Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-22-98 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1998 PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF 25TH ANNUAL GENE AND MARY JACOBSEN • OUTSTANDING CITIZEN AWARD TO NEL JOHNSON COUNCIL LETTER NO. 135 2. RECOGNITION OF LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS 3. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 1, 1998 AS WOMEN OF TODAY FOUNDER'S DAY IN RICHFIELD 4. RECOGNITION OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWINA GARCIA FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO RICHFIELD RESIDENTS AS FOUR-TERM MEMBER OF MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 5. RECOGNITION OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK MAHON FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO RICHFIELD RESIDENTS AS THREE-TERM MEMBER OF MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 6. DISCUSSION WITH LOCAL LEGISLATORS REGARDING UPDATE AND STATUS OF CITY OF RICHFIELD 1998 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES 7. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY AS NATIONAL • PARK AND RECREATION MONTH IN RICHFIELD 8. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY 12-18,1998 AS NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC RECREATION WEEK IN RICHFIELD INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO PRINT THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE SPEAKER'S REGISTER FOR THE RECORD. 9. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA APPROVAL 10. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR 11. CONSENT CALENDAR CONTAINS SEVERAL SEPARATE ITEMS WHICH ARE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN ONE MOTION. ONCE THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN APPROVED. NO FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION IS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY REQUEST THAT AN ITEM BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING • EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN RECONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS C.L. 136 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DMJ CORPORATION FOR EXPANSION OF CITY HALL/HEREDIA PARK PARKING LOT IN AMOUNT OF $106,860.60 C.L. 137 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR JULY 4, 1998 FOR MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435, 6501 PORTLAND AVENUE C.L. 138 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR JULY 3, 1998 FOR FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555, 710 LAKESHORE DRIVE C.L. 139 E. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY CELEBRATION EVENT LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR FOURTH OF JULY COMMITTEE FOR EVENTS SCHEDULED ON JULY 4, 1998 C.L. 140 PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ISSUANCE OF WINE AND ON-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR KETSANA'S THAI RESTAURANT, 7545 LYNDALE AVENUE 0 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 141 . 13. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTABLISHMENT OF GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND ADOPTION OF GRAMERCY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN COUNCIL LETTER NO. 142 14. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF RELIGIOUS FACILITY AT 609 WEST 74TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 143 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND-OTHER BUSINESS 15. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CITY OF RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 144 • 16. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT AIRPORT BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE 17. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 18. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 19. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 20. 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. 0 / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 144 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Presentation of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997. Background: The City's auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche completed the audit of the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 in May 1998. The CAFR was subsequently submitted to the State of Minnesota as required and to the Government Finance Officers Association for compliance review. The action to be taken at the June 22, 1998 City Council meeting is the official receipt of the CAFR by the City Council. An in-depth presentation of the 1997 financial information will be made by the City's auditors, Deloitte & Touche, at the City Council Study Session on July 6, 1998. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ended December 31, 1997. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City's auditor has performed an audit of the City's financial records for the year ended December 31, 1997 and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls. 2. A clean opinion with no significant issues cited has been issued by Deloitte & Touche for the 1997 financial reports. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanation of their findings. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is requested at the June 22, 1998 City Council meeting. The CAFR has been previously submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law. <Z;e4 • ctng City Mana ger SLD:cak / `f CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 143 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a religious facility at 609 West 74th Street. Background: The applicant, Minneapolis Meeting Rooms, Inc., is proposing to construct a 1,350 sq. ft. building to serve as a meeting room for religious purposes. Twenty-one parking spaces would be provided on site, which would allow for a maximum seating capacity of 52 people. The proposed facility would be an accessory to a main church facility located in Minneapolis. The applicant plans to use the proposed facility three days a week in the morning and/or evening hours. A fence would screen the parking lot from the residential property located to the south and east of the subject property. Landscaping would be provided in accordance with the City's landscape standards. A large maple tree on the west side of the property would remain. The property is currently occupied by a single family house and garage; . these structures would be removed. The City Council approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on May 26, 1998 that will allow religious institutions in multiple family districts with a conditional use permit. The ordinance will not be effective until July 3, 1998 so the conditional use permit can only be approved with an effective date after July 3, 1998. The ordinance amendment requires that property to be used for institutional uses be located on a collector or arterial street or be located such that significant additional traffic would not be generated on residential streets. The subject property is not located on a collector or arterial street; however, the driveway is approximately 180 feet from Lyndale Avenue, which is an arterial street. Given the small size of the facility and the close proximity to Lyndale Avenue, it is unlikely that significant traffic will spill over into the residential streets. Recommended Motion: Approve the conditional use permit to allow construction of a religious facility with the following stipulations: 1. That the conditional use permit not be issued until the ordinance amendment allowing institutional uses as conditional uses in the MR-2 zoning district becomes • effective. I L4 -1 2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a landscaping escrow be submitted for the cost of the landscaping. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed parking lot, site plan and landscaping meet City standards. 2. Screening is provided between the parking lot and the adjacent residential property. 3. The size of the facility, the property's proximity to an arterial street, and the limited hours of operation make it unlikely that significant traffic will be created in the adjacent residential neighborhood. 4. An ordinance amendment has been approved by the City Council to allow religious institutions as conditional uses in multiple family districts. 5. Given the ordinance amendment, the proposed use can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates these parcels for multiple family use; it is appropriate to locate religious institutions near residential uses. • 6. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current and mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. 7. On May 26, 1998, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the conditional use permit. Alternative Recommendation: Deny the request with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday, June 22, 1998. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Ily 00<2? I*/<.- L. Devich City Manager 0 SLD:ds /q-g- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 609 West 74th Street WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield, which requests approval of a conditional use permit for a religious institution on land generally located at 609 West 74th Street, legally described as: THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/4 OF THE NORTH 5 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34 TOWNSHIP 28 RANGE 24 LYING EAST OF THE WEST 175 FEET THEREOF EXCEPT THE ROAD WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A conditional use permit is issued for a religious institution as described in City Council Letter No. , on the Subject Property legally described above. 2. The conditional use permit is subject to completing the following conditions before a building permit will be issued: • That the conditional use permit not be issued until the ordinance amendment allowing institutional uses as conditional uses in the MR-2 zoning district becomes effective. • That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. • That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. • That a landscaping escrow be submitted for the cost of the landscaping. • That this resolution be recorded with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.36, subdivision 1. 3. The conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9 0 )q-?) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 . (4- 4 F J I b' C $ N Y11? O V N$ r 3^ Z v? I N Q ? ? e nir 7 h ¢ I KVA JO ?/I AS 3LMVIAN3N1JD W $ 3f SLOV 9 N1NON 30. IO *A 1931 3K A 3N1 19V3-, 73 1. 1" 0 A I -- -- yq W 'FS'7 4 30NU WN OM X -unto ? N W ( bs W W LY ? '? ? E n H I w W MIN g HIBON $ own X" $ ti = I is TI I I I 1 ? $s gs? 8 I $?a 3 1 '? $ ------ -1-- a jai 41. 1f --m o *A MS *M.0 $A .N 3u 'a m 1330•, N ? N a 1 4- ? 0 V '?NI SWOON 9NLL33W SILO, 8 ?9C'SEl zc rza .oa. az. air _ a d S W S _S _? ? 333 „ d d d d u I ?[1 ry N \ / I b p `v n I nd, 4 0 0 c w r, al?.a ? t ? o 0 o n ?s? j au n? I .9L'SEl ? 0 • • W W VI L_ r r w §§3r 4a? Rift ww FF ww t ? w N ? U F w U .9L"SEl si w -? w mw a VF Z t- w H, X Q w F. 'ONI sNOov eNunvt sno. V/%:II %/A E= r.? O U w y? W O V O Z j Z Ow Nw C ? N Z0 yilyi ll a a o: sa? I V s (z 9 J 0. dN I I ?