economic Development and Job Creation To the extent applicable, thc:City or HRA agrees to comply with M.S., Section 116J.991, which states that a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes, including tax increment fi nancing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix E). Subsection 2-32. Suiumary The Cit}' of Richfield is establishingthe Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportun ides in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the InterchangeWest and Lyndale Gateway Tax lncrement Financing District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Rose~~ille, Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (651) 697-8500. City of RichfielcTax Increment Financing Plan for the Interchange West and Lyndale Gateway Tax Increment Financing District 2-21 ~-~~ APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Interchange West project portion ofthe TIF District currently consists of 98 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights=of-way° The Interchange West project is created to facilitate redevelopment of existing buildings in the City of Richfield. The proposed use is a 350 room motel, approximately 375,0000 square foot office hu i Idii~g, `a 50,000 to 70,000 square feet of retail, 100 unit apartment and 250 town homes The L~ ndale Gateway project portion ofthe TIF:District currently consists,of 37 parcels ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of--way. The uses proposed for the Lyndale Gateway project includes 50,000 square feet of reta i I,space, 151 apartments (60 of which will be low to moderate income housing) and 30 town homes in the City of Richfield. Tax increment revenues will be used to pay for the costs of land acquisition, site improvements, public improvements, public utilities. The City will be using some of the tax increment designated for land acquisition to provide down payment assistance to a variety of prospective home buyers. APPENDIx A-i ~-7S APPENDIX B BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE INTER-CHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT APPENDIX B-I aa:;x " HSIONVIS aNZZ C~ ~~ H1UZ H16~ MOl"B~'JNOI '3AVad030 ~~~~--~r H18L •^+ cul`F H19L ' OC^~I~~--_~~0~~ NOl~JNIW00'78 ~~0~~~~-'--~0~~ H1YL H1£ L H1Zt H1L~~ H1Al~ lOnl3 O'JVOIFtO ~ C snawmoo Havd ON1fDM0 anv aNVilaod 3 ~ ~, 3 C NO a~ ONZ sN7Aa1Q 1st 3AV J3'nOOIN I~OSNlB FLCa0AA1N3M ~.anesnld 1NVSVaid aNVao 131aavH o~l~avo anv 3'NONA~ Holaoiv lrrvxae xv~'loo 1NOana ~ NOSa3W3 1NOwaa~ oavalo lmoewnH ~Nlnal s~vvr xoNH Nvoo~ Nvoaow N01M3N aanno ~ anv NN3d ~ Nino ~ n3ssna C NvO~FHiSl ~ C Nol~dn ~ C NanBSVM 3AV S3X213X ~~ r ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~i ~i ~ x x x x x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3AV av030 H181 ~ H1Ll H19L NOl~JNIWOOlB H1S L H1YL - H1£~ - H1Zl Hlt~ H10~ lORl3 OJVOIFIO snewmoo HaHd ONY7NV0 3nv aNVilaod C H1S Hl- NO1Nn0 Oa£ ONL sNanals 1st 3AV 1311001N l'60SIV18 ~anesnw aNVao lalaavH m3l~avo anv alvaNxi falamv 1NVAae xv~oo 1NOdna NOSa3W3 1Now3a~ aavalo 1.moewnH oNlnal s~wr 7-- / z w Z ~ ~ O 'S 'v ~ N ~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .a ~ N U U N N ~O ~O a. n. m a~i t.~. Q. O O N N > > ~ ~ N N ~ 'a N N ~. U ~ ~ .. s.: Nvooi Nvoaow NOlAh3N aenno 3nv NN3d Nino ~ssna NVOIa3HS SVWOHl Nolan ~~ Nan85YM 3AV S3Xa3X ~~ ~ h O ~ ~ ~ aavz HSpNd1S UNZZ 1StZ HlOZ Z H161 Q L MOll3d'JNOI- ~ rI _ '... V '3Ad aVO3~ H18t _ ~ 1 /~/ \./ L i. H1Ll ` H19L w ~ ~/ , NOI~JNIWOOl9 H15t ~ w Q (n 0 tu>~t ~y ~ ~ H18t- Hut IL a c~ ? ~o~ ~ Z ~ 101713 V Q W Z Q Z ~lavd aNdi)Id0 o ~ ~ N 3Ad®Jd11aOd~ iAi ` . LL r Hl- ~i ~ Z No~lx~ ~ ZZW ~~ (j~ W W sN3A3is 1St S ~N/ A W I.f • '3Ad 13l'IOOIN O N U LL ~ T30SM8 H1210MU1J3M ,..~ ~ W Z Aal18S711d 1Ndsd3ld ~ > W ~(~ ONdaJ 131aavH L a H~R10N IIw~ ~ {/J 1N'dAaB xd~ o~~ ~~ NOSa3W3 _W Q W 1NOW3a~ ~ a2MJIJ ~. j r ~ W V 1A108Wf1H ~JNIA2il J Q Q s3wvr X~ i. Nb`JOI NVJ210W NO f1 W ~ ~~ J '3AdNN3d 3 N33no Z -n3ssna ~ Ndaw3HS ~ ~ SdWOHl Nolan 1N3~WIA NaftBSYM ~ i 3Ad S3Xa3X ~~ rn 0 ~ r r r= ~ ~ ~ (p fQ M fA tl1 fp t" 2 2 = 2 Z 2 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~- ~ LL! Z 7 FF F=- y ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ H n F n = ~ _=r F H -7/~~ y ~ _ _ C O '3Ad MA03~ t/l H18L •~ ~ ~ H1Lt L N H19t m ~ NOl'JNIWOOIB ~ ~ ~- HLBt N !q " ~ (p ( ,' ~ tu-t y H1Zt '~ ~ 0 Q Hltt C f` C N10t ~ ~ G lOlll3 .L2 .a ~ ~(j OJtl.Mtq tQ (3 Rf ' St1E ~ )IaVd Q Q u- LL ONYDIVO V V C ~ '3AdOt~ld'tlaOd ~ 0 ~ 0 m ~ ~ ` ~ a a ~' , NOJNfp ~ ~ C c aaE x ~ sN~ts ~ ~ ~ ~ 1St ~ ~ 3 '3Ad J3ll0OiN N N ~ ~ 773~SM9 Q j m H1aQMW3M ~ ~ ~ Aaf1BSl11d ~ ~ ~ 1MJSY31d ~ V t]NV!!'J t•:. t... '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~ Ol3L~J!!VJ '3Ad3TWNAl • • • • • • H~tiQIV • • ~'~ • • \r) N 1NVAas . • Xd~ : .: • :.: ~ .: ~~ NOSa3W3 1NOW3ad OadalJ ~ 10108W(1H ll. 'JNI/tLl p ' O S3WVI ° xorol v ~~ o o Nv~aoW NO1M3N ~~ O 3AtlNN3d ~ N N33110 il3ssna o Ndala3HS ° 0 SdWOHl `- Nolan 1N3~NIA p Naf1SStlM '3Ad S3Xa3X p, O O r ~ N N f~q fA !~O H %~ F- N y W y J ~ O ~ S = S = 2 2 S~~ C Z K F F=- _ n r ~ ~ n APPENDIX C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • • ~~~~ APPENDIX C-1 ~-~9 • • Interchange West Address Address PID 7601 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0037 7609 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0036 7615 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0035 7621 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0034 7627 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0033 7633 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0032 7639 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0031 7649 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0012 7600 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0021 7604 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0022 7610 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0023 7614 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0024 7620 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0025 7624 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0026 7628 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0027 7634 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0028 7638 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0029 7644 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0030 7601 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0064 7609 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0063 7615 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0089 7621 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0088 7627 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0087 7633 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0062 7639 Oliver Avenue 33-028-24-33-0061 7645 Oliver Avenue ~ 33-028-24-33-0060 7600 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0052 7608 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0053 7614 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0054 7620 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0055 7626 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0056 7632 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0057 7638 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0058 7644 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0059 7601 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0078 7605 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0079 7611 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0080 7617 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0081 7623 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0082 7629 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0083 7633 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0084 7639/41 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0085 7643/45 Newton Avenue 3 3-028-24-33-0086 7600 Morgan Avenue 3 3-028-24-33-0038 C] • • ~-gp 7608 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0039 7614 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0040 7620 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0041 7624 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0042 7628 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0043 7634 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0044 7638/40 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0045 7642/44 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0046 7601 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0090 7609 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0091 7615 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0047 7621 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0048 7625 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0049 7629 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0050 7639/41 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0051 7645/47 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0004 1915 76th Street 33-028-24-33-0001 7608/10 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0002 7614/16 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0015 7620/22 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0016 7626/28 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0017 7632/34 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0018 7636/38 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0019 7644/46 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0020 7601 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0006 2015/25 77th Streeet 33-028-24-33-0008 2101/09/15/21 77th Streeet 33-028-24-33-0010 7615 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0005 7629/35 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0014 7639/45 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0015 7700 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0005 7701 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-34-0007 7708 Logan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0006 7600 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0002 7608 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0003 7626 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0009 7700 Knox Avenue 33-028-24-34-0010 7701 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0013 7745 Penn Avenue 33-028-24-33-0014 7701 Newton Avenue 33-028-24-33-0009 2100 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0011 2026 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0067 2024 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0066&65 2022 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0068 2020 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0069 2016 78th Street W 33-028-24-33-0070 2000 ~ 78th Street W 3 3-028-24-33-0007 1920 78th Street W 3 3-028-24-33-0093 -D • 1900 78th Street W 33-028-24-34-0013 7701 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0094 7705 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0095 7713 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0077 7725 Morgan Avenue 33-028-24-33-0072 • ~~~~ Lyndale Gateway Address PID 7600 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0036 7608 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0037 7614-16-18 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0038 7620-26 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0039 7628 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0041 7630 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0042 7632 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0040 7634-36 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0043 7638-40 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0044 7642-42a Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0045 7644-44-1/2 Lyndale 33-028-24-44-0046 7601 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0056 7609 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0055 7615 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0054 7621 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0053 7627 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0052 7633 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0051 7639 Aldrich 33-028-24-44-0050 7601 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0078 7609-11 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0077 7613-27 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0084 7629-33 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0074 7645 Lyndale 34-028-24-33-0073 7600 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0065 7608 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0066 7614 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0067 7620 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0068 7626 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0069 7632 Gartield 34-028-24-33-0070 7638 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0071 7639 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0058 7633 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0059 7627 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0060 7621 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0061 7615 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0062 7609 Garfield 34-028-24-33-0063 7601 Ga~eld 34-028-24-33-0064 • • APPENDIX D ~-~ 3 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE GATEWAY TAX INCREMF'NT FINANCING DISTRICT BASED ON PROPOSED USES APPENDIX D-1 05/05/99 District: New Redevelopment District Inflation Rate Every 4 years 8.0000 Pay As You Go Rate 7.50 Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio EST 24.000 Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate -AREA WIDE RATE 1.620000 EST Tax Capacity (EMension) Rate -CITY RATE 1.500000 1999 Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate • CITY RATE 1.352900 EST