04-12-1994OITY OF RIOMFIELD
I'unnif1G oom fission
AGSIDA
April 12, 1994
7:00 p.m. -- Speical Meeting
ROIlIl (Cain
f pru>r•Yl u f' vl'1 utcti
I'Lal•li I Ic'><rin _
ITEM #1 94 -PUD -1 CSM: Planned Unit Development Plan and
Rezoning from C -3 to PC -2, Phase I and 11
ITEM #2 94 -CUP -2 CSM: Conditional Use Permit and Final
Development Plan, Phase I
ITEM #3 94 -CP -1 Amend Comprehensive Plan to allow
relocation of Emerson Avenue Church, 7701
Emerson Ave to Cloverleaf Site.
t'V' Ii Uti1111'titi
ITEM #4 PC Letter #10 CSM: ILN Plan Modification #4
ITEM #5 PC Letter #11 CSM: Sale of land in Conformance with
Comprehensive Plan
Ii tiI11rL'titi
G'\Cd! ())UIrTgMent
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702."
CITY OF R10HRELD'
Pwnm oommission
Action Roquolt
Item: # 1 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #94 -PUD -1 Date: April 12, 1994
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: CSM Corporation
Subject Area: That area bounded by 77th Street on the north, Lyndale Avenue on the east,
I-494 on the south, and Emerson Avenue on the west, except for parcel at
7700 Lyndale Avenue (Conoco).
Type of Request: Consideration of a planned unit development (PUD) plan and rezoning of
land from C -3 (high density commercial) to PC -2 (planned general
commercial) to allow Shops at Lyndale, a redevelopment proposal.
Comp. Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject area as "freeway strip ",
except for the church at 7700 Emerson Avenue, which is designated
institutional ". The CSM proposal includes amending the Comp. Plan Map
to redesignate the existing and proposed church site, under a separate
Planning Commission action.
References:
Zoning Code: Section 530 outlines establishment of PUD districts.
ACTION
Proposed Change: Approval of the PUD and rezoning, in conjunction with other city
approvals, would allow CSM to redevelop the subject area.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the PUD plan and rezoning.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 12, 1994.
Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date ofCityCouncil: g Y P g
April 18, 1994.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the PUD plan and rezoning of
the subject area from C -3 to PC -2 with the following stipulations:
1. That the site be replatted within two years after any PUD plan approval
is granted by the City Council.
2. That if Phase I or Phase II development is not completed within two
years after any PUD plan approval is granted, the zoning of such Phase I
or Phase II site shall revert back to C -3.
Basis /Findings: 1. The proposed PUD plan and rezoning is consistent with the ILN
Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Plan if modified as proposed.
2. The PC -2 classification is appropriate for the proposed retail
development.
3. The proposed PUD plan provides a workable project for the ILN, given
the site area constraints.
4. Several developers have stated that it would be difficult to redevelop the
Cloverleaf Site until this site is redeveloped. Approval of this project
may lead to other new development along I494.
5. Redevelopment of this site in the mariner proposed is in the best public
interest of the City of Richfield and its residents.
6. On March 28, the City Council initiated the rezoning, and referred the
matter to the Planning Commission to review the project and make a
recommendation by April 18, 1994.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the PUD plan and rezoning with a
finding that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
ANALYSIS
BackEround• The Interstate-Lyndale-N icol let (ILN) redevelopment and tax increment financing
district was established in 1985. This area is targeted for redevelopment for
several reasons including: deteriorating buildings, proximity to major roadways,
and opportunity to increase City tax base and improve image. Since creation of
the district, there have been two other major developments proposed for the ILN.
One of these proposals was rejected because of neighborhood opposition, and the
other was lost due to then poor market conditions. At the direction of the
Council and HRA, staff has been actively pursuing major developers to redevelop
this area.
Proposal: CSM is requesting City approval of a redevelopment project called Shops at
Lyndale. This proposal consists of razing all the existing buildings in the subject
area and constructing 231,000 square feet of retail space in the following two
phases:
Phase I - Phase I would include a three anchor building with 114,484 square
feet, located between Emerson and Colfax Avenues. Anchor A would be a
47,000 square foot Best Buy, Anchor B would be a 42,000 square foot Sport -
Mart, and Anchor C would be a 25,000 square foot Comp USA. Phase I
would provide 501 parking spaces, which is above the City requirement of
460 spaces for a development of this size. If the project is approved,
demolition and construction would begin this summer, with completion
anticipated by the end of November.
Phase II - Phase II would be divided into two stages to accommodate
relocation of existing businesses into the in -line shops. Stage one would
include 20,475 square feet of in -line retail space. Stage one would also
provide a 6,000 square foot detached restaurant. Stage two would include a
three anchor building with 85,000 square feet to be attached to the in -line
shops. Stage two would also include a 5,000 square foot pad site on the east
side of the site. Phase I and II combined would provide 1,155 parking spaces,
which is above the City requirement of 924 spaces for a development of this
size. Phase II tenants have not yet been defined. However, the developer is
confident that tenants would be secured before Phase II construction is
completed. Phase II development is tentatively anticipated to start in Spring
of 1995, with completion in Fall of 1995.
CSM selected a retail use of this site because of its exposure to I-494 and its
access. Several tenants have already been secured for the proposed development.
The proposal would offer complimentary and supportive land use to the future
office use proposed for the Cloverleaf Site, which is located just west of the
subject area.
Issues: The main buildings would be situated along the north side of the site, with the
major parking areas to the south. Most tenant signage would be directed to I-
494. The building exterior would use a combination of brick, concrete
decorative block, Dryvit (a stucco -like finish), and a standing seam metal roof.
The main entrance to the project would be from 77th Street. This entrance drive
has been designed to provide a wide visual break between the two main
buildings. Front facades and signage would face this entrance drive to define the
entrance. A monument sign would also be located at this entrance.
ANALYSIS Wont.
The rear of the buildings would be situated along 77th Street. Landscaping and
berming would be provided to buffer the rear building walls from 77th Street, and
to maintain the parkway character intended for 77th Street. The rear wall of the
buildings would be articulated to provide variations and reduce the mass, and to
minimize the view of the loading docks.
PUD districts are established and designed to allow flexibility to the strict
application of the code and to encourage a more efficient and creative use of land
for large projects under unified control. The regular zoning provisions may be
departed from in the approval of a PUD plan. The following highlights areas
where this PUD plan varies from the normal zoning district requirements:
Setback: Normal district requirements call for a 40 foot setback between the
building and lot lines (as replatted). The Phase I main building would be set back
20 feet from the west lot line, the Phase I1 restaurant building would be set back 20
feet from the south lot line, and the Phase 11 pad site building would have a
variable setback of 25 -37 feet along the west lot line. In addition, and the Phase I
and Phase 11 main buildings would have a setback ranging from 28 -120 feet from
the north lot line, allowing for jogs in the facade and articulation of loading docks.
These modifications from the normal district requirements are necessary because of
the shallow lot depth of the site. Buildings in all other locations would equal or
exceed a 40 foot setback from the lot lines.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): C -3 district standards call for a minimum FAR of .75,
and C -2 district standards do not regulate FAR. This PUD plan would have a FAR
of .32, which is appropriate for a retail development.
All other regulations (e.g., parking, landscaping, building materials, building
height, etc.) would exceed compliance with the normal district requirements.
The PUD plan may require installation of a signalized intersection at the 77th Street
entrance at some time in the future. The developer would be required to conduct a
study to warrant such traffic control.
The PUD plan would have very little impact on the residential properties to the
north of the subject area. The 77th Street Project, with landscape wall and
residential loop streets, was designed to encourage commercial redevelopment
along 1494 without negatively impacting homeowners.
The PUD plan would require the vacation of portions of Colfax Avenue, Aldrich
Avenue, 77th Street, and 77 1/2 Street that lie within the subject area. These
streets would be vacated by Council Ordinance if the PUD plan is approved.
Several business operators in the subject area appeared at the March 28, 1994
Council meeting to voice opposition to the project. They oppose the project,
stating that it will put them out of business or require them to relocate, possibly
outside Richfield. One business operator located outside the subject area also
objected because of potential retail competition from the new development.
Some land owners in the subject area are willing sellers, while others may require
condemnation proceedings by the City if the PUD plan is approved.
The PUD plan and rezoning would apply to both phases of the proposal. The final
development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I would be considered
separately if the PUD plan and rezoning is approved.
Cr
MR;
Al
fill
slit
ee
a, If lilt
C
Data &L W.
I
MAW ftxtmm I
A I THE SHOPS AT LYNDALE
J(CSM Cm"V4,461-
HHHHH1
I lull]
KILLLLA-LLLIJ
W
C
Data &L W.
I
MAW ftxtmm I
A I THE SHOPS AT LYNDALE
J(CSM Cm"V4,461-
4*dJO3 NISI
31VONAI iV SdOHS .3H.L
tea
Llvs,3Av 7w n
3m jr4cw rz
1 ..U=•3m ff--
DUOS 7N 40MO \
IL
1 pA 11 1
I-IN
Ll I.
