The URL can be used to link to this page

11-23-98 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS RICHFIELD CITY HALL AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS • CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9,1998; (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIUHRA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16,1998; (3) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL--CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION OF NOVEMBER 16,1998; AND (4) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION OF NOVEMBER 18, 1998 PRESENTATIONS 1. RECOGNITION OF MINNESOTA YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION STATE SOCCER TOURNAMENT WINNERS, RICHFIELD SOCCER ASSOCIATION GIRLS UNDER 13, CLASSIC 1 TEAM (RICHFIELD ROADRUNNERS) 2. PRESENTATION FROM WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER MANAGER KAREN SHRAGG REGARDING BUILDING INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 3. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 0 4. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 5. 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 SETTING DECEMBER 14, 1998 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF WINE LICENSES FOR 1999 C.L. 288 B. CONSIDERATION OF..APPROVAL.OF SETTING, --DECEMBER 14,1_998 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF PAWNBROKER AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALER LICENSES FOR 1999 C.L. 289 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTING DECEMBER 14, 1998 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RENEWAL OF ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 1999 C.L. 290 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPOINTING HLB TAUTGES, REDPATH & CO. LTD. AS CITY AND HRA AUDITING FIRM FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THREE YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING WITH 1998 FINANCIAL REPORT C.L. 291 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REJECTION OF BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF ICE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT FOR SECOND ICE SHEET C.L. 292 F. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WATSON FURNITURE SYSTEMS FOR REPLACEMENT DISPATCH CONSOLE FURNITURE IN AMOUNT OF $27,175.61 C.L. 293 G. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF LEASE AMENDMENT FOR SPACE ON LOGAN AVENUE WATER TOWER FOR AMERICAN PORTABLE TELEPHONE ANTENNA C.L. 294 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR 351 WEST 77TH STREET AND 301 WEST 77TH STREET; CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 295 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMNET PROJECT AREA; ESTABLISHMENT OF URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; ADOPTION OF URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATED THERETO; AND REMOVAL OF PARCELS FROM LHN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN CITY • OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 296 AIRPORT BUSINESS 8. CONSIDERATION OF BALLFIELD REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE 9. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 10. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM RICHFIELD CITY HALL THE MEETING IS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PERSONNEL MATTER PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER AND MINNESOTA STATUTE 471.705, SUBDIVISION 1d (c) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 297 ADJOURNMENT 11. RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 12. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PERSONNEL MATTER PURSUANT TO CITY CHARTER AND MINNESOTA STATUTE 471.705, SUBDIVISION 1d (c) COUNCIL LETTER NO. 298 CORRESPONDENCE 13. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 14. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 15. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 16. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. /? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No 298 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Discussion and consideration of a personnel matter pursuant to City Charter and Minnesota Statute 471.705, Subdivision 1d (c). Background: The City Council will adjourn during the regular City Council meeting to a closed executive session pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. 1 d (c) to discuss a personnel matter. Upon the conclusion of the closed executive session, if further action by the City Council is required, it will take place during the reconvened regular City Council meeting on November 23, 1998. Any such subsequent action will be open to the public. Recommended Motion: Adjourn to a closed executive session of the City Council to consider a personnel matter pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. 1d (c). Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Manager is undertaking a personnel issue that requires City Council action. 2. This action should be considered in closed executive session pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. l d (c). 3. Attorneys for the City have recommended that this process be followed pursuant to the law. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action is requested on this matter at the November 23, 1998 City Council meeting. Respec u y submitted, Jame . Prosser City Manager JDP:cak E z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No 297 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Discussion and consideration of a personnel matter pursuant to City Charter and Minnesota Statute 471.705, Subdivision 1 d (c). Background: The City Council will adjourn during the regular City Council meeting to a closed executive session pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. 1d (c) to discuss a personnel matter. Upon the conclusion of the closed executive session, if further action by the City Council is required, it will take place during the reconvened regular City Council meeting on November 23, 1998. Any such subsequent action will be open to the public. Recommended Motion: Adjourn to a closed executive session of the City Council to consider a personnel matter pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. 1d (c). Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Manager is undertaking a personnel issue that requires City Council action. 2. This action should be considered in closed executive session pursuant to M.S. 471.705, Subd. l d (c). 3. Attorneys for the City have recommended that this process be followed pursuant to the law. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action is requested on this matter at the November 23, 1998 City Council meeting. Respec Ily submitted, Jam. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 17 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 296 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding approval of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; adoption of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan related thereto; and removal of parcels from the LHN Tax Increment Financing District within the City of Richfield. Background: The Urban Village is a comprehensive redevelopment proposal for the southeast quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. This area has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. Since 1982, the blocks which include the Richfield Bank and Trust offices, 14 single family homes and a chiropractic office to the east have been designated in the Comprehensive Plan to become a commercial use. Some development, bank expansion, and the addition of a medical clinic has occurred over the referenced years. In 1997 and 1998, the Richfield Lake area, adjacent pending freeway construction, and the commercial and housing areas north of 68th Street and west of the Soo Line were studied and a plan developed to act as a framework to counteract commercial decline and provide additional housing choices during the next 10 to 15 years. The recently approved Gramercy project and the Urban Village proposal are the current developments that benefit from the Richfield Lake planning, incorporating elements of the plan into the proposals. An executive plan summary and the complete Urban Village TIF Plan documents are attached which propose comprehensive redevelopment. Richfield State Agency (RSA) proposes to develop 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space that connects the existing Richfield Bank and Trust with the existing medical clinic. A 600-car parking ramp will be located south of the office expansion. New housing choices are added to the community with the development of 78 units of assisted living along 67th Street and approximately 132 rental townhomes along Pleasant Avenue. Of the 21 parcels in the new district, four are currently in the LHN Tax Increment District and will need to be decertified from the LHN and newly certified into the Urban Village Tax Increment District along with the other new parcels. Although these four parcels will be removed from the LHN Tax Increment District, sufficient tax increment will continue to be generated in the LHN district in order to meet its financial obligations (see attached maps). However, since the base year of these parcels will change with their inclusion in the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the taxing jurisdictions will receive the increment they are currently producing. Sid Inman of • Ehlers & Associates, Inc. will be present at the City Council meeting and discuss the "but for..." conditions and other elements of the attached plan documents. ?_l While some of the land is already owned by RSA, the Richfield Housing and • Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has committed a considerable amount of time since May 1998 to working with the 14 privately owned single family homes in the district. The HRA has used the Mediation Center to determine needs and provide information. In July, seven homeowners and the chiropractic office indicated an interest in redevelopment. Interest has related directly to the estimated level of compensation. Information about acquisition, including independent appraisal information by BCL Appraisals, has been requested by and shared with the seven owners that requested it. RSA is being responsive to the homeowners that want or need to sell. Negotiations are underway and would include fair market value offers based on the appraisals and payment in lieu of relocation. The owner of 301 West 66th Street accepted the RSA offer and, in September 1998, RSA purchased the home. If an agreement with homeowners cannot be reached, RSA anticipates requesting that the HRA acquire the property through quick-take condemnation as these parcels are critical components of the development. RSA has requested public assistance to help offset the cost of the parking ramp, the development of the public plaza spaces, transit spaces, right-of-way improvements and to cover the acquisition of the single family homes. Approval of the plan documents will make it possible for the HRA, through a Contract for Private Development that was approved by the HRA on November 16, to implement the plan. The current assessor's market value for the properties in the district is $8,779,500. The • estimated market value of the project increases by $21,388,000. The projected gross annual increment is $777,500. Appendix D of the Tax Increment Plan provides additional, detailed cash flow information. In addition to this cash flow, it is recommended that the following sections of the Plan be reviewed: Page 1-1 Section Subsection J Summary Development Activities in Project Area 2-1 Subsection 2-3 Statement of Objectives 2-2 Subsection 2-5 Property in the Redevelopment TIF District 2-2 Section 2-6 Classification of the Redevelopment TIF District 2-5 Subsection 2-10 Uses of Funds 2-5 Subsection 2-11 Sources of Revenue 2-14 Subsection 2-25 Municipal Approval and Public Purpose 2-17 Subsection 2-28 State Tax Increment Financing Aid Recommended Motion: Following a public hearing, adopt the attached two resolutions which: is 1. Approves a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan; • establishes the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; • approves the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan; 2. Approves the removal of parcels from the LHN Tax Increment Finance District. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Tax Increment Financing is needed to facilitate public improvements in the Urban Village district. 2. The Comprehensive Plan and the draft Richfield Lake Master Plan support a comprehensive redevelopment approach. 3. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial use and high density housing. On October 27, the Planning Commission made a finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan was consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. 4. The redevelopment and tax increment plans meet the requirements of state law and established procedures within Richfield. 5. The approval of the plan documents is consistent with the recent approval of a Contract for Private Development with RSA and the plan documents by the HRA. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; removal of parcels from the LHN Tax Increment Financing District; establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan. 2. Delay approval of the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area; removal of parcels from the LHN Tax Increment Financing District; establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Plan. 3. Seek alternatives to the proposed project. Discussion/Decision Mode: The required PUD zoning process is scheduled for December 1998 and January 1999. RSA is planning a spring 1999 construction start. RespecXfully submitted, 1 Jam s . Prosser . City anager JDP:ds 7-3 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THERETO; AND ESTABLISHING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AND ADOPTING THE RELATED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") has heretofore established the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project") and adopted the Redevelopment Plan with respect thereto and it has been proposed that the Authority establish within the Redevelopment Project the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and approve and adopt the related Tax Increment Financing plan therefor (the "TIF Plan") and the modification to the existing Redevelopment plan therefor the (the "Modification"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, all as reflected in the TIF Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the TIF Plan. 1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification and TIF Plan relating thereto, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 280 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; a review of and written comment on the TIF Plan by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04 Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the TIF 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 or Authority files and proceedings on the TIF Plan. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to (1) the "studies and analyses" on why the new Tax Increment District 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 a part of this resolution to the 40 same extent as if set forth in full herein. ?r 1 Section 2. Findings for the Approval of the Modification and TIF Plan. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Modification and the establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the TIF Plan, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the TIF Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1)- 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value on the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment finance would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result for the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan, that the TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.04. The City of Richfield elects to calculate fiscal disparities for this District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution will be taken from within the District. Section 4. Approval of the Modification and TIF Plan. 4.01. The Modification and the TIF Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, is 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 TIF plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 4.03. The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, as described in the TIF Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City of Richfield is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 4.04. The City is further authorized to file the Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District with the Commissioner of Revenue. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 1-60 0 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M. S., Section 469.174, Subd. I0(a)(1). Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District consists of 21 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. In order to facilitate the project, the developer must buy single family homes at a price higher than rental town house project will support. Further, since this is an urban setting, no land is available for parking. Therefore, the developer must build approximately 600 car parking ramp. Due to this high cost of redevelopment, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter as justification that he would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance ( see attachment in Appendix G of the TIF Plan). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of constructing site improvements, a public ramp and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially ?- 17 similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the total increased market value would be up to $21,828,175. The present value of tax increments from Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $8,579,438. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $4,469,236 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, public improvements, site improvements and public utilities in the general area of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1998. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. 0 `J-8 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF PARCELS FROM THE LHN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, on November 24, 1975, the City of Richfield (the "City") created its LHN Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the proposed Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District includes the following parcel numbers which were previously certified in LHN Tax Increment Financing District: 27-028-24-32-0123 27-028-24-32-0124 27-028-24-32-0125 27-028-24-32-0126; and WHEREAS, the City has proposed to hold a public hearing on November 23, 1998, on the creation of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District within the Project; and WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to cause the removal of the following parcels: 27-028-24-32-0123 A portion of 27-028-24-32-0124 (to be split out) 27-028-24-32-0125 27-028-24-32-0126 (Collectively, the "parcels") within the LHN Tax Increment Financing District thereby reducing the size of the LHN Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, since the current net tax capacity of the parcels to be removed from the LHN Tax Increment Financing District may equal or exceed the net tax capacity of the parcels in the LHN Tax Increment Financing District's original net tax capacity, the holding of a public hearing is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the parcels are hereby removed from the LHN Tax Increment Financing District and the City's staff shall take such action as is necessary to notify the County Auditor of the reduction in the geographic area of the LHN Tax Increment Financing District caused by the removal of such parcel. /? -9 • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of November, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 0 Wa 2 W H w za 2V E- W ?O Va U )W an ?a z0 W J W CL w 00 wW o-J WW Z= C.) J fle LL 0 0 CD, 0 0 '3" NOSH3W3 M5£-i -*O)'/ Q co C> T V N W m W 0 Z V _H =Q = M v Jp w,o La o> v_,c 16.c d p E om L W o om M> m L "r ow 7E "a WE >W v o d d m N w- m Q. Zv 0 J w a e=a ON 0 ?Z o T0 he Urban Hometown Looking to the Future 'I BUS 0 L !J?ft'lil ADDI"F ION CLINIC )I - __ -._.. `u(;t?^a?'YY«Y"'?• ?:'.'i.` ;,i ??'f??`,. ..,?i_ °`w+?? t.._r_..?Y _.?.? lr^Y t?•-_';-"L-??^?•i f'?`w1r.'.?I'y?-? _..._.._. OFFICURETAII fill r Ci FF .,C .,. + r + , IOWNHOME APARTMENTS EXISrING BANK R' ^r PARKING if RANIP ly fs: + NEW i y .r« rel 1 ? MCDONALDS •i _ 'y- H9 PUBLIC PLAZA r 400- ASSISTED LOOT' MGDIGILOFFICrS i LIVING ROAD PLANNED IN HOUSES Richfield's Vision for the future iS toCOntlnUe he known as the hest place to live, work, residential areas. The Urban Village is a proposed redevelopment project for the southeast (load rant of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street that adds new housinL, Choices and new commercial space. Already part of the Richfield Lake master plan, this area Con)prises the Richfield Bank and Trust properly and the block east of they hank, bordered by Mth/67th Streets and Pleasant/Crind Avenues. ?ae Urban Village proposal provides 78,O()() S(luare feet of additional office/retail space, 2111 housing units, a 600 space parking ramp, pluS the relocation of the McDonalds to the to learn and do business. 011c of the ways the ? vision is arhic.ved is thmus;h redevelopment ul ??ommercial areas in decline and adjacent ? cornerof 67111 and Lvndale. If the Pleasant/Grand block is included, tuwnhome style apartments are proposed for that area. 'i lie developer, Richfield State Agency, Submitted plans to the Richfield I IOLISing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in April and again in September. 'ihe HRA will make a final derision about the proposal on November 16. The City Cuuncll and i'lannill" Con)mission will also review the proposal because taX increment financing is requested to build the parking vamp. The City Council meets on November 23. URBAN VILLAGE ['or more inforn)ation, PUBLIC MEETINGS: falll Bruce Nordc?uist, ' 861 0 _R971-7. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) - November 16 City Council - November 23 9-1 C2- 0 Discussion Topics and Responses to Concerns Urban Village Development Proposal November 23, 1998 The HRA has reviewed the proposal in April, September, and November 1998. Two public open houses held in May and August 1998 have displayed the project as part of the Richfield Lake Master Plan process. Numerous meetings have been held with affected area residents within and adjacent to the project to help identify and resolve concerns in advance of the formal approval process. The following information summarizes responses to concerns. Acquisition of Property Since May, the Mediation Center and staff have been working with Pleasant/Grand single family owners to help identify the information needed to make a decision about • redevelopment. In June, a survey indicated that eight of 15 property owners were interested in redevelopment. Interest seems to be directly related to level of compensation. Appraisals conducted by BCL for the HRA and shared with the homeowners indicated fair market values that are 10 to 20 percent above the 1998 assessor's value for tax purposes. RSA has held joint and individual meetings with willing owners to offer these values as compensation with an additional 15 to 25 percent paid in lieu of relocation. One owner had to sell due to a job change and RSA has purchased that property. Some owners have been reluctant to discuss the sale of property before the HRA approved the development on November 16. As of November 16, five have come to terms with RSA, and three are very close to arriving at an agreement. One has requested an appraisal while two have not worked with RSA yet because of scheduling. One owner refuses to sell and two owners refuse to be contacted. Richfield Lake Master Plan The Urban Village concept is consistent with the objectives of the Master Plan: to provide new housing choices, attractive public spaces, transit integration and new retail. The closure of 67th Street is supported by a traffic analysis not previously available during the planning process. The Master Plan previously proposed that a parkway • would be located at 67th Street. ? -/ 3 • Housing Diversity The Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Program, encourages more housing choices and less affordable choices in Richfield. Two housing choices not available in Richfield are being provided: Assisted living (a type of independent living for seniors that require some medical assistance) and market rate rental townhomes and apartments. The 1, 2, and 3 bedroom townhomes have projected rents in the year 2001 that range from $900 to $1,500. Using 1998 household income data, these rents would be affordable to senior, empty nester and young professional households with annual incomes at 80 percent to 100 percent ($35,000 to $60,000) of the median income for the Metropolitan area. While not as affordable as Woodlake Village Townhome Condominiums or Lake Shore Drive Condominiums that were built in the area in the 1980's, they serve a desirable market niche similar to the Richfield Rediscovered single family program. RSA and staff are exploring how to provide even greater affordability to 10 percent of the apartments (13 units). Discussions with MHFA, Metropolitan Council, and HUD did not identify new public resources. RSA is proposing 12 units affordable to households at 70 percent of median ($30,000). By increasing the number of units to 138, RSA can provide six efficiencies, 3-one bedroom and 3-two bedroom more affordable units. Traffic • RSA and the HRA have jointly contracted with BRW to evaluate traffic. Some initial conclusions of the work in progress are that the "cut through" traffic on 68th Street from Lyndale does not exist. Virtually all of the traffic on 68th Street has a neighborhood destination. To prevent cut through between 67th and 68th Street, the neighborhood south of 67th is satisfied that a proposed loop street concept will solve their concerns. The loop connects Pleasant and Grand Avenues (and an adjacent alley) and separates the neighborhood from the new development. Comprehensive Plan The commercial and residential area is designated regional commercial/office by the Comprehensive Plan. A mixed use development such as the Urban Village is allowed. The Planning Commission made this finding on October 27. Zoning The existing bank and clinic property are zoned PC-2. The residential Pleasant/Grand Avenue block would have to be rezoned to PC-2. The house at 6700 Garfield Avenue is owned by the bank and rented. This home would be rehabilitated and sold to a family for home ownership to retain the residential use. The single family homes at 6701 and 6709 Lyndale would be rehabilitated to remain single family homes in • appearance and serve psychiatrist and chiropractic offices being relocated because of the development. The medical office in the house at 6645 Harriet would be located to l q 6701 Lyndale. Rezoning from residential to accommodate the medical office is required at 6709 Lyndale. The adjacent neighbors find this approach favorable. Rezoning will coincide with RSA acquisition of property. McDonalds Neighbors have raised issues of odor, traffic, and trash. The developer is identifying technologies to address odors and a trash management plan is being developed. Traffic concerns are improved by the neighborhood loop street and locating the drive- through as far away from the neighborhood as possible. Transit As part of the Richfield Lake Plan and as detailed plans for bus service are added at 66th Street and the 135W bridge, new connections are also sought at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. A bus shelter and pullout is included as part of the development. Planning Commission Findings The Planning Commission favorably received the concept plans at their October study session. The developer was challenged to reduce surface parking at McDonalds. The nature of this retailing and the expense precludes additional ramp parking. However, • the closure of a portion of 67th Street adds more green space and pedestrian parkways than originally conceived. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The scope of the development does not require this analysis. However, the developer has volunteered to pursue the assessment, which will be completed at the end of November and in time for the PUD/rezoning process that is scheduled. Cost of Services to New Development The amount of public right-of-way to maintain by the City is being reduced. The ramp, and plaza will be privately maintained. Private security is also provided. Medical services on site at the assisted living facility offers an alternative to city emergency response. New construction will add fire suppression protection to the housing, ramp, and new office additions. Existing right-of-way, stop lights, and curb cuts are already in place to manage projected traffic. However, these may change as traffic analysis continues. 