PAY BASE BASE MARKET PROPERTY TAX VALUE TYPE CAPACI- City of Richfield -INTERCHANGE WEST Page 1 ~-~~ Percent Com lete Development T e Sq. Ft. Units PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Taxes Tax Capacity Per Total Minus S . FtJUnit Taxes Fis. Dis. Total Tax Capacity Tax Rate Market Value a able 70.00 % Motel 245 $3,000.00 735,000 412,891 543,277 3.25% 15,522,212 2001 30.00 % Motel 105 $3,000.00 315,000 176,953 232,833 3.25% 6,652,376 2002 70.00% Office-1 131,250 $7.00 918,750 516,114 679,097 3.25% 19,402,764 2001 30.00 % Office - 1 56,250 $7.00 393,750 221,192 291,041 3.25 % 8,315,470 2002 50.00% Office - 2 93,750 $7.00 656,250 368,653 485,069 3.25°~ 13,859,117 2001 50.00% Office-2 93,750 $7.00 656,250 368,653 485,069 3.25% /3,859,117 2002 100.00% Car Dealership 40,575 $6.00 243,450 136,760 179,947 3.25% 5,141,337 2001 100.00% Restaurant 8,700 $8.50 73,950 41,542 54,660 3.25°h 1,561,725 2001 100.00% Apartment 100 $2,009.06 200,906 148,500 148,500 2.25% 6,600,000 2001 Based on 66,000 Per Unit 100.00% Retail 12,000 $5.50 66,000 37,076 48,784 3.25% 1,393,831 2001 Town tromes 125 $2,638.16 329,769 243,750 243,750 1 °/d1.6% 18,750,000 2001 Town homes 125 $2,636.16 329,769 243,750 243,750 1%/1.6% 18,750,000 2002 TOTALS 4,918,844 2,915,831 3,635,778 129,807,950 BUT /FOR ANALYSIS Curcent Market Value -Est. 504,008 New Market Value -Est. 129,807,950 Difference 129,303,942 Presets Value of Tax Increment 28,175,217 Difference 101,128,725 Value t.ikel to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 101,128,725 • RI100- Prepared by Ehlers -Please review all assumptions. PLAN-1.WK4 05/05/99 City of Richfield -INTERCHANGE WEST Page 2 ~~ ' TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Captured Semi-Annual Admin Trust Semi-Annual Local Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Payment Fund Net Tax Match Yrs. Mth. Yr. Ca acit C acit Ca acit Increment 10.25% 15.00 % Increment 5.00 % Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02-01 1999 504,008 504,008 0.0 08-01 1999 0.0 08-01 1999 504,008 504,008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2000 0.0 02-01 2000 504,008 504,008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-Ot 2000 0.0 OS-Ot 2000 504,008 504,008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 0.0 02-07 2001 504,008 1,905,284 1,401,276 947,893 (97,159) (142,184) 708,550 47,395 0.5 08.01 2001 0.5 08-Ot .2001 504,008 1,905,284 1,401,276 947,893 (97,159) (142,184) 708,550 47,395 1.0 02-01 2002 1.0 02-01 2002 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 1,219,530 81,574 1.5 08.01 2002 1.5 OS-01 2002 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 1,219,530 81,574 2.0 02-01 2003 2.0 02-01 2003 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 1,219,530 81,574 2.5 08-01 2003 2.5 08-01 2003 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 1,219,530 81,574 3.0 02-Ot 2004 3.0 02-Ot 2004 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 .1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 7,219,530 81,574 3.5 08-Ot 2004 3.5 OS-01 2004 504,008 2,915,831 2,411,823 1,631,478 (167,226) (244,722) 1,219,530 81,574 4.0 02-Ot 2005 4.0 02-01 2005 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 .(183,400) .(268,391) 1,337,480 .89,464 4.5 08-01 2005 4.5 08-01 2005 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 5.0 02-01 2006 5.0 02-01 2006 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 5.5 OS-O7 2006 5.5 OS-Ot 2006 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 6.0 02-01 2007 6.0 02-01 2007 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 6.5 08-Ot 2007 6.5 08-01 2007 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 7.0 02-01 2008 7.0 02-01 2008 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 (183,400) (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 7.5 08-01 2008 7.5 08-01 2008 504,008 3,149,098 2,645,090 1,789,271 .(183,400). (268,391) 1,337,480 89,464 8.0 02-Ot 2009 8.0 02-Ot 2009 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 8.5 08-01 2009 S.5 08-01 2009 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 9.0 02-Ot 2010 9.0 02-01 2010 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 9.5 08-01 2010 9.5 08-Ot 2010 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 10.0 02-01 2011 10.0 02-Ot 2011 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 10.5 OS-01 2011 10.5 08-01 2011 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 11.0 02.01 2012 11.0 02-01 2012 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 11.5 OB-01 2012 11.5 08-01 2012 504,008 3,401,026 2,897,018 1,959,688 (200,868) (293,953) 1,464,867 97,984 12.0 02-Ot 2013 12.0 02-01 2013 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 12.5 08-01 2013 12.5 08-01 2013 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 .13.0 02.01 2014 13.0 02-Ot 2014 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 13.5 OB-01 2014 13.5 08-01 2014 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 14.0 02-01 2015 14.0 02-01 2015 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 14.5 08-01 2015 14.5 08-01 2015 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 15.0 02-01 2016 15.0 02-01 2016 504,008 3,673,108. 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 15.5 08-01 2016 15.5 08-01 2016 504,008 3,673,108 3,169,100 2,143,738 (219,733) (321,561) 1,602,444 107,187 16.0 02-01 2017 16.0 02-01 2017 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 16.5 OB-01 2017 16.5 OS-Oi 2017 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351-,377) 1,751,027 117,126 17.0 02-Ot 2018 17.0 02-01 2018 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 17.5 08-01 2018 17.5 08-01 2018 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 18.0 02-07 2019 18.0 02-01 2019 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 18.5 OB-Ot 2019 18.5 08-Ot 2019 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 19.0 02-01 2020 19.0 02-01 2020 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 19.5 08.01 2020 19.5 OS-01 2020 504,008 3,966,957 3,462,949 2,342,512 (240,107) (351,377) 1,751,027 117,126 20.0 02-Ot 2021 20.0 02-01 2021 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 20.5 08-01 2021 20.5 08.01 2021 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 21.0 02-01 2022 21.0 02-Ot 2022 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 21.5 08-01 2022 21.5 08-01 2022 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 22.0 02-01 2023 22.0 02-Ot 2023 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 22.5 08-Ot 2023 22.5 08-Ot 2023 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 23.0 02-01 2024 23.0 02-01 2024 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 23.5 08-01 2024 23.5 08-Ot 2024 504,008 4,284,313 3,780,305 2,557,187 (262,112) (383,578) 1,911,498 127,859 24.0 02-01 2025 24.0 02-Ot 2025 504,008 4,627,058 4,123,050 2,789,037 (285,876) (418,356) 2,084,805 139,452 24.5 08-Ot 2025 24.5 OS-01 2025 504,008 4,627,058 4,123,050 2,789,037 285,876 418,356 2,084,805 139,452 25.0 02-01 2026 TOTALS 103,601,892 10,619,194) (15,540,284) 77,442,414 5,180,095 PRESENT VALUE 28,175,217 RI100- Prepared by Ehlers -Please review all assumptions. PLAN-1.WK4 05/05/99 Cdy of Richfield - LYNDALE GATEWAY Page t • BASIC ASSUMPTIONS District: New Redevelopment District Inflation Rate Every d years 8.0000 Pay AS You Go Rate 8.00°/ Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 17.176% 1999 Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate • AREA W IDE RATE 1.620000 EST Tax Capacity (Exension) Rate -CITY RATE 1.500000 1999 Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate -CITY RATE 1.352900 2001 BASE TAX CAPACITY BASE BASE MARKET PROPERTY TAX PID VALUE TYPE CAPACITY 33-028-24-44-0036 168,000 2.25%-3.25% 3,960 7600 West•Lyn 33-028-24.44-0037 174,000 2.25%-3.25% 4,155 7608-12 West-Lyn 33.028-24-44-0038 260,000 2.25%-3.25% 6,950 7614-18 West-Lyn 33-028-24-44-0039 245,000 2.25 % 3.25 % 6,463 .7620-26 West-Lyn 33-028.24.44-0040 109,000 2.25%-3.25% 2,453 7632 West-Lyn 33-028-24-44.0041 89,000 2.25 % 3.25 % 2,003 7628 West-Lyn 33-028-24.44-0042 110,000 2.25%3.25% 2,475 7630 West-Lyn 33.028.24.44.0043 101,000 2.25% 3.25% 2.273 7634.36 West•Lyn 33-028-24-44-0044 92,000 2.25%3.25% 2,070 7638.40 West-Lyn 33.028-24-44-0045 120,000 2.25%3.25% 2,700 7642 West•Lyn 33-028-24-44-0046 116,000 2.25%•3.25% 2,655 7644 West-L Subtotal 1,586,000 38,155 34-028-24-33-0078 122,000 2.25 % 2,745 7601 East-Lyn 34-028.24.33.0077 235,000 2.25°k 5,288 7609-11 East-Lyn 34-028-24-33-0073 0 2.25% 0 0 34-028-24.33.0084 315,000 2.25 % 7,088 7615-27 East-Lyn 34-028-24.33-0074 147.000 2.25% 3,308 7629-33 East•L Subtotal 819,000 18,428 33-028-24-44.0056 137,000 2.25%3.25% 3,083 7601 Aldrich 33-028-2444.0055 94,000 2.25%-3.25% 2,115 7609 Aldrich 33-028.24-44-0054 87,000 2.25%3.25% 1,958 7615 Aldrich 33.028-24-44-0053 85,000 2.25%3.25% 1,913 7621 Aldrich 33-028-24-44.0052 87,000 2.25%3.25% 1,958 7627 Aldrich 33-028-24.44-0051 93,000 2.25°k-3.25% 2,093 7633 Aldrich 33.028-2444-0050 87,000 2.25%3.25% 1,958 7639 Aldrich Subtotal 670,000 15,075 34-028-2433-0065 92,000 2.25% 2,070 7600 W-Garfield 34-028-24.33-0066 113.000 2.25 % 2.543 7608 W-Garfield 34.028-24-33-0067 96,000 2.25% 2,160 7614 W-Garfield 34.028.24-33.0068 107,000 2.25% 2,408 7620 W-Garfield 34-028-24-33.0069 102,000 2.25% 2,295 7626 W-Garfield 34-028.24-33-0070 94,000 2.25 % 2.115 7632 W-Garfield 34.028-24-33.0071 113,000 2.25% 2,543 7638 W-Garfield Subtotal 717,000 16.133 34.028.24-33-0058 90,000 1.00%-1.6% 972 7639 E-Garfield 34-028-24-33.0059 82,000 1.00%1.6% 844 7633 E-Garfield 34.028.24.33-0060 91,000 1.00%1.6% 988 7627 E-Garfield 34-028.24.33.0061 89,000 1.00°k-1.6% 956 7621 E-Garfield 34028-24-33-0062 88,000 1.00%1.6% 940 7615 E-Garfield 34-028-24.33-0063 89,000 1.00%1.6% 956 7609 E-Garfield 34.028-2433-0064 101,000 1.00% 1.6% 1,146 7601 E-Garfield Subtotal 630,000 6,804 Total 4,422,000 94,594 Phase Development T Sq. Ft. Units PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Taxes Total Taxes Tax Capacity Per Including Minus . Ft./Unit Fis. Dis. Fis. Dis. Total Tax Capacity Tax Rate Market Value a able 1 Retail -Hardware 24,000 $4.36 104,733 62,015 74,875 2.25%3.25 % 2,350,000 2002 1 Retail -Drug Store 15,120 $4.37 66,092 39,134 47,250 2.25%3.25% 1,500,000 2002 1 Retail - 6,880 $d.35 29,951 17,735 21,413 2.25%3.25% 705,000 2002 1 Office 14,500 $5.33 77,230 45,729 55,2132.25%3.25% 1,745,000 2002 1 Office 35,400 $5.33 188,835 111,813 135,000 2.25%3.25% 4,200,000 2002 1 Apts•EastLyn 91 $2,009.06 182,824 135,135 135,135 2.25% 6,006,000 2002 1 Apts•East Lyn 60 $990.00 59,400 39,600 39,600 1.00% 3,960,000 2002 1 Town homes 30 $2,451.45 73,544 54,360 54,360 1.00%-1.6% 4,275,000 2002 TOTALS 782,610 505,520 562,845 24,741,000 ~ axes on np[s nasec on nuance[ value or 66,000 Per Unit Taxes on Townhouse Based on Market Value of 142,500 Per Unit BUT /FOR ANALYSIS Current Market Value -Est. 94,594 New Market Value -Est. 24,741,000 Difference 24,646,406 Present Value of Tax Increment 4,339,493 Difference 20,306,913 Value Likel to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 20,306,913 ~~L/ R1100- Prepared by Ehlers Inc. -Please review all assumptions. Plan-1.WK4 05/05/99 Ciry of Richfield - LYNDALE GATEWAY Page 2 ~_ V ' TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Captured Semi-Arihual Admin Trust Fund Semi•Annual Local Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Payment Payment Net Tax Match Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacit Capacit Capacit Increment 10.25% 75.00% Increment 5.00% Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02-Oi 1999 94,594 94,594 08.01 1999 0.0 08-01 1999 94,594 94,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2000 0.0 02-01 2000 94,594 94,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 OB-O1 2000 0.0 OB-O7 2000 94,594 94,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 0.0 02-Ot 2001 94,594 94,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-07 2001 0.0 08-01 2001 94,594 94,594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-Ot 2002 0.0 02-Ot 2002 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 0.5 08-01 2002 0.5 08-01 2002 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 1.0 02.01 2003 1.0 02-07 2003 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 1.5 08.01 2003 1.5 08-01 2003 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 2.0 02-01 2004 2.0 02-01 2004 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 2.5 08-07 2004 2.5 08-Ot 2004 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 3.0 02-07 2005 3.0 02-01 2005 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) (41,696) 207,783 13,899 3.5 08-01 2005 3.5 08-Ot 2005 94,594 505,520 410,926 277,971 (28,492) .(41,696) 207,783 13,899 4.0 02-01 2006 4.0 02.01 2006 94,594 545,962 451,366 305,328 (31,296) .