J
LL c
till
ZED
0. w Z
U W
Z
0 z
L) 0
CL
0
I
Z CL
a
x W
a(
r -
U)
111111
HIM am I
AER T
m
I
AMU
ar
ME
an
M -imam,
ll
1
MFAWM:
IN
an
won
Mo
ME
WE
ME
an
ME
Mo
ail
Ifni
ril
HIM am I
AER T
m
I
AMU
ar
ME
an
M -imam,
ll
1
MFAWM:
IN
an
won
Mo
ME
WE
ME
an
ME
Mo
ail
ril
Il
HIM am I
AER T
m
I
AMU
ar
ME
an
M -imam,
ll
1
MFAWM:
IN
an
won
Mo
ME
WE
ME
an
ME
Mo
ail
INS,
i
All
rem,
Maki
EW I
BilliC
ON I
amli
ow
wo -
V :
z
mm
CITY OF R10HRELD
nwinG oommission
Ration Requert
Item: #2 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #94- CUP -2, 94 -FDP -1 Date: April 12, 1994
GENERAL INFORMATION
Petitioner: CSM Corporation
Subject Area: That area bounded by 77th Street on the north, Colfax Avenue on the east,
I494 on the south, and Emerson Avenue on the west,
Type of Request: Conditional use permit and final development plan to allow Phase I
construction of CSM redevelopment project.
Zoning: Subject area would be rezoned to a planned unit development for general
commercial use.
Land Use: Proposed to be retail.
References:
Zoning Code: Section 545.09 outlines the conditional use permit process.
ACTION
FProposed Change: Phase I construction includes a three anchor building with 114,484 square
feet.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit and final development plan for Phase I
construction.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 12, 1994.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
April 18, 1994.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Phase I construction includes a three anchor building with 114,484 square
feet. Anchor A would be a 47,000 square foot Best Buy, Anchor B would
be a 42,000 square foot Sport -Mart, and Anchor C would be a 25,000
square foot Comp USA. Phase I would provide 501 parking spaces, which
is above the City requirement of 460 spaces for a development of this size.
If the project is approved, demolition and construction would begin this
summer, with completion anticipated by the end of November.
Issues: The building would be situated along the north side of the site, with the
major parking area to the south. Most tenant signage would be directed to
1-494. The building exterior would use a combination of brick, concrete
decorative block, Dryvit (a stucco -like finish), and a standing seam metal
roof. Smaller signage would adorn the rear facade to identify the building
as a retail center.
The main entrance to Phase I would be from Colfax Avenue, which would
remain open until Phase II construction is completed.
The rear of the buildings would be situated along 77th Street. Landscaping
and berming would be provided to buffer the rear building wall from 77th
Street, and to maintain the parkway character intended for 77th Street. The
rear wall of the building would be articulated to provide variations and
reduce the mass, and to minimize the view of the recessed loading docks.
CSM proposes to drain storm water run-off into the new 77th
Street /Humboldt Avenue Storm Sewer line, which was designed to
accommodate redevelopment of this area. Sumps would be used to capture
primarily coarse sediment and floatables on site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit and
final development pursuant to the attached plans, with the following
stipulations:
1. That the City Planner approve the landscape and screening plan.
2. That the City Engineer approve the erosion control plan and storm water
management plan.
3. That the applicant submit a cash escrow agreement for landscaping
before the final development plan and conditional use permit will
become effective.
Basis: 1. The proposed final development plan is consistent with the ILN
Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Plan if modified as proposed.
2. The proposed final development plan provides a workable project for the
ILN, given the site area constraints.
Alternative: 1. Modify the recommendation, adding or deleting stipulations as needed.
2. Recommend that the City Council deny the request with a finding that
the proposed use would have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties or the City as a whole.
wRL— a oy f j ;., dj93 1HS ..asiNVUr'073,.ru+ 8 l i
TWOWI ld sdOHS 3FU
FUl
lip
AM 7lW ,.owe
I
I ? I
f 1
pit
s
i
i
3
J
Er
e:
I "
z0'd 6VL6TS8 01 JOSSd 8 A63WOOlNOW- 3IHsni WOad ZS:60 b661 -90 -add
irll 1, 1
i
i
3
J
Er
e:
I "
z0'd 6VL6TS8 01 JOSSd 8 A63WOOlNOW- 3IHsni WOad ZS:60 b661 -90 -add
r%F"W-4m
49!p..4,wo WS3 rlm"fivIviomgl
31b0
i
lip
i
20'd 6bL6198
a
Ol DOSSU'8 Ad3WOOlNOW -3IHsm WObd ZS:60 C66L- 90 -bdti
Mod
a .9 -A*dJ-3 WS3 —
31V(]Nkl iV SdOHS .:jtijL
tea __ ._J
i it II il.. 7 \
alai.
bvs -3. mzo
i I
iIF _
UIMS'31W UNAW
VIDSUM LA041V
of
xt.-iil ll.
kill
Ala
Ap
RIR
RIO
w
wo
WOW -
Do%
FINE=
Ira
pq
Kai
an
I •
ao
no
see
I ION
1101-
my
all
yon
c
s k'
Ap
RIR
RIO
w
wo
WOW -
Do%
FINE=
Ira
pq
Kai
an
Ism
ON
IF
till
Ho
lio.
leiin-
CITY Of R10HRELD
Kffinm commission
Aolion Roquei!
Item: #3 Agenda Section: Public Hearing
Case: #94 -CP -I Date: April 12, 1994
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Development Plan
Map, with respect to the CSM proposal and relocation of the Emerson
Avenue Congregational Church.
Location: Site A — 7701 Emerson Avenue South
Site B -- small northerly portion of the Cloverleaf Site. The Cloverleaf
Site is that area bounded by 76th Street on the north,
Emerson Avenue on the east, I-494 on the south, and Girard
Avenue on the west.
ACTION
Proposed Change: Redesignate 7701 Emerson Avenue from "institutional" to "freeway strip"
and redesignate small northerly portion of Cloverleaf Site from "freeway
strip" to "institutional ".
Staff
Recommendation: Approve the amendment.
HISTORY
Public Notice: Notice of the Planning Commission's consideration and public hearing was
published in the Sun - Current newspaper on March 30, 1994.
Public Hearing: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on April 12, 1994.
City Council: Planning Commission action would set a City Council public hearing date of
April 18, 1994.
ANALYSIS
Background: On March 28, 1994, the City Council adopted a resolution directing the
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the comprehensive plan.
The amendment would redesignate land on the comprehensive plan map to
accommodate the CSM proposal. The amendment consists of redesignating
the existing church site at 7701 Emerson from "institutional" to "freeway
strip" to allow retail use of that land. The amendment also includes
redesignating a northerly portion of the Cloverleaf Site from "freeway strip"
to "institutional" to accommodate relocation of the church.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve
an amendment to the comprehensive plan map, with respect to the CSM
proposal and relocation of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Churcb,
with the following stipulations:
1. That the PUD and final development plan for the CSM redevelopment
Project be approved.
2. That the Metropolitan Council gives approval of the amendment before
it becomes effective.
Basis: 1. The amendment would facilitate the CSM redevelopment proposal for
the ILN Redevelopment District.
2. The proposed land use designations are most appropriate for the
proposed land uses.
3. The proposed land use designations would not conflict with the overall
guide plan for the City, the revised Comprehensive Plan which is
currently being developed by the Steering Committee, or zoning
regulations.
4. It is appropriate for the Planning Commission to review and make
recommendations on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Such a plan map amendment is not uncommon when dealing with
redevelopment projects, as the current plan map is merely reflecting a pre-
existing land use. The amendment would provide a better long range land
use plan for this area.
Alternative: Recommend that the City Council deny the amendment with a finding that
the proposed land use redesignations would have an adverse impact on the
City and its residents.
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING
COMMISSION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE MAP WITH RESPECT TO THE CSM PROPOSAL
AND RELOCATION OF THE EMERSON AVENUE
CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
WHEREAS, a redevelopment proposal has been submitted by CSM
Corporation for land within the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet (ILN) Redevelopment
District; and
WHEREAS, such redevelopment proposal consists of mixed retail use of land;
and
WHEREAS, such redevelopment proposal would require the relocation of the
Emerson Avenue Congregational Church from its existing site at 7701 Emerson
Avenue (Site A) to the northern portion of the Cloverleaf site (Site B); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Map currently designates the land at
7701 Emerson Avenue as "institutional ", which allows for governmental, school, and
church uses; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Map currently designates the entire
Cloverleaf site as "freeway strip ", which allows for hotel, dining, retail, wholesale,
office, and multi- family uses; and
WHEREAS, if the Church is relocated to the northern portion of the
Cloverleaf site and the CSM redevelopment proposal is approved, it is appropriate to
redesignate the land at 7701 Emerson Avenue to "freeway strip", and to redesignate the
new Church location (northern portion of the Cloverleaf site) to "institutional ", thereby
maintaining conformance with the Comprehensive Development Plan Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield Planning
Commission recommends that the Richfield City Council amend the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map to redesignate land pursuant to Attachment "B" attached hereto.
Passed this 12th day of April, 1994 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Timothy Erlander, Secretary
n•
ter .t,;
r,, t}
w ., , _=, ., << fir• -
1c<<.' •
ry• ..
r i-:
wYr.,,r•• - '` - - )
1[ — c'f_'r,r.
ni.••iC.' -+.. : yrP ' -`i-
f• nR. r.n.+'
1•:: •: — —_ —1
j !!
