The URL can be used to link to this page

02-23-98 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 1998 PRESENTATIONS 0 1. PRESENTATION OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMENDATIONS TO OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATORS OF RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 37 INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 3. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 4. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONCEPT FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY • COOPERATIVE EFFORT FOR REPLACEMENT OF VOTING EQUIPMENT C.L. 38 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY OF RICHFIELD TO APPLY FOR 1998 MUNICIPAL GRANT AS PART OF HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM C.L. 39 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE AND FEE WAIVER FOR RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION #435,6501 PORTLAND AVENUE C.L. 40 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE, 7144 OLIVER AVENUE, THREE DOGS C.L. 41 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL- GARBAGE HAULER LICENSE: RED'S AND SON RUBBISH SERVICE, INC.; 2 VEHICLES PUBLIC HEARING 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO PROPOSED RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, CYCLE V COUNCIL LETTER NO. 42 0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 6. FIRST READING OF NEW ORDINANCE, SECTION 1187, REGULATING AND LICENSING PAWNBROKER BUSINESSES IN CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 43 AIRPORT BUSINESS 7. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 8. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 10. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 11. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861 -9702. G CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 43 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of a new ordinance, Section 1187, regulating and licensing pawnbroker businesses within the City of Richfield. Background: Public Safety has found that because pawn businesses have the ability to receive and transfer property easily and criminals often attempt to use pawn services to conceal their crimes and to dispose of stolen property. Public Safety further finds that the pawn industry has outgrown the City's current ability to effectively or efficiently identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. The proposed ordinance will increase the City's ability to identify criminal activity in a more timely and expedient manner. Staff has researched other methods that might be useful and has found that the Automated Pawn System (APS) developed by and currently being used by the City of Minneapolis appears to be the most effective system available. There is also a growing trend for other metropolitan police departments to utilize this system as well and for a high level of consistency to exist in information sharing between suburban departments. This system will require pawnbroker businesses to electronically transfer all necessary pawn information to Public Safety staff on a daily basis. Staff will then be able to easily and readily identify issues or problems that may be occurring in the City in this type of 40 business. Staff has developed the ordinance and has met with the owners of the two pawnbroker establishments in the City of Richfield. They provided input on the ordinance and final changes were made. With the proposed new ordinance, staff is recommending the following changes in the license fee structure: Staff is recommending the addition of manager and employee investigation fees to the new ordinance, as it is imperative that background investigation checks are performed on all individuals employed in a pawnbroker establishment. This type of check on employees has not been conducted in the past. This would provide staff with the ability to determine if any of those employees have a criminal history record. Current Proposed License Fee $1,750 $2,500 annual Owner Investigation Fee $1,200 1,500 new applications only) Manager Investigation Fee None $500 new applications onl Employee Investigation Fee None 50 per employee new applications only) Transaction fee None $1.50 per transaction Staff is recommending the addition of manager and employee investigation fees to the new ordinance, as it is imperative that background investigation checks are performed on all individuals employed in a pawnbroker establishment. This type of check on employees has not been conducted in the past. This would provide staff with the ability to determine if any of those employees have a criminal history record. �-I Staff is also recommending a per transaction fee of $1.50 as Richfield will be charged $1 by Minneapolis on a per transaction basis for the use of the Automated Pawn System. The additional $.50 is to cover staff administrative cost and increased monitoring. The City's current pawnbroker ordinance, City Code Section 1186, would be superseded by the ordinance being recommended. Staff will also be undertaking a review and revision of the City's current second hand goods dealer ordinance within one year. Any references in City Code Section 1186 to second hand goods dealers will remain as they currently are until this review and revision is completed. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an ordinance regulating and licensing pawnbroker businesses within the City of Richfield and set a public hearing and second reading for March 23, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: The ordinance will provide Public Safety staff with the opportunity to more easily and more quickly identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide not to approve the first reading of City Code Section 1187 which would mean that while pawnbrokers would continue to be licensed and regulated by the City, criminal activity related to pawn shops would not be identified as easily or as quickly. Discussion /Decision Mode: Approve first reading of an ordinance regulating and licensing pawnbroker businesses within the City of Richfield. Respe Ily submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci anager JDP:cak • CITY OF RICHFIELD BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PAWNBROKER ESTABLISHMENTS; REQUIRING A LICENSE; ESTABLISHING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1187; SUPERSEDING PAWNBROKER REGULATIONS IN SECTION 1186 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: follows: Section 1. The Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new section as Section 1187 - Pawnbrokers Purpose. The city council finds that because pawn businesses have the ability to receive and transfer property easily and quickly, criminals often attempt to use pawn services to conceal their crimes and to dispose of stolen property. The city council further finds that the pawn industry has outgrown the city's current ability to effectively or efficiently identify criminal activity related to pawn shops. The city council also finds that consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers. The purpose of this chapter is to prevent pawn businesses from being used as facilities for the commission of crimes and to assure that such businesses comply with basic consumer protection standards, thereby protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city. To help the public safety department better regulate current and future pawn businesses, decrease and stabilize costs associated with the regulation of the pawn industry, and increase identification of criminal activities in the pawn industry through the timely collection and sharing of pawn transaction information, this chapter also implements and establishes the required use of the automated pawn system. 1187.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Pawnbroker. The term "pawnbroker" means: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), "pawnbroker" means a person engaged in whole or in part in the business of lending money on the security of pledged goods left in pawn, or in the business of purchasing tangible personal property to be left in pawn on the condition that it may be redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. (b) The following are exempt from the term "pawnbroker ": any bank regulated by the state of Minnesota, the comptroller of the currency of the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System, or any other federal or state authority and their affiliates; any bank or savings association whose deposits or accounts are eligible for insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any successor to it and all affiliates of those banks and savings associations; any state or federally chartered credit union; and any industrial loan and thrift company or regulated lender subject to licensing and regulation by the Minnesota department of commerce. To the extent that a pawnbroker's business includes buying personal property previously used, rented or leased, or selling it on consignment, the provisions of this section shall be applicable. Subd. 3. Pawn transaction. "Pawn transaction" means any loan on the security of pledged goods or any purchase of pledged goods on the condition that the pledged goods are left with the pawnbroker and may be redeemed or repurchased by the seller for a fixed price within a fixed period of time. The term "pawn transaction" includes the renewal, extension or redemption of a pawn transaction previously made. Subd. 4. Person. "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, M limited liability company, joint venture, trust, association, or any other legal entity, however organized. Subd. 5. Pledged goods. "Pledged goods" means tangible personal property other than choses in action, securities, bank drafts, or printed evidence of indebtedness, that are purchased by, deposited with, or otherwise actually delivered into the possession of a pawnbroker in connection with a pawn transaction. Subd. 6. Reportable transaction. "Reportable transaction" means every pawn transaction, except: (a) the bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record; and (b) retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or purchase, and for which all applicable hold and /or redemption periods have expired. �-4 Subd. 7. Billable transaction. "Billable transaction" means every reportable transaction except renewals, redemptions or extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the pawnbroker's possession. 1187.05. License required. Subdivision 1. License required. No person shall engage in the business of pawnbroker at any location without a pawnbroker license for that location. No pawnbroker license may be transferred to a different location or a different person. Issuance of a license under this subsection shall not relieve the licensee from obtaining any other licenses required to conduct business at the same or any other locations. Subd. 2. Existing businesses. Existing pawnbroker establishments must apply for a license and pay the required fee within six months of adoption of this ordinance. In such cases, the annual license fee established by this ordinance will be prorated from the first day of the month in which application is made, and credit will be given for the unused portion of any pawnbroker license fee previously paid and covering the same time period. 1187.07. License fee. The annual license fee for a pawnbroker license is set by appendix D. The license fee must be paid at the time of application for the license. 1187.09. License term. All licenses shall expire on December 31st of the year in which the license is issued. Except as provided in 1187.05, subdivision 2, the annual license fee will not be prorated. 1187.11. Application. Subdivision 1. Application required. An application form provided by the department of public safety must be completed by every applicant for a new license or for renewal of an existing license. Every applicant must provide the information required by this subsection. Subd. 2. Individual applicants. If the applicant is an individual, the applicant must provide the following information: (a) The name, place and date of birth, street resident address, and phone number of the applicant; (b) Whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States or resident alien; (c) Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places used; (d) The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name, or style other than the name of the applicant and a certified copy of the certificate as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01; (e) 40 The street address at which the applicant has lived during the preceding five (5) years; & -5 information concerning each general partner required in subdivision 2, (f) The type, name and location of every business or occupation in which (b) the applicant has been engaged during the preceding five (5) years and the name(s) and address(es) of the applicant's employer(s) and (c) partner(s), if any, for the preceding five (5) years; (g) Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, crime, or. violation of any ordinance other than a traffic ordinance; if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and offense of (d) all such convictions; (h) The physical description of the applicant; (i) If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subdivision. Subd. 3. Partnership applicant. If the applicant is a partnership, the applicant must provide the following information: (a) The name(s) and address(es) of all general and limited partners and all Subd. 4. Corporate applicant. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization, the applicant must provide the following information: (a) The name of the corporation or business form, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (b) A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation or Association Agreement, and By -laws shall be attached to the application; if the applicant is a foreign corporation, a Certificate of Authority as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.06, must be attached; (c) The name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each manager, proprietor, or information concerning each general partner required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subsection; (b) The name(s) of the managing partner(s) and the interest of each partner in the licensed business; (c) A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application; if the partnership is required to file a certificate as to a trade name pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01, a certified copy of such certificate must be attached to the application; (d) A true copy of the federal and state tax returns for the partnership for the two (2) years prior to application; (e) If the applicant does not manage the business, the name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each of them required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subsection; Subd. 4. Corporate applicant. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization, the applicant must provide the following information: (a) The name of the corporation or business form, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (b) A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation, Articles of Incorporation or Association Agreement, and By -laws shall be attached to the application; if the applicant is a foreign corporation, a Certificate of Authority as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 303.06, must be attached; (c) The name of the manager(s) or other person(s) in charge of the business and all information concerning each manager, proprietor, or agent required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) of this subsection; (d) A list of all persons who control or own an interest in excess of five (5) percent in such organization or business form or who are officers of the corporation or business form and all information concerning said persons required in subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) through (h) above. This paragraph (d) shall not apply to a corporation whose stock is publicly traded on a stock exchange and is applying for a license to be owned and operated by it. Subd. 5. All applicants. All applicants shall provide the following information: (a) Whether the applicant holds a current pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or secondhand goods dealer license from any other governmental unit; (b) Whether the applicant has previously been denied, or had revoked or suspended, a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer, or secondhand goods dealer license from any other governmental unit; (c) The location of the business premises; (d) If the applicant does not own the business premises, a true and complete copy of the executed lease; (e) The legal description of the premises to be licensed; (f) Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been paid, and if not paid, the years and amounts that are unpaid; (g) Whenever the application is for premises either planned or under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed; (h) Such other information as the city may require. Subd. 6. Application execution. All applications for a license under this subsection must be signed and sworn to under oath or affirmation by the applicant. If the application is that of a natural person, it must be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a corporation, by an officer thereof, if that of a partnership, by one of the general partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or managing officer thereof. Subd. 7. Fee. The license application must be accompanied by the license and investigation fees required by subsections 1187.07 and 1187.13 of this code. 1187.13. License investigation. Subdivision 1. Background investigation. The public safety director of designee must investigate into the truthfulness of the statements set forth in the application and shall endorse the findings thereon. The applicant must furnish to the public safety director or their designee such evidence as the public safety b r d, irector or their designee may reasonably require in support of the statements set forth in the application. Subd. 2. Investigation fee. An applicant must reimburse the city for its actual investigation, subject to the limitations in this subdivision. An applicant for a new license under this chapter, or for the renewal of an existing license that is more than six (6) months past due, shall deposit with the public safety department at the time an original application is submitted, an amount sufficient to cover the costs involved in verifying the license application and to cover the expense of any investigation needed to assure compliance with this subsection. The amount of the deposit shall be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for each person to be investigated. Upon completion of the investigation, the public safety department must either refund any remaining balance on deposit or submit an invoice for the actual costs incurred in excess of the deposit. The licensee shall pay any invoice for investigation fees within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this subsection. 1187.15. Employee Background Checks. Subdivision 1. New Manager. When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manager(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate application, on forms provided by the department of public safety, within fourteen (14) days. The application must include all appropriate information required in section 1187.11 concerning the new manager(s). Subd. 2. Other Employees. When a licensee hires an employee other than a manager, the licensee must complete and submit the appropriate application, on forms provided by the department of public safety, within fourteen (14) days after the employee is hired. The application must include all appropriate information required in section 1187.11, subdivision 2, paragraphs (a) -(c), (e), (g), and (h). Subd. 3. Investigation fee. The new manager application must be accompanied by a deposit equal to five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each new manager named in the application. The application for new employees other than managers must be accompanied by a deposit equal to fifty dollars ($50.00) for each new employee named in the application. The public safety director or designee shall conduct an investigation into the truthfulness of the application. Upon completion of the investigation, the public safety department must either refund any remaining balance on deposit or submit an invoice for the actual costs incurred in excess of the deposit. The licensee shall pay any invoice for investigation fees within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this subsection. 1187.17. Public hearing. A pawnbroker license will not be issued or renewed without a public hearing. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. The public hearing must be preceded by at least ten days' published notice specifying the location of the proposed licensed business premises. /CX-9 1187.19. Persons ineligible for a license. No licenses under this section will be issued to an applicant who is a natural person, a partnership if such applicant has any general partner or managing partner, a corporation or other organization if such applicant has any manager, proprietor or agent in charge of the business to be licensed, if the applicant: (a) Is a minor at the time that the application is filed; (b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation license as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and has not shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a licensee under this section as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3; (c) A person whom the city council determines not to be of sufficient good moral character and repute; (d) A person not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; (e) A person who within five years. of the license application date had a pawnbroker license revoked; (f) A pawnbroker license will not be issued to any partnership or corporation if such applicant has a partner, managing partner, manager, proprietor, or agent who does not meet the standards set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection. 1187.21. Bond required. Before a license will be issued, every applicant must submit a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) bond on forms provided by the department of public safety. All bonds must be conditioned that the principal will observe all laws in relation to pawnbrokers, and will conduct business in conformity thereto, and that the principal will account for and deliver to any person legally entitled any goods which have come into the principal's hand through the principal's business as a pawnbroker, or in lieu thereof, will pay the reasonable value in money to the person. The bond shall contain a provision that no bond may be canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the city, which shall be served upon the department of public safety. 