(45,799) 228,233 15,266 4.5 OB-01 2006 4.5 OS-01 2006 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,328 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 5.0 02-01 2007 5.0 02-Oi 2007 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,328 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 5.5 08.01 2007 5.5 08-01 2007 94,594 545,962 451,366 305,328 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 6.0 02-01 2008 6.0 02-Oi 2008 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,328 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 6.5 08.01 2008 6.5 08-01 2008 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,328 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 7.0 02-01 2009 7.0 02-01 2009 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,328 (31,296) (45.799) 228,233 15,266 7.5 08-01 2009 7.5 08-ot 2009 94,594 545,962 451,368 305,326 (31,296) (45,799) 228,233 15,266 8.0 02-01 2010 8.0 02-Ot 2010 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 8.5 08-01 2010 8.5 08.01 2010 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 9.0 02.01 2011 9.0 02-Ot 2011 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 9.5 08-01 2011 9.5 08-01 2011 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 10.0 02-01 2012 10.0 02-Ot 2012 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250.318 16,744 10.5 OB-Ot 2012 10.5 08-01 2012 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 11.0 02.01 2013 11.0 02-Oi 2013 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,316 16,744 11.5 08-01 2013 11.5 08-01 2013 94,594 589,639 495,045 334,873 (34,325) (50,231) 250,318 16,744 12.0 02-01 2014 12.0 02-01 2014 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18,339 12.5 OB-O7 2014 12.5 08.01 2014 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18,339 13.0 02.01 2015 13.0 02-01 2015 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18,339 13.5 08.01 2015 13.5 08.01 2015 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,077) 274,170 18,339 14.0 02-01 2016 14.0 02-Ot 2016 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,762 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18,339 14.5 08-0/ 2016 14.5 08-01 2016 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18,339 15.0 02.01 2017 15.0 02-01 .2017 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,762 (37,595) (55,017) 274,170 18.339 I5.5 OB-O1 2017 15.5 08-01 2017 94,594 636,810 542,216 366,782 (37,595) (55,017). 274,170 16,339 16.0 02-01 2018 16.0 02.01 2018 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) {60,187) 299,930 20,062 16.5 08.01 2018 16.5 08-01 2018 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 17.0. 02-Ot 2019 17.0 02-01 2019 94,594 687,755 593,16/ 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 17.5 OB-01 2019 17.5 08-Oi 2019 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 18.0 02-01 2020 18.0 02-01 2020 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 18.5 08-07 2020 18.5 OB-Ot 2020 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 19.0 02.01 2021 19.0 02-Ot 2021 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 19.5 08-01 2021 19.5 08.01 2021 94,594 687,755 593,161 401,244 (41,127) (60,187) 299,930 20,062 20.0 02-01 2022 20.0 02-Oi 2022 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 20.5 08.01 2022 20.5 08-01 2022 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 21.0 02-01 2023 21.0 02-01 2023 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 21.5 08.01 2023 21.5 08-01 2023 94,594 742,775 648,161 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 22.0 02-01 2024 22.0 02.01 2024 94,594 742,775 648,181 436,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 22.5 06-01 2024 22.5 08-01 2024 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 23.0 02-01 2025 23.0 02-01 2025 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 23.5 08.01 2025 23.5 OS-01 2025 94,594 742,775 648,181 438,462 (44,942) (65,769) 327,751 21,923 24.0 02-01 2026 24.0 02-01 2026 94,594 802,197 707,603 478,658 (49,062) (71,799) .357,797 23,933 24.5 08-01 2026 24.5 OS-01 2026 94,594 802,197 707,603 478,658 (49,062 (71,799 357,797 23,933 25.0 02-Ot 2027 TOTALS 17,954,600 (1,840,347) (2,693,190) 13,421,064 897,730 PRESENT VALUE 4,339,493 RI100- Prepared by Ehlers Inc. -Please review all assumptions. - Plan-t.WK4 • APPENDIX E ~ _ p MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM p (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) • • APPENDIX E-1 ~~~NESp?.9 ~~ ~~ 3 - Trade ~conomlc Development February 12, 1999 To all Minnesota state and local government agencies: With unemployment rates at record low levels for many regions in the state, .the need for state and local economic development agencies to use taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively is greater than ever. The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DYED) created the Minnesota Business Assistance Form to assist state and local agencies in reporting their use of taxpayer dollars for business assistance and to meet the accountability measures of M.S. 1167.991. M.S. 1.167.991 requires a business receiving state or local government assistance to create a net increase in j obs in Minnesota within two years of receiving the assistance. This two-year period begins when the recipient begins to receive benefits of the assistance, i.e. when project is placed in service. The law also requires the business to meet wage level and job creation goals established by the funding agency. Until the wage and job goals aze achieved, each government agency that works with these businesses is mandated to annually report the goals and any progress towazd these goals to DYED. If the goals aze not achieved, the business must repay the assistance to the governmental agency at the terms negotiated in the assistance agreement. `Business assistance" refers to any business. grant or loan using state or local dollars in excess of $25,000 or any new business activity within a tax increment district. While not defined in statute, our interpretation is that this would include grants, loans, interest subsidies, tax increment financing (TTF) or any other public monies directly benefitting a business and given for economic development or job growth purposes. Please use the enclosed Minnesota Business Assistance Form to comply with M.S. 1167.991. This statute requires that all financial assistance agreements signed since July 1, 1995 should be reported, regazdless when the assistance was awazded, unless a form has previously been submitted indicating that the business has met the. established wage and job creation goals. Moreover, a new form should be submitted each year until DYED receives a form documenting that the business has achieved the goals. Please mail or fax your completed form(s) to DYED before April 1, 1999. The legislative report will not include any forms not postmazked or faxed by that date. The form does not need to be submitted if assistance has not been provided to a business. 'nd regards, Commissioner 500 Metro Squaze, 121 7th Place East, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146 USA 651-297-1291 •800-657-3858 • Fax 651-296-4772 • TTY/TDD 800-627-3529 www.dted.state.mn.us 1999 Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Please return by April 1,1999) Please complete lines 1 through 16 for alt agreements. ~t~txESOr (} !-~ / F.,COIl0I111C Development 1. Funding government agency name 2. Contact name 3. Agency street address 4. City 5. Zip code 6. Phone number (area code) 8. Type of government agency Ci 7. Fax number (area code) ty -County -Regional -State - _ Other (Please indicate) 9. Name of business receiving assistance 10. Industry of recipient (SIC code) 11. Type of assistance (e.g. loan, T]F, grant, inliasttuctuce, etc.) 12. Name of TIF district Cd' applicable) 13. Date of business assistance agreement 14. Date assistance fast provided 15. Date project (building/ machinery/etc.) was placed in service 16. Dollar value of business assistance For assistance agreements signed between July 1,1995 and December 31,1997, complete lines 17 through 20. For agreements signed during 1998 and future years, please. complete lines 21 through 24. 17. Job creation goals for business receiving assistance 18. Average hourly wage level goals for business receiving assistance 19. Actual jobs created since business received assistance 20. Actual average hourly wage paid to employees hired since business received assistance Goals of business receiving assistance: (Please indicate Actual perfonnance since project placed in service: (Please number of employees. at cash wage level and indicate the indicate number of employees at each wage level and indicate corresponding benefit level.) the cormsponding benefit level.) 21. Job Creation Hourly Wage 22. Houry Val 23. Job Creation Hourly Wage 24. Hourly Value Level of Voluntary Level of Voluntary Full-time Part-time (excL benefits) Benefits ($) Full-tune Part tune (excl. benefits) Benefits ($) less than $7.00 less than $7.00 $7.00 to $7.99 $7.00 to $7.99 $8.00 to $9.99 $8.00 to $9.99 $10.00 to $11.99 ~ $10.00 to $11.99 $12.00 and higher $12.00 and higher If necessary, please attach additional documentation. If necessary, please attach additional documentation. Please complete lines 25 through 27 for all agreements. 25. Last date actual wage and job creation levels documented 26. Date this Minnesota Business Assistance Form completed 27. Have all wage and job goals been achieved? Yes - do not submit future forms for this project ^ No - lease submit the 20001VfinnesotaBustness Assistance Form. This form replaces all previous forms. Please complete one form for each business assistance agreement your agency signed between July I, 1995 and December 3l, I998 which provided $25,000 or more in public funds or used tax increment financing. A form should be submitted annually for each assistance agreement until a submitted form indicates that all wage and job creation goals have been achieved Do not submit thu form if your agency has not agreed to provide assistance to a business since July I, 1995. (over) ~ZrINESpl~ ~7- ~ 1 ~ ~. Trade & , Economic Development Please send completed form annually by Apri11,1999 to: Minnesota Business Assistance Form - AEO Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Analysis and Evaluation Office 500 Metro Square 121 East 7th Place St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 or fax report to: (651)215-3841 For information, call: (651) 297-2335 or 1-800-657-3858 Minnesota Statutes 116J.991: A business that receives state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes must create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of receiving the assistance. The government agency providing the assistance must establish wage level and job creation goals to be met by the business receiving the assistance. A business that fails to meet the goals must repay the assistance to the government agency. Each government agency must report the wage and job goals and the results for each project in achieving those goals to the department of trade and economic development. The .department shall compile and publish the results of the reports for the previous calendar year by June 1 of each year. The reports of the agencies to the department and the compilation report of the department shall be made available to the public. For the purposes of this section, "assistance" means a grant or loan in excess of $25,000, or tax increment financing. • r ~~ M ~ APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT Qty.-~LIFICATIONS FOR THE INTERCHANGE WEST AND LYNDALE G.aTE«'AY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • APPENDIX F-1 ~-93 TIF Property Evaluations for Richfield, Minnesota Conducted by YHR Partners, 3989 Central Ave NE, Minneapolis, MN 55421, (612)788-5319 Interchage West District 5-Nov-98 Current percentage of properties meeting site coverage requirements 85% Current percentage of qualifying properties (based on TIF requirements) g1y, Site Coverage Coverage Code Total # of # Sub- . PID_Code Site Area (s.f.) Coverage (s.fJ (%) Quality ECI•• Buildings standard FCI Survey 9851.001-0001 12314 1302 11°k 0 20°h 1 1 42% ExteriorevaluaGon 9851.001.0002 8164 1897 23% 6164 21 % 1 1 28% Interior w/ owner pernission 9851.001-0003 13534 3582 26°k 13534 17% 1 1 39% Exterior evaluation 9851.0010004 11000 7500 66% 11000 18°,6 i 1 nla Interior w! owner permission 9851.001-0093 7425 1114 15% 7425 0 0 Na Exterarevaluation 9851.001-0005 70000 24000 34°,6 70000 3°~ 1 0 Na Interiorw/ownerpernission 9851.001-0006 40000 27060 68°,6 40000 30% 2 2 36% Interior w/ owner pertnissan 9851.001-0007 7965 1195 15% 7965 0 0 Na Exteriorevaluatan 9851.001-0008 37400 23860 64% 37400 35% 4 4 44% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0009 ` 95000 44000 46% 95000 0% 1 0 Na Interior on informal basis 9851.001-0010 10790 1216 11% 0 20% 1 1 42% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0011 200000 36000 18% 200000 0%. 0 0 Na Interior on informal basis 9851.001-0012 34000 4000 12% 0 0% 1 0 Na Interioron informal basis 9851.001-0013 9823 3472 35% 9823 18% 1 1 40% Fxbriorevaluation 9851.001.0014 9811 3408 35% 9811 18% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0015 9812 4424 45% 9812 22% 1 1 37% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0016 9813 3608 37% 9813 22% 1 1 38% Interior w/ owner permission 9851.001.0017 9814 4616 47% 9814 28% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluaton 9851.001-0018 9815 3441 35% 9815 32% 1 1 41% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0019 7428 2505 34% 7428 23% 1 1 40% Interior wl owner pernisson 9851.001.0020 7429 2499 34% 7429 19% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0021 7429 2130 29% 7429 18% 1 1 41% Fxteriorevaluation 9851.001-0022 7430 2094 28% 7430 19% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0023 9851.001.0024 7430 7431 . 2093 2064 28% 28°,6 7430 7431 20% 18% 1 1 1 1 41% Exterior evaluation 41 % Interior wl owner pemrissan 9851.001.0025 7423 2832 38% 7423 16% 1 1 38% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0026 7432 1979 27% 7432 18% 1 1 38% Interiorw/ownerpertnission 9851.001.0027 7433 .2458 33% 7433 17% 1 1 4f% Exteriorevaluafion 9851.001-0028 6909. 1782 26% 6909 18% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0029 9043 3865 43% 9043 21 % 1 1 36% Inerior wl owner permission 9851.001.0030. 