0 Ehlers and Associates Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Richfield- Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Proposed action: Establishment ofUrban Village Tax IncrementFinancing District and the adoption of a plan. Redevelopment Plan: Modify the Redevelopment Program for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to include the projects proposed within the Urban Village Tax Increment District. Type of TIF District: A Redevelopment District Parcel Number: See attached parcel list Location: See the attached map Proposed development: To facilitate the construction of approximately 500-650 car parking ramp, approximately 78 units of assisted living, approximately 132 rental town house units and up to 80,000 sf of commercial space in the City of Richfield. Estimated annual tax increment: $787,904 Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget. Land acquisition ........................ $2,000,000 Site Improvements ....................... 2,000,000 Public Improvements - public road .......... 7,000,000 Public Utilities - parkway ................. 2,000,000 Housing Trust Fund ...................... 2,000,000 Interest ................................ 8,750,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ........... 2,500,000 TOTAL ............................. $26,250,000 Form of financing: The project will be financed by a special assessment bond issue and a pay-as-you-go note. Maximum duration: The duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment. The date of receipt of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Fiscal Disparities: The City of Richfield will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. • TIF District Overview LGA/HACA penalty: The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-14ACA penalty. Contribution for an redevelopment district is 5% of annual tax increment. The contribution can be made annually or in larger contribution throughout the life of the district. 3 Year Activity Rule At least one of the following activities must take place in the District within (§469.176 Subd. 1a) 3 years from the date of certification: ? bonds have been issued ? the authority has acquired property within the district ? the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is November, 2001. 4 Year Activity Rule If after four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: ? demolition ? rehabilitation ? renovation ? other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by the approximately November, 2002, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. • 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must (§ 469.1763 Subd 3) be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if one of the following occurs: ? the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity ? bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under §. 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund ? binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation ? costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are spent to reimburse a pay for payment of the costs, including interest on unreimbursed costs. Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after approximately November, 2003, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The previous summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Page 2 0 TIF District Overview The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that Urban Village Tax IncrementFinancing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District consists of 21 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely throughprivate investment within the reasonablyforeseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. In order to facilitate the project, the developer must buy single family homes at a price higher than rental town house project will support. Further, since this is an urban setting, no land is available for parking. Therefore, the developer must build approximately 600 car parking ramp. Due to this high cost of redevelopment, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter as justification that he would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance( see attachment in AppendixG of the TIF Plan). The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of constructing site improvements, a public ramp and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopmentinfeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonablydetermines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the total increased market value would be up to $21,828,175. The present value oftax incrementsfrom Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be $8,579,438. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market • Page 3 TIF District Overview value of greater than $4,469,236 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, public improvements, site improvements and public utilities in the general area of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment FinancingDistrict conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1998. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. L.i Page 4 le)-QC/ TIF District Overview PARCEL LIST OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX THE URBAN VILLAGE INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Parcel Numbers Address 27-028-24-32-0125 6645 Harriet Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0123 6625 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0124 40766 th Street West 27-028-24-32-0126 6701 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0062 6709 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0045 6700 Garfield Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0011 30166 1h Street West 27-028-24-32-0012 6614 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0013 6620 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0014 6621 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0015 6615 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0016 6607 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0017 6601 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0018 30766 1h Street West 27-028-24-32-0028 6626 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0029 6630 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0030 6640 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0031 6644 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0032 6645 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0033 6635 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0034 6627 Grand Avenue South • Page 5 --2 - a® Dr aft as of November 4, 199<g Draft for City Council Approval MODI Fl CATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM for the THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) • RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: November 23, 1998 Adopted: Prepared by: • EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 Phone: (651) 697-8500 Fax: (651) 697-8555 E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehiers-inc.com 9-al TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MODIFICA TIO1V fO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ........................................... 1-1 Foreword ....................................................................1-1 Subsecti - n 13. Statement of Public Purpose ..................................... 1-1 Subse on T. Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area .............. 1-1 Subs ction G. Parcels in Acquisition .......................................... 1-1 Subsection J. Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area ................. 1-1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ................. 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword .................................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ........................................... . 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ........................................ . 2-1 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .................................. . 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in Urban Village TIF District ........... . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District ....... . 2-2 Subsection 2-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate .............................. . 2-3 Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ................ . 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired ....................................... . 2-4 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ................................................ . 2-5 • Subsection 2-11. Subsection 2-12. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ......................... Definition of Tax Increment Revenues .. . . 2-5 . 2-6 Subsection 2-13. Duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District ........... . 2-6 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................:... . 2-7 Subsection 2-15. Modifications to Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District ....... . 2-7 Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses ....................................... . 2-8 Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment ........................................ . 2-9 Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment .......................................... 2-10 Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... 2-10 Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments ......................................... 2-11 Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ................... 2-11 Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ....................................... 2-11 Subsection 2-23. Administration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District ...... 2-12 Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements ............................... 2-12 Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ........................... 2-14 Subsection 2-26. Fiscal Disparities Election ...................................... 2-15 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ..................... 2-16 Subsection 2-28. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... 2-17 Subsection 2-29. County Road Costs ............................................ 2-18 Subsection 2-30. Economic Development and Job Creation .......................... 2-18 Subsection 2-31. Summary ................................................... 2-18 r 1 I-0-01 APPENDIX A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. A-1 APPENDIX B - BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .......... B-1 APPENDIX C - L.FGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN URBAN V ILLAGF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ..................... C-1 APPENDIX D - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ...................................................... D-1 APP FN DIX E - MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ...... E-1 APPENDIX F- REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ........................................... F-1 0 E 17-cD3 r1 SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Foreword W The following tent represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes incl de m od ifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to establish the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, adopted June 14, 1993, is recommended. It is available in the Community Development Department at the City of Richfield. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection B. Statement of Public Purpose See also the State of Public purpose found in Section B of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, dated June 14, 1993. Subsection F. Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area The boundary for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is not being modified. See Appendix B of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District fora map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection G. Parcels in Acquisition The HRA may acquire the parcels in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. However, it is anticipated that the developers will be responsible for acquisition. Subsection J. Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area The Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area is hereby modified to include redevelopment and development activities to facilitate the construction of the following projects: a. Parking facility b. Assisted living c. Rental townhomes d. Commercial space e. Public facilities f. Public utilities g. Public roadways and sidewalks • City of Richfield Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area t-1 SECTION H TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE URB:1N VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. ForeN?ord The City of Richfield ("City "), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and consultants hav : prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Withla the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.'), Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the RedevelopmentPlan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District currently consists of 21 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is created to facilitate construction of approximately 500-650 car parking ramp, approximately 78 units of assisted living, approximately 132 rental town house units and up to 80,000 sf of commercial space in the City of Richfield. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District may be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan. 2. Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 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 City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 /7-as properties that they may acquire within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The City or 11 RA mar" perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified b\ the 21 listed below. Please seethe map in Appendix B for further information on the location of 0rban Village Tax Increment Financing District. Parcel Numbers Address 27-028-24-32-0125 6645 Harriet Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0123 6625 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0124 40766 1h Street West 27-028-24-32-0126 6701 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0062 6709 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0045 6700 Garfield Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0011 30166 th Street West 27-028-24-32-0012 6614 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0013 6620 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0014 6621 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0015 6615 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0016 6607 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0017 6601 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0018 30766 1h Street West 27-028-24-32-0028 6626 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0029 6630 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0030 6640 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0031 6644 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0032 6645 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0033 6635 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0034 6627 Grand Avenue South Subsection 2-6. Classification of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authorityfinds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: 0 (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 a? • buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requirwn,,,,substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The propera consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or in f eelli2ntly used railyards, rail storagefacilities or excessive or vacated railroad riglas-of-way. (b) For1)in poses of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in snzrc-tural elements or a combinationofdeficiencies inessential utilities andfacilities, light and wntilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to juste substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard... (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: ¦ Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district consisting of 21 parcels. ¦ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F) Subsection 2-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 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. I 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: City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 ," )--a--) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. change in tax exempt status of property; reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; change in the use of the property and classification; change in st?ae law governing class rates; or cham-e in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in Nr hich the current Net Tax Capacity value of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District declines belo?? the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA. The original local tax rate for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be the local tax rate for tatie; payable 1999. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District appear in the table below. Original Tax Capacity Value $271,556 Percent Retained by City 100% Original Local Tax Rate 1.38585 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 Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current.expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1999. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion of Project PC) 840,091 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 271,556 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 568,535 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $787,904 Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. 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: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 24 _aN development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are c611dii,ions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA nui,? 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 acquisiti0?ns wi l I he undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-l (l. Uses of Funds Current I\ under consideration for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a proposal to facilitate construction of approximately 500 to 650 car parking ramp, approximately 78 units of assisted living, approximately 132 rental town house units and up to 80,000 sf of commercial space. 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 Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is outlined in the following table. Uses of Funds Total Land Acquisition $2,000,000 Site Improvements 2,000,000 Public Improvements - public road 7,000,000 Public Utilities - parkway 2,000,000 Trust Fund 2,000,000 Interest 8,750,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 2,500,000 TOTAL $26,250,000 Estimated costs associated with Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are subjectto change among categories without a modification to this Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are consideredto be spent outside of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, public utilities and site improvement costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 _ -_a9 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 reserve; the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed. the project will be financed by a special assessment bond issue and a pay-as-you-go note. Additionni 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 pro% l sloii does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA mate also lnance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or I II." or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer. The estimated sourcesoffunds for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are contained in the table below. Sources of Funds Total Tax Increment $25,000,000 Local Contribution 1,250,000 • TOTAL $26,250,000 Subsection 2-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. repayments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and 4. interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. Subsection 2-13. Duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. I (b), the duration ofUrban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Richfield of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify Urban Village • Tax Increment Financing District prior to the legally required date. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 .-)-3() i 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 Urban %'illage Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing j O risdict ions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the Cite or HRA, the following estimated impact of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District would he as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 1997/1998 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 936,486,071 568,535 0.0607% I.S.D. No. 280 26,436,495 568,535 2.1506% City of Richfield 17,976,447 568,535 3.1627% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 1997/1998 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.383860 27.70% 568,535 218,238 I.S.D. No. 280 0.643340 46.42% 568,535 365,761 City of Richfield 0.271250 19.57% 568,535 154,215 Other 0.087400 6.31% 568.535 49.690 Total 1.385850 100.00% 787,904 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 1998 figures. Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be certified under the actual 1998/1999 rates, which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared. Subsection 2-15. Modifications to Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; 2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determinationwas not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA; 4. increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or 5. designation of additional property to be acquired by the City or HRA, • shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 -7-3) of the original plan. The geographic area of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. Ifa redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modii7catloii is elimination of parcel(s) from the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from Urban V i l l adz Tax Increment Financing District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity ofthose parcel(s) in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that, not%\ i t h s to n ding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. ],the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the c u rrent net tax capacity ofthe parcel(s) eliminated from Urban Village Tax Increment FinancingDistrict. The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District or the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Modifications to Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan. Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the City or HRA, other than: 1. amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineeringservices,directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the district; 2. relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district; or 3. amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.25 percent of any increment distributed to the City or HRA and the county treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 -2-3a Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment Pursuant to M. S., Section 169.176, Subd. 1(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for Urban Village Tax Increment 1{ iwmci«g District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District by the County Auditor unless «ithin the three (3) year period: (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 4 6 9.152 to 469.165, or (b) the City or HRA has acquired property within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, or (c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately November, 2001. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation ofproperty or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax incrementfinancing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision... For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District by approximately November, 2002. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 ?' 33 Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment The City or HRA hereby dVtt rmines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in Ui kill V i I hgc Tax Increment Financing District for the following purposes: 1. to I)?n i I i e Irincipal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project; 2. to tin. ii c (:, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M. S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. to-hay for project costs as identified in the budget; 4. t, ? finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or HRA or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by the developer; 6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both; and 7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. > Tax increments generated in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will be paid by Hennepin County to the City of Richfield for the Tax Increment Fund of said Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. The City or HRA will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for City or HRA administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of activities within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District enlargement with a listing of all properties within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd 4, the City has reviewed the area to be included in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District and found that two building permits have been issued for parcel number 27-028-24-32-0028 within the 18 months preceding November 23,1998. The increase in value anticipated due to these permits is $3,900. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 --)-3q Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the cost, authori7 d by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in M.S., Section 417-5.651, Subd. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following: 1. rrepaN any outstanding bonds; 2. d 1,.,c harge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or 4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. Iii-addition, the City or HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District or the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to MS, Section 469.178, to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. • City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 x-35 Subsection 2-23. Administration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District Administration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Districtwill be handled by the HRA Director of the City of Richfield. Subsection 2-24.Financial Reporting Requirements A. Filing with State Auditor, County Auditor, County Board and School Board: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1 %5; ,Subd. 5, the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts, including Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. The report shall be filed with Aie County Board, County Auditor, School Board, and the State Auditor on or before July 1 (August 1 be-Inning for reports to be filed in 1999) of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall incIiidt ttie following information: 1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account; 2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; 3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding bond indebtedness; 4. the original net tax capacity of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; 5. the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA; 6. the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 7. the tax increment received; and 8. any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment financing plan. B. Newspaper Statement: M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City showing: 1. the tax increment received and expended in that year, 2. the original net tax capacity, 3. captured net tax capacity, 4. amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness, 5. the amount of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District's increment paid to other governmental bodies, 6. the amount paid for administrative costs, 7. the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, and 8. any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary. C. State Auditor filing for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 6, the City or HRA must annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1 (August 1 beginning for reports to be filed in 1999), a financial report which shall: 1. provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; 2. permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial reports; 3. permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 '2-36 District or that is funded in part or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other tax increment districts or with public money; and 4. be cogsistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial report must also include the following: 1. the on'-iual net tax capacity of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; 2. the captured net tax capacity of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, including the iinount of any captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; the amount budgeted under the Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories (for the reporting period and for the duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District): a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvements or preparation costs; C. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other similar public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city; e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or other similar public improvements; and 4. the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for properties sold to developers); 5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. D. State Auditor filing for all Tax Increment Financing Districts: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report to the State Auditor before or on July 1 (August 1 beginning for reports to be filed in 1999) of each year the following amounts for the entire City: 1. the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on: (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds; and for each tax increment financing district within the City: 1. the type of tax increment financing district; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements and the uses of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding calendar year; 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended outside of each district; and City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 ,?-Y- 6. any additional information that the State Auditor may require. Copies of this report must aiko be provided to the county and school district boards. If the City fails to make a disclosure or subm k a report containing the information required by Section 469.175 sudb. 5, 6 and 6a, the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to hold the distribution of tax increment from Urban Village Tax Incremenr>= financing District. Subsection 2-25. Nlunicipal Approval and Public Purpose The reason s an d facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village 1 ax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follu«s: Finding that Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopmentdistrict as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District consists of 21 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use oftax incrementfrnancing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Districtpermitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely throughprivate investment within the reasonablyforeseeablefuture: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. In order to facilitate the project, the developer must buy single family homes at a price higher than rental town house project will support. Further, since this is an urban setting, no land is available for parking. Therefore, the developer must build approximately 600 car parking ramp. Due to this high cost of redevelopment, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter as justification that he would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIFDistrict permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of constructing site improvements, a public ramp and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made 46 redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 -7-38 determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analy6is of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Urban Village Tax I ncrement Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, the total increased market value would be up to $21,b-28,175. The present value of tax increments from Urban Village Tax Increment Financin- District is estimated to be $8,579,438. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $4,469,236 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the li igh cost of acquisition, public improvements, site improvements and public utilities in the general area of the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District (see Cashflow in Appendix D). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 27, 1998. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Planfor Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City. Subsection 2-26. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City or HRA may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment frnancingplan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. • (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authorityfrom City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 -7-3cY the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity o f the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generutc I hi' the c_ttension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the origimd local t" rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. Ifthe calculation s p u rsuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: 4 (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6 Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereofwhich the authorityhas designated, in its tax incrementfinancingplan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authorityfrom the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The City or HRA shall submit to the County Auditorat the time ofthe request for certification which method of computation of fiscal disparities the City or HRA elected. The City of Richfield will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 140 tax increment shall be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision shall riot probibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recrcational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipa I ity. 2. Poplin Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from Urban Village Tax Increment F in anc i ng District must be expended on activities in Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as ifthey were solely for activities outside of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M. S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or 0 credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing ofthe land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, skyways and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City or HRA, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. State Tax Increment Financing Aid Pursuant to M.S., Section273.1399, fortax increment financing districts for which certification was requested after April 30,1990, a municipality incurs a reduction instate tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC) of the tax increment financing district. Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA penalty. Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-17 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 nct 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 ajnount 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 lie\ doper 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 ofthe project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 5 percent of annual tax increment for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District, subject to the limitations described above, in any year in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in form of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this Plan or other costs related to that development or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made in the form of public improvements financed by the City or HRA or other unit of government with unrestricted funds. Subsection 2-29. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan. 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 2-30. Economic Development and Job Creation To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agrees to comply with M.S., Section 116J.991, which states that a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes, including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix E). Subsection 2-31. Summary The City of Richfield is establishing Urban Village Tax Increment Financing Districtto preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (612) 697-8500. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District 2-18 --)- 42 E 0 • APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Urban V illage Tax T nc rem em Financing District is created to facilitate constructionof integrateddevelopment that will include housing(, commercial and parking elements. The housing element contains a total of approximately 10 units consisting of approximately 132 rental apartments with underground parking and approximitel\ 78 units of senior assisted living. The commercial element of the development consists of approximately 80.000 square feet of commercial space on three levels. McDonald's will be relocated to the corner of I.? 1i dale and 67" Street. A 500 to 650 car parking ramp will also serve on-site and general public parking iiceds. In addition, it has been proposed that a corridor will connect the parking ramp and commercial uses. Transit services are under consideration and an emphasis will be placed on maximizing gr"-a space and creating pedestrian paths consistent with the Richfield Lake area concept plan. APPENDIX A-1 -?, ?3 APPENDIX B BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND U R BA N V 11,LAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT r? ?J • APPENDIX B-1 00 HSKPM.LS ? ??? N ISLZ AADTELKMI t3 5 e o0o a -Avw w „, ???? H191 `H" ??????? Q?°??l II-- "o` ????o??oa???? KL*t cu o????o??????o a?? D tu l N ???? ????? D ?&? ??O???????? HUt RLOI ?' o ??????????? WMTK* waoreo ?????????? 3e,„, ????????? ?e KLS Imult a ?°?°o°???°?°? o NOlNrD o- ????????o o? ?o??o???? , ode o? ???????? w w SN3ftaLs is& Ist 31V L31'IDON Z ? ?? ?????? ? JNVSV31d lakum ?'" ' ? ??? ?," w w HORON 9 W? WSW w a??? ?. N062H^9 o o ? ? ? o NOSaM = 5 ooom ao? INOVIRU CRMK) I a MOM w ?o??? ???o s3wr F-7 a???C???o? ?? ths" IEWID 0? ?????? ?vrraa 3nvrr3d cV MWO Tessnu 3 ?? E=3?? o $ OQ ?F:P?EE3 ? Noln W.kn N= ?? Dr ? ? q %raw d ?? ??3d ,*)J4q • 0 0 APPENDIX APPENDIX C LEGAI, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN I i K B AN %1`1 f,LAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Parcel Numbers Address 27-028-24-32-0125 6645 Harriet Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0123 6625 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0124 407 66`h Street West 27-028-24-32-0126 6701 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0062 6709 Lyndale Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0045 6700 Garfield Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0011 301 66" Street West 27-028-24-32-0012 6614 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0013 6620 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0014 6621 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0015 6615 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0016 6607 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0017 6601 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0018 307 661 Street West 27-028-24-32-0028 6626 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0029 6630 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0030 6640 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0031 6644 Pleasant Avenue 27-028-24-32-0032 6645 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0033 6635 Grand Avenue South 27-028-24-32-0034 6627 Grand Avenue South C-1 I- qb APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT U APPENDIX D-1 10105/98 City of Rktlteld - Urban Village BASIC ASSUMPTIONS District: New Redevelopment District Inllaeon Rate 0.0000% Pay As You Go Rate - Tax Exempt 5.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 16.6928% Tax Capacity Extension Rate 1.350000 EST • • RI10P PID NAME ADDRESS BASE MARKET VALUE PROPERTY TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY USE 27-028-2432.0125 R.SA 6645 Hamel Ave S. 435,000 3.50% 15,225 Commerical 27.028-24-32-0123 R.SA 6625 Lyndals Ave S. 4,537,000 3.50% 158,795 Commerical 27-028-24-32-0124 R.SA 407661hs1 West 2,167,000 3.50% 75,845 Commerical 27-028-24-32.0126 R.SA 6701 Lyndale Ave S. $72,000 1.00% 720 Singe Fam. 27-028-24-32-0062 R-LC. 6709 Lyndale Ave S. $86,000 1.00% 954 Single Fam. 27-028-2432.0045 Strom 6700 GMIeM Ave S. $82,000 1.00% B80 Single Fam. 27-02844-32-0011 Johnson 30166th St West $79,000 1.00% 824 Single Fam. 27-028-24-32-0012 10-Y 6614 Pleasant Ave $76,000 1.00% 769 Single Fam. 27.028-24-32-0013 Donalh 6620 Pleasant Ave $84,000 1.00% 917 Single Fam. 27-028-24-32-0014 Evans 6621 Grand Ave S. $94,000 1.00% 1,102 Single Fam. 27-028.2432-0015 Moore 6615 Grand Ave S. $76,500 1.00% 778 Single Fam. 27.028.24.32.0016 Nicholson 6607 Grand Ave S. $96,000 1.00% 1,139 Single Fam. 27-028-2432-0017 2100 6601 Gram Ave S. $130,000 3.50% 4,550 Commerical 27.028.2432.0018 Nave 30766th St West $74,000 1.00% 740 Single Fam. 27.028-24-32-0028 Gokey, 6626 Pleasant AV. $100,000 1.00% 1,213 Single Fam. 27-028-24.32.0029 Vargo 6630 Pleasant Ave $106,000 1.00% 1,324 Single Fam. 27-028.24-32-0030 Picket 6640 Pleasant Ave $80,000 1.00% 843 Single Fam. 27-028-2432.0031 Martin 6644 Pleased AVe $95,000 1.00% 1,120 Single Fam. 27-028-24.32.0032 Sorrclremy 6645 Gland Ave S. $117,000 1.00% 1,527 Single Fam. 27-028-2432-0033 Grow 6635 Grand A. S. $92,000 1.00% 1,065 Single Fam. 27-028-24.32-0034 Tubnskl 6627 Grand eve S. $101,000 1.00% 1,231 Si a Fam. Total 8,779,500 271,556 PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Taxes Market Tax Capacity Total Tax Phase Development Sq. FU Per Value Total Minus Capacity Tax Market Type Units S q. Ft/Urdt S q. FtJUrdt Taxes Fs. Dis. Rate Value Payable E.dsting 271,556 0 N/A N/A 1 Ramp 600 $0.00 0 0 0 N/A 2001 2 Rental Housing 78 $2,446.88 $72,500.00 190,856 141,375 141,375 2.50% 5,655,000 2002 2 Commerical 74,000 $4.00 $84.66 296,000 178,274 219,259 3.501/6 6,264,550 2002 2 Commerical 4,000 $4.00 $84.66 16,000 9,636 11,852 3.50% 338,624 2001 3 Rental Housing 132 $2,446.88 $72,500.00 322,988 239,250 239,250 2.50% 9,570,000 2002 Torsi 825,844 840,091 611,736 21,828,175 Prepared by PObOCap Inc. - Please revlew are aM.Vions. 7-47 Page 1 Urbana.WK4 10/05AS City of RMWId - Urban Vilage - Page 2 /? 