The URL can be used to link to this page

11-21-94 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY,, NOVEMBER 21, 1994 REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF (1) SPECIAL HRA/CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1994; (2) REGULAR HRA MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1994; (3) SPECIAL HRA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1994; AND (4) SPECIAL HRA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 1994 1. OATH OF OFFICE TO HRA COMMISSIONER RUSS SUSAG 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE HRA ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATION OF APARTMENT RESIDENT SURVEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS HRA LETTER NO. 76 4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PHASE I, SHOPS AT LYNDALE HRA LETTER N0. 77 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION AND QUICK TAKE FOR PORTION OF COLFAX AVENUE AREA, SHOPS AT LYNDALE, ILN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HRA LETTER NO. 78 6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP CAR WASH SITE AT 66TH STREET AND BLOOMINGTON AVENUE HRA LETTER NO. 79 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING 1995 HRA BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR 1995 HRA LETTER NO. 80 8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 9. CLAIMS AND PAYROLL 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. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 80 Agenda November 21, 1994 Issue Statement: Public hearing and adoption of the 1995 HRA proposed property tax levy and budget. Background• At the August 15, 1994 meeting, the HRA adopted a preliminary levy according to the Truth-in-Taxation law. .That levy was then forwarded to the City Council and adopted with the City's preliminary levy. The Truth-in-Taxation law does not require any further action by the HRA, nor does it require a public hearing on the final tax levy and/or budget. The HRA levy will be included as part of the City's final levy document which will be considered at the City's Truth-in-Taxation hearing on December 7, 1994. However, a public hearing on the proposed HRA levy has been scheduled for November 21, 1994 public input. At the conclusion of the heari~ adopt a final budget and tax levy for 1995 to City Council. The HRA budget resolutions are budget document and represent official action the HRA. 1995 budget and tax to provide for zg, the HRA should be forwarded to the included with the on those items by Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolutions adopting a 1995 HRA budget and property tax levy for 1995. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The HRA approved the Proposed 1995 Budget and Proposed 1995 HRA General Fund and Relocation Information Fund tax levies at its August 15 meeting. 2. The HRA should now take official action to finalize the HRA budget and tax levy. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The HRA could select another meeting date before December 7, 1994 to consider these items. However, there would be little time to publish a timely notice. Discussion/Decision Mode: It is recommended that the HRA take action on the HRA budget and property tax levy on November 21. Res ully submitted, Jam s Prosser City anager JDP:cak HRA RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 1994 BUDGET OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, Resolution No. 489 appropriated funds for personal services and other expenses and capital outlay for the Authority for the year 1994; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has requested a revision of the 1994 budget as detailed in the proposed 1995 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the 1994 appropriations for the Housing and Redevelopment General Fund be revised as follows: $ 51,690. Increase Section 2. Estimated 1994 gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the 1995 budget document, are hereby revised as follows: $ 2,630 Decrease Section 3. That the 1994 appropriations for Relocation Information Services and Assistance be revised as follows: $ 16,220 Increase Section 4. Estimated 1994 gross revenue of the Relocation Informations Services and Assistance from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed, in the Executive Director's official copy of the 1995 budget document, are hereby revised as follows: $ 0 Increase Section 5. That the Executive Director bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 21st day of November, 1994. Thomas E. Harms Chair ATTEST: Vern Luettinger Secretary HRA RESOLUTION N0. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING 1995 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET AND CERTIFYING THE 1995 TAX LEVY BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of .Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section, 1. The proposed budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield for the year 1995 in the amount of $509,690 is .hereby ratified. Section 2. The estimated gross revenue of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority General Fund of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 1995, and as the same are more fully detailed in the Executive Director's official copy of the proposed budget for the year 1995,. in the amount of $509,690 are hereby approved. Section 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct maximum amount allowable by law a proposed ad valorem tax in 1994, payable in 1995 for the following purposes: Housing and Redevelopment Authority $152,160 Relocation Information Services and Assistance $ 15,100 Section 4. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota this 21st day of November,-1994. Thomas E. Harms Chair ATTEST: Vern Luettinger Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 79 November 21, 1994 Issue Statement: Proposal to redevelop the car wash site at 66th Street and Bloomington Avenue. Background At the September 19 meeting, the HRA heard a concept proposal for the redevelopment of this site-for use as a dental clinic. At the October 17, 1994 meeting, the developer and staff were directed to redefine the proposal. .The development team includes Mr. Jim Winkels, Director of Business Development for Belair Builders Inc. of New Brighton, Mr. Charles Ehlers, DDS and Mr. James Koller, DDS. The proposal is as follows: • A building foot print of 3,000 square feet, (see attached preliminary site plan). Seven operatories, business office and waiting area on the first floor; lower level of 3,000 square feet would have a lab, record storage, staff lounge and utility space. • Setback requirements would be met. The property slopes t'o the south and east where a NURP pond would be required to deal with the runoff. Also the openness would provide for harmony with adjoining residential area. Nineteen parking spaces and landscaping fill out the site. • An up front loan of 550,000 from the HRA is being requested. The loan would provide for "relocation" of the existing tenant. The terms of repayment of the loan would be contained in a contract for private development which would be presented to the HRA at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Mark Ruff of Publicorp has reviewed the "but/for" and concluded .that the request is reasonable. Publicorp has also concluded that the $50,000 could be withdrawn from the development fund without causing any cash flow problems. Administrative costs would approximate 53,000 to 54,000. While the developer would prefer a lump sum payment, an alternative would be to set up a "pay as you go" tax increment project and provide them with $50,000 over approximately two years. As the development paid taxes the incremental value of the taxes estimated at approximately 523,700 per year would be paid to the developer over a two and one-half year period beginning in 1997 (similar to the CDP and CSM projects). Administrative costs resulting from start up costs and annual monitoring are estimated at approximately 56,000 over the five year period (years 1995 and 1996 with no increment and years 1997, 1998 and part of 1999. with tax increment). The HRA, after deliberations, could select one of the above options. If a loan is to be provided, only a redevelopment plan needs to be adopted subject to a Planning Commission finding followed by a hearing by the City Council. Attached is the redevelopment plan and resolution labeled Alternative A. If the HRA selected a "pay as you go" TIF, a redevelopment plan and tax increment plan and accompanying resolution would need to be adopted subject to Planning Commission findings followed. by a hearing of the City Council. Attached is the redevelopment plan, tax increment plan and resolution labeled Alternative B. The redevelopment plan responds to applicable State Statutes. It contains a statement of public purpose, goals and objectives, description of the site and activities to be undertaken by the public and private interests. (It is very similar to other redevelopment plans such as that used for CDP and the dental office at 70th and .Penn Avenue.) The tax increment plan follows from the redevelopment plan and simply reflects the state law requirements and the above comments contained in this letter. Mr. Winkels and Mr. Ruff will. both be at the HRA meeting on November 21, 1994. Recommended Motion: 1. Select the method of financing which in the judgement of the HRA is the most desirable. a. a lump sum payment implemented by adopting the attached resolution marked Alternative A, or b. tax increment financing on a "pay as you go" basis by adopting the resolution marked Alternative B. 2. Direct the developer to host a neighborhood information meeting prior to a City Council public hearing. Basis of Recommendation: 1. At the September 19 HRA meeting, the HRA supported the concept of eliminating the existing nuisance use through redevelopment. 2. While the redevelopment of this site with a dental office seems desirable, the residents in the adjoining area need an opportunity to express their thoughts. 3. The site is appropriately zoned. 4. The assistance being sought is reasonable given the estimated $750,000 development cost. Alternative Recommendation: Provide no financial support to this project. Discussion/Decision Mode: A decision regarding financing at the November 21, 1994 meeting will make it possible to proceed with the preparation of a developer's agreement for presentation to the HRA. Respectfu y submitted, James Prosser Execut° e Director JDP:ds u; '~~ ~, ~, 'll ' H / `°' ~' ~ , , 4 { ~ ~ ' ~ ,1. L '• ~4 NDr'~T H . ..... .......... _ _._ .._ 1 E'KO, HL & ASSOCIAT TD. . ARCHITECTURE ? IN'ITiR1URS ACE PLANNING I ~ ~'"(~'~ /.,y /~ ti / 1 I LF-F~ V JAMES A. STRAPKO ARCHITECT ~ ~~ i ~I = 2D ~ I G E ~"Nl'd.t_. ~ 11. 14 • q'4 o f ~ ~1S) MlnneMh~ Avenue SOUIh. Alinnnnol4. MN ~.SAIM /R171 724 1112 1 i ]~ , ~ 1 I C ~. r~ 11 A '1~1 ~1 p 0 0 ALTERNATIVE A RESOLUTION NO. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, CONSISTING OF ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EAST 66TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; REQUESTING THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON; RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") is a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the state of Minnesota and authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 through 469.047 (the "HRA Act") to establish projects within the City of _ Richfield. 1.02. The HRA has identified an area of the city as being in need of development and redevelopment because of the existence of substandard buildings and under utilized property located within such area. 1.03. The. HRA has conducted a study of the physical conditions within the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project") and has considered the need for public assistance to encourage development and redevelopment within the area. 1.04. The HRA has caused to be prepared a redevelopment plan for the Project which is contained in a document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area" dated October 17, 1994 and on file in the office of the executive director of the HRA. The Redevelopment Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area constitutes a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan. Collectively, the documents shall be known hereinafter as the "Plans". 