9043 2878 32% 9043 15% 1 1 40% Exerior evaluation 9851.001-0031 9042 3272 36% 9042 17% 1 1 37% Exteriorevaluation 9851.001-0032 9041 3298 36% 9041 19°k 1 1 39% Exteriorevaluation 9851.001.0033 9040 2255 25% 9040 18% 1 1 41% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0034 9035 0 0% 0 0 0 0% Exteriorevaluation 9851.001.0035 9025 3885 43% 9025 25% 1 1 39% Interior wl owner pemrissan 9851.001-0036 9596 2246 23% 9596 21% 1 1 31% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0037 8296 2479 30% 8296 21% 1 1 37% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0038 8296 1754 21% 8296 20% 1 1 40% Exterrorevaluation 9851.001.0039 8301 3377 41% 8301 17% 1 1 25% In~riorw/ownerpemussan 9851.001-0040 8296 2478 30% 8296 18% 1 1 40% Exterarevaluation 9851.001.0041 8296 2780 34% 8296 21% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0042 8296 1782 21% 8296 18% 1 1 37% Exterarevaluation 9851.001.0043 10035 4028 40% 10035 19% 1 1 38% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0044 10035 3214 32% 10035 21% 1 1 42% Exteriorevaluation 9851.001.0045 8303 3755 45% 8303 17% 1 1 39% Interior wl owner pemtissan 9851.001.0046 8697 2676 31% 8697 24% 1 1 37% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0047 8697 2592 30% 8697 17% 1 1 37% Exleriorevaluation 9851.001.0048 8702 2070 24% 8702 24% 1 1 41% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0049 10035 3616 -36% 10035 15% 1 1 40% Fxteriorevaluation 9851.001-0050 10035 1344 13% 0 22% 1 1 41% Exterxxevaluafion 9851.001.0051 10036 2662 27% 10036 16% 1 1 42% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0052 10037 2266 23% 10037 16% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0053 10038 1946 19% 10038 19% 1 1 38% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0054 10039 2099 21% 10039 24% 1 1 42% Exlerarevaluation 9851.001.0055 10040 2015 20°,6 10040 16°~ 1 1 39% Exleriorevaluation 9851.001-0056 10040 2243 22% 10040 21% i 1 39% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0057 9179 2218 24% 9179 17% 1 1 42% Interiorw/owner permission 9851.001.0058 9202 2341 25% 9202 20% 1 1 40% Exteriorevaluation 9851.001-0059 10040 1912 19% 10040 24% 1 1 43% Interior w! ovmer permission 9651.001.0060 10040 3058 30X 10040 18% 1 1 41% Fxteriorevaluation 9851.0010061 10037 2140 21% 10031 21% 1 1 39% Exteriorevaluation Interchange West Summary page 1 ~~ 9851.001.0062 10035 1947 19% 10035 21% 1 1 40% ExteriorevaluaGon 9851.001.0063 3536 530 15% 3536 0 0 Na Lxtenorevaluation 9851.001.0064 .1160 324 15°~ 2160 0 0 Na Exterior evaluaton 9851.001-0065 5760 864 15% 5760 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0066 4320 648 15% 4320 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0067 4140 621 15% 4140 0 0 n/a Exleriorevaluatbn 9651.001.0068 4968 745 15% 4968 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0069 20245 3037 15% 20245 0% 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0070 20000 74000 70°,6 20000 50°,6 1 1 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0071 8481 2062 24% 8481 21% 1 1 42% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0072 8479 1683 20°k .8479 19°k 1 1 36% Exteriorevalua6on 9851.001-0073 8480 3224 38°k 8480 18% 1 1 39% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0074 8480 2270 27°~ 8480 16% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0075 8481 4179 49% 8461 18°,6 1 1 41% Interiorwlownerpertnission 9851.001-0076 8481 2214 26% 8481 13% 1 0 41% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0077 8481 1957 23% 8481 16% 1 1 38°k Exterior evaluation 9651.001-0078 10040 2682 27°,6 10040 19% 1 1 47% Exterarevaluation 9851.001-0079 10041 2526 25% 10041 14% 1 0 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0080 10039 2550 25% 10039 14% 1 0 40% Interarw/ownerpertnissan 9851.001-0061 10038 2671 27% 10038 14% 1 0 33% Interiorw/owner permission 9851.001-0082 10037 2131 21% 10037 19% 1 1 41% Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0083 10035 2299 23% 10035 22% 1 1 35% Exteriorevaluatan 9851.007-0084 10988 2723 25% 10988 25% 1 1 40% Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0085 28700 4305 15% 28700 0 0 Na Exterarevaluation 9851.001-0086 3100 2000 65% 3100 54% 1 1 n/a Interior w/owner permission 9851.001.0087 7000 3000 43% 7000 29% 1 1 Na Interiorw/ownerpemussan 9851.001.0088 12000 4000 33°~ 12000 15% 1 t Na Interior w! owner pertmissan 9851.001.0089 8000 1900 24% 8000 73% 1 1 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001-0091 43000 7000 16% 43000 29% 1 1 Na Interior w/ owner pertnissan 9851.001-0092 19100 16107 84% 19100 31% 1 1 43% Exteriorevaluafion 9851.001-0094 13600 2070 15% 13800 15% 1 1 Na Exterior evaluation 9651.001.0095 42000 17000 40% 42000 20% 2 2 Na Interiorw/pennisslExterior 9851.001.0096 1800 270 15% 1800 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0097 207776 207776 100°6 207776 13% 1 0 Na Exterior evaluatam 9851.001.0098 14960 2244 15% 14960 0 0 Na Exterior evaluation 9851.001.0099 10000 6000 60% 10000 29% 2 2 Na Intetiorw/owner permission Totals 1603148 1526974 90 82 Percentages 95% 91 'Represents information provided by Tom Goodoien, all others by YHR Partners "Code FCI is a percentage refering toxhe total code deficiencies of a property /estimated replacement value report prepared by: Notes YHR Partners Faalities Group 1) No estimate of code defciences provided 3989 Central Ave NE Ste 595 3) Narrative code defiaency calculation does not match summary id as "Substandard" 5) Lot size provided by YHR for site coverage glculation purposes P~ Q~$ Minneapolis, MN 55421 7) Code deficiencies total at least 15°k of building replacement cost. ph: (612) 7885319 fx: (612) 788-5324 email jasonQyhrcom • Interchange_West Summary paw y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 137 Agenda June 14, -1999 Issue Statement: Request by the Richfield Public Safety Department for an itinerant food license, with fee waived, for the annual Safety Camp event to be held at the Community Education Center and Veterans Memorial Park, June 15 and 16, 1999. Background: On May 13, 1999, the Richfield Public Safety Department submitted a request for an itinerant food license for June 15 and 16, 1999. They are requesting that the fee be waived. This will be the seventh year that the Safety Camp has been held. A detailed activity plan of the days' events is currently on file. Lunch and snacks will be served for all participants. Food to be served will include hot dogs, chips, candy bars, Subway sandwiches, Papa John's Pizza and canned pop. The food will be prepared and stored at the Community Center kitchen or prepared and delivered by outside businesses. The Public. Safety Department has contacted food sanitarians from the .City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends the .approval of an itinerant food license for the Public Safety .Department during Safety Camp, June 15 and 16, 1999, with the fee waived. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application and meets the requirements for fee waived. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on June 15 and 16. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the issuance and fee waiver of an itinerant food license for the Richfield Public Safety Department for the 1999 Safety Camp to be held at the Community Education Center and Veterans Memorial Park, June 15 and 16, 1999, is presented for Council consideration at this time. ully submi d, City Manager SLD:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO~fA Council Letter No. 136 • Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution to approve the renewal of a lawful gambling license, with investigation fee waived, for Church of the Assumption, 305 East 78th Street. Background: On May 19, 1999, Church of the Assumption submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct pulltabs in conjunction with bingo operation on Saturdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition,.. \ the gambling manager, Ms. Wendy Uhrich, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting the $100 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the. request for the gambling license and make its review-and recommendation to the City \, Council Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity • requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, sub. 6 and waiving the investigation fee. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant .has submitted the request within 60 days of the renewal of the license. 3. .The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request; however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigation fee. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of a resolution to renew the Church of the Assumption's lawful gambling application and the request. for waiver of the investigation fee by ng City Manager SLD:cak RESOLUTION NO. ~~~! RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL. FOR THE CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Church of the Assumption has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and. WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety. has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Church of the Assumption, 305 East 77th Street. 2. The investigation fee be waived. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~j~C Council Letter No. 135 • Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in 2000 to 2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. Background: Richfield has benefited from CDBG programs for 25 years. For example, in 1998, rehabilitation grants and loans administered by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) assisted 20 homeowners that needed affordable financing for repairs and improvements. CDBG financed acquisition and clearance of substandard homes has provided sites for 41 new or rehabilitated -homes built through the HRA's New Home Program since its inception. The City also is able to support accessibility improvements and daycare programs. Every three years a Joint Cooperation Agreement is required for the City to continue to access CDBG funds. The City cannot secure funds directly from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because it does not have a population of 50,000. As an alternative, Hennepin County is considered an entitlement entity. The County receives an allocation from HUD and then based on a formula, each participating community in the County receives a fair share of this allocation. This formula provides Richfield approximately $250,000 annually for CDBG eligible activities. Recommended. Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in Fiscal Year 2000-2002. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The CDBG program provides resources to Richfield. 2. The City and County have sustained this cooperative working relationship for 25 years. 3. There are no substantive changes to the proposed Joint Cooperation Agreement. 4. Action is required at this time to ensure an uninterrupted allocation of CDBG resources to the community. Alternative Recommendation: Discontinue participation or delay a decision. Discontinuing participation puts Richfield at a competitive disadvantage to secure a limited amount of funds presently received by formula allocations. Hennepin County must notify HUD of Richfield's intent by June 30, 1999. SLD:cak Attachment on the consent agenda. Acting City Manager l!/~r i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2000-2002 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the CDBG and HOME Programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be terminated and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 1999, and that the Mayor and the Acting City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. • Adopted by the City Council of the Ci of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th da of tY Y June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk n DRAFT ~k-~ Contract No. A18637 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. E. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is ~~~3 developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. III. AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1,1999 and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2002, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as maybe required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. COUNTY may notify COOPERATING UNIT prior to the end of the Urban County • qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be renewed unless it is terminated in writing by either party. Either COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the end of the Urban County qualification period. If COiJNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that option, it will not have the opportunity to exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County qualification period. COUNTY will notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be excluded by the date specified by HUD. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in COOPERATING UNTT's jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30,:1999. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws. 2 • IV. ACTIVITIES (nK-`~ COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out within the teens of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for fimding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specif carry agrees as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with aCOUNTY-established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program .regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. B: COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. G COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to.the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Parry Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within Twenty-Four (24) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. 