49 • TAX WCREMENT CASH FLOW Beorming Period Annual Project Captured Semi-Amual Adnir?State Aud Trust Semi-Amual Semi-Annual Local Ending Period Be" Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Paymenl Fund Net Tax Present Value Match Yrs. MM. Yr. Ca ci Ca d Capacity Increment 10.25% 15.00% Increment 5.00% Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 08-01 1998 271,556 271,556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 1999 0.0 02-01 1999 271,556 271,556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 1999 0.0 08-01 1999 271,556 271,556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2000 0.0 02-01 2000 271,556 271,556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2000 0.0 08-01 2000 271,556 271,556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 0.0 02-01 2001 271,556 281,192 9,636 6,505 (667) (976) 4,862 4,132 325 0.0 08-01 2001 0.0 08-01 2001 271,556 281,192 9,636 6,505 (667) (976) 4,862 8,153 325 0.0 02-01 2002 0.0 02-012002 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 239,050 19,188 0.5 08-012002 0.5 08-012002 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 463,766 19,188 1.0 02-012003 1.0 02-012003 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 682,469 19,188 1.5 08-012003 1.5 08-012003 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 895,318 19,188 2.0 02-012004 2.0 02-012004 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 1,102,471 19,188 2.5 08-012004 2.5 08-012004 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 1,304,079 19,188 3.0 02-012005 3.0 02-012005 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 1,500,291 19,188 3.5 08-012005 3.5 08-012005 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 1,691,252 19,188 4.0 02-012006 4.0 02-012006 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,661 1,877,103 19,188 4.5 08-01 2006 4.5 08-012006 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,057,979 19,188 5.0 02-012007 5.0 02-012007 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,234,014 .19,188 5.5 08-012007 5.5 08-012007 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,405,337 19,188 6.0 02-012008 6.0 02-012008 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,572,076 19,188 6.5 08-012008 6.5 08-012008 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,734,352 19,188 7.0 02-012009 7.0 02-012009 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 2,892,284 19,188 7.5 08-012009 7.5 08-012009 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,045,990 19,188 8.0 02-012010 8.0 02-012010 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,195,582 19,188 8.5 08-012010 8.5 08-012010 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,341,170 19,188 9.0 02-01 2011 9.0 02-012011 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,482,862 19,188 9.5 08-012011 9.5 08-012011 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,620,761 19,188 10.0 02-01 2012 10.0 02-012012 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,754,970 19,188 10.5 08-012012 10.5 08-01 2012 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 3,885,587 19,188 11.0 02-01 2013 11.0 02-01 2013 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,012,708 19,188 11.5 08-01 2013 11.5 08-012013 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,136,427 19,188 12.0 02-01 2014 12.0 02-012014 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,256,834 19,188 12.5 08-01 2014 12.5 08-01 2014 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,374,019 19,188 13.0 02-01 2015 13.0 02-012015 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,488,068 19,188 13.5 08-01 2015 13.5 08-012015 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,599,064 19,188 14.0 02-01 2016 14.0 02-012016 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,707,089 19,188 14.5 08-01 2016 14.5 08-012016 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,812,224 19,188 15.0 02-01 2017 15.0 02-012017 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 4,914,544 19,188 15.5 08-01 2017 15.5 08-012017 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,014,126 19,188 16.0 02-01 2018 16.0 02-012018 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,111,043 19,188 16.5 08-01 2018 16.5 08-012018 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,205,366 19,188 17.0 02-01 2019 17.0 02-01 2019 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,297,164 19,188 17.5 08-01 2019 17.5 08-012019 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,386,506 19,188 18.0 02-01 2020 18.0 02-012020 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,473,456 19,188 18.5 08-01 2020 18.5 08-012020 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,558,079 19,188 19.0 02-01 2021 19.0 02-012021 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,640,438 19,188 19.5 08-01 2021 19.5 08-01 2021 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,720,592 19,188 20.0 02-01 2022 20.0 02-01 2022 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,798,601 19,188 20.5 08-01 2022 20.5 08-01 2022 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,874,522 19,188 21.0 02-01 2023 21.0 02-01 2023 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 5,948,411 19,188 21.5 08-01 2023 21.5 08-01 2023 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,020,323 19,188 22.0 02-01 2024 22.0 02-01 2024 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,090,310 19,188 22.5 08-01 2024 22.5 08-01 2024 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,158,423 19,188 23.0 02-01 2025 23.0 02-01 2025 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,224,714 19,188 23.5 08-01 2025 23.5 08-01 2025 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,289,231 19,188 24.0 02-01 2026 24.0 02-01 2026 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 (39,336) (57,564) 286,861 6,352,021 19,188 24.5 08-01 2026 24.5 08-01 2026 271,556 840,091 568,535 383,761 39,336 57,564 286,861 6,413,130 19,188 25.0 02-01 2027 TOTALS 19,201,065 1,968,109 2,880,160 14,352,796 960,053 PRESENT VALUE 8,579,438 879,392 1,286,916 6,413,130 6,413,130 BUT/ FOR ANALYSIS Current Markel Value - E.I. 8,779, 500 New Markel Valor - Est. 21,828,175 Dlnerence 13,048,675 Present Values Tax trcrerra M 6,579,438 Dnererce 4,469,236 Value Lkaly to Otte WR W TF Is Less Than: 4,469,236 RI100, Prepared by PuMorp Inc. - Please review all assumgWls. l/rbarl8.WK4 7-49 0 APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESO"I A DI P.AruMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) • • APPENDIX E-1 `tANESp7,1 ® ?-so Trade & 41 !? Econoimc Development February 27, 1998 To all Minnesota state and local government agencies: As you know, state and local governments are increasingly responding to the need to be more accountable with taxpayer dollars. This is especially true in the areas of economic development and business assistance. The legislatively-created Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission reviewed many of Minnesota's business subsidies and concluded that the reporting mechanisms should be improved to enhance accountability. The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) created the Minnesota Business Assistance Form in 1995 to assist state and local agencies in meeting the accountability measures contained in M.S. 116J.991. The form has been modified this year to respond to the Commission's recommendations. M.S. 116J.991 requires a business receiving state or local government assistance to create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance. The law also requires the business to meet wage level and job creation goals established by the funding agency. Until the wage and job goals are achieved, each government agency that works with these businesses is mandated to annually report the goals and any progress toward these goals to DTED. If the goals are not achieved, the business must repay the assistance to the governmental agency at the terms negotiated in the assistance agreement. "Business assistance" refers to any business grant or loan using state or local dollars in excess of $25,000 or any new business activity within a tax increment district. While not defined in statute, our interpretation is that this would include grants, loans, interest subsidies, tax increment financing (TIF) or any other public monies directly benefitting a business and given for economic development or job growth purposes. Please use the enclosed Minnesota Business Assistance Form for each business assistance agreement signed between July 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997. All financial assistance agreements signed during this period should be reported by April 15, 1998 regardless when the assistance was awarded, unless a form has been submitted indicating that the business has met the established wage and job creation goals. Moreover, each year you will receive anew form from DTED to be completed and returned. Each year's form should be submitted until all wage and job goals have been achieved: Please mail or fax your completed form(s) to DTED before April 15, 1998. The form does not need to be submitteA if assistance has not been provided to a business. Sincerely, Jay Nova Commissioner ;00 Aletro Square. 121 -th Place East. Saint Paul. Minnesota -)-)10 1 -2146 I IsA ti12-297-129 1 - 800-637-1818 • Fax 612-296-4772 • IT) ADD 800-6-17-33-1,1 %%i%%\ dted.state.mn.us ??ZiNESOT,9 Trade &- Economic Development 1998 Minnesota Business Assistance Form* (Please return by April 15, 1998) Please type or print in dark ink. 1. Funding government agency name 2. Contact name 3. Agency street address 4. City 5. Zip code 6. Phone number (area code) 8. Type of government agency Regional State County City 7. Fax number (area code) - - - - Other (Please indicate) 9. Name of business receiving assistance 10. Industry of recipient (SIC code) 11. Type of assistance (e.g. loan, TIF, grant, infrastructure, etc.) 12. Name of TIF district (if applicable) 13. Date of business assistance agreement 14. Date assistance fast provided 15. Date project (building/ machinery/etc.) was placed in service 16. Dollar value of business assistance For assistance agreements signed between July 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997, complete boxes 17 through w or oozes L t through 24. For all agreements signed during 1998 and future years, the information in boxes 21 through 24 will be required. 17. Job creation goals for business receiving assistance 18. Average hourly wage level goals for business receiving assistance 19. Actual jobs created since business received assistance 20. Actual average hourly wage paid to employees hired since business received assistance Goals of business receiving assistance: (Please indicate Actual performance since project placed in service: (Please number of employees at each wage level and indicate the indicate number of employees at each wage level and indicate corresponding benefit level.) the corresponding benefit level.) 21. Job Creation Hourly Wage 22. Hourly Val 23. Job Creation Hourly Wage 24. Hourly Value Level of Voluntary Level of Voluntary Full-time Part-time (excl. benefits) Benefits ($) Full-time Part-time (excl. benefits) Benefits ($) less than $7.00 less than $7.00 $7.00 to $7.99 $7.00 to $7.99 $8.00 to $9.99 $8.00 to $9.99 $10.00 to $11.99 $10.00 to $11.99 $12.00 and higher $12.00 and higher If necessary, please attach additional documents. If necessary, please attach additional documents. 25. Last date actual wage and job creation levels documented 26. Date this Minnesota Business Assistance Form completed 27. Have all wage and job goals been achieved'' Yes -do not submit future forms for this project. ? No - lease submit this form in 1999. * This form replaces all previous forms. Please complete one form for each business assistance agreement your • agency signed between July 1, 1995 and December 31, 1997 which provided $25,000 or more in public funds. A form should be submitted annually for each assistance agreement until a submitted form indicates that all wage and job creation goals have been achieved. Do not submit this form if your agency has not agreed to provide assistance to a business since July 1, 1995. (over) .14NESOZ, C:A - IqNMWWI' Trade & Economic Development Please send completed form annually by April 15 to: Minnesota Business Assistance Form - AEO Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Analysis and Evaluation Office 500 Metro Square 121 East 7th Place St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 or fax report to: (612) 215-3841 For information, call: (612) 297-2335 or 1-800-657-3858 9 Minnesota Statutes 116J.991: A business that receives state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes must create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of receiving the assistance. The government agency providing the assistance must establish wage level and job creation goals to be met by the business receiving the assistance. A business that fails to meet the goals must repay the assistance to the government agency. Each government agency must report the wage and job goals and the results for each project in achieving those goals to the department of trade and economic development. The department shall compile and publish the results of the reports for the previous calendar year by June 1 of each year. The reports of the agencies to the department and the compilation report of the department shall be made available to the public. For the purposes of this section, "assistance" means a grant or loan in excess of $25,000, or tax increment financing. 0 7-53 APPENDIX F RLDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE URBAN VILLAGE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The followin is a draft of the redevelopment qualifications. Final redevelopment qualification finding will be itrchided at the public hearing. • • APPENDIX F-1 • • T M 00 ti N = T ? v O T U) N w q ? L y+ Z U) M ? •Q d ? C 3 C ? y Wa Z d d ? acC Z >1 CO w J Ua .a d T d V v O i ? 0) N V ? N d i M W w 4- Q! ~ O N C d G t R t' CL O Z d > LLI E m d a E C 7 V y d 'a C. Yom. C LL ? L V V L c O O I? co 0? 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 •0 0 0 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L •L •L c c x c x x )C x x x x x c c c x x c x W W W W W W W W W _ W W W U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U r N r N r LO O r o c}' O O O CA M M CO CO N O O LL N CO '-t N Nt M CO It et M M M N M M LO LO M r CN C O U C O r O r r r O r r r r r r r r r r N O r 0 1,- 0 c to 7 co ZW ?Ir r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M r r O l N Fn H * o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N m N ti LO (O 't O I` O V) O 't co ti 00 r 0 0 I-- O LL r r r r r r r N r r N N N r ?