Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-25-94 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5:45 P.M. CITY HALL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER I. INTERVIEW OF PERSONS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON CITY'S BOARDS/COMMISSIONS ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 1994 AND (2) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF $50 CASH AWARD FROM RICHFIELD CRIME FUND AND CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FROM RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY TO CITIZENS JEAN DAVIS AND KATHLEEN DAVIS FOR ASSISTANCE IN APPREHENSION OF CAR THIEVES COUNCIL LETTER NO. 200 3. PRESENTATION OF $100 CASH AWARD FROM RICHFIELD CRIME FUND AND CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FROM RICHFIELD PUBLIC SAFETY TO CITIZENS MARC ESTALL; JASON ZENK; CHARLES REED, JR.; ROBERT RIEDFORT; KATHY LANGE; AND JARED RASMUSSEN FOR ASSISTANCE IN APPREHENSION OF PURSE SNATCHER COUNCIL LETTER NO. 201 4. PRESENTATION OF AWARD OF EXCELLENCE FROM MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION FOR RICHFIELD'S ADVENTURE GARDENS MINIATURE GOLF FACILITY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 202 AGENDA APPROVAL 5. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTE: 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. 6A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS C.L. 203 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION FOR ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE, • ITINERANT PLACE OF AMUSEMENT LICENSE AND ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE WITH FEE WAIVER FOR 1994 FUN FEST ON AUGUST 13 AND 14, 1994 C.L. 204 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR WOODLAKE VETERINARY HOSPITAL, 6436 LYNDALE AVENUE C.L. 205 D. ESTIMATE #12 PAYMENT FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT MODIFICATIONS; BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION; $5,245.00 E. ESTIMATE #1 PAYMENT FOR MADISON PARK SITE IMPROVEMENT CP 899; BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; $44,620.27 F. FINAL PAYMENT FOR SUPPLYING TWO LIME SLAKERS; CHEMCO; $2,887.50 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. DISCIPLINARY HEARING TO CONSIDER SUSPENSION OF NON- INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR AND WINE LICENSE FOR THE FRENCHMAN'S TAVERN, 1400 EAST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 206 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF WEST 77TH STREET; NEAR RECONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF EMERSON AVENUE AND 77TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 207 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 208 RESOLUTION 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE II (PORTLAND AVENUE TO CEDAR AVENUE) OF 77TH STREET PROJECT BETWEEN BRW, INC. AND CITY OF RICHFIELD COUNCIL LETTER NO. 209 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 11. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL LETTER NO. 210 12. CONSIDERATION OF STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COUNCIL LETTER NO. 211 AIRPORT BUSINESS 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT COUNCIL CHOICE 16. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ITEMS 17. CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance 41 to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. /?L CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Storm Water Capital Improvement Program. Background: At the July 11, 1994 City Council requested that staff prepare alte funding storm water projects. In that the effect of an increase of commercial and other land uses be meeting, the City Council rnatives for scheduling and addition, the Council requested a storm water utility rate on reported. The attached spreadsheets show three options for programming the capital projects identified at the July 11, 1994 meeting. All options provide funding for the storm sewer projects previously discussed. ? Option A is a status quo program that assumes no rate increase and no borrowing. ? Option B assumes a 13.2% rate increase (i.e. $1.00 per residence) and no borrowing to accelerate the schedule. ? Option C assumes a 13.2% rate increase and borrowing from internal funds. In order to make a fair comparison between options, all options assume that we are successful in obtaining majority participation from MnDOT for the Richfield Lake outlet and Wood Lake dredging. Inability to secure this funding would have a major effect on the program. A $1.00 per quarter increase in the single family residential rate affects other land uses as shown below: Comparison. of Quarterly_Storm __.Water _.UtilityRates Land Uses Existig proposed Single Family Residential $ 7.55 per lot $ 8.55 per lot Single Family Residential 37.75 per acre 42.75 per acre Cemeteries 9.44 per acre 10.69 per acre Parks and Railroads 28.31 per acre 32.06 per acre Duplexes 37.75 per acre 42.75 per acre Schools and Institutional 47.19 per acre 53.44 per acre Apartments and Churches 113.25 per acre 128.25 per acre Commercial and Industrial 188.75 per acre 213.75 per acre Recommended Motion: Approve Option B including an increase in the storm sewer utility fee by 13.2%. Ja- i Basis of Recommendation: 1. This option would permit acquisition of seven houses beginning in 1994. The acquisition could be completed in 1996. 2. Phasing this project would permit time to design the storm sewer and housing improvements. Alternative Recommendation: The Council may select any of the other alternatives or direct staff to consider additional solutions. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is presented for Council consideration on July 25, 1994. Respectfu y submitted, Jame YDProsser City Manager JDP:cak 0 0 STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Option A - Status Quo Program I.?J • Project 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Beyond 1998 Total Expenditures 77th Street Phase II 340,000 340,000 Richfield Lake Outlet 275,000 275,000 6900 Block-Penn 100,000 299,500 145,000 145,000, 60,500 750,000 Wood Lake Dredging 250,000 250,000 1994 Minor Projects . 44,500 44,500 Grant Program 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 69th & Columbus 330,000 330,000 Street Flooding 1,700,000 1,700,000 Annual Expenditures 484,500 624,500 445,000 195,000 110,500 2,030,000 3,889,500 Revenues Jan. 1 Balance 444,000 154,500 0 0 0 Annual Cap.Util. Revenue 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 MnDot Participation 0 275,000 250,000 0 Year End Balance 154,500 0 0 0 84,500 Assumptions - No changes in rates or annual maintenance costs MnDot participation No unforeseen additional projects Grant program requests total $200,000 No borrowing Willin sellers come forward in 6900 block of Penn 0 STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Option B - Accelerated Program • Project 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Beyond 1998 Total Expenditures 77th Street Phase II 340,000 340,000 Richfield Lake Outlet 275,000 275,000 6900 Block Penn 100,000 392,500 238,000 19,500 750,000 Wood Lake Dredging 250,000 250,000 1994 Minor Projects 44,500 44,500 Grant Program 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 69th & Columbus 218,500 111,500 330,000 Street Flooding 1,700,000 1,700,000 Annual Expenditures 484,500 717,500 538,000 288,000 161,500 1,700,000 3,889,500 Revenues Jan. 1 Balance 444,000 154,500 0 0 0 Annual Cap.Util. Revenue 195,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 MnDot Participation 0 275,000 250,000 0 Year End Balance 154,500 0 0 0 126,500 Assumptions - $1.00 per quarter rate increase beginning in 1995 MnDot participation No unforeseen additional projects Grant program requests total $200,000 No borrowing Willin sellers come forward in 6900 block of Penn STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Option C - Aggressive Program • • Project 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Beyond 1998 Total Expenditures 77th Street Phase 11 340,000 340,000 Richfield Lake Outlet 275,000 275,000 6900 Block Penn 100,000 500,000 150,000 750,000 Wood Lake Dredging 250,000 250,000 1994 Minor Projects 44,500 44,500 Grant Program 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 69th & Columbus 330,000 330,000 Street Flooding 288,000 288,000, 1,124,000 1,700,000 Debt Service 26,450 87,360 119,140 577,739 810,689 Annual Expenditures 484,500, 825,000 806,450 425,360 457,140 1,701,739 4,700,189 Revenues Jan. 1 Balance 444,000 154,500 0 0 0 Annual Cap.Util. Revenue 195,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 288,000 1,347,000 MnDot Participation 0 275,000 250,000 0 0 525,000 Inter-fund Loans 107,500 268,450 137,360 169,140 682,450 Year End Balance 154,500 0 0 0 0 Assumptions - $1.00 per quarter rate increase beginning in 1995 MnDot participation No unforeseen additional projects Grant program requests total $200,000 Borrowing needed in 1995 Willing sellers come forward in 6900 block of Penn 0 I/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 210 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of appointments to the Advisory Board of Health and Planning Commission. Background: In January •1994, the City Council made several appointments to the City's board/commissions. Due to resignations, vacancies have occurred on the Advisory Board of Health and Planning Commission. Persons interested in serving on the above-referenced board/commission were interviewed on July 25, 1994 at a Special City Council meeting. Recommended Motion: Appoint two persons to the Advisory Board of Health and one person to the Planning Commission. Basis of Recommendation: 1. In order to ensure a quorum for future meetings, appointments to the board/commission should be made at this meeting. 2. These appointments will complete the membership of the Advisory Board of Health and Planning Commission. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Defer the appointments to a later Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the July 25, 1994 agenda for Council consideration. The appointments will begin immediately. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Manager JDP:cak 0 0 • ON \ in r?, kO In O% 01 m N ON O• O1% \ r-I r-I e-I ?-i r-1 r-I (+') ('7 M >4 >1 >1 R1 cd ? fd R7 (!S h h h CIO W H U z PO U z O H In rn H E O U U) a) .r., U t~ c? U b a) ?4 .,-l a m a) t~ N I x E-4 a w u, x s•+ ro W ? O >v AM a ?U) O •?I ca E $4 a a) O4-) w ?w I~ 0 rz ?4 ca a? N 'Jy U f~ U ro b a) .,i a m 0 S~ r-I I z 14 Om H a) O H M z zU) O ri U 5 C9 I4 z a) H 4-) z a? aw a? co CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 209 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of resolution approving a Construction Engineering Consultant Agreement for Phase II (Portland Avenue to Cedar Avenue) of the 77th Street Project between BRW Inc. and the City of Richfield. Background: The City hired BRW/OSM to perform the construction inspection of the 77th Street Project. A supplemental agreement is needed to the existing construction engineering agreement so that BRW/OSM can provide construction inspection services on the Phase II construction of 77th Street from Portland Avenue to Cedar Avenue. The cost to perform this additional work is $587,511. The services provided include surveying, construction inspection, progress reports, preparation of pay requests, materials testing, and coordination of work with utility companies. Richfield's 5% portion of the project costs comes from the Municipal State-Aid (MSA) Account. The City's Water and Storm Sewer Utility funds will be used for a prorated portion of the construction inspection for construction work that is considered ineligible for state and federal funds. See attached project construction budget for additional information on costs and financing. • Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) staff has made some revisions to the agreement that are shown on the attached agreement. The appropriate City officials will sign the agreements in their final form. Recommended Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing appropriate City officials to sign the agreement. Basis of Recommendation: The Construction Engineering Consultant Agreement is needed for the City of Richfield to hire BRW/OSM to perform engineering inspection services on the demolition and construction of Phase II of the 77th Street Project. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision is needed on this agreement in order to maintain the 77th Street Phase II Project on a 1994 construction schedule. Respec ully submitted, Ja e Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds Attachments RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH BRW INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING FOR PHASE II OF THE 77th STREET PROJECT IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the City of Richfield does not have available necessary and qualified personnel and facilities to conduct the services as described in the agreement for construction engineering for construction of 77th Street (Portland to Cedar Avenue); and WHEREAS, BRW Inc. represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all the services described in the agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute the proposed Construction Engineering Agreement with BRW Inc. draft of which said Agreement was before the Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. Adopted this 25th day of July, 1994. 0 Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Attest: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk /0-o-- . 77th STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BUDGET FOR PHASE II (PORTLAND TO CEDAR AVENUE) BASED ON MN/DOT ESTIMATE JULY 15, 1994 EXPENSES ACTIVITY COST STREET CONSTRUCTION $4,000,000 STORM SEWER $240,000 WATERMAIN $70,000 ENGINEERING INSPECTION 590,000 TOTAL $4,900,000 REVENUES 0 SOURCE OF FUNDS AMOUNT FEDERAL STATE MUNICIPAL CITY STORM CITY WATER TOTAL $3,512,000 $858,000 STATE AID $220,000 SEWER UTILITY $240,000 UTILITY $70_.000 $4,900,000 NOTE: THIS BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPING WHICH WILL BE LET IN 1995. ALSO, THE CITY'S STATE AID CONTRIBUTION WILL DRAW ON CREDITS FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECEIVING FEDERAL APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT. <77>Contract:77thConsultConstruct 77th St. Segment #2 Agreement State Project No. SP 157-108-20 City Project No. 8592 Work Type Construction Engineering for Amot;pt $587,511.00 Construction of -77th Street (Portland to Cedar) CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Agreement for Technical Services" This Agreement between the City of Richfield acting through its Mayor and City Manager (hereinafter CITY) and Consultant: BRW, Inc. Address: 700 Third Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (hereinafter CONSULTANT) witnesseth that: WHEREAS, CITY does not have available necessary and qualified personnel and facilities to conduct the services as described herein, and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed: CONSULTANT will perform all services and furnish and deliver all supplies set forth in the Special Conditions and/or the General Conditions of this Agreement and any attachments, enclosures or other conditions which are made part of this Agreement, by reference in the Special Conditions and/or General Conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. Effective Date: June 1, 1994 Expiration: December 31, 1995 APPROVED: 1. CONSULTANT (If a corporation, two corporate officers must execute.) As to form and execution by the 2. MAYOR By: Title: Date: By: Title: 0 Date: By: Date: 3. ACTING MANAGER By: Date: #20258 l©-LI INDEX Total Pages Special Conditions Sections 1.0 - 9.0 5 General Conditions Sections 10.0 - 34.0 7 EXHIBITS Subject Designation Total Pages Budget A 18 Construction Schedule B 2 Enclosures C 4 Progress Report Form 1 Invoice Standards 1 Invoice Cover Sheet 1 Travel Regulations 1 820258 1®-1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Section 1.0 - Term of Agreement Starting Date: June 1, 1994 Expiration Date: December 31, 1995 Section 2.0 - Scope of Work The CONSULTANT's scope of work shall be defined as the individual tasks defined in the cost estimate shown in Exhibit A, subject to the assumptions stated for each task in Exhibit A and limited to locations specified in the construction plans for Project No. SP 157-108-14, signed by the Richfield City Engineer on April 14, 1994. The CONSULTANT's cost estimate is based on a construction schedule shown in Exhibit B that serves as the basis for assumptions used in preparing the cost estimate. CONSULTANT will perform the scope of work in accordance with the standards specified below. The attached Exhibit A allocates work tasks among CONSULTANT and various subconsultants. Such subconsultants, and the initial allocation of work to such subconsultants, are hereby approved by the CITY. Work tasks may be reallocated between CONSULTANT and subconsultants with the prior written consent of the CITY. Nothing herein shall relieve CONSULTANT of responsibility for the work of the project provided for herein, and CONSULTANT shall be, and remain, responsible for performance of all such work whether or not it is performed by a subconsultant. The CONSULTANT shall provide general review of construction to check the CONTRACTOR's work performed, under Project No. SP 157-108-14 for general compliance with the Contract Specifications and Contract Drawings and shall endeavor to protect the CITY against defects and deficiencies in the work of the CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT shall not as a result of such observations of CONTRACTOR(s)' work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over CONTRACTOR(s)' work nor shall CONSULTANT have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction selected by CONTRACTOR(S), for safety precautions and programs incident to the work of CONTRACTOR(s), or for any failure of CONTRACTOR(s) to comply with laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to CONTRACTOR(s) furnishing and performing their work. Accordingly, CONSULTANT can neither guarantee the performance of the construction contracts by CONTRACTOR(s) nor assume responsibility for CONTRACTOR(s)' failure to furnish and perform their work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The CONSULTANT's general review shall be done in accordance with recognized practices and procedures as set forth in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Construction Supervision and Inspection Manuals and shall include the following services: 2.1 The services to be provided under this agreement include inspection, reporting on construction operations for compliance with Plans and Specifications, coordination of utility relocations, materials testing, surveying and preparation of payment estimates • and final payment request for Project No. SP-157-108-14, the construction of 77th Street from Portland to Cedar Avenue. The major construction operations to be N20zss performed by a Mn/DOT Contractor includes grading, paving, storm sewer, utilities, noise wall, signals, signing, street lighting and appurtenance work for 77th Street from Portland to Cedar Avenue. The only landscaping included in the contract is for turf establishment. 2.2 Services are required from the time the Mn/DOT Contractor, hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" is authorized to proceed with the construction of 77th Street until the final documentation has been checked and accepted by Mn/DOT and FHWA. 2.3 The CONSULTANT shall provide engineering services in accordance with Division I of the "Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition" and supplemental specifications dated 1/2/91 in the following general areas. 2.3.1 Provide construction coordination and project management services during the construction of 77th Street. 2.3.2 Provide resident inspection of construction activities. 2.3.3 Provide materials testing in accordance with Mn/DOT and FHWA requirements. 2.3.4 Coordinate and perform survey work needed for construction activities included in the plan. • 2.3.5 Keep necessary records and prepare required reports including preparation of change orders, supplemental agreements for construction contractor, requests for additional encumbrances which require Mn/DOT and/or FHWA approval prior to beginning work and other documents related to the construction in accordance with State requirements for Federal Aid Projects. 2.3.6 Attend meetings as requested by the City for purposes of carrying out the construction plans. 2.3.7 Prepare all Supplemental Agreements and Change Orders for the Mn/DOT CONTRACTOR in accordance with Mn/DOT and FHWA requirements. 2.4 The CITY reserves the right to supplement this Agreement if it is determined to be in the best interest of the CITY to do so. Section 3.0 (Blank) Section 4.0 (Blank) #20258 2 10 Section 5.0 - Estimated B d et and Pro ess Re orts _ F:XL F&t 5.1 A cost-plusVmethod of payment will be used. See Exhibit "A" for budget details. 5.2 CONSULTANT agrees to not perform any work in excess of the estimated budget of $587,511.00 for this Agreement without written authority`to proceed from the CITY andMn/DOT.Fts iS qC%rLd Rf ?....dU V14 <<ss 44e, 5toFe p? WOrK clah.yto. 5.3 The CONSULTANT shall submit monthly progress reports to the CITY and to Mn/DOT showing an engineers estimate of the percent complete and relative to the amount expended to date. The progress report should also indicate the work completed, the work planned for next month, and any problems that exist. Section 6.0 - Key Personnel The CONSULTANT shall provide a Project Engineer and a Resident Project Inspector as defined in the Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition and the supplemental specifications dated 1/2/91. The following individuals shall be considered key personnel and subject to the provision of Section 14 "Consultant's Key Personnel" of the General Conditions: 1. Gary Orlich 2. Greg Roy Section 7.0 - Designation of CITY Liaison • Mike Eastling, Project Manager, City of Richfield, or his successor has been designated as CITY's liaison for this project. Section 8.0 (Blank) Section 9.0 - Additional Provisions 9.1 (Blank) 9.2 Civil Rights. CONSULTANT hereby certifies that it is an equal opportunity employer and will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Accordingly, 49 CFR 21 through Appendix C and 23 CFR 710.405(b) shall be applicable by reference and are made part of this Agreement by reference. CONSULTANT shall incorporate these requirements in all subcontractors issued under this Agreement. 