1. Funds for all activities not implemented within Twenty-Four (24) months shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive basis. 2. Implementation period extensions maybe granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or subject of a binding contract to proceed. E. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. F. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply, with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. ~/ ~'~ • 'stint affirmativel further fair housin within its own 'urisdiction G. COOPERATING UNIT that doe y g J or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair. housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. H. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or COUNTY to be ineligible. J. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as maybe designated by the COUNTY. K. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding. C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other programs and/or activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. (~ ~-(o V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall. retain Ten percent (10%) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part. C and the procedure stated in part D of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to submit funding requests. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. The COUNTY will calculate, for each COOPERATING UNIT , an amount that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall . be counted twice. D. .Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: 1. COOPERATING UNIT qualifying as a Metropolitan City (having populations of at least 50,000) will receive annual funding allocations equal to the HUD formula entitlement or the COUNTY formula allocation, whichever is greater. 2. Other COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of $3~8A9 75,000 or more will receive funding allocations in accordance with the formula allocations. COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of less than $3A;AA8 75,000 will have their funds consolidated in a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY. Only the COOPERATING UNITS, whose funding has been pooled, will be eligible to compete for these funds. E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. 5 ~~ • VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. This agreement can be voided if the. COOPERATING UNIT is advised by:HUD, prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2000-2002, that it is eligible o become a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status.- If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING IJNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to 7uly 16, .1999, the COOPERATING UNiT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the ~e COOPERATING UI`TIT has full legal authority ` - ^^T ^`''~'" to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney • 6 ~~ U • PIN COUNTY EXECUTION VIII. HENNE The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 1999 ,and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUN'T'Y agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Attest: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Assistant County Attorney Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County. Attorney. Date: ^~t • IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNTPS governing body having duly approved this Agreement on ,1999 ,and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A1$637. CITY OF By: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager ATTEST: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter May 7, 1999 8 CJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 134 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6812 Emerson Lane. Background: The owners of 6812 Emerson Lane, Milo and Carolyn Haglof, are requesting a subdivision waiver that would allow them to dedicate a narrow strip of property to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT is purchasing a small portion of land from the Haglofs for the reconstruction of the I-35W bridge at 66th Street. The purchase leaves the Haglofs with a strip of land, 10 feet by 657 feet, that used to function as an access to their property but will no longer do so given the purchase. by MnDOT. There is access to the property from Emerson Avenue. MnDOT will not purchase the entire strip of property from the Haglofs but is willing to accept the land if deeded to them. The owners want to deed the land to the State. It is necessary to subdivide the strip of property from the main parcel in order to deed it to the State. Recommended Motion: Adopt a resolution authorizing the subdivision waiver for 6812 Emerson Lane. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. Approval of the subdivision waiver would not. interfere with .the purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05. 2. Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05, Subd. 1 of the City Code would result in an unnecessary hardship. 3. The split of the property will enable the Haglofs to deed the unusable strip of land to the State. 4. The narrow strip of land is the result of the original construction of I-35W. Property around 6812 Emerson Lane was purchased for the freeway construction and the narrow strip of land was retained to provide access to the property from 66th Street. MnDOT is purchasing the north portion of that access lane so access from the property to 66th Street will no longer be available. Access is available to Emerson Avenue. • Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled on the Consent Calendar for June 14, 1999. Res ctf Ily submitte ri evic Acting City. Manager ~~ SLD:cak Attachments RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER 6812 EMERSON LANE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land generally located at 6812 Emerson Lane, legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the proposed division of land into Parcels 1 and 2 for which the subdivision waiver is sought is legally described in Exhibit B; and (~ 7-1 WHEREAS, the Subject Property is adjacent to Interstate 35W and a portion of the property is being purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for roadway purposes; and WHEREAS, the division of the Subject Property will facilitate the dedication of a portion of the property to the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the. subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is authorized. 2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels as described above as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk J ~~ a~ • EXHIBIT A CURRENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6812 EMERSON LANE That part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the West 20 acres of said. Government Lot 6; thence East along Fort Snelling and Minnetonka Road. 160 feet; thence South to shore of Wood .Lake; thence along the said Shore to the East line of said 20 acres; thence North o place of beginning, EXCEPT the North 783 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point on the West. line of Lot 6, "Vehe Addition", 16 feet North of the. Southwest corner thereof; thence West on a line parallel with the Northerly line of said Government Lot 6 a distance of 148.0 feet; thence South on a line parallel with the East line of the West 20 acres of said Government Lot 6 to its place of intersection with the Northerly line of West 68th Street; thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said West 68th Street to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7, "Vehe Addition"; thence North along the West line of said Lots 6 and 7, "Vehe Addition", to the point of beginning; AND EXCEPT That part of .Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of the following described boundary line to-wit: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 7, "Vehe Addition"; thence Southwesterly a distance of 135.35 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition", to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly on an extension of the South line of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition" to the East line of West 20 acres of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township. 28, Range 24. ALSO, The East 10 feet of the North 783 feet of that part of Government Lot 6, lying West of the West line of Payton Manor and the same extended Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: The South 12.0 feet of the North 45.0 feet of the following described tract: The East 10 feet of the North 783 feet of that part of Government Lot 6, lying West of the West line of Payton Manor and the same extended, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County Minnesota. ~J ~.~ EXHIBIT B PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW PARCELS 6812 EMERSON LANE PARCEL 1: That part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, .North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the West 20 acres of said Government Lot 6; thence -East along Fort Snelling and Minnetonka Road 160 feet; thence South to shore of Wood Lake; thence along the said Shore to the East line of said 20 acres.; thence North to place of .beginning, EXCEPT the North 783 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT that part of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point on .the West line of Lot 6, "Vehe Addition", 16 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence West on a line parallel with the Northerly line of said Government Lof 6 a distance of 148.0 feet; thence South on a line parallel with the East line of the. West 20 acres of said Government Lot 6 to its place of intersection with the Northerly line of West 68th Street; thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said West 68th Street to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 7, "Vehe Addition"; thence North along the West line- of said Lots 6 and 7, "Vehe Addition", to the point of beginning; AND EXCEPT That part of Government Lot 6, .Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, lying. South of the following -described boundary line to-wit: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 7, "Vehe Addition"; thence Southwesterly a distance of 135.35 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition", to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly on an extension of the South line of said Lot 7, "Vehe Addition" to the East line of West 20 acres of Government Lot 6, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: The South 12.0 feet of the North 45.0 feet of the following described tract: The East 10 feet of the North 783 feet of that. part of Government Lot 6, lying West of the West Fine of Payton Manor and the same extended, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County Minnesota. PARCEL 2: The East 10 feet of the North 783 feet of that part of Government Lot 6, lying West of the West line of Payton Manor and the same extended Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • • x v O i ;; / ..: ~- - - - =•T_~+ti: _ - - - - ~ - - Z ~ 100 0 - - -_TO E -° PURCHASED 6 ' I BY_MN DOT _,.,~ Pl4R E 65 ~ Q „21. ~,;~5 ~ . ~~•. ~ * ' jp~ I ~ L~ , z L1.%. o a ~ ~--- `~~ ~_E. N ST.~tEET ~ - ~~ 1 Q L~ I ~ ~1( L ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ©~ ~ O - -- i - i - ' O ' ~ fl ~ ----- -~ ' O ~ O ~ O r _ ~ d c- 1 ,© - fl ~ d o LU ~~ ~ ~ I Q ~© O p fl~ 1 r !J 3 r-N, _S"+`-~ 0 0 PARCEL MILO & CAROLYN HAGLOF 6812 EMERSON LANE P4RCEL SCALE: 1" = 100' NORTH q ~ a ~LJ~ T ~p 5 ~ a fl ~ ' O _--_ - ---- ~ _ I ~ 1 i 6 i ~ --- _ i ~ a 1 ~ i i _ l - -~ a ~I --- 7 8 i k- ~ i "_ -- fl~ 16 i 9 ~ PARCEL 2 O -- -- - O 15 to ,a _ _ I 4 ' ~ ~ 11 i a ~ x. 13 1 - -- ~ ~ --~~~ ~ ~"~llllll l~ ll~~ / a ,~ LEGEND -f ~/I ,~ ~ ~ Main residential parcal , - J~ Property to be deeded ~ ~' to MN DOT -- ~ Property to be purchased by MN DOT Q ~ ,~ ,' O --. I 5 0 ~J r `"~ ~ _ o ~ a\ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~~-~ o I ~ ~ ~~ ,./„~ ~~~~ . ~*~ r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 133 Agenda June 14, 1999 • • Issue. Statement: Award of contract for pond grading and appurtenant work at 69th Street and Penn Avenue. ~~ Background: At the July 13, 1998 and August 10, 1998 Council meetings, a public hearing and first and second transitory ordinance were held to authorize the sale of property at 6913, 6915, 6921, 6925, 6929, 6933 and 6937 Penn Avenue to the HRA for redevelopment purposes. Since the HRA is responsible for redevelopment within the City, it is appropriate for the HRA to redevelop the property to townhouses and construct a "dry" storm water collection pond to relieve the seasonal flooding which occurs on this site. The adopted 1999 operating budget contains $100,000 in the capital outlay section for construction of a storm water pond, lot pads, curb, sidewalk, driveway aprons, storm pipe and manhole on Penn Avenue between 69th Street and 70th Street. This project would provide flood protection for Penn Avenue between 69th and 70th Streets. It would also provide storage area for 70th Street and Russell Avenue project, which is planned for the following year. There were nine plan holders for the June 4, 1999 bid opening. Three bids were received. A copy of the. bids/minutes/tabulation is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Jay Bros. Inc. in the amount of $72,060.40 for the construction of a storm water pond at 69th Street and Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lowest bid is within the 1999 Capital Improvement budget. 