1 —. — ;1:......+ L`1L L' 'L' l:uu SI1J1: •:J
Y
CL
Qr ....a ,,•
J,,' ' ; _ =
Win. 0 —, ,...m
Y
J -
tJ •_:.... .'{fjitlllllf{ 17llJW 't'9utu:wi_"t1u'wtl:ttu ltus:uu:e~t U......... et „ „•J:' _
y, ..,,.
n'
rtL
RRARRSR3IIITr ^I'., h ?`' 111T{iNt1:E mm 7jITf't m .t r. .
TRr"= VmrTm
I
J
OL
r
u uuuuuu i Wit,,, uuuussu
t
NZ
ff11 m1
e.f. -- — —!_ Q ••.,,,,t, +
rY ...•SV —I
W
r J• w•
An a
r• ^"^
Il I I 111 .'!
Rn ` >. '
y aLrw
I' I ItWl31 c4'•, - --
l mnr. Q
M ..OI[
14!"_• -• 6i 1 "S `
r ZN ^ Z
Lu
Wit: -;: ;
111 , Jj
I
1. •A_' -- _.....: •_
W
19 ui
r....•• .. — - ` — - ° :
tom i ,,,,• G
rt
k ME , crrrr . • ('ti?! •i am ' c 05
Tin: 71TMOTmtt,u„imrs9 'xf rZ
Lu
1
Y Yu_
y4 i ^
y.f yVf4C.. _. -.TY. Tr. .lN___ -_ - - `
w LIUrU
t t • • t • ! t t • - - 7 S L ! !
1
L i t L t c t
H
O
Z
C-1
Z
W
U
r
Va1
GoN
M
Cl)
0
0
VtwwR
V
JEW
lift
am
77 oil 1
U qqT;t TLqfuj
avram% Iffifflif;
MTMMM a: TT M))) 0 7
PF-=
r waif
uj
uj
LU
x
1 CL
CL
O
0
0
Z
1:2
z
ui
U
T
Im
CION
M
W
Z
G
Z
W
a
0
i
W
O
Z
W
Z
W
C
a
0
v
LUa 0 0 b
i °fir; a a. + to
v
w
rE
d u = a v _
cl x cc 5 oc A 'v') v)
N
U
o
N _
Z
U
N
a
OD
dEv
tko E
Z
m ° 40 3
3
S
Z
ML W-j
a _
Lon
4-j _ °a
con .. .
G vo °C 3 X- one 6001 a
Ll 11
Lei
Z
W
Q
a
s
0m
4
0
0
o
v
v
CRY Of R10HRELD
rurrrn6 on
Item: X14 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #10 Date: April 12, 1994
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject: Plan Modification Number 4 to the Interstate-Lyndale-N icol let (ILN)
Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that ILN Plan Modification Number 4 is in
compliance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
References: Chapter 469 of Minnesota State Statutes requires that the Planning Commission
review plan modifications to determine conformance with the comprehensive
plan.
BACKGROUND
Proposed Zoning : PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Comp. Plan: Freeway Strip
Public Notice: Not required
City Council: Planning Commission approval would facilitate completion of the Council
process prior to the end of April.
ANALYSIS
Issues: The ILN Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing District includes the area
proposed for redevelopment by CSM Corporation. The modification would
facilitate the proposed redevelopment.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, finding that ILN Plan Modification Number 4 is
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Map indicates that the property is designated for
freeway strip uses, which includes the type of retail uses proposed for the
CSM project.
2. The modified ILN Plan would be consistent with the general plans for the
development of the City as a whole.
3. Staff review of the proposal finds that ILN Plan Modification Number 4 is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that ILN Plan Modification Number 4
does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, such action would
require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING MODIFICATION NO. 4 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE
INTERSTATE /LYNDALE/ NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Richfield (City) and the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield ( HRA) to continue to
improve and foster development within that portion of the City known as the
Interstate/ Lyndale /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area); and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 1985, the City Council adopted a redevelopment
plan and a tax increment financing plan for the Project Area entitled the
Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan"
Plan) ; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has modified the Plan on several occasions since its initial
adoption; and
WHEREAS, additional land acquisitions and changes in the public and private
improvements proposed to be constructed within the Project Area now necessitate the
consideration of this Modification No. 4 to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has caused Modification No. 4 to the Plan to be prepared
and on April 12, 1994, transmitted said Plan to the Richfield Planning Commission
Planning Commission) for review pursuant to Minn. Stat. , Sections 469.001 to
469.047 (HRA Act) and Minn. Stat. , -Sections 469.174 to 469.179 (TIF Act) and has
requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission regarding the modified
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has had an opportunity to review said
modified Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The modified Plan is consistent with the general plans for
development of the City as a whole.
Passed this 12th day of April, 1994 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Richfield,. Minnesota.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Timothy Erlander, Secretary
REB67527
RC125 -68
INTERSTATE LYNDALE NICOLLET
REDEVELOPMENT
AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Modification No. '4
March 21, 1994
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 Din trenko, Member
Michael Gallagher, Member
Morris Nilsen, 11, Member.
Thomas Scaglia, Member.
William Snyder, Member
Paul Wasko, Member
CITY STAFF .
Byron Wallace
Director, Community Development
Bruce Palmborg
Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator
Kathy Jablonsky
Redevelopment Specialist
William Weaver
City Planner
Shawn Drill
Zoning Administrator
Mike Eastling
City Engineer
CONSULTANTS
John B. Dean
Ronald L. Batty
HRA Legal Counsel
Holmes & Graven, Chartered
Minneapolis, MN
Sidney Inman
Mark Ruff
Publicorp, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
Arijs Pakalns
Bennet, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
Orr- Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN
NOTE TO READER
The following text represents Modification No. 4 to the Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet
Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. Only those areas of the plans requiring
revision are incorporated in this modification. To understand all of the proposed activities, the
reader is encouraged to review Modification No. 4 in conjunction with the following plans:
Original ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan
dated October 21, 1985
Modification No. 1 to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan
and Tax Increment Financing Plan
dated November 25, 1985
Modification No. 2 to the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan
and Tax Increment Financing Plan
dated September 18, 1989
Modification No. '3 to the fLN Redevelopment Project Plan
and Tax Increment Financing Plan
dated June 14, 1993
Richfield Redevelopment Project Plan
and Tax Increment Financing Plan, dated June 14, 1993]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERSTATE - LYNDALE - NICOLLET (ILN)
MODIFICATION NO. 4
PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN
PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
STATUTORY AUTHORITY STATEMENT 1 4 '-2
MAP OF PROJECT AREA, LIST OF PARCELS, AND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 4 -2
PUBLIC PURPOSE STATEMENT 9 No Change
STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 10 No Change
Project Area 10 No Change
Core Commercial District 13 No Change
New Development District 14 No Change
Mixed and Hi hwa - Oriented Commercial District West 15 No Change
Mixed and Highway-Oriented Commercial District East 15 No Change
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 16 4 -2
Anticipated Private 16 4 -4
Proposed Public 19 4 -6
771h Street Improvements 20 4 -6
Emerson Avenue 21 No Change
Traffic Control Signals 21 4 -6
West 771/2 Street 21 4 -6
West 78th Street - West of Emerson Avenue 21 4 -7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
PMposed Public Development Activities Continued
West .7.8th Street - East of L ndale Avenue 22 No Change
L ndale Avenue 22 No Change
L ndale Avenue Bride 23 No Change
Parking Lot Improvements 23 No Change
General Streetsca a Improvements 24 4 -7
Sanitary Sewer Li 1 Station 24 4 -7
Storm.Sewer 4 -7
ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND CLEARANCE
ACTIVITIES 24 4 -7
SITE PREPARATION 28 No Change
BUILDING REHABILITATION 28 No Change
VACATION OF PUBLIC LAND 28 No Change
PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS/LAND USE
AND RELATED ISSUES 29 No Change
New Development District 29 No Change
Mixed and Hi hwa - Oriented Commercial District West 29 No Change
Core Commercial Distirct 30 No Change
Mixed and Highwa y-Oriented Commercial District (East) 30 No Change
Traffic Circulation and Parking 31 No Change
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
Traffic Circulation and Parking Continued
FreewaylA ccess /Barriers 31 No Change
Area Access 31 No Change
West 761h Street Throw h are 32 No Change
Commercial Access Through Residential Neighborhood 32 No Change
Traffic/ParkingTrafficlParking Conflicts in the Core Commercial District 32 No Change
Closely Spaced Intersections 32 No Change
Closely Spaced Streets 33 No Change
Narrow West 771h Street 33 No Change
Pedestrian Circulation 33 No Change
Lack of Pedestrian Circulation System 33 No Change
Physical Conditions/Image 34 No Change
Lack o Focal Point 34 No Change
Lack of Strong Image 34 No Change
Natural Amenities 34 No Change
Views 34 No Change
Screening 35 No Change
Outdoor Storage 35 No Change
General AppearancelImage 35 No Change
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN. Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
Conclusion 36 4A0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 39 No Change
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 39 No Change
REDEVELOPEMENT PROPOSALS 39 4 -10