1.05. Notice of the public hearing on the establishment of the Project and will be published as required by law and will be held by the City Council of the "City") on November 14, 1994. required by the HRA Act the adoption of the Plans a public hearing thereon City of Richfield (the Section 2. Findings. ALTERNATIVE A 2.01. The HRA finds that the land in the Project would not be made available for development or redevelopment without the financial assistance authorized by the Plans. 2.02. The HRA finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of property within the Project by private enterprise. 2.03. Subject to approval by the planning commission, the HRA finds the Plans conform to the general plan for development of the city as a whole. 2.04. The HRA finds that the Project is a redevelopment project within the meaning of section 469.002, subd. 12 of the HRA ACt. Section 3. HRA Approval. 3.03. The HRA approves and hereby adopts the Plans. Section 4. Further Proceedinas. 4.01. The HRA requests that the Richfield Planning Commission review the Plans and comment thereon regarding their consistency with the City's comprehensive plan. 4.02. The HRA requires that the City hold the public hearing on the Plans as required by section 469.028 of the HRA Act and recommends that the Plans be approved by the city. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield this day of 1994. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary ALTERNATIVE A The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota Redevelopment Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area Dated: November 21, 1994 Prepared By: The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 MAYOR Martin J. Kirsch CITY COUNCIL Michael Sandahl, Council Member At Large Susan Rosenberg, Ward 1 Russ Susag, Ward 2 Donald Priebe, Ward 3 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chairperson Joan Helmberger, Vice-Chairperson Vern Luettinger, Secretary Russ Susag, Member Michael Sandahl, Member CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson Kristal Stokes, Vice Chairperson Timothy Erlander, Secretary Pamela Dmytrenko, Member David Gepner, Member Morris Nilsen, II, Member Thomas Scaglia, Member William Snyder, Member Paul Wasko, Member CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development Bruce Palmborg . Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Katia Medvetski Redevelopment Specialist CONSULTANTS John B. Dean Ronald L. Batty HRA Legal Counsel Holmes & Graven, Chartered Minneapolis,1111tT Mark Ruff Publicorp, Inc. Minneapolis,11111T TABLE OF CONTENTS East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan - Alternative A Page Number A. Statement of Public Pu ose 1 B. Statuto Authori 1 C. Statement of Goals and Ob'ectives 1 D. Descri tion of Redevelo went Project Area 2 E. Develo ment Activities and A reements 3 F. Public Redevelo ment Costs; Proceeds; Financin 4 G. Pro osed Land Use 4 H. Ac uisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 4 L Environmental Considerations 5 J. Redevelo went Plan Modification 5 K. Administration of Redevelo ment Project 5 A endig A: Ma of Redevelo ment Project Area 6 ALTERNATIVE A EAST 66TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN A. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE It is found that the public interest requires the replanning, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of neighborhoods; that in order to protect the overall economic stability of the community, particularly its commercial areas, it is necessary to redevelop. and remedy conditions of underutilized land, economic obsolescence, and physical blight; that in order to create an economic environment which fosters the growth of a healthy commercial base and facilitates the. redevelopment of land, it is necessary to encourage private enterprise to engage in redevelopment to be constructed in accordance with a comprehensive community plan. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") have determined that public intervention is necessary in the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area (the."Project Area") in order to achieve set goals and objectives for proper redevelopment of the area. B. STATUTORY AUTHORITY The statutory authority for the undertaking of a redevelopment project in the Project Area and the redevelopment activities proposed in the redevelopment plan relating thereto is conferred upon the HRA pursuant to and in accordance with the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act (the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.027 establishes the requirements for redevelopment plan preparation by an HRA prior to undertaking property acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment. C. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to undertake a redevelopment project in the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 469. The following goals and objectives are intended to serve as a basis for guiding the development and redevelopment of the proposed project area: l .) To facilitate the acquisition of land or space which is vacant, unused or underused; 2.) To facilitate the redevelopment of land for the construction of a 'contemporary professional office building; 3.) To achieve a high level of design and landscaping quality in order to enhance the surrounding physical environment; 4.} To facilitate the removal of nuisance uses adjacent to residential uses; 1 ALTERNATIVE A 5.) To create effective buffers, screens and transitions between residential and non-residential uses; 6.) To improve the commercial property tax base of the City and other taxing jurisdictions; 7.) To provide increased employment opportunities and improve the income base of the .state; and 8.) To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city and other local jurisdictions, for development by private enterprise. D. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA In order to guide the development and redevelopment in the Project Area, the HRA has created this redevelopment plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 469.002, subd. 12, the proposed project meets the definition of a redevelopment project. More specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 469.002, subd. 14, states that a "`Redevelopment project' means any work or undertaking: . 1) to acquire blighted areas and other real property for the purpose of removing, preventing, or reducing blight, blighting factors, or the causes of blight; 2) to clear any areas acquired and install, construct or reconstruct streets, utilities, and site improvements essential to the preparation of site for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan; (3) to sell or lease land so acquired for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan; (4) to prepare a redevelopment plan, and to incur initiation, planning, survey and other administrative costs of a redevelopment project, and to prepare technical and financial plans and arrangements for buildings, structures, and improvements and all other work in connection therewith. "' The redevelopment project area boundary is site specific to the project and encompasses all that real property within an area described as follows: The North 250.feet of the West 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, except streets, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2 ALTERNATIVE A E. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS General The objectives of this Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the Act. Redevelopment within the Project Area must be financially feasible, marketable, and compatible with long range redevelopment plans of the City and HItA. The following development activities are appropriate for the .area in light of current redevelopment opportunities: l.) Land acquisition; 2.) Site clearance; and 3.) Site improvements. Any and all proposals by the developer will be reviewed by the HRA to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes: To facilitate this effort, the following documents maybe requested for review and approval: 1.) Site plan; 2.) Construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings; 3.) Landscaping plan; 4.) Grading and storm drainage plan; 5.) Signage system plan; and 6.) Any .other drawings or narrative deemed by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with the redevelopment plan. It is the intention of the I3RA that the majority of the redevelopment activities, including but not limited to acquisition, relocation, site clearance, and improvements be directly undertaken by the developer with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA. Descriation of Anticiaated Private Develoament Activities The proposal for redevelopment of the project area calls for the acquisition, site clearance, and construction of a new commercial, dental office building and related parking. The subject land is owned by a private, third party. Currently and since approximately 1965, the site has been occupied by aself-service car wash business with four stalls. The new commercial dental office building is expected to accommodate a dental clinic for three dentists. The dentists have outgrown their current space in an adjacent community and have sought Richfield as an appropriate community to locate to. The commercial office building will approximate. 6,000 square feet in size, including finished space on the lower level. The site will also accommodate parking and landscaping. 3 ALTERNATIVE A Descriation of Anticipated Public Development Activities The proposed public development activities in the redevelopment project area would be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities and facilitate redevelopment of the area in a manner suitable to overall development plans. These activities include direct financial assistance to the .developers for project costs and indirect assistance to the project for acquiring and extinguishing a leasehold interest in the subject property. Redevelopment activities would be contingent upon the mutual agreements set forth in aContract for Private Redevelopment. F. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING The HRA determines that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in the redevelopment project area- shall be accomplished through the use of the revenue in the HRA's Development Fund. Specifically, the developers will obtain a $50,000 loan from the HRA for the dental office project in order to relocate the tenant from the property through a leasehold interest buyout. As the HRA will not acquire any land directly, no capital proceeds from land sale are expected. G. PROPOSED LAND USE The current land use in the redevelopment project area is zoned C-2, General Commercial. The proposed redevelopment project would be consistent with permitted uses in the C-2, General Commercial District. H. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABII.ITATION ACTIVITIES 1. Acquisition As stated previously, the HRA does not intend to acquire any real property for the project. However, it is intended that the developers will acquire the following property in order to assemble land for redevelopment, according to the objectives set forth in this plan: PID # 26-028-24-41-0004 Legal Description: The north 250 feet of the West 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, except streets, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Relocation The existing car wash business must be removed from the site for the proposed development. 4 ALTERNATIVE A 3. Rehabilitation Program No rehabilitation is currently intended in the Redevelopment Project Area. I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed redevelopment project does not present any permanent environmental problems. All municipal actions, public improvement, and private development shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances will be obtained by the developer. J. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, subdivision 6, a redevelopment plan maybe modified at any time provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice and after the public hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not constitute a modification of the Redevelopment Plan nor require approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is located. K. ADMINISTRATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The administration of the redevelopment project area will be undertaken by HRA officials. 