1187.23. Denial, suspension or revocation. A license under this section may be denied, suspended or revoked by the council, after an investigation and public hearing where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard, for one or more of the following reasons: (a) The operation of the business is in conflict with any provision of this code; (b) The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, fire, building, building maintenance, zoning, or any other applicable codes or laws; (0,-� (c) The applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions of this section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to the business of pawnbroker; (d) The applicant is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien, or upon whom it is impractical or impossible to conduct a background or financial investigation due to the unavailability of information; (e) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing or renewing a license; (f) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in the application and investigation for, or in the course of, the applicant's business; (g) The applicant or licensee has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft, damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker; (h) Issuance or renewal of the license would adversely affect public health, safety or welfare; (i) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for a license under the terms of this section. 1187.25. Records required. Subdivision 1. Records of transactions. At the time of any reportable transaction other than renewals, extensions or redemptions, every licensee must immediately record in English the following information in a computerized record approved by the public safety director or designee: (a) A complete and accurate description of each item including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item; (b) The purchase price, amount of money loaned upon, or pledged therefor; (c) The maturity date of the transaction; (d) The amount due, including monthly and annual interest rates and all pawn fees and charges; (e) Date, time and place the item of property was received by the licensee, and the unique alpha and /or numeric transaction identifier that distinguishes it from all other transactions in the licensee's records; (f) Full name, residence address, residence telephone number, date of birth and accurate description of the person from whom the item of the property was received, including: sex, height, weight, race, color of eyes and color of hair; (g) The identification number and state of issue from any of the following forms of identification of the seller or pledger: (i) current valid Minnesota driver's license; (ii) current valid Minnesota identification �)-lam card; or (iii) current valid photo identification card issued by another state or a province of Canada; (h) The signature of the person identified in the transaction. Subd. 2. Photographic records. The licensee must also take a color photograph or color video recording which meets acceptable video standards as established by the public safety director or designee of. (a) Each customer involved in a billable transaction; and, (b) Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or affixed. If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. Such photographs must be available to the public safety director, or the director's designee, upon request. The major portion of the photograph must include an identifiable front facial close -up of the person who pawned or sold the item. Items photographed must be accurately depicted. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place in the premises. The licensee must keep the photographs on the premises • available for inspection for ninety (90) days. If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close -up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being videotaped by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape on the premises available for inspection for ninety (90) days. Subd. 3. Digital images. Licensees may fulfill the color photograph requirements in subdivision 2 of this subsection by generating them as digital images, in a format specified by the public safety department, electronically cross - referenced to the reportable transaction the images are associated with. The licensee must keep the digital images on the premises available for inspection for ninety (90) days. Notwithstanding that digital images may be captured from video recordings, this provision does not alter or amend the requirements in subdivision 2 of this subsection. Subd. 4. Records for renewals, extensions and redemptions. For renewals, extensions and redemptions, the licensee shall provide the original transaction identifier, the date of the current transaction, and the type of transaction. (0,1/ Subd. 5. Inspection of records. The records must at all reasonable times be on the premises and available for inspection by the department of public safety. Data entries shall be retained for at least three (3) years from the date of transaction. Required photographs, video recordings, and digital images shall be retained a minimum of ninety (90) days. 1187.27. Daily reports to police. Subdivision 1. Modem reporting. Effective sixty (60) days from the date of notification by the public safety director or designee, licensees must submit every reportable transaction to the public safety department daily by transferring it from their computer to the public safety department via modem. All required records must be transmitted completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the public safety department using a dial - callback protocol or other procedures that address security concerns of the licensees and the public safety department. Subd. 2. Electronic reporting problems. Licensees are required to report transactions by modem, except as otherwise allowed in this subdivision: (a) If a licensee is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by modem, the licensee must have on the premises and available for inspection by the public safety department printed copies of all . reportable transactions that have not been reported by modem. (b) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in section 1187.25, in a paper format approved by the director of public safety. (c) If a licensee is unable to capture, digitize or video record the photographs required in section 1187.25, the licensee must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, immediately develop the pictures, cross - reference the photographs to the correct transaction. (d) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system, the licensee shall take all reasonable steps to include the replacement of system components such as modems and other computer hardware and software, in order to return the electronic reporting system to operational condition as soon as possible. (e) Failure to report transactions electronically for a period of seven (7) or more consecutive days, due to a problem in the licensee's system constitutes grounds for license suspension or revocation. ( -/�;L Subd. 3. Signage required. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs all patrons that all transactions are reported to the public safety department daily. 1187.29. Billable transaction license fees. Subdivision 1. Required fees. Every licensee shall pay a billable transaction license fee for each billable transaction handled by the licensee. The amount of the fee is set by appendix D and reflects the cost of processing transactions and other related regulatory expenses. The city council will review and adjust the fee amount, if necessary, at least every twelve (12) months. Licensees shall be notified in writing at least thirty (30) days before any adjustment is implemented. Subd. 2. Fee classification. The billable transaction license fee is classified according to the medium by which daily reports are submitted to the public safety department. These classifications are: modem and manual, and the fee for each classification is set by appendix D. Licensees will be charged for billable transactions at the current rate for the medium by which the transactions reported to the public safety department. Subd. 3. Monthly payment. Billable transaction license fees shall be billed monthly and are due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation . of this subsection. 1187.31. Receipt required. Subdivision 1. Requirement. Every licensee must provide a receipt to the party identified in every reportable transaction and must maintain a duplicate of that receipt for three (3) years. Subd. 2. Contents of receipt. The receipt must include at least the following information: (a) The name, address and telephone number of the licensed business; (b) The date and time the item was received by the licensee; (c) Whether the item was pawned or sold, or the nature of the transaction; (d) An accurate description of each item received including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such an item; (e) The signature or unique identifier of the licensee or employee that conducted the transaction; (f) The amount advanced or paid; (g) The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and charges; (h) The last regular day of business by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold; (i) The amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on the maturity date; r (j) The full name, residence address, residence telephone number, and date of birth of the pledger or seller; (k) The identification number and state or province of issue from any of the following forms of identification of the seller: (i) current valid Minnesota driver's license; (ii) current valid Minnesota identification card; or (iii) current valid photo driver's license or identification card issued by another state or a province of Canada. (1) Description of the pledger or seller including approximate height, weight, race, sex, color of eyes and color of hair; (m) The signature of the pledger or seller; (n) All printed statements as required by Minnesota Statute 325J.04 subdivision 2, or any other applicable statutes. 1187.33. Redemption period. Any person pledging, pawning or depositing an item for security must have a minimum of sixty (60) days from the date of that transaction to redeem the item before it may be forfeited and sold. During the sixty (60) day holding period, items may not be removed from the licensed location except as provided in section 1187.45. Licensees are prohibited from redeeming any item to anyone other than the person to whom the receipt was issued or, to any person identified in a written notarized authorization to redeem the property identified in the receipt, or to a person identified in writing by the pledger at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the pledger, or with approval of the Public Safety Director or their designee. Written authorization for release of property to persons other than original pledger must be maintained along with original transaction records in accordance with subsection 1187.25. 1187.35. Holdingl2eriod. Any item purchased by a licensee must not be sold or otherwise transferred for thirty (30) days from the date of the transaction. An individual may redeem an item seventy -two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. 1187.37. Police order to hold property. Subdivision 1. Investigative hold. Whenever a law enforcement official from any agency notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the premises. The investigative hold shall be confirmed in writing by the originating agency within seventy -two (72) hours and will remain in effect for fifteen (15) days from the date of initial notification, or until the investigative order is canceled, or until an order to hold /confiscate is issued, pursuant to subsection 1187.31 (b) whichever comes first. Subd. 2. Order to hold. Whenever the public safety director, or the director's designee, notifies a licensee not to sell an item, the item must not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the director or the director's designee. The order to hold shall expire ninety (90) days from the date it is placed unless the public safety director or the director's designee determines the hold is still necessary and notifies the licensee in writing. Subd. 3. Order to confiscate. If an item is identified as stolen or evidence in a criminal case, the director or director's designee may: (a) Physically confiscate and remove it from the pawnshop, pursuant to a written order from the director or the director's designee, or (b) Place the item on hold or extend the hold as provided in subdivision 2 of this subsection and leave the item in the pawnshop. When an item is confiscated, the person doing so shall provide identification upon request of the licensee, and shall provide the licensee the name and phone number of the confiscating agency and investigator, and the case number related to the confiscation. Subd. 4. Release of order to hold /confiscate. When an order to hold /confiscate is no longer necessary, the director of public safety, or the director's designee shall so notify the licensee. 1187.39. Inspection of items. At all times during the terms of the license, the licensee must allow the public safety director or designee(s) to enter the premises where the licensed business is located, including all off -site storage facilities as authorized in section 1187.45 during normal business hours, except in an emergency, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the items, ware and merchandise and records therein to verify compliance with this chapter or other applicable laws. 1187.41. Label required. Licensees must attach a label to every item at the time it is pawned, purchased or received in inventory from any reportable transaction. Permanently recorded on this label must be the number or name that identifies the transaction in the pawnshop's records, the transaction date, the name of the item and the description or the model and serial number of the item as reported to the public safety department, whichever is applicable, and the date the item is out of pawn or can be sold, if applicable. Labels shall not be re -used. 1187.43. Prohibited acts. The following acts are prohibited: (a) No person under the age of eighteen (18) years may pawn or sell or attempt to pawn or sell goods with any licensee, nor may any licensee receive any goods from a person under the age of eighteen (18) years. (b) No licensee may receive any goods from a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person. (c) No licensee may receive any goods, unless the seller presents identification in the form of a current valid Minnesota driver's license or identification card, or a current valid photo driver's license or �"! S identification card issued by the state or province of residency of the person from whom the item was received. (d) No licensee may receive any item of property that possesses an altered or obliterated serial number or operation identification number or any item of property that has had its serial number removed. 1187.45. Business at only one place. A license under this section authorizes the licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated in the license. However, upon written request, the public safety director or designee may approve an off -site locked and secured storage facility. The licensee shall permit inspection of the facility in accordance with section 1187.39. All provisions of this section regarding record keeping and reporting apply to the facility and its contents. Property shall be stored in compliance with all provisions of the city code. The licensee must either own the building in which the business is conducted, and any approved off - site storage facility, or have a lease on the business premises which extends for more than six (6) months. 1187.47. Separability. Should any subsection, subdivision, paragraph, clause or other provision of this section be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared invalid. Relation to other ordinances. This ordinance supersedes those provisions of section 1186 of the Richfield City Code that pertain to pawnbrokers. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be effective as provided in Richfield City Code subsection 110.11. Adopted this day of , 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 42 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of the approval of the proposed Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program, Cycle V: • Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 (a redevelopment district); • Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 (a redevelopment district); and • Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, B -1, B -2, B -3, and B-4 (redevelopment districts). (An explanation of the above alpha- numeric system immediately follows this letter.) Background: . Over the past several years, Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program Plans have been created and modified in order to provide for the clearance of small, substandard houses and make available vacant lots for the construction of larger, market -rate, single family homes in the community. The Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program continues the goals and objectives originally set forth at program inception in 1990. The Cycle V program is specifically aimed at: • providing a composite list of 82 qualifying, candidate properties for potential acquisition; • purchasing and demolishing nine substandard properties during 1998; • providing for the construction of at least nine new homes valued at an average of $135,000 (the average value of new homes built in 1995 and 1996 was $146,000); • generating land sale proceeds as a source of program revenue; and • continuing to provide new, larger single family and townhome opportunities to potential residents and to current residents who want to remain in Richfield. Initial purchases in Cycle V will be made with Development Fund revenues. Later this year, an alternative funding program will be presented as Development Fund revenues will no longer be available. Attached to this letter are the Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Plans under the current proposal and the following summaries: • 5`1 a) Alpha- numeric system for Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts A -1, A -2, A -3, A =4, B -1, B -2, 13=3, and B -4, including maps of the project areas, as proposed for amendment, and location of tax increment candidate properties; b) Additional program information requested by the Planning Commission; c) Tax Increment Plans for Districts A -5 and approving resolution; and d) Tax Increment Plans for Districts B -5 and approving resolution. It is encouraged that all Plans, including respective maps, budgets, and cashflows, be reviewed in conjunction with the summaries. In addition to these materials, please note the following major points of the modifications to the Program and Plans: Modification of Redevelopment Project Area Plans for Project Areas A and B: • Project boundary expansions to both project areas to include qualifying parcels that lie near Crosstown Highway 62 for Project Area A and near Penn Avenue and 66th Street for Project Area B. • Identification of 53 scattered sites within Project Area A and 29 scattered sites within Project Area B, for a total of 82 properties which are qualifying, substandard candidate properties for acquisition and redevelopment. (Please note that the Plans . have been revised since HRA approval on January 20, 1998 to correct parcel sorting errors between the two project areas. The total amount of properties on the two lists remains at 82. If all double lots on the lists were to be subdivided, there would be 85 potential new sites available for redevelopment.) Modification of Tax Increment Financing District A -1. A -2. A -3, and A-4 and Tax Increment Financing District B -1, B -2. B -3, and B-4: • A "housekeeping" measure to bring these specific plans into alignment with Hennepin County's tax increment lists and the State Auditor's annual tax increment reports, as well as simplify internal management of program properties. Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 (a redevelopment district) and Tax Increment Financing District B -5 (a redevelopment district): • Creation of two new scattered -site, tax increment redevelopment districts (District A- 5 within Project Area A, and District B -5 within Project Area B) whose terms are not to exceed 25 years. • Creation of two new lists of qualifying properties -- 53 properties for Tax Increment District A -5 and 29 properties for Tax Increment District B -5 -- totaling 82 properties from which to draw that could effectively provide for the construction of 85 new single family, market rate homes (three double lots are included), depending on funding sources. (See note above regarding correction to sorting error.) • Establishment of new tax increment expenditure budgets. Recommended Motion: Adopt the three attached resolutions which: A) Approves Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A; establishes Tax Increment Financing District A -5 (a redevelopment district); and creates a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5. B) Approves Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B; establishes Tax Increment Financing District B -5 (a redevelopment district); and creates a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5. C) Approves Modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts A -1, A -2, A -3, A-4, B -1, B -2, B -3, and B-4 (all redevelopment districts). • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program continues to be a successful program in the community which clears small, substandard houses and provides vacant lots for the construction of larger, market -rate, single family homes in the community. 2. Richfield Rediscovered is a proven redevelopment program yet requires the modification of its plans from time to time in order to provide updated lists of qualifying properties and tax increment budgetary considerations. 3. The HRA approved the modifications on January 20 and requested the City Council to hold a public hearing and approve the modifications. 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed plans and modifications and has made an affirmative finding with regard to the conformity of the plans, land acquisition, and disposition to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The HRH's development consultant, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., has prepared the plans in conjunction with legal counsel's review and found them to be in compliance with existing law. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Modify the proposed program. 