REHABILITATION PROGRAM 40 No Change
RELOCATION PROGRAM 41 No Change
MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 41 No Chan e
1V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERSTATE - LYNDALE - NICOLLET (ILN)
MODIFICATION NO. 4
PART II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
PART - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
FINDINGS OF FACT 42 4 -12
STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 47 4 -12
LIST OF PARCELS IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT 47 4 -12
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 53 4 -12
ACQUISITION PLAN 53 4 -12
RELOCATION PLAN, 53 4 -12
ANTICIPATED TIMING OF ACTIVITIES 60 4 -13
Private Development 60 4 -13
Public Improvements 61 4A3
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN 64 4 -13
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 64 4 -13
REVENUE SOURCES 66 4 -14
TIMING OF EXPENDITURES 67 4 -14
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE 69 4 -14
ASSESSED VALUES 70 4 -14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Original Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW 71 4 -14
IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS 78 4 -15
PROJECT COST ASSUMPTIONS 81 4 -15
ESTIMATED ASSESSOR'S VALUE FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 83 4 -15
APPENDIX A - Sources and Uses Statement A -1
APPENDIX B - Project Cashflows B -1
APPENDIX C - Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions C -1
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERSTATE - LYNDALE - NICOLLET (ILN)
MODIFICATION NO. 4
LIST OF MAPS AND EXHIBITS
MAP OR
EXHIBIT
NUMBER TITLE
Original
Plan
Page
Modification
No. 4
Page
M -A 1
Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet Redevelopment
Pro' ect Area 2 No Change
E -I Redevelopment Project Parcels 3 4 -2
E -H
Redevelopment Project Area Boundary
Description 8 No Change
M -A2 Sub -Areas 11 No Change
M -A3
Phase I Development Program and Public
Improvement Plan 17 4 -3
M -A4 Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Plan 26 4 -9
E -III -A Properties Acquired, Phase I 27 4 -7
E -III -B Properties To Be Acquired, Phase I 27 4 -8
M -A5 Existing Land Use 37 No Change
M -A6 Land Use /Circulation Plan 38 No Change
M -B1
Interstate- Lyndale- Nicollet Redevelopment
Tax Increment Financing District 45 No Change
M -132 Building Conditions 46 No Change
E-IV, Tax Increment Financing District Parcels 48 No Change
E -V
Tax Increment Financing District Boundary
Description 52 No Change
Vii
LIST OF MAPS AND EXHIBITS
MAP OR
EXHIBIT
NUMBER . TITLE
Original
Plan
Page
Modification
No. .4
Page
E -VI Properties Proposed To Be Acquired, Phase I 58 See 4 -7
M -113 Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Plan 56 See 4 -9
M -114
Phase I Development Program and Public
Improvement Plan 57 See 4 -3
E -VII Anticipated Activity Schedule 63 See 4 -5
E -VIII Estimated Project Costs By Line Item 65
See Appendix
A
E -IX Anticipated -Source of Funds 66
See Appendix
A
APPENDIX A Sources and Uses of Funds A -1
APPENDIX B Project -Cashflows B -1
APPENDIX C I Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions C -1
viii
PART
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN
MODIFICATION NO.4
4 -1
INTERSTATE - LYNDALE - NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
STATUTORY AUTHORITY STATEMENT
The statutory authority for the activities proposed in the Interstate - Lyndale - Nicollet
Redevelopment Plan, dated October 21, 1985, were conferred upon the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) by the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authorities Act,
Minn. Stat: Sec. 462.411, et seq. More specifically, Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.515 established the
requirements that a redevelopment plan be prepared by an HRA prior to undertaking property
acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment. Due to subsequent legislative changes, the authority
for any modifications to the Redevelopment Project Plan now lies within Minn. Stat. Chapter 469,
specifically at Minn. Stat. Sec. 469.001 - 469.047, inclusive, as amended.
MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA, LIST OF PARCELS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The list of parcels located in the project area is revised under Modification No. 4 to indicate
property subdivisions necessary to accommodate the new 77th Street right -of -way. At this
writing, the subdivisions are currently in process. Specifically, the properties impacted under the
subdivision are the "Cloverleaf Site" parcels owned by the Richfield HRA. Only the subdivision
changes are noted within Modification No. 4.. Otherwise, the list of parcels under the original
plan remains the same. The properties impacted by the subdivision are as follows:
EXHIBIT I - Redevelopment Project Parcels
Former Parcels: ;
Property Address Property Identification Number
7644 Emerson Avenue 33- 028 -2443 -0015
7600 Fremont Avenue 33- 028 -24 -43 -0016
Revised Parcels:
Property Address Property Identification Number
Not Available At This Time) 33- 028 -24 -43 -0028
Not Available At This Time) 33- 028 -24 -43 -0029
Not Available At This Time) 33- 028 -24 -43 -0030
Not Available At This Time) 33- 028 -24 -43 -0031
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
As before, the redevelopment of the ILN project area will be accomplished through the efforts of
the City of Richfield, the Richfield HRA, private developers, property owners, and business
owners. Property improvements, current and future phases, will be constructed over a period of
several years. Therefore, amendments to this documents may be required from time to time as
redevelopment unfolds. The private and public developments discussed within this portion of the
plan continue to remain within Phase I, Stage II of the redevelopment process. (See original
Redevelopment Plan for•further detail on the overall phasing and staging of the redevelopment of
4 -2
o 00000000' 0 _
000000,
o _. 'o I
0 . '0 0 . 0
O O -
0 n on
0 0 0 O 0 - D -0
O : !00 O •I
f
aw aewAi
Q° .
13 00000 0 000 O 00 00100 O O O
O, O000 '..013000 1][3110 111311 ; ' o0 CO 0000
10 0013 o o n n o o a C3 C3
13n0- .- 1300 ° nnoi'pOD000o
3=0 ° 0 00.13 O 13 C31--3 ' O CD M O 0
0 .007 I, OOOOp Ma -0013 C3 Cl
J'0 M 00 0 CEO ooO i 0c O O 00 0
a D 0 130000 o o 00 j ] p 0 0 0
O— - - o o DO OCT 00 00 0° o
7130 00011 00 00- 0'0- 00 1,'
313 o o 00000--C3-13- 0130 °13
13 Q O. O o c ,,,•
u
I f
t
I f
m
a
zo
z
a
Scc lit
o
c 2
OE
a
oal,k
L
lical
t
f1 43
r
cC
W
U
zP o
i r U
a
zo
z
a
Scc lit
o
c 2
OE
a
oal,k
L
lical
t
the ILN project area.) Please note that within the overall ILN redevelopment phasing and
staging, individual tracts of land for proposed developments will contain their own phasing as it
relates to construction or build out.
ANTICIPATED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
As a portion -of the Cloverleaf Site was needed for the new 77th Street, the Richfield HRA sold
the necessary land to the 77th Street project, thus downsizing the site somewhat. To date, no
survey has been undertaken to determine the exact size of the residual land. Until the 77th Street
right -of -way construction is completed, the interim use of the site will be to accommodate a
concrete batch plant for the 77th Street project. Modification No. 4 addresses redevelopment for
the remainder of the land in Phase I, Stage II, namely the property located in the "Mixed and
Highway Oriented District - West" area, as well as a portion of the Cloverleaf site.
CSM Corporation has entertained a redevelopment proposal, known as "The Shops At Lyndale"
for the "Mixed and Highway Oriented District - West" tract of land and a portion of the
Cloverleaf site. This land lies south of 77th Street and is bounded by I -494 at its southern
perimeter, Lyndale Avenue to the east, and Emerson Avenue to the west. Within this area, two
phases of redevelopment are proposed. Each phase will build on the next until full build -out is
achieved. The developer is anticipating acquisition of the property through negotiations. The
HRA's power of eminent domain may be used as an alternative if negotiations are not successful.
This would assure site assembly in a comprehensive, timely. manner necessary for construction
commencement in 1994.
The first phase of the project would be contained within the area bounded by Emerson Avenue on
the west and Colfax Avenue on the east. Per the preliminary site plan, Phase One would contain
three (3) anchor tenants and a new church. The detail for each -of the phases is as follows:
PHASE ONE PHASE TWO
Site Area 308,965 square feet
Number of Acres 7.09
Stage 1:
In -Line Shop
Anchor A 45,000 square feet
Anchor B 42,000 square feet
Anchor C 25,000 square feet
Anchor E 25,000 square feet
Anchor F
Gross Bldg. Area* 112,000 square feet
Subtotal 90,000 square feet
Church 13,340 s uare feet
Approximate Area
Site Area 411,752 square feet
Number of Acres 9.45 Acres
Stage 1:
In -Line Shop 20,475 square feet
Pad Site southwest 6,000 square feet
Subtotal 26,475 square feet
Stage 11:
Anchor D 35,000 square feet
Anchor E 25,000 square feet
Anchor F 25,000 square feet
Pad Site east 5,000 square feet
Subtotal 90,000 square feet
Gross Bldg. Area* 1 116,475 square feet
4 -4
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT
Site Area 720,717 square feet
Number of Acres 16.54
Development Type of
Initiation Completion
Building Area:
Phase One - retail 112,000 square feet
church 13,340 square feet
Phase Two 116,475 square feet
Gross Bldg. Area* 241,815 square feet
Approximate Area
The following table summarizes both Phase One and Phase Two development components.