•, i r', Apr .? ?, :•aila?rsnbdv3»?o g V C7 • m f s f i i ! I 4 11, J 1 6'-to 3 i y r 0 II! ?I r ?, I :'ll l!I d W J d ?f N? s pK 0 i4-8 z ? g M 0 W? o F N O Z X O Z _ f'- W W !i W F 0 ? Z J § Q O a o W Z x a is /3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 142 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution regarding approval of the Modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan); establishment of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; and adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan (Tax Increment Plan) related thereto. Background: The majority of the area south of 66th Street and west of Lyndale Avenue has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. In the late 1970s, the HRA purchased property which subsequently provided a site for the Lake Shore Drive condominium. Since that time various proposals have been advanced for other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. The Gramercy Park Cooperative provides an opportunity to not only develop another portion of the "southwest" quadrant but it can also provide the impetus for treating the balance of the area. Staff is continuing to explore possible concepts for the remaining area. • Presented for consideration are plan documents which would help make it possible to achieve the long sought goal for this quadrant. The anticipated Phase I includes a 16 story, 218 unit limited equity cooperative for seniors and a new 8,000 sq. ft. VFW facility. Phase I would be built on the current VFW property and an adjacent parcel owned by D. Hules, currently occupied by Labor Ready Temporary Services. Phase II, which is still in the formative stage, is anticipated to occur on the remaining parcels in the district. A Phase II concept plan is likely to include: • approximately 44,000 sq. ft. of commercial space including a Lyndale Hardware store (existing or new); • approximately 62,000 sq. ft. of medical clinic and office; and • a housing component, with a variety of unit types. Of the nine parcels in the new district, four are currently in the LHN Tax Increment District and will need to be decertified from LHN and newly certified in the Gramercy 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.) Mr. 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. 0 /3-1 • Gramercy Corporation has negotiated a purchase agreement with the VFW. At its July 20, 1998 meeting, the HRA will be requested to enter into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with the developer and undertake quick-take condemnation actions on other critical properties necessary for site assembly, including but not limited to 6724 and 6700 Lyndale Avenue South and subsurface rights beneath the alley adjacent to 6700 Lyndale Avenue. Gramercy Corporation has requested public assistance to help offset development costs, and to keep the per unit share cost at a reasonably affordable level. The current assessor's market value, taxes payable 1998, of the two properties (VFW parcel and adjacent Hules parcel) is $876,000. With the estimated market value for Phase I of the project at $22.6 million, the projected gross annual increment is $356,460. One of the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment district created in 1990 or later is a local contribution payment, or match, to the project, in order to avoid state aid penalties. The match for the Gramercy Tax Increment District must be equal to five percent of the gross tax increment. Per the Department of Revenue, local contribution means "any financial assistance from a municipality to a TIF district to pay for project costs. It does not include expenditures for general government purposes or expenditures for improvements that the authority or municipality planned to incur absent the project." Potential local match contributions include, among other things, public improvements, land, and consultant expenditures. For the Gramercy project, the local contribution is estimated to be $17,822 annually. At this time, potential match "in kind" contributions appear to be limited. Any shortfall will be covered by other funds available to the HRA. The above-referenced descriptive provides detail for the Gramercy project only. However, the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan provide detail for both Phase I, Gramercy, and Phase II, a mixed use concept. In its entirety, the project could produce up to $53.2 million at full build out. Currently, the assessor's market value, taxes payable 1998, is $2.9 million. Appendix C 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 plans be reviewed: 0 Page Section Summary 1-1 Subsection J Development Activities in Project Area 2-1 Subsection 2-3 Statement of Objectives 2-1 Subsection 2-5 Property in the Redevelopment TIF District 2-2 Subsection 2-6 Classification of the Redevelopment TIF District 2-4 Subsection 2-10 Uses of Funds 2-5 Subsection 2-11 Sources of Revenue 2-12 Subsection 2-25 Municipal Approval and Public Purpose 2-28 Subsection 2-28 State Tax Increment Financing Aid Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which: 1. approves a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan; 2. establishes the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; and 3. approves the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Since the late 1970s, it has been the intention of the HRA to redevelop this area with the purchase of three residential lots on Graham Avenue in 1977. 2. The Richfield Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial use and high density housing. 3. The Redevelopment and Tax Increment Plans meet the requirements of state law and established procedures within Richfield. 4. The Hennepin County Board Commissioner representing the affected area of the project was notified of the project and proposed public hearing by letter, as required by law, on May 8, 1998. 5. Hennepin County and the Richfield School District were notified of the impacts to taxing jurisdictions and the public hearing by letter, as required by law, on May 20, 1998. 6. On May 18, 1998, the HRA approved the modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan and Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan. 7. On May 26, 1998, the Planning Commission found that the modifications to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan and Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan are consistent with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Richfield. 8. Legal notice of the public hearing was published on June 10, 1998. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not approve the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan; establishment of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan. 0 13-,3 • 2. Delay approval of the modification of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan; establishment of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District; or adoption of the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing Plan. 3. Seek alternatives to the proposed project. Discussion/Decision Mode: This proposal is presented for consideration by the Council in response to the action taken by the HRA in May. Approval on June 22, 1998 would permit implementation of the project and allow Gramercy to begin site clearance in November 1998 with project completion anticipated in the spring of 2000. submitted, Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds 0 RESOLUTION NO. 13-q RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THERETO; AND ESTABLISHING WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA THE GRAMERCY 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 Gramercy 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 "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 Gramercy 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 Gramercy 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, 0 13--15? which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the 10 same extent as if set forth in full herein. Section 2. Findings for the Approval of the Modification and the TIF Plan. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Modification and the establishment of the Gramercy 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 Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District . 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the Gramercy 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 financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the 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 Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise. 3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399. 3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.05. The City of Richfield elects to calculate fiscal disparities for 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. 0 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 Gramercy 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 Gramercy 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 10 Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District with the Commission of Revenue. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 • EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION # 3-7 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Gramercy District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The Gramercy District consists of 9 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential and commercial/retail purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Gramercy District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Gramercy District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix E). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Gramercy 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 development proposed in this plan is a senior housing cooperative that meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. The HRA currently owns certain property within the VFW facility and the mixed-use commercial/retail and housing component site area, but the cost of site and public improvements and acquisition of the other properties in the district by the developer makes the proposed development infeasible without City assistance. The developer of the senior housing cooperative and VFW facility has submitted a pro forma on file in City Hall demonstrating the need for the assistance, and the developer has certified to the City that financing for the project would not be available but for the tax increment assistance to be provided under this 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 site and public improvements and acquiring the property adds to the total redevelopment cost. Since the late 1970's/early 1980's the HRA has intended to /3-9 redevelop the subject site area. The majority of the area south of 66th Street and west of Lyndale Avenue has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. In the late 1970's the HRA purchased property which subsequently provided a site for the Lake Shore Condominiums. Since that time various proposals have been advanced for other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the housing development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Gramercy District, the total increased market value would be up to $50,335,744. The present value of the tax increment from the Gramercy District is estimated to be $12,110,673. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $38,225,071 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public and site improvements in the general area of the Gramercy District (see the but/for analysis in the cashflow in Appendix C). 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District conforms to the general plan for the redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City and approved the Plan on May 26, 1998. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Gramercy District will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State, the addition of a high quality development to the City and provide certain housing components to the City which do not exist. 0 40% Draft as of June 12, 1998 Draft for Planning Commission and City Council Approval .. _.,....... 4 ,.: :.l..----- .... a ... _ ___1_u....._,. __; - _. . TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) within THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA *RICHFIELD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: June 22, 1998 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 Phone: (612) 697-8500 Fax: (612) 697-8555 • E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com 13-1c) TABLE OF CONTENTS • (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ........................................... 1-1 Foreword .._ ................. ...........................................1-1 Subsection B. Statement of Public Purpose ..................................... 1-1 Subsection F. Boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area .............. 1-1 Subsection G' Parcels in Acquisition .......................................... 1-1 Subsection J. Development Activities in the Richfield Project Area ................. 1-1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT 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. Property in the Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District ................ . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the Gramercy Redevelopment TIF 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 ................................................ . 2-4 Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ......................... . 2-5 Subsection 2-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................ . 2-6 Subsection 2-13. Duration of the Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District ............... . 2-6 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ..................... . 2-6 Subsection 2-15. Modifications to the Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District ........... . 2-7 Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses ....................................... . 2-7 Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment ........................................ . 2-8 Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment .......................................... . 2-9 Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ....................... . 2-9 Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments ......................................... 2-10 Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ................... 2-10 Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ........................................ 2-10 Subsection 2-23. Administration of the Gramercy Redevelopment TIF District .......... 2-11 Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements ................................ 2-11 Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ........................... 2-13 Subsection 2-26. Fiscal Disparities Election ...................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ..................... 2-15 Subsection 2-28. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... 2-16 Subsection 2-29. County Road Costs ............................................ 2-17 Subsection 2-30. Economic Development and Job Creation .......................... 2-17 Subsection 2-31. Summary ................................................... 2-17 0 /3-11 • APPENDIX A - BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT A-1 APPENDIX B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .... B-1 APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .......................................... C-1 APPENDIX D - MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM t ?MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ...... D-1 APPENDIX E - REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE GRAMERCY . REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT .... E-1 • 0 /3-/aL • SECTION I MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area to establish the Gramercy Redevelopment 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 A of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District for a map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection G. Parcels in Acquisition The HRA may acquire the parcels in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment 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. A senior housing cooperative b. A VFW facility c. A housing component d. Commercial/retail space e. A medical facility 0 City of Richfield Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 1-1 /3-/3 • SECTION II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. Foreword The City of Richfield ("City"), the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District ("the Gramercy District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S. "), Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for the Gramercy District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Obiectives The Gramercy District currently consists of 9 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The Gramercy District is created to facilitate construction of a senior cooperative housing project, a new facility for the VFW club, medical offices and clinic, hardware store, retail store, and additional housing options 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, as well as bring to fruition plans for redeveloping this area since the late 1970's and early 1980's. The activities contemplated in the present modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Gramercy District and the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the Gramercy 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. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer selected properties that they may acquire within the Gramercy District or may lease land • or facilities to a developer. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 • 4. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the Gramercy District. Subsection 2-5. Property in the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District The Gramercy District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below. Please see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the Gramercy District. Parcel Numbers 28-028-24-41-0015 28-028-24-41-0016 28-028-24-41-0017 27-028-24-32-0009 27-028-24-32-0010 27-028-24-32-0006 27-028-24-32-0117 27-028-24-32-0115 27-028-24-32-0005 Address 6617 Lake Shore Dive 6633 Lake Shore Drive 6639 Lake Shore Drive 710 Lake Shore Drive 6724 Lyndale Avenue 6700 Lyndale Avenue 709 Graham Avenue 6620 Lyndale Avenue 6630 Lyndale Avenue Subsection 2-6. Classification of the Gramercy Redevelopment 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 the Gramercy 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: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storagefacilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements ora combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the 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 ineeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings: ¦ The Gramercy District is a redevelopment district consisting of 9 parcels. ¦ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in the Gramercy District are occupied as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within the Gramercy District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix E) In 1999 the City will be requesting that the Minnesota Legislature approve special legislation that would exempt the City from M.S. Section 273.1399, Subd. 6 and replace the requirement with the option to create a housing trust fund. While the plan is approved by the EDA and the City of Richfield • as indicated herein, its implementation will include the provisions provided if the special law is granted. Subsection 2-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the Gramercy 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. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. change in the use of the property and classification; 5. change in state law governing class rates; or 6. change in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of the Gramercy District declines below 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 the Gramercy District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1998. The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for the Gramercy District appear in the table below. 0 City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 13-1(0 • Original Tax Capacity Value $84,482 Percent Retained by City 100% Estimated 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 the Gramercy 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 obl i` atimis 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 (Pfc) 1,045,848 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 84,482 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 961,366 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,332,309 Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within the Gramercy 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 development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. 2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired: The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this 'tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the Gramercy District is a proposal to facilitate construction of a senior cooperative housing project, VFW facility and mixed use commercial/housing component. 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 the Gramercy District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the Gramercy District, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The • estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the Gramercy District is outlined in the following table. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 /3-/7 Uses of Funds_ Total Land Acquisition, Site Improvements, Public Improvements and Public Utilities* $15,250,000 Interest 14,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 3,250,000 TOTAL $32,500,000 *Final budget will be done prior to the public hearing. Estimated costs associated with the Gramercy District are subject to change. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the Gramercy District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the Gramercy District but within the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the Gramercy District) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan. Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA • reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $31,000,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer. The estimated sources of funds for the Gramercy District are contained in the table below. Sources of Funds Total Tax Increment $30,875,000 Local Contribution 1,625,000 TOTAL $32,500,00 I City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 13-13 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. repa} ments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and 4. interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. Subsection 2-13. Duration of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the Gramercy District must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of the Gramercy 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 1999. Thus, it is estimated that the Gramercy District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2024, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify the Gramercy District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation of the Gramercy District. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following estimated impact of the Gramercy District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: TMPACT ON TAX RASE, 1997/1998 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 936,486,071 961,366 0.1027% I.S.D. No. 280 26,436,495 961,366 3.6365% City of Richfield 17,976,447 961,366 5.3479% TMPACT O 1997/1998 N TAX RATES Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.383860 27.70% 961,366 369,030 I.S.D. No. 280 0.643340 46.42% 961,366 618,485 City of Richfield 0.271250 19.57% 961,366 260,771 Other 0.087400 6.31% 961,366 84.023 Is Total 1.385850 100.00% 1,332,309 City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 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. The Gramercy District will be certified under the actual 1997/1998 rates. Subsection 2-15. Modifications to the Gramercy Redevelopment 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 the Gramercy District; 2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase 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 of the original plan. The geographic area of the Gramercy 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. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that. the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., 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 modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area or the Gramercy District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the Gramercy District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the Gramercy District's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the Gramercy District. The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the Gramercy District or the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Modifications to the Gramercy Redevelopment 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 engineering services, 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. Is Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 13.1 and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and 10 documented administrative expenses for the Gramercy 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 the Gramercy District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to it1. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.1 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 financ 1 al reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for the Gramercy District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the Gramercy District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or (b) the City or HRA has acquired property within the Gramercy District, or (c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the Gramercy 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 July, 2000. 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 of property 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 City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 i3-al 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 increment financing 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 rebuildin of an existing street. The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within the Gramercy District by approximately Jule, 2001. Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the Gramercy District for the following purposes: I. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project; 2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget; 4. to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5. to o pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or HRA or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by the developer; 6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both; and 7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the Gramercy District will be paid by Hennepin County to the City of Richfield for the Tax Increment Fund of said the Gramercy 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 public improvement activities outside the Gramercy District. 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 the Gramercy District enlargement with a listing of all properties within the Gramercy City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 /3 -C )I C--? - 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 the Gramercy District by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued. Pursuant to M.S., ,Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City has reviewed the area to be included in the Gramercy District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessar\ to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in M.S., Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following: 1. prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or 4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. In addition, the City or HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Gramercy 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 the Gramercy District as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement 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 the Gramercy District which establishes a minimum market value of • the land and completed improvements for the duration of the Gramercy District. The assessment agreement City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 /3--3 • 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. Subsection 2-23. Administration of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Administration of the Gramercy District will be handled by the Community Development Director of the City of RichfWld. Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements A. Filing with State Auditor, County Auditor, County Board and School Board: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts, including the Gramercy District. The report shall be filed with the County Board, County Auditor, School Board, and the State Auditor on or before July 1 of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall include the following information: 1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account; 2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; 3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding bond indebtedness; 4. the original net tax capacity of the Gramercy 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 the Gramercy District's increment paid to other governmental bodies, 6. the amount paid for administrative costs, 7. the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside of the Gramercy District, and 8. any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary. C. State Auditor filing for the Gramercy 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, a financial report which shall: 1. provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in the Gramercy District; • 2. permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRH's accounts and financial City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 i3 aq . reports; 3. permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the Gramercy District or that is funded in part or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other tax increment districts or with public money; and 4. be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial report must also include the following: I the original net tax capacity of the Gramercy District; the captured net tax capacity of the Gramercy District, including the amount of any captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3: the amount budgeted under the Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories (for the reporting period and for the duration of the Gramercy District): a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvements or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other similar public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city; e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or other similar public improvements; and 4. the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for properties sold to developers); 5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3), that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in the Gramercy 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 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 . 6. any additional information that the State Auditor may require. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Gramercy District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The Gramercy District consists of 9 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for residential and commercial/retail purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Gramercy District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Gramercy District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix E). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Gramercy 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 reasonablyforeseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the development proposed in this plan is a senior housing cooperative that meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. The HRA currently owns certain property within the VFW facility and the mixed-use commercial/retail and housing component site area, but the cost of site and public improvements and acquisition of the other properties in the district by the developer makes the proposed development infeasible without City assistance. The developer of the senior housing cooperative and VFW facility has submitted a pro forma on file in City Hall demonstrating the need for the assistance, and the developer has certified to the City that financing for the project would not be available but for the tax increment assistance to be provided under this 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 site and public improvements and acquiring the property adds to the total redevelopment cost. Since the late 1970's/early 1980's the HRA has intended to redevelop the subject site area. The majority of the area south of 66th Street and west of Lyndale Avenue has been identified for redevelopment since 1975. In the late 1970's the HRA purchased property which subsequently provided a site for the lake Shore Condominiums Since that time various proposals have been advanced for other portions of the area but none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Historically, site development costs in this area have made development infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the housing development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0. • City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 1 ?) -aV • A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the Gramercy District, the total increased market value would be up to $50,335,744' The present value of the tax increment from the Gramercy District is estimated to be $12,110,673. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $38,225,071 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public and site improvements in the general area of the Gramercy District (see the but/for analysis in the cashflow in Appendix Q. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District conforms to the general plan for the redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City and approved the Plan on May 26, 1998. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Gramercy District will result in the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State, the addition of a high quality development to the City and provide certain housing components to the City which do not exist. • 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, (without the Gramercy 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 financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. is (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in 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 lesser of (A) the local taxing district City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 /3-0-? • tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the Gramercy District) are followed, the following method` of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude arty 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 thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax incrementfinancing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The City or HRA shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method of computation of fiscal disparities the City or HRA elected. The City of Richfield will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (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 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. City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 I3-ag • This provision shall not prohibit 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, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the Gramercy District must be expended on activities in the Gramercy District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the-proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the Gramercy District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the Gramercy District. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the Gramercy District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the Gramercy District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 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 469.174 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, 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., Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) 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. The Gramercy District is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax City of Richfield Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 / 3-a9 capacity, after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) i 0.25 percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year. The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the general fund, a`property tax levy, or a federal or state grant-in-aid which may be spent for general government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes. The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA- HACA'penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 5 percent of annual tax increment for the Gramercy 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. In 1999 the City will be requesting that the Minnesota Legislature approve special legislation that would exempt the City from M.S. Section 273.1399, Subd. 6 and replace the requirement with the option to create a housing trust fund. While the plan is approved by the EDA and the City of Richfield as indicated herein, its implementation will include the provisions provided if the special law is granted. 0 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 D). Subsection 2-31. Summary The City of Richfield is establishing the Gramercy District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Gramercy 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 the Gramercy Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 2-17 APPENDIX A BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • • APPENDIX A-1 w ?C .E- lz iuu .L 10 j w LU .w LL F ?_ IOIOt.I? -?- f \, 14 t >A W C) rn T , R .i ? t fn :n m y cu $ T??-? yIV tF?] fJ ,? L_J 1_? I_J? r run AC • Z faYl ??0?? -you I 1 iaexoe+,a ??V O I ? w1?1 (? /^? wtvf ?_ ??? L-II?O wsl JO0000?? = wALI 000.1c00 _. _ „a, -? O?OOOI_J weal ? ©COOJC "??M= ?u«I:OOur ?? ? o X00000 ? ?? 300 [? C .?, A) IMP Sat E w mm-) F.. .?OOi?00 u? m c ?BBOOO 1 - m 1?JL .._ a??0 O AaMEI-Nd LL /A ?1QQI?-CJf1OU - Ol tmcra ??? II ? OMa9 rr`?^?-ptll tblaavn e ° D \ I _„ 1MAa8 ?'-- ? ? 01 ? O ? mnoa ?a000? a/? Amoana OOO?I<-.J rcosaa.a avymt -? 1O,OBYnw LI._ CJ Sol OLJ Co wvpc, C) OQ?-} C9 NDIAAiN a3Mfo C) 00 O sr rwaa N X10 U ,1TlITa O Cl o O {( wow33.s L SWIOnt OI__JO woA,tn n -7, _.._ 1 L? ,L? WR961sM 311?:'91taS( Q o`, w Q C, ? a a ? y T aau IN t: ?L 1T< ++SaL 111!1 '1?.v aw¢lo wutl w141 41a1 HL11 ?- rut 1 -? Im Aal,l? d?lW f ?f,awnxla ? flbVe awn: a anv awr,aa.l laA9 IIOA1119_ ? . one 9N31318 3AV131W7fn ? T=IrIJ wJla0MVN3f'A AafIR,?41 INYM„C am"a^ J3YIV- QT511oa"o 31* 3wam l IOlaaw fMAM twk it" ti alarr3bj Otl+lf9 imcevinn IMA4I `1?J I 1!? JO .`J I wokm J xxno ase mma ,ssnn 3 31 wa d W02jd Wd60 = L L 966 1 -V L -5 13-3. • CJ • APPENDIX B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Parcel Numbers 28-028-24-41-0015 28-028-24-41-0016 28-028-24-41-0017 27-028-24-32-0009 27-028-24-32-0010 27-028-24-32-0006 27-028-24-32-0117 27-028-24-32-0115 27-028-24-32-0005 APPENDIX Address 6617 Lake Shore Dive 6633 Lake Shore Drive 6639 Lake Shore Drive 710 Lake Shore Drive 6724 Lyndale Avenue 6700 Lyndale Avenue 709 Graham Avenue 6620 Lyndale Avenue 6630 Lyndale Avenue B-1 13-33 0 APPENDIX C ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT • • APPENDIX C-1 05/20/98 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS District: New Redevelopment District Inflation Rate 0.0000% Pay As You Go Rate 7.500% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 18.6928% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.350000 EST 28.028-24-41-0016 Lake Shore Condo 28-028-24-41-0017 Davies 27-028-24-32-0009 VFW 27-028-24-32.0010 Hules 27-028-24-32-0006 Triple S 27-028-24-32-0117 Richfield HRA 27-028-24-32-0005 Trestman J 3--:?q Page 1 BASE BASE USE MARKET PROPERTY TAX VALUE TYPE CAPACITY 84,000 1%-1.85% 917 Single Fam. 0 1%-1.85% 0 Note 1 Single Fam. 106,000 1%-1.85% 1,324 Note 2 Single Fam. 800,000 1%-1.85% 14,163 Note 2 Single Fam. 76,000 1%-1.85% 769 Single Fam. 319,000 4.00% 10,810 Comm. 0 4.00% 0 Note 1 Comm. 302,000 4.00% 10,130 Comm. 1.208.000 4.00% 46,370 Comm. Note 1 - Tax Exempt Property May Be Assigned A Value At Time Of Certification. Note 2 - Assumes The Current Commercial Class Rate Changed TO Residential. C is RI 100- City of Richfield - Lyndale Ave Project - VFW Site Phase Development Type Sq. Ft./ Units PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION Taxes Tax Capacity Per Total Minus S q. Ft./Unit Taxes Fs. Dis. Total Tax Capacity Tax Rate Market Value ayable 1 Housing 218 $1,607.31 350,393 259,550 259,550 1%- 1.7% 22,000,000 2001 1 VFW 8,000 $2.67 21,322 15,794 19,425 3.50% 600,000 2001 1 Commerical 34,000 $4.00 136,000 81,909 100,741 3.50% 2,878,307 2001 1 Commerical 40,000 $5.00 200,000 120,455 148,148 3.50% 4,232,804 2001 1 Commerical 22,000 $5.00 110,000 66,250 81,481 3.50% 2,328,042 2001 1 Housing 25,000 $4.00 100,000 60,228 74,074 3.50% 2,116,402 2001 1 Housing 90 $1,446.43 130,179 96,429 96,429 1.90% 5,075,188 2001 1 Housing 14 $8,336.25 116,708 86,450 86,450 1.90% 4,550,000 2001 1 Commerical 42 $5,771.25 242,393 179,550 179.550 1.901/6 9,450,000 2001 TOTALS 1,406,993 966,615 1.045,846 53,230,744 M 5ume5 d dvefeue Ydlue ul flVfllub IV ue J luu.e 1I Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. PLAN-1.WK4 05/20/98 113-,.3 5 City of Richfield - Lyndale Ave Project - VFW Site Page 2 Beginning Period Yrs Mth Vr. Annual Base Tax Capacity Project Tax Capacity Captured Tax Capacity TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Semi-Annual Admin State Aud. Gross Tax Payment Payment Increment 10.00% 0.25% Semi-Annual Net Tax Increment Local Match 5.00% rs. Ending Period Mth. Yr. 0.0 08-01 1998 84,482 84,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 1999 0.0 02-01 1999 84,482 84,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 1999 0.0 08-01 1999 84,482 84,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02.01 2000 0.0 02.01 2000 84,482 84,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2000 0.0 08-01 2000 84,482 84,482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2001 0.0 02-01 2001 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 0.5 08-01 2001 0.5 08-01 2001 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 1.0 02.01 2002 1.0 02-01 2002 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 1.5 08-01 2002 1.5 08.01 2002 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 2.0 02.01 2003 2.0 02-01 2003 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 2.5 08-01 2003 2.5 08-01 2003 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 3.0 02-01 2004 3.0 02-01 2004 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 3.5 08-01 2004 3.5 08-01 2004 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 4.0 02.01 2005 4.0 02-01 2005 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 4.5 08-01 2005 4.5 08-01 2005 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 5.0 02-01 2006 5.0 02-01 2006 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 5.5 08-01 2006 5.5 08-01 2006 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 6.0 02-01 2007 6.0 02-01 2007 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 6.5 08-01 2007 6.5 08-01 2007 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 7.0 02-01 2008 7.0 02-01 2008 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 7.5 08-01 2008 7.5 08-01 2008 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 8.0 02-01 2009 8.0 02-01 2009 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64.892 1,622 584,030 32,446 8.5 08-01 2009 8.5 08-01 2009 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584.030 32,446 9.0 02-01 2010 9.0 02-01 2010 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 9.5 08-01 2010 9.5 08-01 2010 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648.922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 10.0 02-01 2011 10.0 02-01 2011 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 10.5 08-01 2011 10.5 08-01 2011 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 11.0 02-01 2012 11.0 02-01 2012 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 11.5 08.01 2012 11.5 08-01 2012 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 12.0 02-01 2013 12.0 02.01 2013 84,482 1,045,848 961.366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 12.5 08-01 2013 12.5 08-01 2013 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 13.0 02-01 2014 13.0 02-01 2014 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 13.5 08-01 2014 13.5 08-01 2014 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648.922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 14.0 02-01 2015 14.0 02-01 2015 84,482 1,045.848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 14.5 08-01 2015 14.5 08-01 2015 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648.922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 15.0 02-01 2016 15.0 02-01 2016 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 15.5 08.01 2016 15.5 08-01 