5 -3 40 2. Delay action until a future time. Discussion /Decision Mode: The proposed modifications to existing plans and creation of new plans are being processed to provide new updated candidate property lists for construction opportunities for the 1998 construction season. Previously, the Cycle IV lists were approved in 1995. The proposed Cycle V updates the list of properties to allow the program to continue. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser Executive Director JDP:ds 0 C] 0 5-Y EXPLANATION OF ALPHA - NUMERIC ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM DOCUMENTS The Richfield Rediscovered New Construction Program is organized alpha - numerically because of its cyclical nature. The original program established two redevelopment project areas, Project Area A and Project Area B. Cycle I began when the program was initiated in 1990. Properties purchased from the approved plan lists became the tax increment district for that cycle, thus the designation A -1 and B -1, and so on. If the current proposed modification is approved, the properties purchased from the two lists of potential candidates in the documents would be designated as Tax Increment District A -5 and B -5. The next two pages are copies of maps which appear in the plan documents. The first map shows the A and B project areas as well as the proposed areas of enlargement. The second map identifies by dots the potential list of 82 candidate properties (53 in A and 29 in B). Again, all of the properties purchased as part of the proposed Cycle V will be designated A -5 or B -5. • CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: February 5, 1998 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Answers to Questions about Richfield Rediscovered and the Use of Tax Increment Financing (Modified) The following information is provided by Housing and Redevelopment Authority staff in response to the questions Commissioners raised at the last Planning Commission meeting: 1. Sub - standardness or "blight" is determined by a number of factors, including: • the structural integrity of the house (foundation, floor joist system, etc.) • the function of the house structure /functional obsolescence (are doorways very narrow? ceilings low? access to the bathroom only through a bedroom? kitchen poorly designed? limited ability to remodel due to structure or house orientation ?) • location of buildings on lot (houses at the rear of the lot are not in conformity with zoning nor rest of block) • building code and finishes (updating plumbing, heating and electrical systems; condition of roof, siding; aged wall and floor coverings that have not been replaced for several years) If the cost of the required repairs and rehab exceeds 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new, up to date home (of identical square footage) on the same site, then the property meets the statute requirements for inclusion on a Tax Increment Redevelopment District. 2. How many of the parcels on the list does the HRA own? Of the 82 parcels included in the recent plan modification, the HRA currently owns three. Usually, qualifiable parcels are identified, and purchase occurs later. After purchase occurs, development usually needs to happen quickly, which does not allow time for the property to be included in a new plan modification. Therefore it is important to identify as many potentially qualified parcels as possible ahead of time. • 69 February 5, 1998'"" Page 2 3. How many of the parcels will be done in 1998? How are they chosen? In 1998, 8 -10 will be purchased for redevelopment. Properties are purchased from willing sellers of qualified property. If not enough willing sellers of qualified property have emerged, letters go out to other owners who appear to have qualified property, reminding them of the program, if they are interested. 4. Sites for multi -unit single family developments? Of the properties purchased in 1997, two can support townhome developments (six units). Sites large enough for such developments are unique. One qualifiable site which could potentially be developed with a two unit townhome was appraised but not purchased (the owner decided not to sell at this time). 5. How are properties picked (how do they make the list)? Properties are identified from a variety of sources including tax value (generally, properties under $65,000), drive -bys, and word -of -mouth (for example, a resident calls and asks if the City is interested in purchasing their property or an employee in another City Department lets HRA staff know about a potential property). Once a property is identified, HRA staff do a drive by, research property characteristics through Assessing and Inspections files, and, when possible, conduct an interior inspection. 6. How were the original Project boundaries determined? The original project area boundaries, established in 1990, were determined by HRA staff and legal counsel and approved by the HRA and City Council. Different options were considered for determining the location and size of the project area, including creating one large area encompassing most of the City and creating several smaller project areas covering logical groupings of units. As the qualifying parcels were scattered sites, the project area boundaries were drawn to include the parcels under the original plan as well as plan for the future. Since Richfield Lake, Wood Lake and I- 35W provided a geographical challenge and natural division to one large project area, it was determined that two project areas would serve equally well and be prudent legal and political alternatives to one large project area. • s Ehlers and Associates Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Richfield - Tax Increment Financing District A -5 The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District A -5. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 and the adoption of a plan for the District. Redevelopment Plan: Modification of Redevelopment project Area A to expand the boundaries Type of TIF District: Redevelopment District Location: 53 scattered sites for a total of 55 new sites Proposed development: Demolition of substandard houses and construction of new homes on the cleared lots Maximum duration: 25 years from receipt of first tax increment Estimated annual tax increment: $1,780 per house $97,878 total project Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget per house (maximums only). Land Acquisition ................... $65,000 Site preparation ..................... 10,000 Interest ... .........................23,539 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) ........ 5,000 TOTAL ......................... $103,539 Form of financing: Bond issue or loans Administrative costs: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. LGA/HACA penalty Local contribution: The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is equivalent to 5% of the tax increment revenue. C� C • 5-9 Required findings by the City Council: Evidence 1. District A -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). 2. The proposed development would not 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 district permitted by the plan. 3. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area A by private enterprise. District A -5 consists of 53 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District A -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District A -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district criteria have been met. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in District A -5, the total increased market value would be up to $4,313,900 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $3,161,558 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District A -5 The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1998 in order to find that the Plan is in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. The project to be assisted by District A -5 will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Page 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 5-1D • Property Address: PID Number: 7432 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 7525 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0164 6744 Blaisdell 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 6345 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -11 -0025 6437 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0088 6507 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 6508 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -13 -0097 7436 Bryant 33- 028 -24 -41 -0048 6220 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 6915 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -44 -0113 7316 Clinton ** 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 7500 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0083 7520 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0088 7027 Columbus 35- 028 -24 -22 -0001 7333 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 7537 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -42 -0132 7240 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0096 7301 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 6833 Grand 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7532 Girard 33- 028 -24 -42 -0074 7133 Lyndale ** 34- 028 -24 -22 -0055 7201 Nicollet 34- 028 -24 -13 -0100 6609 Oakland 26- 028 -24 -32 -0031 6833 Park 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6800 Pillsbury 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6816 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0061 6820 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0062 6833 Portland 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 7300 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0015 7304 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0016 7415 Portland 35- 028 -24 -32 -0009 6608 Stevens 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6609 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0056 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7241 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 6228 Third Avenue 27- 028 -24 -12 -0005 • Page 3 5-11 iProperty Address:(continued) PID Number:(continued) 6641 Fourth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0132 6620 Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 6921 Twelfth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0098 6515 Thirteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0145 6915 Thirteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0064 6241 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0068 6326 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0140 6329 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0091 6349 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 6408 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0117 6537 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0087 6928 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 6945 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0013 6217 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0058 6245 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0052 6324 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0081 6408 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0053 • ** Denotes double lot N:\.MINNSOTA\RICIIFIELXRREDIS\SU\IMARY.A5 0 Page 4 0 • 0 Ehlers and Associates Tax Increment Financing District Overview , City of Richfield -Tax Increment Financing District B -5 The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District B -5. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 and the adoption of a plan for the District. Redevelopment Plan: Modification of Redevelopment project Area B to expand the boundaries Type of TIF District: Redevelopment District Location: 29 scattered sites for a total of 30 new lots Proposed development: Demolition of substandard houses and construction of new homes on the cleared lots Maximum duration: 25 years from receipt of first tax increment Estimated annual tax increment: $1,704 per house $51,122 total project Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget per house (maximums only). Land Acquisition ................ $65,000 Site preparation .................. 10,000 Interest .........................22,539 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) ..... 5,000 TOTAL ...................... $102,539 Form of financing: Bond issue or loans Administrative costs: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. LGA/HACA penalty Local contribution: The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is equivalent to 5% of the tax increment revenue. c: • 0 �'I 3 Required findings by the City Council: Evidence 1. District B -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The proposed development would not 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 district permitted by the plan. 3. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area A by private enterprise. District B -5 consists of 29 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District B- 5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District B -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district criteria have been met. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in District B -5, the total increased market value would be up to $2,188,200 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,586,332 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District B -5 . 3. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1998 in order to find the Plan in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. The project to be assisted by District B -5 will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Page 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN 28- 028 -24 -32 -0067 6855 Penn TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 6817 Queen ** 29- 028 -24 -44 -0013 6913 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0175 Property Address: PID Number: 6933 Queen 6239 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0020 32- 028 -24 -14 -0017 6245 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0019 6813 Russell 6300 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 29- 028 -24 -44 -0037 6305 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0027 6824 Russell 6320 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 29- 028 -24 -44 -0154 6331 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0022 7332 Upton 6421 Girard 28- 028 -24 -13 -0008 29- 028 -24 -43 -0121 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 6306 Irving 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 6310 Irving 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 6805 Irving 28- 028 -24 -34 -0008 6645 Knox 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 6539 Oliver 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 6700 Oliver 28- 028 -24 -32 -0067 6855 Penn 28- 028 -24 -33 -0146 6817 Queen ** 29- 028 -24 -44 -0013 6913 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0175 6924 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0141 6933 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 7227 Queen 32- 028 -24 -14 -0017 7332 Queen 32- 028 -24 -14 -0083 6813 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0038 6817 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0037 6820 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0046 6824 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0047 6917 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0154 6736 Upton 29- 028 -24 -42 -0132 7332 Upton 32- 028 -24 -13 -0059 6900 Vincent 29- 028 -24 -43 -0121 ** Denotes double lot N: \. Nl \�SOTAMCHFlELXRREDIS\SU,1.MARY. B5 • Page 3 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THERETO; ESTABLISHING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 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 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA ") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project Area A and adopted the Redevelopment Plan related thereto. It has been proposed that the City adopt the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A and establish within Redevelopment Project Area A, Tax Increment Financing District A -5 ( "District A -5 ") and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto (collectively, the "Program and Plan "); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.170 and 469.174 through 469.179, M all inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Modification to the Program and Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02 The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Program and Plan. 1.03 The City or HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Program and 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 District A -5, notice of a potential redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment by the City Planning Commission on the consistency of the Program and Plan with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the holding of a pubic hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04 Certain written reports (the "Reports ") relating to the Program and Plan and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and submitted to the Council and /or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Program and Plan. The Reports include data, information and /or substantiation constituting or relating to (1) the "studies and analyses" on why the new District A -5 meets the so- called "but for" test; and (2) the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully apart of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 0 Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Program and Plan 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Program and 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 Program and Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5. 3.01 The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District A -5 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 development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value on 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 District A -5 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Program and Plan conform to the general plan for the development of redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Program and Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development of District A -5 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 District A -5 for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399 subd. 6(c). 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. Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Program and Plan 4.01 The Program and 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 office of the City Clerk. 4.02 The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Program and 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. 4.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of District A -5, as described in the Program and 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 District A -5, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk is Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 5-18 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5, ( "District A -5 ") as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that District A -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). District A -5 consists of 53 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District A -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District A -5 is a scattered -site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district creation have been met. (See also Appendix D of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for 0 Tax Increment District A -5). 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 District A -5 permitted by the Plan. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 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 District A -5, the total increased market value would be up to $4,313,900. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $3,161,558 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of 5-/9 acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District A -5 (see Cashflow in Appendix C of the Program and Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 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 January 27, 1998 and found to be in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area A by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by District A -5 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. • • MKI 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THERETO; ESTABLISHING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 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 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA ") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project Area B and adopted the Redevelopment Plan related thereto. It has been proposed that the City adopt the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B and establish within Redevelopment Project Area B, Tax Increment Financing District B -5 ( "District 13-5 ") and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto (collectively, the "Program and Plan "); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.170 and 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Modification to the Program and Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02 The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Program and Plan. 1.03 The City or HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Program and 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 District B -5, notice of a potential redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment by the City Planning Commission on the consistency of the Program and Plan with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the holding of a pubic hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04 Certain written reports (the "Reports ") relating to the Program and Plan and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and submitted to the Council and /or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Program and Plan. The Reports include data, information and /or substantiation constituting or relating to (1) the "studies and analyses" on why the new District B -5 meets the so- called "but for" test; and (2) the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully apart of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 5- C�-) Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and for the Adoption and A�roval of the Program and Plan the Program and Plan 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Program and 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 Program and Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5. 