Proposer! Proposed
Development Development Type of
Initiation Completion Proposed Development
3rd Quarter, 1994 Winter, 1994 Retail center with approximately 112,000 square
feet of space, occupied by three separate, major
retailers, located between Emerson Avenue and
Colfax Avenue and relocation of church to
Cloverleaf site; construction preceded by site
assembly through negotiated acquisition, or
eminent domain, and site clearance activities.
1995 1995 Retail stores with 20,475 square feet of space, and
Pad Site tenant of 6,000 square feet, located east
and south east, of Phase One at approximately
Colfax Avenue and 78th Street; most likely use of
Pad Site to be restaurant; construction preceded
by site assembly through acquisition (negotiated
and /or eminent domain) and site clearance
activities.
1995 1996 Retail center with 85,000 square feet of space,
occupied by three separate retailers, and Pad Site
tenant of 5,000 square feet located between
Bryant Avenue and Aldrich Avenue; most likely
use of Pad Site to be free - standing retailer;
construction preceded by site assembly through
acquisition (negotiated and/or eminent domain).
and site clearance activities.
4 -5
All of the referenced phased development .would proceed within the context of a comprehensive
plan to be formulated by the City, HRA, and developer.
PROPOSED PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Proposed public development in Phase I, Stage II, is and has always been undertaken by the City
and HRA: The new 77th Street right -of -way is being developed in order to accommodate private
developments such as the above proposed project as well as accomplish other goals and
objectives set forth in the redevelopment project area as a whole under the original redevelopment
plan of 1985 and the modified redevelopment plan of 1989.
In addition to the City and HRA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MNDOT), and other interim revenue source agencies such as the
Metropolitan Council and the of the Right -of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) are involved in
bringing the new 77th Street right -of -way into existence.
Situated within the "Mixed and Highway- Oriented West" site is a church. Phase One of the CSM
project would include construction.of a new church on the eastern portion of the Cloverleaf site,
just west of the Phase One retail center. The HRA would sell a portion of the Cloverleaf site for
the new church.
Also, the HRA and City would assist the developer in assembling the site area by vacating
portions of public rights -of -way south of 77th Street.
77th Street Improvements
Prior to this modification, substantial funding of public improvements relied upon tax increment
revenue sources from redevelopment activities. Subsequently, other revenue sources became
available outside of redevelopment activity revenues.
Traffic Control Signals
One traffic control signal would be placed at Girard Avenue and 76th Street to control traffic
filtering into and out of the new 77th Street. Additional traffic control devices will be installed as
needed.
West 771/2 Street
The intersection of West 77 1/2 Street with Lyndale Avenue would be eliminated with Phase Two
of the CSM development proposal. However, the gas station at 77 1/2 Street and Lyndale
Avenue would remain. Access to the businesses would be from the new 77th Street. The "Pad
Site" proposed on the east end of the Phase Two, CSM project could potentially contain a curb
cut to access this building. However, no major entrance /exit to the general site would be
constructed at this location. West 77 1/2 Street may be vacated for the project. -
4 -6
West 78th Street - West of Emerson Avenue
The improvements listed within this section under the modified redevelopment plan of 1989 are
hereby revoked as they related specifically to the Cloverleaf site.
General Streetscape Improvements
The new 77th Street right -of -way plan addresses the installation of a variety of plant materials and
other landscaping features to beautify the landscaped buffer screenwall and surrounding, adjacent
areas to compliment the project and make the area more attractive. Sidewalk improvements are
also included in this plan.
The proposed CSM Corporation development project south of 77th Street would be part of a
planned unit development (PUD). As a result of the PUD, plans for landscaping, parking, and
lighting would be evaluated as a complete package and integrated into the 77th Street project as
well. Reviews would be undertaken by the City.
Sanitary Seiver Lift Station
A portion of this section is hereby revoked as it related only to the hotel/office proposal of 1989.
Other related public improvements are listed in the section entitled "Proposed Public
Improvements ".
Storm Sewer
Upgrading of the storm sewer is part of the 77th Street project.
ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES
In the fall of 1991, the HRA had the opportunity to purchase the Cloverleaf site and gain control
of a major portion of the ILN project area. On March 16, 1992, the HRA approved acquisition of
the Cloverleaf Site and purchased the following property on April 15, 1992:
EXHIBIT III - A: Properties Acquired, Phase I
Property Idewi ieation Number Property Address
33- 028 -24 -43 -0015 7644 Emerson Avenue
33- 028 -24 -43 -0016 7600 Fremont Avenue
33- 028 -24 -43 -0017 7600 Fremont Avenue
33- 028 -24 -43 -0018 7700 Fremont Avenue
Also see section titled "Map of the Project Area, List of Parcels, and Legal Description" of
Modification No. 4 to the ILN Redevelopment Plan for information on property subdivisions
related to the above parcels. The property listed on the following page would be acquired for the
CSM Corporation development proposal.
4 -7
EXHIBIT III - B: Properties To be Acquired, Phase I
in MAIMI
Property Identification Number Pro &V Address
33- 028 -24 -44 -0082 900 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0083 902 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0084 904 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0085 908 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0086 910 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0087 914 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0088 901 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0089 920 W. 77 1/2 St.
PH14.SE Q... ...... Sug e 1.....:.;.
Property Identification Number Property Address
33- 028 -24 -44 -0073 800 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0074 804 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0075 808 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0076 812 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0077 816 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0078 820 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0081 805 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0080 809 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0099 801 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0100 723 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0101 719 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0097 715 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0096 705 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0095 701 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0094 716 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0093 714 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0092 712 W. 77 1/2 St.
33- 028 -24 -44 -0091 708 W. 77 1/2 St.
4 -8
UD CD 0
U-
WO
3
0
CD
0
A 90
71 -
L. i-:--
C; Lrl 0 0 0
r,-,:] r3 CC
00 00
0 (--10 C3 0
L-J
I a CA 0 12.0 Ll
0- ..i 00:00 0 rn 0 0 L-1
0 17 73 17 C3 M 0
1 77-hj WnvQ
L j
f Al
ro
WJ
71 -
L. i-:--
C; Lrl 0 0 0
r,-,:] r3 CC
00 00
0 (--10 C3 0
L-J
I a CA 0 12.0 Ll
0- ..i 00:00 0 rn 0 0 L-1
0 17 73 17 C3 M 0
L j
71 -
L. i-:--
C; Lrl 0 0 0
r,-,:] r3 CC
00 00
0 (--10 C3 0
L-J
I a CA 0 12.0 Ll
0- ..i 00:00 0 rn 0 0 L-1
0 17 73 17 C3 M 0
The developer would be responsible for acquisition of the referenced property. The HR;A may
provide assistance with condemnation should the developer not be able to obtain the property
through negotiated acquisitions. All acquisition activities would be conducted according to
applicable state and federal regulations.
CSM Corporation will be responsible for, the relocation process.
All buildings which are acquired for the proposed project. would be demolished. If feasible,
buildings acquired would be sold for removal from the site.
All other descriptive activity under this section in Modification No. 2, dated September of 1989,
are hereby revoked. Much of the activity related to public rights -of -way at that time have become
part of the 77th Street project or were part of the 1989 proposed development for the Robert
Larsen project.
CONCLUSION
The activity described under the conclusion section of Modification No. 2, dated September of
1989, is hereby amended to (1.) recognize the implementation of the new 77th Street right -of -way
and its related circulation plan; and (2.) recognize the change in use of the site known as the
Mixed and Highway Oriented District - West.
All descriptive activity relating to land use and circulation plans for the Robert Larsen project and
public improvements supporting the Robert Larsen project are hereby revoked.
REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
As stated earlier within Modification No. 4, CSM Corporation will be responsible for site
assembly including acquisition, relocation, and demolition. Upon the developer's request, the
HRA may assist with site assembly by utilizing its powers of eminent domain to ensure property
title and possession in a timely manner. All aspects of the development activity will be detailed in
the Contract for Private Development.
Activities not related to the CSM development project yet part of prior redevelopment plan
modifications remain as described in those plans.
4-10
PART II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
MODIFICATION NO.4
4 -11
INTERSTATE- LYNDALE- NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact are hereby confirmed as listed within the original Interstate Lyndale Nicollet
ILN) Tax Increment Financing Plan of 1985.
STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The statement of goals and objectives listed within the tax increment plan for the Richfield
Redevelopment Tax Increment District, dated June 14, 1993 are hereby confirmed.
LIST OF PARCELS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The list of parcels and legal descriptions enumerated within the tax increment plan for the
Richfield Redevelopment Tax Increment District, dated June 14, 1993 are hereby confirmed.
Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area amended the project area
parcels to accommodate property subdivisions resulting from the new 77th Street as well as
additional property acquisitions by the HRA. This reference is also necessary for the tax
increment plan. Therefore, the section entitled "Map of the Project Area, List of Parcels, and
Legal Description" under Modification No. 4 to the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area
is hereby adopted by reference.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Development Program for Modification No. 4 is discussed under the Redevelopment Project
Plan (Modification No. 4). Both proposed private and public development activities are
identified. Therefore, the section entitled "Development Activities" under Modification No. 4 to
the Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area is hereby adopted by reference.