2016 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 16.0 02-01 2017 16.0 02-01 2017 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 16.5 08.01 2017 16.5 011-01 2017 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 17.0 02-01 2018 17.0 02-01 2018 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 17.5 08-01 2018 • 17.5 08-01 2018 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 18.0 02-01 2019 18.0 02-01 2019 84,482 1,045.848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 18.5 08-01 2019 18.5 08-01 2019 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 19.0 02-01 2020 19.0 02-01 2020 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 19.5 08-01 2020 19.5 08-01 2020 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 20.0 02-01 2021 20.0 02-01 2021 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 20.5 08-01 2021 20.5 08-01 2021 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 21.0 02-01 2022 21.0 02-01 2022 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 21.5 08.01 2022 21.5 08-01 2022 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 22.0 02-01 2023 22.0 02-01 2023 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 22.5 08-01 2023 22.5 08-01 2023 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 23.0 02.01 2024 23.0 02-01 2024 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 23.5 08-01 2024 23.5 08-01 2024 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64.892 1,622 584,030 32,446 24.0 02.01 2025 24.0 02-01 2025 84,482 1,045,848 961,366 648,922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 24.5 08-01 2025 24.5 08-01 2025 84.482 1.045.848 961.366 648.922 64,892 1,622 584,030 32,446 25.0 02.01 2026 BUT / FOR ANALYSIS Current Market Value - Est. 2,895,000 New Market Value - Est. 53,230,744 Difference 50,335,744 Present Value of Tax Increment 12,110,673 Difference 38,225,071 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 38,225,071 • R1100- Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. PLAN-1.WK4 13-3(o APPENDIX D MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) • • APPENDIX D-1 • 4\1-A N E S O 1,q Trade & Economic Development February 27, 1998 To all Minnesota state and local government agencies: /3-3? 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. MS. I I6J.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 a new 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 submitted if assistance has not been provided to a business. • Sincerely, Jay Nova Commissioner )00 Metro Square, 12 1 7th Place Fast, Saint Paul, Minnesota >.i 101-! 146 1'S:\ til'-")--1 291 -800•t-)-,-1ii8-IiIN 12-296-4772 • IT) , TDD 800-627-3 529 %%,%%%%.d1ed.snuc.mn.us • ?Q: Trade & -- Economic De dopmenr /3-38 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 b. 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 14. Date assistance fast 15. Date project (building/ 16. Dollar value of business assistance agreement provided machinery/etc.) was assistance placed in service For assistance agreements signed between juty i, trio and uecemuer j r, L77,, COMPIcw wAw ....,...,.6.. - .,....,,.,N - 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) • ?tt1 N E S p?,Y - Trade & , Econonuc 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 • 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 proiect 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. I3-qv APPENDIX E REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE GRAMERCY REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Each property has been reviewed to determine property substandardness in accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.:10. All findings are on file for review at the City of Richfield, Community Development Department • • APPENDIX E-1 OCCUPIED-XLS /" i GRAMERCY TUC INCREMENT DISTRICT REA SO FT ISO FT !OCCUPIED JTHAN 15% 1 0015 L ch 13,680 2,040 15% 13,680 2 0016 Lake Shore Drive Condo 11,540 0 0% 0 3 0017 Davies 12,350 2,252 18% 12,350 4 5 0009 0010 VFW Hules 67,280 3,940 63,680 3,940 95% - 100% 67,280 3,940 6 0006 Triple S 18,816 18,816 100% 18,816 7 0117 HRA 22,100 0 00/0 0 8 9 0005 0115 Trestman L dale Hardware 17,100 82.050 17,100 82,050 100% 100% 17,100 92,050, TOTALS 248,856 189,878 215,216 PERCENT OCCUPIED 86% • 0 /a. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 141 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Public hearing regarding issuance of wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue. Background: The application for the issuance of the wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license has been submitted by Ketsana's Thai Restaurant. The required license fees have been paid. The City is currently able to issue fifteen on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and seven wine licenses. This would be a request for the fourteenth on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and the fifth wine license. City ordinance states there are to be no more than 15 on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses and no more than five wine licenses permitted in the City. The Public Safety investigation has been conducted and reveals the following: Scott Bechtel and Ketsana Bechtel are the owners of the establishment. Ketsana Bechtel is acting as General Manager. Scott and Ketsana Bechtel have no known criminal history. • Ketsana's Thai Restaurant has had no Public Safety contacts since it opened in The owner of the property is JSB Corporation, 8608 Lakeview Road, Bloomington, MN. October 1997. Scott and Ketsana Bechtel owned and operated a restaurant called Ruammit Ketsana Thai Restaurant from 1993 to 1995, which was located in St. Cloud, MN. There were no police contacts at that establishment during the two year period. There were also no licensing problems or health violations reported. Recommended Motion: Approve the issuance of the wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue, Richfield, MN. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the City Code and State Statutes pertaining to wine and on-sale 3.2 percent liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. 0 1 a-' • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant. This would mean that they would be unable to serve any wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request to consider the issuance of a wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Acting City Manager ZcRtfully sub ' ed, L. vich SLD:cak 0 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA ` Council Letter No. 140 • Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Application for a community celebration event license with a request for a fee waiver by the Fourth of July Committee for events scheduled to take place on July 4, 1998. Background: Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a community celebration event license and requests that the fee be waived for the activities that take place throughout the City on July 4, 1998. A detailed activity plan of the day's events is currently on file. A copy of the committee's bylaws and articles of incorporation are also on file. Members of nonprofit organizations who have been with the committee since the celebration began will staff the food concessions. Any proceeds of the concessions are used for community programs. No other outside vendors will be allowed to sell at concessions. The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. Is Recommended Motion: Staff recommends the approval of a community celebration event license for the Fourth of July Committee for activities held throughout the day on July 4, 1998. Basis of Recommendation: The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements for having the fee waived. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide not to grant the license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on the Fourth of July. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of the request for the issuance of a community celebration event license for July 4, 1998 and fee waiver for the Fourth of July Committee is presented for Council consideration at this time. Ily submitted, .4 Mdo L. Devich -'" Acting City Manager SLD:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1/40 Council Letter No. 139 • Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Request for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for July 3, 1998 for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, 710 Lakeshore Drive. Background: On May 5, 1998, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555 submitted a request for a temporary license to serve on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor on the evening of July 3 within their parking lot area. They are requesting that any fee be waived. This request is in conjunction with the Richfield Fourth of July celebration and has been organized by the Fourth of July Committee. Their plans are to have an open house and community dance outside on their property and they would like to serve refreshments, including beer. Their current liquor license is only valid for the serving of alcohol within the establishment and doesn't cover exterior serving. They have not yet provided proof of additional liquor liability insurance to cover the exterior of their property. Recommended Motion: Approve a fee-waived, temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for July 3, 1998, for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post, 710 Lakeshore Drive, with the stipulation that the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor cease no later than midnight and the liquor liability insurance be in place and a copy on file with the City. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. 2. The City has previously issued temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July Celebration. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July celebration. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post 5555, 710 Lakeshore Drive, is presented for Council consideration at this time. R e tfully submi d, I even . Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds He, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 138 . Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Request for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for July 4, 1998, for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue. Background: On May 22, 1998, Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 submitted a request for a temporary license to serve on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor on the evening of July 4 within their parking lot area. They are requesting that any fee be waived. This request is in conjunction with the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration and has been organized by the Fourth of July Committee. Their plans are to have an open house and community dance outside on their property, and they would like to serve refreshments, including beer. Their current liquor license is only valid for the serving of alcohol within the establishment and doesn't cover exterior serving. They have not yet provided proof of additional liquor liability insurance to cover the exterior of their property. Recommended Motion: Approve a fee waived, temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for July 4, 1998 for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, with the stipulation that the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor cease no later than midnight and the liquor liability insurance is in place and a copy on file with the City. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. 2. The City has previously issued temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July Celebration. Alternative Recommendation: The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July celebration. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion, 6501 Portland Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. pectfully submitted, JteR n L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds 11,6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 137 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Award of contract for the expansion of City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot. Background: Since the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) was adopted as part of the 1997 Revised and Adopted Budget in the fall of 1997, the property at 6734 Portland became available for purchase. This purchase allowed the expansion of the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot to proceed. A public hearing was held May 11, 1998 to describe the project and receive public comment. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council took action to accept the plans and specifications as presented and to authorize City staff to advertise for bids to expand and reconstruct the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot. The Engineering staff held an open house on Thursday, April 30, 1998 at City Hall to discuss the proposed expansion and reconstruction of the upper parking lot adjacent to Heredia Park. For several years residents and staff have noticed the need for additional parking at City Hall. In order to provide better service to customers, visitors and park users, staff proposed to enlarge the upper parking lot south of the main entrance to City Hall. The upper lot is also in need of repair, and staff is proposing to include the resurfacing of the existing lot. There were 13 plan holders for the June 10, 1998 bid opening. Eight bids were received. A copy of the bids/minutes/tabulation is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and award a contract to DMJ Corporation in the amount of $106,860.60 for the expansion of the City Hall/Heredia Park parking lot. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The lowest responsible bid submitted is lower than the Engineer's estimate of $115,000 for the expansion of the parking lot. 2. City Engineering staff together with BRW staff have checked on the contractor and found that DMJ is a creditable contractor capable of accomplishing the work. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Council may choose to reject all bids and direct staff to obtain new bids. However the bids received are reasonable and the present parking lot is in dire need of repair. 0 116-1 2. Council may choose to award a contract to other than DMJ Corporation. However, it appears DMJ Corporation is a responsible bidder and staff and the consultant are not aware of any reason why this contract should not be awarded to DMJ Corporation. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action at the June 22, 1998 meeting. The bid received is valid for 60 days from the June 10, 1998 bid opening. A delay in award of contract would be possible within the time frame provided for the validity of the bids submitted. However, the specifications call for the contract work to begin July 6 and a delay in the award of contract would delay the start of the work. Respectfully sub ' ed, en L. D vic Acting City Manager SLD:ds • 0 1115-2- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Bid Opening June 10, 1998 11:30 a. m. 1998 City Hall Parking Lot City Project No. 402-30-555 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Stroth, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1998 city hall parking lot, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 20, 1998. Present: Tom Ferber, City Clerk George Atkinson, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative • 40 The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bid Security Total Bid Amount Ace Blacktop, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 109,302.40 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 125,216.00 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 113,481.00 DMJ Corporation 5% Bid Bond $ 106,860.60 Hardrives, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 127,796.50 Jay Bros., Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 141,246.40 McNamara Contracting, Inc. 5% Bid Bond $ 124,018.00 Midwest Asphalt Corp. 5% Bid Bond $ 176,712.95 * Corrected bid amount reflecting correction of bidders arithmatic extension errors. The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the June 22, 1998 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 114 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 136 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution for authorization to execute agreement for participation in the reconstruction of retaining walls. Background: The 1998 project calls for replacement of six retaining walls along 66th Street, Penn Avenue and Nicollet Avenue at the following addresses: 70-1/2 Street and Penn Avenue, 1615 West 66th Street, 6602 Irving, 6605 Clinton, 6941 Nicollet, and 6937 Nicollet. The 1998 project will be a joint effort with Hennepin County, and the cost will be split evenly. The adjacent property owners have agreed to have the replacement walls moved onto their property and to accept ownership and future maintenance responsibility for the new walls. Because 66th Street and Penn Avenue are Hennepin County roads, Hennepin County and the City of Richfield will equally share the cost of the work. The County will reimburse the City for 50% of the actual contract construction costs and a proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the City for work performed for this project. is Hennepin County has prepared Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 for County Project No. 9813, City Project No. 427-35-655. The Mayor and City Manager are requested to sign on behalf of the City. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached for Council review. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement for Participation in the Reconstruction of Retaining Walls, Agreement No. PW 14-19-98. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A number of retaining walls along County roadways in the City of Richfield are in need of repair. 2. The County and City have reached an agreement whereby the City will prepare the plans and specifications for said retaining wall reconstruction. 3. The County will afford half the cost for the work incurred in the retaining wall reconstruction. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not repair or reconstruct the retaining walls. However, the walls to be repaired or reconstructed are in need of improvement. 1hq-1 2. Do not enter into agreement with the County. However, if the walls were to be 10 repaired without the agreement executed, the cost of the repair would be borne by the City and/or the property owners. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Council action on June 22, 1998. Council could delay action, but it is preferred that the funding agreement be executed prior to the opening of bids scheduled for July 8 and the consideration of award of contract scheduled for July 27. 2s R s pe ully submitte , t e . Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds is 0 I1A-cz RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN RECONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Hennepin County have been negotiating to reconstruct certain existing retaining walls along various County roadways within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has indicated a willingness to prepare the necessary plans and specifications and to administer a contract for the aforementioned retaining wall reconstruction; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Agreement No. PW 14-19-98, County Project No. 9813 (a.k.a. City Project No. 427-35-655), is willing to authorize the City to enter into and administer a construction contract for the reconstruction of retaining walls along County roadways within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Richfield. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 22nd day of June, 1998. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 114-3 Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 County Project No. 9813 City of Richfield County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Richfield, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The City and the County have been negotiating to reconstruct certain existing retaining walls along various County roadways within the corporate limits of the City; and is WHEREAS, The City has indicated its willingness to prepare the necessary plans and specifications and administer a contract for the aforereferenced retaining wall reconstruction; and WHEREAS, The County, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, is willing to authorize the City to enter into and administer a construction contract for the reconstruction of retaining walls along County roadways within the City; and WHEREAS, Said reconstruction of retaining walls shall be accomplished under Hennepin County Project No. 9813 (a.k.a. City Project No. 427-35-655), hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1992, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: The City shall submit for approval by the County, two (2) complete sets of plans and specifications for the Project. Said documents shall provide for the reconstruction of those retaining walls listed in the attachment hereto marked Exhibit "A", which by this reference is • made a part hereof. -1- ?? 