5 ALTERNATIVE A APPENDIX A MAP OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA LL AMH 2 H Z ° q o ~ °~ q ~ O~ C7U OCR ~J QO^~O^0 ~~ ~__ ~ ~ - ao j r~ I ~ ~ ~I ~ ^I -,~ o n: ~ - ~ 4iC~ C~ ~ ap ~o~ OI : ~ -- I ^ 4 ~- --~ J _. `r-uT Oo Oo p Q- - - a ~° o ~ cl o q ~ ~ ~ o r -l ~-----I ao q a ~ ~-; t Q a Q ~ D D I ~ b ~ I ~I I , I ~ I ^ q ~ ['~ o L_ . D O ^° ^ ~ ^° ~- Id~ I p Ip Q I I i ~ ol~l -~-~-~--~- I ~- ~ I I d ono 0 0 ~~ _~,,:=.~{{ ~~ g y ~ ~=`U ° a .;:.. ~ _, ^ 0 ~, i I fl ~ ~ ~ ~~p ~ I C --- ~._.._ I~ 7 J_ ~..~ q d ^L,~ --- ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ '3AV H184 Cho Cho 4 N 0 '3AV H1Lt •anv H1sL '3AV NO1bNIW00~9 '3AV H15L I .....I.........I....I... I ....I......I. I i_ ~_ I I I I I ~ i -~ ~ i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I '3AV HlOt ~ j I j I I I I I , I I I I I I _Ir-1~-I--1--I ~- ~- ~--I- I I 1 1 ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '3AV H1EL '3AV HlZt '3AV FIlL t Z W J W a H U W a (~ Z W a 0 W W W W I- N cs~ c~ Q W ALTERNATIVE B RESOLUTION NO. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AND FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, CONSISTING OF ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT .PLAN AND TAX .INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE EAST 66TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; REQUESTING THE RICHFIELD .CITY COUNCIL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON; RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and,for the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01,. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") is a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the state of Minnesota and authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 through 469.047 (the "HRA Act") to establish projects within the City of Richfield. 1.02. The HRA has identified an area of the city as being in need of development and redevelopment because of the existence of substandard buildings and under utilized property located within such area. 1.03. The HRA has conducted a study of the physical conditions within the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project") and has considered the need for public assistance to encourage development and redevelopment within the area. 1.04. The HRA has caused to be prepared a redevelopment plan for the Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan constitutes a modification to the Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan. 1.05. The HRA has also caused to be prepared a tax increment financing plan (the "TIF Plan") for the Project which describes the public assistance which will be offered to assist with development and redevelopment within the Project. The Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan are contained in a document entitled "Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area" dated November 21, 1994 and on file in the office of the executive director of the HRA. Collectively, the documents shall be known hereinafter as the "Plans". ALTERNATIVE B Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Plan. 2.01. The HRA finds.. that the land in the Project would not be made available for development or redevelopment without the financial assistance .authorized by the Plans. 2.02. The HRA finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city as a whole, for the redevelopment of property within the Project by private enterprise. 2.03. Subject to approval by the planning commission, the HRA finds the Plans conforms to the general plan for development of the city as a whole. 2.04. The HRA finds that the Project is a redevelopment project within the meaning of section 469.002, subd. 12 of the. HRA ACt. Section 3. Findings; TIF Plan. 3.01. The HRA finds that the proposed tax increment financing district is a redevelopment tax increment district _ pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 10(a)(1) of the TIF Act, based on a study of site conditions and review of the files of the City conducted by the HRA staff. 3.02. The HRA finds that the proposed redevelopment of the property within the Project would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment is deemed necessary. :3.03. Subject to approval by the planning commission, the HRA finds that the TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for development of the city as a whole. 3.04. The HRA finds that the TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development and redevelopment of the Project as a whole. Section 4. HRA Approvals; Further Proceeding. 4.01. The HRA approves and hereby adopts the Plans. 4.02. The HRA elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in section 469.177, subd. 3, clause (b) of the TIF Act regarding fiscal disparities. 4.03. The HRA requests that the Richfield Planning Commission review the Plans and comment thereon regarding their consistency with the City's comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVE B 4.04. The HRA requires that the City hold the public hearing on the Plans as required by section 469.028 of the HRA Act and recommends that the Plans be approved by the City. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield this 21st day of November, 1994. Thomas E. Harms, Chairperson ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary ALTERNATIVE B The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment Financing District Dated: November 21, 1994 Prepared By: The City of Richfield Department of Community Development Housing and Redevelopment Division 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 861-9760 MAYOR Martin J. Kirsch CITY COUNCIL Michael Sandahl, Council Member At Large Susan Rosenberg, Ward 1 Russ Susag, Ward 2 Donald Priebe, Ward 3 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas Harms, Chairperson Joan Helmberger, Vice-Chairperson Vern Luettinger, Secretary Russ Susag, Member Michael Sandahl, Member CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR James D. Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson Kristal Stokes, Vice Chairperson Timothy Erlander, Secretary Pamela Dmytrenko, Member David Gepner, Member Morris Nilsen, II, Member Thomas Scaglia, Member William Snyder, Member Paul Wasko, Member CITY STAFF Byron Wallace Director, Community Development Bruce Palmborg Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Katia Medvetski Redevelopment Specialist CONSULTANTS John B. Dean Ronald L. Batty HRA Legal Counsel Holmes & Graven, Chartered Minneapolis, MN Mark Ruff Publicorp, Inc.. Minneapolis, MN ALTERNATIVE B Redevelopment Plan for the East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area Dated: November 21, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part L East 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan - Alternative B Page Number A. Statement of Public Pu ose 1 B. Statuto Authori 1 C. Statement of Goals and Ob'ectives 1 D. Descri tion of Redevelo ment Project Area 2 E. Develo ment Activities and A reements 3 F. Public Redevelo ment Costs; Proceeds; Financin 4 G. Pro osed Land Use 4 H. Ac uisition, Relocation, and Rehabilitation Activities 4 L Environmental Considerations 5 J. Redevelo ment Plan Modification 5 K. Administration of Redevelo ment Project 5 Appendix A: Map of Redevelopment Project Area and Tax Increment District 6 ALTERNATIVE B PART I. EAST 66TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN A. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE It is found that the public interest requires the replanning, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of neighborhoods; that in order to protect the overall economic stability of the community, particularly its commercial areas, it is necessary to redevelop and remedy conditions of underutilized land, economic obsolescence, and physical blight; that in order to create an economic environment which fosters the growth of a healthy commercial base and facilitates the redevelopment of land, it is necessary to encourage private enterprise to engage in redevelopment to be constructed in accordance with a comprehensive community plan. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") have determined that public intervention is necessary in the East- 66th Street Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area") in order to achieve set goals and objectives for proper redevelopment of the area. B. "STATUTORY AUTHORITY The .statutory authority for the undertaking of a redevelopment project in the Project Area - and the redevelopment activities proposed in the redevelopment plan relating thereto is conferred upon. the HRA pursuant to and in accordance with the Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act (the "Act"), Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027 establishes the requirements for redevelopment plan preparation by an HRA prior to undertaking property acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment. C. STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to undertake a redevelopment project in the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. The following goals and objectives are intended to serve as a basis for guiding the development and redevelopment of the proposed project area: 1.) To facilitate the acquisition of land or space which is vacant, unused or underused; 2.) To facilitate the redevelopment of land for the construction of a contemporary professional office building; 3.) To achieve a high level of design and landscaping quality in order to enhance the surrounding physical environment; 1 ALTERNATIVE B 4.) To facilitate the removal of nuisance uses adjacent to residential uses; 5.) To create effective buffers, screens and transitions between residential and non-residential uses; 6.) To improve the commercial property tax base of the City and other taxing jurisdictions; 7.) To provide increased employment opportunities and improve the income base of the state; and, 8.) To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the city and other local jurisdictions, for development by private enterprise. D. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA In order to guide the development and redevelopment in the Project Area, the I-iRA has created this redevelopment plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sec. 469.002, subd. 12, the proposed project meets the definition of a redevelopment project. More specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 469.002, subd. 14, states that a "`Redevelopment project' means any work or undertaking: 1) to acquire blighted areas and other real property for the purpose of removing, preventing, or reducing blight, blighting factors, or the causes of blight; 2) to clear any areas acquired and install, construct or reconstruct streets, utilities, and site improvements essential to the preparation of site for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan; (3) to sell or lease land so acquired for uses in accordance with the redevelopment plan; (4} to prepare a redevelopment plan, and to incur initiation, planning, survey and other administrative costs of a redevelopment project, and to prepare technical and financial plans and arrangements for buildings, structures, and improvements and all other work in connection therewith. "' The redevelopment project area boundary is site specific to the project and encompasses all that real property within an area described as follows: The North 250 feet of the West 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, except streets, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2 ALTERNATIVE B E. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND AGREEMENTS General The objectives of this Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the Act. Redevelopment within the Project Area must be financially feasible, marketable, and compatible with long range redevelopment plans of the City and HRA. The following development activities are appropriate for the area in light of current redevelopment opportunities: 1.) Land acquisition; 2.) Site clearance; -and 3.) Site improvements. Any and all proposals by the developer will be reviewed by the IiRA to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents maybe requested for review and approval: l.) Site plan; 2.) Construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings; 3.) .Landscaping plan; 4.) Grading and storm drainage plan; 5.) Signage system plan; and 6.) Any other drawings or narrative deemed by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the development with the redevelopment plan. It is the intention of the I-iRA that the majority of the redevelopment activities, including but not limited to acquisition, relocation, site clearance, and improvements be directly undertaken by the developer with assistance when and where appropriate from the HRA. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities The proposal for redevelopment of the project area calls for the acquisition, site clearance, and construction of a new commercial, dental office building and related parking. The subject land is owned by a private, third party. Currently and since approximately 1965, the site has been occupied by aself-service car wash business with four stalls. The .new commercial dental office building is expected to accommodate a dental clinic for three dentists. The dentists have outgrown their current space in an adjacent community and have sought Richfield as an appropriate community to locate to. The commercial office building will approximate 6,000 square feet in size, including finished space on the lower level. The site will also accommodate parking and landscaping. 3 ALTERNATIVE B Descriation of Anticiaated Public Development Activities The proposed public development activities in the redevelopment project area would be undertaken by the HRA and City in order to support the private development activities and facilitate redevelopment of the area in a manner suitable to overall development plans. These activities include direct financial assistance. to the developers for project costs and indirect assistance to the project for acquiring and extinguishing a leasehold interest in the subject property. Redevelopment activities would be contingent upon the mutual agreements set forth in a Contract for Private Redevelopment. F. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT COST; PROCEEDS; FINANCING The HRA determines that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in the redevelopment project area shall be accomplished through the use of the tax increment financing.. Specifically, the developers will obtain $50,000 in assistance on a "pay-as-you-go" basis from the HRA for the dental office project. The. subsidy will be used to write down the cost of the land as part of the land acquisition. An additional $6,500 in tax increment financing assistance will be used to pay for HRA administrative costs, legal fees and appraisal fees. G. PROPOSED LAND USE The current land use in the redevelopment project area is zoned C-2, General Commercial. The proposed redevelopment project would be consistent with permitted uses in the C-2, General Commercial District. H. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES 1. Acquisition The HRA will acquire the following property and sell it to the developer at a discount, according to the objectives set forth in this plan: PID # 26-028-24-41-0004 Legal Description: The north 250 feet of the West 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, except streets, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Relocation The. existing car wash business must be removed from the site for the proposed development. The developer will be responsible for this action. 4 ALTERNATIVE B Rehabilitation Program No rehabilitation is currently intended in the Redevelopment Project Area. I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed redevelopment project does not present any permanent environmental problems. All municipal actions, public improvement, and private development shall be carried out in a manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances will be obtained by the developer. J. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, subdivision 6, a redevelopment plan maybe modified at any time provided that the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice and after the public hearing required for the original adoption of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the general land uses established in such plan, then such changes shall not constitute a modification of the Redevelopment Plan nor require approval by the governing body of the political subdivision in which the project is located. K. ADMINISTRATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The administration of the redevelopment project area will be undertaken by HRA oi~cials. ALTERNATIVE B APPENDIX A MAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT O U ~ dO d d p~ ~ ° q o°o ~ o ~ q (~~ ~ ~~ O ~C~ qo^po^o Di ~__ r~ o ,i ~ I. I I ~ i ^~~ f1 ~ ~ o ap ~~ of ~ I ^ Q ~_ _.1 J r _.. •and adaa~ ~ ~- _~ I dl.... L_Q-I _ L ~ ------ ~ 0 0o p Q-- - ~] ° ~ L1] C~ 0 a ~° a ~ c~ q ~ ~ ~ o o ~~ o _~ r---' oo q Q o ~ ~ - ~ l rJ a a •and Hlel [moo Q^ 4 N m '3Ad H1L4 '3Ad H191 '3Ad NOlt)NIW00~9 '3Ad H1Sl I ~ i l l ~; ~ -+- ~ -i-+--r--r _i ~- ~ I I i i i t I I I I I I I I '3Ad H10 t l i l t I I I ~ i I I I I I I I I I rl I I I f I I l~ i l i l i l . I I I '3Ad H1El . O o _~;io~L7,o~ i^~~I I ^ ~ of I ~ ~°~° i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L- ^ ^ ~~ ^ o ^o I ~ -F~-~--a- -I- _d_i IdOoI i~,d --- ~] Io f~J ^ IQj 0 o O o ' N ~ 5 1-d ~0 ~ o I~ .i I- ~ i, I ~ ~7 ~ ~ ;~a '3Ad Hlzl ^o~o~ ~' -C7`~C~a -~ -- '-" '3Ad Hlll --- ~ - Q ~ I ~ o~oo~J CS /1 . ~ I - -l- -I - ~ s H O z W a U w O o~ a H z W a O t- >~ GN Wp W WW W ~ W J NU sz ~x m~ ND QZ wa ALTERNATIVE B Tax Increment Financing Plan for. the. East 66th Street Tax Increment. Financing District Dated: November 21, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part II. East 66th Street Taz Increment Financing District Taz Increment Financing Plan - Alternative B Page Number A. Statuto Authori 1 B. Statement of Ob'ectives 1 C. Develo merit Pro ram 1 D. Descri tion of Pro a in the Taz Increment Financin District 2 E. Classification of the Taz Increment Financin District 2 F. Parcels in Ac uisition 2 G. Estimate of Costs 2 H. Estimated Amount of Obli ated Funds 4 I. Sources of Revenue 4 J. Ori final Taz Ca aci 4 K. .Estimated Ca tured Taz Ca aci 4 L. Duration of the District 5 M. Estimated Im act on Other Tazin Jurisdictions 5 N. Modifications of the Taz Increment Financin District 5 O. Limitation on Administrative Ez enses 5 P. Limitation on duration of Taz Increment Financin Districts 5 Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Taz Increment District Not Sub°ect to Im rovement 6 R. Limitation on Use of Taz Increment 6 S. Notification of Prior Planned lm rovements 6 T. Ezcess Taz Increments ~ U. Restrictions on Poolin :Five-Year Limit ~ V. Assessment A reements 9 W. Administration of the Taz Increment District and Maintenance of the Taz Increment Account 9 X. Annual Disclosure Re uirements 9 Y. - Assum tions 10 Z. Munici al Findin s 10 Appendiz A: Map of the Redevelopment Project Area and Taz Increment Financin District A endiz B: Estimate of Taz Increment and Related Cashflows A endiz C: Estimate of Im acts on Other Tazin Jurisdictions ALTERNATIVE B PART II. EAST 66TH STREET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN A. .Statutory Authority The statutory authority for the undertaking of a tax increment financing district (TIF District) and related Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) in the East 66th Street _ Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) and the activities proposed in the TIF Plan relating thereto is conferred upon the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (HRA), pursuant to and in accordance with the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended. B. Statement of Objectives The HRA and the City affirm the goals and objectives set forth in Part I of the Redevelopment Plan for the East 66th Street Project Area. C. Development Program 1. Descriation of Development Activities The TIF District is being created for the purpose of continuation of the commercial improvement and revitalization activities in the City. The proposed TIF District calls for the construction of a new dental office building in accordance with the City's and HRA's overall development plans. The HRA proposes to assist the developers with project costs and other qualifying activities related to the project. More detailed information with regard to the development maybe found in Section E. "Development Activities and Agreements" in the Redevelopment Plan relating to this project. 2. Development Activities Covered by Contract Currently, there are no development contracts in place for this project. Any and all development contracts which may arise in the interim processing period of these plans ..will be contingent upon 1-IRA Board approval. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Ezpected to Occur in the Proiect• No other development is anticipated to occur in the redevelopment project area. ALTERNATIVE B D. Description of Property in the Tag Increment Financing District Property located within the East 66th Street TIF District is: Property Address: 6601 Bloomington Ave. So.; Richfield, MN PID No.: 26-028-24-41-0004 E. Classification of the Tag Increment Financing District The Richfield HRA and City Council, in determining the need for a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, find that the TIF District to be established within the Project Area is a redevelopment tax increment financing district as defined in Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. The tax increment parcel has been examined by staff against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions. The structures within the TIF District have qualified under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility is enumerated within a document entitled "East 66th Street Blight Qualification Survey". This survey will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division, for the duration of the tax increment district's life. F. Parcels in Acquisition The following property has been identified for acquisition: Property Address: 6601 Bloomington Ave. So., Richfield, MN PID No.: 26-028-24-41-0004 The tax increment district budget includes land acquisition costs as requested by the developers. G. Estimate of Costs The estimate of public costs associated with the TIF District follows. 2 ALTERNATIVE B EHLERS/KOLLER FAMILY DENTISTRY 66TH & BLOOMINGTON PRELIlVIINARY PROFORMA 11/10/94 FUND USES: Land $125,000.00 Building - 3,000 SF $500,000.00 Miscellaneous Project Costs $ 75,000.00 Architect/Engineering Soils/Environmental Testing ' Fees to Lender Closing/LegaUTitle Appraisal Relocation (Tip Top Car Wash) $ 50,000.00 Subtotal Costs/Uses $750,000.00 HRA Administrative Costs, Legal Fees, Appraisal Fees $ 6,500.00 Total Costs/Uses $756,500.00** FUND SOURCES: Owner Equity $200,000.00 Debt $500,000.00 Richfield HRA $ 56,500.00 Total Sources $756,500.00 **Total Costs are for land and building only, and do not include costs for fixtures and equipment. Fixture & Equipment cost is $100,000. 3 ALTERNATIVE B H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds The HRA will provide the developers with $50,000 in tax increment financing assistance on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for the dental office project.. The subsidy will be used to write down the cost of the land as part of the land acquisition. An additional $6, 500 in tax increment financing assistance will be used to pay for HRA administrative costs, legal fees and appraisal fees. An estimate of the amount of bonded indebtedness for redevelopment is expected to be $0. The term of the issues is 0 years including 0 years of capitalized interest with an anticipated. taxable interest rate of 0%. The amount of capitalized interest is estimated to be $0. I. Sources of Revenue The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with proposed developments in the redevelopment project area is tax increment financing on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. J. Original Taz Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 1 and Sec. 469.177, subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (OTC) for the TIF District is based on the January 2, 1994 assessed value placed on the property by the county assessor. The OTC for the district is $3,368. The estimated OTC for the district for a January 2, 1995 assessed value is $3,414. Each year the office of the county auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total net tax capacity of the tax increment district to calculate the tax increment payable to the redevelopment district fund. In any year in which there is an increase in total net tax capacity in the tax increment district above the original net tax capacity, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total net tax capacity in .the tax increment district declines below the original net tax capacity, no tax capacity will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The county auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original net tax capacity was certified, the amount the OTC has increase or decreased as a result of 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; or 3. Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. Estimated Captured Taz Capacity Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, Subd. 1 and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 2, the estimated annual captured net tax capacity (CTC) ofTIF District is estimated to be $19,226. Based on a January 2, 1995 assessed value, the total CTC for the dental office building is anticipated to be $96,130 for the level of assistance related to the project. As a result of the 4 ALTERNATIVE B improvements to be constructed, it is expected that the estimated captured net tax capacity will be available for the project. It is also anticipated that this amount will be captured not more than is required in order to provide the requested subsidy to the developers.. (See Appendix B, Estimate of Tax Increments.) L. Duration of the District Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sect. 469.176, subd. 1, the maximum duration of a redevelopment tax increment district is 25 years. The HRA elects to capture 100% of the tax increments for the duration of the district. M. Estimated Impact on .Other Taxing Jurisdictions Refer to Appendix C, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. N. Modifications of the Taz Increment Financing District All .tax increment plan modifications will be processed in accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 4. The modifications pertaining to the necessary processing include any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or TIF District; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination of capitalized interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment district maybe reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the County Auditor. O. Limitation on Administrative Ezpenses In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 14, and Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 3, for districts for which certification was requested after June 30, 1982, no tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. Limitation on Duration of Taz Increment Financing Districts Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 1, the I3RA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed within three years of the date of certification of the tax increment district my the county auditor. ALTERNATIVE B Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Taz Increment District Not Subject to Improvement Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, .has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the HRA or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the HRA or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the HRA shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district." R. Limitation of the Use of Taz Increment All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs pursuant to Minn. Stat., 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. These revenues shall: not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality. This provision shall not prohibit. the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 4j, at least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of a redevelopment district under section 469.174. These costs include acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the authority maybe included in the qualifying costs. S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 4, the I3RA will review and search property files for properties to be included in the tax increment district and to identify those properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately proceeding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City. 6 ALTERNATIVE B T. Ezcess Taz Increments Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.176, subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, .including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minn. Stat., Sec. 475.61, subd. 3, the HRA shall use the excess amount to: 1. Prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. Return the excess to the county auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their tax capacity rates. The amounts distributed to a city or county must be deducted from the levy limits of the governmental unit for the following year. In calculating the. levy limit base for later years, the amount deducted must be treated as a local government aid payment. For the purpose of this tax increment financing plan, excess tax increment means that increment received in any year which is in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the HRA's current financial obligations or commitments, as specified in the tax increment financing budget, or which is in addition to that which is placed in a separate account for the purpose of accumulating .funds needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments in the future. U. .Restrictions on Pooling; Five-Year Limit In accordance with Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, the following terms have the meanings given: "Activities" means acquisition of property, clearing of land, site preparation, soils correction, removal of hazardous waste or pollution, installation of utilities, construction of public or private improvements, and other similar activities, but only to the extent that tax increment revenues may be spent for such purposes under other law. Activities do not include allocated administrative expenses, but do include engineering; architectural, and similar costs. of the improvements in the district. "Third Party" means an entity other than (1) the person receiving the benefit of assistance financed with tax increments, or (2) the municipality or the development authority or other person substantially under the control of the municipality. Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.1763, subd. 2 with respect to expenditures outside the district: (a) For each tax increment financing district, an amount equal to at least 75 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district must be expended on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds 7 ALTERNATIVE B on activities in the district or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities in the district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of the revenue derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the district but within the defined geographic area of the project except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. The revenue derived ftom tax increments for the district that are expended on costs under section 469.176, subdivision 4h, paragraph (b); may be deducted first before calculating the percentages that must be expended within and without the district. Pursuant to Minna Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 3 with respect to the five-year rule: (a) Revenues derived from tax increments are considered to have been expended on an activity within the district under subdivision 2 only if one of the following occurs: (1) before or within five years after certification of the district, the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to the activity; (2) bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the activity, are issued . and sold to a third party before or within five years after certification and the revenues are spent to repay the bonds; (3) binding contracts with a third party are entered into. for performance of the activity before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent under the contractual obligation; or (4) costs with respect to the activity are paid before or within five years after certification of the district and the revenues are spent to reimburse a party for payment of the costs. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, bonds include subsequent refunding bonds if one of two tests is met: (1) the proceeds of the original refunded bonds were spent on activities within five years after the district was certified; or (2) the original refunded bonds are issued within five years after the district was certified and the proceeds are expended on activities within a reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the use of that term under section 148(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. 8 ALTERNATIVE B Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.173, subd. 4 with respect to use of revenues for decertification: Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the district, 75 percent of the revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the district that remain after the expenditures permitted under subdivision 3 must be used only to pay outstanding bonds, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (2), and paragraph (b) or contracts, as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4). When the outstanding bonds have been defeased and when sufficient money has been set aside to pay contractual obligations as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (3) and (4), the district must be decertified and the pledge of tax increment discharged. V. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.177, subd. 8, the HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form with a developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment district which establishes a minimum market value of the tax increment district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. W. Administration of the Tag Increment District and Maintenance of the Tag Increment Account Administration of the tax increment district will be the responsibility of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the net tax capacity of the tax increment district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other HIZA and municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned activities identified in the tax increment financing plan. X. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 6a, on or before March 1 of each year, the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the information that follows. 1. Total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. Total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. 9 ALTERNATIVE B Also in accordance with this requirement the HRA must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the tax increment financing district: 1. Type of district; 2. Date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. Captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 4. Tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year, 5. Whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from .which money may be expended on activities located. outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment financing district; and 6. Any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assumptions It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the HRA, City, and County staff,. and consultants. Z. Municipal Findings Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.175, subd. 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: The Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. It has been determined that parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. Specifically, staffhas examined the subject parcel against the statutory definitions of structurally substandard and other blight definitions. The structures on the subject property qualify under Minn. Stat., Sec. 469.174, subd. 10. Thus, the tax increment financing district meets the requirements of a redevelopment tax increment financing district. A detailed account of property examination for eligibility are enumerated 10 ALTERNATIVE B within a document entitled "East 66th Street Blight Qualification Survey" which will be on file at City Hall, Community Development Department, Housing and Redevelopment Division ,for the duration of the tax increment district's life. 2, The proposed activities listed in this plan, in the opinion of the HRA, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since the proposed development requires certain necessary planning, property assembly and other improvements without which interested developers, builders, or buyers could not construct the aforementioned improvements; and without the use of tax increments or other revenues authorized by this plan to assist with the financing of the activities, interested developers, builders, or buyers would not proceed with redevelopment in the redevelopment project area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as it will result in the continuation of the development, redevelopment, new construction and other related improvements of commercial, non- residential .properties for which there is limited sources of revenue available. 