ACOUISITION PLAN
As stated within Modification No. 4 under the Redevelopment Project Plan, the developer would
bear significant responsibility for acquisition of the property listed for acquisition. The HRA may
assist in acquisition activities so that the developer would obtain title and possession of property
in a timely manner: This implies that the HRA may exercise its powers of eminent domain, or
condemnation, on property for which negotiations are not successful. The section entitled
Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities" under Modification No. 4 to the
Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area provides additional information and is hereby
adopted by reference.
RELOCATION PLAN
Relocation activities pertaining to the CSM development project can be found within the section
titled "Acquisition, Relocation, and Clearance Activities" under. Modification No. 4 to the
Redevelopment Plan for the ILN project area. This section is hereby adopted by reference.
4 -12
ANTICIPATED TIMING OF ACTIVITIES
In general, the timing of private and public activities have been addressed in prior modifications to
the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan. The timing of activities
specific to the current CSM development project are listed within the section titled "Anticipated
Private Development Activities" of Modification No. 4 for the ILN Redevelopment Project Plan
which is hereby adopted by reference.
Anticipated Timinz of Activities - Private Development
See descriptive above in section titled "Anticipated Timing of Activities."
All references to prior private redevelopment projects are hereby revoked.
Anticipated Timinie of Activities - Public Improvements
See descriptive above in section titled "Anticipated Timing of Activities."
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN
The sections which follow represent the cashflows, sources and uses statement (budget), and
impacts on taxing jurisdictions as they specifically relate to the CSM development project for
which Modification No. 4 was undertaken.
It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs, inflation, and timing of the
tax increment financing district. These assumptions are based on discussions with the I-HIA, City,
staff, consultants, and the developer.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
The estimated project costs are represented as a Sources and uses statement. This statement is
provided by the developer, CSM Corporation and was reviewed by the City and HRA and
analyzed by the City's fiscal consultants, Publicorp, Inc. See Appendix A - Sources and Uses
Statement.
As one can see, the Sources and Uses Statement is detailed based on the different phases of the
project. Toward the end of Appendix A, both phases are combined to show an aggregate total.
Shown at the top of each respective statement is the amount of tax increment necessary to sustain
the project. For example, Phase One shows that with tax increment assistance, approximately
2,821,024 of increment is required in order to provide a rate of return that is acceptable to the
developer in order to make the project feasible. Without tax increment assistance, the rate of
return for Phase One is only 0.86 %. This rate of return and level of risk would not be acceptable
to any developer for a project of this magnitude. But for the assistance of tax increment, this
project would not be possible. This directly ties into the "But For" test for the project whose
burden of proof lies with the developer.
4 -13
REVENUE SOURCES
The revenue source for:the CSM development project will be tax increment. No new general
obligation bond sales are contemplated. The pay out of the tax increment will be on a "pay -as-
you -go" basis. That is, tax increment payments will be made to the developer to pay for legally
allowable, authorized project costs as tax increment is generated by the project. If taxes are not
paid, payments will not be made to CSM. An order to obtain a maximum value for loan
indebtedness, 100% of the captured value and, in turn, tax increments generated from the CSM
development project, will be used for debt service.
The estimated tax increment to be paid may require a change in the fiscal disparities sharing of the
ILN tax increment district in order to make the project feasible. That is, a selection may be made
in order that the project not contribute to the fiscal disparities pool. The city as a whole would
absorb the ILN's portion of the fiscal disparities contribution. This in turn would provide for the
necessary level of increment required for the project. Should the project contribute to the fiscal
disparities pool and, therefore, avoid spreading the contribution to the city as a whole, an amount
amenable to both the city and developer will be made from the balance of the ILN tax increment
district to cover the shortfall of necessary increment.
The project cashflows presented in Appendix B shows the cashflows with the fiscal disparities
change election and without. See section titled "Tag Increment Cashflow" below for further
detail.
TIMING OF EXPENDITURES
The developer of. "The Shops at Lyndale" will pay for project expenditures. The developer would
be reimbursed for project costs as tax increments are generated by the project. See above
sections for further detail.
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE
See above sections for further detail.
ASSESSED VALUES
The estimated market value of the CSM development project is detailed in the attached tax
increment cashflow.
TAX INCREMENT CASHFLOW
The estimated tax increment cashflows of the CSM development project is detailed in Appendix
B - Project Cashflows.
Again, each of the project phases has a cashflow. Both phases are combined at the end of
Appendix B for an aggregate total. Furthermore, each phase and combined phase has two
cashflows, one in which fiscal disparities assistance is used and one for which it is not.
4 -14
The first page of each cashflow provides background information, such as basic assumptions,
property tax class rates, and base tax capacity for the project parcels. The second page provides
the specific detail with respect to the project such as market values, tax capacity based on the
market values, and the cashflow itself. In general, the cashflow, ties in with the Sources and Uses
Statement. Please be reminded that the cashflow figures shown. are estimates based on certain
assumptions made. Figures will reconcile within a range rather than a specific dollar or value
amount.
IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS
The overall analysis regarding an estimate of impact on taxing jurisdictions resulting from the
CSM development project is detailed in Appendix C - Impacts on Taxing Jurisdictions.
Please note there are two impact analyses within Appendix C, the first one with the fiscal
disparities change election and the second one without.
PROJECT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Project cost assumptions are enumerated within the Sources and Uses statement and related
descriptive paragraphs within this plan.
ESTIMATED ASSESSOR'S VALUE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Estimated assessor's value for the CSM development project are listed directly on the cashflows.
4 -15
r'
PHASE I
A -2
SHOPS AT LYND.ALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS
CITY OF RICHFIELD
11- Mar -94
PHASE I
MORTGAGE
EQUITY
TAX INCREMENT
TOTAL SOURCES
112".000 SQUARE FEET
LAND
DEMOLITION
ENVIRONMENTAL /SOIL TESTING
SOIL CORRECTION
OFFSITE WATER PONDING
TOTAL LAND COSTS
RETAIL 1 TURNKEY 45,000
RETAIL 2 TURNKEY 42,000
RETAIL 3 TURNKEY 25,000
RETAIL 4 TURNKEY 0
RETAIL 5 TURNKEY 0
RETAIL 6 TURNKEY 0
SMALL SHOPS 0
PADS
50,000 0.4%
0
SITEWORK
1.0:
112,000
CONST. CONTINGENCY 3.0%
TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS
ARCHITECTURE /ENGINEERING
SURVEY /TITLE
LEASING FEES /MARKETING
OVERHEAD
CONSTRUCTION INTEREST
LOAN PLACEMENT FEES
SOFT COST CONTINGENCY 3.0
TOTAL SOFT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT
12,805,769 100.0%
A -3
WITH TAX INCREMENT
SOURCES AND USES
SOURCESSOURCES
39.1:
280,000
r.
3,201,442
9,604.327 75.0:
22.0%
3,201,442 25.0:
USES
12,805,769 100.0:
41.9:
USES
1.6%
50,000
5,370,300 41.9%
1.0%
200,000 1.6%
5,845,300
50,000 0.4%
11.9:
125,000 1.0:
900,000
100,1000 0.8%
r1
5,845,300 45.6%
34.00 1,530,000 11.9%
34.00 1,428,000 11.2:
36.00 900,000 7.0%
0
0
0
0
0
9.00 1,008,000 7.9 %:
145,980 1.1%
5,011,980 39.1:
2.50 280,000 2.2%
0.15 16,800 0.1 %:
3.50 392.000 3.1
1.00 112,000 0.9:
8.5% 990,937 7.7%
100,000 0.8
56,752
0.0
1,948,489 15.2%
12,805,769 100.0%
A -3
WITH TAX INCREMENT
SOURCES AND USES
SOURCES
5,011,980 39.1:
280,000
6,783,303 53.0%
3,201,442 25.0:
2,821,024 22.0%
12,805,769
990,937
USES
100,000
51370,300 41.9:
200,000 1.6%
50,000 0.4%
125,000 1.0%
100,000 0.81:
5,845,300 45.6%
1,530,000 11.9:
1,428,000 11.2:
900,000 7.0%
r1
1,008,000 7.9%
145,980 1.1%
5,011,980 39.1:
280,000 2.2 %:
16,800 0.1%
392,000 3.1%
1122,000
990,937 7.7%
100,000
56.752
0.0 %.
1.948.489
12,805,769
SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS
ITY OF RICHFIELD
1- Mar -94
RETAIL 1
RETAIL 2
RETAIL 3
RETAIL 4
RETAIL 5
RETAIL 6
SMALL SHOPS
PADS
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME
EXPENSE RECOVERY
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MANAGEMENT FEES
TOTAL RECOVERIES
POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME
CREDIT /VACANCY RESERVE
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MGMT FEES
STRUCTURAL RESERVES
TOTAL EXPENSES
NET OPERATING INCOME
MORTGAGE PAYMENT
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT
INCOME STATEMENT
45,000 $12.00 540,000
42,000 $10.00 420,000
25.000 $11.50 287.500
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
1.225 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.0 %INCOME
0.25 PSF
20 YEAR TERM
8.5 %INTEREST
9,604,327,PRINCIPAL
NET INCOME
RETURN ON EQUITY
1.247,500
140,000
448,000
11,2200
0
599, 200
1,846,700
7.0% (129,269)
1,717,431
140,000
448,000
11,200
62,375
228,000
689,575
1,027,856
1,000,183
27,673
0.86%
A -4
20 YEAR TERM
8.5 %INTEREST
WITH TAX INCREMENT
INCOME STATEMENT
540.000
420,000
287,500
1.247,500
140,000
448,000
11,200
599,200.