9.3 Reasonable Documentation. CONSULTANT shall document the results of the construction work to the satisfaction of Mn/DOT and the FHWA. This shall include preparation of progress and final reports, as-built plans, or similar evidence of attainment of the construction contract objectives. CONSULTANT shall incorporate this requirement in all subcontracts issued under this Agreement. #20258 3 9.31 Right to Audit. To ensure compliance with all applicable federal regulations and laws, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner," or his representative, shall have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor, as deemed necessary, the work to be performed under this Agreement. In addition, as provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 16.095, all books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of CONSULTANT are subject to examination by the Commissioner or his authorized representative and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate. 9.32 Inspection of Work. The Commissioner shall, at all times during the Agreement and for three years from the date of final payment of federal funds to the State with respect to the project, be accorded proper facilities for inspection of the work hereunder and shall at all times have access to the premises, to all books, records, correspondence, instruction, receipts, vouchers, memoranda of every description pertaining to the work hereunder. The Federal Highway Administration shall have the same right of inspection as accorded the Commissioner herein. 9.33 Records. CONSULTANT shall maintain accurate records as to all costs incurred in connection with the subject of this Agreement and shall produce or cause to be produced for examination bills, invoices, vouchers and other reports and information at such reasonable time and place as may be designated by the Federal Highway Administration or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives and shall permit extracts and copies to be made thereof. • 9.4 Patent Rights. Applicable patent rights provisions described in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 27, regarding rights to inventions are incorporated in this Agreement and shall be incorporated in all subcontracts by reference. 9.5 Copyrights. All right, title, and interest in all copyrightable material which CONSULTANT shall conceive or originate, either individually or jointly with others, and which arises out of the performance of this Agreement, will be the property of the State and are by this Agreement assigned to the State along with ownership of any and all copyrights in the copyrightable material. CONSULTANT also agrees, upon the request of the State, to execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to assist the State to obtain and register copyrights on such materials. Where applicable, works of authorship created by CONSULTANT for the State in performance of this Agreement shall be considered "works made for hire" as defined in the U.S. Copyright Act. Mn/DOT may permit copyrighting by CONSULTANT. If copyrights are permitted, Mn/DOT and the FHWA shall have the royalty-free nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use the work for Government purposes. CONSULTANT shall incorporate these requirements in all subcontracts issued under this Agreement. 9.6 Subcontracts. All subcontracts must include sections 5, 6, 9 through 12, and 14 through 30 as applicable to the SUBCONSULTANT's scope of work, and shall show that the CONSULTANT is required to perform all work except specialized services or other tasks specifically exempted in the contract, except that governmental recipients #20258 4 1 0 --,Cl 'of 23 U.S.C. 104(f) or 402 funds may subcontract as necessary to accomplish approved work program activities. • 9.7 Certification for Federal-Aid Contracts. The CONSULTANT certifies, by signing and submitting this bid or proposal, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 9.71 No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an office or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement. 9.72 If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the CONSULTANT shall complete and submit Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 9.73 This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 9.74 The CONSULTANT also agrees by submitting his or her bid or proposal that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subcontracts, which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. • #20258 5 /C) ._1C? GENERAL CONDITIONS • THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE INTERPRETED PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Section 10.0 - Consideration For all services performed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Contract, the compensation to be paid by the CITY shall include any and all the following items: 10.1 Direct Salary Costs - shall be actual salary cost of employees time directly chargeable to the services performed. 10.2 Overhead Costs - shall include Fringe Benefits and General and Administrative overhead costs and shall be a percentage of Direct Salary Costs. Overhead Costs shall be the appropriate provisional overhead rate applicable to the work being performed and shall be adjusted based on final audits. 10.3 Fixed Fee - is in addition to the aforesaid costs. "Fixed" Fee is defined as a fixed dollar amount to be paid to the CONSULTANT derived from a negotiated percentage applied to the attached estimated costs in Exhibit A. Fixed Fee payment shall be at the negotiated percentage of 12.5% applied to the estimated direct salary and overhead costs shown in Exhibit A. The maximum Fee equals $64,338.00. The fixed fee shall not be increased or decreased based on the actual costs of work performed • within the scope of work, subject to specified assumptions, defined in the individual tasks. Additional Fixed Fee may be negotiated for additional estimated costs not reasonably specified in the scope of work task or assumptions. A supplemental agreement indicating the need for additional work, the estimated cost thereof, and the additional Fixed Fee percentage and dollar amount shall be approved and executed prior to performance of the work. 10.4 Other Direct Costs A. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessary incurred by CONSULTANT performance of this contract in an amount not to exceed the amount defined in the Reimbursement Rates for Travel Expenses shown in Exhibit C; provided, that CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Employee Relations. CONSULTANT shall not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside the State of Minnesota unless it has received prior written approval for such out of state travel from the CITY and Mn/DOT. B.. Cost and expenses not covered by Section 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4A are specially described in Special Conditions of this Agreement. 9 #20258 6 Section 11.0 - Terms of Payment 11.1 PAYMENTS shall be paid by the CITY promptly after CONSULTANT's presentation of invoices for services performed and acceptance of such services by the CITY's authorized agent. 11.11 Invoices shall be paid in an amount equal to 98% of the approved amount; retainage to be paid after satisfactory completion of the work under the terms of this Contract and as determined by final audit. 11.2 INVOICES /Partial Payment - CONSULTANT may submit invoices, not more often than one each month. Such invoices shall identify the cost for work performed for the billing period and satisfy the requirements listed below: 11.21 FORMAT - Use attached format as cover or lead sheet when invoicing. 11.22 CONTROL INFORMATION - (To be shown on lead sheet of each monthly invoice.) A. Project Number B. Invoice Number, sequential C. Signature request on each invoice attesting to services and costs as new and no previous payment received. D. A copy of each invoice is to be sent to the CITY's Project Manager for review and payment approval. 11.23 A PAYROLL COST BREAKDOWN which shall include the name of the employee, • classification, rate of pay, hours worked, and total payment for each invoice period. 11.24 SIGNED TIME SHEETS for each employee listing dates and hours worked. Accounting-system-generated computer printouts of labor costs for the project may be substituted. The printouts should show the project number, each employee's name, hourly rate, regular and overtime hours, and the dollar amount charged to the project for each pay period. If computer printout sheets are used, copies of signed time sheets for each employee shall be made available for audit when and where requested by the CITY. Maintain current classification rates per project; include with first invoice and submit for approval updates relative to changes as needed. 11.25 DIRECT EXPENSES - Other direct non-salary costs shall be identified and supported with necessary documents to show that such costs are properly allowable to the project. Support documentation shall be separated in an orderly mariner and correspond with each direct expense. 11.26 SUBCONSULTANT EXPENSES must have all the above documentation. 11.3 Overtime Premium Pay - for work or services performed by the CONSULTANT or subconsultant may be authorized by specific tasks with advance approval by the CITY. Approval of premium pay for various classifications will be in accordance with existing CITY overtime policy. Hours worked in excess of regularly scheduled work days or in holidays without advance approval will be reimbursed at regular rates. Overtime portion of the hourly rate will be reimbursed as a direct (expense) cost and #20258 7 is not eligible for overhead costs or profits. In the event any work provided for is herein is determined to be ineligible for federal reimbursement, the CITY shall nevertheless be obligated to make payment to CONSULTANT therefor unless such ineligibility results from acts or omissions of CONSULTANT which are inconsistent with the obligations of CONSULTANT under this Agreement. 11.4 Total Estimated Payment - If it appears at any time that the CONSULTANT will exceed the total estimated payment stated in the Agreement, the CONSULTANT agrees that he will not perform any work in excess of that amount until he has been advised by the CITY that a Supplemental Agreement has been executed. 11.41 It shall be the responsibility of the CONSULTANT to originate all requests for additional encumbrances, compensation and for Supplemental Agreement. 11.5 Final Payment - due the CONSULTANT and subconsultant will be based on actual acceptable costs as determined by an audit conducted by the State of Minnesota. The audit will be conducted with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 1-31.2 (Contract with Commercial Organizations) which are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 11.51 Based upon final audit, the final payment to CONSULTANT may exceed the maximum Contract amount without Supplemental Agreement. • 11.6 When applicable, payments are to be made from federal funds obtained from the CITY through current Titles, Acts, Laws and amendments. If at any time such funds become unavailable, this Contract shall be terminated immediately upon written notice of such fact by the CITY to CONSULTANT. In the event of such termination, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. Section 12.0 - Conditions of Payment All services provided by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Contract shall be performed to the satisfaction of the CITY, as determined in the sole discretion of its authorized agent, and in accord with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. CONSULTANT shall not receive the payment for work found by the CITY to be unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of Federal, State or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation. Section 13.0 (Blank) Section 14.0 - Consultant's Kev Personnel 14.1 The CONSULTANT's key personnel specified by name in the Special Conditions of • this Agreement are considered to be essential to the work being performed. x20258 8 io -13 14.2 If, for any reason, substitution of a specified individual becomes necessary, the CONSULTANT shall provide timely written notification to the Project Manager. Such • written notification shall include the proposed successor's name and a resume of his or her qualifications. The CITY shall have a right to approve or reject the proposed successor. _ Section 15.0 - Assignment 15.1 CONSULTANT shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Contract without prior written consent of the CITY. Such written authority shall in no way relieve the CONSULTANT from the primary responsibility for performance of the work. 15.2 All subconsultants agreements exceeding $10,000.00 shall contain all required provisions of this Agreement. Section 16.0 - Conferences 16.1 The CONSULTANT shall confer with the CITY as often as is necessary in regard to the work to be done under this Agreement and perform the travel necessary for such conferences. 16.2 When requested by the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in negotiations with other interested parties. Section 17.0 - Liability CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and save and hold the CITY, its agents and employees harmless from any and all negligence claims and causes of action arising from the performance of this Contract by CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies CONSULTANT may have for the CITY's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this Contract. Section 18.0 - Claims /Workers' Compensation 18.1 Any and all employees of the CONSULTANT or other person while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the CONSULTANT under the Agreement shall not be considered employees of the CITY, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT's employees or other person while so engaged on any of the work or services to be rendered shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the CITY. L? 18.2 In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 176.182, the CITY affirms that CONSULTANT has provided acceptable evidence of compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 176.181, Subdivision 2. . X20258 9 Section 19.0 - Affirmative Actions When applicable, CONSULTANT certifies that it has received a certificate of compliance from the Commissioner of Human Rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Section 363.073. Section 20.0 - Compliance to Laws and Regulations CONSULTANT shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws, together with all ordinances and regulations applicable to the work. CONSULTANT shall procure all licenses, permits, or other rights necessary for the fulfillment of his obligations under this Agreement. Section 21.0 - Audits and Inspections 21.1 The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the CONSULTANT relevant to this Contract shall be subject to examination by the CITY, Mn/DOT, the Federal Highway Administration and legislative auditors. 21.2 Duly authorized representatives of the CITY, Mn/DOT and Federal Highway Administration shall have the right to inspect, during regular working hours, the work of the CONSULTANT under the Agreement issued thereunder whenever they deem it necessary. Section 22.0 - Ownership of Documents 22.1 Any reports, studies, photographs, negatives, or other documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of its obligations under this Contract shall be the exclusive property of the CITY and all such materials shall be remitted to the CITY by the CONSULTANT upon completion, termination or cancellation of this Contract. CONSULTANT shall not use, willingly allow or cause to have such materials used for any purpose other than performance of CONSULTANT's obligations under this Contract without prior written consent of the CITY. 22.2 The originals of all reports, drawings, worksheets, plans, field notes, computations and other project data shall be turned to the CITY as follows: - Upon written notice of termination of the Agreement. - Prior to final settlement of a dispute arising out of this Agreement. - Prior to final payment of the ultimate gross amount earned. Section 23.0 - Insurance 23.1 CONSULTANT shall furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance from loss by any means of all data furnished to the CONSULTANT by the CITY and for partially completed data for which the CITY has made payment. 23.2 For work on railroad property, the CONSULTANT must obtain Railroad Protective Liability Insurance in accordance with Mn/DOT Specification 1708.2 (1988 Edition) or its successor. • #20258 10 I() -iS Section 24.0 - Deliverable Standards 24.1 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work under this Agreement and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections thereto resulting from errors and omissions on the part of the CONSULTANT without additional compensation. Acceptance of the work by the-CITY will not relieve the CONSULTANT of the responsibility for subsequent correction of any such errors and the clarification of any ambiguities. 24.2 The CONSULTANT agrees that the plans and specifications provided to the CITY for this work shall be adequate and sufficient for the proper construction of the work and their intended purposes, and shall be consistent with standards of care applicable to CONSULTANT's profession. Section 25.0 - Antitrust CONSULTANT hereby assigns to the City of Richfield any and all claims for overcharges as to good and/or services provided in connection with this Contract resulting from antitrust- violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 26.0 - Officials Not to Benefit 26.1 CONSULTANT shall not engage, on a full or part-time or other basis during the period of the Contract, any professional or technical personnel who are or have been • at any time during the period of the Contract in the employ of the CITY, except regularly retired employees, without written consent from the CITY. 26.2 The CONSULTANT warrants that the CONSULTANT has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Contract, and that the CONSULTANT has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the CONSULTANT, any fee, commissions, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of the Agreement. Section 27.0 - Term of Agreement 27.1 This Agreement shall be effective on the date defined by Special Conditions, and shall remain in effect until date defined in Special Conditions, or until all obligations set forth in this Agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 27.2 The CITY may extend the aforesaid time completion period upon written request from the CONSULTANT for delays encountered that are beyond control. The amount of such time extension shall be determined by the Consultant Agreement Engineer of the CITY who is authorized to grant such extension. i #20258 11 AD - U0 EXHIBIT A 77TH STREET PROTECT STATE PROTECT 157-108-20 CITY PROTECT NO. 8502 - CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 77TH ST. I-35W TO PORTLAND AVE. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions have been used to develop the cost estimate shown in Table and the supporting information in Tables 2 through 9. General The project involves the grading, paving, storm sewer, utilities, noise wall, signals, signing, street lighting and appurtenance work for 77th Street from Portland to Cedar Avenue. The Engineers estimate for this work is $4,715,143.00. Landscaping, other than turf establishment, is not included in the work. Construction will begin as soon as possible. The schedule shows construction starting July 1, 1994. • The project will require 225 working days to construct. It is assumed that the Contractor will not work from December 1 to April 1, 1995. Exhibit "B" shows the • schedule assumed as the basis for the cost estimate outlined in Tables 1 through 10. The BRW /OSM Team Will Provide • Full-Time Lead Inspector (Chief Inspector) - The lead or "chief' inspector will be responsible for coordination with the Contractor relative to schedule and staking needs. He will provide coordination with the City and businesses. He will also coordinate testing for the project. The lead inspector will not be available for observation of specific contractor operations. • A 2nd Inspector responsible for project documentation - The 2nd Inspector will be responsible for the CARS documentation, daily/weekly diaries, files relating to documentation, traffic control, and documentation of utility/railroad work subject to federal reimbursement. It is assumed the 2nd Inspector will be available half time for observation of specific contractor operations. • Additional inspectors (up to 4) to monitor construction activities. The additional inspectors will be responsible for observation of specific construction operations. These inspectors would also conduct the material testing for the project. • Material testing by field inspectors in accordance with Mn/DOT and FHWA requirements and coordination with Mn/DOT for testing as required. A materials testing firm will only be used for cylinder molds, cylinder breaks, and beam breaks and will be treated as a direct expense. The fee schedules for three firms are shown in Table l 720258 13 I()-1 '7 Section 28.0 - Cancellation 28.1 This Contract may be cancelled by the CITY at any time, with or without cause, upon 40 five days' written notice to the other party. In the event of such cancellation, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to payment, determined, on pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed. 28.2 The total payment will be determined by mutual agreement between the CITY and CONSULTANT. The payment to the CONSULTANT shall not exceed the total payment as set forth in the original Agreement or succeeding supplements of work orders. A Supplemental Agreement shall be executed setting forth the reduced amount of compensation the CONSULTANT shall receive. Section 29.0 - Contract ComRlete 29.1 The work to be done in connection with this Agreement may be changed by the request of the CITY, with the mutual concurrence of the CONSULTANT; any such change shall be clearly and fully defined in writing, approved by both parties and total payment covering such change shall be negotiated under a separate Supplemental Agreement. 29.2 This Agreement, including all items incorporated hereunto by reference or attachment, contains all agreements and covenants between the CONSULTANT and the CITY. No other understanding, provisions, or materials, whether written, oral, or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Basic Agreement, shall be deemed to exist or to bind either or both of the parties hereto. • Section 30.0 - Terms of General Conditions 30.1 To the extent of any inconsistencies between the Special Conditions and the General Conditions, the Special Conditions shall control. 30.2 Any and all provisions of the General Conditions remain in force until they are specially and deliberately cancelled by the Special Conditions of this Agreement. 0 #20258 12 10 Ig • All construction surveying and staking. • Project record keeping as required by Mn/DOT on Federal Aid Projects. • Coordination with private utilities; NSP, US West, Minnegasco, and Paragon Cable. • Project Engineer/Manager to provide contract administration including review of contractor coordination and scheduling, clarifications and interpretations of the contract documents, work direction changes, project change orders, supplemental agreements and work orders. A maximum of 200 hours was assumed for handling contractor claims, supplemental agreements, work orders and change orders. • Design Engineers to provide clarifications of the plans and contract documents as needed. • The BRW/OSM Team members will include: - Gary Orlich, BRW, Project Engineer/Manager - Greg Roy, BRW, Lead Inspector - BRW, Assistant Inspector - BRW, Primary Survey Crew - Don Sterna, OSM, Design Engineer - Leo Omscheid, OSM, Project Inspector - OSM, Inspector - OSM, Second Survey Crew • OSM will be responsible for 50 percent of the inspection work and 50 percent of the survey work. OSM will receive direction from Gary Orlich or Greg Roy from BRW on the work to be performed. It is anticipated that OSM will provide the primary inspection for storm sewer, water main, and sanitary sewer work to be performed by the Contractor. Mn/DOT Will Provide Project support in records and payment through the construction office. Progress sampling and periodic review of construction. Coordination with FHWA. The Citv Will Provide Project Engineer to provide authorized signature on project documents. Timely review of project change orders and supplemental agreements and all construction related documentation/ approvals. 17J #20258 14 le -1 9 COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost for the above services is detailed in the following tables. Table 1 summarizes the total estimated cost for the above construction engineering services. Table 2 summarizes the cost estimate for OSM's portion of the work. The remaining tables provide support for the hours and expenses included in Tables l and 2. They are discussed in more detail below. Inspection and Testing Services The hours needed for inspection services for the project were estimated based on the construction schedule labeled as Exhibit "B." Exhibit "B" shows the number of calendar days needed for each construction operation. This information was used to estimate the number of inspectors needed for the project. The lead inspector is responsible for coordination and will not be directly involved in construction observation. The 2nd inspector is responsible for documentation and will only be available half time for construction observation. Therefore, most of their time is in addition to the time estimated for construction observation. The testing for the project was estimated separately and is shown in Table 4. The anticipated assignment of inspectors to the project based on the assumed schedule is shown on the bottom of Exhibit "B." The number of inspectors assigned to the project is based on the number of operations going on and the amount of the inspectors time needed for each operation. However, because it is necessary to assign whole people to the job, the . number of inspectors assigned is not always in balance with the number of people needed based on the schedule. Table 3 shows the estimated hours for the Project Engineer/Manager, a Design Engineer and Secretary Time. Surve, ing Services The hours required for surveying services is estimated in Table 5. In addition to the hours required for each survey task, there is time included for a survey supervisor. The survey supervisor provides overall supervision and planning of the survey work program. He will provide liaison and coordination to answer survey related questions as they relate to the plans. He will develop layout and staking data in digital (electronic) form for use by the surveyors. He will meet survey staffing, supply and equipment needs as required. The estimate assumes 1/2 hour of technical support per survey crew working day. Hourly Rates and Schedules Table 6 shows fee schedules for three testing firms for cylinder molds, cylinder breaks, and beam breaks. Table 7 shows the estimated average hourly rates for BRW personnel assigned to the project. Table 8 is a schedule of BRW's range in hourly rates by employee classification. Table 9 shows the estimate of average hourly rates for OSM. 0 x20258 15 ID J0 This is our best estimate of the hours that will be required for construction engineering services for Phase H of the 77th Street Project. An exact estimate of the hours required cannot be made because of the variability of construction methods and schedules. Any construction delays that extend the anticipated period of construction or any changes relative to other assumptions made above may result in additional hours above those estimated and may require a supplemental agreement covering the additional costs including fee. n 9 #20258 16 c)-D- TABLE 1 COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION EN GINEERING SERVICES ' INSPECTION AND TESTING ' Average General Employee Classification Hours Hourly Rate Amount Project Engineer 420 $34.00 $14,280.00 - Chief Inspector 1,800 $22.00 $39,600.00 Asst. Project Inspectors 1,200 $16.00 $19,200.00 Clerical 192 $9.00 $1,7280.00 LABOR COST $ 74,808.00 OVERHEAD @ 154.69% $115,720.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead $190,528.00 FEE @ 12.5% $ 23,816.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead plus Fee $214,344.00 SUBCONSULTANTS (OSM) $213,581.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES ?- T ??i Q L T L M 'j' 11 U {f/T OS $ 3,660.00 TOTAL INSPECTION AND TESTING $431,585.00 LJ SURVEYING Average General Employee Classification Hours Hourly Rate Amount Survey Supervisor 35 $22.00 $770.00 Party Chief 650 $16.00 $10,400.00 Assistant 650 $12.00 $7,800.00 Rodman 650 $9.00 $5,850.00 LABOR COST $ 24,820.00 OVERHEAD @ 154.69% $ 38,394.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead $ 63,214.00 FEE @ 12.5% $ 7,901.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead plus Fee $ 71,115.00 SUBCONSULTANTS (OSM) $ 83,611.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES -- S p 2 G 1 ?y $ 1,200.00 TOTAL SURVEYING $155,926.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $587,511.00 x20258 17 TABLE 2 OSM COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES' INSPECTION ' Average General Employee Classification Hours Hourly Rate Amount Project Engineer 192 $26.00 $4,992.00 Project Supervisor 1,700 $23.00 $39,100.00 Asst. Project Inspectors 1,440 $18.00 $25,920.00 Clerical 60 $9.00 $540.00 LABOR COST $ 70,552.00 OVERHEAD @ 166.07% $117,165.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead $187,717.00 FEE @ 12.5% $ 23,464.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead plus Fee $211,181.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES- 5/?L ??y f L a !/Hi G fi $ 2,400.00 TOTAL INSPECTION $213,581.00 SURVEYING Average General Employee Classification Hours Hourly Rate Amount Survey Supervisor 35 $34.50 $1,207.00 Party Chief 650 $18.50 $12,025.00 Assistant 650 $12.50 $8,125.00 Rodman 650 $9.50 $6,175.00 U LABOR COST $ 27,532.00 OVERHEAD @ 166.07% $ 45,722.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead $ 73,254.00 FEE @ 12.5% $ 9,157.00 SUBTOTAL: Labor plus Overhead plus Fee $ 82,411.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES _ Gi"7?y $ 1,200.00 TOTAL SURVEYING r $ 83,611.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST #20258 18 $297,192.00 TABLE 3 ESTIMATE OF PROJECT ENGINEER/MANAGER HOURS • PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT ' MONTH MANAGER ENGINEER CLERICAL TOTAL July 4 2 2 8 August 4 2 2 8 September 4 2 2 8 October 4 2 2 8 November 4 1 2 7 December 2 1 2 5 January 1 0 1 2 February 1 0 1 2 March 1- 0 1 2 April 1 0 1 2 May 4 2 2 8 June 4 2 2 8 July 4 2 2 8 August 4 2 2 8 September 4 2 2 8 October 3.5 2 2 7.5 November 1 1 1.5 3.5 December 1 1 1 3 January 1 0 1 2 Total Days 52.5 24 31.5 108 Hours/Day 8 8 8 Total Hours 420 192 252 864 BRW 420 0 192 612 OSM 0 192 60 252 «20258 19 TABLE 4 ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL TESTING SUMMARY OF TIME REQUIRED Task No. of Test @ Time - CONCRETE TESTING • Air Tests - Walks and Driveways/Bases Done by Inspector - Pavement/Curb and Gutter/Medians 80 @ 20 min. - Walls • Slump Tests - Walks and Driveways/Bases Done by Inspector - Pavement/Curb and Gutter/Medians 80'@ 20 min. - Walls • Cylinders - Walks and Driveways/Bases Done by Inspector - Curb and Gutter/Medians 64 @ 20 min. - Walls - Light Bases/Signage Bases • Beams - Pavement 25 @ 30 min. • Trips to Test Lab 40 trips @ 2 hours • Lab Tests and Material (See Table 7) Subtotal - Cylinder Molds 64 - Cylinder Breaks 64 - Beam Breaks 25 Hours 27 27 21 13 80 AD-Qq 168 $1.50/mold $12.00/break $35.00/break «20258 20 Task EARTHWORK • Moisture Tests • Density Tests • Proctor Tests • Gradations • Monthly Report Subtotal • Topsoil Test* BITUMINOUS • Density Test Observation • Material (Mix) Sampling TOTAL Time, Field Testing and Sampling No. of Test @ 'Hours Time 64 @ 1 hour 64 60 @ 1 hour 50 21 @ 6 hours 126 15 @ 2 hours 30 11 @ 4 hours 44 3 9 working days @ 2 hours/day 482 $200.00/ea 18 500 • 0 SUMMARY OF TESTS REQUIRED 1. CONCRETE TESTS Concrete Mix uanti Air Sly Cylinder Beams • Walks and Driveways/Bases 893 CY 39 39 39 • Pavement/Curb and Gutter 3A41 (Pavement) Median CY 25 25 0 25 3A21 (Curb and Gutter) 1,276 CY 9 9 9 • Walls 318 CY 7 7 7 _ TOTALS 80 80 55 25 0 x20258 21 2. EARTHWORK TESTS . Moist. Dens. Proct. Grad. EARTHWORK • Embankment, Trench 10,000 LF, 25 23 10 3 12 layers • Subgrade 19,419 CY 36 24 4 1 - Subtotals 61 67 14 4 BASE • Class V 4,800 CY 3 3 1 9 Subtotals 9 STABILIZING AGE ,-- -- - 2 Subtotals 2 TOTALS 64 70 15 15 3. BITUMINOUS TESTS, 2340 Q/A ACCEPTANCE Working Days Nuclear Density Observation 4 Sampling for Extraction and Gradation Tests, Lab 4 Subtotal 8 9 Hours /Day 1 1 2 #20258 22 l o-' TABLE 5 ESTIMATE OF SURVEY CREW HOURS y Survey Crew Working Day Parking Grading 2 Parking Utilities 2 Storm Sewer 18 Water Main 10 Sanitary Sewer 5 Stain Removal 1 Water Main Removal 1 Common/Subgrade (WB) Bluetops 12 Common/Subgrade (EB) Bluetops 12 Concrete Pavement (WB) 15 Concrete Pavement (EB) 15 Signal at Portland 1.5 Signal at 12th Avenue 1 Loop Streets 14 Concrete Curb Loop Roads 8 Sidewalk 6 Retaining Wall 5 Streetlights 2 Private Utilities 8 Noise Wall 21 i Signing and Striping 3 Total Estimated Survey Crew Working Days 162.5 Total Estimated Hours @ 8 Hours/Day 1,300 BRW/OSM SPLIT BRW Survey Crew: 50% 650 OSM Survey Crew: 50% 650 BRW Technician: 50% 35 OSM Technician: 50% 35 The above estimate does not include time for restaking due to plan changes, vandalism or contractor disregard or carelessness. L? #20258 23 / -as TABLE 6 UNIT COSTS FOR CONCRETE TESTING May 20, 1994 Test Twin City Testing Braun STS Cylinder Model $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 Cylinder Break $10.00 $12.00 $12.00 Beam Break $31.50 $35.00 $65.00 x20258 24 aq TABLE 7 ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE HOURLY RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES May 20, 1994 INSPECTION/CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION/TESTING BRW Adjusted Employee Average Average Value Position Classification Salary Salary Used Project Engineer Sr. Associate $33.99 $35.35 $34.00 Chief Inspector Staff Level V $21.67 $22.54 $22.00 Asst. Inspector Staff Level III/IV $15.15 $16.28 $16.00 Clerical Staff Level I $9.40 $9.78 $9.00 SURVEYING • BRW Adjusted Employee Average Average Value Position Classification Salary Salary Used Survey Supevis Staff Level V $20.78 $21.61 $22.00 Party Chief Staff Level IV $15.36 $15.97 $16.00 Assistant Staff Level II $11.15 $11.53 $12.00 Rodman Staff Level I $8.40 $8.73 $9.00 Note: Adjusted Average Salary obtained by multiplying Average Salary by 1.04 to account for salary increases during term of contract. 0 «20258 25 TABLE 8 . SCHEDULE OF RANGE IN HOURLY RATES BY EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION FOR BRW, INC. April 1, 1994 CODE CLASSIFICATION RANGE IN RATES AVERAGE RATE 010 Principal $3165 - $56.97 $47.59 020 Vice President $30.29 - $44.80 $37.39 025 Senior Associate $27.97 - $43.27 $33.99 030 Associate $17.79 - $40.14 $28.61 040 Senior Consultant $17.79 - $33.34 $22.70 050 Consultant II $13.46 - $22.22 $18.12 060 Consultant I $11.00 - $20.21 $15.59 065 Staff Level V $18.04 - $27.24 $21.67 070 Staff Level IV $13.82 - $20.43 $17.53 080 Staff Level III $10.00 - $18.69 $13.76 • 090 Staff Level II $8.00 - $14.04 11.25 100 Staff Level I $7.75 - $12.00 $9.40 0 #20258 26 Iv 3! TABLE 9 BASIS FOR SALARY ESTIMATES CLASSIFICATION PAY RANGE AVERAGE INSPECTION PROJECT ENGINEER 30.76 - 21.32 26.00 PROJECT SUPERVISOR 23.00 23.00 PROJECT INSPECTOR 19.70 -16.10 18.00 SURVEYING SURVEY SUPERVISOR 34.50 34.50 PARTY CHIEF 19.62 - 17.39 18.50 ASSISTANT 14.74 - 10.45 12.50 RODMAN 10.40-8.40 9.50 s w 10 «20258 27 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 208 July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of resolution approving Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program dated June 20, 1994. Background: Richfield Rediscovered has been in operation since 1991. To date, 30 new homes have been developed. Recently the HRA approved a modification to the Richfield Rediscovered Program and appropriated $700,000 to redevelop an additional 12 properties. To continue the program and provide additional sites, it is necessary for the City Council to approve the program modifications. The Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans under the proposed modification are attached for review. The text of the modifications for the 1994-95 Program, known as Cycle III, are essentially the same as past modifications. The reason modifications must be made is simply to alter the list of properties which may be purchased. For easy readability, the page numbering of each section is prefixed by the type of modification. For example, the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" is page numbered A-1, A-2, etc. while the page numbering for modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District A-2 is page numbered A-2-1, A-2-2, etc. The "Note to Reader" at the beginning of the plans provides additional information with regard to plan structure. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving modification No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plans for Redevelopment Project Areas "A" and "B"; Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Redevelopment Districts "A-2" and "B-2"; Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Redevelopment Districts "A-3" and "B-3"; and, by reference, also approves a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Plan. Bas_i__s_ of Recommendation: 1. Richfield Rediscovered is a proven redevelopment program. 2. The Planning Commission on June 28, 1994 reviewed the modified redevelopment and tax increment finance plans and found the plans and proposed acquisition and disposition of property to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The HRA on June 20, 1994, approved modifications to the Richfield Rediscovered Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans. . 4. There is a market of property owners who wish to voluntarily sell their substandard and/or obsolete homes. 5. There is a builder and buyer market for new, larger, contemporary housing. 6. Funding sources are available to continue the program. n 7. Existing staff resources are available to administer the program. 8. Legal counsel has reviewed the program and related documents and found them to be in compliance with existing law. 9. Proper notice of the public hearing was published on July 12, 1994. 10. Hennepin County and the Richfield School District have been notified of the impacts to taxing jurisdictions and the public hearing as required by law. 11. During May and June of 1994, staff contacted approximately 45 property owners that had indicated an interest in selling their property within the last year. Thirty-six sites were inspected to determine program eligibility. All 36 sites qualified for the program. Six properties are being dropped from the 1992 program acquisition list (Cycle II) as these property owners withdrew. 12. The proposed 1994-95 Richfield Rediscovered Program would accomplish the purchase and removal of approximately 12 substandard homes on properties valued by the Hennepin County Assessor at $611,000. Twelve homes valued in a range of $110,000 to $140,000 would be provided and generate an estimated $300,000 in land proceeds. 13. The estimated budget for the 12 properties anticipated to be redeveloped is as follows: Property Acquisition $628,000 Appraisals 4,000 Demolition/Site Clearance 60,000 Legal Expenses 8,000 Total $700,000 Tax increments generated by the new housing development over a 25 year period would be paid to the development fund and would approximate $13,000 to $22,000 annually. Alternative _Recommendation: 1. Modify the proposed program. 2. Delay action until a future time. 3. Terminate any additional activity on the proposal. Discuss.ionJDecison Mode: This modification is in part being processed to provide new construction opportunities for New Ford Town and Rich Acres Phase I residents and also to make it possible for other interested buyers to initiate construction during 1994. Respec t submitted, James sser City MJDP:d s 9- t?L 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (Authority) has previously identified areas within the City as being in need of development, redevelopment and construction of new single family homes in order to provide families and individuals living in a substandard, poor quality environment an opportunity to move to standard housing by establishing a cash market for their existing housing and to provide an opportunity for Richfield to accommodate families currently residing in Richfield or elsewhere who are seeking larger housing units with features popular in today's market. 1.02 The Authority has previously adopted, and the City has . previously approved, a Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "A", a Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "B", a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District "A-1" and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District "B-1", all relating to the Richfield Rediscovered Program (Project), which plans collectively call for public and private expenditures to encourage development, redevelopment and new construction of single family homes within the project areas. 1.03 The Authority has previously adopted, and the City has previously approved a modified Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "A", a modified Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "B", a modified Plan for Tax Increment District "A-1", a modified Plan for Tax Increment District "B-1", a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "A-2" and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District "B-2" (collectively, Plans), dated July 20, 1992, which Plans are on file with the Authority. 1.04 The Authority has adopted a modified Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "A", a modified Redevelopment Plan for Project Area "B", a modified Plan for Tax Increment District "A-2", a modified Plan for Tax Increment District "B-2", a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "A-3" and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District "B-3", (collectively, Plans), dated June 20, 1994, which Plans are on file with the Authority. 9-3 1.05 In accordance with the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act and Tax Increment Financing Act (collectively, Acts), the Plans were referred to the Richfield Planning Commission which on June 28, 1994 found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plan for redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.06 The Authority on June 20, 1994 approved the Plans and referred them to the City Council for a public hearing to be held by the City as required by the Acts. 1.07 Copies of the Plans have been forwarded to the board of Independent School District No. 280, Intermediate School District No. 287, and to the board of commissioners of Hennepin County along with the Authority's estimate of the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions of establishing Tax Increment Financing District "A-3" and Tax Increment Financing District "B-3". Notice of public hearing on the Plans to be held by the City was also sent to the school districts and county as required by the Acts. 1.08 This Council has fully reviewed the contents of the Plans and has this date conducted a public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested persons were heard. Section 2. Findings; Redevelo mgnt Pro ects; _--.Modified Plans. 2.01 It is hereby found and there exist conditions obsolescence and unsaf, used or intended to be to the health, safety, of this community. determined that within the Project of physical deterioration, economic unsanitary and other poor housing used for living which are injurious morals and welfare of the citizens 2.02 It is further specifically found and determined that: a.) The property in the Project would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial assistance described in the Plans; b.) The modified Redevelopment Plans for the Project will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project by private enterprise; and c.) The modified Redevelopment Plans conform to the general redevelopment plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03 The findings in this section are made in compliance with Section 469.08, subdivision 2 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the authority, the powers granted to the City and the Authority by the Act. Section 3. Findings;---.Tax--Increment Financing Districts "A-2" and "B-2"; Modified Plans. 3.01 It is hereby found that the modified Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-2" and "B-2" are necessary to permit development and improvement of the Project Areas to their full potential. 3.02 The modified Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-2" and "B-2" are consistent with the modified Plans for the Project Areas. 3.03 The modified Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-2" and "B-2" are consistent with the general plans for the development of the City as a whole. Section 4. Findings__Tax__IncrementFinancing Districts "A-3" and " B - 3 " t 4.01 Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3", which are hereby established in the Project Areas, are redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Districts within the meaning of Section 469.174, subd. 10(a)(1) of the TIF Act. 4.02 It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Project Areas and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare that the authority of the TIF Act be exercised by the Authority and the City to provide public financial assistance within the Project Areas. 4.03 It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the Authority and the City, that the redevelopment proposed in the Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3" could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. 4.04 The Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3" conform to the general plan for redevelopment of the City as a whole. • 4.05 The proposed public improvements to be financed largely through tax increment financing are necessary to permit Q-S • the City to realize the full potential of the Project Areas in terms of development intensity, employment opportunities and tax base. Section 5. Plans Modified; Districts Established; Certification; Filing., 5.01 The Plans are hereby approved and adopted. 5.02 The geographic boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area "A" and the TIF districts are as described in the Plans, which documents area hereby adopted by reference. A change has been made in the geographic boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area "B". No changes have been made in the geographic boundaries of Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-2" or "B-2 as a result of the Plans hereby approved. 5.03 A copy of the staff report and findings, which was the basis upon which the Authority and City concluded that Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3" qualified as redevelopment tax increment financing districts shall be retained by the Authority for the duration of the TIF districts. • 5.04 The Authority is requested to file a copy of the Plans with the Minnesota commissioner of revenue as required by the TIF Act. 5.05 The Authority intends to request that the City assist from time to time in financing the public redevelopment costs identified in the TIF Plans from capital proceeds from land sale, tax increment from the TIF districts, development account fund revenue, and other revenues. 5.06 The Authority also intends to request that the City from time to time consider various other actions necessary to the implementation of the Plans and pledges its cooperation with the City in achieving the objectives of the Plans. 5.07 The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Authority. Passed this 25th day of July, 1994 by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Martin Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 Outline of Changes The following provides additional information on the housing program modification. Redevelopment Project Area Boundary A boundary change is being proposed so that two qualified properties which currently fall outside the boundary of Redevelopment Project Area "B" can be redeveloped. The boundary expansion occurs at two different locations of Redevelopment Project Area "B". The first change is approximately at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and Crosstown Highway 62 in order to include 6236 Pleasant Avenue as a redevelopment opportunity. The second change is approximately at the intersection of Oliver Avenue and West 64th Street in order to include 6320 Oliver Avenue. AcquisitionList .._ofCurrent _Plan and 1994-95 Program Objectives As the financial resources available from the HRA are limited, approximately 12 of the 36 eligible properties may be purchased at this time with the $700,000. Therefore, 24 properties remain as qualifying candidates for acquisition when additional funding becomes available. Early _Property Acquisitions The Properties at 7537 Girard Avenue undergo early acquisitions prior to of the subject modifications. These acquisition by the HRA on March 21, respectively. Also, the approvals w properties being incorporated into t Housing Program. and 6625 Stevens Avenue will final City Council approval properties were approved for 1994 and December 20, 1993, ere contingent upon the he Richfield Rediscovered Relationship of Current Plan to._.Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan The Richfield Redevelopment Project Plans encompass all existing tax increment projects and were approved in order to take advantage of the development account tool to fund programs such as Richfield Rediscovered, with unencumbered non-tax increment money arising out of redevelopment projects. As a result of the plan modifications associated with the Richfield Rediscovered Program, the Richfield Rediscovered Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated June 14, 1993 is also modified by reference. To implement the program under proposal, the following must be considered by the City Council: (1.) The Redevelopment Plans; and (2.) The Tax Increment Financing Plans. • • THE RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED HOUSING PROGRAM REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota 0 MAYOR Martin J. Kirsch CITY COUNCIL Michael Sandahl, Council Member At Large Susan Rosenberg, Ward 1 Russ Susag, Ward 2 Donald Priebe, Ward 3 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chairperson Joan Helmberger, Vice-Chairperson • Vern Luettinger, Secretary Russ Susag, Member Michael Sandahl, Member CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson Kristal Stokes, Vice Chairperson Timothy Erlander, Secretary Pamela Dmytrenko, Member Michael Gallagher, Member Morris Nilsen, II, Member Thomas Scaglia, Member William Snyder, Member Paul Wasko, Member 0 • CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Katia Medvetski Redevelopment Specialist Bruce Nordquist Housing Supervisor Pamela Rohne Housing Specialist • • NOTE TO READER • The Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program (the "Housing Program") is organized in cycles based on HRA acquisition and redevelopment activities. The original housing program, initially entitled the "Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program", established two redevelopment project areas, Project Area A and Project Area B. Within each project area, tax increment financing districts were created based on a list of properties which the HRA would contemplate to acquire and redevelop for the Housing Program. An alpha-numeric organizational system was implemented to the various tax increment districts and subsequent modifications. Redevelopment project areas are represented by an alphabetical letter, either an "A" or "B", while tax increment financing districts are represented by an alpha-numeric combination. The alphabetical component represents the geographical project area and it's numerical component represents the cycle year for which a tax increment district was created. For example, "A-1 " is representative of the list of tax increment parcels within redevelopment project area A during the • first cycle year of the Housing Program. Subsequent tax increment districts are be labeled as "A- 2" for the second cycle of parcels for the Housing Program, "A-3" for the third, and so on. This also holds true for redevelopment project area B. On June 14, 1993, the City Council approved the HIM modification to the Housing Program of 1992. The purpose of this modification was to establish one project area, the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, composed of various existing project areas and tax increment districts. By doing so, the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area would serve as an umbrella entity and provide greater efficiency in financing redevelopment activity costs while including areas outside of the HIM operating area. In order to maintain a numerical system to the housing program's modifications, the June 14, 1993 modification is considered to be the second major modification to this housing program. The text contained within the following modified housing program is, therefore, considered to be the modification. Goals and objectives of the overall housing program remain the same. Substantive changes to the housing program . include the list of properties identified for acquisition and program implementation and a boundary change for Redevelopment Project Area B. The reader is encouraged to review the original housing program plans and modifications • located within the following reference plans: Original Richfield Redevelopment Housing Program (formerly knows as the Master Plan for the Expanded New Home - Scattered Site Housing Program) for Redevelopment Project Area "A" and Tax Increment Financing District "A-1" and Redevelopment Project Area "B" and Tax Increment Financing District 'B-1" Dated July 16, 1990 Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" and • Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-1" and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-2" Dated July 20, 1992 Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 1 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" and Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-1" and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" Dated July 20, 1992 • Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan Dated June 14, 1993 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority . in and for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-2" Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-3" 40 All Related to the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Dated : June 20, 1994 Prepared By: The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South • Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 • Modification No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A 0 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part L Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 3 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" 40 • PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 3 Pae A. Statement of Public Purpose I - - - B. Statutory Authority I C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area 2 --- D. Statement of Goals and Objectives 3 --- E. Develo went Activities and Agreements 4 --- F. Proposed Land Use 6 - - - G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 6 A-I H. Environmental Considerations 7 --- L Redevelopment Plan Modification 7 --- J. Administration of Redevelopment Project 7 - - - A-i Part L Modification No. 3 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A" u G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 1. Acquisition As a means of comprehensively formulating Cycle III of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff identified property for acquisition in two ways. The first involved contacting and surveying residential property owners that have in the past expressed interest in the voluntary sale of their property. The second involved property owners contacting the HRA requesting that their property be considered for the program. Properties that were considered candidates for the program were then further evaluated for program eligibility and inspected. The following properties are identified for acquisition under Cycle III of the program: PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 7216 - 1st Avenue South 34-028-24-13-0094 6616 - 2nd Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0064 7416 - 4th Avenue South* 34-028-24-41-0053 6900 - 13th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0073 6321 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-12-0093 6500 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0132 6928 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0069 6404 - 15th Avenue South* 26-028-24-13-0052 6432 = 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0059 6435 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0043 6504 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0076 7525 Aldrich Avenue South 33-028-2441-0164 7344 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-14-0047 6825 Elliot Avenue South* 26-028-24-34-0085 6828 Elliot Avenue South 26-028-24-34-0135 7525 Girard Avenue South* 33-028-24-42-0094 7537 Girard Avenue South 33-028-24-42-0091 7025 Nicollet Avenue South* 34-028-24-12-0022 6820 Portland Avenue South 27-028-24-44-0006 7211 Portland Avenue South+ 35-028-24-23-0002 7520 Portland Avenue South 34-028-24-41-0021 6608 Stevens Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0073 6625 Stevens Avenue South 27-028-24-42-0095 *Property moved from Cycle II acquisition list to the Cycle III acquisition list. +Double Lot. A-1 • Under Cycle III, the property listed in the following table (formerly part of the Cycle H property list) is hereby removed from the acquisition list for Redevelopment Project Area A. This property may be considered for future program acquisition. (Also note that this property is identified for removal from the list of properties for Tax Increment District "A-2") PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 6525 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0110 7432 Aldrich Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0026 6800 Portland Avenue South 27-028-24-44-0001 is 0 A-2 • Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-2" 0 r? L 1"] TABLE OF CONTENTS Part H. Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tag Increment Redevelopment District "A-2" 0 PART I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 1 Pa e A. Statutory Authority 7 --- B. Statement of Objectives 7 --- C. Development Program 7 --- D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District 9 A-2-1 E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing. District 9 --- F. Parcels in Acquisition 10 A-2-1 G. Estimate of Costs 11 - - - H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds 11 - - - L Sources of Revenue 11 - - - J. Original Tax Capacity 12 --- K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 12 --- L. Duration of the District 12 --- M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 13 --- N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 13 --- 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 13 - - - P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 13 --- Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement 13 --- R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment 14 --- S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 14 --- T. Excess Tax Increment 15 --- U. Restrictions on Poolin ; Five Year Limit 15 --- V. Assessment Agreements 17 --- W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 17 - - - X. Annual Disclosure Requirements 18 --- Y. Assumptions 18 - - - Z. Municipal Findings 18 - - - A-2-i Modification PART II - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Original Plan No. 1 age Page A endix A: Ma - Redevelopment Project Area "A" 23 - - - Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" 25 Appendix A-2-1 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments 26 --- Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget 27 - - - Appendix E: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 28 - - - L, • A-2-ii 0 Part I. Modification No. 1 Tag Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-2" 0 D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District The property fisted within Appendix B is the final list of property which was acquired for program purposes. See "Section F. Parcels in Acquisition" below for properties removed from the acquisition list due to unresponsiveness or undesire to further participate in the program. F. Parcels in Acquisition The properties listed below (formerly part of the Cycle II property list) have been identified for removal from the acquisition list and from TIF District "A-2". The removal of this property is a program objective under Cycle III of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. This property may be considered for program acquisition at some future date and incorporated back into the Richfield Rediscovered Program under a separate program modification. PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 6525 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0110 7432 Aldrich Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0026 6800 Portland Avenue South 27-028-24-44-0001 A-2-1 0 APPENDIX B FINAL LIST OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-2" PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER ORIGINAL NET TAX CAPACITY* 7112 - 1st Avenue South 28-028-24-12-0096 $1,431 6634 - 4th Avenue South 27-028-24-41-0052 $488 7245 - 12th Avenue South 35-028-24-13-0001 $522 6225 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-34-0071 $1,011 6844 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0056 $498 6310 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-12-0077 $1,277 7500 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0106 $1,882 7520 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0110 $428 7528 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0112 $441 6926 Chicago Avenue South 26-028-24-33-0028 $410 7021 Nicollet Avenue South 34-028-24-12-0023 $535 Is *Original net tax capacity shown represents values of record for taxes payable in 1992, as stated in the 1992 plans. 0 Appendix A-2-1 • Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-3" 0 9 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part H. Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Tag Increment Financing Plan for Tag Increment Redevelopment District "A-3" 0 • PART I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Page No. A. Statutory Authority A-3-1 B. Statement of Objectives A-3-1 C. Development Program A-3-1 D. Description of Property in the Tag Increment Financing District A-3-2 E. Classification of the Tag Increment Financing District A-3-2 F. Parcels in Acquisition A-3-3 G. Estimate of Costs A-3-4 H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds A-3-4 I. Sources of Revenue A-3-4 J. Original Tag Capacity A-3-4 K. Estimated Captured Tag Capacity A-3-5 L. Duration of the District A-3-5 M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions A-3-5 N. Modifications of the Tag Increment Financing District A-3-5 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses A-3-5 P. Limitation on Duration of Tag Increment Financing Districts A-3-6 Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement A-3-6 R. Limitation of the Use of Tag Increment A-3-6 S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements A-3-7 T. Excess Tag Increment A-3-7 U. Restrictions on Poolin ; Five Year Limit A-3-7 V. Assessment Agreements A-3-9 W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account A-3-9 X. Annual Disclosure Requirements A-3-9 Y. Assumptions A-3-10 Z. Municipal Findings A-3-10 A-3-i • L "I PART I I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Page No. Appendix A: Map.- Redevelopment Project Areas "A" and "B" and and Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3" Ap pendix A-3-1 Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-3" Ap pendix A-3-3 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments Ap pendix A-3-4 Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget A endix A-3-5 Appendix E: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Ap pendix A-3-6 A-3-ii • Part U. Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "A-3" A. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a tax increment financing district (TIF District "A-3 ") and related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Tax Increment Plan) in Redevelopment Project Area "A" (Project Area "A") for the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program (Housing Program) and the activities proposed in the tax increment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), pursuant to and in accordance with the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. B. Statement of Objectives The BRA and the City continue to seek and affirm the goals and objectives set forth in Part I of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A", dated July 16, 1990 as well as additional program objectives set forth in HRA Letter No. 13, dated April 20, 1992. . C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities As with previous cycles of the housing program and so with Cycle III, a comprehensive, integrated approach for acquisition, site clearance, and new construction will continue to be provided through program guidelines. The BRA will assist prospective developers, builders, and buyers with development, redevelopment, new construction, and other related activities within the context of the modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A", this Tax Increment Plan, and other related guidelines. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contract At this writing, early negotiations for property acquisitions are proceeding between HRA staff and owners by two, Cycle III properties located in TIF District "A-3". Any and all development contracts which may arise in the interim processing period of these plans, both modified and new, will be contingent upon HRA Board and City Council approval. • A-3-1 3. Other Develoument Not Under Contract Reasonably Ext?ected to Occur in the Proiect. Proposals from prospective developers, builders, and buyers will be required to be submitted to the HRA as part of the review process. The following activities may be expected to occur: 1. Property Acquisition; 2. On-site clearance; 3. On-site improvements; 4. New construction; 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. For Cycle III of the Housing Program, a total of 39 properties have been identified for program participation and acquisition. Twenty-three (23) of the properties are located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" while the remaining sixteen (16) are within Redevelopment Project Area "B". (Refer to Appendix A for map of Redevelopment Project Areas and tax increment parcels.) Redevelopment Project Areas A and B each contain properties with double lots. Property subdivisions will be required for these lots in order to construct two homes on each site. Initial construction for Cycle III is . anticipated to begin in the last quarter of 1994. Construction for each home is anticipated to be approximately 150 days. Timing of construction is contingent upon favorable market conditions, reasonable time period for processing applications and availability of funding revenue. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Property located within TIF District "A-3" is identified in Appendix B. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The Richfield HRA and City Council, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, find that Tax Increment District "A-3" to be established within Project Area "A" is a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Since the tax increment parcels within the scattered site program are non-contiguous, each parcel has been examined by staff against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. • A-3-2 • A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled "Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle III" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. • F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for acquisition in Cycle III of the Housing Program: PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 7216 - 1st Avenue South 34-028-24-13-0094 6616 - 2nd Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0064 7416 - 4th Avenue South+ 34-028-24-41-0053 6900 - 13th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0073 6321 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-12-0093 6500 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0132 6928 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-2443-0069 6404 - 15th Avenue South* 26-028-24-13-0052 6432 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0059 6435 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0043 6504 - 15th.Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0076 7525 Aldrich Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0164 7344 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-14-0047 6825 Elliot Avenue South* 26-028-24-34-0085 6828 Elliot Avenue South 26-028-24-34-0135 7525 Girard Avenue South* 33-028-24-42-0094 7537 Girard Avenue South 33-028-24-42-0091 7025 Nicollet Avenue South* 34-028-24-12-0022 6820 Portland Avenue South 27-028-24-44-0006 7211 Portland Avenue South+ 35-028-24-23-0002 7520 Portland Avenue South 34-028-24-41-0021 6608 Stevens Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0073 6625 Stevens Avenue South 27-028-2442-0095 *Property moved from Cycle II acquisition list to the Cycle III acquisition list. +Double Lot. The tax increment district budget includes acquisition costs for land sale subsidy which will be offered to eligible developers, builders, and buyers as development incentives. A-3-3 • G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment district are outlined in the budget listed in Appendix D. H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds At the current time, an additional $700,000 of program revenue is available under Cycle III to continue the housing program. An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for redevelopment is expected to be $0. The term of the issues is 0 years including 0 years of capitalized interest with an anticipated taxable interest rate of 0%. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be $0. I. Sources of Revenue The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with proposed developments in the redevelopment project area is an allocation from the development account. In addition to this allocation, other sources of revenue potentially available to the HRA and City may be utilized. • J. Original Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Sec. 469.177, subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (OTC) for TIF District "A-3" is based on the January 2, 1992 assessed value placed on the property by the county assessor. The OTC for the district is $15,203. (See Appendix B, Property Located in Tax Increment Financing District "A-3".) Each year the office of the county auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total net tax capacity of the tax increment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total net tax capacity in the tax increment district above the original net tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total net tax capacity in the tax increment district declines below the original net tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The county auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original net tax capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increase 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; or 3. Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. 0 A-3-4 K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, Subd. 1 and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 2, the estimated captured net tax capacity (CTC) of Tax Increment District "A-3" is within a range of $352 to $1,747 per home. The total CTC for the 25 new homes to be located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" ranges from $8,096 to $40,181. As a result of the improvements to be constructed, it is expected that the estimated captured net tax capacity will be available for the housing program. It is also anticipated that this amount will be captured not more than 25 years. (See Appendix C, Estimate of Tax Increments.) L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sect. 469.176, subd. 1, the maximum duration of a redevelopment tax increment district is 25 years. The HRA elects to capture 100% of the tax increments for the duration of the district. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Refer to Appendix E, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District • All tax increment plan modifications will be processed in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 4. The modifications pertaining to the necessary processing include any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination of capitalized 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; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the 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 a tax increment district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the County Auditor. 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 14, and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 3, for districts for which certification was requested after June 30, 1982, no tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax • increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. A-3-5 P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 1, the BRA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed within three years of the date of certification of the tax increment district my the county auditor. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district..., 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 HRA 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 the tax increment financing district. If the HRA 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 HRA shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax • increment financing district." R Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minn. Stat., 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality. 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. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 4j, at least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of a redevelopment district under section 469.174. These costs include acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the qualifying costs. A-3-6 40 S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 4, the HRA will review and search property files for properties to be included in the tax increment district and to identify those properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately proceeding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat., Sec. 475.61, subd. 3, the BRA shall use the excess amount to: 1. Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the county auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rates. The amounts distributed to a city or county must be deducted from the levy limits of the • governmental unit for the following year. In calculating the levy limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government aid payment. For the purpose of this tax increment financing plan, excess tax increment means that increment received in any year which is in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the BRA's current firtancial obligations or commitments, as specified in the tax increment financing budget listed in Appendix D, or which is in addition to that which is placed in a separate account for the purpose of accumulating funds needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments in the future. U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five-Year Limit In accordance with Minn. Stat.,. Sec. 469.1763, the following terms have the meanings given: "Activities" means acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering, architectural, and similar costs of the improvements in the district. 9 A-3-7 "Third Party" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, subd. 2 with respect to expenditures outside the district: (a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), may be deducted first before calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 3 with respect to the five-year rule: (a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: (1) before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; (2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; (3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or (4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a party for payment of the costs. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two tests is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term • under section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. A-3-8 • Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 4 with respect to use of revenues for decertification: Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 8, the HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with a developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment district which establishes a minimum market value of the tax increment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be 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. W. Administration of the Tag Increment District and Maintenance of the Tag Increment Account Administration of the tax increment district will be the responsibility of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the net tax capacity of the tax increment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other HRA and municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned activities identified in the tax increment financing plan. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 6a, on or before March 1 of each year, the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following: Total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and • A-3-9 2. 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. Also in accordance with this requirement the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the tax increment financing district: 1. Type of district; 2. Date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. Captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. 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 (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and • 6. Any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the HRA, City, and County staff, and consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: 1. The Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. It has been determined that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of 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. • A-3-10 • Specifically, staff has examined each parcel against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions due to the non-contiguous nature of the tax increment parcels. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle III" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 2. The proposed activities listed in this plan, in the opinion of the HRA, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the proposed development requires certain necessary planning, property assembly and other improvements without which interested developers, builders, or buyers could not construct the aforementioned improvements; and without the use of tax increments or other revenues authorized by this plan to assist with the financing of the activities, interested developers, builders, or buyers would not proceed with redevelopment in the redevelopment project area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of • the City as a whole as it will result in the continuation of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program for the development, redevelopment, new construction and other related improvements of residential homes for which there is limited sources of revenue available. 4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the HRA to provide the necessary redevelopment for the project area and City, as a whole, in a planning manner suitable to both the public and private sectors. U A-3-11 APPENDICES RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED HOUSING PROGRAM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "A" AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-3" 0 9 0 APPENDIX A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS "A" AND "B" AND . TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS "A-3" AND "B-3" L? • Appendix A-3-1 G v G N W in I IN N A Z b Y) N b w w I T b ,J > ( E I I l Wz D,fZ O LL.v IISIONVls Du ZZ I? ?C J IL 11I u = UL ' I W • I' 't I I IG N ' '? c e e lx Z OZ z a = VI 41 61 a N_ I _ M0113iON01 M0"I13i9NOl 3ntl atl033 I ------ - - I _ - _. 3nV arO33 4161 Z /t\ 4111 4#11 4191. 11191 _ f I NOl ONlw00le Na1ONIw001e 41 91 41 bl _UG=JL`sJ?]C-_IU) __._II. VI bl 41 if -I==[?J]C-1C1L:=_- II 41 rif 41tt II'.:..:JC=_ II.:_-?1..-_-_J -_ICJ 41 ZI 41 Z1 CJI- - I __J?L-J ;I 4111 'I T`-...-?. ?I_.-1C :il? ? 14I• 410I I[--IC-. I ..-1CJl_JI? ?;I aI :-1[: III -Of IC=J?_-I I ' z _1 - I 101113 101113 - i s Y -ILL= _.II • II II _JL-1 ---I?ILJ -II?---.JL--JI_-a Q OOV31H0 I p a - < ' 1 09V31113 snswmo? snownio:) ari -C 1 _--j==:I= X 0 " Xatld aNV1XV0 I f I._, _ =1C==11=._:.:IL =1[ a =__1L__=-1-1f-.J[--1?C?J7 IC' ll it ONVIXVO ii 3AV ONtlllaOd it ?__.I _/) 1.11_?.JI... .JI `?? ._.? ( ?L-_I[_• I? 2ll yl 3 ONVl1a0d VIS F 419 - I l,N ?zw 41b I?=1](C?J1 L__ li I??,• 41fr / NO1NI13 N01 NIl9 D,£ mil(-ll_.)i I--1C _ll II - II a? IC_ IIC?f I. 0 PIC P. z Dud .- <.i ?•? : -1I --? Q SN3A3iS -1?][-1 IL-__ll I I ---I? 1[ _. L-J /1 SN3A31S 1A _. "1 m W 1'l \ _?-1?_lCli EEF I=C '3AV 131103IN 3AV 131103IN O a W 113a Sivie '1130S1vle E H1a0M1N3M 111HOM1N3M V II ?C?)flL .-_11 _J =11-. f-=JC?[?C_ IL?I Aan BSllld I I _ , AanBSllid _= x c N_ 1NVSV31a ....... III 1.- ,-._. _..f._ - LNVStl31d 4. Q ONVa9 _. I?C_-1 11 1111 t? ?=_ '11==1 L- I aNtla? CIS- ? -_I .-If JI?.I? IPI?•?:,1-- i_.__i__ - _ -, • 131aaVN II F,-3 I I-JI_? 13100 VH 0131iav9 o [ yyyyyy? ?. _ III 3 J "AV 31tlONAl I! ?-11 ?? ??? I ?3AV 31VONAI W 113ta01r1 )- Ln 111 ?? ?? i -?? II _ 1 [- - I? \ II H3laa lv LL \ - _ _ lNrlae ?=.__ IU ( XVi 103 « U XVilO3 lfn W % O W \ )\ F_ 7_1 1NOdna 1NOdna \ m. NOSa3w3 ` 1NOw3ai .Ir ..IL-,n?.Q _ 1 + 1NONNI oara19 fU"1L---lf-_9 ...- t ?.. / if ac`? c aatla19 0108M1nH I E 9 I f1- • ,' ONIAaI Inuxi -ll la loewml O ' teals... -= _ - ---3ASr=? a e L r II) ! f - -? --L' ONlnal o s3wrr XONX ?L _II XONX' : 0 _ X71-_JL_ =_li .II-. Ir .. -I[ r. I ?r- II -- t NV901 - NV OOI cc NrSaaw I[=-11 _1[ ...-11 I?? I II II II [ _I [ NtlOaaw NO1M3N ?! I)1--1[_._J[ I f (I oil II _ II a Lr) S. (_.__. II -) I NO1M3N ? a3A110 •I _ I_____. H3A110 3Ar NN3d 3AV NN 3d N33n0 [. `?1 _.. I ?... J -_ C•`I>'?II I -_? ?j I ---- )I h -1( _ I( , z 111355na NVOINNS --- )6 L - -- Y I• NVOIU311S Sv"oHr I[ --._-.. _. .I ,?•' I'(? 1- 1 ??( .:..:: ?( II J 9 F II---- - - L_l?__.- 9 sv wal,l 1 n "J(_:..._ JI. II "?I I I! . _ IL___._ 1L--: I -- -.iL- - Naldn NOld N3311IA I - 11 I I-.._J[ II II NanellsvM I ) /'...• I_ II_.. I ..-- I[' .__ 1N I II I p 11 II II III II II ?I ?! [ 1[„{ j 33N1n NengliSVM 3AV 53X03% •? .. I it 53Xtl3X? = N D, _ a N M a h D (- m OI O O ° n! -N M H N 1D n ?• - O Y) ,D b N ?D ?D O N f? r - n r !- ti !- A H YI Appendix A-3-2 n u APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-3" C? 9 PROPERTY ADDRESS PIED NUMBER ORIGINAL NET TAX T CAPACITY** 7216 - 1st Avenue South 34-028-24-13-0094 $ 1,265 6616 - 2nd Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0064 $ 520 7416 - 4th Avenue South+ 34-028-24-41-0053 $ 680 6900 - 13th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0073 $ 1,311 6321 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-12-0093 $ 610 6500 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0132 $ 590 6928 - 14th Avenue South 26-028-24-43-0069 $ 500 6404 - 15th Avenue South* 26-028-24-13-0052 $ 470 6432 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0059 $ 520 6435 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0043 $ 600 6504 - 15th Avenue South 26-028-24-13-0076 $ 570 7525 Aldrich Avenue South 33-028-24-41-0164 $ 570 7344 Bryant Avenue South 33-028-24-14-0047 $ 560 6825 Elliot Avenue South* 26-028-24-34-0085 $ 1,380 6828 Elliot Avenue South 26-028-24-34-0135 $ 530 7525 Girard Avenue South* 33-028-24-42-0094 $ 550 7537 Girard Avenue South 33-028-24-42-0091 $ 487 7025 Nicollet Avenue South* 34-028-24-12-0022 $ 1,012 6820 Portland Avenue South 27-028-24-44-0006 $ 628 7211 Portland Avenue South+ 35-028-24-23-0002 $ 650 7520 Portland Avenue South 34-028-24-41-0021 $ 350 6608 Stevens Avenue South* 27-028-24-42-0073 $ 360 6625 Stevens Avenue South 27-028-24-42-0095 $ 490 TOTAL $15,203 * Property moved from Cycle II acquisition list to the Cycle III acquisition list. **Original tax capacity for taxes assessed in 1993 and payable in 1994 +Double Lot Appendix A-3-3 APPENDIX C ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS AND PROPERTY TAXES FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-3" n LJ • Tax Increment Estimates and Calculations Lower Limit of Range (Per Home) Upper Limit of Range (Per Home) Construction Cost and and Building) $ 85,000 $160,000 x Sales Ratio 93% 93% Estimated Market Value $ 79,050 $148,800 x Tax Capacity Ratio (Class IA; Property Type R-Homestead: 1.00% of the first $72,000 of assessed value 2.00% of the balance $ 720 $ 141 $ 720 $ 1,536 New Tax Capacity $ 861 $ 2,256 - Original Net Tax Capacity (Avg.)* $ 509 $ 509 Captured Net Tax Capacity $ 352 $ 1,747 x Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate Taxes Payable in 1994 137.3190% 137.3190% Annual Tax Increment $ 483 $ 2,399 x Number of New Program Homes 25 25 Total Gross Annual Tax Increment** $12,084 $59,974 *Assumes non-homestead property net tax capacity to be reclassified as homestead property upon County's certification of net tax capacity. Estimate of Ad Valorem Lower Limit of Range Upper Limit of Range Pro er Taxes (Per Home) (Per Home) Construction Cost and and Building) $ 85,000 $160,000 Estimated Market Value $ 79,050 $148,800 x Tax Capacity Ratio (Class 1 A; Property Type R-Homestead: 1.00% of the first $72,000 of assessed value $ 720 $ 720 2.00% of the balance $ 141 $ 1,536 New Tax Capacity $ 861 $ 2,256 x Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate Taxes Payable in 1994 137.3190% 137.3190% Annual Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ 1,182 $ 3,098 x Number of New Program Homes 25 25 Gross Total Annual Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ 29,558 $ 77,448 Appendix A-3-4 APPENDIX D BUDGET* TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-3" • • Line Item Amount Property A uisition $ 1,196,000 Appraisals $ 8,050 Demolition/Site Clearance $ 138,000 Legal Expenses $ 23,000 Total Gross Expenditures $ 1,365,050 *This budget assumes acquisition of all 23 Cycle III properties located within Tax Increment Financing District "A-3". Appendix A-3-5 • APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "A-3" The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment assistance provided to a proposed redevelopment project impacts taxing jurisdictions; (b.) determine the level of impact as it relates to tax base; and (c.) determine the amount of taxes a taxing entity would need to levy in order to increase their respective tax base by the amount the project brings in absent the project. If the "But For" test were not met, construction would not occur. That is, without the creation and existence of the tax increment district, construction would not occur because the cost of developing the proposed project by a private developer would be prohibitive. Acceptable rates of return on project investment could not be met and risk would be too high. Development would not move forward. Construction would not occur without the assistance of the city. In light of this, the impact to taxing jurisdictions would be $0. Foregone would be the benefits of a new construction project, increased overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact of Tax Increment District "A-3" would be as follows if the project were built without tax • increment financing: IMPACT ON TAX BASE Range of % Captured Entity's Total Range of Captured Tax Capacity to Taxing Entity Net Tag Capacity Tag Capacity Entity Total Hennepin County 813,900,929 8,096 - 40,181 0.001% - 0.005% City of Richfield 16,794,256 8,096 - 40,181 0.048% - 0.239% School District 280 24,250,257 8,096 - 40,181 0.033% - 0.166% The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing the project. • Appendix A-3-6 • 9 BOACT ON TAX RATES Taxing Entity Current Tax Rate Range of Captured Tax Capacity Potential Taxes Hennepin County 37.441 8,096 - 40,181 $ 3,031 - $15,044 City of Richfield 26.164 8,096 - 40,181 $ 2,118 - $ 10,513 School District 280 66.190 -8,096 - 40,181 $ 5,359 - $26,596 Other 7.524 8,096 - 40,181 $ 609 - $ 3,023 Total 137.319 8,096 - 40,181 $ 11,117 - $55,176 In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education upon school district funding. Appendix A-3-7 • The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for The City of Richfield, Minnesota Modification No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-3" r? L All Related to the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Dated: June 20, 1994 Prepared By: The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South . Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 Modification No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I. Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 3 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" • • PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 3 Pa e A. Statement of Public Purpose 33 --- B. Statutory Authority 33 C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area 34 B-I D. Statement of Goals and Objectives 35 --- E. Development Activities and Agreements 36 - - - F. Proposed Land Use 38 --- G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 38 B-2 H. Environmental Considerations 39 --- L Redevelopment Plan Modification 39 --- J. Administration of Redevelopment Project 39 - - - B-i Part I. 0 Modification No. 3 Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B" C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area Pursuant to Minn. Stat.. Sec. 469.029, subd. 6, the boundary of Project Area "B" is being expanded in order to incorporate additional redevelopment opportunities. The new boundary for Project Area "B" encompasses all that real property within an area described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south right-of-way line of State Highway, No. 62 and the east right-of-way line of Oliver Avenue South, thence in a line easterly more of less, along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way-line of Pleasant Avenue South. Thence southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of West 63rd Street. Thence westerly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Aldrich Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the south property line of Lot 4, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Second Addition. Thence, westerly along said south property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 9, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Second Addition. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south property line of Lot 5, Block 2, Ray's Lynnhurst Section Addition. Thence, westerly along said south property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of Mildred Drive. Thence, westerly more or less, along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the east right-of-way of Emerson Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said east right-of-way line to its intersection with the north property line of Lot A, Silverwood Second Addition. Thence, easterly along said north property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot A, Silverwood Second Addition. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of West 66th street. Thence, westerly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Humboldt Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the north right-of-way line of West 69th Street. Thence, westerly along said north right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Irving Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the south right- of-way line of West 72nd Street. Thence, easterly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Humboldt Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the north right-of-way line of West 73rd Street. Thence, westerly along said north right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the north right-of-way line of West 74th Street. Thence, westerly along said north B-1 right-of-way line to its intersection with the west right-of-way line of Sheridan Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said west right-of-way line to its intersection with the north right-of-way line of West 76th street. Thence, westerly along said north right-of-way line to its intersection with the east right-of-way line of Xerxes Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said east right-of-way line to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of West 66th Street. Thence, easterly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the east right-of-way line of Russell Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said east right-of-way line to its intersection with the north property line of Lot 23, Block 2, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. Thence, easterly along said north property line, as extended, to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 23, Block 2, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of West 67th Street. Thence, easterly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the east property line of Lot 24, Block 16, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills. Thence, southerly along said east property line, as extended, to its intersection with the north right-of-way line of West 69th Street. Thence, easterly along said north right-of-way line to its intersection with the east right-of-way line of Penn Avenue South. Thence, northerly along said east right-of-way line to its intersection with the south right- of-way line of West 68th Street. Thence, easterly along said south right-of-way line to its intersection with the east right-of-way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence, northerly more less, along said east right-of-way line to its intersection • with the south property line of Lot 13, Block 11, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition. Thence westerly along said south property line, as extended, to the center line of the alley of Block 12, Ray's Lynnhurst Addition. Thence northerly along said centerline to the south right-of-way line of West 63rd Street. Thence easterly along said south right-of-way line to the east right-of-way line of Oliver Avenue South. Thence northerly along said east right-of-way line to the point of beginning. G. Acquisition and Relocation Activities 1. Acquisition As a means of comprehensively formulating Cycle III of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program, HRA staff identified property for acquisition in two ways. The first involved contacting and surveying residential property owners that have in the past expressed interest in the voluntary sale of their property. The second involved property owners contacting the HRA requesting that their property be considered for the program. Properties that were considered candidates for the program were then further evaluated for program eligibility and inspected. The properties which follow are identified for acquisition under Cycle III of the program. 17? B-2 0 PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 1908 West 66th Street* 28-028-24-23-0125 6300 Aldrich Avenue South* 28-028-24-11-0041 6404 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0002 6440 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0009 6318 Knox Avenue South 28-028-24-21-0107 6821 Logan Avenue South 28-028-24-34-0050 6845 Newton Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0018 6320 Oliver Avenue South 28-028-24-22-0122 6539 Oliver Avenue South* 28-028-24-23-0092 7015 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0003 7021 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0004 6236 Pleasant Avenue South 27-028-24-22-0056 6824 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0024 6933 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0170 6645 Upton Avenue South* 29-028-24-42-0015 7332 Upton Avenue South+ 32-028-24-13-0059 *Property moved from Cycle II acquisition list to the Cycle III acquisition list. +Double Lot. Under Cycle III, the property listed in the following table (formerly part of the Cycle II property list) is hereby removed from the acquisition list for Redevelopment Project Area B. This property may be considered for future program acquisition. (Also note that this property is identified for removal from the list of properties for Tax Increment District 'B-2"). PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 2916 West 71 1/2 Street 32-028-24-12-0072 6924 Newton Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0073 B-3 Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" C 0 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Part H. Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" • 9 PART I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 1 Page A. Statutory Authority 7 --- B. Statement of Objectives 7 --- C. Development Program 7 --- D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District 9 B-2-1 E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District 9 --- F. Parcels in Acquisition 10 B-2-1 G. Estimate of Costs 10 --- H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds 10 --- L Sources of Revenue 11 - - - J. Original Tax Capacity 11 --- K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 12 --- L. Duration of the District 12 - - - M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 12 --- N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District 12 --- 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 12 --- P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts 13 - - - Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement 13 --- R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment 13 --- S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements 14 --- T. Excess Tax Increment 14 --- U. Restrictions on Poolin ; Five Year Limit 15 --- V. Assessment Agreements 16 --- W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account 17 --- X. Annual Disclosure Requirements 17 --- Y. Assumptions 18 - - - Z. Municipal Findings 18 - - - B-2-i Modification PART H - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Original Plan No. 1 Page age Appendix A: Ma - Redevelo went Project Area "A" 23 --- Appendix B: Property in the Tag Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" 25 Appendix B-2-1 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments 26 --- Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget 27 - - - Appendix E: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions 28 - - - 0 11 B-2-ii • Part I. Modification No. 1 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-2" D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District The property listed within Appendix B is the final list of property which was acquired for program purposes. See "Section F. Parcels in Acquisition" below for properties removed from the acquisition list due to unresponsiveness or undesire to further participate in the program. F. Parcels in Acquisition The properties listed below (formerly part of the Cycle II property list) have been identified for removal from the acquisition list and from TIF District "B-2". The removal of this property is a program objective under Cycle III of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program. This property may be considered for program acquisition at some future date and incorporated back into the Richfield Rediscovered Program under a separate program modification. PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER • 2916 West 71 1/2 Street 32-028-24-12-0072 6924 Newton Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0073 C7 B-2-1 APPENDIX B FINAL LIST OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B-2" PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER ORIGINAL NET TAX CAPACITY* 6641 Oliver Avenue South 28-028-24-32-0045 $1,254 6912 Oliver Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0053 $655 7124 Washburn Avenue South 32-028-24-12-0073 $530 *Original net tax capacity shown represents values of record for taxes payable in 1992, as stated in the 1992 plans. 0 Appendix B-2-1 0 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-3" TABLE OF CONTENTS Part H. Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-3" • PART I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Page No. A. Statutory Authority B-3-1 B. Statement of Objectives B-3-1 C. Development Program B-3-1 D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District B-3-2 E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District B-3-2 F. Parcels in Acquisition B-3-3 G. Estimate of Costs B-3-3 H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds B-3-3 L Sources of Revenue B-3-4 J. Original Tax Capacity B-34 K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity B-3-4 L. Duration of the District B-3-5 M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions B-3-5 N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District B-3-5 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses B-3-5 P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts B-3-5 Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Increment District not Subject to Improvement B-3-5 R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment B-3-6 S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements B-3-6 T. Excess Tax Increment B-3-6 U. Restrictions on Poolin ;Five Year Limit B-3-7 V. Assessment Agreements B-3-9 W. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account B-3-9 X. Annual Disclosure Requirements B-3-9 Y. Assumptions B-3-10 Z. Municipal Findings B-3-10 B-3-i • C? J PART I - TAX INCREMENT PLAN Page No. Appendix A: Map - Redevelopment Project Areas "A" and "B" and and Tax Increment Financing Districts "A-3" and "B-3" Ap pendix B-3-1 Appendix B: Property in the Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-3" Ap pendix B-3-3 Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments Ap pendix B-3-4 Appendix D: Tax Increment Financing Budget Ap pendix B-3-5 Appendix E: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Ap pendix B-3-6 B-3-ii Part U. 0 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment District "B-3" A. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a tax increment financing district (TIF District "B-3 ") and related Tax Increment Financing Plan (Tax Increment Plan) in Redevelopment Project Area "B" (Project Area "B") for the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program (Housing Program) and the activities proposed in the tax increment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), pursuant to and in accordance with the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. B. Statement of Objectives The HRA and the City continue to seek and affirm the goals and objectives set forth in Part I of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "A", dated July 16, 1990 as well as additional program objectives set forth in HRA Letter No. 13, dated April 20, 1992. • C. Development Program 1. Description of Development Activities As with previous cycles of the housing program and so with Cycle III, a comprehensive, integrated approach for acquisition, site clearance, and new construction will continue to be provided through program guidelines. The HRA will assist prospective developers, builders, and buyers with development, redevelopment, new construction, and other related activities within the context of the modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area "B", this Tax Increment Plan, and other related guidelines. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contract At this writing, there are no executed development contracts for Cycle II properties located in TIF District "B-3". Any and all development contracts which may arise in the interim processing period of these plans, both modified and new, will be contingent upon HRA Board and City Council approval. 0 B-3-1 • 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Proiect. Proposals from prospective developers, builders, and buyers will be required to be submitted to the HRA as part of the review process. The following activities may be expected to occur: 1. Property Acquisition; 2. On-site clearance; 3. On-site improvements; 4. New construction; 5. Remedial site environmental activities; and 6. Adjacent public improvements and utilities which service site. For Cycle III of the Housing Program, a total of 39 properties have been identified for program participation and acquisition. Twenty-three (23) of the properties are located within Redevelopment Project Area "A" while the remaining sixteen (16) are within Redevelopment Project Area "B". (Refer to Appendix A for map of Redevelopment Project Areas and tax increment parcels.) Redevelopment Project Areas A and B each contain properties with double lots. Property subdivisions will be required for these . lots in order to construct two homes on each site. Initial construction for Cycle III is anticipated to begin in the last quarter of 1994. Construction for each home is anticipated to be approximately 150 days. Timing of construction is contingent upon favorable market conditions, reasonable time period for processing applications and availability of funding revenue. D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing District Property located within TIF District "B-3" is identified in Appendix B. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District The Richfield HRA and City Council, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, find that Tax Increment District "B-3" to be established within Project Area "A" is a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Since the tax increment parcels within the scattered site program are non-contiguous, each parcel has been examined by staff against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. • B-3-2 A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled "Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle III" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 0 F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for acquisition in Cycle III of the Housing Program: PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER 1908 West 66th Street* 28-028-24-23-0125 6300 Aldrich Avenue South* 28-028-24-11-0041 6404 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0002 6440 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0009 6318 Knox Avenue South 28-028-24-21-0107 6821 Logan Avenue South 28-028-24-34-0050 6845 Newton Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0018 6320 Oliver Avenue South 28-028-24-22-0122 6539 Oliver Avenue South* 28-028-24-23-0092 7015 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0003 7021 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0004 6236 Pleasant Avenue South 27-028-24-22-0056 6824 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0024 6933 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0170 6645 Upton Avenue South* 29-028-24-42-0015 7332 Upton Avenue South+ 32-028-24-13-0059 *Property moved from Cycle II acquisiton list to the Cycle III acquisiton list. + Double Lot. The tax increment district budget includes acquisition costs for land sale subsidy which will be offered to eligible developers, builders, and buyers as development incentives. G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment district are outlined in the budget listed in Appendix D. H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds At the current time, an additional $700,000 of program revenue is available under Cycle is III to continue the housing program. B-3-3 An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for redevelopment is expected to be $0. The term of the issues is 0 years including 0 years of capitalized interest with an anticipated taxable interest rate of 0%. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be $0. A projected cash flow of the overall program reveals that interim program funding could potentially be repaid with interest if sufficient tax increment receipts are available and housing values appreciate. 1. Sources of Revenue The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with proposed developments in the redevelopment project area is an allocation from the development account. In addition to this allocation of revenue, other sources of revenue potentially available to the HRA and City may be utilized. J. Original Tag Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Sec. 469.177, subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (OTC) for TIF District "B-3" is based on the January 2, 1992 assessed value placed on the property by the county assessor. The OTC for the district is $11,446. (See Appendix B, Property Located in Tax Increment Financing District 'B-3".) Each year the office of the county auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total net tax capacity of the tax increment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total net tax capacity in the tax increment district above the original net tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total net tax capacity in the tax increment district declines below the original net tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The county auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original net tax capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increase 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; or 3. Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, Subd. 1 and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 2, the estimated captured net tax capacity (CTC) of Tax Increment District "B-3" is within a range of $284 to $1,679 per home. The total CTC for the 17 new homes to be located within Redevelopment Project Area "B" ranges from $4,828 to $28,543. As a result of the improvements to be constructed, it is expected that the estimated captured net tax capacity will be available for the housing program. It is also anticipated that this amount will be captured not more than 25 years. (See Appendix C, Estimate of Tax Increments.) B-3-4 L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sect. 469.176, subd. 1, the maximum duration of a redevelopment tax increment district is 25 years. The HRA elects to capture 100% of the tax increments for the duration of the district. M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Refer to Appendix E, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District All tax increment plan modifications will be processed in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 4. The modifications pertaining to the necessary processing include any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination of capitalized 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; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the 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 a tax increment district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the County Auditor. 0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 14, and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 3, for districts for which certification was requested after June 30, 1982, no tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 1, the HRA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed within three years of the date of certification of the tax increment district my the county auditor. Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district..., no B-3-5 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 HRA 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 the tax increment financing district. If the HRA 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 HRA shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district." R. Limitation of the Use of Tag Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minn. Stat., 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality. 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. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 4j, at least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of a redevelopment district under section 469.174. These costs include acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the qualifying costs. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 4, the HRA will review and search property files for properties to be included in the tax increment district and to identify those properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately proceeding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City. T. Excess Tax Increments Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment is exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the B-3-6 amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat., Sec. 475.6 1, subd. 3, the HRA shall use the excess amount to: 1. Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor, 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the county auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rates. The amounts distributed to a city or county must be deducted from the levy limits of the governmental unit for the following year. In calculating the levy limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government aid payment. For the purpose of this tax increment financing plan, excess tax increment means that increment received in any year which is in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the HRA's current financial obligations or commitments, as specified in the tax increment financing budget listed in Appendix D, or which is in addition to that which is placed in a separate account for the purpose of accumulating funds needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments in the future. U. Restrictions on Pooling; Five-Year Limit • In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, the following terms have the meanings given: district: "Activities" means acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering, architectural, and similar costs of the improvements in the district. "Third Parry" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, subd. 2 with respect to expenditures outside the (a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax B-3-7 increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived from tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b), may be deducted first before calculating . the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 3 with respect to the five-year rule: (a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: (1) before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; (2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued and sold to a third party before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; (3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or • (4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a party for payment of the costs. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two tests is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd: 4 with respect to use of revenues for decertification: Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to ' pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. B-3-8 9 V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 8, the HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with a developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment district which establishes a minimum market value of the tax increment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be 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. W. Administration of the Tax Increment District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account Administration of the tax increment district will be the responsibility of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the net tax capacity of the tax increment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other HRA and municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned activities identified in the tax increment financing plan. • X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 6a, on or before March 1 of each year, the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following: 1. Total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. 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. Also in accordance with this requirement the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the tax increment financing district: 1. Type of district; 2. Date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. Captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; B-3-9 4. 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 (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and 6. Any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the HRA, City, and County staff, and consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: • 1. The Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. It has been determined that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of 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. Specifically, staff has examined each parcel against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions due to the non-contiguous nature of the tax increment parcels. Each structure has qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated within a document entitled Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program: Blight Qualification Survey - Cycle III" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division , for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 2. The proposed activities listed in this plan, in the opinion of the ERA, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the proposed development requires certain necessary planning, property assembly and other improvements without which interested developers, i builders, or buyers could not construct the aforementioned improvements; and without B-3-10 the use of tax increments or other revenues authorized by this plan to assist with the financing of the activities, interested developers, builders, or buyers would not proceed with redevelopment in the redevelopment project area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as it will result in the continuation of the Richfield Rediscovered Housing Program for the development, redevelopment, new construction and other related improvements of residential homes for which there is limited sources of revenue available. 4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the BRA to provide the necessary redevelopment for the project area and City, as a whole, in a planning manner suitable to both the public and private sectors. n 0 B-3-11 APPENDICES RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED HOUSING PROGRAM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA "B" AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B-3" 0 APPENDIX A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS "A" AND "B" AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS "A-3" AND "B-3" i 0 Appendix B-3-1 ,D a .D m +ol ?n ,o ,a I- ~ O HSIONVIS D"zz • (ui:-1C11 0 - G E L N W I t I Z (?? ? I 'in N in 'in ? N N N N ?++ Z 1102 W 1161 I _ *01133 01 AL-7LJ [ M0113iDNOl - --- a tr;` I --'----u ----- ----- ?.? ?- 3AV tlv037 inv tlvu37 4191 • _ .. _ _ _ _? 41 91 Z I 4111 I / 4181 - If__IL--IC: II _ll II 11 < II I = I_ _ 11 :-1 .;- ,1191 - - =1 1 I,.?ul- Ih . Na19N1waa,9 --- -J.?I.If--]I__,-JI.. '0191411110019 _JL?7[_-7?-7 SI V1„ [=JG=J("I?JC-1[= II -- 11 . IL - II Il - »??L?JI O 41 bl 41 r) 4141 4121 4, z, C=JLI I[=1L__]L? - 41 II II -??..-. ,-- 4101 . ......L.-.-1: IL ... II 141• I ? ]I ...I .-iL_.7L-11? ';' ?? o? ? _,ll --_ II i'••' !.:II :...I :_, 1f--1C =J?= I lOl 3 1aI„3'I o :11C:0 II l1 Y __JC__ .II • II it IL i :. II- JL.-:._ll_-J 0ov71H7 I u a - I 091 71117 snewrrlo7 -_1L-J[:. 11 11 JL_-_l -JI___IEA= snewn,o7 xari 1,' wavd A ONV 1x10 CL '3AV ONVl1.Od _-?1.-_. .. II I? II ?, II -•_ _I .. ___._ _. I-_? .___ (I 3AV, ONVlltlOd 415 IIC??- _ I l ..ll `ey +,? ?[-_II_'_ I, C? 1 419 [- -J? ?C • Ii -11 II a _?_??;! [=-?CII li [?? z 411, 41b I I ??-?CC =_ ? 1L..__ I1-- - II -11=__1[ -1[(?_JC. I! 140114117 7II1_. JI, IfJC_. - _.IL_..._-_ II --- 11 NO1 NIl7 PIC P"Z 's f -1UCl _><.IL-==1I I I _ -tt _,[-_JC=J[ _:: l-J I Q SN3A315 5143.1315 Ip UC_ I l---I 1-.- 1---. ?i- u?L_-_?C---II--- L--J I[ =rll . II = If7 1---]] I 3AV 131103IN ,111 At"' i 3AV 1311071 W C {p 1'''? N 113.51'119 11 t=Jl_1[_ I .. II ;! II _ Jl _ - lf?'JI:._-:- I_ I ' '1l3OS1v19 E t I}JC_ J _ II I I _= J1=JAI - [-- I ?I • H1.OMLN3M I H1aOMiN3M i C A.09Sl11d 11 T-] Aanesllld N 114'1S'1314 _ 1NVSV 3ld C M _ _ 1 II i Q aN'1a9 II !?t? .-?I -? [ [.- ,1.141.9 ?. III I ?t_- _I IIIIU t ttaJ !- - -?. [? _ 131..114 111 _ _ I 131tlavN O1313a'19 Iii ?% ?\- )` ¢.__1 I I ... JI 11..--_tt.__J l-_-.] 111 0131.4.'19 J 3A'1 31'10 NAI -3AV 3lV°NA1 !fl , ?, d ; , 1-_ 1 - [_= ICS W 11 3110,3111 1NVAae Ili ( W Y J (\ `"117noy)\.._I 1141.1.9 V XV3lO7 'll Ill! ???~? / j ?d\I ?_1C??_. C IfU__ I Xvi,o7 M 1NOdn° II'\?\._-_ i ab;;ylll o x \ 1 _ JL____..11__-. L_=_II I 1NOdn° m NOSa3W3 \ ?..? . -... \. O a -1C. ]f l- .l ------ o 3 NOStl3W3 1NOW3a3 I ?- -- E _J?_[?-_ + G• 1NOw3tl3 ._7 \ ( 11 D= otlvtll9-Jt-JL---1G-_9 - - 1r ac?/ ..1 N + atlval9 m laloewnH???----------?,?-- laloewnH p, C 9NIAMI 1 S31MIVf ONIAMI CI 10 S3WVr XONx s I? _I XONx m N VOO1 I ?.JL _ J[ ._. _ II . _ . I a-'q?l • II - II II r f _. ?[-_ 1--__ 5 ¢ Q __I[--al -:ll_ AIL I? "?I II II II - 1 _? I il_:--- II Nv901 Nv9tlOW -1 NV 9tlOW NO1M3N ?'?-JL-_ _I[ 1 II Ml 11 - II a [_I I_ _ _. II - I I NO1M3N a 3.1110 II It II n f rO _._I_ .3.1110 3AV NN3d I? _.. .-...-t_Jf= .l[r- ..._11. _ I __ I_ _11 .••_II ?'• I_:_ll_ JL.__ ]CI Irk, 3A'1 NN3d N33n0 113ssna ll3ssna N VOltl 3115 I[- ... NV Ola 3HS svw°111 I _]I1%" ??? I I q - J[ .: ][ II I °° IL [- - I?-- 'I NO1dn i I'_ :..-11 ti•,C7-; I h JI- ...ll. N -.III Nowdnl • 1N33NIA 1 I _ 11 _ II I NN_ .J[. II II I I A. • I II I q )I II ?+ L1437NIA NaneHS'1M 1 I I I 11 I I f' j! ll lC ?; ?? (NrdneNSVM 'I 1 GN1xt.? 3AV 53%tl3x ?[.-.. • „ 11, II. I I II 11 it .I it 3AW S3XU3X ? = N '- N N N 'N N N N 'h N N IN ,f/, N p 1n V, U, 0, p b V• b ,O O 10 ,p N 0 r° r r r r ? r Imo- r ?, N Appendix B-3-2 0 APPENDIX B PROPERTY LOCATED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B-3" • PROPERTY ADDRESS PID NUMBER ORIGINAL NET TAX CAPACITY** 1908 West 66th Street* 28-028-24-23-0125 $ 486 6300 Aldrich Avenue South* 28-028-24-11-0041 $ 550 6404 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0002 $ 660 6440 Humboldt Avenue South 28-028-24-24-0009 $ 1,196 6318 Knox Avenue South 28-028-24-21-0107 $ 550 6821 Logan Avenue South 28-028-24-34-0050 $ 580 6845 Newton Avenue South 28-028-24-33-0018 $ 630 6320 Oliver Avenue South 28-028-24-22-0122 $ 560 6539 Oliver Avenue South* 28-028-24-23-0092 $ 975 6236 Pleasant Avenue South 27-028-24-22-0056 $ 600 7015 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0003 $ 605 7021 Penn Avenue South* 33-028-24-22-0004 $ 605 6824 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0024 $ 380 6933 Queen Avenue South 29-028-24-44-0170 $ 1,030 6645 Upton Avenue South* 29-028-24-42-0015 $ 1,219 7332 Upton Avenue South+ 32-028-24-13-0059 $ 820 TOTAL $11,446 * Property moved from Cycle II acquisition list to the Cycle III acquisition list. **Original tax capacity for taxes assessed in 1993 and payable in 1994 +Double Lot Appendix B-3-3 0 APPENDIX C ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS AND PROPERTY TAXES FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1111-3" 0 • Tax Increment Estimates and Calculations Lower Limit of Range (Per Home) Upper Limit of Range (Per Home) Construction Cost Land and Building) $ 85,000 $160,000 x Sales Ratio 93% 93% Estimated Market Value $ 79,050 $148,800 x Tax Capacity Ratio (Class IA; Property Type R-Homestead: 1.00% of the first $72,000 of assessed value 2.00% of the balance $ 720 $ 141 $ 720 $ 1,536 New Tax Capacity $ 861 $ 2,256 - Original Net Tax Capacity (Avg.)* $ 577 $ 577 Captured Net Tax Capacity $ 284 $ 1,679 x Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate Taxes Payable in 1994 137.3190% 137.3190% Annual Tax Increment $ 390 $ 2,306 x Number of New Program Homes 17 17 Total Gross Annual Tax Increment** $ 6,630 $39,195 *Assumes non-homestead property net tax capacity to be reclassified as homestead property upon County's certification of net tax capacity. Estimate of Ad Valorem Lower Limit of Range Upper Limit of Range Proper Taxes (Per Home) (Per Home) Construction Cost Land and Building) $ 85,000 $160,000 Estimated Market Value $ 79,050 $148,800 x Tax Capacity Ratio (Class IA; Property Type R-Homestead: 1.00% of the first $72,000 of assessed value $ 720 $ 720 2.00% of the balance $ 141 $ 1,536 New Tax Capacity $ 861 $ 2,256 x Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate Taxes Payable in 1994 137.3190% 137.3190% Annual Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ 1,182 $ 3,098 x Number of New Program Homes 17 17 Gross Total Annual Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ 20,099 $ 52,665 Appendix B-3-4 APPENDIX D BUDGET* TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "B-3" • Line Item Amount Property A uisition $ 822,000 Appraisals $ 5,600 Demolition/Site Clearance $ 84,000 Legal Expenses $ 16,000 Total Gross Expenditures $ 937,600 *This budget assumes acquisition of all 16 Cycle III properties located within Tax Increment Financing District "B-3". Appendix B-3-5 • APPENDIX E ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT "11-3" The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment assistance provided to a proposed redevelopment project impacts taxing jurisdictions; (b) determine the level of impact as it relates to tax base; and (c.) determine the amount of taxes a taxing entity would need to levy in order to increase their respective tax base by the amount the project brings in absent the project. If the "But For" test were not met, construction would not occur. That is, without the creation and existence of the tax increment district, construction would not occur because the cost of developing the proposed project by a private developer would be prohibitive. Acceptable rates of return on project investment could not be met and risk would be too high. Development would not move forward. Construction would not occur without the assistance of the city. In light of this, the impact to taxing jurisdictions would be $0. Foregone would be the benefits of a new construction project, increased overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact of Tax Increment District "B-3" would be as follows if the project were built without tax • increment financing: IMPACT ON TAX BASE Range of % Captured Entity's Total Range of Captured Tax Capacity to Taxing Entity Net Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Entity Total Hennepin County 813,900,929 4,828 - 28,543 0.001% - 0.004% City of Richfield 16,794,256 4,828 - 28,543 0.029% - 0.170% School District 280 24,250,257 4,828 - 28,543 0.020% - 0.118% The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing the project. • Appendix B-3-6 0 • LJ IMPACT ON TAX RATES Taxing Entity Current Tax Rate Range of Captured Tax Capacity Potential Taxes Hennepin Count 37.441 4,828 - 28,543 $ 1,808 - $10,687 City of Richfield 26.164 4,828 - 28,543 $ 1,263 - $ 7,468 School District 280 66.190 4,828 - 28,543 $ 3,196 - $18,893 Other 7.524 4,828 - 28,543 $ 363 - $ 2,148 Total 137.319 4,828 - 28,543 $ 6,630 - $39,195 In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education upon school district funding. Appendix B-3-7 8 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 207 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance vacating a portion of West 77th Street. Background: The relocation of 77th Street to link up with 76th Street has resulted in the nonuse of a triangular area east of Emerson Avenue, north of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church and south of the new 77th Street. The area to be vacated would be incorporated into the CSM Phase I Redevelopment site. The vacated property would be owned by the City. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached transitory ordinance to vacate, subject to easements, a portion of West 77th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This land is not usable for roadway purposes but is suitable for open space and landscaping. 2. For this land to be available, it is necessary for the City • Council to initiate the vacation of this portion of the old 77th Street. 3. The vacation would be subject to existing utility easements. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could deny the vacation. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7 p.m. on Monday, July 25, 1994. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. Notice of the hearing was published in the Sun-Current. Respectf y submitted, James . Prosser V City Manager JDP:ds 9 8-1 BILL NO. • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF 77TH STREET WEST, NEAR THE RECONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF EMERSON AVENUE SOUTH AND 77TH STREET WEST THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described land is subject to an easement for public street purposes: Those part of: 77th Street West lying between the centerline of Dupont Avenue South and the west line of Emerson Avenue South, located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota and 77th Street West, as dedicated in the plat of NORTHFELT ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota . which lie within the following described property: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 41 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter 86.58 feet to the point of beginning of the property to be described; thence northwesterly 187.04 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 610.33 feet and a central angle of 17 degrees 33 minutes 32 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 63 degrees 29 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 38 degrees 06 minutes 35 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, 32.47 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 120.00 feet to its intersection with the east line of the West 30 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 33; thence southerly 14.49 feet along said east line to the south line of the North 30 feet of said East Half of Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter; thence easterly 289.96 feet along said south line to the east line of said East Half of Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter; thence north along said east line to its intersection with the southeasterly continuation of the above ? - C?7 - • described 610.33 feet radius curve; thence northwesterly along said 610.33 feet radius curve to the point of beginning. Sec. 2. Due to the relocation and reconstruction of 77th Street West in the vicinity of Emerson Avenue South, there is no longer a public need for a street easement over the above- described property. Sec. 3. The street easement in favor of the public over the above-described property is hereby vacated. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of July, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • • I po i 1? p? o?oll LJ?WDI •3nd XYT100 J Ian o? g 3 J ? LW m CITY OF RICHFIELD,-MINNESOTA- Council Letter No. 206 Agenda July 25, 1994 • Issue Statement: A disciplinary hearing to suspend the non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine license for The Frenchman's Tavern, 1400 East 66th Street. This hearing is necessary as the result of the alleged sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor to a minor in June 1994. Background: In June 1994, staff received an anonymous telephone call indicating that 3.2 beer was being consumed by minor(s) on the property known as The Frenchman's Tavern. Staff dispatched an officer to the location to investigate. When the officer arrived, he saw a table with three females and six males who appeared to be around the age of 21 or so. The officer requested ID of all. All but two parties were 21 or older. One 20 year old male was given a portable breath test (P.B.T.) which came back with no trace of alcohol. A 20 year old female also was given a P.B.T. and it indicated some alcohol present. The 20 year old female admitted having a glass of beer. The bartender said that he had carded all individuals present at the table. The officer informed the bartender that the 20 year old • female didn't have any ID on her. The bartender said he was sure she presented one to him. To satisfy the bartender, the officer had the female turn her pockets inside out. The bartender did not persist in insisting that the female had presented an ID, but would only say that she must have used the ID of one of the other females. The female said that she did not. The owner of the business, Mary Christine Blake, arrived at that time. The officer explained to her what had occurred and informed her that a report would be written with charges pending against the bar for serving an underage individual. The officer elected to not cite the 20 year old female at this time, but will refer her for prosecution at the discretion of the City Attorney: Ms. Blake told the officer that the bartender was not an employee of hers, but was working off a debt he owed her. On July 6, 1994, City staff met with Mary Christine and Dean Blake who own The Frenchman's Tavern. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the allegations and to arrive at a possible disposition of the matter. At that time, Mary Christine and Dean Blake agreed to a stipulation that the Blake's non- intoxicating malt liquor and wine license be suspended for a period of four consecutive days beginning on August 20 through August 23, 1994. The stipulation is to be signed after the City Council hearing on this matter. It should be noted that The Frenchman's Tavern had their non- intoxicating malt liquor license suspended in March 1990 for the same type of violation. At that time, the tavern was owned by individuals other than Mary Christine and Dean Blake. The Blake's purchased the establishment in February 1994. ,7.-l Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council suspend Ms. Blake's non- intoxicating malt liquor and wine license for The Frenchman's Tavern for a period of four consecutive days beginning August 20 through August 23, 1994. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Staff has met with Mary Christine and Dean Blake and stressed the seriousness of the matter. The following are the steps that the Blake's have taken since the incidents to assure that this does not occur again in the future. They are as ,follows: ? Ms. Blake has supplied proof that she has distributed copies of her written policies relating to alcohol awareness to each of her employees. This material will be supplied as well to any new employees through their orientation process. Ms. Blake currently reviews these policies with her employees on an on-going basis rather than just once or twice a year. ? Signs are posted at each entrance and at the bar that state "Be Prepared To Show Identification". Ms. Blake's policy is to request identification from anyone who looks to be 30 years of age or younger. ? Ms. Blake stated that the bartender who had allegedly served • beer to the minor no longer works there. All employees have been notified that further occurrences of the sale of alcohol to minors will result in termination for the employee. 2. Ms. Blake has reviewed the stipulations set forth in the attached document. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decide to revoke the non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine license for The Frenchman's Tavern. This would mean that no non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine could be served at any time in the establishment. 2. The City Council could decide to suspend the license for a length of time different than the recommended four days stated in this letter. Discussion/Decision Mode: Hearing on the suspension of the wine license for The Frenchman's consideration at this time. • non-intoxicating malt liquor and Tavern is presented for Council Respectfully submitted, Jam s Prosser Cit anager JDP:cak -7-c;L • STIPULATION THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of the 25th day of July, 1994, by and between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and The Frenchman's Tavern, by and through its proprietor, Mary Christine Blake (hereinafter "Licensee"). BACKGROUND 1. Licensee is a restaurant located at 1400 East 66th Street, Richfield, Minnesota. 2. In conjunction with the restaurant operations, licensee holds a license permitting the on-sale sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor and wine. The license was issued by the City on December 6, 1993, and by its terms expires at the end of December 31, 1994. 3. Pending before the City Council is the proposed discipline of Licensee based upon an alleged sale of non-intoxicating malt liquor to a person under the age of 21 years. 4. Representatives of the have met with the Licensee • allegations and a possible Based upon the foregoing, and between the parties as Richfield Department of Public Safety for the purpose of discussing the disposition of the matter. STIPULATION it is hereby stipulated and agreed by follows: 1. The City hereby imposes upon Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts a FOUR DAY suspension of Licensee's 1994 on-sale non- intoxicating malt liquor and wine license. 2. Said suspension shall occur on four consecutive business days and shall begin not later than August 25, 1994. Licensee shall notify the Department of Public Safety of the actual beginning date of the suspension period not later than two days prior to such actual beginning date. 3. By accepting the above-described suspension, Licensee specifically waives and releases any claims which it may have, for any reason, to challenge the actions of the City which are the subject of this Stipulation, or to challenge the findings of the City Council regarding the alleged illegal sale of non- intoxicating malt liquor to a person under 21 years of age; provided, however, that this waiver and release shall not be construed in any way to constitute an admission by Licensee • regarding such sales, may not be introduced in any criminal proceeding as evidence of an admission, and shall not preclude Licensee, in any such criminal proceedings, from imposing any defense including, but not limited to a denial that such sales occurred. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manager THE FRENCHMAN'S TAVERN By Its Owner By Attorney for Licensee _., FAENE*WANS 1400 E Nlh SL M -1 - 7 MMUM N. Wblra7 go`. nrf kSl- Se-(`l) /??-I- nnI 1.? 4?Q.. ou-,?n for, ku,+ 4-6 4.p, nLA C- 0, ?1.,P-11 . Sct 0. O?- aus? oM? r- Qa rQr - ?? t t uES i S ? ail ? meet Q S w ?{ ? a S ?_. w?'Ao- Tkei. aro • MI gqc) A. ;og orj 3ybA4. so3 I ?i s law ?ror+? Se.?i :-F 1C0h?? i e l?e? ?1me J fb ?• w2 il.:? CZf2 O?uib?{? ?oX?cz1•4 J. --- - - ho;., .5Eru4e-o- m;kror n I h W i h i"S S2 '1 p D ?- LL )l Cnn C) 4p- Obvm+%, O-pur-TS QhIJ kau e- c,,- m, 0k seioQ Sptv.e-? whz 'is 4ay\sAt-? uc ?u, aLsc 20??-,U ?'o&g??os 4??,7, o t-? ??- q oe1`tnnQ fQwSw? T? IL etcs?omef apoeAcs 4 ?e. 4te).- Ae- qge 6? gee ©r\ ? sase- Si 2e . co-2 e.-a d em @ woks Q r???- )asp SI WPBS4? 4p, V2. a(JhocnrQS a0. I l? ?M (! ?S0flmier- Tl l ues nSe, o 142,;?g "`4m 6 awc cA sTon or- T-ok '? o,4 D? +?e. wa Il et Orr p (A se ,2. Len V- 0+ 71L j9ir-+ a+e- ,ova ?AN. S i e-s Lk r? er a 11'el d ` ? rk et? $C,c?e CArl ?Vj - S. 111a Pit sum mil Ju?? ?. ©&-+L+ 6 r-, ?. 4m2 Xr- 4L- 9- 5??? T rr? aNtq 4?r,1a . In GtrP ruh-? SUa nosQ; v? Oh g U v v V? Loll 'PAY :4 55) T /OAJ 4r 4LL `T i m E-S ?-o Uj tf o 7AC ---- - born4 I2T am4 rn,,or n? 0?? a ra S J-e e.!- Per. T C - CIUQ Ir S e ?1' SOOc3-? 1?1oA I e, ... - 4eF " Ct/?d Bl' ?-a?rE%i r ?q S uj 1' S?Mer 0.s ?S o?' iy?r e.h one )as - e, Stl-t. of e ho+- qoinc3 Cc r.c? ry\. I NU t-%. WU- r\ an n,+ n n 1 (i kv e _I? n,,, ?S 4-6, NCO 4) ? 4L GJ /r? L/P P _ k e w ON ©Lk+ tr0c' n L??Dra? Q, ?? cto? cal ._ --- _ 9- - -- -as-:o?- a,-? c'- o- If -,.,. ea? , sohmop- Slim c A IA4x" a+, d r,- Ctrl . ,S lA h ur Ja S4" a i s a+ f a q SA rv? Tues -5k4 11: `f 3 v ? ---- - -- n ice-_? -? _ er s ue (' Qr,? DoT J --? o u r )Z'. 3D &L" QVI-d' 4,Q;kr cap r?ecS Vie. C? rv?e. -o s 6ee??s ?_ 4 ?A wQ--Q_ 0?? o . ?f? SOT SQt?Q- C«? hc??k t;?? l?a??S i? Q??ec, off' 3Cz!+ty. ?Tu -5?,? ; 1 :30 ??„? Ste- 19144 Ae0?-T ZIT. `? 0?IJE ?w2t= LT-> 40 1jt S G LCtti „2 ?jo c1 6u e, -S%n - (o e- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.205 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of an application for a commercial kennel license for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue. Background On June 15, 1994, Woodlake Veterinary Hospital submitted an application for the renewal of their commercial kennel license. On June 30, 1994, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. 2. The City has previously issued a kennel license to Woodlake Veterinary Hospital. • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel license. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation to approve the application for a commercial kennel license for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Respec ully submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager JDP:ds NB • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 204 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Request by Church of the Assumption for an on-sale non- intoxicating malt liquor license, itinerant place of amusement license and an itinerant food license for the 1994 Fun Fest to be held August 13 and 14, 1994. Background: On July 12, 1994, Church of the Assumption submitted a request for a temporary license to serve non-intoxicating malt liquor (3.2 beer), an itinerant place of amusement and an itinerant food license for August 13 and 14, 1994. They are requesting that any fee be waived. Recommended Motion: Approve the licenses fee waived for August 13 and 14, 1994 for Assumption's 1994 Fun Fest. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. 2. The applicant will supply liquor liability insurance coverage • as soon as possible. 3. The City has previously issued these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request. The Public Safety Department has not found any basis fora denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted these licenses in conjunction with the Assumption Fun Fest. Discussion/Decision_Mode: The request for these licenses has been placed on the consent calendar for July 25, 1994. Res e tf lly submitted, Jame . Prosser City nager JDP:ds 0 6)9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 203 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution authorizing execution of the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Subrecipient Agreements. Background: Subrecipient agreements have been prepared by Hennepin County which provide the basis for implementing the specific activities of the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program approved March 14, 1994. The agreements are required pursuant to the Community Block Grant Program Entitlement Grant Regulation. Before Hennepin County may disperse any Year XX CDBG funds, the agreements must be signed between Hennepin County, the recipient, and the City of Richfield (the subrecipient). Recommended Motion: Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing execution of the subrecipient agreements. Basis of Recommendation: The Year XX CDBG Program was approved by the City Council on • March 14, 1994 (see Attachment A), and the signature authorizing execution of the subrecipient agreements would allow Hennepin County to disperse the funds. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The resolution must be acted upon at the July 25, 1994 meeting to meet Hennepin County processing deadlines. Respe fully submitted, Ja e D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP:cak 9 W-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Richfield City Council hereby authorizes and directs the mayor and City Manager to execute Subrecipient Agreements on behalf of the City. 0 Adopted this 25th day of July, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk L? ATTACHMENT A W?- - RESOLUTION NO. 8121 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 'PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1994 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint-Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the-Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 14, 1994, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and the City's proposed use of $267,533 from the 1994 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1994 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives • and Projected Use of Funds. Projects Budget 1. Housing Improvements a. Housing Rehabilitation $136,603 b. Scattered Site Housing $ 78,800 2. Public Facilities and Improvements a. City Hall Improvements $ 12,000 3. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 21,300 b. Child Day Care $ 10,320 c. SKILLS 2000 $ 8.510 Total $267,533 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 14th day of March, 1994. Martin J. ? J rsch, Mayor ATTEST: 41 Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 202 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Presentation by Minnesota Recreation and Park Association to City of Richfield for Adventure Gardens Miniature Golf facility. Background: The Adventure Gardens Miniature Golf facility at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield was one of six facilities in Minnesota selected by the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) to receive an Award of Excellence. Criteria used in the selection process include uniqueness, funding, volunteer and community support, and evaluation/review process. Richfield is proud of Adventure Gardens and honored to be selected for an Award of Excellence. Recommended Motion: Receive an Award of Excellence from the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association for Richfield's Adventure Gardens Miniature Golf facility. Basis of Recommendation: The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association has recognized the . City of Richfield with an Award of Excellence. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the July 25, 1994 Council meeting. Members of the Community Services Commission will be present to share in the acceptance of the award. Respe tf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City jMnager JDP:ds is 3 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 201 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Presentation of $100 each cash award from Richfield Crime Fund and a Certificate of Appreciation from Richfield Public Safety to citizens Marc Andrew Estall (Bloomington), Jason Kirby Zenk (Minneapolis), Charles Bradford Reed, Jr.(Bloomington), Robert Alan Riedfort (Richfield), Kathy Lange, and Jared Rasmussen, for their assistance in the apprehension of a purse snatcher. Background: On June 17, 1994 at 9 p.m., a Richfield resident left Paper Warehouse and was approached by the suspect who asked her the time. After she told him, she turned away and he then grabbed her purse. It was wrapped tightly around her arm and when he pulled on it, she fell to the ground and began screaming for help. He continued to pull on the purse, dragging her along the ground until the purse strap broke. He took the purse and ran east around the Richfield Shoppes. Two employees of Simek's Meats, Marc Estall and Jason Zenk, heard her screams and went to assist her. She told them what happened and Estall and Zenk both ran after the suspect. They ran through several yards chasing the suspect, until they were joined by • Charles Reed and Jared Rasmussen who also heard the victim's screams as they were driving down Nicollet Avenue. Robert Riedfort and Kathy Lange joined the foot chase midway through when they saw the suspect being chased through Riedfort's yard. Reed tackled the suspect while Rasmussen recovered the purse he had thrown during the chase. The suspect tried to get away by jumping a fence and Estall (the high school marching band's drum major) hurdled the fence and tackled him. The suspect was arrested in the 6500 block of Second Avenue by police, thanks to the efforts of these individuals. Recommended Motion: Approve the presentation of the cash awards and Certificates of Appreciation to the six individuals by Richfield Public Safety representatives. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Richfield Crime Fund was established to monetarily award acts such as this to individuals who assist in the prevention and/or apprehension of those committing crimes in Richfield. 2. These individuals did an exceptional job of quickly determining that a purse snatching just occurred and putting a great deal of effort into chasing and catching the suspect without causing harm to themselves or the suspect. Also, 100% of the victim's property was returned to her. 3--1 Alternative Recommendation: 1. Award the recipients by mail. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Council should agree to presentation of the awards to Marc Estall, Jason Zenk, Charles Reed, Jr., Robert Riedfort, Kathy Lange, and Jared Rasmussen on July 25, 1994. Respectfully submitted, rosser Jamefanager City JDP:ds L] 0 cxq- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 200 Agenda July 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Presentation of $50 each cash award from Richfield Crime Fund and a Certificate of Appreciation from Richfield Public Safety to citizens Jean Davis and Kathleen Davis for their assistance in the apprehension of car thieves. Background: On June 2,•1994, Jean Davis and Kathleen Davis saw a suspicious vehicle in the Wood Lake Nature Center parking lot. They had seen these individuals in the lot before during times when items were reported missing from vehicles. They then watched the suspects through binoculars. They saw the male suspect take out a Lock-Jock, which is a device to unlock car doors, and attempt to get into a van. At that point, they called the police and asked an officer to meet them in the alley behind their house. Officer Fitzhenry arrived and was given the license number, a description of the male and female suspects, and given the binoculars to observe the suspects trying to break into a van. Other police units arrived and made the arrest. Information from other reports indicate that these same two suspects had been involved in earlier thefts from vehicles. Recommended Motion: Approve the presentation of the cash awards and Certificates of Appreciation to Jean Davis and Kathleen Davis by Richfield Public Safety representatives. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Richfield Crime Fund was established to monetarily reward acts such as this to individuals who assist in the prevention and/or apprehension of those committing crimes in Richfield. 2. The Richfield Public Safety Department believes this was a very important case due to the number of thefts that had occurred in the parking lot. Police were able to catch these two suspects in the act and link them back to other cases. They feel they have solved a significant number of crimes involving the individuals. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Award the recipients by mail. Discussion/Decision Mode: The City Council should agree certificates to Jean Davis and C. to presentation of the cash and Kathleen Davis on July 25, 1994. Respectf ly submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager . JDP:ds