4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the HRA to provide the necessary redevelopment for the project area and City, as a whole, in a planning manner suitable to both the public and private sectors. 11 ALTERNATIVE B APPENDICES EAST 66TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE B APPENDIX A MAP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ~ ~ I - ~' ~~ d^ d d pr' LL 'AMH '3AV tdVa30 r - ... .......... ...... _ I J~ •• - -- - ~ ----- . •anv Hlet N O q ~ ^ _ q '°ooa~'oc~ JJ Qa^oo^a ~i X70 ,i ~ I I i iI ~ ^ft i ~~ o - n ~.I O i (~ C~ d `~-u.s -- - ~ O O Q ° O Cao ~^ 4 N n ~o •aev u~i~ C-- o~3°ac~ Q a ~7 ~ ~ ~i o ...~.:. ~ ~ ^ ' '~ ~ ~ p ~~ J ^1 -- J i _. _.. ._~ ~---J o [~ q q o ~ r-~ o a r~ o ^ __- -~iplp,^~ I~,O •~AV Hlst '3AV NO1dN~W00~9 '3AV H1S l I .....1 ...............1.....1.....1. 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I j I I '3AV H19 t ~ d~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ - a~ i~l~ iQ;~ I i i ~ I i I I I ~- - I I~ ~O~ i I I I I I 1 1 ( 1 1 I I 1 1 d 1 1 I I r-I 1 1 I ^ ^ ^O ^ ^ ^~ ~ - ~ ~~ ^ IQI I I I J I I I I 1 - =1 '3AV H1Et oooa yD g y ~ ~_d ~ a o _ .......~... C__ ~ 0 0 i. , ,- ~ r-; 1 . ~ ~~~ ~~,a '3AV HlZt O C- i --- ~.---- ~1~ 0 _ ~ JT~__l ~`~0 O --- I l~ ~ , ~~. ° I _ O '3AV Hltt F- 0 Z a W Q H V W a r Z W a OU ~~ N Wp W WW ~ ~W J NV 2Z F- H ~o Q Z WQ ALTERNATIVE B APPENDIX B ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENT AND. RELATED CASHFLOWS 11/15/84 City of Richfield • Medical Builtllnfl with F.D. Contribution. Paya 1 T.I.F. CASH. l~'LOW ASSUMPTIONS intlatlon Bate: O.ODOp% Pay-As-You-Go Interest Rata: 7.OODR6 Tax Extension Rete: 136:84746 Pay 94 Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ftatia for Taxes: 30.00% Fiscal plsparifies Tax Rate: 133.229% Pay 94 School Dlstriot No. 280 Sales Ratio: 102.90p~ school District No. x80 Rlaalc Rate: 37,3404'0 LGAIHACA as a % of lax Increment: 27.23790 BASE VALUE INFORMATION Gross Peroent Not Payable Value Used Value Year_ _ 28-028.24x11-OOD4 Original Market Valuo ~ •~ 109,OD0 100.00% iD9,000 t'Ay 96 ~ e.. Estimate 0 0.0090 0 0 OAO% 0 Tote) Original Markot Value __ . ~1013,00Q , ., 109,OOD Pav ~ ~ ~- . Class Itete; Original Tax Capat:lty: Type of Doveloprrrent: Number of Units Number of Square Feet: ,UE New [stimafed Market Value On Jan, 2,1998: Final Market Value of Land end f3uilding: Project Class Rate; CII PropetlY x$100,000 Cll Proporty Additional Estimated Tax Capacity on Jan. 7.. 11}88: Total project Tax Capacity at Complotion: Project Taxes Per UnIt/Square Fcot: Assessor's Market Value per UnitlSquarn Foot: Projoct TGtAI Taxes for Estimate Purposes: Annual Tax Increment ~xpaCted at Fuil Value: 3,0000% Pay 95 4.BDDD% Pay S5 3,414 Pay g5 Redevelopment Medical Bulldl~_ ..O 8,000 s5D,po0 Pay 97 •,;w ~ 850.OOD Pay 97 3.0000% 4.13000°0 28,300_ Pay 97 28,300 $8.45 $108.3a 38,728 Pay 97 23,879 ray 97 project Total 1'exes if Payable 199A With Fiscal Dispat'iti9s: 311,523 _,~ SUMMARY INFORMATION Gross T,t. City Net T.I. LGA/HACA to protect , . Admin. • To_Project Loss Future Value; 289,412 28,941. 280 471 18,139 Present Value: 173,875 17,387 ~_... ~ 156 487 8,052 Clf Property *$100,000 C/l Properly t1H5/84 Clty 01 RlChtield -Medical BuIIdInO Wllh F.D. Contribution. Page q TAK INCIt +MENT CASH FY.OW ,PERIC}q BEG INNING Tex ~T,ax Fiscal Ca pt rod Annual $ Admin. Semi-Annual - • •- - ~rs. Mth. Yr,_, P 0 02 D1 9 • y Capaelty Laoacit T ~ Dispa~ltlos Gahacity .. Gross Tax Increment at OD% 10 Net Tax Increment Cumu NPVI• LG vas CA py~~~lMEh DINY , - 1 85 3.414 3,414 p 0 ... , .. •• , ' 0.0 08.01 1995 3,414 3,414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 1985 0.0 02-01 1886 3,414 3,414 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0,0 02.01 199E 0.0 08-D1 1996 3,414 3,414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 d8-01 1998 O.S 02-D7 1.0 48-01 1097 1997 3,414 3 414 28,300 28 300 5,880 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 02-01 1997 1,5 02-01 1858 , 3,414 , 28,3D0 5,860 568p 19,22E 19 228 13,155 1,318 11840 19,000 0 1,5 02.01 1998 2,0 08•D1 1998 3,414 2$,300 5,88D , 79 226 13,155 13 155 1,318 1 316 11,840 28,908 0 2.0 OB-01 1898 2.5 07.-01 3.0 OB-01 1999 1999 3,414 3 414 28,3D0 28 5,88D , 18,226 , 13,155 , 1,318 11,$40 11,$40 37,897 48,584 0 0 2.5 02-01 3A 08-01 1989 1899 3.5 D2-01 2000 , 3,41A ,300 28 300 5,660 $ 880 19,22E 13,155 .1,316 11,840 x4,977 2?.4 3.5 02-01 2000 4,0 08-01 7000 3,414 , 28,300 , 5 $80 19,228 18 228 13,155 13 155 1,318 11,840 83,087 224 4.0 08.01 2000 4,5 02-D1 5 0 08 D1 2001 3,414 28,3DD , 5,880 19,22E , 13,155 1,318 1 318 11,840 11 840 Y0,822 492 78 448 448 4.5 02.01 2001 , - 5.5 02•D1 2001 2D02 3,414 3 414 28,300 2$ 300 5,880 19,228 13,155 , 1,318 , 11,844 , 85,807 872 5.0 08.01 6,5 02-01 2001 2002 8.0 08.01 2002 , 3,414 , 28,300 5,66p 5 880 18,22E 18 228 13,155 1 1,318 1 11,840 92,$74 672 B,0 0$-01 20D2 6.5 07-01 7 0 2003 3,414 28,300 , 5,880 , 18,228 3,165 13 155 ,318 1 318 11,840 11 840 98,702 898 B,5 02.-01 2003 . D$-01 7.5 02-01 2003 2004 3,414 3,414 2$,300 28 300 5,880 5 680 19,226 , 13,155 , 1,318 , 11,840 108,289 112,673 896 1,120 7.D p$-01 7.5 Q?.-01 20D3 2004 8.0 08-01 2004 3,414 , 28,300 , .5,660 18,22$ 19 226 13,155 13 155 1,31E 1 318 11,840 118,831 1,120 8.0 08-01 2004 $,5 02-01 9 0 08.01 T.005 20D5 3,414 28,300 x,660 , 18,228 , 13,155 , 1 318 11,840 11 840 124,7$1 130 530 1,344 8.5 p2-01 7.005 . 9,5 02.01 2008 3,414 3,414 28,300 28 300 5,680 5 860 19,228 1 22 13,155 , 1,316 , 11,840 , 136,085 1,344 1,568 9.0 08-01 9.5 D2-01 1005 2008 1D.0 08-01 1 200E 3,414. , 28,30D , 5,880 9, 8 19,226 13,f55 13 155 1,316 1 316 11,84p 141,452 1,588 ' 10A 08-01 2008 0,5 02-01 2007 3,414 28,300 5,660 19,226 , 13 155 , 1 318 11,840 148,637 1, t82 10,6 02.01 2007 1,1.0 OS-01 7007, 3,414, _ 28,300 , ,, G,660 18,228 , 13,155 , 1 318 11,840 11 840 151,847 158 487 1,792 11,0 08-01 2007 _... . ...... Totals , •,•,,,,, 289 412 •, , , • , -•••• 2,015 11.5 02-01 2008 , ' .... ... , •,• • • 28,941 ?.80 471 1 139 _,,, -- •• .. .. .. F resentValues „ 173,875 17 387 . ~ .. 8 487 _ . 8, _"" ' - ...... ,•,. , - 1,5 , .. ,..8.052 ALTERNATIVE B APPENDIX C ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment assistance provided to a proposed redevelopment project impacts taxing jurisdictions; (b.) determine the level of impact as it relates to tax base; and (c.) determine the amount of taxes a taxing entity would need to levy in order to increase their respective tax base by the amount the project brings in absent the project. If the "But For" test were. not met, construction would not occur. That is, without the creation and existence of the tax increment district, construction would not occur because the cost of developing the proposed project by a private developer would be prohibitive. Acceptable rates of return on project investment could not be met and risk would be too high. Development would not move forward.. Construction would not occur without the assistance of the city. In light of this, the impact to taxing jurisdictions would be $0. Foregone would be the benefits of a new construction project, increased overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact of the TIF District would be as follows if the project were built without tax increment financing: IlVIPACT ON TAX BASE Range of Captured Entity's Total Captured Taz Capacity to Tazin Enti Net Tag Ca aci Taz Ca aci Enti Total Henne in Count 813,900,929 $96,130 0.012 Cit of Richfield 16,794,256 $96,130 0.572 School District 280 24,250,257 $96,130 0.396 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. ALTERNATIVE B IMPACT ON TAX RATES Tazing Entity Current Taz Rate Captured Taz Ca aci Potential Tazes Henne in Coun 37.441 $ 96,130 $ 35,992 Ci of Richfield 26.164 $ 96,130 $ 25,151 School District 280 66.190 $ 96,130 $ 63,628 Other 7.524 $ 96,130 $ 7,233 Total 137.319 $ 96,130 $132,004 In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education upon. school district funding. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 78 November 21, 1994 Issue Statement: Adoption of a resolution authorizing condemnation and quick take for a portion of the Colfax Avenue area, Shops at Lyndale, ILN Redevelopment Project. Background• At a special HRA meeting on November 1, 1994, CSM Corporation. was selected as the redeveloper of Phase II, ILN Redevelopment Project.. The approved development plan envisioned the primary entrance to Phase I and II at a point slightly east of the existing Colfax Avenue. When the project was split into two phases and CSM had no rights to the area east of Colfax Avenue, the entrance point could not be shifted. With CSM now being the designated redeveloper for Phase II, the entrance must be upgraded. CSM is reporting that they recently signed a lease for the space between Sportmart and Best Buy in Phase I. PetSmart will occupy the to- be-constructed building in that space by June 1, 1995. CSM has indicated that the lease calls for the Colfax entrance to be upgraded by June 1, 1995 (when Phase I is fully occupied, traffic volumes will need an improved access). CSM has initiated discussions with the owners and some tenants of property immediately adjacent to Colfax Avenue which would be subject to the condemnation quick take action (see attached map): 918 West 77 1/2 Street; tenant Don's Appliance and Heritage Cycle; owner, Adelmann-Schulz; 910 West 77 1/2 Street; tenants Milt Westlund Associates and Minnesota Car Systems; owner, Milton Westlund, Jr. Also included is Colfax Avenue from 77th Street to the frontage road and 77 1/2 Street in front of 918 and 910 West 77 1/2 Street. Adequate access could be provided for Phase I without disturbing the Feldmann/O'Brien property. Access to Feldmann/0'Brien would be preserved as long as needed. To complete the improved access by June 1, 1995, CSM would need to have title and possession by May 1, 1995. Site clearing, grading and installation of curbs and asphalt would take place during May. While negotiations have been initiated, there needs to be assurance that the property will be available in a timely manner. Thus, CSM is requesting the HRA to initiate condemnation and quick take on the property needed to upgrade the Colfax Avenue entrance. Recommended Motion: Adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the initiation of condemnation quick take to provide for adequate ingress/egress to Phase I Shops at Lyndale. Basis of Recommendation: 1. CSM is the designated redeveloper of the area east of Colfax Avenue. 2. This property has been identified for acquisition in the ILN redevelopment plan. 3. CSM has initiated negotiations with the affected owners and will continue those negotiations in good faith. 4. To provide adequate ingress/egress for PetSmart and the other tenants in Phase I, the Colfax Avenue upgrade must be completed by June 1, 1995. Construction must begin by May 1, 1995. 5. The owners and tenants of this property will have the benefit of a date certain to work out relocation and approximately 5.5 months to complete it. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay consideration until a future date. 2. Refuse the request. Discussion/Decision Mode: Approval will benefit CSM in meeting their. obligation to Phase I tenants and it will also be a benefit to existing owners and tenants by providing them with a date certain by which they must relocate. tf~]~ly submitted, Jame Prosser Exec t e Director JDP:ds J ~~ ?~ ~ i _J ' ~ °°° 5 ~ 6 r ('Q: i (53 :521 ~ ® (33) ~ A ~ ~ ~ r ~~) ~ ~ i53) I (3a) ~ (,,) (O ib 30 ~ 30 i~ ~'S' 30 ~ 30 ~ ~ ~ r i e i ... R Q V ~~ Q J Q , 4 c goo) (. ~ ~~ ~_ _1----=----~----- pR ~ ~ '__ MARKET _ .T _.