1,846,700
129,269)
1,717,431
140,000
448,000
11,200
62.375
28,000
689,575
1,027,856
706,405
321,451
10.04%
SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS
i CITY OF RICHFIELD
11- Mar -94
A -6
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT WITH TAX INCREMENT
PHASE II 116,475 SQUARE FEET SOURCES AND USES SOURCES AND USES
SOURCES SOURCES*
f
MORTGAGE 9,170,071 75.0 %: 7,102.916 58.1':
EQUITY 3.056.690 12 5.0% 3,056.690 25.0':
TAX INCREMENT 2,067,155 16.9%
TOTAL SOURCES 12,226.761 100.0% 12,226,761
USES USES
LAND 4,562,608 37.3% 4,562,608 37.3%
DEMOLITION 300.000 2.5% 300.000 2.5%
ENVIRONMENTAL /SOIL TESTING 50,000 0.4% 50,000 0.4%
SOIL CORRECTION 75,000 0.6% 75,000 0.6%
OFFSITE WATER PONDING 0 04% 0 0.0:
TOTAL LAND COSTS 4,987,608 40.8% 4,987,608 40.8%
RETAIL 1 TURNKEY 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
RETAIL 2 TURNKEY 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
RETAIL 3 TURNKEY 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
RETAIL 4 TURNKEY 35,000 34.00 1,190,000 9.7% 1,190,000 9.7
RETAIL 5 TURNKEY- 25,000 34.00 850,000 7.0% 850,000 7.0%
RETAIL 6 TURNKEY 25,000 34.00 850,000 7.0%: 850,000 7.0
SMALL SHOPS 2031475 35.00 716,625 5.9% 716,625 5.9%
PADS 11,000 45.60 495,000 4.0: 495,000 4.0%
SITEWORK 116,475 9.00 1,048,275 8.6% 1,048.275 8.6%
CONST. CONTINGENCY 3.0% 154,497 1.3% 154,497 1.3
TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS 5,304,397 43.4% 5,304,397 43.4%
ARCHITECTURE /ENGINEERING 2.50 291,188 2.4% 291,188 2.4%
SURVEY /TITLE 0.15 17,471 0.1% 17,471 0.1 %:
LEASING FEES /MARKETING 3.50 407.663 3.3% 407.663 3.3%
OVERHEAD 1.00 116,475 1.0% 116,475 1.0%
CONSTRUCTION INTEREST 8.5% 945.608 7.7% 945,608 7.7%
LOAN PLACEMENT FEES 100,000 0.8% 100,000 0.8 %:
SOFT COST CONTINGENCY 3.0% 56,352 0.5% 56,352 0.51:
TOTAL SOFT COSTS 1,934,756 15.8%: 1,934.756 15.8 %:
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 12,226,761 100.0% 12,226,761 100.0%
A -6
SHOPS AT LYNDALE- BUT FOR ANALYSIS
CITY OF RICHFIELD-
ii-Mar-94
RETAIL 1
RETAIL 2
RETAIL .3
RETAIL 4
RETAIL 5
RETAIL 6
SMALL SHOP'S
PADS
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME
EXPENSE RECOVERY
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MANAGEMENT FEES
TOTAL RECOVERIES .
POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME
CREDIT /VACANCY RESERVE
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MGMT FEES
STRUCTURAL RESERVES
TOTAL EXPENSES
NET OPERATING INCOME
MORTGAGE PAYMENT
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT
1.25 PSF 145,594
INCOME STATEMENT
0
0.10 PSF
0
0
20,535
0
0 0
35.000 11.00 385,000
25,000 10.25 256.250
25.000 10.50 262.500
20,475 12.00 245,700
11,000 15.00 165,000
1,314,450
1.25 PSF 145,594
4.00 PSF 465,900
0.10 PSF 11,648
5.0% 20,535
643,676
1,958,126
7.0 (1337,069)
1,821,057
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.OINCOME
0.25 PSF
20 YEAR TERM
8.5 %INTEREST
9,170,071 PRINCIPAL
NET INCOME
RETURN ON EQUITY
145,594
465,900
11,648
65,723
29,119
717,983
1,103.075
954,960
148,115
4.85:
A -7
WITH TAX INCREMENT
INCOME STATEMENT
0
0
0
385.000
256.250
262.500
245 700
165.000
20 YEAR TERM
8.5:INTEREST
1,314,450
145,594
465,900
11,648
643,676
1,958,126
137,069)
1,821,057
145.594
465,900
11,648
65,723
29,119
717,983
1,103,075
739,689
363,386
11.89
PHASE I & PHASE II
ON
SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS
CITY OF RICHFIELD
11- Mar -94"
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT
PHASES I /II 228.475 SQUARE FEET SOURCES AND USES
SOURCES
MORTGAGE 18,774,398 75.07:
EQUITY 6.258,132 25.0%
TAX INCREMENT
TOTAL SOURCES 259032,530 100.0:
USES
LAND 9,932.908 39.5:
DEMOLITION 500,000 2.0:
ENVIRONMENTAL /SOIL TESTING 100,000 0.4%
SOIL CORRECTION 200,000 0.8%
OFFSITE MATER PONDING 100,000 0.4
TOTAL LAND COSTS 1 10,832,908 43.1%
RETAIL 1 TURNKEY
RETAIL 2 TURNKEY
RETAIL 3 TURNKEY
RETAIL 4. TURNKEY
RETAIL 5 TURNKEY
RETAIL 6 TURNKEY
SMALL SHOPS
PADS
SITEWORK
COSTT. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL CONSRUCTION COSTS
45,000,
42,000
25,000
35,000
25,000
25,000
20,475
11,000
228,475
3.0%
ARCHITECTURE /ENGINEERING
SURVEY /TITLE
LEASING FEES /MARKETING
OVERHEAD
CONSTRUCTION INTEREST
LOAN PLACEMENT FEES
SOFT COST CONTINGENCY
TOTAL SOFT COSTS
TOTAL.PROJECT COSTS
3.0%
34.00 1,530,000
36.00 1,512,000
36.00 900,000
34.00 1,190,000
34.00 850,000
34.00 850,000
35.00 716,625
45.00 495,000
9.00 2,056,275
302,997
10,402,897
2.50 571,188
0.15 34,271
3.50 799,663
1.00 228,475
8.5: 1,943,899
200,000
113,325
3,890,820
25,126,625
A -9
6.1%
6.0%
3.6%
4.7%
3.4%
3.4%
2.9%
2.0%
8.2%
1.2%
41.4%
2.3%
0.1%
3 .22%
0.9 %
7.7%
0.8%
0.5%
15.5%
100.0%
WITH TAX INCREMENT
SOURCES AND USES
SOURCES
s
13,886,219 55.5 %,
6125B,1312 25.0 %,
4,888,179 19.5%
25,032,530
USES
9,932,908
500,000
100,000
200,000
100,000
10,832,908
1,530,000
1,512,000
900,000
1,190,000
850,000
850,000
716,625
495,000
2,056,275
302,997
10.,402,897
571,188
34,271
799,663
228,475
1,943,899
200,000
113,325
3,890,820
39.5%
2.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.4%
43.1%
6.1%
6.0%
3.6%
4.7
3.
3.5..
2.9%
2.0%
8.2:
1.2
41.4%
2.31..
0.1%
3.2%
0.9':
7.. 7%
0.8%
0.5
15.5%
25,126,625 100.0%
SHOPS AT LYNDALE BUT FOR ANALYSIS
ITY OF RICHFIELD
11- Mar -94
RETAIL 1
RETAIL 2
RETAIL ',
RETAIL 4
RETAIL 5
RETAIL 6
SMALL SHOPS
PADS
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME
EXPENSE RECOVERY
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MANAGEMENT FEES
TOTAL RECOVERIES
OTENTIAL GROSS INCOME
CREDIT /VACANCY RESERVE
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES
CAM
TAXES
INSURANCE
MGMT FEES
STRUCTURAL RESERVES
TOTAL EXPENSES
NET OPERATING INCOME
MORTGAGE PAYMENT
WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.0%
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.0%INCOME
0.25 PSF
20 YEAR TERM
8.5%INTEREST
18,774,398 PRINCIPAL
NET INCOME
RETURN ON EQUITY
285,594
913,900
22,848
20,535
1,242,876
3,804,826
7.0 (266,338)
3,538,488
285,594
913,900
22,848
128,098
57,119
1,407,558
2,130,931
1,955,143
175,788
2.81 %.