2. Jay Bros. Inc. is a reputable contractor. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise and obtain new bids..: However staff does not believe a better price could be obtained. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the June 14, 1999 meeting. The bids received will be valid for 60 days from the June 4, 1999 bid opening. ng City Manager SLD:cak ~`~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Bid O enin CO~ I P g June 4, 1999 9:00 a.m. 1999 Storm Pond Grading and Appurtenant Work City Project No. 503-30-579 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No: 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1989 storm pond grading and appurtenant work, as advertised in the official' newspaper on June 19, 1999. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City .Manager Representative • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Bidder's Name/City Bid .Security Total Bid Amount G. L. Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 79,418.52 M.J. Ryan Construction Co. 5% Bid Bond $111,818..00 Jay Bros., Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 72,060.40 The-City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 14, 1999, City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / _ Council Letter No. 132 V Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Award of contract for reconstruction of bituminous parking lots and park paths. Background: The adopted 1999 operating budget for the Lyndale Liquor Store includes $25,000 in the capital outlay for parking lot improvements. The adopted. 1999 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) includes $35,000 from Special Revenue funding for reconstruction of the lower level asphalt parking lot at City Hall (the upper level parking lot was done in 1998) and the asphalt parking lot at Fire Station II. Also included m the parking lot project is funding for sealcoating the Community Center parking lot which will be done as part of the sealcoating. project. The adopted .1999 CIB also includes $80,000 from Special Revenue funding .for improvement of asphalt paths at Donaldson Park and Taft Park. There were 10 plan holders for the May 28, 1999 bid opening. Seven bids were received. A copy of the bids/minutes/tabulation is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $124,816.35 for the reconstruction of bituminous parking lots at Lyndale Liquor Store, .City Hall, and Fire Station II and for improvement of asphalt. paths at Donaldson Park and Taft Park. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lowest responsible bid submitted is lower than the budgeted amount of $140,000. 2. Bituminous Roadways is a creditable contractor capable of accomplishing the work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may .choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids. However the bids received are reasonable and the parking lots and park paths are in dire need of repair. 2. Council may choose to award a contract to other than Bituminous Roadways. However, it appears Bituminous Roadways is a responsible bidder and staff is not aware of any reason why this contract should not be awarded to Bituminous Roadways. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the June 14, 1999 meeting. The bid received is valid for 60 days from the May 28, 1999 bid opening. A delay in award of contract would be possible within the time frame provided for the validity of the bids submitted. However, the specifications indicate the contractor may begin work upon execution of contract at the City Hall (lower lot) and Fire Station #2 starting June 29 and finishing before August 31 and at the parking lot at the Lyndale liquor store,. Taft and Donaldson Park paths, starting September 6, and finishing before September 30,1999. A defy in the award of contract would delay the start of the work. Ily sub City Manager SLD:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~-/ Bid Opening May 28, 1999 10:00 a.m. 1999 Reconstruction of Bituminous Parking Lots and Park Paths City Bid No. 99-7 City Project No. 402-30-555, 434-30-597, 500-45-801 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy J. Stroth, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1999 reconstruction of bituminous parking lots and park paths, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 28, 1999. Present: Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Representative Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative Patrick Dolan, Engineering • The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Total Bid Amount McNamara Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 153,038.80 Valley Paving, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 164,988.20 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 135,396.98 DMJ Corporation 5% Bid Bond $ 139,698.84 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 124,816.35 Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 166,421.12 Frattalone Paving 5% Bid Bond $ 143,386.62 • The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 14, 1999 City Council Meeting. Nancy J. Stroth Acting City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 131 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Award of contract for the 1999 sealcoating project. Background: sealcoating streets is an effective technique for slowing the deterioration of our residential streets. The sealcoating process involves applying a thin coat of emulsified oil, then covering it with rock. A map of the proposed 1999 sealcoat area is attached. A bid opening was held May 27, 1999 for the sealcoating project. A copy of the bid minutes is attached: The 1999 adopted Street Maintenance budget contains $167,475 for the contracted sealcoating. The contract is based upon estimated quantities. Payments will be made on actual work performed. Council would be authorizing a contract at the stated amount, with the stipulation that the contract documents allow variances. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to Allied Blacktop Co. in the sum of$124,155.10 for sealcoating work in 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Allied Blacktop Co, submitted the lowest responsible bid. 2. The adopted 1999 Street Maintenance budget contains adequate funds for the contractor services on this project. The contractor's bid on estimated quantities and amounts will be monitored. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids; however, the prices received for this work are extremely good, and staff does not believe lower prices can be obtained from a reputable contractor. 2. Council may choose to award a contract to another bidder. However, the bid submitted by Allied Blacktop Co. is a reasonable bid, within total budget amounts, submitted by a responsible bidder. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the June 14, 1999 Council meeting in order to facilitate the contract paperwork required to allow the project to begin and end as scheduled. ctf Ily submitte City Manager SLD:cak Attachment • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening May 27, 1999 11:00 a.m. 1999 Bituminous Sealcoating Construction Bid No. 99-5 City Project No. 101-35-601 ~~-I Pursuant to .requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy J. Stroth, Acting .City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1999 bituminous sealcoating construction, bid no. 99-5, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 12, 1999.. Present: Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Representative Doris Swanson, City Manager Representative Scott Johnson, Engineering The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security. Total Bid Amount Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 139,243.80 Astech Corp. Asphalt Surface Technologies 5% Bid Bond $ 158,781.00 Allied Blacktop Co. 5% Bid Bond $ 124,155.10 Pearson Bros. 5% Bid Bond $ 141,738.91 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 14, 1999 City Council Meeting. • Nancy J. Stroth Acting City Clerk ~ v CO CC 0 C D v m CO r n O ~ Z ~ ~ N Z ~ ~ D Zm~m ~vo ~ ~ PENN Al LYNDAL NICOLLI PORTLY BLOOM CEDAR c r_ l ~. A `Z` ::: -i ~ o` t~~ '~~ H~ XERXES AVE. t~ ~ ~_ ~m n- pc cZ to °m ~ ~ D Z ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ NAVE. rn rn D DALE AVE. Z JLLET AVE. tTLAND AVE. rn -v ~v O IOMINGTON rn )AR AVE. ~~ . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 130 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Authorization to execute a consultant agreement for final design of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street. Background: The City is working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) regarding the extension of the I-35W High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane between 1- 494 and 42nd Street in Minneapolis. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning I-35W has been proposed for just north of 76th Street. The bridge is proposed because the existing 76th Street bridge will not be reconstructed in the I-35W project and it lacks sidewalks wide enough to accommodate pedestrian or bicycle traffic. During the winter, snow and ice from the bridge force pedestrians and bicyclists to share lanes with motorized vehicles. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) prepared a scoping document (feasibility study) for the project. The concept design and estimated cost of the project were discussed at the March 1, 1999 Council Study Session. The project budget, as discussed at the Study Session, is an estimated $986,000 including design, contingency and inflation. This exceeds the original capital project estimate of $921,000. To accommodate MnDOT's requirements for a longer bridge than originally planned and relocation of I-35W directional signs and to accommodate Council's request for bridge lighting, staff will recommend the budget be amended in the revised 1999 Capital Budget. On March 8, 1999 Council authorized execution of an agreement with OSM in the amount of $125;000 for design and construction engineering services related to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street. However, the agreement was never executed because OSM eliminated its bridge department. To continue the project, staff sought another consultant to prepare the final design plans and specifications for the proposed five span concrete beam and slab bridge with center pier.. Staff is proposing an agreement with WSB and Associates, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $104,803. If Council authorizes execution of the proposed agreement, it is anticipated final design will be available for Council consideration in September 1999. Construction is expected to extend into 2000. Recommended Motion: Rescind the authorized agreement with OSM and Associates in the amount of $125,000 for design and construction engineering services related to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street and authorize execution of an agreement with WSB • and Associates in an amount not to exceed $104,803 for final design plans and specifications related to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street. ~ ~~-~ Basis of Recommendation: 1. The project is being proposed for construction in the next two years to coincide with the MnDOT's construction along I-35W. It is MnDOT's wish to have their contractor construct the center pier of the bridge in 1999 with Richfield's contractor finishing everything else in 2000. 2. The concept design and project costs/funding were discussed at the March 1, 1999 Council Study Session. The project is included in the adopted 1999 Capital Budget but the total project cost will need to be revised due to MnDOT requirements and City Council requests. 3. The proposed bridge is included in Richfield's approved Comprehensive Plan. 4. The cost of the proposed bridge includes 16 lights. Other security issues such as sight lines, maximum slopes and an open, friendly appearance have been incorporated into the preliminary designs and will continue to be part of the final design. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not proceed with design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I- 35W north of 76th Street. 