10-4 Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 II The City or its agents shall prepare the necessary plans, specifications, and proposals; shall advertise for bids for the work and construction, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder. The contract shall include the plans and specifications prepared by the City or its agents and approved by the County. The City shall also obtain, and comply with, any and all permits and approvals required from other governmental or regulatory agencies to accomplish the Project. Said permits and approvals shall be made available to the County upon request. III The City shall administer the contract and perform all required engineering, inspection and testing necessary to ensure all work on the Project is completed in substantial compliance with the County approved plans and specifications. . The County Engineer or his staff shall have the right, as the work progresses, to enter upon the jobsite to make any inspections deemed necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. The County agrees that the City may make changes in the aforereferenced approved plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the County that the City may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the City's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans, within the original scope of the Project. Said changes may result in an increase or decrease to the County's cost participation estimated herein. All extra work orders or changes in the plans affecting construction of said Project within the County's right of way shall be subject to the approval of the County Engineer or his designated representative prior to performing the work in accordance with such extra work orders or changes in the plans. IV It is understood that it is the City's desire to reconstruct the retaining walls listed in Exhibit "A" outside the existing County right of way whenever possible. It is further understood that the City, at its own expense, shall acquire all additional right of way and/or easements required for the reconstruction of retaining walls outside of the existing County right of way. -2- A, /I#- S Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 The County will not participate in the right of way and/or easement acquisition costs for said Project. V The Engineer's Estimate for the Project is Forty One Thousand One Hundred Forty Two Dollars and No Cents ($41,142.00). The County will reimburse the City for fifty (50) percent of the actual contract construction costs incurred for the completion of all work. In addition to the County's proportionate share of the contract construction cost; the County also agrees to pay to the City a sum equal to eighteen percent (18%) of the amount computed as the County's share of the total final contract construction cost for the Project. It is understood that said additional payment by the County is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the City in connection with the work performed for said Project. The total estimated cost to the County for both contract construction and engineering costs associated with said Project is $24,273.78. VI • Upon completion of the Project the City shall notify the County and shall submit an invoice indicating the County's participating share of said Project. The City shall also submit to the County complete documentation showing the City's total cost for said Project. Upon review and approval of the Project and final cost documentation by the City Engineer or his designated representative, the County will reimburse the City for the County's proportionate shares of the actual contract construction costs and engineering costs as set forth in Section V hereof. Payment of the County's proportionate shares shall be made to the City within forty five (45) days of receipt of the City's final documented invoice of Project costs. VII All payments to the City must be postmarked by the date due or a late penalty of one (1) percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the unpaid balance may be charged to the County. The County shall pay the amount due as stated on the invoice, notwithstanding any dispute of such amount. Should a disputed amount be resolved in favor of the County, the City shall reimburse the disputed amount plus daily interest thereon calculated from the date such disputed amount was received by the City. Daily interest shall be at the rate of one (1%) percent per month on the disputed amount. -3- IAA-lo E Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 VIII All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. IX It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the Project proposed herein, all retaining walls reconstructed as a part of said Project shall not be the property of the County.. It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the Project the County shall not be responsible for any maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement that may thereafter be required for any of the retaining walls reconstructed under said Project. The City also agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement of the City • owned improvements. X Each parry agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other parry and the results thereof. The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 446. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. XI The City also agrees that any contract let by the City or its agents for the performance of the work provided herein shall include clauses that will: (1) Require the Contractor to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgements, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Contractor, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement and against all loss by reason of injuries or damages received or sustained by any person, persons, or property on account of the operations of the Contractor; or on account of or in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding the work; or through use of unacceptable materials in -4- 10--7 Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 constructing the work; or because of any environmental damage or hazardous material damage caused by or resulting from the Contractor's activities; or because of any act or omission, neglect, or misconduct of the Contractor; or because of any claims arising or amounts recovered from infringements of patent, trademark, or copyright; or because of any claims arising or amounts recovered under the Workers' Compensation Act; or under any other law, ordinance, order, or decree or due to the failure of the Contractor to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement; (2) Require the Contractor to be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the work provided for in this Agreement; (3) Require the Contractor to provide and maintain insurance at all times during the term of its contract with the City in order to protect itself and those listed above under the indemnification provisions. Said insurance shall be provided in accordance with the following: 1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with contractual liability and XCU (Explosion, Collapse, and Underground Property Damage) liability coverage: Limits General Aggregate Limit $1,000,000 Products - Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury $1,000,000 Each Occurrence - Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000 2. Automobile Liability - Combined single limit each $1,000,000 occurrence coverage for bodily injury and property damage covering owned, non-owned and hired automobiles 3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: a. Workers' Compensation. Statutory If the Contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota Laws. b. Employer's Liability. Bodily injury by: Accident - Each Accident $100,000 Disease - Policy Limit $500,000 Disease - Each Employee $100,000 The above establishes minimum insurance requirements, and it is the sole responsibility of the City's Contractor to determine the need for and procure additional insurance which may be needed in connection with this Agreement. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the County and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. -5- ?-\6. ita-g E Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 XII • It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XIII In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement, the County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and shall serve as liaison between the County and the City. In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement, the City Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and shall serve as liaison between the City and the County. XIV It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. -6- A\A CIA-9 • Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 XV 6-1 n The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. -7- V-/& No. PW 14-19-98 C.P. 9813 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Date: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: And: Director, Department of Public Works and County Engineer Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Assistant County Attorney By: Director, Transportation Department ? 40 Date: Date: -8- RETAINING WALLS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED ROAD FROM TO ADDRESS ESTIMATED SQ. FT. 32 71-1/2 St. 71-1/2 St. 70-1/2 St. & Penn Av. 435 52 W 70th St. W 69th St. 6937 Nicollet Av. 157 52 W 70th St. W 69th St. 6941 Nicollet Av. 157 53 James Av. S. Irving Av. S. 8602 Irving Av. 594 53 3rd Av. S. Clinton Av. S. 6605 Clinton Av. 165 53 Clinton Av. S. 4th Av. S. 1615 W. 66th St. 200 40 Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 14-19-98 Exhibit "A" Sheet 1 of 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 135 Agenda June 22, 1998 Issue Statement: Presentation of the "25th Annual Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen" award to Nei Johnson. Background: The Richfield Human Rights Commission has selected a Citizen of the Year award recipient since 1971. The award has been presented to a person or organization whose actions demonstrated an awareness and commitment to the attitudes and practices that foster human understanding, tolerance and the spirit of human relations. This award was formerly given to Richfield residents only; however, guidelines were changed in 1998 to include "family, group, organizations, businesses or individuals who live or work in Richfield." The award name was also changed to reflect the "number" of the presentation as opposed to the year being awarded for; i.e., this year will be the 25th award given. After careful deliberations, the Human Rights Commission has decided to present the 25th Annual Gene and Mary Jacobsen Outstanding Citizen award to Nei Johnson, fifth grade teacher at Richfield Intermediate School. Her nomination contains the following points: Nei Johnson has been an outstanding pillar in this community. She is never-ending in her love and commitment to the youth of this community. She has put her heart and soul into her life-long career as a teacher. She has sacrificed her health in her exhausting perseverance to be a model of ethics, morals, courtesy, respect, integrity, hard work and community activism. She doesn't sit back and complain about a problem. Instead, she attends meetings, speaks out, informs her students and others and moves ahead with solutions and resolutions, very often involving her students. She has been a volunteer in this community that has given over and beyond what anyone could ever ask. She organized and conducted the Richfield Cooperative Academic Summer School almost five years ago, working long hours with students and parents. She is an inspiration to all that have known her. Nei has lived the four "S's": Service, Surrender, Sacrifice and Selflessness. She wants only the best for all children everywhere. Recommended Motion: The City Council, in cooperation with the Human Rights Commission, should present the award to Nei Johnson. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Human Rights Commission has met to review nominations and has discussed the presentation of the 25th Annual Award. 2. Based upon that discussion, Nel Johnson was selected as the recipient. 3. Nel Johnson has demonstrated long-term commitment to the children, community and its activities. She has placed importance on making each situation a learning experience for the children. She lets her students know how important they are to her by visiting each child's home early in the school year to meet their parents. 4. By giving this award and recognition to Nel Johnson, the City of Richfield is able to recognize an individual whose dedication to her job reinforces the image that Richfield's quality of education makes the City a good place to live, work and do business in. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The presentation has been placed on the June 22, 1998 City Council agenda. A reception for Nel Johnson will be held in the Public Safety lobby area at 6:30 p.m., prior to the Council meeting. ctfully sub ed, en L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:ds