__-- ~I ~., tY F' F ~r, r ~ I n P!?4PFRTY INCLUDED 1n/ITI~lN - ":~'~.'Z ~`````~~~>~~~~ CONDENI~IVATIdN QUICK TAKE ~;; _ ~_ iF PRQJ Pt0 J:51 ea ~ ti~ ~ RE5OLUTTON NO. RESO1w,UTION OF THE YIOUSING AND REDEVELOFN't AUTHORITY IN AND FOIL TJTE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AUTII~RIgING EMINENT DOMAIN P1tdCEEDINGS TQ AGQUTRE CERTAIN REAL 1~ROFERTY W.HEREA3, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "TIRA") is a housing and redevelopment authority duly constituted and organized under law, with all of the powers enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.04? (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized to develop and carry out redevelopment plans. and redevelopment projects, as these terms are respectively defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivisions 16 and 14; and WHEREAS, the HRA adopted a redevelopment plan (the 'Redevelopment Plan" ) and a tax increment financing plan (the "TIF Plan"? for the area in the City of Richfield generally known as the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet area (the "Project Area") on ©otober 21, 1985; and WHEREAS, changes in the public and private improvements proposed to be constructed within the Project Area occurred and necessitated adopting subsequent modifications to the Flans, identified as Modification Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were approved by the HRA and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield ~ the respective years oP 1985, 1989, 1993, and 1994; and WHEREAS, the rilans, as modified, contemplate the acquisition of certain real property (the "Property") which is located in the Project Area and which is ware particularly described below ~. this resolution; and WHEREAS, na awrners of adjacent parcels to the Property described in this resolution, displaced persons ar businesses from among those properties, or ether persons or businesses within the Project Area have demonstrated the technical and financial capability to carry out the proposed redevelopt~ent; and WHEREAS, the HRA has entered into a contract far private redevelopment (the "Contract") of land lying within the Project Area; and WHE$EA9, in order to meet anticipated , construction deadlines for the redevelopment project contemplated by the Contract, it is necessary for the HRA to acquire title to and possession of the Property by the earliest date- permitted in accordance with lVYinnesota Statutes, 117.042. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV'EH by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. It is necessary to acquire the Property as described below in this resolution irz order for the HR.A to carry out the purposes of the Plans, as modified, and the Act, to eliminate and prevent the development or spread of conditions of blight found 'to-exist by the City and the HRA and to assure full utilization of prepertsr rnrhieh is vaesx~,t, unused, underused, artd inappropriately used. C71H79319 &C125-76 1 2. Acquisition of the Froperty by eminent domain, in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117, is deemed to be necessary and for a public purpose a~td is hereby authorized . 3. The HRA deems it neeessax-y for the reasons set forth in the Pions, as modified, and in order to meet anticipated construction schedules, to proceed without delay under Minnesota Statutes, Section 11?. b42, to acquire title to and possession of the Froperty priox to the filing of a final report of commissioners . 4. ~'he HRA's attorney and, staff are authorized and directed to commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire fee simple absolute title to the Froperty, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.442 and to pay to the owner(s) or into court, a sum of money to secure compensation to the owners of the Property, w]aich amount shall be equal to petitioner's approved appraisal of value as determined by staff . 5 . The Property to be e,equired is described an the attached Exhibit A Adap#ed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21st day of NovEmber, 1994. ATTEST Venn Luettinger, Secretary ,_ Thomas E. Harms,. Chairperson G~379514 A RC225-76 iii EXHIBIT A {Legal Descriptions of Property to Be Acquired) Parcel l Descri Lion of subject ro art he North 2S5 feet o the East 30 feet of the West 324 fast of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast @uarter of Section 33, Township 28, ltange 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Description of takins`; Fee simple absolute title to the subject prapetty; subject, however, to existing easements for public street and utility purposes far Colfax Avenue South and Wsst 77th Street Parcel 2 Descri tion of sulo'ect ro art The Sout 9U feet oP the North 3x15 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 2~l, Hennepin County, N~nnesota Description of taking: Fee simple absolute title to the subjeat property; subject, howe~xer, to an existing easement for public street axed utility purposes for Colfax Avenue South Par Description of sub~iect property: The South $iy.92 feet of the North 434.92 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota Description of talons, ~"ee simple absolute title to the subject property; subject, however, to an existing easement for publia street and utility -Iurposes far Colfax Avenue South Parcel 4 Descrix~tion of subject property: A11 that part of the East 30 feet of the 'West 320 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, lViinnesata, EXCEPT the North 434.92 feet thereof and the parts thereof taken far highway purposes Description of taking: Fee simple absolute title to the subject property; subjeat, hawe~rer, to an existing easement far public street and utility purposes for Colfax Avenue South Parcel 5 Descri t3on of subject ro er Lat 6 az~d the easterty 4.5 eet of Lat 7, H1oc1t 1, STRAND-BQWEN BECt~ND ADDITION, Y~ennepin County, Miinnesota G879519 RC125-?6 and That part of Lot 7 lying westerly of the easterly ~ . 5 feet thereof and the easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 8, all in Block Y, STIi,AND-$OWEN SECOND ADDI- TION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and That part o£ the northerly ,half of 'W'est 77 l /2 Street as dedicated ~n the plat of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION which lies betrnreen the southerly extension of the east line of Lat S, Block 1 of said plat and the southerly extension of the west line of the easterly 4.5 feet oP Lot 8, Black 1 of said plat. Descri tion of takin : Fee sample absolute title to the subject property; subject, however, to an existing easement for public street and utility purposes for West 77 112 Street Pax•cel 6 1?escri tion of subject ro ert All o Lot 8, except the Easterly 4.5 feet thereof; Lots 9 to 11, inclusive, Block x, STRANri-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and That part of the northerly half of West 7? 1. / 2 Street as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-$OWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of the easterly 4.5 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, of said plat. and That part of Colfax Avenue South a~ dedicated in the plat of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies northerly of the center line of W®st 77 1/2 Street as dedicated in said plat and which lies southerly of the wresterly extension of the north line of Lot 11., Block 1, in said plat. Description of taking: Fee simple absolute title to the subject property; subject, however, to eRist3ng easements for public street and utility purposes for West 77 1 / 2 Street and Colfax Avenue South Parcel 7 Description of subject property That part of Colfax Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-~BOWEN SECOND AlDITION, which lies southerly of the center Iine of West 77 1/2 Street as dedicated in said plat . Descri flop of talon Fee simple absolute title to the subject property; subject, owever to an existing easement for public street and utility purposes. for Colfax Avenue South. ,. GS98519 RC135-76 4 Pars, cal 8 Descri tion of subject ro art That pant of the southerly half of West 77 1/2 Street as dedicated in the plat of STRAND-BOWEN SECOND ADDITION, which lies westerly of the northerly e~rtensian of the west line of Lat 5, Block 2, in said plat, Desori»tion of takings Fee simple absolute title to the subject property; subject, however to an existing easemexxt for. public street anfl utility purposes for West 77 1 / 2 Street . _, CAB79519 RC125-76 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No.77 November 21, 1994 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution approving modified final development plan, Phase I, Shops at Lyndale. Background° The Contract for Private Development with CSM in Article IV requires the HRA to review and approve the final development plan. The current final development plan for Phase I is 116,605 square feet. With CSM selected as the Phase II developer and the upgrading and shifting of the Colfax Avenue entrance east of its present location additional parking will be available to support Phase I. CSM proposes to increase the square footage of building area to 127,468 square feet. The increase in size will be realized by adding 10,500 square feet to the middle store to be occupied by PetSmart. It would contain approximately 26,100 square feet. The parking ratio for the Phase I modified final development plan will be at 4.54 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area with 579 spaces. Representatives of the developer will be in attendance at the November 21, 1994 meeting to review the concept and respond to questions. Attached is a drawing of the proposed revision. Recommended Motion: Approval of a resolution modifying the final development plan for Phase I subject to City Council approval of same. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Contract for Private Development requires the HRA to review the final development plan. 2. The Phase I site area is capable of supporting the additional square footage of building area. 3. The parking ratio will be at 4.54 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area which exceeds the City's parking standards. 4. The loading/unloading facility will be adequate. 5. Additional tax increment will be generated. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Refuse approval. 2. Delay approval. Discussion/Decision Mode: A timely response will facilitate an orderly construction and opening on or before June 1, 1995. Respectfu submitted, James Prosser Executive Director JDP:ds Attachment A _.._..~ I I I I __.._..J I I I I I I I I 1.. _..---J. d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. _.. _.. I I I i ._"._.. ~ __, I _..~ I I I i i CO _..- U ~ ~ ~° ~ ;_ ~ - Z ~ ~ ~ 's J ? ~ ' O w O F ~ a U ~a n I I I Ian ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ O (~j ~N ~ ` W ~ I I I I I I I I Ism ~~`` `\\ ~ 30 ~ ~ nIIII~n ~ \ _ ~ " I I I I I I I I I°~+ ~\\ -~~~j \ ~ ® I~ \ _ - I ~ \~ ~ 1 I I I f I (~ I,, ~ I • e e _ I~ I I I 111 V I I I I-I 1 i 1 IT'flUfil ICI li"'T-FGII 1 I I N ~ I I j gN I I j I I 1 _ ~~~ I I 1 I I w ~ ---;----- j I I 3 j I i N j I I j i I j I i I I I I I I j I I e e ~ I w I ~ < .: - j 12 I j i~ e e I ~O I j I ~ I I ~'°^ a ~ Ix I • < _ ~ ~ ~ I _- I I I j I I j I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I _ ~_ T ..- _ T.~ ! I I • I I I ~I I I I I 1 I C I I. $I~:I ~ I I I N I N I~'"lo ~I I I I ~ I ry l w l a ~Ia w l I 1 I I I~ I~;I' ~I N 1 1 1 1 I I I _ I I I <e I I I I I I I I I I I ~N I I < I I I • a 30 ®~ I . ~ I i ~e , a~ o~~ --- - I r- - - -- --- --- ~ ;---'- ~ I ~ ~~ -~ 3 x 1 / ' I , ~ e e ~ -; -; I 1 _ e e 1 1 _ I II l ~ ~~ ~ II ~~II i. fl i '~ ~ e I $ e j i N e ~ i I ~ ~m 8 "- N + - I I ~.~.~ j i ~ ~ I I j _ i 2 0 `~ P Q 1 Q 2 `i ~~~ ~~ ~~. i iii i i ~:: ~: ar 3 `~o a=~3~ - _ '~aa~~ ~~e §:: o ;„ ~' '~ Y .:g $g4'g.Y il' =~ it Z a 0 11.1 Q a HRA RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISION TO CONCEPT PLANS CSM CORPORATION, PHASE I WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "Authority") and CSM Corporation ("CSM") did on April 29, 1994 make and enter into that certain document entitled "Contract for Private Development" (the "Contract"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with said Contract, the Authority has previously reviewed and approved the Concept Plan for construction of the Phase I Minimum Improvements; and WHEREAS, CSM is now desirous of modifying the approved Concept Plan as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Authority having reviewed such proposed modified Concept Plan, and having found-the same to be fully in conformity with the redevelopment plan for the district and with the purposes for which redevelopment has been contemplated and undertaken. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Authority as follows: 1. The modified Concept Plan fully shown in the attached Exhibit A is hereby approved, subject to approval by the City Council of the City of Richfield of a final development plan for Phase I in substantially the form of the approved Concept Plan. 2. The modification of the Concept Plan increases the size of the middle building of the Phase I Minimum Improvements, consequently the time period for construction of such portion of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.5 of the Contract, shall begin on the date that the modification of the final development plan is approved by the City Council Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 21st day of November, 1994. Thomas E. Harms, Chair ATTEST: Vern Luettinger, Secretary HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HRA Letter No. 76 November 21, 1994 Issue Statement: Presentation of apartment resident survey findings and conclusions. Background• As a part of the Community Apartment Program (CAP), Decision Resources, Ltd. was retained to undertake a random survey of 250 apartment households in Richfield (Decision Resources has been utilized by the City in recent years to undertake random surveys of residents to measure their satisfaction with City services and to query them on issues with which the City must deal). A basic purpose of CAP is to better integrate the apartment residents into the community.' It was desirable to become better acquainted with these residents. A random survey presented an orderly method for gathering pertinent .information. A copy of the findings and conclusions is attached. Recommended Motion: Accept the findings and conclusions presented by Mr. Bill Morris, principal of Decisions Resource, Ltd. Basis of Recommendation: The survey was. undertaken so that the HRA, staff and other members of the community could become more knowledgeable of apartment residents. Alternative Recommendation: Delay the presentation to a future date. Discussion/Decision Mode: Mr. Bill Morris will be at the November 21, 1994 meeting to present the results. Respect lly submitted, James Prosser Execu ve Director JDP:cak Decision Resources, Ltal. November, 1.994 CITY OF RICHFIELD RENTERS SURVEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Methodology: • 250 randomly selected occupants of rental units providing accuracy of ± 6.3 % in 95 out of 100 cases. • Interviews conducted by telephone August 29-September 7, 1994. • Average interview length of 28 minutes. • Refusal rate of 3 % of contacts. Demographic Profile: • Median residential longevity of 2.0 years in the community. 32 % had lived in Richfield for one year or less; 31 %, for over three years. 46% of the sample intended to remain in Richfield rental housing for at most two more years; forty-four percent had no plans to move during the next ten years. • 26% of renters came from Minneapolis; 16%, from out of Minnesota; 12% from Bloomington; 12 % from the remainder of Hennepin County; 11 % moved from rural Minnesota. • 43% reported renting units in a complex of two or more buildings; 37% lived in a single building with more than 10 units; 13 % , in a single building with ten or fewer units; and, 5 % in duplexes or four-plexes. 63 % described their building as "mixed ages including families with children," while 24% lived in buildings of "mixed ages, but no families with children." 10% resided in senior-only buildings. 57% lived in a one bedroom apartment, and 41 % were in two bedroom units. • The median adult renter age was 34.1 year old; 34 % were 25-34 year olds; 19 % , 35-44 year olds; and, 16 % were over 65 years old. • 84 % were White, while S % were African-American and 4 % were Hispanic. Asians and Native Americans were 3 % each. • 31 % had high school or less education; 36 % reported post-secondary experience; and, 33 % were college graduates. 29% of the renter households were headed by Clerical-Sales job holders; 20%, by Owner-Manager job holders; 16 %, by retirees; 13 % of the households were headed by Blue Collar job holders; and 10%, by Professional-Technical job holders. 68% of couples reported both partners worked outside of the home. 20% of the renters worked in Bloomington, while 19% went to Minneapolis to work; 10 % worked in Richfield and Z 1 %, in other Hennepin County suburbs. 19 did not work outside of the home. The median household income for renters was $21,250.00 per year. • 52 % of the apartment units contained only one adult; 43 % were rented by couples. 21 % of the apartments contained children. Women accounted for 57 % of the sample. • 39 % of the units were contained in Ward One; 28 %, in Ward Two; and, 33 % of the apartment units were in Wazd Three. Importance of Apartment Building Feat<u+es: Fourteen characteristics were ranked in importance in the following order, where the number in Page 1 Decision Resources, Ltd. November, 1994 parentheses is the actual percentage of respondents stating that feature was "very important" if they were seeking another rental unit: Affordable rent (94 %) Laundry facilities in the building (78%) Security system (74%) Caretaker in building or in complex (56%) Off-street parking (55 %) Laundry facility in the apartment {43 %) Parking garage (3b%) Closeness to a bus line (33 %) More park and green space (26%) Play area for children (21 %) More bedrooms (16%) Recreation room in the building (15%) Swimming pool (15 %) Laundry facilities in the building and security systems, in particular, played a very dominant role in rental decision-making processes. dons of the City of Richfield: • 58% reported liking the location of the City as what they "liked best" about living in Richfield. Quiet ranked second, at 11 %, followed by the overall quality of the community, at 7%. Safe area was cited by 6%, while nice people, suburban community, and attractive neighborhood followed with 5 % each. • 29 % reported there was "nothing" they disliked about living in Richfield. Airport noise and crime led the list, at 11 % and 10%, respectively. Road construction and traffic congestion followed at 8% each. Poor location was mentioned by 6%. Safety Issues: • 92% reported they felt safe in their building or complex; 56% said they felt safe walking alone at night in their immediate neighborhood; and, 80 % regarded the City as a safe place to raise children and teenagers. • 15 % said they or someone in their household had been a victim of a crime during the past year. Awareness of neighborhood crime watch or block associations in their area was a low 31 %; membership was a minimal ? % . • 28% had the occasion to contact the Richfield Police Department during the past year. Lodging a complaint was the most frequent cause, at 30%; domestic problems, at 16%, and car break ins, at 17 % followed. 7 % had accidents, while 6 % were assaulted. Robberies were the reason for 4 % of the contacts. • 80% felt the Richfield Police Department reacted to situations in an appropriate and professional manner; only 3 % disagreed. 78 % reported the Police Department responded in a timely manner; a minimal 2 % took exception to this view. And, a solid 85 % reported they trusted the Richfield Police Page 2 Decision Resources, Ltd. November, 1994 Department to do the right thing "all the time" or "most of the time. " Only 2 % reported they distrusted the Police Department. Apartment Units and Apartment Buildings: • 79% rated the current condition of their apartment building as "excellent" or "good;" twenty percent rated it lower. • 77% rated the current condition of their unit building as "excellent" or "good;" twenty-two percent felt it was "only fair" or "poor." • 7I % rated the manner in which repairs were handled by their apartment owner Or management as "excellent" or "good;" 27% rated it as "Only fair" or "poor." Approximately three-quarters of the renters in Richfield were satisfied with the condition and upkeep of their buildings and their apartment units. City Services and Facilities• • 52 % were either "very well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about the assistance programs and community services available from the City of Richfield. 45 % admitted to being "not too well informed" or "not at all informed." • 58 % were "very well informed" or "somewhat well informed" about recreational programs and opportunities available in the City of Richfield. 4U % reported lower levels of information about this aspect of City offerings. • On a related issue, 7% of the sample reported using any of the community service programs offered by the Richfield Public Schools. • Usership of City recreational facilities varied markedly. The list below ranks facilities in terms of their "frequent" or "occasional" usership by renters. The number in parentheses is the actual percentage of households that reported at least "occasional" use during the past year: City parks and playgrounds (60%) Pedestrian and bicycle trails (50%) Nature Center (31 %) Municipal Swimming Pool (l2 % ) Richfield Community Center (12 %) City tennis courts (10%) City golf course (10%) Municipal Ice Arena. (8 %) These usership patterns proved to be virtually identical to those of home owners within the community. Transportation Needs• • 75% reported they "currently use a car to meet most of my transportation needs;" 9% stated they Page 3 Decision Resources, Ltd. November, 1994 "use a combinarion of transportation sources to meet my needs;" while, 8% felt they "use public transportation to meet most of my transportation needs. " • 14 % of the renters reported during the past year the lack of transportation or the difficulty in using public transportation interfered with their going to appointments, shopping, or other activities. Richfield residents proved overall to be a very mobile group. Households Containing Children: This section of the survey was administered to the 12 % of the rental units containing school-aged children. • 74 % reported their children attended Richfield Public Schools; the quality of the education provided by the Richfield Public Schools was awarded a 71 % approval rating; 13 % were more critical in their evaluations. 58% of the children were eligible for the free or reduced lunch program. Household Containing Seniors: This section of the survey was administered to the 16% of the renters over the age of 65 years old. • 40% described their current situation as "active and fully independent including transportation, and having no interest in senior services provided by the City of Richfield." 30% said they were "active and fully independent and enjoy senior recreational activities." 23% were "active or partially active, but needed some assistance with transportation." And, 5% were "currently homebound." • 76% of this group were aware of the Senior Programs available at the Richfield Community Center; 28% currently participated in them. • Only 13 % were aware of the Richfield Department of Public Safety's Operation Check Point Program; and, only three. percent currently used this program. Samna and Conclusions: ^ About three-quarters of Richfield renters were satisfied with the condition and upkeep of both their own apartment units as well as their apartment buildings. ^ Features that were judged to be "very important" by renters included in-building laundry facilities, security systems, resident cazetaker, and off-street pazking. ^ Building safety was not an issue with most renters; however, neighborhood safety was key. In light of the low level of awazeness and participation in neighborhood watch programs, a concerted effort at publicizing and recruiting should be made. In addition, in light of the very favorable ratings toward the Richfield Police Department, on-site information meetings should be considered. ^ About one-half of the renters were informed about assistance programs and community services, as well as recreational programs and opportunities. Amore direct effort at communications of these city offerings should be undertaken. ^ Transportation proved to be a minor issue -- or hindrance -- for most renters. ^ Unit turnover appeared to be relatively high, with almost one-half expecting to move within the Page 4 Decision Resources, Ltd. November, 199'4 next two years. But, the rest had no plans to move in the foreseeable future. A key issue facing the rental community will be the marketing of Richfield apartment opportunities to prospective long term residents. Page S