3.01 The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District B -5 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 development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value on 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 District B -5 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Program and Plan conform to the general plan for the development of redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Program and Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development of District B -5 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 District B -5 for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399 subd. 6(c). 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. Section 4. Approval and Adoption of the Program and Plan Adoption of the Program and Plan 4.01 The Program and 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 office of the City Clerk. 4.02 The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Program and 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-CD-D 4.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of District B -5, as described in the Program and 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 District B -5, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: • Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk LI Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 5-�3 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5, ( "District B -5 ") as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that District B -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). District B -5 consists of 29 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District B -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District B -5 is a scattered -site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district creation have been met. (See also Appendix D of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District B -5). 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 District B -5 permitted by the Plan. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 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 District B -5, the total increased market value would be up to $2,188,200. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,586,332 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 5-C) � acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District B -5 (see Cashflow in Appendix C of the Program and Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 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 January 27, 1998 and found to be in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area B by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by District B -5 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. • S D 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS A -1, A -2, A -3 AND A-4 AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATED THERETO; MODIFYING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS B -1, B -2, B -3 AND B-4 AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATIONS TO 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 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA ") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project Area A and adopted the Redevelopment Plan thereto and established Redevelopment Project Area B and adopted the Redevelopment Plan thereto. It has been proposed that the City adopt the Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans (collectively, the "Modifications "); for Tax Increment Financing Districts A -1, A -2, A -3, A-4, B -1, B -2, B -3 and B-4 (collectively, the "Districts ") to clarify the budgets, clarify indebtedness, and identify parcels which have been certified in the Districts; all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 through 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the Modifications and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02 The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Modifications and has caused to be prepared the Modifications. 1.03 The City or HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Modifications, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Districts, notice of the Modifications to the redevelopment districts to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment by the Planning Commission on the consistency of the Modifications with the City's comprehensive plan, and the holding of a pubic hearing upon published notice as required by law. Section 2. Findings for the Modifications 2.01. The Council is not modifying the boundaries of the Districts. 0 2.02 The Council hereby affirms its original findings that the Districts are in the public interest and are "redevelopment districts" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(a)(1). 2.03 The Modifications conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as found by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1998. Section 3. Approval of the Modifications: Filing 3.01 The Modifications, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3.02 The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Modifications and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 3.03 The staff of the City are authorized to file the Modifications with the State Department of Revenue. 3.04 The Council hereby concurs in the resolution of the HRA approving the Modifications. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 Draft as of February 11, 1998 Draft for City Council Approval CATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 (a redevelopment district) RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: February 23, 1998 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 Phone: (612) 697 -8500 Fax: (612) 697 -8555 E -mail: info @ ehlers - inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers - inc.com �' OR M-50 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MOD � IAA r,'M.T0 THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEV , __ PMVT PROJECT AREA A ...... ............................... 1 -1 Foreword a> ............................... ............................1 -1 t Subsectigt n -= escription of Redevelopment Project Area .......................... 1 -1 Subsegttor� Acquisition and Relocation Activities .............................. 1 -2 SEC TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING y T `° CTA -5 .............................. ............................... A2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword ................... ............................... A2 -1 110,111W r Ssection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ............ ............................... A2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives A2 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ... ............................... A2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 .. A2 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 ............... A2 -3 Subsection 2 -7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............................. A2 -4 Subsection 2 -8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment .............. A2 -5 Subsection 2 -9. Property To Be Acquired ....... ............................... A2 -5 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ................ ............................... A2 -5 Subsection 2 -11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ......................... A2 -6 Subsection 2 -12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................ A2 -7 Subsection 2 -13. Subsection 2 -14. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 ................... Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions . A2 -7 A2 -7 Subsection 2 -15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... A2 -8 Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 .............. A2 -8 Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose .......................... A2 -8 Subsection 2 -18. Fiscal Disparities Election ...... ............................... A2 -9 Subsection 2 -19. State Tax Increment Financing Aid .............................. A2 -9 Subsection 2 -20. County Road Costs ........... ............................... A2 -10 Subsection 2 -21. Summary ................... ............................... A2 -10 APPENDIX A - BOUNDARY MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 ... ............................... A -1 APPENDIX B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 ... ............................... B -1 APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 .................... ............................... C -1 APPENDIX D - REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTA -5 ............................... ............................... D -1 • SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN .—AR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A Foreword Dag The following texv' iejxreseris a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. This modific ti.,& �ep�sents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redeve opm Xqject O'ect Area A. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the boundaries of Redvelo1 Area A as specified below. For °furth�ertformation, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A, adopted July 1� 1990; is recommended. It is available from the City Clerk- Treasurer at the City of Richfield. Other reierit information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project Area A. Subsection C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area The modified boundary lines for Redevelopment Project Area A are as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right -of -way line of East 62nd Street and the easterly right -of- way line of 11th Avenue South, thence, in a line easterly more or less, along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the westerly right -of -way line of Bloomington Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of East 63rd Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of 16th Avenue. Thence, southerly along said easterly right -of -way to its intersection with the northerly property line of Lot 2, Block 1, Iverson's Second Addition. Thence, easterly along said northerly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the westerly right -of -way line of 18th Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of Diagonal Boulevard. Thence, southwesterly more or less, along with said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of East 73rd Street. Thence, westerly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly property line of Lot 5, Block 4, Henry Thernell Addition. Thence, southerly along said easterly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of East 76th Street. Thence, westerly along said northerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot 4, Block 8, Sunset Terrace. Thence, northerly along said westerly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the northerly property line of Lot 8, Block 8, Sunset Terrace. Thence, westerly along said northerly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of Lyndale Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of West 74th Street. Thence, westerly along said southerly right -of -way to its intersection with the easterly property line of Lot 26, Block 25, Irwin Shores. Thence, southerly along said easterly property line, as extended, to its intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of West 76th Street. Thence, westerly along said northerly right -of -way line to the intersection with the westerly right -of -way line of Fremont Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the northerly right -of -way line of Humboldt Avenue South. Thence, northwesterly and northerly more or less, along said northerly right -of- way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of West 73rd Street. Thence, easterly more or less, along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of Lyndale Avenue South. Thence, northerly more or less, along with said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A 1 -1 V -,✓ with the southerly right -of -way line of West 68th Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of Pleasant Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said easterly right -of -way bne to its intersection with the northerly property line of Lot 7, Block 2, Ralph Hollenbach's First Additioi e e, easterly, along said northerly property line, as extended, to the easterly right -of -way line of W�wortv�enue South. Thence, southerly along said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection with the no' property line of Lot 6, Block 2, Oaklane Addition. Thence easterly along said northerly propertxl ', as`ctended, to its intersection with the westerly right -of -way line of Blaisdell Avenue South. Thenc 'soy th rl' along said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of- way line of W-6st 8ti Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterl fight =of- -way line of Nicollet Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said, easterly right -of -way line td,;.,tts hfosection with the northerly right -of -way line of East 67th Street. Thence, easterly along said northerly glt -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of First Avenue South. Thence, rtherlr along said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of East 66th Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of Stevens Avenue. Thence, norther along said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of East 62nd Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the westerly right -of -way line of Clinton Avenue. Thence, southerly, more or less, along said westerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right -of -way line of East 65th Street. Thence, westerly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of 3rd Avenue. Thence, southerly along said easterly right -of -way line to its intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of East 66th Street. Thence, easterly along said southerly right -of -way line to its intersection with the easterly right -of -way line of 11 th Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said easterly right -of -way line to the point of beginning. Subsection G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities Acquisition In furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff maintained standards set forth in previous years to identify property for acquisition. In its sequential numbering system, this is Cycle V in the housing program. As in the past, residential property owners were contacted and surveyed to determine (a.) whether or not they continued to express an interest in selling their property on a voluntary basis and (b.) if interested, within which time frame. Additional means of obtaining candidate properties were made by (a.) property owners contacting the HRA requesting that their property be considered for the program and (b.) referrals by the City's health and inspections department. Candidate properties were further evaluated for program eligibility and inspected. The properties identified for acquisition under Cycle V of the program are listed in Appendix A of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5. Relocation The HRA accepts as binding its obligations under provisions of federal and state law (M.S., Chapter 1] 7) for relocation. Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A 1 -2 5-31 0 SECTION II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 Subsection 2 -1. The City of Richfield(" "), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have pre e following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A- 5itnczA -5 "), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Statutory Authority Uthin the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or pment 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 District A -5. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District A -5 currently consists of 53 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District A -5 is created to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District A -5 consists of 53 lots with the potential for a total of 55 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District A -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District A -5 found in Subsection 2 -10 does assume that 55 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area A. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District A -5 and Redevelopment Project Area A. Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District A -5 may be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan. 2. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer selected properties that they may acquire within District A -5 or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 3. 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 District A -5. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -I 5-3d- Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District A -5 District A -5 encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below. Please see the map in AppendixX or;f0her, information on the location of District A -5. 40 Property Address PID Number 742 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 7240 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0096 X7525 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0164 6744 Blaisdell 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 6345 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -11 -0025 33- 028 -24 -42 -0074 6437 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0088 34- 028 -24 -22 -0055 7201 Nicollet 34- 028 -24 -13 -0100 6507 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 26- 028 -24 -32 -0031 6833 Park 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6508 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -13 -0097 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 7436 Bryant 33- 028 -24 -41 -0048 27- 028 -24 -33 -0061 6220 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 27- 028 -24 -33 -0062 6915 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -44 -0113 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 7316 Clinton ** 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 34- 028 -24 -14 -0015 7500 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0083 34- 028 -24 -14 -0016 7520 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0088 35- 028 -24 -32 -0009 7027 Columbus 35- 028 -24 -22 -0001 40 7333 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 7537 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -42 -0132 7240 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0096 7301 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 6833 Grand 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7532 Girard 33- 028 -24 -42 -0074 7133 Lyndale ** 34- 028 -24 -22 -0055 7201 Nicollet 34- 028 -24 -13 -0100 6609 Oakland 26- 028 -24 -32 -0031 6833 Park 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6800 Pillsbury 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6816 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0061 6820 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0062 6833 Portland 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 7300 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0015 7304 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0016 7415 Portland 35- 028 -24 -32 -0009 6608 Stevens 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6609 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0056 6616 Second Avenue 7241 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -2 '� Rs -3 i6228 Third Avenue 27- 028 -24 -12 -0005 The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that District A -5, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -3 6641 Fourth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0132 `662,ii,Fifth Avenue 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 3 ,� X21 `: fth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0098 Thirteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0145 ,. " ` 69f1�5 Thirteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0064 6241 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0068 _ t 6326 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0140 '0 6329 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0091 6349 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 6408 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0117 6537 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0087 6928 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 6945 Fourteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -43 -0013 6217 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0058 6245 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0052 6324 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -12 -0081 6408 Fifteenth Avenue 26- 028 -24 -13 -0053 ** Denotes double lot Subsection 2 -6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that District A -5, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -3 to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The mu kat ality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the p�e n entence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, artdcge of ih ilding, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other stmi ,A eliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an,int War Uit pection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal reparectf the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the ropFert} is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable access to the property after using its best e ff orts to obtain permission from the party that S din ns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion *E'that the building is structurally substandard... y (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire are of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: ■ District A -5 is a redevelopment district consisting of 53 parcels. ■ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the area of District A -5 consists of parcels in District A -5 that are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within District A -5 finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. Because District A -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. (See Appendix D) 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 District A -5 is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 1998 for taxes payable 1999. 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 District A -5 declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. It is expected that the original local tax rate for District A -5 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1999. The estimate below is proposed payable 1998. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -4 The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District A -5 appear in the table below. ,Original Tax Capacity Value $31,111 Percent Retained by City 100% 01, Original Local Tax Rate 1.37491 Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment P�xrsuan to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated C IurNet Tax Capacity (CTC) of District A -5, within Redevelopment Project Area A, 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 Capacit upon Completion of Project (PIC) $102,300 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 31,111 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 71,189 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $97,878 Subsection 2 -9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District A -5 including interior and adjacent street rights of way. The parcels are listed in Subsection 2 -5. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for District A -5 is a proposal to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around District A -5. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of District A -5, 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 District Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -5 5-3(p A -5 over the life of the district is outlined in the following table. Uses of Funds Per House Total 65,000 $3,575,000 ,TZemolition/Grading) 10,000 550,000 Est 23,539 1,294,620 inistrative Costs (up to 10 %) 5,000 275,000 TOTAL $103,539 $5,694,620 Eimate �cbsts associated with District A -5 are subject to change. The cost of all activities to be considered ftax crement financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the apm8able statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within District A -5 will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of District A -5 but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area A, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of District A -5) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2 -11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Acquisition and site preparation costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project may be financed by a bond issue or loans. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA may issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA. The estimated sources of funds for District A -5 over the life of the district are contained in the table below. Sources of Funds Per House Total Tax Increment $44,490 $2,446,962 Land Sales 30,000 1,650,000 Other Tax Increment/Grants 26,824 1,475,320 Local Contribution 2,225 122,348 10 TOTAL $103,539 $5,694,630 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -6 s • 5 -5) Subsection 2 -12. Pursuant to M.S., Sec> an74 ..Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing IVA district include all of- afolloMhg potential revenue sources: 1. taxed b}ie captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under tkSSet n 469.177; 2. Iheg'Spi�eds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the authority with tax increments; 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. Silas 'oetion 2 -13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District A -5 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. I (b), the duration of District A -5 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 2000. Thus, it is estimated that District A -5, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2024, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District A -5 prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of District A -5. 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 District A -5 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) Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion Hennepin County 936,486,071 71,189 I.S.D. No. 280 26,436,495 71,189 City of Richfield 17,976,447 71,189 Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 Percent of CTC to Entity Total 0.0076% 0.2693% 0.3960% A2 -7 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 1998 figures. District A -5 will be certified under the actual 1997/1998 rates, which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Subsection 2 -15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of District A -5 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District A -5 or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District A -5 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City is in the process of reviewing the area to be included in District A -5 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 Administration of District A -5 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that District A -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). District A -5 consists of 53 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, 10 utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District A -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District A -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -8 IMPACT ON TAX RATES u 1997/1998 Percent Potential .;Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin Coon 0.384710 27.98% 71,189 27,387 I.S D No&,g�, 80 `' 0.632310 45.99% 71,189 45,014 City 'a Rlchbeld 0.276640 20.12% 71,189 19,694 Metro Area 0.056330 4.10% 71,189 4,010 � `ateiMed 0.006590 0.48% 71,189 469 diher 0.018330 1.33% 71,189 1,305 Total 1.374910 100.00% 97,878 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 1998 figures. District A -5 will be certified under the actual 1997/1998 rates, which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Subsection 2 -15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of District A -5 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District A -5 or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District A -5 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City is in the process of reviewing the area to be included in District A -5 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 Administration of District A -5 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that District A -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). District A -5 consists of 53 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, 10 utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District A -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District A -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -8 5 /3 I upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspecti mill be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district criteria have been met. (See also , Apps .D,); 2. Finding that the p,"',' osed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occux sci ely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased m�ket value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax incr entfnncang would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the pr o`= d development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the taidx " duration of District A -5 permitted by the Plan. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District A -5 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 District A -5, the total increased market value would be up to $4,313,900 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $3,161,558 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District A -5 (see Cashflow in Appendix Q. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1998 in order to find that the Plan is in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area A by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by District A -5 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. Subsection 2 -18. Fiscal Disparities Election Election No commercial/industrial property is expected to be constructed in District A -5. Subsection 2 -19. State Tax Increment Tax Increment FinancingAid 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 (HACA) Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -9 5' Z/V second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC) of the tax increment financing,district. Pursuant to M.S., SMion i 139,,9, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA -HACA penalty. District A 5 is c Cempt feom the LGA -HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a qualifying local contribution at they e,of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the CO ERA "must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage. A � ,. The local comb fida"for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in thy' ty ' any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after which point the Cit . u's ake an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capa ,,(b) percent of tax increment revenues for that year. 'e amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the �I fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant -in -aid which may be spent for general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes. The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA - HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 5 percent of annual tax increment for District A -5, 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 -20. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan. In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan. Subsection 2 -21. Summary The City of Richfield is establishing District A -5 to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for District A -5 was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55402 -4100, telephone (612) 697 -8500. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -5 A2 -10 .7 0 APPENDIX A APPENDIX VELOPMENT PROJECT AREA A AND FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 A -1 • 0 51qY �x 11 APPENDIX APPENDIX B OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN 4T FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 Property Address PID Number =y 2 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0026 7525 Aldrich 33- 028 -24 -41 -0164 6744 Blaisdell 27- 028 -24 -31 -0007 6345 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -11 -0025 6437 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0088 6507 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -14 -0116 6508 Bloomington 26- 028 -24 -13 -0097 7436 Bryant 33- 028 -24 -41 -0048 6220 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -11 -0001 6915 Clinton 27- 028 -24 -44 -0113 7316 Clinton ** 34- 028 -24 -14 -0086 7500 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0083 7520 Colfax 33- 028 -24 -41 -0088 7027 Columbus 35- 028 -24 -22 -0001 7333 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -13 -0090 7537 Emerson 33- 028 -24 -42 -0132 7240 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0096 7301 Garfield 34- 028 -24 -23 -0129 6833 Grand 27- 028 -24 -33 -0070 7532 Girard 33- 028 -24 -42 -0074 7133 Lyndale ** 34- 028 -24 -22 -0055 7201 Nicollet 34- 028 -24 -13 -0100 6609 Oakland 26- 028 -24 -32 -0031 6833 Park 26- 028 -24 -33 -0086 6800 Pillsbury 27- 028 -24 -34 -0016 6816 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0061 6820 Pleasant 27- 028 -24 -33 -0062 6833 Portland 26- 028 -24 -33 -0111 7300 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0015 7304 Portland 34- 028 -24 -14 -0016 7415 Portland 35- 028 -24 -32 -0009 6608 Stevens 27- 028 -24 -42 -0073 6609 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0056 6616 Second Avenue 27- 028 -24 -42 -0064 7241 Second Avenue 34- 028 -24 -13 -0150 B-1 • • 0 ** Denotes double lot APPENDIX Property Address 6228 Third Avenue 6641 ourth Avenue .,y -0, "Avenue 620 `Avenue 1 Twelfth Avenue 6 5 Thirteenth Avenue 6915 Thirteenth Avenue 6241 Fourteenth Avenue 6326 Fourteenth Avenue 6329 Fourteenth Avenue 6349 Fourteenth Avenue 6408 Fourteenth Avenue 6537 Fourteenth Avenue 6928 Fourteenth Avenue 6945 Fourteenth Avenue 6217 Fifteenth Avenue 6245 Fifteenth Avenue 6324 Fifteenth Avenue 6408 Fifteenth Avenue PID Number 27- 028 -24 -12 -0005 27- 028 -24 -41 -0132 27- 028 -24 -41 -0028 26- 028 -24 -43 -0098 26- 028 -24 -13 -0145 26- 028 -24 -43 -0064 26- 028 -24 -12 -0068 26- 028 -24 -12 -0140 26- 028 -24 -12 -0091 26- 028 -24 -12 -0087 26- 028 -24 -13 -0117 26- 028 -24 -13 -0087 26- 028 -24 -43 -0069 26- 028 -24 -43 -0013 26- 028 -24 -12 -0058 26- 028 -24 -12 -0052 26- 028 -24 -12 -0081 26- 028 -24 -13 -0053 B -2 0 • • 5-Lib APPENDIX APPENDIX C FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 C -1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ��' �� TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #A -5 zll�JJJ, T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS Interest Rate: 6.000% Tax Extension Rate: 1.37491 Pay 98 Estimate Inflation Rate: 0.0000% BASE VALUE INFORMATION Tax MV Per Unit # Units Market Value Capacity Various Parcels 58,700 53 3,111,100 31,111 Total 31,111 PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Type of Tax Increment District: Housing Number of Units: 55 Class Rates: Single Family <$75k 1.0000% Single Family >$75k 1.8500% Estimated Market Value On all Projects: 7,425,000 Pay 00 Estimated Total Market Value per Unit 135,000 Estimated Additonal Market Value Per Unit: 76,300 Estimated Tax Capacity: 102,300 Pay 00 Estimated Taxes: 140,653 Estimated Taxes Per Unit: 2,557 Estimated Tax Increment: 97,878 Estimated Tax Increment Per Unit: 1,780 Estimated Land Sales 1,650,000 Estimated Land Sales Per Unit 30,000 BUT / FOR ANALYSIS Current Market Value - Est. 3,111,100 New Market Value - Est. 7,425,000 Difference 4,313,900 (Present Value of Tax Increment 1,152,342 Difference 3,161,558 !Value Likelv to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 3,161,558 0 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 1 0 u CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 5-q6 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #A -5 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 2 Base Project Captured Semi - Annual Admin. Semi - Annual Local Match Years PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax at Net Tax at Of PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity Increment 10.10% Increment 5.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 08 -01 1998 31,111 31,111 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 02 -01 1999 0.5 02 -01 1999 31,111 31,111 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 08 -01 1999 1.0 08 -01 1999 31,111 31,111 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 02 -01 2000 1.5 02 -01 2000 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,9961 2,447 0.5 2.0 08 -01 2000 2.0 08 -01 2000 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 1.0 2.5 02 -01 2001 2.5 02 -01 2001 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 1.5 3.0 08 -01 2001 3.0 08 -01 2001 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 2.0 3.5 02 -01 2002 3.5 02 -01 2002 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 2.5 4.0 08 -01 2002 4.0 08 -01 2002 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 3.0 4.5 02 -01 2003 4.5 02 -01 2003 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 3.5 5.0 08 -01 2003 5.0 08 -01 2003 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 4.0 5.5 02 -01 2004 5.5 02 -01 2004 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 4.5 6.0 08 -01 2004 6.0 08 -01 2004 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 5.0 6.5 02 -01 2005 6.5 02 -01 2005 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 5.5 7.0 08 -01 2005 7.0 08 -01 2005 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 6.0 7.5 02 -01 2006 7.5 02 -01 2006 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 6.5 8.0 08 -01 2006 8.0 08 -01 2006 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 7.0 8.5 02 -01 2007 8.5 02 -01 2007 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 7.5 9.0 08 -01 2007 9.0 08 -01 2007 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 8.0 9.5 02 -01 2008 9.5 02 -01 2008 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 8.5 10.0 08 -01 2008 10.0 08 -01 2008 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 9.0 10.5 02 -01 2009 10.5 02 -01 2009 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 9.5 11.0 08 -01 2009 11.0 08 -01 2009 31.111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996. 2,447 10.0 11.5 02 -01 2010 11.5 02 -01 2010 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 10.5 12.0 08 -01 2010 1 12.0 08 -01 2010 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 11.0 12.5 02 -01 2011 12.5 02 -01 2011 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 11.5 13.0 08 -01 2011 13.0 08 -01 2011 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,4471 12.0 .13.5 02 -01 2012 13.5 02 -01 2012 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 12.5 14.0 08 -01 2012 14.0 08 -01 2012 31.111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 13.0 .14.5 02 -01 2013 14.5 02 -01 2013 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 13.5 15.0 08 -01 2013 15.0 08 -01 2013 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 14.0 15.5 02 -01 2014 15.5 02 -01 2014 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 14.5 16.0 08 -01 2014 16.0 08 -01 2014 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 15.0 16.5 02 -01 2015 16.5 02 -01 2015 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 15.5 17.0 08 -01 2015 17.0 08 -01 2015 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 16.0 17.5 02 -01 2016 17.5 02 -01 2016 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 16.5 18.0 08 -01 2016 18.0 08 -01 2016 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 17.0 18.5 02 -01 2017 18.5 02 -01 2017 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 17.5 19.0 08 -01 2017 19.0 08 -01 2017 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 18.0 19.5 02 -01 2018 19.5 02 -01 2018 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 18.5 20.0 08 -01 2018 20.0 08 -01 2018 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,4471 19.0 20.5 02 -01 2019 20.5 02 -01 2019 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 19.5 21.0 08 -01 2019 21.0 08 -01 2019 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 20.0 21.5 02 -01 2020 21.5 02 -01 2020 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 20.5 22.0 08 -01 2020 22.0 08 -01 2020 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 21.0 22.5 02 -01 2021 22.5 02 -01 2021 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 21.5 23.0 08 -01 2021 23.0 08 -01 2021 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 22.0 23.5 02 -01 2022 23.5 02 -01 2022 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 22.5 24.0 08 -01 2022 24.0 08 -01 2022 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 23.0 24.5 02 -01 2023 24.5 02 -01 2023 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 23.5 25.0 08 -01 2023 25.0 08 -01 2023 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 24.0 25.5 02 -01 2024 25.5 02 -01 2024 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,996 2,447 24.5 26.0 08 -01 2024 26.0 08 -01 2024 31,111 102,300 71,189 48,939 (4,943) 43,9961 2,447 25.0 26.5 02 -01 2025 Totals 2,446,962 (247,143) 2,199,819 122,348 Present Values 1,152,342 (116,387) 1,035,955 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 2 0 APPENDIX D r s 5--#9 TIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A -5 The HRA staff has pJ "'ded the "opportunity for property owners to allow access to the property in order to undertake an interior�tn Lion Each property has been reviewed to determine property substandardness in accordance with *%, Secon 469.174, Subd. 10. All findings are on file for review at the City of Richfield, Community Devejpr" t Department. 9 F APPENDIX D-1 Draft as of February 11, 1998 Draft for City Council Approval CATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN y �y FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 (a redevelopment district) oil J RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: February 23, 1998 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 Phone: (612) 697 -8500 Fax: (612) 697 -8555 E -mail: info @ehlers - inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers - inc.com 0 0 • 557 TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MOD " I A O THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELO T OJECT AREA B .......... ............................... 1 -1 Foreword............................... ............................1 -1 Subsecti escription of Redevelopment Project Area .......................... 1 -1 Subset,,. n,,6 ' " Acquisition and Relocation Activities .............................. 1 -2 E SE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING IVII� TIt'CT B -5 .............................. ............................... 132-1 Su : section 2 -1. Foreword ................... ............................... 132 -1 Obsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ............ ............................... B2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives ........ ............................... 132 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ... ............................... B2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B -5 .. 132 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 ............... 132 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............................. B2 -3 Subsection 2 -8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment .............. 132 -4 Subsection 2 -9. Property To Be Acquired ....... ............................... B2 -4 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ................ ............................... 132 -5 Subsection 2 -11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ......................... B2 -5 Subsection 2 -12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................ B2 -6 Subsection 2 -13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 ................... B2 -6 Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................... B2 -6 Subsection 2 -15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... B2 -7 Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 .............. B2 -7 Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose .......................... 132 -7 Subsection 2 -18. Fiscal Disparities Election ...... ............................... 132 -9 Subsection 2 -19. State Tax Increment Financing Aid .............................. B2 -9 Subsection 2 -20. County Road Costs ............ ............................... B2 -9 Subsection 2 -21. Summary ................... ............................... 132 -10 APPENDIX A - BOUNDARY MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 ... ............................... A -1 APPENDIX B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 ... ............................... B -1 APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTB -5 ............................... ............................... C -2 APPENDIX D - REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 ............................... ............................... D -1 SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B Foreword 5-5—a The following teictAep Bents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B. This modifxc io = I resents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for I' eve3�me Project Area B. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the boundaries of Redevi jne&'Project Area B as specified below. Fdr furthet information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B, adopted July 11,1190, is recommended. It is available from the City Clerk- Treasurer at the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project Area B. Subsection C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area The modified boundary lines for Redevelopment Project Area B are as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south right -of -way line of State Highway, No. 62 and the east right -of -way line of Oliver Avenue South, thence in a line easterly more of less, along said south right -of -way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way -line of Pleasant Avenue South. Thence southerly along said west right - of -way line to its intersection with the south right -of -way line of West 63rd Street. Thence westerly along said south right -of -way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Aldrich Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the south property line of Lot 4, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Second Addition. Thence, westerly along said south property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 9, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Second Addition. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south property line of Lot 5, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Section Addition. Thence, westerly along said south property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right -of -way line of Mildred Drive. Thence, westerly more or less, along said south right -of -way line to its intersection with the east right -of -way of Emerson Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said east right -of -way line to its intersection with the north property line of Lot A, Silverwood Second Addition. Thence, easterly along said north property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot A, Silverwood Second Addition. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right -of -way line of West 66th street. Thence, westerly along said south right -of- way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Humboldt Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the north right -of -way line of West 69th Street. Thence, westerly along said north right -of -way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Irving Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the south right -of- way line of West 72nd Street. Thence, easterly along said south right -of -way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Humboldt Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the north right -of -way line of West 73rd Street. Thence, westerly along said north right -of- way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the north right -of -way line of West 74th Street. Thence, westerly along said north right -of -way line to its intersection with the west right -of -way line of Sheridan Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right -of -way line to its intersection with the north right -of- way line of West 76th street. Thence, westerly along said north right -of -way line to its intersection with the east right -of -way line of Xerxes Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said east right -of -way line to its Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B l -1 • 5-53 intersection with the south right -of -way line of West 66th Street. Thence, easterly along said south right -of- way line to its intersection with the east right -of -way line of Russell Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said east right -of -way line ie intersection with the north property line of Lot 23, Block 2, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. Thence, eastet^�,y al&g said north property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 23, Block 2Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right -of -way line of West 67th Street. Thence, easterly along said south pigti", -dy line to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 24, Block 16, Tingdale Brothers Linn Billhence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the north ri t o1" -way line of West 69th Street. Thence, easterly along said north right -of -way line to its inte itliith the east right -of -way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said east ri hg t -of- soafh rigfifWf -way line to its intersection with the east right -of -way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence, northerlyl,,,'along said east right -of -way line to its intersection with the south property line of Lot 13, Block 11, Ray:'s Liynnhurst Addition. Thence westerly along said south property line, as extended, to the center line of the alley of Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition. Thence northerly along said centerline to the south right -of- way line of West 63rd Street. Thence easterly along said south right -of -way line to the east right -of -way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence northerly along said east right -of -way line to the point of beginning. Subsection G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities Acquisition In furtherance of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff maintained standards set forth in previous years to identify property for acquisition. In its sequential numbering system, this is Cycle V in the housing program. As in the past, residential property owners were contacted and surveyed to determine (a.) whether or not they continued to express an interest in selling their property on a voluntary basis and (b.) if interested, within which time frame. Additional means of obtaining candidate properties were made by (a.) property owners contacting the HRA requesting that their property be considered for the program and (b.) referrals by the City's health and inspections department. Candidate properties were further evaluated for program eligibility and inspected. The properties identified for acquisition under Cycle V of the program are listed in Appendix A of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5. R (-.lncntinn The HRA accepts as binding its obligations under provisions of federal and state law (M.S., Chapter 1] 7) for relocation. Richfield HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B 1 -2 TAX INCREMENT F Subsection 2 -1. SECTION II J'S PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 The City of Richfield '(1,03,,,t the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA "), staff and consultants have,prepatde following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 rtilct 5 "), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project Ark Statutory Authority 'M thin the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or J& 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 District B -5. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives District B -5 currently consists of 29 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. District B -5 is iscreated to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and enable families to construct new houses on the lots through a program known as Richfield Rediscovered, which is administered by the HRA. Currently District B -5 consists of 29 lots with the potential for a total of 30 new homes to be constructed, including double lots. Due to the voluntary nature and timing of the sale of the homes included in District B -5, it is likely that some of the parcels will not be redeveloped or will be included in subsequent tax increment financing districts. The budget for District B -5 found in Subsection 2 -10 does assume that 30 new homes are built. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area B. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District B -5 and Redevelopment Project Area B. Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District B -5 may be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan. 2. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer selected properties that they may acquire within District B -5 or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 3. 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 District B -5. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -1 i Ll r7 5/ S' Subsection 2 -5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District B -5 District B -5 en see the map in f3 ** Denotes double lot and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below. Please ;r information on the location of District B -5. Address 6239 Aldrich 6245 Aldrich 6300 Aldrich 6305 Girard 6320 Girard 6331 Girard 6421 Girard 6440 Humboldt 6306 Irving 6310 Irving 6805 Irving 6645 Knox 6539 Oliver 6700 Oliver 6855 Penn 6817 Queen ** 6913 Queen 6924 Queen 6933 Queen 7227 Queen 7332 Queen 6813 Russell 6817 Russell 6820 Russell 6824 Russell 6917 Russell 6736 Upton 7332 Upton 6900 Vincent PID Number 28- 028 -24 -11 -0020 28- 028 -24 -11 -0019 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 28- 028 -24 -12 -0027 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 28- 028 -24 -12 -0022 28- 028 -24 -13 -0008 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 28- 028 -24 -34 -0008 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 28- 028 -24 -32 -0067 28- 028 -24 -33 -0146 29- 028 -24 -44 -0013 29- 028 -24 -44 -0175 29- 028 -24 -44 -0141 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 32- 028 -24 -14 -0017 32- 028 -24 -14 -0083 29- 028 -24 -44 -0038 29- 028 -24 -44 -0037 29- 028 -24 -44 -0046 29- 028 -24 -44 -0047 29- 028 -24 -44 -0154 29- 028 -24 -42 -0132 32- 028 -24 -13 -0059 29- 028 -24 -43 -0121 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that District B -5, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -2 5_5 (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the building, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree r ,quiptn ubsttintial renovation or clearance; or (2) Th property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or tnfrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad �raghts of -way. Fo purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in suctural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the 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 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire are of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: • District B -5 is a redevelopment district consisting of 29 parcels. • An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the area of District B -5 consists of parcels in District B -5 that are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within District B -5 finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. Because District B -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. (See Appendix D) 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 District B -5 is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -3 5/5 1998 for taxes payable 1999. Pursuant to M.S., Section 4§i, in the payment year 19991 tli+ 77, Subds. I and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning lnotnt by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change to tox exempt status of property; 2. redue! or'enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. cane d to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4.�haige,tn the use of the property and classification; 5 ` 4 aft a in state law governing class rates; or `6 `ange in connection with previously issued building permits. I i�' year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District B -5 declines below the ONTO, no value v�l'lbeweaptured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. It is expected that the original local tax rate for District B -5 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1999. The estimate below is proposed payable 1998. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District B -5 appear in the table below. Original Tax Capacity Value $18,618 Percent Retained by City 100% Original Local Tax Rate 1.37491 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 District B -5, within Redevelopment Project Area B, 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) $55,800 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 18,618 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 37,182 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $51,122 Subsection 2 -9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District B -5 including interior and adjacent street rights of way. The parcels are listed in Subsection 2 -5. 1. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132-4 58 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA may' acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from do willing sellers t; orderwt c. eve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions will be unde -only en there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Currently der `' sderation for District B -5 is a proposal to facilitate the demolition of substandard houses and e�bl I s to construct new houses on the lots. The City and HRA have determined that it will be nece o provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the develop t or redevelopment of property in and around District B -5. To facilitate the establishment and =1�z ent or redevelopment of District B -5, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay st of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with District B -5 over the life of the district is outlined in the following table. Uses of Funds Per House Total Land Acquisition $65,000 $1,950,000 Site Preparation (Demolition/Grading) 10,000 300,000 Interest 22,539 676,180 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) 5,000 150,000 TOTAL $102,539 $3,076,180 Estimated costs associated with District B -5 are subject to change. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within District B -5 will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of District B -5 but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area B, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of District B -5) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2 -11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Acquisition and site preparation costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project may be financed by a bond issue or loans. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA may issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -5 • 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 Tax Increment Financing District B -5 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District B -5 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of District B -5 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 2000. Thus, it is estimated that District B -5, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2024, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District B -5 prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of District B -5. 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 District B -5 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -6 may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA. The estimated sources of.futtds.fouDistrict B -5 over the life of the district are contained in the table below. -04- r Sources of Funds Per House Total Tax Increment $42,602 $1,278,048 Land Sales 30,000 900,000 t -41 :::. Other Tax Increment/Grants 27,807 834,210 Local Contribution 2,130 63,902 n TOTAL $102,539 $3,076,160 • 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 Tax Increment Financing District B -5 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District B -5 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of District B -5 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 2000. Thus, it is estimated that District B -5, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2024, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District B -5 prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of District B -5. 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 District B -5 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -6 5 —�00 The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of District B -5 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District B -5 or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District B -5 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City is in the process of reviewing the area to be included in District B -5 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 Administration of District B -5 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -7 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 1997/1998 Estimated Captured v `Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County- 936,486,071 37,182 0.0040% I.S.D. No. 280 � 26,436,495 37,182 0.1406% City of Riclifiel 17,976,447 37,182 0.2068% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1997/1998 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.384710 27.98% 37,182 14,304 I.S.D. No. 280 0.632310 45.99% 37,182 23,511 City of Richfield 0.276640 20.12% 37,182 10,286 Metro Area 0.056330 4.10% 37,182 2,094 Watershed 0.006590 0.48% 37,182 245 Other 0.018330 1.33% 37,182 682 Total 1.374910 100.00% 51,122 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 1998 figures. District B -5 will be certified under the actual 1997/1998 rates, which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Subsection 2 -15. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of District B -5 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District B -5 or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District B -5 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City is in the process of reviewing the area to be included in District B -5 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2 -16. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 Administration of District B -5 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2 -17. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -7 5 -0 B -5 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that District B -5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). District B -5 consists of 29 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential purposes. The Council generally believes that each of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and the buildings in District B -5, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Because District B -5 is a scattered site redevelopment district, each parcel qualifies individually. These findings are based upon general information about buildings of similar age and construction because building owners did not consent to interior inspections at this time. Prior to a parcel being certified with Hennepin County, an interior inspection will be conducted to confirm that the redevelopment district criteria have been met. (See also Appendix D) 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of District B -5 permitted by the Plan. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment Financing District B -5 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 District B -5, the total increased market value would be up to $2,188,200 It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $1,586,332 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District B -5 (see Cashflow in Appendix Q. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1998 in order to find the Plan in conformance with the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District B -5 will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area B by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by District B -5 will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. 9 Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -8 62c� 0 Subsection 2 -18. Fiscal Disparities Election • No commercialhndustrial erty is expected to be constructed in District B -5. Subsection 2 -19. Pursuant to M.Sevn X3.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested after Apri130, 3 90, anunicipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the mu ru p�tyI,ocal Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) secc3hd} mrri unt equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC) of thetas,ncrnent financing district. P#J, ' M.S., Section 273.1399, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA -HACA p District B -5 is exempt from the LGA -HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year. The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant -in -aid which may be spent for general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes. The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA - HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 5 percent of annual tax increment for District B -5, 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 -20. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan. In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 132 -9 Ll u 5-b3 Subsection 2 -21. Summary The City of Richfield, is substandard areas.. T . e T Inc., 3060 Centre Po]] �A shing District B -5 to preserve and enhance the tax base and redevelop gent Financing Plan for District B -5 was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, roseville, Minnesota 55402 -4100, telephone (612) 697 -8500. Richfield HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -5 B2 -10 Ll APPENDIX A APPENDIX VELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B AND FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 A -1 APPENDIX B OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN 1T FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 Property Address PID Number 'A 6239 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0020 6245 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0019 6300 Aldrich 28- 028 -24 -11 -0041 6305 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0027 %- 6320 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0033 6331 Girard 28- 028 -24 -12 -0022 6421 Girard 28- 028 -24 -13 -0008 6440 Humboldt 28- 028 -24 -24 -0009 6306 Irving 28- 028 -24 -21 -0126 6310 Irving 28- 028 -24 -21 -0075 6805 Irving 28- 028 -24 -34 -0008 6645 Knox 28- 028 -24 -31 -0032 6539 Oliver 28- 028 -24 -23 -0092 6700 Oliver 28- 028 -24 -32 -0067 6855 Penn 28- 028 -24 -33 -0146 6817 Queen ** 29- 028 -24 -44 -0013 6913 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0175 6924 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0141 6933 Queen 29- 028 -24 -44 -0170 7227 Queen 32- 028 -24 -14 -0017 7332 Queen 32- 028 -24 -14 -0083 6813 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0038 6817 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0037 6820 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0046 6824 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0047 6917 Russell 29- 028 -24 -44 -0154 6736 Upton 29- 028 -24 -42 -0132 7332 Upton 32- 028 -24 -13 -0059 6900 Vincent 29- 028 -24 -43 -0121 • ** Denotes double lot APPENDIX B -1 • • • APPENDIX 5'6ff APPENDIX C W FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 C -2 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #B -5 T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS Interest Rate: 6.000% Tax Extension Rate: 1.37491 Pay 98 Estimate Inflation Rate: 0.0000% BASE VALUE INFORMATION Tax MV Per Unit # Units Market Value Capacity Various Parcels 64,200 29 1,861,800 18,618 Total 18,618 PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Type of Tax Increment District: Housing Number of Units: 30 Class Rates: Single Family <$75k 1.0000% Single Family >$75k 1.8500% Estimated Market Value On all Projects: 4,050,000 Pay 00 Estimated Total Market Value per Unit 135,000 Estimated Additonal Market Value Per Unit: 70,800 Estimated Tax Capacity: 55,800 Pay 00 Estimated Taxes: 76,720 Estimated Taxes Per Unit: 2,557 Estimated Tax Increment: 51,122 Estimated Tax Increment Per Unit: 1,704 Estimated Land Sales 900,000 Estimated Land Sales Per Unit 30,000 0 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 1 BUT I FOR ANALYSIS Current Market Value - Est. 1,861,800 New Market Value - Est. 4,050,000 Difference 2,188,200 Present Value of Tax Increment 601,868 - Difference 1,586,332 Value Likelv to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 1,586,332 0 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 1 • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #11-5 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 2 Base Project Captured Semi - Annual Admin. Semi - Annual Local Match Years PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax at Net Tax at Of PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Capacity Increment 10.10% Increment 5.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 08 -01 1998 18,618 18,618 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 02 -01 1999 0.5 02 -01 1999 18,618 18,618 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.0 08 -01 1999 1.0 08 -01 1999 18,618 18,618 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 02 -01 2000 1.5 02 -01 2000 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 0.5 2.0 08 -01 2000 2.0 08 -01 2000 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 1.0 2.5 02 -01 2001 2.5 02 -01 2001 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 1.5 3.0 08 -01 2001 3.0 08 -01 2001 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 2.0 3.5 02 -01 2002 3.5 02 -01 2002 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 2.5 4.0 08 -01 2002 4.0 08 -01 2002 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 3.0 4.5 02 -01 2003 4.5 02 -01 2003 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 3.5 5.0 08 -01 2003 5.0 08 -01 2003 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 4.0 5.5 02 -01 2004 5.5 02 -01 2004 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 4.5 6.0 08 -01 2004 6.0 08 -01 2004 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 5.0 6.5 02 -01 2005 6.5 02 -01 2005 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 5.5 7.0 08 -01 2005 7.0 08 -01 2005 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 6.0 7.5 02 -01 2006 7.5 02 -01 2006 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 6.5 8.0 08 -01 2006 8.0 08 -01 2006 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 7.0 8.5 02 -01 2007 8.5 02 -01 2007 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 7.5 9.0 08 -01 2007 9.0 08 -01 2007 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 8.0 9.5 02 -01 2008 9.5 02 -01 2008 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1.278 8.5 10.0 08 -01 2008 10.0 08 -01 2008 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 9.0 10.5 02 -01 2009 10.5 02 -01 2009 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 9.5 11.0 08 -01 2009 11.0 08 -01 2009 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 10.0 11.5 02 -01 2010 11.5 02 -01 2010 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 10.5 12.0 08 -01 2010 12.0 08 -01 2010 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 11.0 12.5 02 -01 2011 12.5 02 -01 2011 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 11.5 13.0 08 -01 2011 13.0 08 -01 2011 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 12.0 13.5 02 -01 2012 13.5 02 -01 2012 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 12.5 14.0 08 -01 2012 14.0 08 -01 2012 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 13.0 14.5 02 -01 2013 14.5 02-01 2013 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 13.5 15.0 08 -01 2013 15.0 08 -01 2013 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 14.0 15.5 02 -01 2014 15.5 02 -01 2014 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 14.5 16.0 08 -01 2014 16.0 08 -01 2014 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 15.0 16.5 02 -01 2015 16.5 02 -01 2015 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 15.5 17.0 08 -01 2015 17.0 08 -01 2015 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 16.0 17.5 02 -01 2016 17.5 02 -01 2016 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 16.5 18.0 08 -01 2016 18.0 08 -01 2016 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 17.0 18.5 02 -01 2017 18.5 02 -01 2017 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 17.5 19.0 08 -01 2017 19.0 08 -01 2017 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 18.0 19.5 02 -01 2018 19.5 02 -01 2018 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 18.5 20.0 08 -01 2018 20.0 08 -01 2018 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 19.0 20.5 02 -01 2019 20.5 02 -01 2019 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 19.5 21.0 08 -01 2019 21.0 08 -01 2019 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 20.0 21.5 02 -01 2020 21.5 02 -01 2020 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 20.5 22.0 08 -01 2020 22.0 08 -01 2020 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 21.0 22.5 02 -01 2021 22.5 02-01 2021 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 21.5 23.0 08 -01 2021 23.0 08 -01 2021 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 22.0 23.5 02 -01 2022 23.5 02 -01 2022 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 22.5 24.0 08 -01 2022 24.0 08 -01 2022 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 23.0 24.5 02 -01 2023 24.5 02 -01 2023 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 23.5 25.0 08 -01 2023 25.0 08 -01 2023 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 24.0 25.5 02 -01 2024 25.5 02 -01 2024 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 24.5 26.0 08 -01 2024 26.0 08 -01 2024 18,618 55,800 37,182 25,561 (2,582) 22,979 1,278 25.0 26.5 02 -01 2025 Totals 1,278,048 (129,083) 1,148,965 63,902 Present Values 601,868 (60,789) 541,079 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 01/21/98 Page 2 • • APPENDIX D TIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT B -5 The HRA staff has " Yded t opportunity for property owners to allow access to the property in order to undertake an interior on. Each property has been reviewed to determine property substandardness in accordance with 41411 sec on 469.174, Subd. 10. All findings are on file for review at the City of Richfield, Community y � prtlerit Department. APPENDIX D-1 Draft as of February 11, 1998 Draft for City Council Approval MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS A -1, A -2, A -3, A -4, B -1, B -2, B -3 AND B -4 (redevelopment districts) Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Richfield County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Modifications Adopted by HRA: January 20, 1998 Public Hearing on Modifications: February 23, 1998 Modifications Adopted by City Council: • • Modification to the. Tax Increment_ Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -1 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -1. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -1 ( "District A -1 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on July 23, 1990 and modified from time to time since that date. District A -1 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District A -1 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District A -1, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District A -1 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District A -1, increasing the total amount of the budget for District A -1, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District A -1. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -1 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District A -1 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District A -1. All of the parcels included in District A -1 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District A -1. -1: It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District A Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A- I Page 1 Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 7320 5th Ave. 34- 028 -24 -14 -0041 A -1 1254 12/06/90 05/10/91 6425 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0046 A -1 1254 12/06/90 05/10/91 6518 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0079 A -1 1254 12/06/90 05/10/91 6401 Bloomington Ave. 26- 028 -24 -14 -0096 A -1 1256 12/05/91 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 6538 Bloomington Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0102 A -1 1256 06/25/92 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 7129 1st Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0085 A -1 1256 10/23/91 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 6612 2nd Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0068 A -1 1256 03/24/92 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 6407 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0049 A -1 1256 06/08/92 0.0108695652 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 6415 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0047 A -1 1256 06/25/92 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion Amend 3119193 6501 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0115 A -1 1256 4/14/92 & 07/07/92 1256 =1254 expansion 06/11/92 Amend 3119193 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A- I Page 1 5-7� Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District A -1 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Total including the Cost Category July 23, 1990 Original Budget February 23, 1998 Modification Property Acquisition $1,009,393 $770,669 Demolition /Site Clearance 114,950 110,000 Administration 16,326 60,000 Interest 200,000 Total Cost $1,140,669 $1,140,669 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. In the original tax increment financing plan and resolution approved by the City Council on July 23, 1990, $1,000,000 of inter -fund loan proceeds from the City's sanitary sewer fund, water fund, and the HRA's LHN tax increment fund ($333,333 per fund) were authorized to finance the activities of District A -1 and Tax Increment Financing District B -1. Given the relative size of the original budgets for each of the tax increment districts and the actual number of parcels certified, it is estimated that the authority for loans to be incurred by is District A -1 was 60% of the total authority or $600,000. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the July 23, 1990 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $820,175 $720,000 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 400,000 Other 0 10,669 Total $820,175 $1,140,669 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -I Page 2 • 6— 1� 5 ' Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -1 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -1. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -1 ( "District B -1 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on July 23, 1990 and modified from time to time since that date. District B -I is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District B -1 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District B -1, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District B -I by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District B -1, increasing the total amount of the budget for District B -1, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District B -1. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B-1 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District B -I rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District B -1. All of the parcels included in District B -1 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District B -1. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District B -1: Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District B -1 Page I Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 6315 Dupont Ave. subd: 28- 028 -24 -11 -0067 B -1 1255 12/06/90 5/10/91 & 7/12/91 1016 Mildred Drive 28- 028 -24 -11 -0081 1020 Mildred Drive 28- 028 -24 -11 -0082 6424 James Ave. 28- 028 -24 -24 -0046 B -1 1255 05/14/91 07/12/91 7145 James Ave. 33- 028 -24 -21 -0078 B -1 1255 12/06/90 5/10/91 & 7/12/91 7210 James Ave. chgn: 33- 028 -24 -24 -0071 B -1 1255 12/06/90 5/10/91 & 7/12/91 7223 James Ave. 33- 028 -24 -24 -0071 6813 Logan Ave.; chgn 28- 028 -24 -34 -0052 B -1 1255 05/14/91 07/12/91 6809 Logan Ave. 6313 Morgan Ave. 28- 028 -24 -22 -0079 B -1 1255 05/14/91 07/12/91 6321 Humboldt Ave. 28- 028 -24 -12 -0046 B -1 1257 03/30/92 07/07/92 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District B -1 Page I 5--),& Section G. Estimate of Costs IS The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -1 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Total including the July 23, 1990 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $425,007 $350,881 Demolition /Site Clearance 48,400 48,400 Administration 6,874 31,000 Interest 50,000 Total Cost $480,281 $480,281 • Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. In the original tax increment financing plan and resolution approved by the City Council on July 23, 1990, $1,000,000 of inter -fund loan proceeds from the City's sanitary sewer fund, water fund, and the HRA's LHN tax increment fund ($333,333 per fund) were authorized to finance the activities of District B -1 and Tax Increment Financing District A -1. Given the relative size of the original budgets for each of the tax increment districts and the actual number of parcels certified, it is estimated that the authority for loans to be incurred by District B -1 was 40% of the total authority or $400,000. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the July 23, 1990 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $452,775 $278,281 Interest Earnings 0 1,000 Land Sale 0 200,000 Other 0 1,000 Total $452,775 $480,281 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan For Tax Increment Financing District B -1 Page 2 • 5"77 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 ( "District A -2 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1992, and modified from time to time since that date. District A -2 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District A -2 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District A -2, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District A -2 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District A -2, increasing the total amount of the budget for District A -2, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District A -2. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District A -2 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District A -2. All of the parcels included in District A -2 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District A -2. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District A -2: Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 Page I Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 7500 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0106 A -2 1258 11/06/92 07/08/93 7520 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0110 A -2 1258 06/15/93 07/08/93 6634 4th Ave. 27- 028 -24 -41 -0052 A -2 1258 02/09/93 07/08/93 6926 Chicago Ave. 26- 028 -24 -33 -0028 A -2 1267 07/25/95 3!7/96 and 6844 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -43 -0056 A -2 1267 03/18/96 07/12/96 7245 12th Ave. 35- 028 -24 -13 -0001 A -2 1260 -1258e 05/25/94 07/12/94 7528 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0112 A -2 1260 -1258e 07/15/93 07/12/94 7112 1st Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0096 A -2 1260 -1258e 10/07/93 07/12/94 6225 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0071 A -2 1260 -1258e 07/15/93 07/12/94 6310 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -12 -0077 A -2 1260 -1258e 08/23/93 07/12/94 7021 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0023 A -2 1260 -1258e 06/16/94 07/12/94 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 Page I • 5--73 Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District A -2 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Total including the July 20, 1992 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $1,074,225 $800,000 Demolition/Site Clearance 105,000 105,000 Administration 5,000 40,000 Interest 239,225 Total Cost $1,184,225 $1,184,225 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $500,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund/development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $500,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the July 20, 1992 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $493,850 $493,850 Interest Earnings 0 50,000 Land Sale 0 590,375 Other 0 50,000 Total $493,850 $1,184,225 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -2 Page 2 r] Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2 ( "District B -2 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1992, and modified from time to time since that date. District B -2 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District B -2 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District B -2, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District B -2 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District B -2, increasing the total amount of the budget for District B -2, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District B -2. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District B -2 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District B -2. All of the parcels included in District B -2 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District B -2. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District B -2: Property PID HRA TIF County Date of TIF Date of Address Number District No. Project Number Cert. Request County Certification 6641 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -32 -0045 B -2 1259 12/30/92 07/08/93 7124 Washburn Ave. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0073 B -2 1261- 1259exp 10/05/93 07/12/94 6912 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0053 B -2 1261- 1259exp 10/05/93 07/12/94 Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -2 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2 Page I • 5—Y) Total including the July 20, 1992 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $532,575 $412,575 Demolition /Site Clearance 55,000 55,000 Administration 5,000 25,000 Interest 100,000 Total Cost $592,575 $592,575 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $500,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund /development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $500,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the July 20, 1992 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $279,500 $279,500 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 293,075 Other 0 10,000 Total $279,500 $592,575 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -2 Page 2 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 ( "District A -3") as originally adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1994, and modified from time to time since that date. District A -3 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District A -3 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District A -3, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District A -3 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District A -3, increasing the total amount of the budget for District A -3, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District A -3. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District A -3 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District A -3. All of the parcels included in District A -3 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District A -3. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District A -3: Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 Page I Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 6625 Stevens Ave. 27- 028 -24 -42 -0095 A -3 1262 01/10/95 07/19/95 6500 14th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0132 A -3 1262 12/20/94 07/19/95 6828 Elliot Ave. 26- 028 -24 -34 -0135 A -3 1262 11/02/94 07/19/95 7525 Girard Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0094 A -3 1262 11/21/94 07/19/95 7537 Girard Ave. 33- 028 -24 -42 -0091 A -3 1262 08/31/94 07/19/95 7416 4th Ave.subd: 34- 028 -24 -41 -0053 A -3 1262 09/30/94 07/19/95 7412 -4th Ave. (Lot A) 34- 028 -24 -41 -0137 not certified 7416 -4th Ave. (Lot B) 34- 028 -24 -41 -0138 09/30/94 6404 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0052 A -3 1262 11/21/94 07/19/95 6432 15th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -13 -0059 A -3 1268 04/12/96 07/12/96 7344 Bryant Ave. 33- 028 -24 -14 -0047 A -3 1270 08/27/96 06/30/97 Amends 1262 & 1268 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 Page I Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District A -3 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Total including the June 20, 1994 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $1,204,050 $1,000,000 Demolition /Site Clearance 138,000 138,000 Administration 23,000 100,000 Interest 127,050 Total Cost $1,365,050 $1,365,050 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $700,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund /development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $700,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the June 20, 1994 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $1,379,400 $1,045,350 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 300,000 Other 0 10,000 Total $1,379,400 $1,365,350 • Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -3 Page 2 CJ Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 ( "District B -3") as originally adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1994, and modified from time to time since that date. District B -3 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District B -3 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District B -3, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District B -3 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District B -3, increasing the total amount of the budget for District B -3, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District B -3. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District B -3 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District B -3. All of the parcels included in District B -3 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District B -3. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District B -3: Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -3 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 Page I Property PID HRA TIF County Date of TIF Date of Address Number District No. Project Number Cert. Request County Certification 6404 Humboldt Ave. 28- 028 -24 -24 -0002 B -3 1263 12/14/94 07/19/95 6821 Logan Ave. 28- 028 -27 -34 -0050 B -3 1263 11/15/94 07/19/95 6236 Pleasant Ave. 27- 028 -24 -22 -0056 B -3 1263 09/30/94 07/19/95 6645 Upton Ave. 29- 028 -24 -42 -0015 B -3 1266- 1263ex 07/19/95 03/07/96 Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -3 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 Page I • Total including the June 20, 1994 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $827,600 $693,600 Demolition /Site Clearance 84,000 84,000 Administration 16,000 50,000 Interest 100,000 Total Cost $927,600 $927,600 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $700,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund/development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $700,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Total including the June 20, 1994 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $979,875 $787,600 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 120,000 Other 0 10,000 Total $979,875 $927,600 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -3 Page 2 ,5-55 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for isTax Increment Financing District A -4 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4 ( "District A -4 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on May 15, 1995, and modified from time to time since that date. District A -4 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District A -4 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District A -4, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District A -4 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District A -4, increasing the total amount of the budget for District A -4, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District A -4. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District A -4 rather than a definitive 16 list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District A -4. All of the parcels included in District A -4 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District A -4. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District A -4: Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are . not increasing the budget for District A -4 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4 Page I Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 7216 1 st Ave. 34- 028 -24 -13 -0094 A -4 1264 07/25/95 07/12/96 7415 3rd Ave. 34- 028 -24 -41 -0008 A -4 08/18/97 IN PROCESS 6812 13th Ave. 26- 028 -24 -43 -0022 A -4 1264 07/25/95 07/12/96 6820 Portland 27- 028 -24 -44 -0006 A -4 11/18/97 IN PROCESS 7429 Dupont Ave. 33- 028 -24 -41 -0076 A -4 1264 07/25/95 07/12/96 7025 Nicollet Ave. 34- 028 -24 -12 -0022 A -4 11/07/97 IN PROCESS 7037 Oakland Ave. subd: 35- 028 -24 -22 -0042 A -4 1264 08/23/95 07/12/96 7033 Oakland 35- 028 -24 -22 -0125 7037 Oakland 35- 028 -24 -22 -0126 Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are . not increasing the budget for District A -4 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and include all potential categories of costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4 Page I Total including the May 15,1995 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $2,408,100 $2,054,100 Demolition /Site Clearance 276,000 276,000 Administration 46,000 100,000 Interest 300,000 Total Cost $2,730,100 $2,730,100 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $750,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund/development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $750,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. • Total including the May 15, 1995 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $2,740,373 $2,460,100 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 250,000 Other 0 10,000 Total $2,740,373 $2,730,100 • Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District A -4 Page 2 Modification to the Tax Increment Increment Financin�Plan for Tax Increment Increment FinancingDistrict B -4B -4 February 23, 1998 The following text represents a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4. The modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" ( "Project Area A ") and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 ( "District B -4 ") as originally adopted by the City Council on May 15, 1995, and modified from time to time since that date. District B -4 is a redevelopment tax increment financing district which provides funding sources for the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") to acquire structurally substandard single family homes, demolish the homes, and resell the lots for construction of a new homestead property. District B -4 is allowed to collect tax increments from the new homes for up to 25 years. Generally, the substantive changes in the current modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan include the clarification of budgets to meet new formats for financial reporting for tax increment, clarification of the indebtedness for District B -4, and identification of the parcels which have been certified in District B -4 by address, parcel identification numbers, and Hennepin County project number. This modification is not increasing the size of District B -4, increasing the total amount of the budget for District B -4, nor increasing the total amount of indebtedness for District B -4. For further information, a review of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 is recommended. They are available from the Richfield HRA. Section D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Due to the nature of the Richfield Rediscovered program, the parcels which were included in the original tax increment financing plan was a potential list of properties to be included in District B -4 rather than a definitive list of properties to be certified. Certification of properties was requested only when the HRA acquired the parcel. Because the acquisition of parcels occurred over a multi -year period, Hennepin County certified the individual parcels with separate county project numbers or as a modification /expansion to the original tax increment plan. Below is a chart which includes the tax increment financing parcels included in District B -4. All of the parcels included in District B -4 were listed in the original tax increment plan and are not modifications to District B -4. It is not expected that additional parcels will be certified to Hennepin County to be included in District B -4: Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -4 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 Page 1 Property Address PID Number HRA TIF District No. County Project Number Date of TIF Cert. Request Date of County Certification 6320 Oliver Ave. 28- 028 -24 -22 -0122 B -4 1265 06/30/96 07/12/96 2819 W. 70 -1/2 St, 32- 028 -24 -12 -0068 B -4 1265 07/12/96 6601 Logan Ave. 28- 028 -24 -31 -0061 B -4 1265 07/25/95 07/12/96 6845 Newton Ave. 28- 028 -24 -33 -0018 B -4 1265 through 07/12/96 2916 W. 71 -1/2 St. 32- 028 -24 -12 -0072 B -4 1269 8/2/1996 and 06/30/97 6824 Queen Ave. 29- 028 -24 -44 -0024 B -4 01/06/98 IN PROCESS 6318 Knox Ave. 28- 028 -24 -21 -0107 B -4 1272 06/26/97 07/08/97 Amends 1265 & 1269 Section G. Estimate of Costs The following is a clarification of the budget for public costs as originally adopted. The HRA and City are not increasing the budget for District B -4 but are being changed to meet new reporting requirements and Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 Page 1 include all potential categories of costs. 5— 4m Total including the May 15, 1995 February 23, 1998 Cost Category Original Budget Modification Property Acquisition $1,308,750 $1,033,750 Demolition /Site Clearance 150,000 150,000 Administration 25,000 100,000 Interest 200,000 Total Cost $1,483,750 $1,483,750 Section H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds. It was anticipated that $750,000 of funds from the HRA's general fund /development account would be available on a long -term basis for financing the net public costs. The $750,000 amount was the anticipated net costs after land sale proceeds had been received by the HRA. Section I. Sources of Revenue. Due to new reporting requirements of sources of revenue, the original tax increment plan is being modified to include all sources of funds, not only tax increments which are funding the majority of the public costs. Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 Page 2 Total including the May 15, 1995 February 23, 1998 Revenue Original Budget Modification Tax Increments $2,052,994 $1,263,775 Interest Earnings 0 10,000 Land Sale 0 200,000 Other 0 10,000 Total $2,052,994 $1,483,775 Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District B -4 Page 2 qb CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 41 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a new residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue. Background: On December 10, 1997, Suzanne Erickson submitted an application for a residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Mrs. Erickson's application contains the signatures of contiguous property owners. On January 22, 1998, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. The City has adopted a policy that staff notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received one call from a neighbor at 7138 Oliver Avenue who said one of the dogs had "nipped" him on a previous occasion. He also mentioned some concern regarding the barking and slight odor. He did, however, also say that he thought the Ericksons were making a conscious effort to correct any problems and that he was informed they would be constructing a privacy fence in the spring to curb any further problems. Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a residential kennel license be approved. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mrs. Erickson has been able to do this. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny Mrs. Erickson's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from three to two. Discussion /Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respectf submitted, 4 Jam . Prosser City anager 0 JDP:cak qc., CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 40 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Richfield American Legion #435, 6501 Portland Avenue. Background: On February 11, 1998, the Richfield American Legion 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 bingo on Sundays from 12 noon to 5 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. 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, Mr. Rodney Logland, 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. Staff further recommends that the Council waive 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. 4c'I 0 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. Discussion /Decision Mode: Approve the renewal of Richfield American Legion #435's lawful gambling application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City anager RMUT M • LJ qC-c'), RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION #435 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the American Legion #435 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 Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Richfield American Legion #435, 6501 Portland Avenue. 2. The investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 am CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 39 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Approve the resolution to authorize the City of Richfield to apply for the 1998 municipal grant application to Hennepin County. Background: The City of Richfield receives a municipal recycling grant from Hennepin County each year. This is given to Richfield residents quarterly on their utility bill. The purpose of the recycling credit is to promote recycling in the Richfield community. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution allowing the City of Richfield to continue to receive this grant as part of the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The resolution of application authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement is required to apply for this grant. 2. Richfield supports the residential recycling program a part of environmental management. 3. The City would act as a community partner and would not incur any expense. Alternative Recommendation: Do not approve the recommendation. This means Richfield would not have an opportunity to receive funds for their efforts in the recycling program in Hennepin County. Discussion /Decision Mode: Council is asked to take action at the February 23, 1998 Council meeting because of the February grant deadline. Respectfully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager 40 JDP:cak 48 -1 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION FOR 1998 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM WHEREAS, Hennepin County provides for the making of grants related to residential recycling programs; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to participate in the residential recycling grant program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. That a municipal grant application be made for participation in the 1998 Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program. 2. That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to execute and to file such application with Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of February, 1998. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 40 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor M 0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of February, 1998, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 38 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of concept approval for Hennepin County cooperative effort for the replacement of voting equipment. Background: In 1985, a City /County Task Force was formed to consider the feasibility of countywide standardization of voting equipment. The research and recommendations of that task force resulted in the City purchase of the Optech IIIP optical scan precinct voting equipment. Another important result of this effort was the county purchase of equipment and software to provide no -cost programming services to cities on an on- going basis. This cooperative effort resulted in reduced costs and more efficient elections. The voting equipment is now over ten years old. In this era of ever changing computer technology and increased election responsibilities, it is appropriate to investigate the new alternatives, and improvements available. A City /County Task Force was activated in early 1997 to consider the possibility of a countywide replacement and upgrade. City Clerk Tom Ferber served as a member of the task force. After investigation of various equipment and system alternatives, the task force found justification for a countywide replacement and upgrade of the voting equipment. The task force identified the capital costs as a major problem for cities in achieving a countywide uniform replacement of voting equipment. It was envisioned that a replacement plan could require a two to four year process in order to allow cities time to set aside funding for the capital equipment purchase. For example, Richfield's current voting equipment was purchased with $60,000 from the City's Special Revenue Fund. Discussion of this issue provided an opportunity to develop a new county /city cooperative concept to address not only the current need for upgrading voting equipment, but also a strategy to upgrade or replace voting equipment in the future. The county financing proposal is the key to this strategy. Richfield commends the Hennepin County Board and staff for initiating this innovative, collaborative idea. Hennepin County is utilizing its statutory authority to bond for the countywide purchase of election equipment, contingent upon the participation of all cities in the county. The full details of the voting equipment system and how it will operate will not be known until a contract is awarded to a successful bidder. However, the concept to implement 40 a new countywide voting system is a follows: qp-I 1. The new precinct optical scan units will be owned by the county. The equipment will be provided to cities with 0 city capital outlay requirement. Use of the equipment will remain at the city's discretion, as long as the equipment is utilized for government or government related purposes. 2. The ownership of the existing city Optech IIIP equipment will be transferred to the county for trade -in consideration on purchase of the new equipment. 3. All cities in the county will be covered by a countywide service agreement with the successful bidder. The county will enter into a contract for this service agreement, "up- front" the costs, and assess a pro -rated per unit cost back to each city to be reimbursed to the county on an annual basis. The actual costs or details will not be known until the contract is awarded; however, the per unit costs on a countywide basis is anticipated to be lower than those the City currently pays for its annual vendor maintenance contract for voting equipment. 4. The City and county will enter into a user agreement which will include the conditions identified above. 5. The county will establish a depreciation fund mechanism to provide for future funding availability for voting equipment replacement in eight to ten years if justified. The county is requesting that cities give written approval of ONLY the concept outlined above. Approval of this concept from every city in the county is necessary at this time, as countywide involvement is the most critical element in the success of this cooperative concept. The City Council would be requested to give final approval in the form of a user agreement which will be provided to the City following the bidding process. Recommended Motion: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to notify Hennepin County that it approves the voting equipment concept as presented and that it acknowledge that a formal user agreement will be requested following the county's award of a contract. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City will not have to pay the capital costs to acquire new voting equipment. The estimated capital costs for the City would be about $80,000 if the City were to purchase voting equipment on its own. The county financing and ownership of the voting equipment would mean no requirement for City funding. 2. The City's annual fee paid to the county under the user agreement could be lower than what the City is currently paying for the voting equipment maintenance contract with a vendor. The exact amount will depend on the bids received and the cost of the countywide contract. 4fi_ J_ 3. The City would continue to receive equipment programming and related services at no cost to the City. The City would have to pay about $500 per election if programming was provided by the vendor. 4. Countywide uniformity of voting equipment will continue with the ability to upgrade or replace equipment in the future to respond to advances in technology or law changes. 5. The use of the equipment will remain at the discretion and control of the City. The City could still allow the use of the voting equipment for a school district election as it has done at times in the past. 6. New voting equipment would provide several advantages over the existing equipment (i.e. increased capacity of ballot to eliminate two ballot situation, remote wireless transmit of results direct from the precinct, automated countywide accumulation of results, and other technological improvements). 7. The existing equipment has little or no market value for resale as with any computer equipment that is over ten years old. Transferring the equipment to the county for trade -in consideration and receiving new replacement equipment appears to be a very prudent decision. Alternative Recommendation: The City could decide to not participate in the countywide concept. The City would then be solely responsible for all future capital costs, service contract costs, and programming costs for voting equipment. Costs would be significantly higher, and if the City were to purchase equipment on their own the economy from the county volume purchase would not be available. Discussion /Decision Mode: Hennepin County has requested that concept approval from cities be submitted no later than February 27, 1998. Respectful) submitted, Jame D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 37 Agenda February 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Presentation of departmental commendations to Officers and Investigators of the Public Safety Department. Background: On Thursday, January 8, 1998, a homicide occurred at Augsburg Park in the City of Richfield. An 18 year old male was shot to death in what appeared to be a drug or gang related shooting. The only clue in the case was that a maroon mini -van was seen leaving the park about the time of the shooting. In spite of so few clues, by Friday evening, Richfield police officers had gathered evidence that indicated five persons had been involved in the homicide and in a drive - by shooting that had occurred in the City on January 7, 1998. By Sunday evening, all five persons had been identified, arrested and jailed pending charges. Recommended Motion: Present departmental commendations to Agent Dan Mead, Agent Beth Roberts, Agent Pat Moriarty, Officer Jay Henthorne, Officer Mike Koob and Officer Mark Shelley. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The presentation of these awards will serve to increase public awareness of quality services by City employees. 2. The employees are deserving of recognition. Alternative Recommendation: 1. None. Discussion /Decision Mode: The Mayor and City Council and Director of Public Safety will present certificates to the Officers. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser Ci anager JDP:cak