- r- M M N O U OOON NNI-OM0CD 0OCD OOOOMNt O r o (0 M O M CO co CO tl- M O m LO LO 0 LO O O 'Ct m LO O r h 7 CO(0(000ON(o-CD V) nI`ti OU)NMd'O CO O (?f OOOOOOOOI-- M(O(O00 r-- I-LO ch(0LO ?- r r r r r r r r r N O ti r CO > r d' U 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO ti LO ?t CO (O CO CO ? 00 CO Ln CO CO N 00 r O r M O 1 NrNNrr trNCMCO CO CO NrrN00CO O r r 2 U co NONOOLO CD co OOLO MMOOOMNO M LO ti N O O O) I` co N ti h f` co f` V) co It co O O 4-: Co t,_ C) Co Lo Lo M U) LO N N O LO r?- U) N N CO ' r N N N r • N CO CO r r U fn O CA CA N N N I` O CO O O O O O Cr) 0 0 C) (M ? O ?t M O co O CO co ti co CO Lo Lo Ln L() LC) co O O ? Co LO O It co C) CD CD C) cq Co 0) (/) LO 0 0 0 0 t- M(0 co m 0) 0 0 0 0 O r-- LO qt eh r r r r r r r r r r N O ti r ti Q (n r N M t 0 CO t- 00 M O r N M ?t M W t- W M O r O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) -0 99999999999 999999999 O 0 9 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O co 000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CO V L r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Ln Ln to Ln In In Ln Ln In In Ln Ln Ln U-) In Ln Ln Lt7 Ln In LC) W V ..+ L (? 00 00 00 00 0.7 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 O 00 M 00 00 00 O O N a rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ?- o- CRIEZ `??C? aNa ISlz ODD ? ? ? ??? RWL anvaao??o a vao???? way NuI ????? wu Fuss ??????? Q???? wswo ????? ???aCa?? usmot- RL*t ,2,? ??? o??????o?? _ ,???? ????? H14 ?`?? ??????????o ?, ,a,H? ??? ?????? OMFO, 0????????O V sr,e„? o ??????????? ?????????? _ ?O?????_OO Lawmw d? D ?000??0? D c P N=M crac OD ?O??????? CNZ O ? ??????? QJS W W SN3A3I9 D? ?°??????? n SN3kMS ,S, , ? ??????? U ?? L ? 3AV13TIDON TBOSMB TBOSMB v ?? ?? a ??o?? ? ?,?„1d z o OD 000000 ? JN&"4-W 13LWM F-7 F=? -1 11 ? ,,, °? o0 oooo?D nUm crauHvo FFZ?Fz:?FZZ?F--7L 1=9 U -ANV371UNkI IWANO W ? a????? xvsm Modlo g ? NOSHM °° , Gmw i Doom ??? ?p laloevm D??????? S3^fdf F-7 V" oo?? C??o? , "?°, ? oo?oC????? ?? _? o???a????? ?? NaLNSN NOMMaN o??°o°? I mano ?tlN? NMM oQ 11 11 1 SVVYORL El oa FZZ-A??? oo? q NaJ n "°o ®ee0 ?° INMNIA NaIM BNvs3aw ?? d /'55 z N Z cv ?j U c LL a ? 92 U C_ '2 a? rv3 b? 00 LL 1f C) M 0 O1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 295 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing on a preliminary and final plat for 351 West 77th Street and 301 West 77th Street. Background: On April 13, 1998, the City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow construction of an extended stay hotel at 351 West 77th Street. A condition of the approval was that the hotel property and the property located to the north of the hotel, owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, be replatted. Two properties, the Lampert and Soo Line parcels, were purchased by the HRA and redivided into two new parcels for sale to Candlewood Hotel Company and a future restaurant use. The plat establishes the two new parcels and cleans up the property descriptions. Recommended Motion: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Candlewood Hotel Addition. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The conditional use permit approved by the City Council on April 13, 1998 requires that the property be replatted. 2. The proposed plat satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance. 3. Because the proposed plat abuts a State road, it was sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for review. Comments have not been received from MnDOT as of yet but no major issues are anticipated. MnDOT reviewed the site plan of the development several months ago. Their primary concern was that the development not depend on access to 78th Street, as it may be removed in the future. The development is oriented to 77th Street in recognition of this fact. 4. The HRA, owner of the restaurant parcel, reviewed the plat on November 16, 1998 and found it acceptable. 5. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the preliminary and final plats for Candlewood Hotel Addition with revisions. ?-1 2. Do not approve the preliminary and final plats. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, November 23, 1998. The hearing will be held in the Council Chambers, Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. submitted, ResYDPrrosser Jam City Manager JDP:ds • r RESOLUTION NO. (-a • RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION, CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION WHEREAS, Candlewood Hotel Company has requested preliminary and final approval to combine and subdivide tracts of land located at 351 West 77th Street and 301 West 77th street in the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield has consented to the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed plat of CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION was held on November 23, 1998 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. The proposed plat of CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION satisfies the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinances. 2. Preliminary and final approval is granted to Candlewood Hotel Company for the plat of CANDLEWOOD HOTEL ADDITION, subject to the terms of this resolution. 3. This resolution shall be null and void unless within the time limit required by Subsection 500.29, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code, the Applicant files the final plat with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, as may be appropriate. The time period provided by that ordinance is hereby extended to 90 days. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of November, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk W,3 ? 0 ? 0 • s d pfl a i? IN • ?f?s !1111 H IIII I'mill ? i ;%J!j 4 %ji1,f, 9?F ?? j sl?st7it H E-4 Q Q FT. O H ? ? A PL4 E-4 ?'+ p u^u I"7 a 0 - w p r W *; a N Q e? e -c?1 Jr h Bic 'HIS J N _ - y : A9?7lh )ltW MM 7.. WVXRisa.W?rw __ -- ?t'?ortw•ess?e A I l A- r i 1Q1 wn7?N ??' M•Ut 7.?L.?D.O M ..IIRLLt? ,` YhY O Y r !? 1 i ? 8? s G71 ee u u • • gl s ? # _ W» '?3 gg r ? y 3 ? a 1g-/ g?t 113 ?s ¢ ? ?grEg ?£p:? a ?? ? i f a•? FGA €s ai ? 5 t E--4 2 e?=E a:e s ! € i3? $ :] rg$a r r -sit IM's 1 -11 i W M'0 .s .s Is s .g?ai s r >Egi? ! ? i i g O -si -=o?ltt ?! =aal? ?s s ! t ! lit =/t sill aii g s l ai = i -- -se- s Z1a i a - .i - I T 1 j Will.=1 mill!_a? Sgt ;112- U sill; I % g= `=g = a ={ IV I is a • !s sus:_A1 1st =::_A1 !1 : _/s a _/ ?? tlit s tit ?1 si a a ?? 1111% i? s? ? a a e? Err: 11 HMO, • • • z O H N A A W H 0 A O O W a A z U b ? 9Cl I - ?IIF?LgI• RJ13?3 11111 7N[l •71A33 -1 ' I I GG --- _--- WHO 3.04.ND.0 / --_ ?- Pn as - VA S39.A 30111 an r r fOROt OYtt[ ? 301 c « r r ' ?t al ? as ? 1 1 s? r Z a I N ? ' 3.?t.ODA O ? r = - 3 y a.A R OT I5 5 - y /.? 1 ( w 1 !Ot OL !l'Oit r-tom. Oit ~ .? • tt vt -'' LM W IM un A sal LM - - -? ? 1 1 1 act 1 • I I 41 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 294 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Authorization of lease amendment for space on Logan Avenue water tower for American Portable Telephone (APT) antenna. Background: The City Council began leasing water tower space for telephone antenna in 1996. According to federal law, service providers such as APT have the legal right to establish antenna within communities across the United States. The City of Richfield, after a moritorum and study, concluded that the most desirable space for such antenna would be on the City's water towers. The first such lease was executed on August 1, 1996 with APT for the antenna space on the Logan Avenue water tower. That lease would expire December 31, 2002. APT has the right to extend the lease for six additional year terms. The original lease provided for up to nine antenna to be placed on the water tower with the support equipment housed at the base of the tower. Recently the City received notification from APT that they would like to increase the number of antenna located on the water tower from nine to twelve. There would be no change to the equipment configuration on the ground. In exchange for the opportunity to add three additional antennas, the lease payments to the City of Richfield would be increased by approximately $1,200 per year beginning January 1, 1999. The new annual rate beginning January 1, 1999 will be $12,000 with an increase of at least 4% per year thereafter. Recommended Motion: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to negotiate and execute a lease amendment on behalf of the City of Richfield regarding the lease of additional antenna space on the Logan Avenue water tower to American Portable Telephone. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The antennas on the tower will not cause problems with the production of water for the City. 2. The amount contained in the lease amendment is a fair amount for the addition of three antennas. 3. APT has agreed to the terms of the lease amendment. 4. The City has reviewed the change in the antenna configuration can find no problem with it. Alternative Recommendation: • The City Council could seek a different terms for the addition of the three antennas than the amount recommended. 5 G-l Discussion/Decision Mode: Staff is requesting approval at the November 23, 1998 City Council meeting so the City and APT may proceed with this matter in a timely fashion if it is approved. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 5 -C;L Site ID No. AIP017 Site Name: Richfield (Logan Ave. Water Tower) FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND LIMITED USE OF WATER TOWER DATED AUGUST 1, 1996 BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD, STATE OF MINNESOTA AND APT MINNEAPOLIS, INC. This First Amendment to Lease for Communications Facility and Limited Use of Water Tower (hereinafter referred to as the "First Amendment") is made and entered into effective as of the day of , 1998, by and between City of Richfield, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("City"), whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, and APT Minneapolis Inc., a Delaware corporation ("APT"), whose address is 8410 West Bryn Mawr, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60631. WITNESSETH: A. City and APT have entered into-that certain Lease for Communications. 10 Facility and Limited Use of Water Tower dated as of August 1, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"); B. City and APT mutually desire to amend the description of the Property and the amount of Initial Annual Rent as set forth in the Lease. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. Except as expressly amended by the provisions hereof, the terms and provisions contained in the Lease shall continue to govern the rights and obligations of the parties, and the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 2. DEFINED TERMS. Terms defined in the Lease have the same meaning in this First Amendment unless such term is specifically modified in this First Amendment. Other terms not defined in the Lease but defined herein have the meanings ascribed thereto. Terms capitalized herein shall have the same meanings ascribed thereto in the Lease unless specifically amended hereby. 11 5-G,3 3. EXHIBIT A. Exhibit "A" to the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety and hereby replaced with Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The replacement of Exhibit A to the Lease by Exhibit A attached to this First Amendment reflects the agreement of the parties to permit APT to install up to twelve (12), rather than only nine (9), antennas on the water tower. • 4. PARAGRAPH 3. RENT. Paragraph 3, Rent, of the Lease, is hereby amended as follows: The annual rent for the fourth year, beginning January 1, 1999, shall be $12,000 and shall be payable on or before December 15, 1998. The rent for each subsequent year shall be increased by the greater of. (a) four percent (4%) of the previous year's annualized rental, or (b) by an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). The CPI shall mean the "Consumer Price Index - for All Urban Consumer, All Cities, All Items (1984 = 100)" as published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if there shall be no successor index, such comparable index as mutually agreed upon by the parties. To determine the annual rental increase to be paid by APT under a CPI adjuster, the annualized rental for the previous year shall be multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the denominator of which shall be the CPI for the corresponding quarter of one year earlier, such fraction shall be converted to a percentage equivalent. The resulting percentage fixture shall be multiplied by the previous year's rent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the day of , 1998. CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its: Mayor AND By: Its: City Manager APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware corporation By: Michael O'Rourke, Director 2 Address of City: 6700 Portland Ave. South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF Address of APT: American Portable Telecom P. O. Box 31793 Chicago, IL 60631-0793 ATTN: Real Estate With a copy to: APT Minneapolis, Inc. 8000 West 78th Street Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 ATTN: Real Estate Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by and , the Mayor and City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public My commission expires: r STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) --SEAL-- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by Michael O'Rourke , the Director of APT Minneapolis, Inc. , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public My commission expires: • 3 --SEAL-- • APT A TDS COMPANY 8000 West 78th Street, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55439 612-833-4000 Fax 612-833-4110 October 26, 1998 Mr. Steven Devich Assistant City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: APT Site A 1 P017 Subj: Expansion to 12 Antennas Dear Mr. Devich: ?fs-5 Thank you for discussing with me our plans to expand the capacity of our communications site at the Logan Avenue Water Tower. • As you correctly note in your June 15, 1998 letter, the Lease provides APT the right to install up to 9 antennas under the current terms. Due to significant customer growth, we desire to expand our facilities to include 12 antennas. No change in our communications equipment on the ground will take place. For this, we offer to increase base rent for 1999 from $10,816 to $12,000 annually. Each subsequent year will be increased under the terms of paragraph 3 using $12,000 as the baseline figure. All other terms and conditions of the Lease will remain in full force and effect. The First Amendment to the Lease would be effective January 1, 1999. To memorialize this understanding, I have prepared a proposed First Amendment to the Lease for the City's consideration (2 identical originals enclosed herein). I have also enclosed a revised Site Plan indicating our antenna expansion plans. If the First Amendment meets with the City's approval, please have both originals signed in the presence of a notary public by the appropriate officials. I will also appreciate receiving your signature on this letter to indicate consent and approval of our expansion proposal. n Mr. Steven Devich Assistant City Manager October 23, 1998 Page Two 5-& -6 Please return all the original documents to me. I will then obtain APT's signature and return one of the original First Amendment to Site Agreement to you, keeping the other for our files. If you have any questions or comments upon your review of these documents, please call. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard, and we look forward to expanding our prosperous business relationship with the City of Richfield. Steven P. Katkov Real Estate and Zoning Manager Engineering and Operations TEL: (612) 833-4078 PCS: (612) 701-0869 Enclosures n U Site plans received and approved by Owner: City of Richfield By: Print Name: Its: Date: SF CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 293 Agenda November 23,1998 Issue Statement: Awarding of a contract for replacement dispatch console furniture to Watson Furniture Systems for $27,175.61. Background: Although the 911 dispatch console electronics have kept pace with technology, the console structure has not changed since the early 80's. The old console furniture was based on rack mounted radio equipment that has been replaced by computer monitors. As 911 dispatching becomes more information intensive, dispatch centers have had to add more monitors or go to larger 17 or 21 inch sizes. Unfortunately, the construction of our old console does not allow for the use of computer monitors larger than 14 inches, nor is there room for more monitors. In October, the City advertised for bids on a new console furniture system that would work better with new technologies, would be better designed ergonomically, and would improve the City's ADA compliance. Three bids were received. The lowest bidder was Watson Furniture Systems for $27,175.61. The City's consultant on this project has worked with Watson on three other projects and states that his experience with them has been "entirely positive." Recommended Motion: Award the contract for replacement dispatch console furniture to Watson Furniture Systems for $27,175.61. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The bid is slightly lower than the original project estimate. 2. The bid complies with all bid specifications. 3. Funds are budgeted for this contract. The cost of the console furniture is a portion of the $85,000 that has been budgeted for dispatch improvement. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Select an alternate bidder. 2. Do nothing. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council's approval to award the contract for replacement dispatch console furniture to Watson Furniture Systems for $27,175.61 is requested at this time. Resp submitted, Jame T. Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 5e? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 292 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Reject bids for purchase of ice refrigeration equipment for second ice sheet. Background: As a part of the second ice sheet addition to the Richfield Ice Arena, the architect and construction manager believe that savings can be obtained by seeking out and purchasing a used ice refrigeration system for the second ice rink. Critical in any such purchase would be the inspection and documentation of any used ice sheet to determine the total hours of usage, insure that the equipment was well maintained and that the system is now in proper working order. Bids for the ice refrigeration equipment were opened on October 21, 1998 at 2 p.m. Only two firms submitted bids. Those bidders were Thermax who bid a new ice system for $141,666 and Ice Pro, from the State of New York, who bid a used system for $65,000. Since one of the bids was for a brand new system, the only bid received by the City for a used system was the system from New York. Kraus Anderson, the construction manager, has not been able to obtain all of the information necessary regarding the hours of usage and maintenance of the used system. Further, with only one bid to review, staff believes that there are not enough options available to the City 10 at this time and that the City may be better served by rejecting all bids and re- advertising for this purchase. Recommended Motion: Reject the two bids received for an ice refrigeration system for the second ice sheet addition to the Richfield Ice Arena and re-advertise for a used ice refrigeration system. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Only one bid for a used system was received. 2. Staff believes at least one used ice refrigeration system available in Minnesota that was not submitted for bid on October 21 which would almost certainly included in any future re-bid for this equipment. 3. The City does not believe that it has sufficient information on the used refrigeration system bid to determine if it is a prudent purchase or not. 4. The City would like to obtain additional bids. 5. Staff would like to have the opportunity to fully inspect the log and equipment of any used ice refrigeration system bid. 6. At this time, staff does not believe it is practical to send someone to Syracuse, New York to inspect the system currently submitted. If the City does not receive a 5g?-1 qualified bid for used systems during the readvertisement, staff will reevaluate if it would be prudent to travel to New York to inspect the used system even though usage logs and maintenance logs are not available or pursue the purchase of a new system. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City could accept the bid for the used ice refrigeration equipment. 2. The City could decide to seek purchases of a new ice refrigeration system for the second ice rink. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the November 23, 1998 meeting. Action at this time would allow the City to re-advertise for a used system one more time before the end of the year, at which time other major parts of the arena addition will be bid. Respectf y submitted, Jame l. Prosser City Manager 0 JDP:ds E ?? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 291 Agenda November 23,1998 Issue Statement: Selection of auditing firm for City and HRA financial statements for three year period commencing with the 1998 financial report. Background: For the past 13 years, the City of Richfield has used the auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche to perform the annual City audit and the HRA audit. The engagement of that firm was the result of selection processes, which were performed in 1985 and 1992. In addition, at the end of the most recent five-year contract, Deloite & Touche was working on a year to year contract. Selection Process It has been the practice of the City to periodically seek proposals from a number of auditing firms to ensure that the City retains quality auditing services at a competitive price. At Council direction, City staff initiated an auditor proposal process during the fall of 1998 to select an auditor for the next three year period. On October 7, 1998, requests for proposal were sent to 12 auditing firms that either expressed an interest or are known for their municipal practice. A preproposal conference was held on October 21 with a final deadline for submission of proposals set for November 2, 1998. Proposals were received from six firms. The City's current firm did not submit a proposal. The proposals were reviewed separately by the Administrative Services Director and the Finance Manager, based upon an evaluation instrument recommended by the GFOA. This review concentrated on bid price a well as past experience auditing municipal accounts, especially those that have received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting. Based on this review, five firms were invited to participate in an interview process. Each of the firms submitted a similar time schedule for completion of the audit and presentation to the City Council in June. An interview panel consisting of City Council Member Mike Sandahl, the Administrative Services Director and Finance Manager conducted interviews on Thursday, November 12, 1998. The five firms interviewed were: Abdo, Abdo, & Erick & Meyers, LLP; Kern, Dewenter, Viere, LTD, Malloy, Montague, Karanowski, Radosevich & Co., PA; HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD; and Boeckermann, Heinen & Mayer, P.A. Selection Analysis Based on the results of the selection process, it was the consensus of the panel that the firm of HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD be selected as the City's Auditor for the next three year period. It is st important to note that the selection of an auditing firm is exclusively within the purview of the City Council. The function of any auditor is to audit work performed by staff and report directly to the City Council with the results. The role of the staff in this selection process is to assist the City Council in identifying the qualifications, abilities and cost of selecting any audit firm. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council appoint the firm of HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD as the City's Auditor for the financial reporting of the fiscal year 1998-2000, and authorize the City Manager and Mayor to execute an agreement for such services. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Based on a comprehensive selection process, it was the consensus recommendation that the firm of HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD be appointed as the City's Auditor for the years 1998-2000. 2. The price of $30,845 submitted by HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD for the audit of the City's 1998 financial report is less than the price for the previous year. Price increases for the ensuing two years are increased by 3.75% each year. 3. The HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD firm is a leader in auditing municipalities in the Twin Cities' area and audits more municipalities that consistently receive the GFOA Certificate than any other audit firm in the area. 4. HLB Tautges, Redpath & Co., LTD can also provide the City with considerable expertise in addition to their standard audit services. 5. The agreement with the auditing firm will provide that the City may cancel the services of the auditor in any audit year with appropriate notice. Alternative Recommendation: If the City Council does not wish to appoint this selected firm, another selection could be made. In that event, the selection panel would recommend the selection of Kern, Dewenter, Viere, LTD as the City's Auditors. Discussions/Decision Mode: It would be desirable to select an audit firm at the November 23, 1998 City Council meeting to ensure adequate time for the preaudit activities to begin in order to complete the audit on a normal time schedule. Respectfully submitted, S Jam . Prosser city ager JDP:ds 55 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 290 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearings for renewal of on-sale liquor licenses in 1999. Background: The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1999. City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public hearing to consider all liquor license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 14,1998 as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant, The Ground Round, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, American Legion Post No. 435, VFW Post No. 5555, Don Pablo's and Champps of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The public hearing must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 0 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearing on December 14 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1999. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: City Council approval to schedule the public hearings on December 14, 1998 for the renewal of on-sale liquor licenses is requested at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jams Prosser City` ager JDP:cak 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 289 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Setting date of hearings for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 1999. Background: The pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on January 1, 1999. City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public hearing to consider all pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 14, 1998, as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn and Gun, and for Plaza Pawn. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 0 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 14 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1999. Alternative Recommendation: Schedule the hearings for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council approval of setting date for public hearings for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses as December 14, 1998 is requested at this time. Respectfully submitted, Jamj,r r osser City Manager 0 JDP:cak 5 ? CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 288 Agenda November 23, 1998 Issue Statement: Setting date of public hearings for the renewal of wine licenses for 1999. Background: The wine licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1, 1999. City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public hearing to consider all wine license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 14, 1998, as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of wine licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Silver Spoon Restaurant, Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant and The Frenchmans. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 0 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Holding the public hearings on December 14 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1999. Alternative Recommendation: Schedule the hearings for another date; however, this may delay the licensing process. Discussion/Decision Mode: Council approval of setting date of public hearings for the renewal of wine licenses as December 14, 1998 is requested at this time. Res ully submitted, Ja YeD.rosser City Manager JDP:cak