2. Select. another site for apedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W. 3. Delay design and construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W. 4. Direct staff to seek a different consultant for the design and/or construction engineering of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W north of 76th Street. Discussion/Decision Mode: If there is to be coordination with MnDOT's schedule-for extension of the I-35W High Occupancy Vehicle lane, Council is asked to take action at the June 14, 1999 Council meeting related to a consultant agreement for final design of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across I-35W. City Manager SLD:cak C7 Study Session Minutes • -2- MarcCh 1, 1999 COT ~' B. 69TH AND PENN STORM WATER HOLDING POND • 1999 -construct pond ($100,000) • 2000 -reconstruct 70th Street Discussion was held regarding the timing of the project. It was the consensus of the Council that the reconstruction of 70th Street occur as early as possible in 2000 and that Public Works Director Eastling communicate to the affected neighborhood regarding the construction schedule. C. 76TH STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER I-35W • 1999 CIB $800,000 • Two year project • Design and cost estimates $920,000 - $1,155,000 • Several design options possible • MnDOT desires their contractor to construct center pier during construction on I-35W. Discussion followed regarding design and cost options. The City Council requested lighting on the bridge be a part of the design. D. WOOD LAKE DREDGING • Project completed • $50,000 grant from MnDOT to raise pathways E. STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECTS • Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk repair • Rout and seal cracks in blacktopped streets • Sealcoating F. INSTALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS • 64th Street and Portland Avenue • 67th Street and Nicollet Avenue G. I-35W/66TH STREET GATEWAY PROJECT • Extraordinary costs for undergrounding utilities Larry Wozniczka, 6744 Wentworth Avenue, suggested the pedestrian bridge over I- 35W be at 75th Street instead of 76th Street. Engineering Supervisor Atkinson reviewed the different sites that had been considered for the bridge, including 75th Street, and the reasons for choosing the proposed 76th Street location. Item # II UPDATE OF RICHFIELD'S. MUNICIPAL STATE AID ACCOUNT. S.S. LETTER. NO. 6 ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 129 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Approval of resolution declaring costs to be assessed for removal of diseased trees from private property for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, and approval of a resolution setting date of hearing. Background: The costs to be assessed for the removal of Dutch elm diseased trees on private property for the period January 1, 1.998 through December 31, 1998 have been determined to be $15,804.36.. The property owner of a diseased tree has four options available: 1. Remove the tree themselves. 2. Hire and pay their own contractor. 3. Hire the City's contractor and pay for the removal within 30 days. 4. Use the City's contractor and request that the cost of the tree removal be assessed against their property tax. In the period from January. 1, 1998 through December 21, 1998, 26 property owners chose the fourth option. The original source of funding to have the work done is through the City's Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund. The property owner may prepay the special assessment, but if it is certified on or before October 10, 1999, for the 2000 taxes, the interest rate is eight percent with payment spread over three years. A 27th property owner is being included in the assessment for removal of diseased trees from private property for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. All work was performed with prior approval from homeowners. However, Council should be aware that the resident at 6704-14th Avenue initially chose to pay for the work at the time it was done, and failed to do so. The resident has also failed to respond to staff correspondence or phone calls. The last letter informed this resident that steps would. be taken to assess the unpaid balance, plus accrued interest, to his property taxes. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for August 9, 1999. • ~r ~~-i Basis of Recommendation: 1. The work has been done with prior approval from the affected residents. 2. Minnesota State Statute requires the County to be notified of all special assessments. Acting City Manager Alternative Recommendation: Council may revise the special assessment roll as deemed necessary following the public hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting adoption of the attached resolutions at this time in order to meet certification deadlines. Re ully submi , e ~` SLD: cak Attachments r S RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~i~ RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1998 TO DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the removal of diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such work during the period of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 amount to $15,804.36. Property .Address (Across from) 7425 Pleasant 6625 Logan Avenue 7440 Fremont Avenue 7520 Washburn Avenue 6514-17th Avenue 6900 Oakland Avenue 6401 Knox Avenue 7037 Logan Avenue 7032 Third Avenue 7121 Oak Grove Boulevard 7501 Humboldt Avenue 6227 Bloomington Avenue. 6539 Queen Avenue 6533 Queen Avenue 7108 Fifth Avenue 7445 Girard Avenue 6408-15th Avenue 6637 Humboldt Avenue 6235 Blaisdell Avenue 7020 Columbus Avenue 7205 Garfield Avenue 7233 Girard Avenue 6632 Bloomington Avenue 7329 Aldrich Avenue 6909 Vincent Avenue 6609 Girard Avenue 6704-14th Avenue Property Identification Number 34-02824-21-0004 28-02824-31-0056 33-02824-42-0041 32-02824-42-0084 26-02824-14-0022 26-02824-33-0059 28-02824-24-0059 33-02824-21-0111 34-02824-12-0034 33-02824-14-0093 33-02824-42-0080 26-02824-11-0010 29-02824-14-0058 29-02824-14-0057 34-02824-11-0008 33-02824-42-0042 26-02824-13-0053 28-02824-42-0042 27-02824-21-0026 35-02824-22-0013 34-02824-23-0084 33-02824-13-011.0 26=02824-42-0005 33-02824-14-0012 29-02824-43-0163 28-02824-42-0029 26-02824-42-0088 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Richfield, Minnesota: U/ ~~~ • 1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $15,804.36. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such work against each benefited property, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 6E~I • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1998 TO DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 14, 1999, the City Clerk was directed to prepare the assessment of the cost of removing diseased trees from the following private properties in the City of Richfield for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998.. Property Address (Across from) 7425 Pleasant 6625 Logan Avenue 7440 Fremont Avenue 7520 Washburn Avenue 6514-17th Avenue 6900 Oakland Avenue 6401 Knox Avenue 7037 Logan Avenue 7032 Third Avenue 7121 Oak Grove Boulevard 7501 Humboldt Avenue 6227 Bloomington Avenue 6539 Queen Avenue 6533 Queen Avenue 7108 Fifth Avenue 7445 Girard Avenue 6408-15th Avenue 6637 Humboldt Avenue 6235 Blaisdell Avenue 7020 Columbus Avenue 7205 Garfield Avenue 7233 Girard Avenue 6632 Bloomington Avenue 7329 Aldrich Avenue 6909 Vincent Avenue 6609 Girard Avenue 6704-14th Avenue Property Identification Number 34-02824-21-0004 28-02824-31-0056 33-02824-42-0041 32-02824-42-0084 26-02824-14-0022 26-02824-33-0059 28-02824-24-0059 33-02824-21-0111 34-02824-12-0034 33-02824-14-0093 33-02824-42-0080 26-02824-11-0010 29-02824-14-0058 29-02824-14-0057 34-02824-11-0008 33-02824-42-0042 26-02824-13-0053 28-02824-42-0042 27-02824-21-0026 35-02824-22-0013 34-02824-23-0084 33-02824-13-0110 26-02824-42-0005 33-02824-14-0012 29-02824-43-0163 28-02824-42-0029 26-02824-42-0088 WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: Y ~! • 1. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of August, 1999 in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7 p.m., or as soon as hereafter as it may be reached on the agenda, to pass. upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said diseased tree removal assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the diseased tree removal. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.. By order of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: n Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Council Letter. No. 128 . Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution relating to 2000 maintenance assessments for the 77th Street redevelopment area. Background: Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs to the special assessment district for the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) project area, an approximate two-block area. The district included properties east of Lyndale and south of 77th Street, and the properties were assessed for current services required to maintain special landscape features and other public amenities on or adjacent to the right-of--way. On June 12, 1994, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing a redefined ILN/expanded 77th Street Project Area (from I-35W to Portland Avenue) for the period of January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. On November 25, 1996, the City Council took action to support the continuance of specially assessing another redefined expanded (from 1-35W to Cedar Avenue) 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. For the most part, each owner is to be responsible for property to the curb while the City is responsible for common areas such as street islands, the north. boulevard and sound wall. Although the City does some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of • common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscape maintenance of common properties including, among other things, tree trimming, mowing, fertilizing and edging. 2. Irrigation maintenance. 3. General maintenance including repair and replacement of lights, signs, curbs and plantings. These items are extra services provided directly to the 77th Street Project Area, and do not include services provided to the entire City. Most of the routine maintenance (mowing, weeding, litter cleanup) has been and will continue to be contracted, leaving city crews to perform .repairs on irrigation, lights and signs. Estimated costs for the ILN/77th Street maintenance services from 1988 - 1999 were/are: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780 $8,855.46 1992 $8,894 $7,031.70 1993 $9,200 $3,614.94 1994- -0 1995 $18,000 $10,569.06 . 1996 $33,795 $36,850.31 1997 $58,973 $44,729.90 1998 $74,765 $54,629.54 1999 $80,000 2000 $75,000 'The $0 estimate was provided to the Council in a December 28, 1993 memorandum. ~pU~' Recommended Motion: • Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the 77th Street Project Area for the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, and to set the public hearing for Monday, August 9, 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. 2. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the 77th Street Project Area. 3. Commercial property owners will be assessed on aper-square-foot basis. However, all single family and multi-family residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was pertormed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this area is recommended by staff in order to sustain current standards for landscaping and maintenance. Staff is asking for action at this time in order to facilitate meeting state deadlines for publication of legal notices and notification of property owners. R tfully submi d, vi Acting City Manager. SLD:cak Attachment RESOLUTION NO. ~J~ . RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There. is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the District with the-cost of such services to be specially. assessed against benefited property within the District; • The trimming and care of trees and shrubs and the removal of any unsound trees from any street; • The repair of sidewalks; • The maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street rights-of--way; • Trash and litter removal 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services • consists of each and every commercial lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that the special assessments on the commercial property be made on the basis of area. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. The City Clerk shall also give mailed notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held Monday, August 9, 1999, commencing at 7:00 o'clock p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned services during that period is $75,000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 127 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Preparation of assessment rolls and setting hearing date for 1998 77th Street redevelopment area maintenance. Background: Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street. around the Hampton lnn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th Street. The maintenance specifications required as part of the 77th Street construction projects have now lapsed so the special maintenance responsibilities rest entirely on the City funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses. The additional maintenance responsibilities assumed by the City are reflected in the 1999 estimate. City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the 77th Street redevelopment area, the 1998 77th Street Maintenance Project. Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and. ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment. • Estimated and actual costs for the 77th Street maintenance services 1988-1999 were/are: Year Estimate Actual 1988 $7,001.47 1989 $7,254 $6,135.54 1990 $7,514 $7,762.52 1991 $7,780 $8,855.46 1992 $8,894 $7,031.70 1993 $9,200 $3,614.94 1994 -0--~ 1995 $18,000 $10,569.06 1996 $33,795 $36,850.31 1997 $58,973 $44,729.90 1998 $74,765 $54,629.54 1.999. $80,000 *The $0 estimate was provided to the Council in a December 28, 1993 memorandum. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment roll for 77th Street Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for August 9, 1999. ~ ~c-i Basis of Recommendation: The work performed was consistent with the direction from the City Council and was performed for less than the estimated cost. Alternative Recommendation: Council may make any changes to the assessment roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to meet notification and publication deadlines, staff is requesting approval at this time. Ily submitted • Acting City Manager SLD:cak Attachments ~,"'ti-- ~C-2 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the 77th Street Redevelopment Area the boundaries of which are approximately east of I-35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $54,629.54 for the period of January 1, .1998. through December 31, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $54,629.54. 1. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed. for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a i copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public. inspection. 2. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~c- 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on June 14, 1999, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the 77th Street redevelopment area, the boundaries of which are east of I- 35W and west of Cedar Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of August, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota .this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 126 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Resolution regarding the 2000 maintenance assessments, LHN (Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet) redevelopment area. Background: On January 26, 1981, the City Council adopted Resolution. No. 6372, which established a service in the LHN area (approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) which would be specially assessed. The special assessment to commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family, two family and multiple family residential property within this area were eliminated from the special assessment levy. In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the LHN area related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while the City is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the City does some maintenance work for individual properly owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. These items are extra services provided directly to the LHN Redevelopment Area and do not include services provided to the entire City. For example, all City streets are swept twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the LHN maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the LHN area would be an assessable item. • ~ (~B-1 Estimated and actual costs for LHN maintenance services 1989-1999 are: Year Estimated Actual 1989 $43,151.19 1990 $44,560 $43,539.10 1991 $44,153 $43,825.22 1992 $46,484 $47,005.26 1993 $45,050 $34,866.01 1994 $45,115 $44,635.70 1995 $45, 516 $36,105.50 1996 $46,080 $48,118.39 1997 $47,730 $31,208.46 1998 $49,165 $39,127.73 1999 $50,640 2000 $45,000 Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the LHN project area for the period of January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, and to set the public hearing for August 9, 1999. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established policy for assessing the costs 2. This policy allows staff to continue to provide excellent service to the LHN Redevelopment Area. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount; however staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. Discussion/Decision Mode: Continued maintenance service for this commercial area is recommended by staff in order to sustain the current standards for landscaping and maintenance which have been successful over the past years. Res ctf Ily submitte r ven . Devic Acting City Manager SLD:cak Attachment ll/ 4~ O~- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. ,There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the City. 2. The following current services of the City are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the City in the district, with the costs of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: • Snow, ice or rubbish removal; • Weed elimination; • Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private ~' property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; • Installation or repair of water service lines, • Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; • Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; • Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; • Operation of the street lighting system; • Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of--way; • Maintenance of Civic Plaza; • Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; • Painting and repair of wood furniture; • General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial properly be made on the -basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common are. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall be all single family, two-family, multiple family residential property within the LHN redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this Council at which the Council will consider the undertaking of such current services and ~~-3 ~' the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The City Clerk shall also give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, August 9, 1999, commencing at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. The estimated cost of providing all the aforementioned current services during that period is $45,000. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk r b~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 125 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Preparation of assessment rolls and setting hearing date for 1998 LHN (Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet redevelopment area) maintenance. Background: The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet. (LHN) maintenance .assessment was established to recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN (66th Street/Lyndale/Nicollet) area. City staff has determined costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) redevelopment area, the 1998 LHN Maintenance Project. Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the. hearing date for the proposed assessment. Estimated and actual costs for the LHN maintenance services 1989-2000 were/are: Year Estimated Actual 1989 $43,151.19 • 1990 $44,560 $43,539.10 1991 $44,153 $43,825.22 1992 $46,484 $47,005.26 1993 $45, 050 $34, 866.01 1994 $45,115 $44,635.70 1995 $45,516 $36,105.50 1996 $46, 080 $48,118.39 1997 $47,730 $31,208.46 1998 $49,165 $39,127.73 1999 $50,640 2000 $45, 000 Fluctuations in expenditures for maintenance of LHN are caused by a number of factors. Weather determines water usage and irrigation costs; street light knockdowns are never foreseeable and very expensive; and the need to paint streetlights and repair concrete varies from year to year. In 1996, expenses were up due to the dry summer and extensive work on the irrigation system. The 1997 and 1998 estimated costs also show an increase due to higher costs for contracted mowing and irrigation repairs mandated by new codes. Recommended Motion: • Adopt the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment. roll for LHN Maintenance, and adopt the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for August 9, 1999. • ~A"~ Basis of Recommendation: Council ordered the work, and the work is complete. Alternative Recommendation: Council may make any changes to the assessment .roll as deemed necessary after the public hearing. Discussion/Decision Mode: In order to meet notification and publication deadlines,-staff is requesting approval at this time. ng City Manager SLD:cak Attachments LJ ~A-~- • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $39,127.73 for the period of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $39,127.73. 2. The City Clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • ~(/~ • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield on July 13, 1999, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 24th day of August, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, .and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The City Clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less that two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June, 1999. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 124 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Acceptance of a Tree City USA Thirteen Year Award. Background: Tree City USA began as a 1976 Bicentennial project co-sponsored by the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA-Forest Service. The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are now co-sponsors as well. To become (and remain) a Tree City USA, a community must meet four standards: 1) a tree board or department (which is the Community Services Commission); 2) a City tree ordinance (Richfield's ordinance provides for the planting, maintenance, care, protection and removal of trees on public property); 3) a comprehensive community forestry program; and 4) an Arbor day observance. The Forestry Division pursues an aggressive diseased tree removal and disposal program, as well as a planting project each spring. The Forestry Division budget contains over $200,000 each year to achieve these goals, which is well above the $2 per capita requirement for Tree City USA status. In 1985, the City of Richfield applied to the National Arbor Day Foundation for Tree City USA status. Richfield was named a Tree City USA for the first time in 1986. Since that time, Richfield has applied. for and received Tree City USA status each year. This will be the thirteenth year Richfield has been named a Tree City USA. Recommended Motion: Accept the Thirteenth Year Maple Leaf Award recognizing the City of Richfield as a Tree City USA. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Richfield has promoted an effective community forestry program as an ongoing process of growth and renewal, a program of planting and care that continues through the years. 2. Due to this program, the City of Richfield has earned Tree City USA status for the past thirteen years. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the June 14, 1999 Council meeting. Street Maintenance Supervisor Mark Hall will be in attendance at the meeting to represent the Forestry Division. Res a Ily submitt , n' . Devic Acting City Manager SLD:cak CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 123 Agenda June 14, 1999 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution commending Senator Dave Johnson for his work on behalf of the City of Richfield during the 1999 legislative session. Background: In the 1999 legislative session, Richfield received a commitment of funding to help pay for redevelopment on Richfield's east side. The Legislature agreed that $30 million in Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) bonding should be used to help fund the redevelopment of the Cedar Avenue Corridor Airport Redevelopment Area. The legislature also created a Governor's airport community stabilization funding task force. The purpose being, "to identify and recommend funding sources" using the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Program Report and the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee's report. Senator Dave Johnson focused on Richfield's needs from the very onset of this legislative session. With the help of Representative Dan Larson, Representative Mark Gleason and Senator Jane Ranum, Senator Johnson was able to push Richfield's airport impact legislation to a serious level. During the last hours of conference committee meetings, Senator Johnson's drive for Richfield's protection was heroic. Senator Johnson. was also instrumental in the passage of the consolidated police and fire pension funding legislation. This legislation will return over $5 million of Richfield's assets back to the community in 1999. Recommended Motion: Approve a resolution commending Senator Dave Johnson for his work on behalf of the City of Richfield during the 1999 legislative session. Basis of Recommendation: Senator Dave Johnson truly made a positive change in Richfield because of his dedicated efforts this legislative session. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the resolution. 2. Defer discussion of this item to another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Council meeting of June 14, 1999. Res c ully submitt , v . De Acting City Manager SLD:cak a-i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENDING SENATOR DAVE JOHNSON FOR HIS WORK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DURING THE 1999 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. WHEREAS, Senator Dave Johnson is the duly elected representative of Senate District 40 representing the cities of Richfield and Bloomington; and WHEREAS, Senator Johnson introduced legislation during the 1999 session assisting Richfield in the areas of airport mitigation and consolidated police and fire pension funds; and WHEREAS, the legislation passed this year will provide $30 million dollars of bonding to Richfield to fund redevelopment of an area that will be severely impacted by the construction of the new North/South Runway. A runway that will place 300 to 400 flights a day two blocks from existing residential neighborhoods that incompatible with a new runways negative impacts; and WHEREAS, Senator Johnson's leadership and vision have led to the creation of the Governor's task force on airport noise issues; and +~ WHEREAS, Senator Johnson's consolidated pension funding legislation returns over $5 million of Richfield's assets back to the community in 1999; and WHEREAS, the passage of these legislative items are a direct result of Senator Johnson's relentless efforts on behalf of City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows That Senator Dave Johnson be publicly commended and thanked for his tireless work on behalf of the residents and the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of June. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: r Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk