Loading...
04-25-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1994 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. 5:30-6:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STORMWATER SYSTEM: 1) DAMAGE FROM JULY 1, 1993 STORM AND POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS; 2) PRESENT STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY; 3) RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 14 ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY HRA: 1. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN HRA AND CSM CORPORATION; ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HRA LETTER NO. 38 2. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND QUICK TAKE OF PHASE I, THE SHOPS AT LYNDALE, ILN REDEVLOPMENT PROJECT HRA LETTER NO. 39 ADJOURNMENT OF SPECIAL HRA MEETING REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SPECIAL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE (1) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 1994 AND (2) SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH REGULAR HRA MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1994 PRESENTATIONS 1. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA 2. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 1-7, 1994 NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK AND MAY 7, 1994 NATIONAL DRINKING WATER DAY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 121 AGENDA APPROVAL 3. 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. 4A. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS AND PARTIAL FEE TAKING; PHASES I AND II-77TH STREET PLAN C.L. 122 B. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 FOR MODULAR OFFICE FURNITURE FOR CITY HALL FROM FACILITY SYSTEMS IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,500 C.L. 123 C. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING GAMBLING ACTIVITY WITH FEE WAIVER REQUESTED BY FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555, 710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE C.L. 124 40 D. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION APPROVING EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING ACTIVITY WITH FEE WAIVER REQUESTED BY THE ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS, 6600 NICOLLET AVENUE C.L. 125 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR NEW 1994 ON-SALE AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHAMPPS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE, 790 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 126 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES: 1) 6409, 6415, 6421 AND 6429 BLAISDELL AVENUE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; 2) 6227-29 AND 6237 PLEASANT AVENUE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; 3) 840 WEST 65TH STREET TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY; AND 4) 920-24-28 RAE DRIVE TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY COUNCIL LETTER NO. 127 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY AT 7537 GIRARD AVENUE TO HRA; AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HRA COUNCIL LETTER NO. 128 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, . CONSISTING OF MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COUNCIL LETTER NO. 129 RESOLUTIONS 9. CONSIDERATION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY PLAN FOR 76TH STREET AND PENN AVENUE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INCLUDING RESOLUTIONS: ? APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO. 71587; ? AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $466,344 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES OFF-SYSTEM FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PENN AVENUE ? AUTHORIZING POSTING OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "NO PARKING ANYTIME" ON PENN AVENUE FROM 75TH STREET TO I-494 AND ON 76TH STREET FROM SHERIDAN AVENUE TO NEWTON AVENUE COUNCIL LETTER NO. 130 10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING'ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS PROJECT), SERIES 1994 COUNCIL LETTER NO. 131 PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS & OTHER BUSINESS 11. CONSIDERATION OF NEW APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR VETERINARIAN JOEL D. LOCKETZ FOR PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 132 12. CONSIDERATION OF NEW APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE FOR GROOMING ANIMALS ONLY FOR PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, 710 WEST 66TH STREET COUNCIL LETTER NO. 133 AIRPORT BUSINESS 13. AIRPORT STATUS REPORT 77TH STREET PROJECT BUSINESS 14. 77TH STREET PROJECT STATUS REPORT CORRESPONDENCE 15. LEGISLATIVE REPORT 0 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 to the Administrative Services Director at 861-9702. • /a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 133 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a new application for a commercial kennel license for grooming animals only for Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street. Background: On April 7, 1994 Pet Food Warehouse submitted an application for a new commercial kennel license. This license will be for the grooming of animals only. There will be no kenneling of animals at any time. Community Development has reviewed the application and it is in compliance with zoning requirements. Local veterinarians have some concerns relative to this type of business and a copy of their concerns is attached to Council Letter No. 132 for Council's review. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved with the following stipulations: 1. The exterior of the building and parking lot near this business must be checked twice a day for the removal of any animal feces that may occur as a result of patrons bringing their animals with them. All feces must be cleaned up and immediately disposed of properly. 2. City based veterinarians, groomers and pet food store representatives are being invited to meet with City staff to discuss common areas of concern and identify areas that may require further commercial kennel license regulations by the City. All licensee's must understand that further and additional requirements may be made that may affect their qualifications to hold a license in the future. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has been made aware of the City Codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a new commercial kennel license. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. • Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation with the noted stipulations to approve the application for a new commercial kennel license for Pet Food Warehouse, 710 West 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. submitted, James D Prosser City nager JDP:cak 0 ot?cor-?-+ ; o?? zo - no?nca ae ar[nvcn rvo. ooa. ova. HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY-CENTER '=M1NNWOLIS; NN 55402 (612) 337-9300 FAX 0 (612) 337-9310 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This fax contains confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) listed below. Distribution or disclosure to any individuals not so listed is strictly prohibited. Date: April 25, 1994- Our File No.: RC160-3 Number of pages including cover sheet: 1 If a problem arists,:call Janet at (612) 337-9277 TO: Betsy Christensen FAX: 866-0297 • FROM: Corrine Heine Direct Dial #: (612).337-9$17 COMMENTS: Here's the-proposed language for the stipulation: No deliveries of supplies or materials for Petfood Warehouse may be made between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and all deliveries must comply with Richfield City Code S 930.13, subd. 4. If three or more violations of this condition occur within any 12-month period, the city council may revoke or refuse to renew the license. I reviewed Section 930 of the Code, and there doesn't seem to be an ordinance that restricts deliveries to certain hours of the day. You may want to consider amending one of your ordinances (probably 930.13, subd. 4) to provide an hours restriction for deliveries on properties that are within a given distance of a residential district. That would strengthen the condition in the Petfood license. Also, do you want to also require Petfood to comply with 930.15 -- or are you only considered with delivery problems? 1 -J Richfield City Code 930.13, Subd. 4 -Sub:--,'Loading of vehicles. No person may create any loud and excessive noise in connection with the unloading or unpacking of any vehicle. Subd. 5. Muffler required. No person may permit the discharge into the open air of emissions from an internal combustion engine except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises issuing therefrom. 930.15; Keeping of Animals. The keeping of a dog, cat or other animal which. by reason of noise caused by it or by its presence, annoys other persons who are in the neighborhood is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by the occupants'of two or more neighboring properties, the city shall notify the owner of the animal that the nuisance must be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey the notice is a violation of this subsection. 930.17. Refuse Hauling and Snow Plowing. The operation of vehicles used for the hauling of refuse on private property shall be limited in residential districts, and within 50 feet of such districts, to the period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. The operation of vehicles for snow plowing on private property shall be limited in residential districts and within 50 feet of such districts to the period from 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. any day of the week. 930.19. Horns and Signaling Devices. The following uses of horns or other • signaling devices are unlawful: (a) the sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle and upon any locomotive, except as a danger warning; (b) the creation by means of any signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; and (c) the sounding of any device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. 930.21. Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems: Except Advertising. No person may use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, paging system, machine or other device for the production or reproduction of loud sounds so as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any set, instrument, phonograph, machine or other device at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day in a manner distinctly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, in the hallway or apartment unit adjacent if located in an apartment unit, or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located outside a structure or building, shall constitute such a disturbance. The regulations contained in this subsection are not applicable to licensed sound trucks and other similar advertising activities. 930.23. Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems: Commercial Advertising. No person may use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, • musical instrument, phonograph, paging system or.other device for the production or reproduction of sound on any street or other public place, or audible at any location, for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or vehicle unless a license is first obtained pursuant to chapter XI. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 132 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a new application for a commercial kennel license for Veterinarian Joel D. Locketz, 710 West 66th Street. Background: On March 28, 1994, Joel D. Locketz, DVM. submitted an application for a new commercial kennel license. This license will be for the treating of animals only. Dr. Locketz.is not an employee of Pet Food Warehouse but is an independent'-who--will be providing veterinary wellness clinics on a limited basis (some evenings and weekends). There will be no surgery or kenneling of animals on the site. Staff has contacted the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine and found that Dr. Locketz and his associates are all currently licensed veterinarians in the State of Minnesota. An inspection has been conducted by Bloomington sanitarian staff and they have required that a mop sink be installed, stainless steel tables be used for examining animals and ceramic tile be installed as the floor finish in the clinic area. Community Development has reviewed the application and it is in compliance with zoning requirements. Local veterinarians have some concerns relative to this type of business and a copy of their concerns is attached for Council's review. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the application for a commercial kennel license be approved with the following stipulations: 1. The exterior of the building and parking lot near this business must be checked twice a day for the removal of any animal feces that may occur as a result of patrons bringing their animals with them. All feces must be cleaned up and immediately disposed of properly. 2. City based veterinarians, groomers and pet food store representatives are being invited to meet with City staff to discuss common areas of concern and identify areas that may require further commercial kennel license regulations by the City. All licensee's must understand that further and additional requirements may be made that may affect their qualifications to hold a license in the future. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has been made aware of the City Codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to deny the request for a new commercial kennel license. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. Discussion/Decision Mode: Recommendation with the noted stipulations to approve the application for a new commercial kennel license for Dr. Joel D. Locketz, 710 West 66th Street, is presented for Council consideration at this time. Res lly submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit anager JDP:cak 0 April 15, 1994 To; City of Richfield; The following information is provided to you by the Veterinarians who currently practice in Richfield. .-4? A/I -) Dr. William Blaine Airport Pet Hospital Dr. Luanne Wendland Animal Care Clinic Dr. Steven &otno Animal House Call Service Dr. Donald Maki Cutler Animal Hospital 4-'L, ",q 4-0--4 D Dr. Ro t Dietl Woo ake Veterin y Hospital D . Thomas Wanous Woodlake Veterinary Hospital e N-3 I J... our position is that the establishment of a Veterinary facility within a non-veterinary corporation is contrary to existing law 156.10. See item A2. Recently Roseville granted a kennel license to Pet Food Warehouse in 'their- Roseville store. This is in violation of State Statutes and the Veterinary Practice fact.. 3. We question the zoning of this site for a commercial kennel license for the practice of Veterinary Medicine. In the 1970'x: Woodl.a.ke Veterinary Hospital was located at 6 AM W. 6E>th Street- 1/2 block from this site, and was required to get; a condi.t;ional. use permit and petition surrounding property owner4. . We question how Pet Food Warehouse was gr anteC! ra. permit to move into Market Plaza based on current parking spaces available,, customer flow, and retail square footage. Now they wish to add a veterinary clinic and a groomer which will further overburden the parking lot. In other location: it is common for client flow to reach 50 to 60 patients per hour.. 5. We have a concern for human and an:i.mal safety and public health considerations: a. Pet Food Warehouse encourages their customers; to bring in their pets with them to the tore.. I:.- • the city aware of this? Consider the problems and risks of . .1 1. Animal waste in the parking lot, on the side walks, and in the store- 2.. Animal fights in all the above areas.. 3. Potential for bites and scratches to humans, inside and outside the facilities.. 4.. Despite leash laws, people allow their pets to run loose, and with such a congested parking situation there is a substantial risk of vehicular injuries to both animals and humans.. 6. We as local veterinarians have concerns for the health and • safety of the pets of the area.. We believe that it is impossible to perform an adequate history, physi.cal examination, diagnostic tests, immunizations, and the necessary record keeping in such a. minimal time frame as these clinics allow. In JI'l t: thre .short time that these clinics have been in existence there have already been complaints about timely verification of medical records- This is of particular importance with respect to human exposure to rabies via animal bites. ?_ The city of Richfield should verify that any applicant be licensed to practice Veterinary Medicine in the 3ta.te of Minneso- ta and be a member in good standing. • S. At the present time the City of Richfield doe not have any written standards or guidelines for the practicer of Veterinary 2 v Medicine- Other communities have the same problem. Roseville has recently established a committee to helm draft such guide- lines. We recommend the City of Richfield staff and local. beter.- inar:ians join to draft: these guidelines. 9. If a commercial kennel license is granted, the city should require this clinic to comply with all the regulations and re- quirements that exist::. A brief list of examples includes: a. Separate entrances. b. Floor to ceiling walls. c,. Tiled floors. d. Separate heating, air-conditioning and ventilation units., • e. Sinks with hot and cold water in exam rooms. f. Waste management controls bath inside and outside the facilities;. g. Compliance with the Minnesota Infectious and Bi.o- l.ogica.l. Waste Control Act of 19S9. h. All OSHA regulations- i. Handicapped accessibility.. For further details we would refer, you 'to Dick Holloway, Public Health Inspector for the City of Richfield and Dr. Roland Olson, Director of the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, the Veterinary Practice Act, and Htinnesot::a Statues, regulating the practice of Veterinary Medicine. M1 4%15/94: - To BetsYChristensen: From Dr. Wendland Although this is put together rather quickly at your request, here is information from my attorney: The Pet Food Warehouse is receiving benefit from having vaccine clinics conducted on their property. The higher traffic generated by these clinics increase their sales and violates Minn. Stat. 156.11. A public safety risk is imposed by the nature of the clinic .operation, a large number of young untrained animals are brought in all at once. This does create the potential for interference with the operation of the adjoining businesses and for fights between the animals. The risk is increased by the fact that it is the warehouse policy to permit animals into the warehouse with their owners. Obviously they want to continue this policy with the clinics, in order to expose the owners to the merchandise in the store. • Richfield service businesses are restricted to high density commercial districts zoned C-3. Richfield City Code, Section 520.31 states that such a district is required to have one parking space per 200 feet of gross floor area. Richfield City Code Section 520.47. Subd. 1 and 2. Establishment of a part-time veterinary clinic and grooming facility should require additional parking spaces, as parking spaces require:, by the Pet Food Warehouse are already earmarked for its customers. Furthermore, the part-time clinic will generate substantial traffic in a short ;Period of time. contributing to traffic congestion an, parking problems. The Code, at Section 601.05 does require every generator of unacceptable waste to dispose of its waste properly. Unacceptable waste is deemed to include.drugs. Code Section 600.01. Subd. 4. The applicant for a kennel license must show the approval of the occupants of_"privateiy° owned" real estate abutting the premises. Such a license may not be granted unless the council finds that the use will not or is not li..ely to have an adverse affect on the adjacent properties. and will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. It is appropriate to insist that the part-time clinic comply with the same health and safety regulations that other clinics had to comply with when constructed. It is unfair for resident veterinarians with a, substantial investment in 40 the community to suffer if an interioper is permitted to operate under less stringent condit on5:. t ?y J? • It can be argued that the veterinary clinic will be a transient business as defined in Code Section 1181.05. A transient business is subject to a license fee of $60.00 per day; it must not cause undue traffic congestion on surrounding streets; off street parking must be adequate for the business and other uses conducted on the parcel;. and such a business may be conducted only in an area zoned C-2. Code Section 1181.05. Subd2; Appendix D. Cordially, is Luanne Wendland, D.V.M. '3 (D (--IYet3 - 9 • HELEN A. WINDER ATTORNEY AT LAW 6533 PARNELL AVENUE EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE (612) 925-3300 TELECOPIER (612) 925-3302 admitted to practice in Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin March 25, 1994 Ms Diane Anastos Planning Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms Anastos: Hand Delivered //-3 Enclosed for consideration please find the following : 1. Kennel License Application of Dr. Joel Locketz for the operation of a pet wellness clinic at the Pet Food Warehouse site, 798 W. 66th St.; • 2. Application fee of $150.00; 3. Business outline; 4. Site floor plan showing clinic location; 5. Sample layout of clinic space; 6. Video tape of operating wellness clinic located in Minnetonka: and 7. Copy of correspondence from Dr. Roland Olson, Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine. If you have any questions please call me. Yours truly, r Helen A. Winder enc. cc Dr. Locketz s Attn: City Council , City of Richfield 3-22-94 Purpose: To establish a Wellness Clinic at the Pet Food Warehouse, City of Richfield Mission: To provide preventative pet health care in an efficient and cost-effective manner to a wide range population. • Location Site: At Pet Food Warehouse Richfield, Market Plaza Shopping Center, 708 W. 66th Street , Richfield , MN. Clients:-Affordable rates will serve a new population that does not use veterinary hospiatals. -Increase the population of animals that will be innoculated for Rabies. -License a large population of pets. License applications will be distributed at the clinics. The City will gain extra revenue from this. Mn Board of Veterinary Medicine: -Met with Dr. Roland Olson personally , they have no re- restrictions on this type of practice. -Meets Mn veterinary health standards. Types of Services: -" Wellness Clinics " -preventative medicine to a broad range population. - Routine Physical Examinations - Vaccinations - Health Screen Tests Stool Exams , Heartworm Tests , Feline Leukemia Tests • - Dispense Heartworm Preventative Pills - Administer worming medication and other preventative services - NO Surgery or Kenneling , only outpatient procedures on premise. Comparative Set-ups: -Many communities sponsor Rabies Clinics in City Halls or Fire Barns -Human Field California - Flu vaccinations given in supermarkets Florida Blood Testing clinics screening for Cholesterol , Glucose , liver/kidney disease and blood pressure run by private medical labs in malls. Type of Clinics: - Limited basis- weekends and evenings. Staff : - Mn licensed veterinarians - Veterinary assistants - 2-3 intake personel Other Sites: - Presently operating in these other communities: - Maplewood - Minnetonka • - Eden Prairie - Brooklyn Center - Fridley - St. Cloud Hospital Back-up: - Animal Medical Clinic and Hospital PA , 2603 Hennepin Avenue South , Minneapolis , Mn 55408 - 2 Full-time Doctors and part-time doctors - Dr.Joel Locketz - 24 years experience - Dr.Wendy Hillerson - 1 year experience - Dr.David Marchiafava - 19 years experience - Dr.Jane Sprangers - 9 years experience - Dr.Francine Hoffineister - 2 years experience - Dr.Doreen Dingle - 10 years experience - Dr. Dana Olson - 15 years experience - Full service Hospital- Surgery , Dentistry, Boarding , Grooming, Emergency Service Back-up - Other professional staff of 10 full and part-time personel. Membership Societies and Organizations: - Affiliate Member of American Animal Hospital Association - Metropolitan Animal Hospital Association • - Veterinary Hospital Managers Association - Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association - American Veterinary Medical Association - Mn Veterinary Academy of Continuing Education - American Society of Feline Practitioners (3) Refuse:- Wellness Clinics do not generate infectious waste. -All vials , syringes , sharps , packaging etc. are bagged , sealed and transported back to the main hospi- tal for sanitary disposal. -No waste is left on site at any Wellness Clinic Location. 0 C w ., //-/ MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE 2700 University Avenue West # 102 - St. Paul, MN 55114-1081 (612) 642-0597 December 9, 1993 Ms. Raleigh Koritz Manager, Public Relations Pet Food Warehouse Interchange Building, Suite 701 600 South Highway 169 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Dear Ms. Koritz: I have observed the conduct of an immunization clinic conducted by personnel of the Minneapolis Animal Medical Clinic at the • Maplewood Pet Food Warehouse facility. In light of the limited services provided at these clinics, the facilities provided did not appear to be in conflict with any Board of Veterinary Medicine rules relative to construction or sanitation of veterinary facilities. I have visited the facilities of the Animal Medical Clinic, Minneapolis, and found that facility to be in compliance with current Board of Veterinary medicine rules governing.veterinary facilities. Sincerely, Ro /and C. Olson, DVM Executive Director RCO/dc 0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER z? J U 11-13 ---Ct ? n6i9 7IIDB. .19nruas II v uj Lv 1 W t? ?O£ aDl -?St i l? b i ?19 (§)-- ®-I • i I I i I I ' I I I i , i ? I .U,1 pl ---------- ------- 0 liilicrest Aninial Hospital •1320 6A5T COUNTY ROAO 0 AT HIGHWAY 61 WRITE BEAR LAKE, MINN, 55110 Phan 12.484.72.11 G1x 0/92 MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY'MEDICINE 2700'University Avenue ,...Paul., m14 55114 'It. Dear Board; T have monitored or.. Joel Lochetz's.ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC both by zllre,:t visit. and nu,aerous si::ce January 17 of chi's. year.. A total of approximately 24 hours -were spent at the clinic, i,.. increments ranging from 11/2 to 3 hours, the longer peri:: at the beyinning.of the visits. • There: are 2 veterinarians., one 'from Germany and one from Mexico th' are•dping technician duties 'and I have impressed on them the need:. avoid l.c.?ting ctief?ts think that they are ' licensed veterinarians. I am satisfied that they are ding this*..Xn'.phone calls to the cli I find they often answer the phone 'and-have never passed themselve off to be - DVMs. They do seem to be very competent in their, duties. or. Dawn Bradshaw is working full time now although-was at 30 hour a week before April. 1st. She is a Minnesota graduate. A Dr..Marshav 'does fill 1 n work and''Joel' is there every day but devotes a good deal of'time to management. I think that.,the clinic is doing very acceptable -work. It is clean and well*.run. After considerable conversation with Joel, I do think that some di gruntled help contributed to a lot.of his problem and that it is something that could happen to any. of°us.fiis ekplanation seems ver logical tome and I have found him to,be 'a"cooperative pleasant gu to associate with. I''am cbnvi.nced' that''he has his act together and there will be no more problems. It is,my opinion t-h-at my services no longer needed. Sinc0frZ .y, .. • C.J:?(?e? D.V.M. i 24 January 1994 • L ' Mr. Donn Wiski ?-' 2714 Westward Village Roseville, Mn. 55113 Re: Health & Safety Standards for the practice of Veterinary Medicine on pets. Dear Mr. Wiski: At the Council meeting last week (18th January) in which the discussion continued on the practice of Veterinary Medicine in the back of a ware-house, much was brought up about the recommendations that were presented. These recommendations, which were made up by a committee of the Veterinary-Hospital Association, reflected our thoughts as we received them from our State Vet rinar Pra` tice Act, and the most recently passed piece of legislation concerning health ad saf st ndards, the Texan Veterinary Practice Act. The opposing attorney seemed to try to undermine these guidelines that were sent to the council on the grounds that there was a disclamor for the Texas set of rules for those who practiced on a temporary basis only. We feel that to practice continually every.week or every month for years, is not condidered 'of a temporary nature'. Many civic organizations and retail establishments get 'temporary' licenses for things that they do throughout the year. These are usually 'one' day affairs or the most a few days and occuring only once a year. Examples being when the Central Park undation has its' Yearly Ball and it needs a 'temporary' license for serving cocktails. The same holds true for civic organizations when they have their annual 'Platinum Plate Dinner' or one 'evening of Bingo'. These temporary licenses are granted to these organizations for that particular night only ...not for routine continual use. The subject of 'vaccination clinics' was brought up, specifically for Rabies. Once a year 'clinics' of this type are usually granted a temporary license for one or two days, not once a month or once a week all year long. To practice continually on set dates like every Saturday is not what is considered by most people as being of a temporary nature. Safety and health standards as was presented to you by our committee, not only reflects the newer Texas law, but also Minnesota's as well along with good common medical sense. (Washing your hands between animal examinations with arm water and disinfectant soap shouldn't even need mentioning as a minimum requirement that should be adhered to, but how would you do this without hot water provisions)? It would appear to us, then, that the first thing to be discussed at one of the earlier meetings would be to define the question, "what constitutes the practice of Veterinary Medicine on a TEMPORARY BASIS"? We would like to make ourselves available for the drafting of rules and regulations that apply to the health and safety standards for the practice of Veterinary Medicine in Roseville. Sincerely, gorge H. Krienke DVM Committee Chair. Veterinary Hospital Association I / - I ? • 14 January 1994 n/ y a Mr. Donn Wiski / 2714 Westward Village Roseville, Mn. 55113 Dear Mr. Wisl is At one of the Council meetings last Fall (1993) in which the discussion of the practice of Veterinary Medicine in the back of a ware-house came up, one of the council members was indicating concern about the lack of guide lines that was available in the City of Roseville for the practice of Veterinary Medicine. A few days following the Council meeting, I faxed some items of information to the City Administrator, Steve Sarkozy, concerning the practice of good Veterinary Medicine. Mr. Sarkozy said that I should organize the material, put it in writing, address it to him, and he would distribute it to each of the Council members. 4pur committee of the Veterinary Hospital Association, of which I am the Chair., submitted a letter containing a list of sugestions, which most Veterinarians feel should be the minimum standards under which to practice Veterinary Medicine not only in Roseville, but other communities as well. I am submitting this list to you directly, you, the new member of the Council (congratulations) and also, again, to the older members of the Council, not only as a matter of review, but to act upon incorporating these minimum standards into Roseville's laws, rules, and regulations expediently. Thank you for your time and attention for giving this very important matter your deepest anti rntmoGt consideration. Sincerely, George H. Krienke DVM Committee Chair. Veterinary Hospital Association C C_? • - P-- Rb ? -,kI-P -qy • it ?& wgulation concerns cloud part-tine clinic Insudiing a part-time veterinary clinic in Roseville's Pet Food Warehouse has been on the city's agenda for almost a year and City Council members continue to take their time to guarantee die safety of the animals and their own- ers. ' "A year ago when this proposal fust came to us i asked to have it pulled off the agenda and then 1 called local vcl- erinarians to hear their opinions," Council Member Pat Council Member Barb Maslcl Johnson said. "We have been at this for a very long Tune said she didn't thick it was fair to will in view of the fact that the health and safety of our cii- enforce a different scl of regulations izens is such an important factor, I would not like to rush oil temporary veterinary services this along. "I feel very strongly about this and we owe it to our cid- Wan they do on permanent ones. "it's not fair that the other velcri- zens to do this right,' she said. "I simply won't vote for narians have to work under strict this until I am completely convinced of the safety for our regulations," Maslel said. "If lent- pets in Roseville." . pcnary clinics tiro going to play file The request was made by Dr. Joel Lockett, of Min- same gone, they should have hn neapolis, after Pet Food Warehouse officials asked him to play by the same Odes. I ant really take over the "wellness" clinics set-up inside their stores. uncontrollable Willi This." At that time city staff advised the council that the existing ordi- Helen Winder. Locketz's ntlor- nance only required a business license, but no standards were ney, said she hopes the council in place to prohibit the proposed clinic. doesn't deny their prolxtstl to clhO- "My goal is to provide the citizens of Roseville with We ioalc competition because Locketz same high quality, low cost access to wellness clinics that are has always hied to work widt the enjoyed by pet owners In surrounding communities;" Lockciz rnnununily, and not against it. wrote in a letter to the council. "These clinics increase the "Dr. Locketz refers all major -- number of dogs and cats vaccinated against dread diseases health problems locally, which helps impgive die overall licalllt cif such as rabies, they provide employment opponiinitics and We pets in the community," Winder provide Roseville residents with a choice in the delivery of said. "We really want to find a way veterinary services' `hlow, the council has decided to act on The proposal by either to work together to find some com- ' asking for help from the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medi- moll ground, Dr. Locketz is not against regulation fit all, he just cane or setting -up its own list of regulations that the clinic . wants to work closely with the would have to follow. - - " I council so he can grow along with Neither of these choices have received unanimous ' ' ' , Uic comtminhy of Roseville" iupport from the council," City Manager Steve Sarkozy Another regulaiint included a said. "But the questions remain - is the Board of Veteri- separate clinic door for customers nary Medicine providing stringent enoueli rules for tom- To discourage clients fran walking porary veterinary clinics and should the city be involved through the store Willi their animals. in deciding what kind of facilities they need to service "I really agree that the clinic these animals safely. It's an interesting question because should use a separmc entrance so there really is no right or wrong answer." customers aren't bringing their pets Roseville resident Dr. George Krienke, a licensed vet- through the stone", Mastd said. "it erinarian from the Rice Pet Clinic and Hospital, said he "takes tic scared because of how also has his concerns that a pan-time clinic would run on the most minimal of regulations. 'the city asked me to get together with other area vet- kids ac so apt to reach out and pct ' aninials and sometimes the aiinal's erinarians to form a set of standards that could be added to the ' ; reactions aren't so safe." city s code;' Krienke said. "Now I think the proposal will work okay, as long as they have something there to govern 'Patrick L :lnlola, president and F W id tt practice." CfiO oC Pct ood achousc, sa hllbwing the pets 'lo come into thc The standards presumed to the council ask that the facility store is one of their strong points have IW( Gild cold water or Cil`mi_ because It puts the Daits more at ing and disinfecting, adequate sewage disposal, property treated I case., -%Vc vlow, lac- Nis w sine solo Boors and walls to make Win resis- our stores with their owners which tnut to Infections and other body is unlike any other pct Store," Iltbri- secrclions,'nir circulation to keep ola said. "About 30 percent of our j odors and airltome transmitted dis- cushtrners who come in our store eases to a minimum and facilities to bring their pets so the animals property separate pets so fights already feel couifortabdehere:" between animals do not oce.'tir. ' According to labriola, they have "What area veterinarians have are installed clinics in all of diet stores, separate dog and cat areas to help except Roseville. atop any fighting between animals," "More thin 50 percent of our ads- Kricake said. '"Ibis clinic also may lotners have never been to a velcri- experience [lines when the waiting nation before and I think that's room is crowded with animals and hccatse vct costs arc so high," lie dogs are known to play mid nip at said. "Our prices are 30 to 40 per- t each'other. We ovoid this by requir- cart lower and our customers fake ing our clients to make appoint- advantage of that" I merits to ensure That our wailing All the veterinarians who work roam is fairly empty at all times, with Pct Food Warehouse tire "llacy won't be able to offer this licensed with the Animal Medical regulation, bill that is where our ('little and come in at least one practices will differ fr(un each oth- weekend flay, need one evening dur- cr;' lie sold. "When you ran your lug the week, lie said. own practice you make sure to have "We allow ix:oplc to hike care of guidelines that will Itelp mhtimize their dogs nod cams when they nor- haz.'uds.' mealy wouldn't have and that helps . y iy.1 , ??--off to extend the life of their pets," Lahrlota sold, "I know the city council has had their concerns, but none of the concerns have been towards Pct Food Warehouse directly, - about our qunlily of scr-. vice, "' just hope die council will sce the benefits to the residents of Roseville aid they will vote favor. nbly'"ire said, '1'11o council members hope la hear back from the hoard before their March 28 meeting, at which time they could grant Locketz a ICIOPOOuy ooc-year license. "We have nolhhag I I the b0olut to slop this, ofieralion 1'min going for- ward," Mayor Vern Jolutaml said at A recent council work session. "1 would like to act this opcraUon go f(xwad so we don't gel sued while we make up our minds. This process just genes on and on find on, and in the meantime we arc holding these people up without any basis." Johnson disagreed and said she saw no reason to pass the proposal "simply because we are holding these people up. We have had mul- U-million dollar developments that have gone through the sane process and 'that was buildings, this Is pco- ple and animals. "We have been coming along so well with this and I think we should continue working to get this right"she bald. Council Member John Goedeke agreed with the mayor and said he thought the council should give the i doctor a temporary license for one year while the council gets in touch with the Board of Veterinary Mexli- cine. By the time we get the report from the board, who knows - we may decide to present a list of guidelines of our own," he said. And Winder said she hopes the Connell sees that installing her client's service in a retail center Is the best way to reach the general population, "this Is the service of the future," she said. "however, it does no one any good to have fighting within the community so whatever the city decides, we're here to comply:, F. . a' (: i. 06 August 1993 To: Mayor Vern Johnson and Members of the Roseville City Council From: Veterinarians: Dr. George H. Krienke, Dr. Donald S. Sime, Dr. John D. Lambert, and Dr. William D. Funk Subj: Standards for Veterinary Medicine Facilities in Roseville We are writing this letter to express our concern and the Veterinary Hospital's Association (consisting of over two hundred hospitals) concern about the tendency of Veterinarian's practicing Veterinary Medicine in retail establishments, warehouses, pet shops, and the like... which we have seen in Roseville, and which we feel for reasons of public health, should be regulated by the City of Roseville. To have a more specific set of rules for Roseville and to help promote a healthy enviornment when and where pets are together, to keep accidental bites and injuries to a minimum, and to insure that public and animal health standards are maintained in the highest degree, we propose that the following be adopted as a Roseville City Ordinance governing the facility out of which Veterinary Medicine and Services are provided to the the Citizens of Roseville. 1. The health, welfare, and safety of the client and patient must be given top .riority. A. When practicing Veterinary Medicine in a facility, various conditions should exist or be provided for. These include: hot and cold water for cleaning and disinfecting , addequate sewage disposal facilites, properly treated floors and walls to make them impervious to infectious and other body secretions, air circulation to keep odors and air borne transmitted diseases to a minimum, seperatinn of/or facilities to keep pets adequately restrained so that fights do not develope between animals, whereby people may get injured as well as their pets. 2. All places where Veterinary Medicine is practiced and Services are rendered should have OPAQUE WALLS separating the Veterinary Service from other stores. A. Walls will help confine the Veterinary area so that adequate ventilation can be provided and the control of odors and air borne diseases can be held to a minimum. 3. All places where Veterinary Medicine is Practiced and Services are rendered must have its' own PRIVATE DOUR and clients should not pass through another store to get to where the Veterinary services are provided. A. This will help keep congestion in the area to a minimum reducing the threat of bites by dogs or cats. B. This will also prevent the adjoining merchants products from being 4kontamiaated with urine, feces, ana other oody discharges as the pet is going i??Lv the Veterinary area. / i - L;?D r 4. The practice must have a NAME that designates it as a Veterinary owned facility. A. This will have the effect of letting people know that this is an area where Veterinary Medicine is being practiced. B. Many people have allergies to pets and if they should inadvertently go into an area where pets are congregated, they may have an allergic reaction which could lead to much distress for that individual. Passing these set of (four) rules into law will help to maintain a standard of Veterinary Practice in Roseville that is consistant with the other high quality of services that are available in Roseville. These are services that the public expects and should receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider these additions to your already existing standards for practicing Veterinary Medicine in Roseville. Respectfully, George H. Krienke DVM, Rice Pet Hospital... Rice and Co. Rd. 'C' z 'Y7 Donald.4. Sime DVM, Suburban Animal Hospital... Cleveland and Co. Rd. 'C' Cohn"D. Lambert DVM, Roseville Animal hospital ...Snelling & Co. Rd. C io' V-111A-IL William D. Funk DVM, Funk Animal Hospital... Brooklyn park. President, Veterinary Hospital Association 0 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT'Y OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Country of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the ?th day of ., 1994 at 7:30 P,1v1. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APP1tOVING A LICENSE FOR PET FOOD WAREHOUSE, INC, TO OPERATE A Vt-," I"I RINARIAN EXAM [NATION AND INOCULATION CENTER WITHIN THE PET FOOD WAREHOUSE 13UILDING LOCATED AT 2575 N. FAIRVIEW AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Code (Section 114.010 (3)) requires licenses for all veterinarian clinics and related activities, and WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has reviewed a proposed Veterinarian Examination and • Inoculation Center to be located within the Pet Food Warehouse building located at 2575 N. Fairview Avenue. NOW, THERE) ORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby approves a license to operate a Veterinarian Examination and inoculation Center for Pet Food Warehouse, Inc., to be located at 2575 N. Fairview Avenue, within the Pet. Food Warehouse building with the following conditions: The Examination and Innoculation Center license shall be used only for veterinarian examination and innoculation of animals brought to the Center located at. 2575 N. Fairview Avenue. A Minnesota. Veterinarian Board Certified Veterinarian shall be designated by Pet Food Warehouse, Inc, to operate the Center. 2. All animals brought into the Center shall be on it leash, carried by the owner, or in a. protective box or cage. 3. The Center shall be- a separated area within the Yet Food Warehouse building, clearly identified by signage and, at a minimum, 8 foot high wall partitions. 11 Post-It" brand tax transmittal memo 7671 # of page. ? 2 S r SL-?j From Co. OF iFagt? Co. ri-S DSLN-7 1 Ropt. Phone N fax- R `1 _ fax 4 ---- -- --------- ---------------- -r- -- -- ----- ------ -.-- r?' r 4. Hot and cold running water and sanitary disposal shall be available within the (.'enter. 0 5. The license shall be applicable for the period of April 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. 6. The license fee shall be prorated for the remainder of 1994 (April-June) and the annual fee for July 1994 through June 1995 ($130). 7. 'the applicant shall provide a letter from the property owner and/or tenant agreeing to the use of the site for a Veterinarian Examination and Inoculation Center. $. The applicant shall post., in a conspicuous location within the Center, a list of all practicing veterinarians within the community and/or provide each customer with a. handout detailing the dame, address, phone number of each practicing veterinarian in the community. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof, and the following voted against the sane: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared (July passed and adopted, STATE OFMI.NNESOTA ) ) SS ® COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Rarmsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the th day of , 1993, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this day of_ , 195A. SEAL Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager r? LJ /-a3 _ MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE 2700 University Avenue West #102 • St. Paul, MN 55114-1081 ' • _ (612) 642-0597 April 6, 1994 Betsy Christenson Richfield Public Safety 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Christenson: Enclosed are copies of the Stipulation and Order in the matter of Dr. Joel Loc_ketz and the letter which terminated his probationary status. You also asked for the license status of the following veterinarians: U???P\ CO Name Expiration Date VV Wendy Hillerson 2/28/95 David Marchiafava 2/28/95 Y, Jane Sprangers 2/28/95 ?`v>> i Francis Hofineister 2/28/95 fk? ?L'E Doreen Dingle 2/28/95 Danna Olson 2/28/94 (second notice sent by certified mail 3/29/94) Sincerely, Roland C. Olson, DVM Executive Director RCO/dc 11 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O M tt GR ?. y `?*is'sar MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE 2700 University Avenue West #102 • St. Paul, MN 55114-1081 (612) 642-0597 February 10, 1994 Joel Locketz, DVM Animal Medical.Clinic 2603 Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55408 Dear Dr. Locketz: In accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation and Order between yourself and the Board of Veterinary Medicine dated October 22, 1991, and per your petition of November 1, 1993,-the Board of Veterinary Medicine has terminated the probationary status of your license effective February 8, 1994. The above referenced Stipulation and Order will remain in your file and is considered to be a public document which we are required to furnish to any interested party upon their request. Sincerely, Z01son, land DVM Executive Director RCO/dc • STATE OF MINNESOTA In the Matter of Joel D. Locketz, DVM License No. 0-9-70 BEFORE THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE STIPULATION AND ORDER WHEREAS, the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) is an agency duly established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 156, for the purposes, among others, of licensing veterinarians and regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Joel D. Locketz, DVM, (Licensee) was licensed by the Board in 1970; and WHEREAS, Licensee is the owner of Animal Medical Clinic, 2603 Hennepin 0 Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he has practiced veterinary medicine for the past 19 years; and WHEREAS, on or about August 12, 1991, the Board instituted the above- captioned matter by serving upon Licensee notice of the scheduling of a conference with the Board Complaint Review (Committee); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the notice, Licensee and his attorney met with the Committee on August 28, 1991, to discuss allegations that while practicing at Animal Medical Clinic, Licensee provided unnecessary services, directed or permitted veterinary technicians to perform procedures reserved for licensees, prescribed or provided medications for human use; and WHEREAS based upon the conference discussion, the parties wish to resolve this matter without the necessity and expense of a contested case hearing by entering into the instant Stipulation. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Licensee and the Board as follows: A. During all times material herein, Licensee has been and now is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board; B. If the Board in its discretion does not approve this Stipulation, it shall be deemed withdrawn and of no evidentiary value and shall not be introduced or relied on by either party; except that Licensee agrees that, should the Board reject this Stipulation and if this case proceeds to hearing, Licensee will assert no claim that the Board was prejudiced by its review and discussion of this Stipulation or of any records relating hereto; C. Without admission of any wrongdoing, Licensee expressly waives formal hearing on'all facts and legal conclusions referenced herein and any and all procedures before the Board relative to said facts and conclusions to which he might otherwise be entitled by law; D. The Board may forthwith adopt and implement the following order: 1. Licensee is hereby placed on probation with the Board, effective immediately. 2. During probation, the following terms and conditions shall apply: a.1) During the first six (6) months of probation, Licensee shall retain an adviser. The adviser shall be selected by Licensee from a list provided by the Committee. The list shall include the names of not less than three persons, all of whom shall be Board licensees. Licensee shall select the adviser within twenty (20) days of service upon him of the list and shall notify the Committee of the selection within the same twenty-day period. 2) It shall be the role of the adviser to observe and/or inspect and provide any indicated recommendations to Licensee relative to: a) Licensee's inpatient and outpatient procedures; b) Licensee's surgical techniques; c) Licensee's supervision of his staff; -2- d) Licensee's records and recordkeeping procedures, including billing procedures; and e) Such other practice-related matters as the adviser deems appropriate. All observations and inspections shall be conducted at the discretion of the adviser during normal practice hours, not to exceed a total of four (4) hours each week. Licensee shall provide a copy of this Order to the adviser before or immediately upon the adviser's first visit to Licensee's practice premises. The adviser shall submit a written report directly to the Committee each month, including a final report. 3) Licensee shall pay all costs and fees associated with the adviser's functions, including mileage and a reasonable hourly fee for the time expended by the adviser to travel to and from Licensee's practice premises, for the time spent at Licensee's practice premises, and for the time expended to prepare all reports required to be submitted to the Committee. All such fees and costs shall be paid promptly by Licensee to the adviser upon the adviser's submission of a monthly statement to Licensee. 4) Licensee shall fully cooperate with the adviser and the Committee to facilitate the effective implementation of the requirements of this paragraph. b. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board, or authorized Board agents, from entering and inspecting Licensee's practice premises, with or without notice, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 156.12, Subdivision 5, and 156.20 (1990) c.1) Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Licensee shall refund $70.95 to the pertinent individual identified by the parties at the conference herein. 2) Within the same ten day period, Licensee shall provide written verification of the refund to the Committee. -3- it -2-8 3) In the event the individual cannot be located by Licensee upon a reasonable effort, Licensee shall donate $70.95 to a charity for the betterment of veterinary medicine. Licensee shall provide written verification of the donation to the Committee not more than ten (10) days after the donation. d.1) Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Licensee shall conspicuously post at his practice premises and provide to all employees and to the Committee written statements of policy and practice. 2) At a minimum, the statements shall: a) Identify the specific functions and procedures which are permitted by law to be performed by persons not licensed by the Board to practice veterinary medicine; b) -Identify the specific functions and procedures which may be performed only by persons licensed by the Board; and c) Set forth procedures to be followed in animal medical emergencies, including emergencies which arise during normal practice hours when no person licensed by the Board is on the premises. The statements shall include language to clearly indicate that persons not licensed to practice in Minnesota shall not diagnose, prescribe medications, including refills, or perform surgical correction, and that these prohibitions apply whether or not the unlicensed person is under the direction and supervision of a Board licensee. e.1) Within one-hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the parties' previously referenced conference herein or by February 24, 1992, Licensee shall attend a course or seminar approved in advance by the Committee relating to veterinary medical ethics. 2) Not later than fourteen (14) days following the course or seminar, 16 Licensee shall submit written evidence of attendance to the Committee. -4- C;?-9 3) All costs associated with Licensee's compliance with this paragraph shall be borne by Licensee. f. License shall not prescribe or dispense any prescription drug, including refills, to any person. g. Licensee shall refrain from providing any medically unnecessary or excessive services. h. Licensee shall make and maintain all medical records in a manner consistent with the hereto attached standards of the American Animal Hospital Association. i. Licensee shall strictly comply with all recordkeeping requirements for veterinary drug transactions set forth at Minnesota Statutes Section 156.18, Subdivisions 3 and 4 (1990). j. Licensee shall not presign or authorize the presigning of any health • certificate; nor shall he authorize or permit any health certificate to be signed except by a licensed veterinarian.- _ k.l) Not earlier than twenty-four (24) months from the date of this Order, Licensee may petition the Board for the termination of probation. 2) Any such petition shall be in writing and shall include an affidavit form Licensee indicating whether he has fully complied with all of the terms and conditions of probation. 3) Any petition submitted in accordance with parts 1) and 2), immediately above, shall be considered by the Board not later than the Board's first regular meeting after the petition's receipt; provided that the petition must be received at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting. 4) The Board shall grant a petition submitted in accordance with this paragraph if it determines that the preponderance of information received indicates that Licensee has fully complied with the Order and if Licensee is not the subject of any -5- //-3() complaint pending before the Board in which conduct substantially similar to that discussed 'by the parties at the conference herein of August 28, 1991, is alleged. If the Board denies a petition submitted under this paragraph, Licensee shall not submit another petition for the termination of probation earlier than six (6) months from the date of the denial. 3.(i) If Licensee fails to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of this Order, (ii) if additional, verifiable allegations similar to those discussed at the parties' conference herein on August 28, 1991, are received by the Committee during the period of probation, or (iii) if any report from the adviser required under paragraph 2.a.2) hereof discloses a violation of this Order, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 156, or Board rule, the Board shall so notify Licensee in writing at his last known address filed with the Board. Licensee shall have the opportunity to contest the allegations by submitting a written request to so contest within 30 days after service of the notice: a. If licensee does not submit a written request to contest the allegations within 30 days of service of a Notice Of Opportunity To Contest The Allegations, the issues set forth in the notice may be taken as true or deemed proved without further evidence. Upon a report to the Board of such allegations and of Licensee's failure to contest, the Board may impose additional disciplinary action, including revocation. Any Board order issued under this paragraph shall be final and binding upon Licensee and shall not be subject to judicial or administrative review or to a judicial stay pending any attempts to seek such review; b. If Licensee submits a written request within 30 days to contest the allegations, the Board may initiate either a proceeding conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 214 or a contested case hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 14. .f3ler? and-'?-tWUTafncltidiiigall-,? att.??bm?its':liereio;:are::and.5hall.be-:deemed;.#obe:publc;document? F. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this Stipulation 0 shall not in any way limit or affect the authority of the Board to initiate administrative -6- /( 3 1 contested case proceedings against Licensee on the basis of any act, conduct, or omission of Licensee occurring before or after the date of this Stipulation which is not related to the specific facts and circumstances or requirements referenced herein; G. Licensee has voluntarily entered into this Stipulation without threat or promise by the Board or any of its members, employees or agents, and after consultation with and advice from Licensee's counsel. H. This Stipulation contains the entire agreement between the parties, there being no other agreement of any kind, verbal or otherwise, which varies this Stipulation. -Dated: '1991 J,QEL D. LOC TZ, VM Licensee Upon consideration of this stipulation and all of the files, records and • proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms of this stipulation are adopted and implemented b the Board this by ? day of '1991. MINNESOTA BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE ROLAND C. OLSON, DVM Executive Director • -7- i rn T ? ? T N c t E a> Q V) CC X oD? u b:, y p a y 0 o, co Ca O y y U 4' to O 0 0 ??^ F D 3 elf y ri a N ? , ? 0 °o 3 00 > . Ij- w- 0 O 5 ?? y O a? t y . ?V• a' ? U N N t L p y V O r•d .?r•b •?' -U C w h O C u t N [> p C ' ^ CL y fCf •b p 0 O= cl C . .0 ? CG > r. c" N Y C co - y •2 V2 . 3 N u U ?? oC7Cy a 3 r Cn to v , z 0 O Iy. w m O u 'C'.C vi 0 _y ? 'y lO ® .? 00 4 G ' 2 R .{? . C Q 4+'iA-CSC o ? . . 'A as ap0 ?a Luc. ¦ ® .C ? ? ca b a X ? ? ? q 0po ?? o [ ' ' ?? y•a ? ? o 'u c 0 ?I.i Q? { y 4) 4 cl w- ' ' A 4 M 0 L C ? 00 t0. h O Rd 0 - • V •N . cc w N .. V ? w C 15 0", ' ova ? a-•vw v F H•aU•.^ //-3D- = c+0 0 (D u o-b 3 a 00••1 1 ? 1 y ... - - .. .. . O • ca co, a ... O a?"c iN ;c .C o v o" 3 CA ? ? .a.p ? .L v GLi .? U R 00 0 .b y 1e'? CIS s-. ?y U 0 Q V N u -F •-1 >0.0 0 co N d r d lq U ? V VIP 4? .1- _ C :°Oa?i3 W O'? y N C a p oo v ? .--. Cd r cCX «+U G O ECi G «f . ; r 0 4? co ?aacya^pp?a V ? C c? _ .? N to OU ,0 RS `` O •i•- ^u/1 cts .. 4. e+ y O O ~ -C X .c o:! AgMINk C) r- m ? • ? co C 'c d O y~ a0 d. o >~ [ ?- o C ? o r O c aaoa i //,33 Aerinarian continued from page 1B complaints against veterinarians last "He was notorious for letting the year, compared with 12 five, years technicians do all the work," said ago. Part of the increase is attributed Jane Moosebrugger, a former techni- to the greater emotional and financial •cian for Locketz. "I quit because of investment people make in their ani- the neglect of care for the animals. mals. ... I couldn't take it anymore." Dr. Will Winter, who once worked In Minnesota, a state that does not for Locketz and now operates a com- require veterinary technicians to be peting "holistic" practice in Uptown, licensed, there are a lot of "gray ar- has both sympathy and criticism for eas" as to what technicians can and his old boss.'He faults Locketz for his : , cannot do, officials said. Locketz is "aggressive" business practices, such accused of having assistants perform as advertising with clip-out newspa- advanced medical procedures, in- per coupons, which irritated other eluding surgery. veterinarians when it started in the late 1970s. But Winter also faults pet Dr. Roland Olson, the veterinary owners, whom he has seen spend' board's executive director, said he "thousands of dollars" for hip sur- could not comment on the allega- gery on pets, for developing un- tions against Locketz, but acknowl- healthy attachments to their pets edged that a stipulation agreement and, by extension, placing unrealistic between Locketz and the state is be- expectations on their veterinarians. ing worked out with the attorney general's office. Testimony before the "It's not taught in vet school, but so board is not public, and sanctions . much of what we deal with is anger can range from no penalty to the and fear and anxiety," said Winter, lifting of a veterinarian's license. who said he draws about five cus- tomer complaints a year. Locketz has been under investigation by the veterinarian board since at Veterinarians estimate it takes be- least 1989, making his case one of the tween $200 and $300 a year to main- board's longest. He began his practice ' tain an average big dog, and then as a family business in 1970. there are the luxuries such as bows, bonnets, bells and perfumes. Three of the technicians who made statements to the veterinary board Some people continue to spend mon- quit over the treatment of animals. ey even after their pets have died. Two others fired by Locketz after Sue' ox manages the Animal Inn workplace disputes also have been Pettery, which covers about 10 critical of the way he treats animals acre_ Lake Elmo. She frequently and people. One employee who testi- sells $760 plot-and-burial packages to fied before the board brought a dead grieving pet owners, has heard of at cat to investigators. least one religious ceremony and 1 knows well the depth of humans' Among those who have testified attachment to their animals. about Lockett is Linda Marion, an- other former Locketz technician who "We get birds, mice, gerbils, horses, won a statewide technician-0f--the- dogs and cats ... the only thing I year award last year. She declined to haven't come across is a snake," Wil- talk on the record except to say: "I. cox said. quit because I was unhappy with the quality of the practice." Amy Proffit worked as Locketz's head technician for' about 10 years Moosebrugger said she and Marion before she was called to testify about once went back to the clinic in the him before the board. She said that middle of the night to help a cat veterinarians are often the first ones suffering from a torn bladder that blamed'when things don't work out. they believed Locketz bad not treated "People get something from their properly. "If we hadn't, it would pets that they can't get from children have died," she said. Marion con- and spouses: unconditional love," firmed Moosebrugger's account. Pro.-lit said. Locketz denied the charge. Profftt, who stood up for Locketz's capabilities as a doctor, said his prob- Locketz has an ally in his former - lem might have been excessive blunt- partner, Dr. Milton Crenshaw, a St. ness with pet owners, or what she Paul veterinarian who served six ..,..:.•.,::..., .. . .... ...:..:., ......_,,, described as "poor bedside man- years on the state veterinary board. ners." But others have accused him Crenshaw said he remembered Lock- of worse. etz. as "an excellent veterinarian" who donated free time at the People's Among the questions that were put to Center on the West Bank and who Proffit when she was asked to testify developed a reputation for "working about Lockett were allegations about things out with people who were unaccounted drugs, lack of supervi- short of money." The size and popu- sion over technicians and a case in- larity of Locketz's practice, Crenshaw volving a cat that allegedly died at . said, is partly attributable to his pro- the clinic before it received any med- fessional reputation as "a person who ical attention. The cat's owner alleg- cares." edly was charged several hundred dollars for a number of medical pro- Said Crenshaw of pet owners: "You cedu s well as a boarding fee for see everything from fruits to nuts. the is remains were stored in a People wait ... until their pet is refri r. about to take its last breath. Then, if things don't work out, they turn their Locketz said he had no comment on vets in to the board." the incident. ca-r??o?_,-t --' zo no?nca G Clf'Sr'IVCI-Y np. ?E1 X41 HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY CENTER Additional MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 stipulation (612) 337-9300 Council Letter Nos. FAX #r (612) 337-9310 132 and 133 April 25, 1994 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION No i 4 OPP, ©VF D This fait contains confidential information which in legally privileged. The information is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) listed below. Distribution or disclosure to any individuals not so listed is strictly prohibited- Date: April 25, 1994 Our q No-.: RC160-3 Kwr er of pages including cover sheet., 1 If a problem arises, call Janet a 1:" l # : 9 1 7 pxml --ill TO: Betsy Christensen FAX 866-0297 t P =O3 A yet t5' z tV G SMoL? Si3? SG?.s 3.`.? ..- ,. Direct Dias, #: ;612) ';-?- 921` COMMENTS: Here's the propose 1Y _t at.iul No deliveries of supplies Warehouse may be ma d etweer, 7:00 a.m., and all deb aver l t-3 `:- City Code S 930.13, ., lbd:, 4, t - - iorc ree c7- Lo..-. s of this condition - ?? i ta? n any 12-month -i-041- the city council may a 'ke or ;&xfusa to new cenee. 1 reviewed Section 930 f the CCde, and there d-loe .-I't a-vem to be an ordinance that restricts d iver?es to cert -'n ?ours day. You may want to consider amending c-n of urdinancaa "sably 930.13, subd. 4) to provide an ho-ki --, rest,rict lon for e _ on properties that are withj n a si n ° stagy r-e of a l al district . That would s teen gthen the condition in -th mod license, lso, do zF?u want -1-.0 al Q-o rr ire to _ with 930 15 -- - or are you only y'Y Richfield City Code 930.13, Subd. 4 ,1 0 Loading of vehicles. No person may create any loud and excessive noise in connection with the unloading or unpacking of any vehicle. Subd. 5. Muffler required. No person may permit the discharge into the open air of emissions from an internal combustion engine except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises issuing therefrom. 930.15: Keeping of Animals. The keeping of a dog, cat or other animal which. by reason of noise caused by it or by its presence, annoys other persons who are in the neighborhood is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or more neighboring properties, the city shall notify the owner of the animal that the nuisance must be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey the notice is a violation of this subsection. 930.17. Refuse Hauling and Snow Plowing. The operation of vehicles used for the hauling of refuse on private property shall be limited in residential districts, and within 50 feet of such districts, to the period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. The operation of vehicles for snow plowing on private property shall be limited in residential districts and within 50 feet of such districts to the period from 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. any day of the week. 930.19. Horns and Signaling Devices. The following uses of horns or other signaling devices are unlawful: (a) the sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle and upon any locomotive, except as a danger warning; (b) the creation by means of any signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; and (c) the sounding of any device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. 930.21. Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems: Except Advertising. No person may use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, paging system, machine or other device for the production or reproduction of loud sounds so as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any set, instrument, phonograph, machine or other device at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day in a manner distinctly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, in the hallway or apartment unit adjacent if located in an apartment unit, or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located outside a structure or building, shall constitute such a disturbance. The regulations contained in this subsection are not applicable to licensed sound trucks and other similar advertising activities. 930.23. Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems: Commercial Advertising. No person may use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, paging system or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on any street or other public place, or audible at any location, for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or vehicle unless a license is first obtained pursuant to chapter XI. 0 • r j 10 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 131 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project), Series 1994. Background: Richfield Shoppes Developers "the borrower" is requesting the City of Richfield to approve the issuance of $3,900,000 Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project), Series 1994, to refund the outstanding 1983 bond. The issuance of the refunding bonds is part of an overall refinancing of the Richfield Shoppes Project that includes the mortgage loan and the certificates described in the trust agreement. The City of Richfield is not responsible in any way for the mortgage loan and certificates aspects of the transaction. Instead, the City of Richfield functions as a conduit for the sale of the bonds. This is similar to the role the City served in the initial bond sale for the Richfield Shoppes project in 1983. Richfield Shoppes Developers came before the City Council in February 1994 to seek an extension of the maturity of the 1983 bonds to 2013. The City Council approved the extension request. The Developers are now seeking the refunding of those bonds. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds along with the accompanying materials and can find no reason for the City to deny issuance of the resolution authorizing the issuance as requested. Bruce Batterson of the Faegre & Benson law firm will be present at the City Council meeting to address any questions regarding this matter. Faegre & Benson serve as bond counsel to Richfield Shoppes Developers in this bond issuance. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project), Series 1994 and direct the Mayor and City Manager to execute the appropriate bond documents. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Richfield Shoppes Developers has requested the City Council to authorize the issuance of Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds to refund the outstanding 1983 issue. 2. The City has no direct responsibility for these bonds or the certificates aspects of the bond transaction. ID°I 3. Formal approval of the City is needed in order for the refunding bond issue to take place. 4. There is no reason to deny the request based upon the facts of the transaction. 5. A closing date of April 26, 1994 has been scheduled by the developer for the refunding bond sale. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could withhold authorization of the issuance and sale of the refunding bonds. However, the City would need to articulate reasons for such a denial. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this matter has been requested and scheduled for April 25, 1994 because the bond closing has been set for the following day. Resp fully submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager 0 JDP:cak 0 /D-a RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS PROJECT), SERIES 1994, THE EXECUTION OF RELATED DOCUMENTS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF RELATED ACTIONS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Recitals. 1.01 General Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, as amended (the "Act"), the City is authorized to issue revenue bonds to pay the costs of projects authorized by the Act and to refund bonds previously issued for such purposes. The City has heretofore issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project) (the "Refunded Bond") to finance the acquisition and renovation of a shopping center facility in the City (the "Project") by Richfield Shoppes Developers, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Borrower"). 1.02 Proposed Financing. The Borrower has requested the City to issue and sell its Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Richfield Shoppes Developers Project), Series 1994, in an aggregate principal amount of $3,835,000 to refund the Refunded Bond. The Bonds are proposed to be issued pursuant to a Trust Agreement dated as of April 1, 1994 (the "Trust Agreement"), between the City, the Borrower and First Trust National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"). Sale proceeds of the Bonds are proposed to be loaned to the Borrower pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of April 1, 1994 (the "Loan Agreement"), between the City and the Borrower, in order to prvide a portion of the funds necessary to refund the Refunded Bond. The Loan Agreement will provide for payments from the Borrower sufficient to timely pay when due all principal of and interest on the Bonds. The Bonds are proposed to be secured by an assignment to the Trustee of all rights of the City in the Loan Agreement (with certain exceptions) and will be secured (on a parity with certain Certificates of Participation to be executed and delivered under the Trust Agreement) by a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project pursuant to a Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage") and an assignment of leases and rents of the Project granted pursuant to an Assignment of Rents and Leases (the "Lease Assignment"), each from the Borrower to the Trustee, and by Guaranty Agreements (the "Guaranty Agreements") from James W. Lupient, a general partner in the Borrower (the "Guarantor") to the Trustee. 103 Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Underwriter") • proposes to act as the underwriter to purchase all Bonds. The Bonds will be offered and sold pursuant to an Official Statement (the "Official Statement"). 1.03 Documentation. Forms of the following have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed: (a) the Trust Agreement; (b) the Loan Agreement; (c) a form of Bond (set forth in the Trust Agreement); (d) the Mortgage; (e) the Lease Assignment; and (g) the Guaranty Agreements. Section 2. Findings and Approval of Documents. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby determines that issuance of the Bonds furthers the purposes of the Act and approval of the Bonds and the transactions herein contemplated are in the public interest of the City. The forms of each document listed in Section 1.03 are hereby approved. Section 3. Official Statement. The City Council has been presented with the form of the Official Statement and consents to the use of the Official Statement in substantially the form presented. The City has not reviewed or participated in the preparation of the Official Statement, has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Section 4. The Bonds; Terms. Sale and Execution. 4.01 Authorization; Price. The City hereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $3,835,000, bearing the interest rates set forth in the Trust Agreement, and authorizes and approves the sale thereof to the Underwriter at a price of 100% of the par amount thereof. The Borrower shall pay the fees and expenses of the Underwriter and all other costs of issuance of the Bonds, as set forth in the Loan Agreement. MFF10F5A. WP5 -2- /C>4 4.02 Terms. All terms of the Bonds, including their • interest rates, dates, maturity, place and medium of payment, registration privileges, redemption terms, manner of execution, form and other terms, covenants and conditions, shall be as provided in the Trust Agreement, which is hereby incorporated in its entirety herein and shall constitute a part of this Resolution. 4.03 Execution. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds and the other documents referred to above, to the extent the City is a party thereto and the signatures of such persons are called for, and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with the other documents, certificates, consents or instruments required of the City in the Trust Agreement or as may be appropriate to effect the transactions herein contemplated, but only upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent to issuance of the Bonds set forth in the Trust Agreement. Copies of all the foregoing documents, certificates, consents or instruments shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. 4.04 Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the execution and delivery of various items referred to in Section 4.03, including the Bonds, includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Faegre & Benson as Bond Counsel prior to the execution and • delivery of the same. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence or disability of any officer or employee of the City, any of the documents authorized by this Resolution to be executed by such person may be executed by any other person who is otherwise permitted by law to execute such documents on behalf of the City. Section 5. Authentication of Proceedings. The Mayor, City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Underwriter and Bond Counsel, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody or control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 6. Limitations of the City's Obligations. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall not be MFF10F5A.WP5 -3- payable from nor charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and no holder of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the premium, if any, or interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, other than those rights and interests of the City pledged therefor under the Trust Agreement, and the interests of the Trustee under the Mortgage, the Lease Assignment and the Guaranty Agreements. The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this Resolution or the Bonds, the Loan Agreement or the Trust Agreement shall be subject at all times to the availability of revenues furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any personal or pecuniary liability thereon. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective as of the date and time of its adoption. Adopted: April 25, 1994. Approved: Mayor Attest: • City Manager MFF10F5A. WP5 -4- 10-? . CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION The undersigned, as City Manager of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby certifies as follows: Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of a Resolution No. of the City Council of the City, on file and of record in the offices of the City, which resolution was adopted by the City Council on April 25, 1994, at a regular meeting open to the public duly called and held at which a quorum was present throughout. Council member moved the adoption of the attached resolution and council member seconded the motion. A vote being taken on the motion, the following council members voted in favor of the resolution: and the following council members voted against the resolution: • The following council members were absent from the meeting: The above-named council members are all the persons who were duly elected, appointed, or serving as council members of the City on the date of the foregoing meeting. Dated: April 27, 1994. City Manager 0 MFF10F5A. WP5 -5- 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 130 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Approval of Hennepin County Plan for the 76th Street and Penn Avenue Construction Project. Background: On January •13, 1992, the City Council approved the layout of the 76th and Penn Street Improvement Project prepared by Hennepin County. The approval followed a series of neighborhood meetings and a positive recommendation from the Traffic Committee. The proposed improvements are in summary: 1. Add left turn lanes on 76th Street at Penn Avenue by acquiring additional right-of-way to the north of 76th Street. 2. Add left turn lanes on Penn Avenue at 76th Street by acquiring right-of-way mostly on the west side of Penn Avenue. 3. Add left turn lanes on the Penn Avenue bridge over I-494 by eliminating the sidewalk on the west side. 04. Add a traffic signal on Penn Avenue at the north frontage road. The following actions are needed to give Hennepin County authority to perform the work on our behalf: 1. Review and approve the Hennepin County Cooperative Construction Agreement. All project costs and sources are identified on the attached schedule. The schedule is consistent with Hennepin County's cost sharing policy used in all County/City projects. The agreement contains the following elements in addition to the cost split identified in the attachment: - The County will perform the necessary engineering, administrative and inspection work needed for right of way acquisition and construction. - The City grants the County right of way over City lands. - The right of way acquisition costs will be split 50-50 on Penn Avenue and 100% City on 76th Street. - The County will supply the necessary traffic signal support. - No special municipal electrical licenses are required and permit fees will not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity. 4-/ - Maintenance and operation of the new signals, street lights, sewer and water systems is assigned to the owners of the systems. - Liability and insurance issues are clarified. 2. Review and approve Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Agreement No. 71587 for the construction and maintenance of the traffic signals at the I-494 ramps. 3. Review and approve a $423,949 plus 10% contingency ($466,344) expenditure of Richfield's Municipal State Aid (MSA) gas tax funds on a non-MSA route. Penn Avenue is on the County State Aid (CSA) system, not on Richfield's MSA system. MSA rules require City Council authorization for off-system use of MSA funds. There are sufficient MSA funds available for this project. 4. Review and approve parking restrictions on Penn Avenue and 76th Street due to high traffic levels. Specifically, a Sunday parking ban will be added to the existing parking ban within the construction area. Residents were alerted of this change at the neighborhood meetings. 5. Review and approve use of Richfield's Capital funds for non- MSA eligible costs. 6. Review and approve Hennepin County's construction plans and specifications. Recommended Motion: 1 Approve Hennepin County Cooperative Construction Agreement No. PW52-19-93. 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving MnDOT signal Agreement No. 71587. 3. Adopt the attached resolution approving the use of Richfield's MSA funds on Penn Avenue. 4. Adopt the attached resolution banning on-street parking in the project area. 5. Approve the use of Capital Funds for non-MSA eligible costs. 6. Approve Hennepin County's construction plans and specifications. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The construction plans and specifications are consistent with • the layout used in neighborhood meetings and approved by the City Council. v-a • 2. The cost estimates have been updated by the latest information available and are similar to the estimates approved in the 1993-1994 Capital Improvement Budget. 3. The Hennepin County Cooperative Construction Agreement follows Hennepin County's cost sharing policy recently reviewed by the cities in Hennepin County. 4. Parking restrictions within the project area are necessary because of the high traffic volumes and congestion. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could choose to make revisions to the recommended plan. However, the plan is based upon a layout reviewed by the neighborhood and approved by the Council. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action is requested at the April 25, 1994 City Council meeting. Hennepin County has solicited bids and is prepared to award the contract at the April 26, 1994 County Board meeting. A delay in our approval would delay the start of construction and jeopardize completion in 1994. Respectfp-?ly submitted, • City JDP:ds Attachments Prosser E 9-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO. 71587 BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing traffic control signals, install and remove temporary traffic control signals and install new traffic control signals with street lights, signing, emergency vehicle preemption and interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 494 North and South Ramps at County State Aid Highway No. 32 (Penn Avenue) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 71587, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for. and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. • Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 9-q • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $466,344 OF RICHFIELD'S MUNICIPAL STATE AID CONSTRUCTION MONIES OFF-SYSTEM FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PENN AVENUE WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Richfield to participate in the cost of construction projects on C.S.A.H. No. 32 (Penn Avenue) within the limits of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, said construction projects have been approved by the Commissioner of Transportation and identified in his records as S.A.P. No. 102-020-40 and S.A.P. No. 27-632-15; and WHEREAS, the Municipal State Aid (MSA) division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has granted an administrative waiver allowing the expenditure of MSA construction account funds for the purpose of constructing said improvements; and WHEREAS, City Council approval is needed to expend Municipal State Aid funds for off-system improvements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield does hereby appropriate from its Municipal State Aid Construction . Account the sum of $466,344 to apply toward the right of way and construction of said projects, and request the Commissioner of Transportation to approve this authorization. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of April, 1994. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 9S 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE POSTING OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "NO PARKING ANYTIME" ON PENN AVENUE FROM 75th STREET TO I-494 AND ON 76th STREET FROM SHERIDAN AVENUE TO NEWTON AVENUE WHEREAS, the removal of on-street parking will improve traffic flow and increase safety in the area of 76th Street and Penn Avenue. WHEREAS, the removal of on-street parking will not adversely affect properties adjacent to the proposed road improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. There will be no parking any time on both sides of Penn Avenue from 75th Street to I-494 and on 76th Street from Sheridan Avenue to Newton Avenue. 2. This change in traffic control signs will become effective when the proposed improvements to Penn Avenue and 76th Street are completed. . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota • this 11th day of April, 1994. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 Q-(0 I• L? Penn Avenue R/W Const. Engr. W. 76th Street R/W Const. Engr. Sub Total County Furnished Signal Equipment (Penn Avenue) Totals CITY OF RICHFIELD Penn Avenue/76th Street Project Costs/Funding Sources Est. MSAS Total Eligible $ 254,500 $ 239,500 194,118 156,313 36,151 28,136 $ 423,949* 355,000 335,000 492,674 476,624 88.681 85,792 $1,427,840 $1,321,365 12,000 6,000 $1,439,840 $1,327,365 *MSA eligible on CSA system Capital Fund $ 15,000 44,522 8,014 20,000 16,050 2.889 $ 106,475 6,000 $ 112,475 al; .-__- - .S tir M.77TH ST. " - ____ ? O O I 11 i r. O O ®IRp m1Al Nx °x r • ? n o I I! I F t?!` 1 I 11 O N t? Y Po- f'G! a t: 11 II?t o _ _ I I 2S III` f ill_f} IINV O O ?_q o NNRi L i .MIT ? I I ? Q _ •r I I ? D ' I _ I A is x } O O ?. O v O , tmi jO I I ?7- t 0 8 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 129 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and adoption of a resolution approving Modification No. 4 to the ILN Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Background: The ILN Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan are being modified to (a) incorporate the CSM Corporation's retail project into the ILN project area and (b) update the plans with respect to public and private activities that either have taken place, are in process, or are anticipated to take place. The document reflects the contemplated redevelopment for Phase I by CSM. If Phase II is not redeveloped by CSM, it may be necessary to modify the plan again. However, that decision would be made at the time a redeveloper is ready to proceed with Phase II. The modification has two sections: the Redevelopment Project Plan and the Tax Increment Financing District Plan, each with their respective table of contents. The modification is not the plan in its entirety but only the sections of the original plan which . have changed. Changes to the plans include the following: ? The Redevelopment Project Plan describes the public and private activities to be undertaken and begins on page 4-1. ? Page 4-3 is the Development Program Map which illustrates the approximate locations of the areas to be developed by "Shops at Lyndale" and the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church. ? Pages 4-4 through 4-5 contain a description of the proposed private development. ? Pages 4-6 through 4-10 are a discussion of the public improvements and identify property purchased (Cloverleaf site) and property to be purchased consistent with previous HRA actions. Also indicated is that CSM would be responsible for acquiring property but the HRA may assist with condemnation, if necessary. CSM would also be responsible for relocation. The Tax Increment Financing Plan begins on page 4-11. Page 4- 12 references topics discussed in the Redevelopment Project Plan as does a portion of the text on page 4-13. Estimated Project Costs are discussed on page 4-13 and illustrated in Appendix A as Sources and Uses. The Sources and Uses information indicates a need for approximately $2.8 million in TIF assistance to provide an acceptable rate of return to the developer. S-1 • ? Revenue Sources are discussed on page 4-14. The primary revenue source would be tax increment financing provided on a "pay as you go" basis. Tax increment payments would be made only when tax payments are received. (The CDP office development within the CABA project was the first "pay as you go" tax increment district and was established in 1988.) The developer has indicated a need for the full tax increment including that portion of the increment which is paid to the fiscal disparities pool. The Plan states that such a change may be made. However, the Plan also includes an option of a cash payment in the form of a land write down. Either option satisfies the requirements of the Plan. ? Tax Increment Cash Flows are discussed on pages 4-14 and 4-15 and illustrated in Appendix B. The cash flow shows the projected generation of tax increment. (Again, this projected tax increment is paid only if taxes are paid.) To project cash flows, certain assumptions are made. There are six cash flows and each cash flow has two pages; one page is a list of assumptions and the second page is the projected cash flow. The assumptions for each cash flow are the same except with regards to the fiscal disparities election. Thus, there are two cash flows for Phase I, one with the fiscal disparity contribution not coming from the project, page B-4 (preceded on • page B-3 by the assumption), and one showing the fiscal disparities contribution coming from the project, page 2-7 (preceded on page B-6 by the assumptions). The organizational format is the same for Phase II and the cash flows in which Phase I and II are combined. ? Page 4-15 identifies Appendix C as the section which illustrates the impact of this proposed project on taxing jurisdictions. Two impacts are discussed. First, if the project were not built, there would be no impact on tax revenue receipts. Secondly, if the project were built without utilizing tax increment, the potential increase in tax revenue available to the taxing jurisdictions is illustrated in the table titled "Impact On Tax Rates" and the "Potential Taxes" column on page C-3 (with the fiscal disparity contribution not coming from the project) and on page C-5 (with the fiscal disparity contribution from the project). However, because the site area proposed for "Shops At Lyndale" is already developed, assistance is needed to clear the existing improvements and make the site ready for new construction. A developer cannot charge rents high enough to pay for the construction of a new building and related site improvements as well as purchase and clear the existing improvements. Thus the need for outside assistance. The only practical resource available to the HRA/City is tax increment. Once the agreed upon amount of assistance is provided and the tax increment district ends in 2012, the increment would be shared by all taxing jurisdictions. ,?-a Recommended Motion: Following the public hearing, approve the attached resolution which incorporates the CSM Corporation's retail project into the ILN Redevelopment and Tax Increment Plans and updates the public and private activities. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The plan modifications were reviewed by legal counsel and Publicorp representatives and is in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. 2. The HRA approved Modification No. 4 on March 28, 1994. 3. The Planning Commission found the proposed modification to be .in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan on April 12, 1994. 4. A notice of the City Council public hearing was published on April 6, 1994. 5. Hennepin County and Richfield School District were given proper notice of the public hearing and estimate of fiscal and economic implication of the tax increment financing district by letter dated March 22, 1994. 6. Approval of the modification is necessary for the CSM proposal to proceed with regards to Phase I. 7. When a developer is ready to proceed with Phase II it may be necessary to modify the plan; however, that decision would be made at that time. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay discussion. 2. Reject the modification. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval on April 25, 1994 would complete the processing of Modification No. 4 and permit Phase I to proceed in a timely manner. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City a ager JDP:ds 0 g-3 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, CONSISTING OF MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INTERSTATE/LYNDALE/NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01 The Housing and Redevelopment Au Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") (the "Redevelopment Plan") and a (the "TIF Plan") for the area of Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet area October 21, 1985. thority in and for the City of adopted a Redevelopment Plan Tax Increment Financing Plan the City generally known as the (the "Project Areas") on 1.02 The City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") had a public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan (collectively, the "Plans") and approved the Plans on November 12, 1985. 1.03 Corrections to property identification numbers and boundary lines and changes in the public and private improvement proposed • to be constructed within the Project Area occurred thereafter and necessitated adopting Modification No. 1 to the Plans in 1985 and Modification No. 2 to the plans in 1989. 1.04 On May 17, 1993 the HRA adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, which consisted, in part, of the Project Area and which Redevelopment Plan included Modification No. 3 to the Plans. 1.05 Additional acquisitions and changes in the public and private improvements proposed to be constructed within the Project Area have occurred thereafter and have necessitated the consideration of this Modification No. 4 to the Plans. 1.06 The HRA has caused to be prepared modified Plans which are contained in a document entitled "Interstate Lyndale Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing plan, Modification No. 4" dated March 21, 1994, and on file with the HRA. 1.07 On March 21, 1994, the HRA adopted Modification No. 4 to the Plans. 1.08 On April 12, 1994, the Planning Commission considered Modification No. 4 to the Plans and determined that the modified Plans are consistent with the general plans for development of Richfield as a whole. 1.09 The City has thoroughly reviewed the Plans and, following notice as required by law, has held a public hearing on the Plans, at which time all persons wishing to express an opinion about Modification No. 4 were allowed to do so. s4 . Section 2. Findings Relating to Modification No. 4. 2.01 It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the sound and orderly development of the Project Area 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 HRA to modify the Plans. 2.02 It is found that adopting Modification No. 4 will preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. 2.03 It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the City, that the proposed retail uses could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary to assist development of the Project Area. 2.04 The expenditures proposed to be financed through tax increment financing are necessary to permit the HRA and the City to realize the full potential of the Project Area in terms of development intensity and tax base. 2.05 The modified Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a.whole, for the development • of the Project Area by private enterprise. 2.06 As determined by the Planning Commission, the modified Plans conform to the general plans for development of the City as specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. Adoption of Modification No. 4 3.01 Modification No. 4 is hereby approved. 3.02 The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution along with a copy of Modification No. 4 to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and to send a copy of this Resolution to the HRA. 3.03 The City will consider from time to time requests made by the HRA to implement the modified Plans. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ? I INTERSTATE LYNDALE NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN CITY OF RICHFIELD Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification NoA March 21, 1994 Is • MAYOR Martin J. Kirsch CITY COUNCIL Michael Sandahl, Council Member At. Large Susan Rosenberg, Ward I 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 E CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Kathy Jablonsky Redevelopment Specialist William Weaver City Planner Shawn Drill Zoning Administrator Mike Eastling City Engineer CONSULTANTS John B. Dean Ronald L. Batty HRA Legal Counsel Holmes & Graven, Chartered Minneapolis, MN Sidney Inman Mark Ruff Publicorp, Inc. Minneapolis, MN Art's Pakalns Bennet, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. Minneapolis, MN Orr-Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN • • NOTE TO READER The following text represents Modification No. 4 to the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Only those areas of the plans requiring revision are incorporated in this modification. To understand all of the proposed activities, the reader is encouraged to review Modification No. 4 in conjunction with the following plans: Original ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated October 21, 1985 Modification No. 1 to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated November 25, 1985 Modification No. 2 to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated September 18, 1989 • Modification No. 3 to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan dated June 14, 1993 [Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan, dated June 14, 1993] 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) MODIFICATION NO.4 PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page STATUTORY AUTHORITY STATEMENT 1 4-2 MAP OF PROJECT AREA, LIST OF PARCELS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 4-2 PUBLIC PURPOSE STATEMENT 9 No Change STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 10 No Change Pro'ect Area 10 No Change Core Commercial District 13 No Change New Development District 14 No Change Mixed and Hi hwa -Oriented Commercial District (West) 15 No Change Mixed and Hi hwa -Oriented Commercial District (East) 15 No Change DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 16 4-2 Anticipated Private 16 4-4 Proposed Public 19 4-6 771h Street Improvements 20 4-6 Emerson Avenue 21 No Change Tra tc Control Signals 21 4-6 West 771/2 Street 21 4-6 West 78th Street - West o Emerson Avenue 21 4-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page Proposed Public Development Activities Continued West 781h Street - East o L le Avenue 22 No Change L dale Avenue 22 No Change L ndale Avenue Bride 23 No Change Parkin Lot Improvements 23 No Change General Streetscape Improvements 24 4-7 Santa Sewer Lit Station 24 4-7 Storm Sewer --- 4-7 ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES 24 4-7 SITE PREPARATION 28 No Change BUILDING REHABILITATION 28 No Change VACATION OF PUBLIC LAND 28 No Change PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS/LAND USE AND RELATED ISSUES 29 No Change New Development District 29 No Change Mixed and Highway-Oriented Commercial District West 29 No Change Core Commercial Distirct 30 No Change Mixed and Highway-Oriented Commercial District (East) 30 No Change Traffic Circulation and Parkin 31 No Change CJ • 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page Traffic Circulation and Parkin Continued Freew /Access/Barriers 31 No Change Area Access 31 No Change West 76th Street Throu h are 32 No Change Commercial Access Through Residential Neighborhood 32 No Change Tra is/Parkin Conflicts in the Core Commercial District 32 No Change Closely Spaced Intersections 32 No Change Closely Spaced Streets 33 No Change Narrow West 771h Street 33 No Change Pedestrian Circulation 33 No Change Lack o Pedestrian Circulation System 33 No Change Physical Conditions/Image 34 No Change Lack o Focal Point 34 No Change Lack o Strong Image 34 No Change Natural Amenities 34 No Change Views 34 No Change Screening 35 No Change Outdoor Stora e 35 No Change General AppearancelImage 35 No Change Hi TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page Conclusion 36 4-10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 39 No Change PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 39 No Change REDEVELOPEMENT PROPOSALS 39 4-10 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 40 No Change RELOCATION PROGRAM 41 No Change MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 41 No Change 0 40 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS • INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) MODIFICATION NO.4 PART II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN • PART II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page FINDINGS OF FACT 42 4-12 STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 47 4-12 LIST OF PARCELS IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 47 4-12 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 53 4-12 ACQUISITION PLAN 53 4-12 RELOCATION PLAN 53 4-12 ANTICIPATED TIMING OF ACTIVITIES 60 4-13 Private Development 60 4-13 Public Improvements 61 4-13 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN 64 4-13 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 64 4-13 REVENUE SOURCES 66 4-14 TIMING OF EXPENDITURES 67 4-14 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE 69 4-14 ASSESSED VALUES 70 4-14 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART H - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page' TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW 71 4-14 IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS 78 4-15 PROJECT COST ASSUMPTIONS 81 4-15 ESTIMATED ASSESSOR'S VALUE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 83 4-15 APPENDIX A - Sources and Uses Statement - - - A-1 APPENDIX B - Project Cashflows --- B-1 APPENDIX C - Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions --- C-1 n LJ 0 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET (ILN) MODIFICATION NO.4 LIST OF MAPS AND EXHIBITS • MAP OR EXHIBIT NUMBER TITLE Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page M-A1 Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area 2 No Change E-I Redevelopment Project Parcels 3 4-2 E-II Redevelopment Project Area Boundary Description 8 No Change M-A2 Sub-Areas 11 No Change M-A3 Phase I Development Program and Public Improvement Plan 17 4-3 M-A4 Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Plan 26 4-9 E-III-A Properties Acquired, Phase I 27 4-7 E-III-B Properties To Be Acquired, Phase I 27 4-8 M-A5 Existing Land Use 37 No Change M-A6 Land Use/Circulation Plan 38 No Change M-B1 Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District 45 No Change M-112 Building Conditions 46 No Change E-IV Tax Increment Financing District Parcels 48 No Change E-V Tax Increment Financing District Boundary Description 52 No Change vii LIST OF MAPS AND EXHIBITS MAP OR EXHIBIT NUMBER TITLE Original Plan Page Modification No. 4 Page E-VI Properties Proposed To Be Acquired, Phase I 58 See 4-7 M-113 Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Plan 56 See 4-9 M-114 Phase I Development Program and Public Improvement Plan 57 See 4-3 E-VII Anticipated Activity Schedule 63 See 4-5 E-VIII Estimated Project Costs B Line Item 65 See Appendix A E-IX Anticipated Source of Funds 66 See Appendix A APPENDIX A Sources and Uses of Funds --- A-1 APPENDIX B Project Cashflows --- B-1 APPENDIX C Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions --- C-1 0 • 0 Viii PART I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN MODIFICATION NO.4 0 9 4-1 INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY STATEMENT • The statutory authority for the activities proposed in the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Redevelopment Plan, dated October 21, 1985, were conferred upon the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). by the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.411, et seq. More specifically, Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.515 established the requirements that a redevelopment plan be prepared by an HRA prior to undertaking property acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment. Due to subsequent legislative changes, the authority for any modifications to the Redevelopment Project Plan now lies within Minn. Stat. Chapter 469, specifically at Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.001 - 469.047, inclusive, as amended. MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA, LIST OF PARCELS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The list of parcels located in the project area is revised under Modification No. 4 to indicate property subdivisions necessary to accommodate the new 77th Street right-of-way. At this writing, the subdivisions are currently in process. Specifically, the properties impacted under the subdivision are the "Cloverleaf Site" parcels owned by the Richfield HRA. Only the subdivision changes are noted within Modification No. 4. Otherwise, the list of parcels under the original plan remains the same. The properties impacted by the subdivision are as follows: EXHIBIT I - Redevelopment Project Parcels Former Parcels: • Property Address Property Identification Number 7644 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-43-0015 7600 Fremont Avenue 33-028-24-43-0016 Revised Parcels: Property Address Property Identification Number (Not Available At This Time) 33-028-24-43-0028 (Not Available At This Time) 33-028-24-43-0029 (Not Available At This Time) -33-028-24-43-0030 (Not Available At This Time) 33-028-24-43-0031 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES As before, the redevelopment of the ILN project area will be accomplished through the efforts of the City of Richfield, the Richfield HRA, private developers, property owners, and business owners. Property improvements, current and future phases, will be constructed over a period of several years. Therefore, amendments to this documents may be required from time to time as redevelopment unfolds. The private and public developments discussed within this portion- of the plan continue to remain within Phase I, Stage II of the redevelopment process. (See original Redevelopment Plan for further detail on the overall phasing and staging of the redevelopment of 4-2 ? ?? ? 0 ?•? ?n 0 ? ? '' 0 °°?° j 0011 00?; D. • a ? ? ? ? ? .? ,? ',? D D 00M13 O?-?-n??-?p OC? ?? 0000 ?ODOOD?P 0000 !??.??'?na ? ? ? ? O ? a .? M n ? ?? ?? i0 0'000 ?.? 16 i • LJL-' r•e n??ODn? ? 0a ? 0000000 ° ? ? ? O O-D ?,? ???a ?o?o?aOODOnn; 00 0 or?o o• --•---- - ----- ----- , i. - - -- -- - ] 00000 ?O C3001300001 3.; Co D CO O ID ?? f•?O ? ? oom G oa??',= p ° ° ° I- I°1= 31313Z ° D O D??.D? D?O ? 0 n !a D D 0 0 0 0 0 --- - - i• - ------- -------- IC0:000 Do 0?OOC3000MOOD ! !-a O O.00 D ? VC3 °???O '.D DDOQ °0D00j j 00 0 0 ??.? ] O O 0DID ? DOOGGGO o 0013 ? O ? O .? O ? i ]D 0° Ona?Q????no?? i co ?o ? D ????0?? i ;. I •111 ?. .::: 00000 ? D 130 a nna [3 C3L3 0. ^ ODOC30 :300 ?0??. ?? n 0O?nOD' Da O ? O O a on?na ?D %, j 0 ?v.? O ; D 00 ..:_......:._ - i 440 illllllllllll i'. Illllltllillt'•.,'?., IIIIIIIIIIIII II11111111111 IIII111111111 IIIIIIII11111 11, 1111111111111 tl,ltl,l,ltitl?l,lllI I it . p IIIIIIIII1111 Iltlllllllllll? 11111111111111111111111111) jj•. i 11111111111111111111111111h 11 , IIIIIIIII1111 ItItIt111111111tIIIt11111111 ,?1t.; 91111111111111; Illlllllliill, ;?' ;llllllilllllll I l i t l l l l l l i I ; I ;1 Illllllllllhl''; Iltllllllllll ?, IIIIIIIIIIIII 1,.• Itllllltltllllltl,ltllillll; ?i „ IIIIIIIIIIIIIU ?, Illlllllllllli 11111111111 I IItIIIII, I IIIIII Itltl?ltl,l,l,ititl,l,itl,l'. ;' 1 ItItItI,1.,I,ItItI,ItltltliF :, 111tltl,ltltltitltl,l,ltl,lt ? 1 V?,?,L?,I?IItI flr lr l? I? I? I? I? I? t; + i I'I'I'I"I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I .I III111111111111;, Itltl,ltl,l,ltlllllllllllllll?,.• 111111111111111 tlltilllIII I t1111111111tIIIII I lIII1111111111 'I 111111111111111 ,1,I,IIItl,l,l,l,l,ltltltltl, 'i? 11111111111111 ,? 111111111111111, 111 ?1111111111111111111111111? 'I I IIII111111111, I I? I I I 111111111 ? II'lllllllllllll Illlitlllllllll 111111111111111 I Jtll,lll,llttlitllt1111111i1,1t , !J11111111111111111111111111111 IIIII1111111111 ' E?Illlllllllllllt II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIi ? 1111 i? X11 111 I I 11 11 tl III II 'I .II I / II i I IIII :. 1 1 1 1 1 I I I:`:%f??i?i??`????•`:??i?i:fii'.•''•i ?:: i/ !-? t 1 t 111,1,1, I I I, :;:?:i ?i:'Si:i:':i<:i:?ir:•" /i .• ? r_ _, ? ?? 1111111-- -_ j -------------- --- i . f?.ir cc O W U) C U .... O P .4 U . s_ o 2 111 i a o U- 72 coo ??k the ILN project area.) Please note that within the overall ILN redevelopment phasing and staging, individual tracts of land for proposed developments will contain their own phasing as it relates to construction or build out. ANTICIPATED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES As a portion of the Cloverleaf Site was needed for the new 77th Street, the Richfield HRA sold the necessary land to the 77th Street project, thus downsizing the site somewhat. To date, no survey has been undertaken to determine the exact size of the residual land. Until the 77th Street right-of-way construction is completed, the interim use of the site will be to accommodate a concrete batch plant for the 77th Street project. Modification No. 4 addresses redevelopment for the remainder of the land in Phase I, Stage II, namely the property located in the "Mixed and Highway Oriented District - West" area, as well as a portion of the Cloverleaf site. CSM Corporation has entertained a redevelopment proposal, known as "The Shops At Lyndale" for the "Mixed and Highway Oriented District - West" tract of land and a portion of the Cloverleaf site. This land lies south of 77th Street and is bounded by I494 at its southern perimeter, Lyndale Avenue to the east, and Emerson Avenue to the west. Within this area, two phases of redevelopment are proposed. Each phase will build on the next until full build-out is achieved. The developer is anticipating acquisition of the property through negotiations. The HRA's power of eminent domain may be used as an alternative if negotiations are not successful. This would assure site assembly in a comprehensive, timely manner necessary for construction commencement in 1994. The first phase of the project would be contained within the area bounded by Emerson Avenue on the west and Colfax Avenue on the east. Per the preliminary site plan, Phase One would contain three (3) anchor tenants and a new church. The detail for each of the phases is as follows: PHASE ONE PHASE TWO Site Area 308,965 square feet Number of Acres 7.09 Anchor A 45,000 square feet Anchor B 42,000 square feet Anchor C 25,000 square feet Gross Bldg. Area* 112,000 square feet Church 13,340 square feet *Approximate Area Site Area 411,752 square feet Number of Acres 9.45 Acres Stage I.- In-Line Shop 20,475 square feet Pad Site southwest 6,000 square feet Subtotal 26,475 square feet Stage H. Anchor D 35,000 square feet Anchor E 25,000 square feet Anchor F 25,000 square feet Pad Site east 5,000 square feet Subtotal 90,000 square feet Gross Bldg. Area* 116,475 square feet 4-4 0 E 0 • TOTAL DEVELOPMENT MMMN? Site Area 720,717 square feet Number of Acres 16.54 Building Area: Phase One - retail 112,000 square feet - church 13,340 square feet Phase Two 116,475 square feet Gross Bldg. Area* 241,815 square feet *Approximate Area The following table summarizes both Phase One and Phase Two development components. Proposed Proposed Development Development Type of Initiation Completion Proposed Development 3rd Quarter, 1994 Winter, 1994 Retail center with approximately 112,000 square feet of space, occupied by three separate, major retailers, located between Emerson Avenue and Colfax Avenue and relocation of church to Cloverleaf site; construction preceded by site assembly through negotiated acquisition, or eminent domain, and site clearance activities. 1995 1995 Retail stores with 20,475 square feet of space, and Pad Site tenant of 6,000 square feet, located east and south east, of Phase One at approximately Colfax Avenue and 78th Street; most likely use of Pad Site to be restaurant; construction preceded by site assembly through acquisition (negotiated and/or eminent domain) and site clearance activities. 1995 1996 Retail center with 85,000 square feet of space, occupied by three separate retailers, and Pad Site tenant of 5,000 square feet located between Bryant Avenue and Aldrich Avenue; most likely use of Pad Site to be free-standing retailer; construction preceded by site assembly through acquisition (negotiated and/or eminent domain) and site clearance activities. 4-5 All of the referenced phased development would proceed within the context of a comprehensive plan to be formulated by the City, HRA., and developer. PROPOSED PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Proposed public development in Phase I, Stage II, is and has always been undertaken by the City and HRA. The new 77th Street right-of-way is being developed in order to accommodate private developments such as the above proposed project as well as accomplish other goals and objectives set forth in the redevelopment project area as a whole under the original redevelopment plan of 1985 and the modified redevelopment plan of 1989. In addition to the City and ERA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Minnesota Department of Transportation (M DOT), and other interim revenue source agencies such as the Metropolitan Council and the of the Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) are involved in bringing the new 77th Street right-of-way into existence. Situated within the "Mixed and Highway-Oriented West" site is a church. Phase One of the CSM project would include construction of a new church on the eastern portion of the Cloverleaf site, just west of the Phase One retail center. The HRA would sell a portion of the Cloverleaf site for the new church. Also, the HRA and City would assist the developer in assembling the site area by vacating portions of public rights-of-way south of 77th Street. 77th Street Improvements Prior to this modification, substantial funding of public improvements relied upon tax increment revenue sources from redevelopment activities. Subsequently, other revenue sources became available outside of redevelopment activity revenues. Traffic Control Signals One traffic control signal would be placed at Girard Avenue and 76th Street to control traffic filtering into and out of the new 77th Street. Additional traffic control devices will be installed as needed. West 771/2 Street The intersection of West 77 1/2 Street with Lyndale Avenue would be eliminated with Phase Two of the CSM development proposal. However, the gas station at 77 1/2 Street and Lyndale Avenue would remain. Access to the businesses would be from the new 77th Street. The "Pad Site" proposed on the east end of the Phase Two, CSM project could potentially contain a curb cut to access this building. However, no major entrance/exit to the general site would be constructed at this location. West 77 1/2 Street may be vacated for the project. LJ 4-6 West 78th Street - West of Emerson Avenue The improvements listed within this section under the modified redevelopment plan of 1989 are hereby revoked as they related specifically to the Cloverleaf site. General Streetscape Improvements The new 77th Street right-of-way plan addresses the installation of a variety of plant materials and other landscaping features to beautify the landscaped buffer screenwall and surrounding, adjacent areas to compliment the project and make the area more attractive. Sidewalk improvements are also included in this plan. The proposed CSM Corporation development project south of 77th Street would be part of a planned unit development (PUD). As a result of the PUD, plans for landscaping, parking, and lighting would be evaluated as a complete package and integrated into the 77th Street project as well. Reviews would be undertaken by the City. Sanitary Sewer Lift Station A portion of this section is hereby revoked as it related only to the hotel/office proposal of 1989. Other related public improvements are listed in the section entitled "Proposed Public Improvements". • Storm Sewer Upgrading of the storm sewer is part of the 77th Street project. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND CLEARANCE ACTIVPI'>(ES In the fall of 1991, the HRA had the opportunity to purchase the Cloverleaf site and gain control of a major portion of the ILN project area. On March 16, 1992, the HRA approved acquisition of the Cloverleaf Site and purchased the following property on April 15, 1992: EXIT HI-- A: Properties Acquired, Phase I Pro er Identification Number Pro er Address 33-028-24-43-0015 7644 Emerson Avenue 33-028-24-43-0016 7600 Fremont Avenue 33-028-24-43-0017 7600 Fremont Avenue 33-028-24-43-0018 7700 Fremont Avenue Also see section titled "Map of the Project Area, List of Parcels, and Legal Description" of Modification No. 4 to the ILN Redevelopment Plan for information on property subdivisions • related to the above parcels. The property listed on the following page would be acquired for the CSM Corporation development proposal. 4-7 EXHIBIT HI - B: Properties To be Acquired, Phase I II Property Identification Number I Property Address 11 33-028-24-43-0009 7701 Emerson Ave. 33-028-24-43-0010 7721 Emerson Ave. 33-028-24-44-0025 7700 Colfax Ave. 33-028-24-44-0026 7714 Colfax Ave. 33-028-24-44-0027 7726 Colfax Ave. 33-028-24-44-0028 7738 Colfax Ave. <» >>> Property Identification Number Property Address 33-028-24-44-0082 900 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0083 902 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0084 904 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0085 908 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0086 910 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0087 914 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0088 901 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0089 920 W. 77 1/2 St. PkMl Property Identification Number Property Address 33-028-24-44-0073 800 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0074 804 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0075 808 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0076 812 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0077 816 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0078 820 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-2444-0081 805 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0080 809 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0099 801 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0100 723 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0101 719 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0097 715 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0096 705 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0095 701 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0094 716 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0093 714 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0092 712 W. 77 1/2 St. 33-028-24-44-0091 708 W. 77 1/2 St. 0 4-8 ANTICIPATED TIMING OF ACTIVITIES • In general, the timing of private and public activities have been addressed in prior modifications to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. The timing of activities specific to the current CSM development project are listed within the section titled "Anticipated Private Development Activities" of Modification No. 4 for the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan which is hereby adopted by reference. Anticipated Timing of Activities - Private Development See descriptive above in section titled "Anticipated Timing of Activities." All references to prior private redevelopment projects are hereby revoked. Anticipated Timing of Activities -,Public Improvements See descriptive above in section titled "Anticipated Timing of Activities." TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN The sections which follow represent the cashflows, sources and uses statement (budget), and impacts on taxing jurisdictions as they specifically relate to the CSM development project for which Modification No. 4 was undertaken. • It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs, inflation, and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the ERA, City, staff, consultants, and the developer. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS The estimated project costs are represented as a Sources and uses statement. This statement is provided by the developer, CSM Corporation and was reviewed by the City and HRA and analyzed by the City's fiscal consultants, Publicorp, Inc. See Appendix A - Sources and Uses Statement. As one can see, the Sources and Uses Statement is detailed based on the different phases of the project. Toward the. end of Appendix A, both phases are combined to show an aggregate total. Shown at the top of each respective statement is the amount of tax increment necessary to sustain the project. For example, Phase One shows that with tax increment assistance, approximately $2,821,024 of increment is required in order to provide a rate of return that is acceptable to the developer in order to make the project feasible. Without tax increment assistance, the rate of return for Phase One is only 0.86%. This rate of return and level of risk would not be acceptable to any developer for a project of this magnitude. But for the assistance of tax increment, this project would not be possible. This directly ties into the "But For" test for the project whose is burden of proof lies with the developer. 4-13 REVENUE SOURCES The revenue source for the CSM development project will be tax increment. No new general ,obligation bond sales are contemplated. The pay out of the tax increment will be on a "pay-as- you-go" basis. That is, tax increment payments will be made to the developer to pay for legally allowable, authorized project costs as tax increment is generated by the project. If taxes are not paid, payments will not be made to CSM. In order to obtain a maximum value for loan indebtedness, 100% of the captured value and, in turn, tax increments generated from the CSM development project, will be used for debt service. The estimated tax increment to be paid may require a change in the fiscal disparities sharing of the ILN tax increment district in order to make the project feasible. That is, a selection may be made .in order that the project not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. The city as a whole would absorb the ILN's portion of the fiscal disparities contribution. This in turn would provide for the necessary level of increment required for the project. Should the project contribute to the fiscal disparities pool and, therefore, avoid spreading the contribution to the city as a whole, an amount amenable to both the city and developer will be made from the balance of the II,N tax increment district to cover the shortfall of necessary increment. The project cashflows presented in Appendix B shows the cashflows with the fiscal disparities change election and without. See section titled "Tax Increment Cashflow" below for further detail. TIMING OF EXPENDITURES • The developer of "The Shops at Lyndale" will pay for project expenditures. The developer would be reimbursed for project costs as tax increments are generated by the project. See above sections for further detail. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE See above sections for further detail. ASSESSED VALUES The estimated market value of the CSM development project is detailed in the attached tax increment cashflow. TAX INCREMENT CASHFLOW The estimated tax increment cashflows of the CSM development project is detailed in Appendix B - Project Cashflows. Again, each of the project phases has a cashflow. Both phases are combined at the end of Appendix B for an aggregate total. Furthermore, each phase and combined phase has two cashflows, one in which fiscal disparities assistance is used and one for which it is not. • 4-14 PART II TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN MODIFICATION NO.4 r 4-11 INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact are hereby confirmed as listed within the original Interstate Lyndale Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing Plan of 1985. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The statement of goals and objectives listed within the tax increment plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Tax Increment District, dated June 14, 1993 are hereby confirmed. LIST OF PARCELS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION The list of parcels and legal descriptions enumerated within the tax increment plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Tax Increment District, dated June 14, 1993 are hereby confirmed. Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area amended the project area parcels to accommodate property subdivisions resulting from the new 77th Street as well as additional property acquisitions by the HRA. This reference is also necessary for the tax increment plan. Therefore, the section entitled "Map of the Project Area, List of Parcels, and Legal Description" under Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area is hereby adopted by reference. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The Development Program for Modification No. 4 is discussed under the Redevelopment Project Plan (Modification No. 4). Both proposed private and public development activities are identified. Therefore, the section entitled "Development Activities" under Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area is hereby adopted by reference. ACQUISITION PLAN As stated within Modification No. 4 under the Redevelopment Project Plan, the developer would bear significant responsibility for acquisition of the property listed for acquisition. The HRA may assist in acquisition activities so that the developer would obtain title and possession of property in a timely manner. This implies that the HRA may exercise its powers of eminent domain, or condemnation, on property for which negotiations are not successful. The section entitled "Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities" under Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area provides additional information and is hereby adopted by reference. RELOCATION PLAN Relocation activities pertaining to the CSM development project can be found. within the section titled "Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities" under Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area. This section is hereby adopted by reference. 4-12 The first page of each cashflow provides background information, such as basic assumptions, property tax class rates, and base tax capacity for the project parcels. The second page provides the specific detail with respect to the project such as market values, tax capacity based on the market values, and the cashflow itself. In general, the cashflow, ties in with the Sources and Uses Statement. Please be reminded that the cashflow figures shown are estimates based on certain assumptions made. Figures will reconcile within a range rather than a specific dollar or value amount. IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS The overall analysis regarding an estimate of impact on taxing jurisdictions resulting from the CSM development project is detailed in Appendix C - Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions. Please note there are two impact analyses within Appendix C, the first one with the fiscal disparities change election and the second one without. PROJECT COST ASSUMPTIONS Project cost assumptions are enumerated within the Sources and Uses statement and related descriptive paragraphs within this plan. ESTIMATED ASSESSOR'S VALUE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS • Estimated assessor's value for the CSM development project are listed directly on the cashflows. r 4-15 • • 0 G L l? ? '? ? o U CI 0 u nn nn -J w O0 0 -?-0 t7bp l a -? I , [] D ????? ,??o?.??b 6L7, rr. -- - i A i ?'? ? O ! u 0 ? o 00 D - u 1 D'OiO'°' ~0D'o0i?1?;O 000 7T, 1• . it 1 i•I I , t - - -_-_ - - !'.•• ?•%? L -_ --L_ _i_ 1_ _ •' J lam,-J ?-J ?=? -- - •- -'---- ?S 'any a?eoui.? _ 13 • ?; OC0 0 Z:C0: CO,? C C 0O'000U D ? ? ?_D C7'.. Fi -t' I I -7:- 7 117 ==-O0000! ?uCC? aa?o??D , P-M 0 O MC3 00 0 I 0%0-00 00- - -- o'?o 00 0 -- =-- ' ! -' --- - 7- UOU Ij 000000 o ?°c0? I C0 D-D-??ODOOn r? D a'o'o_? 00 0- 0 00-0 - !!I C3 mo?exmx? ? c c i'? ? o c ;o' 'riob 0 I' I. 0 C30 0 0 C7 la o ..0000000 0000 000 0 -0 '000'. 1 10 0 -000, 00 1 =_ i t MI. I r0 0000°0°0°0 0 o°o o°c ' 1 I C C C C 0 0 r, 0 0 D 0? D 13 Q L' D o i l U? O O b b D 000ooooooooooooo00000000000 ,1 i I - p0o0O0o0o000000000000000000 000000000000°.' 0 00 --- o' - -'-' 00000000000 o - - 000000000000000000000000000 OG ?G?c C?OL70 iC:30 0V ?C] D'O OO'D ,r, iooooo000000000 0000000000000 00°0°000°0°0°0°0°000°0°0°0oe t.t -- ---=_--= •----- - =1--_-' -- •I L-_- LL 00000000000000 '• I --- , o00000000oooo<I - -? °o°p°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°a I? _ ,. .T O00OOO OOO o OOOOO I 000000000000 I ? C:3 13 0 D?? i O O O O 0. 0 O Ii ' OOO o ; I COO 0 C3!0 D : °o°o°o° I I I :> 00000000000000 ._ - -t -r t T_ r •.???.? - I p0000000°00000000000°OOOOOpO O, 00000000000000 Ii • - ' I , y?','ti'••:Y: ?• 100000000000000 ' ' I '••_ ' {'''' '•'• '?> 0000000000 OO Oc 0? D i. C??b??IOOC?O 00 DO r;+'K;j00000000000000 00000oooooef J 1 ' J ' 1 , %``' ' I o°o°o°00000000000 ! o000ogR,4,Q,2o0oc i '-r :. - _ -. -:-, , ---.-_ - r_ T _ ' - - - 1?• _._-___ ; _-_sve uvv vv ee ere e v.+ro-?.? 0 ' 0 .!00000 Oe'G0000000000000000? • ..00000000°O°OppppO00p°p ° pppppOp°ppp0p0p0p000°O°O C DDDDDG? C •??, ?%" 000000000000000000000000 .::•? ti000000000000000000o 0 0oC ?,•: oo0opooooo000000000000• _ ._ . 1: - - t I7°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°O°COC°O°O°C°O°O°O° ' I7?ODO?O?OOO?O?O?OQO?ODO?O?OpO?OpO?ODO?ODO?ODOD-0- - C00p0?0000 G CJ G Q ? ? °0°000°0 7°00 0 °0°0°0°0 0 00 0°0 °O°co°c°? _ 000000000000000000000000001' J? If000000000000000000000000 000000000000ooooooooooo0000 00000 000000• i --1 I7 000000000000000000 o0 o°booo00000000000000000• 00 r• n - ±fooooo0000000000000000000 r, ????0 0 00 0 C?pGO 000000000000000000o00000 G j f6 oooo0000000 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000000000000000000000000000000 i )0000 0 00 0 0000000000000 i 0000000000000000 1 t r;.: >ooooo000000000000000000, 00000000000 OMXXO' 000000 0 0 0°0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 o 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?- 0 0- 0 0 000000000000? / -- '•1 r• ?' ? I )000000000000000000000r ..?? G ?u ;?u Cu ?OQ 0006000000000000ooooor p 0000000000000000001'y ,09?000000000000oooooc j .0 ! CJ 13 '12 :L ;i =I -I I I y. -+v 0 2 0 r [,^•c Alp, 6 z p 9 C a 0 O CU a W C 'e Z < d C E ° M Q ? Q p°p°p 0000 U 000 :}r U) vU T O ? 0 (D C: CZ Q CC cdCL The developer would be responsible for acquisition of the referenced property. The BRA may provide assistance with condemnation should the developer not be able to obtain the property through negotiated acquisitions. All acquisition activities would be conducted according to applicable state and federal regulations. CSM Corporation will be responsible for the relocation process. All buildings which are acquired for the proposed project would be demolished. If feasible, buildings acquired would be sold for removal from the site. All other descriptive activity under this section in Modification No. 2, dated September of 1989, are hereby revoked. Much of the activity related to public rights-of-way at that time have become part of the 77th Street project or were part of the 1989 proposed development for the Robert Larsen project. CONCLUSION The activity described under the conclusion section of Modification No. 2, dated September of 1989, is hereby amended to (1.) recognize the implementation of the new 77th Street right-of-way and its related circulation plan; and (2.) recognize the change in use of the site known as the Mixed and Highway Oriented District - West. All descriptive activity relating to land use and circulation plans for the Robert Larsen project and public improvements supporting the Robert Larsen project are hereby revoked. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS As stated earlier within Modification No. 4, CSM Corporation will be responsible for site assembly including acquisition, relocation, and demolition. Upon the developer's request, the HRA may assist with site assembly by utilizing its powers of eminent domain to ensure property title and possession in a timely manner. All aspects of the development activity will be detailed in the Contract for Private Development. Activities not related to the CSM development project yet part of prior redevelopment plan modifications remain as described in those plans. 4-10 APPENDIX A SOURCES AND USES STATEMENT 0 0 A-1 PHASE I 17> A-2 SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD ?1-Mar-94 WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT WITH TAX INCREMENT I 112.000 SQUARE FEET PHASE SOURCES AND USES SOURCES AND USES . SOURCES SOURCES MORTGAGE 9,604.327 75.0: 6,783,303 53.0: EQUITY 39201,442 25.0% 3,201.442 2,821,024 25.0% 22.0% TAX INCREMENT -------- ---------- ----------- TOTAL SOURCES --- 12,805,769 100.0% 12,805,769 USES USES LAND 5,370,300 41.9% 5,370,300 41.9% DEMOLITION 200,000 1.6% 200,000 1.6% ENVIRONMENTAL/SOIL TESTING 50.000 0.4% 50,000 0.4% SOIL CORRECTION 12.5,000 1.0% 125,000 1.0% OFFSITE WATER PONDING 100,000 0.8% 100,000 .0.8% TOTAL LAND COSTS - 5,845,300 45.6%" 5,845,300 45.6% RETAIL 1 TURNKEY 45,000 $34.00 1,530,000 11.9% 1,530,000 11.9% RETAIL 2 TURNKEY 42,000 $34.00 1,428,000 11.2% 1,428,000 11.2% RETAIL 3 TURNKEY 25,000 $36.00 900,000 7.0% 900,000 7.0% ETAIL 4 TURNKEY 0 0 I RETAIL 5 TURNKEY 0 0 RETAIL 6 TURNKEY 0 0 SMALL SHOPS 0 0 PADS 0 SITEWORK 112,000 $9.00 0 1,008,000 7.9% 1,008,000 7.9% CONST: CONTINENCY 3.0% 145,980 1.1% 1459980 ----------- 1.1% TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS ----------- 5,011,980 39.1% 5,011,980 39.1% ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING $2.50 280,000 2.2% 280,000 2.2%: SURVEY/TITLE $0.15 16,800 0.1%: 16,800 0.1% LEASING FEES/MARKETING $3.50 392,000 3.1% 392,000 3.1%: OVERHEAD $1.00 1120000 0.9% 7% 112,000 937 990 7.7% CONSTRUCTION INTEREST 8.5 % 990,937 7. , LOAN PLACEMENT FEES 100,000 0.8% 100.000 SOFT COST CONTINENCY 3.0% 56,752 56,752 ------- 0% 0 ----------- 0.0% ---- . TOTAL SOFT COSTS 1,948,489 15.2%: 1,948,489 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,805,769 100.0% 12,805,769 0 A-3 SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD 11-Mar-94 RETAIL 1 RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3 RETAIL 4 RETAIL 5 RETAIL 6 SMALL SHOPS PADS TOTAL RENTAL INCOME EXPENSE RECOVERY ----------------- CAM TAXES INSURANCE MANAGEMENT FEES TOTAL RECOVERIES POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME CREDIT/VACANCY RESERVE EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES ------------------ CAM TAXES INSURANCE MGMT FEES STRUCTURAL RESERVES TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME MORTGAGE PAYMENT WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT WITH TAX INCREMENT INCOME STATEMENT INCOME STATEMENT ---------------- ---------------- 45,000 $12.00 540,000 540.000 42,000 $10.00 420,000 420,000 25,000 $11.50 287.500 287,500 - ---------- 1,247,500 ----------- 1,247,500 1.25 PSF 140,000 140,000 4.00 PSF 448,000 448,000 0.10 PSF 11,2200 11,200 0 ----------- ----------- 599,200 599,200 1,846,700 1,846,700 7.0% (129,269) (129,269) 1,717,431 1,717,431 1.25 PSF 140,000 140,000 4.00 PSF 448,000 448,000 0.10 PSF 11,2200 11,200 5.0%INCOME 62,375 622,375 0.25 PSF 28,000 28,000 ----------- 6890575 689,575 1,027,856 1,027,856 20 YEAR TERM 8.5%INTEREST 9,604,327 PRINCIPAL NET INCOME RETURN ON EQUITY 1,000,183 27,673 0.86: 20 YEAR TERM 8.5INTEREST 706,405 ----------- 321,45-1 10.04% • E 0 A-4 PHASE II 40 A-5 SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD 11-Mar-94 WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT WITH TAX INCREMENT PHASE II 116,475 SQUARE FEET SOURCES AND USES SOURCES AND USES SOURCES SOURCES . s s. MORTGAGE 9,170,071 75.0%: 7,102.916 58.1% EQUITY 3.056.690 25.0% 3,056,690 25.0%: 2,067,155 16.9% TAX INCREMENT ---------- ---------- ----------- TOTAL SOURCES 12,226,761 100.0%: 12,226,761 USES USES 4,562,608 37.3% 4,562.608 37.3% LAND DEMOLITION 300,000 2.5%: 300,000 2.5% ' ENVIRONMENTAL/SOIL TESTING 50,000 0.4% 6% 50,000 000 75 0.4': 0.6% SOIL CORRECTION 75,000 0 0. 0.0% , 0 0.0% OFFSITE WATER PONDING TOTAL LAND COSTS 40987,608 40.8%' 4,987,608 40.8: RETAIL 1 TURNKEY 0 0 0.0: 0 0 0.0% 0% 0 RETAIL 2 TURNKEY 0 0 0 0.0: 0% 0 0 . 0.0% RETAIL 3 TURNKEY 0 RETAIL 4 TURNKEY 35,000 $34.00 1,190,000 . 9..7% 1,190,000 . .9.7% RETAIL 5 TURNKEY 25,000 $34.00 850,000 7.0% 0% 8509000, 000 850 7.0? 7.0.: RETAIL 6 TURNKEY 25,000 $34.00 850,000 : 7. 9: 5 , 625 716 5.9% SMALL SHOPS 20,475 000 11 $35.00 $45.00 716,625 .495.000 . 4.0% , 495,000 4.0% , PADS SITEWORK 116,475 $9.00 1,048,275 8.6: 19048,275 8.6% COSST. CONTINGENCY 3.0: 154,497 1.3: _--154_497- 1.3% TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS 5,304,397 43.4% 5,304.397 43.4% ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING $2.50 291.188 2.4% % 291,188 471 17 2.4% 0.1% SURVEY/TITLE $0.15 50 $3 17.471 663 407 0.1 3.3% , 407,663 3.3% LEASING FEES/MARKETING . 00 $1 , 475 116 1.0., 116,475 1.0%: OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION INTEREST , . 8.5% 945.608 7.7% 945,608 7.7% 8% 0 LOAN PLACEMENT FEES 100,000 0.8% 5% 100,000 352 56 . 0.5% SOFT COST CONTINGENCY 3.0% 56,352 0. - , ---- TOTAL SOFT COSTS 1,934,756 15.8% 1.934,756 15.8% TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,226,761 100.0: 12,226,761 100.0% A-6 SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD i2-Mar-94 RETAIL 1 RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3 RETAIL 4 RETAIL 5 RETAIL 6 SMALL SHOPS PADS TOTAL RENTAL INCOME EXPENSE RECOVERY ----------------- CAM TAXES INSURANCE MANAGEMENT FEES TOTAL RECOVERIES POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME OLREDIT/VACANCY RESERVE EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES ------------------ CAM TAXES INSURANCE MGMT FEES STRUCTURAL RESERVES TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME MORTGAGE PAYMENT 0 0 0 35.000 25,000 25.000 20,475 11,000 WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT INCOME STATEMENT ---------------- 0 0 0 $11.00 385,000 $10.25 256,250 $10.50 262.500 $12.00 245,700 $15.00 165,000 1,314,450 WITH TAX INCREMENT INCOME STATEMENT ---------------- 0 0 0 385.000 256,250 262.500 245,700 165,000 1,314.450 1.25 PSF 145,594 145,594 4.00 PSF 465,900 465,900 0.10 PSF 11,648 11,648 5.0% 20,535 - ----------- 643,676 643,676 1,958,126 1,958,126 7.0% (137,069) - (137_069) 1,821,057 1,821,057 1.25 PSF 145,594 145,594 4.00 PSF 465,900 465,900 0.10 PSF 11,648 11,648 5.0%INCOME 65,723 65,723 0.25 PSF 29,119 29,119 ---717,983 717,983 1,103,075 19103,075 20 YEAR TERM 8.5%INTEREST 9,170,071 PRINCIPAL NET INCOME RETURN ON EQUITY 20 YEAR TERM 8.5%INTEREST 9540960 739,689 148,115 363,386 4.85: 11.89: A-7 PHASE I & PHASE II 0 A-8 SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD • 11-Mar-94' PHASES I/II 228.475 SQUARE FEET MORTGAGE EQUITY TAX INCREMENT TOTAL SOURCES LAND DEMOLITION ENVIRONMENTAL/SOIL TESTING SOIL CORRECTION OFFSITE WATER PONDING TOTAL LAND COSTS RETAIL 1 TURNKEY 45,000 RETAIL 2 TURNKEY 42,000 RETAIL 3 TURNKEY 25,000 RETAIL 4 TURNKEY 35,000 RETAIL 5 TURNKEY 25,000 RETAIL 6 TURNKEY 25,000 SMALL SHOPS 20,475 PADS 11,000 SITEWO RK 228,475 CONTT. CONTINGENCY. 3.0: TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SURVEY/TITLE LEASING FEES/MARKETING OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION INTEREST LOAN PLACEMENT FEES SOFT COST CONTINGENCY TOTAL SOFT COSTS TOTAL.PROJECT COSTS • $34.00 $36.00 $36.00 $34.00 $34.00 $34.00 $35.00 $45.00 $9.00 WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT SOURCES AND USES SOURCES f 18,774,398 75.0': 6.258.132 25.0% 25,032,530 USES 9,932,908 500,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 10,832,908 100.0% 39.5: 2.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 43.1y 1,530,000 1,512,000 900,000 1,190,000 850,000 850,000 716,625 495,000 2,056,275 302,997 10,402,897 $2.50 571,188 $0.15 34,271 $3.50 799,663 $1.00 228,475 8.5: 1,943,899 200,000 3.0% 113,325 3,890,820 259126,625 6.1% 6.0% 3.6% 4.7% 3.4% 3.4% 2.9% 2.0% 8.2% 1.2: 41.4% 2.3% 0.1% 3 0.9% 7. 0.8% 0.5% 15.5% 100.0% WITH TAX INCREMENT SOURCES AND USES .SOURCES f 's 1318861219 55.95 6,258,132 25.0 4,888,179 19.5: 25,032,530 USES 9,932,908 500,000 100,000 200,000 100,000 10,832,908 39.5% 2.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 43.1% 1,530,000 1,512,000 900,000. .1,190,000 850,000 850,000 716,625 495,000 2,056,275 302,997 10,402,897 571,188 34,271 799,663 2228,475 1,943,899 200,000 113,325 3,890,8220 25,126,625 6.1% 6.0: 3.6% 4.7% 3.4% 3.4% 2.9% 2.0 % 8.2% 1.2% 41.4: 2.3% 0.1% 3.2 % 00.9% 7.7% 0.8% 0.5% 15.5: 100.0% A-9 SHOPS AT LYNDALE SUT FOR ANALYSIS CITY OF RICHFIELD 11-Mar-94 RETAIL 1 RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3 RETAIL 4 RETAIL 5 RETAIL 6 SMALL SHOPS PADS TOTAL RENTAL INCOME EXPENSE RECOVERY ----------------- CAM TAXES INSURANCE MANAGEMENT FEES TOTAL RECOVERIES POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME CREDIT/VACANCY RESERVE EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES ------------------ CAM TAXES INSURANCE MGMT FEES STRUCTURAL RESERVES TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME MORTGAGE PAYMENT WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT WITH TAX INCREMENT - INCOME STATEMENT --- INCOME STATEMENT ---------------- 45.000 $12.00 ------------- 540,000 - 540.000 42.000 $10.00 420,000. 4220,000 25,000 $11.50 287,500 287,500 35000 $11.00 385,000 385,000 25,000 $10.25 256,250 256,250 225,000 $10.50 '262,500 262,500 20,475 $12.00 245,700 245,700 11,000 $15.00 165,000 ---------- 165,000 ----------- - 2,561,950 21561,950 1.225 PSF 285,594 285,594 4.00 PSF 913,900 913,900 0.10 PSF 221,848 229,848 5.0% 20,535 -- ----------- --------- 1,242,876 1,242,876 3,804,826 39804,826 7.0% (266,338) (2266,338) ----------- ----------- 3,538,488 3,538,488 1.25 PSF 285,594 285,594 4.00 PSF 913,900 913,900 0.10 PSF 22,848 22,848 5.0%INCOME 128.,098 128,098 0.25 PSF 57,119 - 57,119 ---------- ---------- 1,407,558 19407,558 2,130,931 29130,931 20 YEAR TERM 8.5%INTEREST 18,774,398 PRINCIPAL 1,955,143 ---------- NET INCOME 1759788 RETURN ON EQUITY 2.81% 20 YEAR TERM 8.5 :INTEREST 1,446,094 684,837 10.94% 171 0 A-10 APPENDIX B PROJECT CASHFLOWS • B-1 0 PHASE I (With Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 B-2 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE I - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1 10 L1 • BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3.0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% ID BASE TAX CAPACITY BASE MARKET PROPERTY VALUE TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43.0009 0 R 0 33-028-24-43.0010 1,470,000 A 49,980 Clovarieaf :33-028-24-43-0015 114,000 LC N/A Cloverleaf 33-028-24-43-0016 500,000 R N/A cloverleaf :r 33-028-24.43.0017 226,000- - LC N/A . Aoverleaf 33-028-24-03-0018 . 740,200, GC N/A . 33-028-24-44-0025 146,900 VL 6,757 33-028-2444-0026 94,700 CC 2,841 33-028-2444-0027 166,500 C 7,659 33-028-2444-0028 91,800 CC 2,754 33-028-2444-0028 87,500 R 1,030 33-028-2444-0073 147,300 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0074 108,900 C 0 33-028-24-44-0075 107,100 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0076 119,700 CC 0 33-028-2444-0077 91,200 C 0 33-028-24-44-0078 78,100 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0080 283,500 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0081 78,700 C 0 33-028-24-44-0082 91,200 C 0 33-028-2444-0083 128,300 CC 0 33-028-2444-0084 135,100 C 0 33-028-24-44-0085 87,200 CC 0' 33-028-24-44-0086 75,100 C 0 33-028-24-44-0087 230,600 CC 0 33-028-2444-0088 128,400. CC 0 33-028-24-44-0089 393,100 CC 0 33-028-2444.0090 216,600 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0091 110,600 CC 0 33-028-2444-0092 53,800 C 0 33-028-24-440093 53,800 C 0 33-028-2444-0094 100,300 CC 0 33.028-24-44-0095 55,400 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0095 64,000 R 0 33-028-24-44-0096 232,000 C 0 33-028-24-44-0097 148,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-0099 295,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-0100 221,100 C 0 33-028-24-44-0101 1501800 CC 0 7,622,700 71,021 B-3 R1100-18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Aaae review all assumptions. CSM94A 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE 1- $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2 Market Square Phase I Phase I Retail TOTALS B C D C E F G H J K L M N Values Feet 2,849,600 45,000 2,659,600 42,000 1,583,100 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,092,300 112,000 Tax Taxes a aci /S .Ft. Construct Payable 131,082 4.00 1994 1996 122,343 4.00 1994 19% 72,823 .4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4:00 1994 1996 0 4:00 1994 1996 0 4;00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 0 4.00 1994 1996 326,248 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 0.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.002-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.508-01 1994 0.5 08-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.508-01 1995 1.508-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 2.5 08-01 1996 2.508-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 3.0 02-01 1997 3.0 02-01 1997 71,021 336,035 0 265,014 181,957 18,196 163,761 3.5 08-01 1997 3.508-01 1997 71,021 336,035 0 265,014 181,957 18,196 163,761 4.002-01 1998 4.002-01 1998 71,021 346,116 0 275,095 188,879 18,888 169,991 4.508-01 1998 4.508-01 1998 71,021 346,116 0 275,095 188,879 18,888 169,991 5.002-01 1999 5.002-01 1999 71,021 356,500 0 285,478 196,008 19,601 176,407 5.508-01 1999 5.508-01 1999 71,021 356,500 0 285,478 196,008 19,601 176,407 6.002-01 2000 6.002-01 2000 71,021 367,195 0 296,173 203,351 20,335 183,016 6.508-01 2000 6.508-01 2000 71,021 367,195 0 296,173 203,351 20,335 183,016 7.002-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 71,021 378,210 0 307,189 210,914 21,091 189,823 7.508-01 2001 7.508-01 2001 71,021 378,210 0 307,189 210,914 21,091 189,823 8.002-01 2002 8.002-01 2002 71,021 389,557 0 318,535 218,705 21,870 196,834 8.508-01 2002 8.508-01 2002 71,021 389,557 0 318,535 218,705 21,870 196,834 9.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 71,021 401,243 0 330,222 226,729 22,673 204,056 9.508-01 2003 9.508-01 2003 71,021 401,243 0 330,222 226,729 22,673 204,056 10.002-01 2004 10.002-01 2004 71,021 413,281 0 342,259 234,994 23,499 211,494 10.508-01 2004 10.508-01 2004 71,021 413,281 0 342,259 234,994 23,499 211,494 11.002-01 2005 11.002-01 2005 71,021 425,679 0 354,658 243,506 24,351 219,156 11.5 08-01 2005 11,508-01 2005 71,021 425,679 0 354,658 243,506 24,351 219,156 12.002-01 2006 12.002-01 2006 71,021 438,450 . 0 367,428 252,274 25,227 227,047 12.5 08-01 2006 12.508-01 2006 71,021 438,450 0 367,428 252,274 25,227 227,047 13.002-01 2007 13.002-01 2007 71,021 451,603 0 380,582 261,305 26,131 235,175 13.508-01 2007 13.508-01 2007 71,021 451,603 0 380,582 261,305 26,131 235,175 14.002-01 2008 14.002-01 2008 71,021 465,151 0 394,130 270,608 27,061 243,547 14.508-01 2008 14.508-01 2008 71,021 465,151 0 394,130 270,608 27,061 243,547 15.0 02-01 2009 15.002-01 2009 71,021 479,106 0 408,084 280,189 28,019 252,170 15.508-01 2009 15.508-01 2009 71,021 479,106 0 408,084 280,189 28,019 252,170 16.002-01 2010 16.002-01 2010 71,021 493,479 0 422,457 290,057 29,006 261,051 16.508-01 2010 16.508-01 2010 71,021 493,479 0 422,457 290,057 29,006 261,051 17.002-01 2011 17.002-01 2011 71,021 508,283 0 437,262 300,222 30,022 270,200 17.508-01 2011 17.508-01 2011 71,021 508,283 0 437,262 300,222 30,022 270,200 18.002-01 2012 TOTALS 7,469,869 746,987 6,722,882 PRESENT VALUE 3,215,364 321,536 2,893,828 R1100-18 B-4 Prepared by Publicorp Inc.BP16ase review all assumptions. • qW 0 CSM94A PHASE I ithout Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 B-5 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE 1- $4.00 - 3% Inflation BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCU SSION' District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3:0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000%d Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% PID BASE MARKET VALUE PROPERTY TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43-0009 0 R 0 33-028-24-43-0010 1,470,000 A 49,980 Ctove im 33-028-2443-0015 114,000 LC N?A powrlear 33-028=24-43-0016 500,000 R N/A cumerimr 33.028-2443-0017: 226,000 LC N/A cioverieaf" 33-028=24=43-0018 740,200 CC ,;> N/A 33-028-24-44-0025 146,900 VL 6,757 33-028-2444-0026 94,700 CC 2,841 33-028-24-44-0027 166,500 C 7,659 33-028-24-44-0028 91,800 CC 2,754 33-028-24-44-0028 87,500 R 1,030 33-028-24-44-0073 147,300 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0074 108,900 C 0 33-028-2444-0075 107,100 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0076 119,700 CC 0 33-028-2444-0077 91,200 C 0 33-028-2444-0078 78,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-M 283,500 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0081 78,700 C 0 33-028-24-44-0082 91,200 C 0 33-028-24-44-0083 128,300 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0084. 135,100 C 0 33-028-24-44-0085 87,200 -CC 0 33-028-2444-0086 75,100 C 0 33-028-24-44-0087 230,600 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0088 128,400 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0089 393,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-0090 216,600 CC 0 33-028-2444-0091 110,600 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0092 53,800 C 0 33-028-2444.0093 53,800 C 0 33-028-24-4440094 100,300 CC 0 33-028-2444-0095 55,400 CC 0 33-028-24-44-0095 64,000 R 0 33-028-24-44-0096 232,000 C 0 33-028-2444.0097 148,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-0099 295,100 CC 0 33-028-2444-0100 221,100 C 0 33-028-2444-0101 150,800 CC 0 B-6 Page 1 • 0 0 RI100-18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94A 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE 1- $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2 0 Phase I Phase I Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail TOTALS B C D C E F G H I J K L M N Market Square Values Feet 2,849,600 45,000 2,659,600 42,000 1,583,100 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tax Taxes apacity /Sq.Ft. 131,082 4.00 122,343 4.00 72,823 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4:00 0 : 4.00 0 4:00 0 4.00 0 4.00 326.248 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 19% TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 15.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.002-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 1994 0.508-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.508-01 1995 1.508-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 2.508-01 1996 2.508-01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 3.002-01 1997 3.002-01 1997 71,021 336,035 50,405 214,608 147,349 14,735 132,614 3.508-01 1997 3.508-01 1997 71,021 336,035 50,405 214,608 147,349 14,735 132,614 4.002-01 1998 4.002-01 1998 71,021 346,116 51,91.7 223,177 153,232 15,323 137,909 4.5 08-01 1998 4.508-01 1998 71,021 346,116 51,917 223,177 153,232 15,323 137,909 5.002-01 1999 5.0 02-01' 1999 71,021 356,500 53,475 232,003 159,292 15,929 143,363 5.508-01 1999 5.508-01 1999 71,021 356,500 53,475 232,003 159,292 15,929 143,363 6.002-01 2000 6.002-01 2000 71,021 367,195 55,079 241,094 165,534 16,553 148,981 6.5 08-01 2000 6.508-01 2000 71,021 367,195 55,079 241,094 165,534 16,553 148,981 7.0 02-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 71,021 378,210 56,732 250,457 171,963 17,196 154,767 7.5 08-01 2001 7.508-01 2001 71,021 378,210 56,732 250,457 171,963 17,196 154,767 8.002-01 2002 8.002-01 2002 71,021 389,557 58,434 260,102 178,585 17,858 160,726 '8.5 08-01 2002 8.508-01 2002 71,021 389,557 58,434 260,102 178,585 17,858 160,726 9.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 71,021 401,243 60,187 270,036 185,405 18,541 166,865 9.508-01 2003 9.508-01 2003 71,021 401,243 60,187 270,036 185,405 18,541 166,865 10.002-01 2004 10.002-01 2004 71.021 413,281 61,992 280,267 192,430 19,243 173,187 10.508-01 2004 10.508-01 2004 71,021 413,281 61,992 280,267 192,430 19,243 173,187 11.002-01 2005 11.002-01 2005 71,021 425,679 63,852 290,806 199,666 19,967 179,699 11.5 08-01 2005 11.508-01 2005 71,021 425,679 63,852 290,806 199,666 19,967 179,699 12.002-01 2006 12.002-01 2006 71,021 438,450 65,767 301,661 207,119 20,712 186,407 12.508-01 2006 12.508-01 2006 71,021 438,450 65,767 301,661 207,119 20,712 186,407 13.002-01 2007 13.002-01 2007 71,021 451,603 67,740 312,841 214,795 21,480 193,316 13.5 08-01 2007 13.508-01 2007 71,021 451,603 67,740 312,841 214,795 21,480 193,316 14.002-01 2008 14.002-01 2008 71,021 465,151 69,773 324,357 222,702 22,270 200,432 14.508-01 2008 14.508-01 2008 71,021 465,151 69,773 324,357 222,702 22,270 200,432 15.002-01 2009 15.002-01 2009 71,021 479,106 71,866 336,218 230,846 23,085 207,761 15.508-01 2009 15.508-01 2009 71,021 479,106 71,866 336,218 230,846 23,085 207,761 16.002-01 2010 16.002-01 2010 71,021 493,479 74,022 348,436 239,234 23,923 215,311 16.508-01 2010 16.508-01 2010 71,021 493,479 74,022 348,436 239,234 23,923 215,311 17.002-01 2011 17.002-01 2011 71,021 508,283 76,242 361,019 247,874 24,787 223,087 17.508-01 2011 17.508-01 2011 71,021 508,283 76,242 361,019 247,874 24,787 223,087 18.002-01 2012 TOTALS 6,115,326 611,533 5,503,794 PRESENT VALUE 2,625,814 262,581 2,363,233 I L C. RI 100-18 B-7 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94A PHASE II (With Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 11 B-8 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1 11 0 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3.0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% ID BASE TAX CAPACITY BASE MARKET PROPERTY VALUE TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43-0009 0 R 0 33-028-2443-0010 1,470,000 A 0 ciovaimf . 33-028-24-43-0015 114,000 LC N/A ownriaf 33-028-24-43-0016 500,000 R N/A ctowrinr .33-028-2443-0017 226,000 LC: WA Cloveriaaf. .33-028-2443-0018 740,200 CC NIA 33-028-2444-0025 146,900 VL 0 33-028-24-44-0026 94,700 CC 0 33-028-2444-0027 166,500 C 0 33-028-2444-0028 91,800 CC 0 33-028-2444-0028 87,500 R 0 33-028-2444-0073 147,300 CC 5,176 33-028-24-44-0074 108,900 C 5,009 33-028-2444-0075 107,100 CC 3,327 33-028-2444-0076 119,700 CC 3,906 33-028-2444-0077 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-2444-0078 78,100 CC 2,343 33-028-24-44-0080 283,500 CC 11,441 33-028-24-44-0081 78,700 C 3,620 33-028-24-44-0082 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-24-44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302 33-028-24-44-0084 135,100 C 6,215 33-028-24-44-0085 87,200 CC 2,616 33-028-24-44-0086 75,100 C 3,455 33-028-2444-0067. 230,600 CC 9,008 33-028-2444-0088 128,400 CC 4,306 33-028-2444.0089 393,100 CC 16,483 33-028-24-44-0090 216,600 CC 8,364 33-028-24-44-0091 110,600 CC 3,488 33-028-2444-0092 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-44-0093 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-44-0094 100,300 CC 3,014 33-028-24-44-0095 55,400 CC 1,662 33-028-24-44.0095 64,000 R 640 33-028-2444-0096 232,000 C 10,672 33-028-2444-0097 148,100 CC 5,213 33-028-2444.0099 295,100 CC 11,975 33-028-24-44-0100 221,100 C 10,171 33-028-2444-0101 150,800 CC 5,337 7,622,700 155,079 B-9 R1100-18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Market Square Retail Phase I Retail Phase I Retail Phase II Retail Phase 11 Retail Phase II Retail Phase II Retail Phase 11 Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail B C D C E F G H I J K L M N O Values Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,216,400 35,000 1,583,100 25,000 1,583,100 25,000 1,293,400 20,425 854,900 13,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.530.900 118.925 Tax Taxes apacity /Sq.Ft. 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 101,952 4.00 72,823 4.00 72,823 4:00 59,497 4.00 39,324 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4:00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 346.420 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 19% 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Page 2 4 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 0.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.002-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 0.508-01 1994 0.508-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.508-01 1995 1.508-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.508-01 1996 2.508-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 3.002-01 1997 3.002-01 1997 155,079 346,420 0 191,340 131,373 13,137 118,236 3.5 08-01 1997 3.508-01 1997 155,079 346,420 0 191,340 131,373 13,137 118,236 4.002-01 1998 4.002-01 1998 155,079 356,812 0 201,733 138,509 13,851 124,658 4.508-01 1998 4.508-01 1998 155,079 356,812 0 201,733 138,509 13,851 124,658 5.002-01 1999 5.0 02-01 1999 155,079 367,517 0 212,437 145,858 14,586 131,272 5.5 08-01 1999 5.508-01 1999 155,079 367,517 0 212,437 145,858 14,586 131,272 6.002-01 2000 6.002-01 2000 155,079 378,542 0 223,463 153,428 15,343 138,086 6.508-01 2000 6.508-01 2000 155,079 378,542 0 223,463 153,428 15,343 138,086 7.002-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 155,079 389,898 0 234,819 161,226 16,123 145,103 7.508-01 2001 7.508-01 2001 155,079 389,898 0 234,819 161,226 16,123 145,103 8.002-01 2002 8.002-01 2002 155,079 401,595 0 246,516 169,257 16,926 152,331 8.508-01 2002 8.508-01 2002 155,079 401,595 0 246,516 169,257 16,926 152,331 9.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 155,079 413,643 0 258,564 177,529 17,753 159,776 9.508-01 2003 9.5 08-01 2003 155,079 413,643 0 258,564 177,529 17,753. 159,776 10.0 02-01 2004 10.002-01 2004 155,079 426,052 0 270,973 186,049 18,605 167,444 10.5 08-01 2004 10.508-01 2004 155,079 426,052 0 270,973 186,049 18,605 167,444 11.002-01 2005 11.002-01 2005 155,079 438,834 0 283,755 194,825 19,482 175,342 11.508-01 2005 11.508-01 2005 155,079 438,834 0 283,755 194,825 19,482 175,342 12.002-01 2006 12.002-01 2006 155,079 451,999 0 296,920 203,864 . 20,386 183,477 12.508-01 2006 12.508-01 2006 155,079 451,999 0 296,920 203,864 20,386 183,477 13.002-01 2007 13.002-01 2007 155,079 465,559 0 310,480 213,174 21,317 191,856 13.5 08-01 2007 13.508-01 2007 155,079 465,559 0 310,480 213,174 21,317 191,856 14.002-01 2008 14.002-01 2008 155,079 479,526 0 324,446 222,763 22,276 200,487 14.508-01 2008 14.508-01 2008 155,079 479,526 0 324,446 222,763 22,276 200,487 15.002-01 2009 15.002-01 2009 155,079 493,912 0 338,832 232,640 23,264 209,376 15.508-01 2009 15.508-01 2009 155,079 493,912 0 338,832 232,640 23,264 209,376 16.0 02-01 2010 16.002-01 2010 155,079 508,729 0 353,650 242,814 24,281 218,533 16.5 08-01 2010 16.508-01 2010 155,079 508,729 0 353,650 242,814 24,281 218,533 17.002-01 2011 17.002-01 2011 155,079 523,991 0 368,911 253,293 25,329 227,963 17.508-01 2011 17.508-01 2011 155,079 523,991 0 368,911 253,293 25,329 227,963 18.002-01 2012 TOTALS 5,653,201 565,320 5,087,881 PRESENT VALUE 2,292,606 229,261 2,063,345 RI100-18 B-10 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. • CSM94C 11 PHASE II ithout Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 0 B- I I 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3.0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% PID BASE MARKET VALUE PROPERTY TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43-0009 0 R 0 33-028-24-43-0010 1,470,000 A 0 cwmiw 33-028-24-43-0015 114,000 LC NIA cloverleaf 33-028-24-43-0016 500,000 R N/A C7overieaf 33-028-24-43-0017 226,000 LC NIA goverleaf 33-028-24-43.0018 740200 GC NIA 33-028-2444-0025 146,900 VL 0 33-028-2444-0026 94,700 _ CC 0 33-028-2444-0027 166,500 C 0 33-028-2444-0028 91,800 CC 0 33-028-2444-0028 87,500 R 0 33-028-24-44-0073 147,300 CC 5,176 33-028-24-44-0074 108,900 C 5,009 33-028-24-44-0075 107,100 CC 3,327 33-028-2444-0076 119,700 CC 3,906 33-028-2444.0077 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-24-44-0078 78,100 CC 2,343 33-028-2444-0080 283,500 CC 11,441 33-028-2444-0081 78,700 C 3,620 33-028-24-44-0082 91;200 C 4,195 33-028-24-44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302 33-028-24-44-0084. 135,100 C 6,215 33-028-2444-0085 87,200 CC 2,616 33-028-24-44-0086 75,100 C 3,455 33-028-2444-0087 230,600 CC 9,008 33-028-24-44-0088 128,400 CC 4,306 33-028-24-44-0089 393,100 CC 16,483 33-028-24-44-0090 216,600 CC 8,364 33-028-2444-0091 110,600 CC 3,488 33-028-2444-0092 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-44-0093 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-2444-0094 100,300 CC 3,014 33-028-24-44-0095 55,400 CC 1,662 33-028-24-44-0095 64,000 R 640 33-028-24-44-0096 232,000 C 10,672 33-028-24-44-0097 148,100 CC 5,213 33-028-24-44-0099 295,100 CC 11,975 33-028-24-44-0100 221,100 C 10,171 33-028-24-44-0101 150,800 CC 5,337 B-12 Page 1 E 11 • R1100-18' Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2 10 Market Square Tax Taxes pment Type Values Feet Capacity /Sq.Ft. Phase I A 0 0 0 - 4.00 Phase I B 0 0 0 4.00 Phase I C 0 0 0 4.00 Phase II D 2,216,400 35,000 101,952 4.00 Phase li C 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 Phase II E 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 Phase II F 1,293,400 20,425 59;497 4.00 Phase II G 854,900 13,500 39,324 4.00 H 0 0 0 4.00 1 0 0 0 4.00 J 0 0 0 4.00 K 0 0 0 4.00 L 0 0 0 4.00 M 0 0 0 4.00 N 0 0 0 4.00 O 0 0 0 4.00 -S 7,530,900 118,925 346,420 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 1996 19% 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 19961 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period . Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 15.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.002-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 1994 0.508-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.508-01 1995 1.508-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.508-01 1996 2.508-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 3.002-01 1997 3.002-01 1997 155,079 346,420 51,963 139,377 95,696 9,570 86,126 3.508-01 1997 3.508-01 1997 155,079 346,420 51,963 139,377 95,696 9,570 86,126 4.002-01 1998 4.002-01 1998 155,079 356,812 53,522 148,211 101,761 10,176 91,585 4.508-01 1998 4.508-01 1998 155,079 356,812 53,522 148,211 101,761 10,176 91,585 5,002-01 1999 5.002-01. 1999 155,079 367,517 55,127 157,310 108,008 10,801 97,207 5.508-01 1999 5.508-01 1999 155,079 367,517 55,127 157,310 108,008 10,801 97,207 6.002-01 2000 6.002-01 2000 155,079 378,542 56,781 166,681 114,443 11,444 102,998 6.508-01 2000 6.508-01 2000 155,079 378,542 56,781 166,681 114,443 11,444 102,998 7.002-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 155,079 389,898 58,485 176,334 121,070 12,107 108,963 7.5 08-01 2001 7.508-01 2001 155,079 389,898 58,485 176,334 121,070 12,107 108,963 8.002-01 2002 8.002-01 2002 155,079 401,595 60,239 186,277 127,897 12,790 115,107 8.508-01 2002 8.508-01 2002 155,079 401,595 60,239 186,277 127,897 12,790 115,107 9.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 155,079 413,643 62,046 196,517 134,928 13,493 121,435 9.508-01 2003 9.508-01 2003 155,079 413,643 62,046 196,517 134,928 13,493 121,435 10.002-01 2004 10.002-01 2004 155,079 426,052 63,908 207,065 142,170 14,217 127,953 10.508-01 2004 10.508-01 2004 155,079 426,052 63,908 207,065 142,170 14,217 127,953 11.002-01 2005 11.002-01 2005 155,079 438,834 65,825 217,930 149,629 14,963 134,666 11.508-01 2005 11.508-01 2005 155,079 438,834 65,825 217,930 149,629 14,963 134,666 12.002-01 2006 12.002-01 2006 155,079 451,999 67,800 229,120 157,313 15,731 141,581 12.508-01 2006 12.508-01 2006 155,079 451,999 67,800 229,120 157,313 15,731 141,581 13.002-01 2007 13.002-01 2007 155,079 465,559 69,834 240,646 165,226 16,523 148,704 13.508-01 2007 13.508-01 2007 155,079 465,559 69,834 240,646 165,226 16,523 148,704 14.002-01 2008 14.002-01 2008 155,079 479,526 71,929 252,518 173,377 17,338 156,040 14.508-01 2008 14.508-01 2008 155,079 479,526 71,929 252,518 173,377 . 17,338 156,040 15.002-01 2009 15.002-01 2009 155,079 493,912 74,087 264,745 181,773 18,177 163,596 15.508-01 2009 15.508-01 2009 155,079 493,912 74,087 264,745 181,773 18,177 163,596 16.002-01 2010 16.002-01 2010 155,079 508,729 76,309 277,340 190,420 19,042 171,378 16.508-01 2010 16.508-01 2010 155,079 508,729 76,309 277,340 190,420 19,042 171,378 17.002-01 2011 17,002-01 2011 155,079 523,991 78,599 290,313 199,327 19,933 179,395 17.5 08-01 2011 17.5 08-01 2011 155,079 523,991 78,599 290,313 199,327 19,933 179,395 18.002-01 2012 TOTALS 4,326,076 432,608 3,893,468 PRESENT VALUE 1,739,951 173,995 1,565,956 4 RI100-18 B-13 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C PHASE I & PHASE II (With. Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 B-14 03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And 11- $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1 • 0 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3.0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% PID BASE MARKET VALUE PROPERTY TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43-0009 0 R 0 33-028-24-43-0010 1,470,000 A 49,980 clomieef 33-028-24.43-0015 114,000 LG NIA' ciwmimf 33-028-24-43-0016 500,000 R N/A cioverieaf 33-028-24-43-0017 226,000 LC N/A cioverieaE , 33-0284443-0018 740,200 _ CC: N/A 33-028-24-44-0025 146,900 VL 6,757 33-028-24-44-0026 94,700 CC 2,841 33-028-24-44-0027 166,500 C 7,659 33-028-24-44-0028 91,800 CC 2,754 33-028-24-44-0028 87,500 R 1,030 33-028-24-44-0073 147,300 CC 5,176 33-028-24-44-0074 108,900 C 5,009 33-028-24-44-0075 107,100 CC 3,327 33-028-24-44-0076 119,700 CC 3,906 33-028-24-44-0077 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-2444-0078 78,100 CC 2,343 33-028.2444-0080 283,500 CC 11,441 33-028-2444-0061 78,700 C 3,620 33-028-24-44-0082 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-2444-0083 128,300 CC 4,302 33-028-2444-0084 135,100 C 6,215. 33-028-24-44-0085 87,200 CC 2,616 33-028-24-44-0086 75,100 C 3,455 33-028-24-44-0087 230,600 CC 9,008 33-028-2444-0088 128,400 CC 4,306 33-028-2444-0089 393,100 CC 16,483 33-028-2444-0090 216,600 CC 8,364 33-028-24-44-0091 110,600 CC 3,488 33-028-24-44-0092 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-44-0093 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-2444-0094 100,300 CC 3,014 33-028-24-44-0095 55,400 CC 1,662 33-028-24-44-0095 64,000 R 640 33-028-24-44-0096 232,000 C 10,672 33-028-24-44-0097 148,100 CC 5,213 33-028-2444-0099 295,100 CC 11,975 33-028-24-44-0100 221,100 C 10,171 33-028-2444-0101 150.800 CC 5.337 B-15 R1100-18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2 Market Square Retail Phase I Retail Phase I Retail Phase II Retail Phase 11 Retail Phase II Retail Phase II Retail Phase II Retail Retail Retail Retail B C D C E F G H I J K L M N Values Feet 2,849,600 45,000 2,659,600 42,000 1,583,100 25,000 2,216,400 35,000 1,583,100 25,000 1,583,100 25,000 1,293,400 20,425 854,900 13,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.623.200 230,925 Tax Taxes apacity /Sq.Ft. 131,082 4.00 122,343 _ 4.00 72,823 4.00 101,952 4.00 72,823 4:00 72,823 4:00 59,497 4.00 39,324 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0 4.00 0' 4.00 0 4.00 0 COO 0 4.00 Construct 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 19961 19961 19961 19961 1996 1996'. 1996'. 1996 19961 19961 I TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 0,00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.002-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 1994 0.508-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.508-01 1995 1.508-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 2.5 08-01 1996 2.5 08-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 3.0 02-01 1997 3.002-01 1997 226,101 672,667 0 446,566 306,610 30,661 275,949 3.508-01 1997 3.508-01 1997 226,101 672,667 0 446,566 306,610 30,661 275,949 4.0 02-01 1998 4.002-01 1998 226,101 692,847 0 466,747 320,466 32,047 288,419 4.5 08-01 1998 4.508-01 1998 226,101 692,847 0 466,747 320,466 32,047 288,419 5.002-01 1999 5.002-01 1999 226,101 713,633 0 487,532 334,737 33,474 301,263 5.508-01 1999 5.508-01 1999 226,101 713,633 0 487,532 334,737 33,474 301,263 6.002-01 2000 6.002-01 2000 226,101 735,042 0 508,941 349,436 34,944 314,493 6.508-01 2000 6.508-01 2000 226,101 735,042 0 508,941 349,436 34,944 314,493 7.002-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 226,101 757,093 0 530,992 364,577 36,458 328,119 7.508-01 2001 7.508-01 2001 226,101 757,093 0 530,992 364,577 36,458 328,119 8.002-01 2002 8.002-01 2002 226,101 779,806 0 553,705 380,171 38,017 342,154 8.508-01 2002 8.508-01 2002 226,101 779,806 0 553,705 380,171 38,017 342,154 9.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 226,101 803,200 0 577,099 396,233 39,623 356,610 9.508-01 2003 9.508-01 2003 226,101 803,200 0 577,099 396,233 39,623 356,610 10.002-01 2004 10.002-01 2004 226,101 827,296 0 601,195 412,778 41,278 371,500 10.5 08-01 2004 10.508-01 2004 226,101 827,296 0 601,195 412,778 41,278 371,500 11.0 02-01 2005 11.002-01 2005 226,101 852,115 0 626,014 429,818 42,982 386,836 11.5 08-01 2005 11.508-01 2005 226,101 852,115 0 626,014 429,818 42,982 386,836 12.002-01 2006 12.002-01 2006 226,101 877,678 0 651,577 447,370 44,737 402,633 12.5 08-01 2006 12.508-01 2006 226,101 877,678 _ 0 651,577 447,370 44,737 402,633 13.002-01 2007 13.002-01 2007 226,101 904,009 0 677,908 465,448 46,545 418,903 13.508-01 2007 13.508-01 2007 226,101 904,009 0 677,908 465,448 46,545 418,903 14.0 02-01 2008 14.002-01 2008 226,101 931,129 0 705,028 484,069 48,407 435,662 14.5 08-01 2008 14.508-01 2008 226,101 931,129 0 705,028 484,069 48,407 435,662 15.0 02-01 2009 15.002-01 2009 226,101 959,063 0 732,962 503,248 50,325 452,923 15.5 08-01 2009 15.5 OB-01 2009 226,101 959,063 0 732,962 503,248 50,325 452,923 16.002-01 2010 16.002-01 2010 226,101 987,835 0 761,734 523,003 52,300 470,702 16.5 08-01 2010 16.508-01 2010 226,101 987,835 0 761,734 523,003 52,300 470,702 17.002-01 2011 17.002-01 2011 226,101 1,017,470 0 791,369 543,350 54,335 489,015 17.508-01 2011 17.508-01 2011 226,101 1,017,470 0 791,369 543,350 54,335 489,015 18.002-01 2012 TOTALS 12,873,101 1,287,310 11,585,790 PRESENT VALUE 5,403,876 540,388 4,863,488 R1100-18 B-16 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. • A CSM94F PHASE I & PHASE II ithout Fiscal Disparities Election Change) 0 L.I B-17 03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation BASIC ASSUMPTIONS SHADED AREAS MAY: REQUIRE. FURTHER' DISCUSSION District: I.L.N. Inflation Rate 3:0000% Present Value Rate 8.50% Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000% Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190 Year District Created: Nov. 1985 First Year of Increment: June 1987 Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011 PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994 APARTMENT 3.400% COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600% COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000% COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600% NONHMSTD RESID 2.300% HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000% HOMSTD RESID <72K-115K 2.000% HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% VACANT LAND 4.600% PID BASE MARKET VALUE PROPERTY TYPE BASE TAX CAPACITY 33-028-24-43-0009 0 R 0 33-028-24-43-0010 1,470,000 A 49,980 Clovadeg 33.028-24.43-0015 114,000 LC NIA cwwrt..f 33-028=24-43-0016 500,000 R NIA> Croverimf 33-028-24-43-0017 226,000 LC N/A Cloverleaf' 33-028-24-43-0018 740;200 CC N/A 33-028-2444-0025 146,900 VL 6,757 33-028-2444-0026 94,700 CC 2,841 33-028-2444-0027 166,500 C 7,659 33-028-2444-0028 91,800 CC 2,754 33-028-2444-0028 87,500 R 1,030 33-028-24-44-0073 147,300 CC 5,176 33-028-2444-0074 108,900 C 5,009 33-028-2444-0075 107,100 CC 3,327 33-028-24-44-0076 119,700 CC 3,906 33-028-24-44-0077 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-24-44-0078 78,100 CC 2,343 33-028-24-44-0080 283,500 CC 11,441 33-028-24-44-0081 78,700 C 3,620 33-028-24-44-0082 91,200 C 4,195 33-028-24-44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302 33-028-24-44-0084 135,100 C 6,215 33-028-24-44-0085 87,200 CC 2,616 33-028-24-4444 75,100 C 3,455 33-028-2444-0087 230,600 CC 9,008 33-028-24-444M 128,400 CC 4,306 33-028-24-44-0089 393,100 CC 16,483 33-028-2444-0090 216,600 CC 8,364 33-028-2444-0091 110,600 CC 3,488 33-028-2444-0092 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-440093 53,800 C 2,475 33-028-24-44-0094 100,300 CC 3,014 33-028-2444-0095 55,400 CC 1,662 33-028-2444.0095 64,000 R 640 33-028-24-44-0096 232,000 C 10,672 33-028-2444-0097 148,100 CC 5,213 33-028-24-44-0099 295,100 CC 11,975 33-028-24-44-0100 221,100 C 10,171 33-028-2444-0101 150,800 CC 5,337 B-18 Page 1 • • • RI100-18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F 03116!84 City Of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And It - 64.00 - 3% Inflation H J K L M N Retail O VALE A I N PROJECY [TOTALS - Market Square Tax Taxes Values Feet Cs a01 /Sq.Ft. Construct Payable 2,849, ?G,000 131.082 ; .... 198 4 2,659,600 42,000 122,343'. : ::•;:;•r1Op 1994 low 11583100 26,000 72,823 ::4.00 1994 1996 2.216,400 35,000 101,952 4,00. 1994 1996 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 ; •!; : 4,00 1994 1996 1,583100 25,000 1994 1996 1,293.400 20,425 11504 1996 854,900 13,500 39,324 1994 1996 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 1994 1996 0 0 7904 1998 0 0 0 1994 1996 0 0 0 1994 1996 0 0 0 1994 1996 0 0 0 ' ' . . 4.00 1994 1996 0 0 0- 4 . 1994 1996 14,657200 X25 1372,867. TAAXNCREM9i FLOW . Page 2 Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis• Captured Seml-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Ending Period Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax Yrs. Mth• Yr. 070 0F 1 199 Ca acl Capacity Capacity . Increment . . 10.00% Increment -? ."- Yrs. Mth. _ Yr. - 4 1, 21 71,021 b W 0 S5 -OO? A?4 0.608-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995 1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.608-01 1995 1.608-01. 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996 2.002-01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 2 506-01 1996 2.5 08-01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 . 3 002-01 1997 3.002-01 1997 226,101 872,687 100,000 345,666 237,333 23,733 . , 213 800 . 5 08-01 3 1997 3.5 08.01 1997 226,101 672,667 100,000 345,666 237,333 23,733 , 213 600 . 4 002-01 1998 4.0 02-01 1998 226,101 892,847 103,927 362,819 249,110 24,911 , 224 199 . 4 508-01 1998 4.5 08-01 1998 226,101 892,847 103,927 362,819 249,110 24,011 , 199 224 . 5 002-01 1999 5.002-01 1999 226,101 713,633 107,045 380,487 261,240 28,124 , 235,116 . 6 608-01 1999 5.60841 1999 226,101 713,633 107,045 380,487 261,240 26,124 116 235 . 6 002-01 2000 8.002-01 2000 226,101 735,042 110,256 398,685 273,735 27,373 , 248,361 , 6.50041 2000 6.508-01 2000 226,101 735,042 110,256 398,685 273,735 27,373 248,361 7 002-01 2001 7.002-01 2001 226,101 757,093 113,664 417,428 286,604 28,660 257,944 . 7.5 06-01 2001 7.5 08.01 1001 226,101 757,093 113,564 417,428 286,604 28,660 267,944 0 02-01 8 2002 6.002-01 2002 226,101 779,806 116,971 438,734 299,869 29,986 269,673 . 8 608-01 2002 8.5 08-01 2002 226,101 779,806 116,971 436,734 299,859 29,086 289,873 , 0.002-01 2003 9.002-01 2003 226,101 803,200 120,480 . 458,619 313,512 31,351 282,181 5 0801 9 2003 9.508-01 2003 228,101 803,200 120,480 468,619 313,512 31,351 282,181 . 10 002-01 2004 10,0 02-01 10.5 0601 2004 2004 226,101 226 101 827,296 827 M 124,094 124 094 477,101 477 101 327,575 327 5 32,757 204,817 , 10.505--01 2004 11-002-01 2005 , 228,101 , . 862,115 , 127,617 , 498,197 , 75 342,059 32,757 34,206 294,817 307,653 11.002-01 - 11 508-01 2005 2005 11.5 08.01 12.002-01 2005 2006 226,101 226 101 852,115 877 878 127,817 131 652 498,197 519 926 342,059 356 978 34,206 307,853 . 12.0 02-01 2006 12.5 08.01 2006 , 226,101 , 877,678 , 131,852 , 519,026 , 356,978 $5,698 35,698 321,281 321 281 12.5 0801 13 002-01 2006 2007 13.0 02-01 13-608-01 2007 2007 226,101 226 101 904,000 904 009 135,601 135 801 642,307 372,345 37,234 , 335,110 , 13.6 08-01 2007 14.002-01 2008 , 226,101 , 931,129 , 139,669 $42,307 585,359 372,345 386,172 37,234 38,817 336,110 349 355 14.002-01 14 5 08-01 2008 2008 14.5 08-01 15-002-01 2008 2009 226,101 101 226 931,129 959 063 139,669 1 585,359 388,172 38,817 , 349,355 . 15.0 02-01 2009 15.5 08-01 2009 , 226,101 , 959,063 43,859 .143,859 689,103 689,103 404,475 404,475 40,447 40,447 364,027 364 027 16-508-01 18 0 02-01 2000 2010 16-002-01 16.5 08-01 2010 2010 226,101 226 101 987,835 987 835 148,175 148 1 613,559 421,268 42,127 , 379,140 . 16-506-01 2010 17-002-01 2011 , , 226,101 1,017,470 , 75 152,620 813,559 638,748 421,288 - 438,581 42,127 43,858 379,140 394 705 17.0 02.01 17 608-01 2011 2011 17.5 0801 2011 26,101 1,017,470 .. 152.621) 638,71Q 43B.561 43.856 , 394,705 . 0 02.01 18 2012 TOTALS ?Rr ES.t:N? VALtT?- . -228 28 1022 8fi3 9 206 035 271,284 4277 8 3.849,654 . B-19 R1100.18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Phase review all assumptions. pmant Tyler PhasoI A Phase I a Phase I C Phase 11 D Phase 11 C Phase 11 E Phase II F Phaso II G CSM94F APPENDIX C IMPACTS ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS 0 C-1 C? With Fiscal Disparities Election Change 0 E C-2 IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS - With Fiscal-Disparities Election Change The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment • assistance provided to a proposed development 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, increase overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact of the ILN Tax Increment District would be as follows if the project were built without tax increment financing: IMPACT ON TAX BASE Entity's % of Captured Total Net Captured Tax Capacity Taxing Entity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity To Entity Total Hennepin Count 813,900,929 446,566 0.055% • City of Richfield 16,794,256 446,566 2.659% School District 280 24,250,257 446,566 1.841% 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. IMPACT ON TAX RATES Current Captured Potential Taxing Entity Tax Rate Tax Capacity Taxes Hennepin Count 37.441 446,566 167,199 City of Richfield 26.164 446,566 116,840 School District 280 66.190 446,566 295,582 Other 7.524 446,566 33,600 Total 137.319 446,566 613,220 In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education upon school district funding. C-3 Without Fiscal Disparities Election Change 0 • C-4 IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS - Without Fiscal Disparities Election Chan-ce The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment assistance provided to a proposed development 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, increase overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact of the ILN Tax Increment District would be as follows if the project were built without tax increment financing: IMPACT ON TAX BASE Entity's % of Captured Total Net Captured Tax Capacity Taxing Entity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity To Entity Total Hennepin Count 813,900,929 345,666 0.042% • Cit of Richfield 16,794,256 446,566 2.058% School District 280 24,250,257 446,566 1.425% 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. IMPACT ON TAX RATES Current Captured Potential Taxing Entity Tax Rate Tax Capacity Taxes Hennepin Count 37.441 345,666 129,421 City of Richfield 26.164 345,666 90,440 School District 280 66.190 345,666 228,796 Other 7.524 345,666 26,008 Total 137.319 345,666 474,665 In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education upon school district funding. 0 C-5 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 128 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading of ordinance for the sale of property at 7537 Girard Avenue to the HRA, and authorization to enter into a license agreement with the HRA. Background: At the March 28, 1994 meeting, the City Council authorized the acquisition of 7537 Girard Avenue and held the first reading of an ordinance authorizing sale of the property to the HRA. The City will use federal CDBG funds to acquire the property. Upon sale to the HRA, the property would be developed by Hennepin Technical College (HTC) under the New Home Program. HUD rules required that the City purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to re-sell at the appropriate time. It is anticipated that the City will acquire the property by June 1994. Following acquisition, the City and HRA would enter into a purchase agreement for $1. The purchase agreement would be contingent on publication of the transitory ordinance. Sale of the property to the HRA could occur in June if the transitory ordinance is approved at the April 25, 1994 meeting. The HRA • would be responsible for any holding or maintenance costs incurred at the property after acquisition by the City. A license agreement between the City and HRA would be entered into to allow the HRA to complete site preparation prior to the transfer of the property to the HRA. Site preparation work will include demolition of the existing structure, environmental evaluation and survey work. Staff, in cooperation with HTC's architectural drafting faculty, has developed project plans to meet all setback requirements, complement the design of neighboring homes and incorporate interior features desirable in today's market. The new house will have approximately 1,800 square feet of finished living area on two levels. It will feature a split entry design with a living room, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, three finished bedrooms, and deck area. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions regarding 7537 Girard Avenue: 1. Hold the public hearing and approve second reading of the transitory ordinance. 2. Enter into a license agreement with the HRA to allow • completion of site preparation prior to transfer of the property to the HRA. YJ"I . Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA has identified this property for a new home project and authorized staff to acquire the property. 2. The City Council has authorized the acquisition of 7537 Girard Avenue and sale of the property to the HRA. 3. The HRA has approved a development contract with HTC pending publication of the transitory ordinance. 4. City owned property requires the adoption of a transitory ordinance to effectuate a sale. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not give second reading of transitory ordinance. 2. The City can choose not to enter into a license agreement with the HRA for site preparation. These actions would negatively impact the proposed development of the site. Discussion/Decision Mode: Timely sale of the property from the City to the HRA requires publication of a transitory ordinance following the April 25, 1994 meeting. • JDP:ds ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager 0 0 TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND.CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (7537 GIRARD AVENUE SOUTH) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lot 15, Block 19, "Irwin Shores Addition", Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 7537 Girard Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the . execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this day of Richfield City Council. 1994 by the Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 t® • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 127 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and second reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to rezone the following MR (multiple residence) properties: 1) 6409, 6415, 6421, and 6429 Blaisdell Avenue to R (single family residence); 2) 6227-29 and 6237 Pleasant Avenue to MR-3; 3) 840 West 65th Street to MR-3; and 4) 920-24-28 Rae Drive to MR-3. Background: Staff is reviewing the zoning ordinance for revision and update. Initial analysis indicates that the MR district is not effective because its provision is incomplete, outdated and ambiguous. The MR district has no density limitation and incorporates the single family uses of the R district as well as the two family, multi- family and group housing developments. The MR district was the original and only multi-family district when Richfield's growth occurred. Later, the MR-1 (two family), MR-2 (multi-family), and MR-3 (high density multi-family) districts were created to provide more precise controls for the expanding variety of multi-family housing. When the MR-1, MR-2, • and MR-3 districts were added, most MR zoned land was rezoned to fit into that classification system. The intention was for all MR zoned land to be rezoned but approximately 30 parcels of land are still zoned MR. These parcels are being evaluated and presented for reclassification to the most appropriate land use zone. The proposed zoning designation for the subject parcels are consistent with the existing land use. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached ordinance amendment approving the rezoning of 6409, 6415, 6421, and 6429 Blaisdell Avenue from MR to R, and the rezoning 6227-29 and 6237 Pleasant Avenue, 840 West 65th Street, and 920-24-28 Rae Drive from MR to MR-3. Basis of Recommendation: 1. This rezoning will help to bring the zoning map up to date with current land use practices and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. An MR zone is no longer an appropriate zoning district in the City and an update to a more appropriate district is called for whether or not the text of the zoning ordinance is changed. 3. If the text of the zoning ordinance is updated to eliminate the MR district, then it would be apropos to have rezoned such designated areas before the text change. 4. The proposed R zoning is.most appropriate for the existing single family uses at 6409, 6415, 6421, and 6429 Blaisdell Avenue, while offering proper regulatory control for present and future land uses. 5. The proposed MR-3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 18 unit apartment buildings at 6227-29 and 6237 Pleasant Avenue. The MR-3 classification allows 18 or more units. This designation would be consistent with the existing multiple family use. 6. The proposed MR-3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 22 unit apartment building at 840 West 65th Street. The MR-3 classification allows 18 or more units. This designation would be consistent with the existing multiple family use. 7. The proposed MR-3 zoning is most appropriate for the existing 28 unit apartment building at 920-24-28 Rae Drive. The MR-3 classification allows 18 or more units. This designation would be consistent with the existing multiple family use. 8. On March 22, 1994, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning. • Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could deny this rezoning with a finding that such rezoning would have an adverse impact on the subject parcels, adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Discussion/Decision Mode: A public hearing and second reading is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 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 and mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject properties. submitted, James/D Prosser City M nager JDP:ds 0 • Bill No. 1994- AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix I which describes the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City is hereby amended in the following respect: Section 5, Paragraph (12) is amended to read as follows: (12) That area lying between the eente one of Blaisdell Avenue n the east line of Lots 6 through 9-iTrclusiye, Block 8, rearrangement of N-ieellet Homes Second Addition, and between the south line of said addition and the north line of Lot 9, a, ^^v 4 of said •bdi fRepealedl Section 5, Paragraph (17) is amended to read as follows: (17) Lots 1 through 8, except the east 1,35 feet thereof, Brvck n, a acc+ehe Br?9c?f , ??26 le? Homes _ ?' s Addition, and -- Lot --z 7 ., -- Hrr Addition and that portion of vaeatece -63rd Street north of and adjaeent to said Lot • .fRepealedl. Section 5, Paragraph (27) is amended to read as follows: (27) Trams D and E, Registered Land Survey No. 793. fRepealedl. Section 5, Paragraph (28) is amended to read as follows: (28) Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 675-.IBLepealedL. Section 13, Paragraph (4) is amended to read as follows: (4) The west 55 feet of Tract B and all of Tract C of Registered Land Survey No. 675, and all of Tract B of Registered Land Survey No. 1131. Section 13, Paragraph (13) is added to read as follows: (13) Lots 1 through 8, except the east 135 feet thereof, Block 4, Betcher's Addition, and Lot 2, Block 4, Nicollet Homes Addition and that portion of vacated 63rd Street north of and adjacent to said Lot 2. Section 13, Paragraph (14) is added to read as follows: 0 (14) Tracts D and E, Registered Land Survey No. 793. b-3 • This amendment constitutes a rezoning of the following properties: 1) rezone 6409, 6415, 6421, and 6429 Blaisdell Avenue from MR to R; 2) rezone 6227-29 and 6237 Pleasant Avenue from MR to MR-3; 3) rezone 840 West 65th Street from MR to MR-3; and 4) rezone 920-24-28 Rae Drive from MR to MR-3. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • 9 R EZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 64TH ST. 64TH ST. 64TH ST. DUPLEX W 4 Q ` W? J J J J Q O ` / /? J J J J J J J J ` /? J J J J J J J / J J J J J J J J JJ JJJ J JJJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O Q J O J J J J J J J Q O J J J J J J J W ? J J J J J J J W J J J J J J J ? J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J r Q JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ G J J J J J J J O N uj N J J J J J J J w J J J J J J J Co ? J -? Q J J J J J J J J 7 ? JJJJJJJ J J J J J J J J J JJJJJJJ SINGLE ?? J r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Q O J O JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ n JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ O m FAMILY COMM1. V mm J J J J J J J V i JJJJJJJ U J J J J J J J Z JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ r' JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Z J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ? J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ? J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J A, J J J J J J J ? J J J J J J J JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N `• J J J J J J J ?Y J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ? J J J J J J J v J J J J J J J) J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J m J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 65TH ST. 65TH ST. 65TH ST. 6409, 6415, 6421, 6429 BLAISDELL AVENUE ® MR MR-2 • MMN' NG J J J J J J ¦?\ )))JJJJJJJ \/-2 i N ZONING R cw„?., y om%,eiopmm o.p r.r.nt 4 (a.--- REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE CROSSTOWN HWY. EXISTING ZONING CROSSTOWN HWY PROPOSED ZONING CROSSTOWN HWY. uj N 18-UNIT uj uj Li > APT. > > uj > > N BLDG. a a Xus swass'sm somosommoom > a SIN GLE N Q N a *as ammosom 5.8 N J r- 18-UNIT FAM ILY J ui J J J a M APT. C BLDG. a a 63RD ST. 62279 29 PLEASANT AVENUE 6237 PLEASANT AVENUE MR MR-3 N ?lh Q R 63RD ST. 63RD ST. REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE 4- COMM 'L. C? ffi-UNIT ApPT../i BLDG. . 0 n TWO 29-LHT APT. BLDGS. PARK Co 65? EXISTING ZONING . . . . . . .... .. . . .. . . . . . . S J J J J ?I •. ? J y J J F JJJJJJJJJJJ) J J J J J J J J J J J J ¦ . JJJJ J JJJJJJJ ..• • J J J J J ¦.¦¦¦ ) J J J J J J J ¦ ... ¦ m s s J J J J J J '¦ .•¦•¦•. ¦•. ¦ JJjJjJJ J ... 840 WEST 65TH STREET MR JJJJJJJJJJJ C-2 •::::: MR-3 • • • PC-2 LN.N.S.N.M.1 N R 6-6 PROPOSED ZONING ¦ .•. •. ? )JJJJ ,• .•. .•. •• JJJJJJJJJJJ J ?• . JJJJJJJ J JJJJJ 3 ¦ • ¦ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 00090 ? J J J J J J J R .?? .... 6h b-1 REZONING PLAN EXISTING LAND USE TOWN HOUSES PARK esTH T EXISTING ZONING R ss 7-H T 9209 9249 928 RAE DRIVE ® MR PMR MR-2 PMR-1 N MR-3 ?d? R PROPOSED ZONING R -::I u_ !!?!! , ss rh? S 5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 126 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration.of a request for a new 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Champps Development Corporation d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe, 790 West 66th Street. Background: On March 7, 1994, the City received the new applications and other required documents for the on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Sports Cafe. This was required due to a change in major stockholders. The applicant has paid the required license fees. On March 28, 1994, the Council approved a 60 day temporary license until a public hearing could be held. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: ? The corporate structure of the organization has changed. They have undergone a name change of which has affected the officers and directors positions. A copy of the list of officers and directors of the corporation is attached to this letter. • Robert Tinsley continues to serve as the general manager of the restaurant. In 1988, Steve Wagenheim filed bankruptcy, and in 1991, there was a personal lien against him. In 1981, Ed Fadel, Director of Operations with Champps Development Group, pled guilty to 1st degree grand larceny and falsification of business records. Richfield City Ordinance 1200.13, Paragraph E states that if the conviction was within the last five years and was related to the manufacture, sale, distribution or possession for sale or distribution of intoxicating liquor, the convicted individual is ineligible for a license. Mr. Fadel's conviction was 13 years ago and was unrelated to liquor. ? The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial Ltd., is in effect with all payments current. ? A rider from Old Republic Surety Company with the name change information for the $10,000 bond has been submitted. s The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Park Glen National Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage was also supplied. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 7380, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy 5-1 • of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment and is also attached a copy to this letter. Recommended Motion: Approve the issuance of a new 1994 on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Champps Development Corporation d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe with the stipulation that the requirements are met in Resolution No. 7380. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. 2. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the license requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could decide to continue the hearing, however, if the hearing is continued beyond May 27, 1994, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. 2. The Council could decide to suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It appears that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the licenses not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearing to consider the request for the issuance of a new on-sale and Sunday liquor license for Champps Sports Cafe has been scheduled for April 25, 1994 and is being presented to Council at this time. lly submitted, James. Prosser Cit naaer Is JDP:cak - L • CHAMPPS SPORTS CAFE Partners/Officers and Titles: William Baumhauer - President Steven Wagenheim - Chief Operating Officer Charles Redepenning - Secretary Michael Woodhouse - Treasurer 5_3 • CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 7380 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKGROUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although, the • provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of • Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. ii. SPF.CTFTC PRnHTRTTRD CnNDTJrT AND PRnPnS PD SAN _TTONS _ A. Nn_ig_e and nther nigturhincl (nndu-t Within car Near the Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment who are either coming to • or ieaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed liquor establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental impact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): a) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. b) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. c) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91- day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) - suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outline above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the director of public safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code or the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for service in situations where the licensee is ,capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The department of public safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor license: a) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year- suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. b) For the second such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. c) For the third such incident in any license year - suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. PrPmiRPg with Al nnnol;r RPyPrarTPcz Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal_behavior,such as violation of the • 5J ?, Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating beverage licenses: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth incident during the license year - revocation of license. C. Permitting nnnu annV to FXm=P_d th i mi t-G PPrmi ttPr3 TJnt9Pr the 0 i_7ni fnrm Fi rP Cnd . 25 _ 1 1 4 ( n P_rnrnwdi ntT ) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environmental wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for incident of overcrowding verified by the City's public safety director: a) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10- day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 0 b) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. c) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60- day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. d) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year - revocation of the license. D. Fariiit-at;nn ramhl;na_ Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises which could be used for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City Code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01 For any incident of facilitation of gambling the on-sale intoxicating liquor may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. FffE?rt cif Suspension car Rpyonat-i on of Food T i nnnse On- sale intoxicating liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any,period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the city manager, enforcement officer, or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. 0 The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time and to impose penalties in excess of those contained herein when, in the judgment of the council it is appropriate to do so. Passed by the City Council of the.City of Richfield this 14th day of December 1987. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 } • 0 ?4'b CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 125 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Application for?an exemption from a lawful gambling license for Academy of Holy Angels, 6600 Nicollet Avenue. Background: On April 6, 1994, the Academy of Holy Angels submitted an application for an exemption from a lawful gambling license. The applicant is proposing to conduct a raffle on May 7, 1994. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager, Mr. James McCormack, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the exemption from gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. 40 Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the exemption from a lawful gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The request for exemption from a lawful gambling license has been submitted prior to 30 days of the raffle date. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the request, however, staff has determined.that there is no basis for this alternative. 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. y D-I Discussion/Decision Mode: Approve the application of Academy of Holy Angels exemption from lawful gambling and request for waiver of the investigative fee. y submitted, Jame . Prosser City anager JDP:ds 0 0 RE"9,0LUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Academy of Holy Angels has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal of their raffle; WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: . 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Academy of Holy Angels, 6600 Nicollet Avenue. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 '- CITY OF kidH- FIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 124 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Application for lawful gambling license for Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive. Background: On April 18, 1994, the VFW submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license. The application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations. The applicant is proposing to conduct bingo on Sunday, Monday and Thursday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The pulltabs would be conducted in conjunction with the bingo operation. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all requirements. In addition, the gambling manager, Mr. Gerald Courteau, has no known criminal record. Finally, the applicant is requesting that the $100 investigation fee be waived. Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department • to review the request for the gambling license.and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the Council pass a resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. Staff further recommends that the Council waive the investigation fee. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with the State Statutes and City Code pertaining to lawful gambling. 2. The applicant has submitted the request within 60 days of the renewal of the license. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The Council could pass a resolution specifically disapproving the renewal request, however, staff has determined that there is no basis for this alternative. 0 2. The Council could decide to not waive the investigative fee. qc -i Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval of the renewal of Fred Babcock Post #5555 VFW's lawful gambling application and a request for waiver of the investigative fee is presented for Council action. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds • L _J qc L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE FRED BABCOCK VFW POST #5555 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 has submitted an application for renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal for their bingo and pulltab operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, Section 1100.13 of the Richfield City Code provides for regulation of lawful gambling; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to the Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555, 710 Lake Shore Drive. 2. That the investigation fee be waived. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Thomas P. Ferber, City Cl 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 123 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Council approval of purchase over $5,000 for modular office furniture for City Hall. Background: In 1993 two changes occurred which will have an impact upon the office areas in City Hall. First, the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will require the modification of some office areas, doors and restrooms in City Hall. Secondly, the City Council's addition of the new Human Services Planner full-time position 1994 will require the modification of the current Administration and Assessing areas to create a new office/work space and accompanying files. Facility Systems, the firm which planned and installed the current main floor office configuration was asked to restructure the current office space in the Assessing, Administration and Switchboard area in order to: e Provide an adequate work space for the Human Services Planner; ? Provide a handicapped accessible counter at the front desk reception area; ? Provide proper access and work flow to the Assessing area which will be affected by loss of work space for the creation of the new office; and ? Provide a convenient passage between the Switchboard/ Receptionist area and Assessing in order to facilitate cross-training and a position backup arrangement. Facility Systems provided a plan which would accommodate all of the requested improvements. The plan calls for using much of the existing modular panels, but would require some additional purchases which are estimated not to exceed $5,500 for materials, installation and sales tax. The resulting reconfiguration would provide the additional office space and improve the work flow of the areas involved. In addition, a counter with access to the disabled would be installed at the reception desk and be readily accessible by City personnel to serve disabled citizens. The installation would likely be completed within five to six • weeks of the submission of the order. If approved by the City Council, the order would be submitted on the day following Council approval. qe)-i Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of modular office furniture and installation with Facility Systems in an amount not to exceed $5,500 for the Assessing and Switchboard work areas. Basis of Recommendation: 1. There is an immediate need to provide work space for the new Human Services Planner position. 2. There is a need to provide a handicapped accessible counter for service on the main floor. 3. These needed changes also affect the Assessing and Switchboard/Receptionist areas by reconfiguring work space. 4. Funds are available to pay for the cost of these modifications. In addition, the purchase is off of the state contract which currently provides a 73% price discount for government entities. 5. The changes would make the work areas affected more effective in the utilization of personnel and service to the public. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council could decide not to approve these charges. However, there would not be office space for the new Human Services Planner position. In addition, there would be no ADA accessible counter area on the main floor of City Hall. Discussion/Decision Mode: If these improvements are to be approved, it should be done at the April 25 City Council meeting in order to allow time for delivery and installation. Respectfully submitted, James D. Prosser City Manager JDP:ds 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 122 Agenda April 25, 1994 44 is Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of easements and partial fee taking; Phases I and II-77th Street Plan. Background: These easements and partial fee takings are required for Phases I and II of the 77th Street Project. The following is a description of the necessary takings for the project. The property at 7717 Nicollet Avenue (Parcel #43 AR) is a portion of the Chi-Chi's property. The partial fee taking and two temporary easements would permit the proper installation of a sidewalk. Compensation has been set at $600 for the partial fee taking and $100 for the temporary easement. The property at 7639 Park Avenue (Parcel #59A) is a residence. The temporary easement would permit the installation of a proper slope for drainage and matching the existing driveway to the to be installed driveway extension necessitated by the loop street. Compensation has been set at $400. The property at 7625 Chicago Avenue (Parcel #63) is part of the site of House of Prayer Lutheran Church. The partial fee taking would . permit the installation of the screenwall and sidewalk and related fee taking and $100 for the temporary easement. The value of the fee Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which establishes just compensation for the partial fee taking and temporary easements and authorizes purchase of same. improvements. Compensation has been set at $110,000 for the partial taking was based on the loss of the ability of the owner to meet current City off-street parking standards and future off-street parking standards should they increase the size of their facility. Basis of Recommendation: 1. MnDOT and FHWA procedures were followed including notification of the owner. 2. Project funds are available. Alternative Recommendation: Delay action. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will make it possible for timely manner and help meet project this process to continue in a deadlines. • ly submitted, Resp 7 Tager James rosser City JDP:ds qF?-l RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR A PARTIAL FEE TAKING AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF SAME; PHASE II - 77TH STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 77th Street Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted an official map for improvements to 77th Street; and WHEREAS, the improvements to 77th Street necessitate the purchase of real property; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are funding this project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals of the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional real estate appraisers to determine fair market value; and • WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal report as to conformity with appraisal standards and has certified same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That just compensation is determined and listed in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 2. That the City Manager is authorized and directed to commence negotiations for the purchase of said real property. 3. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute appropriate agreements. 4. That the City Manager is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of subject property as soon as possible that the City intends to acquire this property and establish eligibility for relocation benefits, if any. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of April, 1994. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 4A (:P- 0 C? EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 Orr Sclielen Mayeron & OA MSX . Associates, Inc. 0 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 PARCEL: No. 43A- R PIN: 34 - 028 - 24 - 43 - 0007 OWNER: Marno - Max Company DESCRIPTION OF TAKING: Fee Taking for Right of Way 612-595-5775 1-800-753-5775 FAX 595-5774 h1 1? y P-3 That part of the west 315.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of -the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of the east right of. way line of Nicollet Avenue and which lies southerly of the south right of way line of 77th' Street East and which lies northwesterly of a curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 19.50 feet. The east right of way line of Nicollet Avenue and the south right of way line of 77th Street East are tangent to said curve. A temporary construction easement for roadway and utility purposes over, under and across the east 15.00 feet of the west 57.00 feet of the south 5.00 feet of the north 35.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. Together with a temporary construction easement for roadway and utlity purposes over, under and across the East 9.00 feet of the West 42.00 feet of the South 60.00 feet of the North 90.00 feet of said West 315.00 feet. Said temporary easement expires December 31, 1994. J:\4934.00\SURV\rnisc\desc.43A NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise location of this tract EASEDEA2.XLS I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed surveyor under the laws of the State of bibuxsota. D. Edward Ames, LS. Ui- No. 11394 ate Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors 0 10 20 REV. 3/1/94-AREAS ADDED brown -By: Orr K . J . M. Schelen CBX 3(ayeron & Associates. Inc. Date: Engineers r Architects • Planners • Surveyors 900 Park Place center a 5775 wayzata Boulevard 02/16/94 Yinneapolit.YN 55415-122a • 512-595.5715 Drawing Title Comm. No. PARCEL NO.43A-R 4934.00 ROW & EASEMENT SKETCH Sheet No. RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 493400eSURV*SKETC~43A-R.OGN 30?to Orr Sclielen 300 Park Place Center 612-595-5775 Mayeron& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard - - 1-800-753-5775 0MSXAs9ocjates,lnc. Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774 PARCEL NO.: 59A n U l? u PID NO.: 35-028-24-33-0078 OWNER: Sylvester J. Stachovich Description of Taking: LJ 19 ,-- A temporary easement for roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the west 20.00 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, MATTSON HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION, according to the plat on file in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said temporary easement expires December 31, 1994. H:\493400\SURV\MISC\S9A NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise location of this tract I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. D. and Armes, L.S. Lic. No. 11394 Date EASEDEA2.XLS Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors Li 04 (o E 10 a n a o a ? O ? n e w 5N, s e FRS Cee Rt+^ c e Si ?.e m)K?)O e om? p0m S?• "J'J rt Ee °o 0 4A -lam I i r F ? I x y .. z ro vo M r Co c?a x Y z ?] O ? cc) , D ? Z m 0 s 11 W n m O r ?n ' NO N TI m .o D G z Z O m ? O II > D Z CY) m D N ? II + 00 00 N fJ I+ v o I o Z' H - ° -I m m z O v m O m m D , N> ?> 3 z= o o? c? n> ? p z y r m z z p p N .°? o> `? .m y 3 > c a m; R o - m m n n x o o ?^ < K> m c z Z O m m c Z T z° n o g w z? vzi r' ; m m m (A z m Z Z A 3< L p m n o r „ ~ O m z L s m r > x N Z H Orr Schelen 300 Park Place Center 612-595-5775 0AES%I=lnc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard --- 1-800-753-5775 Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774 PARCEL NO.: 63 PID NO.: 35-028-24-34-0001 OWNER: House of Prayer Lutheran Church Description of Parcel: The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin . County, Minnesota. Subject to the rights of the public for 77th Street East, Elliot Avenue South and Chicago Avenue South. Description of Taking: Fee Taking for Right of Way The South 83.00 feet of the above described parcel. • Together with the north 2.00 feet of the south 85.00 feet of the west 139.00 feet of the above described parcel. A temporary easement for roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the west 9.00 feet of the east 125.50 feet of the north 5.00 feet of the south 88.00 feet of the above described parcel. Together with a temporary easement for roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the north 2.00 feet of the south 87.00 feet of the east 106.00 feet of the west 139.00 feet of the above described parcel. Together with a temporary easement for roadway and utility construction purposes over, under and across the east 9.00 feet of the west 67.00 feet of the north 38.00 feet of the south 125.00 of the above described parcel. Said temporary easements expire December 31, 1994. H:\493400\SURV\MISC\63 NOTE: No boundary survey work was performed as to the precise location of this tract EASEDEAMS I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the laws of the S to of Minnesota. D. 8dward Ames, L.S. -Lic. No. 11394 / Dgte Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors a f CC) 0 a ? a o w ? 3 t -- Xh36, 4 -: A = CHICAGO AVE. S. CA ---W. L I NE W ,2 - NW'/'4 - SEq - SWq a 0 85.0 00 N Lo P • ° r y ° Ra m g?= mpe? I •N? p?m^ in?r ,o '• 00 PEa mQ. o n I -I V) m d N 8 3 . 3 7:i N w N - !2 2 0 .3 '< a e? b o n 0 ti r A CA < ` C/) x w '77 z " x C n no () D Y CR m z II , ut 0 O N u o 9 .- m m 2 oZ --I 6') w ?m - , cn ° -I ?a z -i m mm o K ::E --•I II D ? r z? D cn m ?a L m Lo D N II II II O c.n ---I 1-1- Cn N oo W -J Lo CA N) ' I V' V V' / I O 0 O -n -n -n --! -i -I 1+ I+ I+ .;. W q- S E 4- SW I/4 ELLIOT AVE. S. T i l l Z i Nn N CD IM m o -? n z v. y v? r p m o m z a o>= coax '"' Az m Z c$ 0 A N U o> 0. 0 ti C r m m o a m K< o m c z co x o p m _ N Z T A o c m m 3 vzi E m m m H s m Z A 3 K= A C ~ H u M A Z r i 71 m 3 m z Llf. 9 EXHIBIT B JUST COMPENSATION Parcel Number Partial Fee Taking Permanent Easement Temporary Easement Total 43AR $ 600.00 - - - $100.00 $ 700.00 59A - - - - - - $400.00 $ 400.00 63 $110,000.00 - - - $100.00 $110,100.00 0 0- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 121 Agenda April 25, 1994 Issue Statement: Proclamation designating May 1-7, 1994 as National Drinking Water Week and May 7, 1994 as National Drinking Water Day. Background: The American Water Works Association has declared May 1-7 as National Drinking Water Week. This recognition has been nationwide for several years; and, this will be the fourth year Richfield has participated with a local celebration. Water personnel have planned an Open House at the Water Plant on Saturday, May 7 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. There will be exhibits including several pieces of equipment for the public to inspect. There will be tours of the newly renovated Water Plant including the Water Interpretive Center. This year the event is being touted as an official grand re-opening celebration. Recommended Motion: Approve an official proclamation by the Mayor, designating May 7, 1994 as National Drinking Water Day and May 1-7, 1994 as National Drinking Water Week in the City of Richfield. Basis of Recommendation: Richfield has an outstanding water treatment plant and distribution system, and should be recognized. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for Community Services Director accept the proclamation. the April 25, 1994 Council meeting. Don Fondrick will be present to Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City pager JDP:ds Attachment t 0 Z z ? N Q i z ii ? Q g a y. of v? C) ti 1 T a Y 'W W It W a (!) z Z S 0 J z 0 z rZ, 0 (1) _A C'? N -p it rr CL N CL UCONC O U I0) I@ r . U) > 0 41) 41 (Do K< ? €C -0 'p? C ti Sm 0 > F tTS co C I O W o .o O O cis CL m c . N p 0 a k. `1- ca PAS = ` 4 ? ` C>F ca CC: a) '0 °' >.? v E °' a) v ai ape , ?'`? k Y+ 4 -p 0C: Co -0 CU 0 Q ca 4- C O N M C Q. O Z c U) C 3, # c 0 co -0 Co 0) r LD -C 4- -C a) /V/ -_ 6 U) 0 4- a> O E ?- rn'`-' o ?F cz co M N I l t Q tT3 I " cts ..`` U c :3 v- (n co to C -O co , r a> co co L- E V) E 0 ca (1) cu (a ? =3 -0 E Y o co U) RIN C CD c s= cn a: E a) cl a) CL C co co Y ca C Q O O +O cc a) a) C f6 A7 +? 0 N w E a) ., o. ?0) E? oa -0 ca a) 70 c M' _ to 41 cn cn N O cn Fu ca w >% 0 O N a aQ aa? SaQ E w w-0 ww w•- 0 cc m w w 0 W? W-0 W.- S S`- SO SO SD ?0`?-00 c ?- z- :3 o c6 N cu - >. o +- -' O U pQ N L +C+ t O Z U ti U >. I .f `"•?.?aA.'-,^{r? ??A?AK -...art'. ? w^,t t s??'L,e_+'a?.a+wm.aa'?.'?F: - ^' ?-? ?- 90