A -10
20 YEAR TERM
8.5%INTEREST
WITH TAX INCREMENT
INCOME STATEMENT
540,000
420,000
287,500
385,000
256,250
262,500
245,700
165,000
2,561,950
285,594
913,900
22,848
1,242,876
3,804,826
266,338)
3,538,488
285,594
913,900
22,848
128,098
57,119
1,407,558
2,130,931
1,446,094
684,837
10.94
INCOME STATEMENT
45,000 12.00 540.000
4
12,
000 10.00 420,000
5400 11.50 287,500
35,000 11.00 385,000
25,000 10.25 256,250
25,000 10.50 262,500
20,475 12.00 245,700
11,000 15.00 165,000
2,561,950
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.0%
1.25 PSF
4.00 PSF
0.10 PSF
5.0%INCOME
0.25 PSF
20 YEAR TERM
8.5%INTEREST
18,774,398 PRINCIPAL
NET INCOME
RETURN ON EQUITY
285,594
913,900
22,848
20,535
1,242,876
3,804,826
7.0 (266,338)
3,538,488
285,594
913,900
22,848
128,098
57,119
1,407,558
2,130,931
1,955,143
175,788
2.81 %.
A -10
20 YEAR TERM
8.5%INTEREST
WITH TAX INCREMENT
INCOME STATEMENT
540,000
420,000
287,500
385,000
256,250
262,500
245,700
165,000
2,561,950
285,594
913,900
22,848
1,242,876
3,804,826
266,338)
3,538,488
285,594
913,900
22,848
128,098
57,119
1,407,558
2,130,931
1,446,094
684,837
10.94
PHASE I
With Fiscal Disparities Election Change)
03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE I - $4.00 7.3% Inflation Page 1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
1,470,000
SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION
3.400%
District: I.L.N.
Inflation Rate 3:0000%
Present Value Rate 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
1,470,000
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTD RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000% .
VACANT LAND 4.600%
BASE BASE
MARKET PROPERTY TAX
VALUE TYPE CAPACI
33-028 -243 -0010 1,470,000 A 49,980
CloverlpC .33-028 24-43 0015 114,000 r LC N/A
Cloverieef 33-028 -24-43 -0016 500,000 :. R.. r.i.;N /A
Cloverlear 3M28-2443-0017, 226,000 LC:' :. N /A.
Cloverleaf ..33-028- 24.43.0018 740,200 CC N /A' .
33-028 -2444 -0025 146,900 VL 6,757
33-028 - 24-44- 0026 94,700 CC 2,841
33-028 -24-44 -0027. 166,500 C 7,659
33-028-24-44-0028 91,800 CC 2,754
33-028 -24-44 -0028 87,500 R 1,030
33-028 -2444 -0073 147,300. CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0074 108,900 C 0
33 -028 -24- 44-0075 107,100 CC 0
33-028 -2444 -0076 119,700 CC 0
33-028 -2444 -0077 91,200 C 0
33-028 -2444 -0078 78,100 CC 0
33-028 -2444 -0080 283,500 CC 0
33-028 -24134 -0081 78,700 C 0
33-028 - 24444=2 91,200. C 0
33-028-24-44-0083 128,300 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0084 135,100 C 0
33-028 -24-44 -0085 87,200 CC 0
33-028 -24134 -0086 75,100 C 0
33-028 -24-44 -0087 230,600 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0088 128,400 CC 0
33-028 - 24-44- 0089 393,100 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0090 216,600 CC 0
33-028 - 2444-0091 110,600 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0092 53,800 C 0
33-028 -2444 -0093 53,800 C 0
33 -028 -24-44 -0094 100,300 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0095 55,400 CC 0
33 -028- 2444- 0095 64,000 R 0
33-028 -24-44 -0096 232,000 C 0
33-028 -2444 -0097 148,100 CC 0
33-028 -24- 4440099 295,100 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0100 221,100 C 0
33-028 -24-44 -0101 150,800' CC 0
7,622,700 71,021
RI100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - FRaie review all assumptions. CSM94A
03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE 1- $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2
Development Type
Annual
Market
Values
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Square Tax Taxes
Feet Capacity /S .Ft. Construct Payable
Retail Phase I A 2,849,600 45,000 131,082 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase 1 B 2,659,600 42,000 122,343 4.00 1994 19%
Retail Phase I C 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 19%
Retail D 0 0 0 4.00 199.4 19%
Retail C 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail E 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail F 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail G 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail H 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail 1 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail J 0 0 0 4.00 1994 19%
Retail K 0 0 0 4.00 1994 19%
Retail L 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail M 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail N 0 0 0 4,00 1994 1996
Retail O 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
TOTALS
0
7,092,300 112,000 326,248
169,991 5.0 02 -01 1999
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi - Annual Admin Semi - Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 0.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02 -01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08 -01 1994
0.5 08-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02 -01 1995
1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 1995
1.5 08-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02 -01 1996
2.0 02 -01 19% 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 2.5 08-01 1996
2.5 08-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226. 175,237 17,524 157,713 3.0 02 -01 1997
3.0 02 -01 1997 71,021 336,035 0 265,014 181,957 18,196 163,761 3.5 08-01 1997
3.5 08-01 1997 71,021 336,035 0 265,014 181,957 18,196 163,761 4.0 02 -01 1998
4.0 02 -01 1998 71,021 346,116 0 275,095 188,879 18,888 169,991 4.5 08-01 1998
4.5 08-01 1998 71,021 346,116 0 275,095 188,879 18,888 169,991 5.0 02 -01 1999
5.0 02 -01 1999 71,021 356,500 0 285,478 196,008 19,601 176,407 5.5 08-01 1999
5.5 08-01 1999 71,021 356,500 0 285,478 196,008 19,601 176,407 6.0 02 -01 2000
6.0 02 -01 2000 71,029 367,195 0 296,173 203,351 20,335 183,016 6.5 08-01 2000
6.5 08-01 2000 71,021 367,195 0 296,173 203,351 20,335 183,016 7.0 02 -01 2001
7.0 02 -01 2001 71,021 378,210 0 307,189 210,914 21,091 189,823 7.5 08-01 2001
7.5 08-01 2001 71,021 378,210 0 307,189 210,914 21,091 189,823 8.0 02 -01 2002
8.0 02 -01 2002 71,021 389,557 0 318,535 218,705 21,870 196,834 8.5 08-01 2002
8.5 08-01 2002 71,021 389,557 0 318,535 218,705 21,870 196,834 9.0 02 -01 2003
9.002-01 2003 71,021 401,243 0 330,222 226,729 22,673 204,056 9.5 08-01 2003
9.5 08-01 2003 71,021 401,243 0 330,222 226,729 22,673 204,056 10.0 02 -01 2004
10.0 02 -01 2004 71,021 413,281 0 342,259 234,994 23,499 211,494 10.5 08-01 2004
10.5 08-01 2004 71,021. 413,281 0 342,259 234,994 23,499 211,494 11.0 02 -01 2005
11.002-01 2005. 71,021 425,679 0 354,658 243,506 24,351 219,156 11.5 08-01 2005
11.5 08-01 2005 71,021 425,679 0 354,658 243,506 24,351 219,156 12.0 02 -01 2006
12.0 02 -01 2006 71,021 438,450 0 367,428 252,274 25,227 227,047 12.508-01 2006
12.5 08-01 2006 71,021 438,450 0 367,428 252,274 25,227 227,047 13.0 02 -01 2007
13.0 02 -01 2007 71,021 451,603 0 380,582 261,305 26,131 235,175 13.5 08-01 2007
13.5 08-01 2007 71,021 451,603 0 380,582 261,305 26,131 235,175 14.0 02 -01 2008
14.0 02 -01 2008 71,021 465,151 0 394,130 270,608 27,061 243,547 14.5 08-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 71,021 465,151 0 394,130 270,608 27,061 243,547 15.0 02 -01 2009
15.0 02 -01 2009 71,021 479,106 0 408,084 280,189 28,019 252,170 15.5 08-01 2009
15.508-01 2009 71,021 479,106 0 408,084 280,189 28,019 252,170. 16.002-01 2010
16.0 02 -01 2010 71,021 493,479 0 422,457 290,057 29,006 261,051 16.5 08-01 2010
16.508-01 2010 71,021 493,479 0 422,457 290,057 29,006 261,051 17.0 02 -01 2011
17.0 02 -01 2011 71,021 508,283 0 437,262 300,222 30,022 270,200 17.508-01 2011
17.5 08-01 2011 71,021 508,283 0 437,262 300,222 30,022 270,200. 18.002-01 2012
TOTALS 7,469,869 746,987 6,722,882
PRESENT VALUE 3,215,364 321,536 2,893,828
R1100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc.$Rtdase review all assumptions. CSM94A
03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE 1- $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION"
3.400%
District: I.L.N.
Inflation Rate 3.0000%
Present Value Rate 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTO RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000%
VACANT LAND 4.600%
PID
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
BASE
TAX
CAPACITY
33-028 -24- 43-0009 0 R 0
33-028 -24-43 -0010 1,470,000 A 49,980
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24- 43-0015. 114,000 LC N/A
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24- 43-0016 500,000 R N/A .:.:.::.
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24- 43-0017 226,000 LC N/A:.
Cloverleaf 33-028 24=43-0018 740,200 CC NIA.. _•
33-028 -24- 44.0025 146,900 VC 6,757
33-028 -24- 44-0026 94,700 CC 2,841
33-028 -24-44 -0027 166,500 C 7,659
33-028.24- 44-0028 91,800 CC 2,754
33-028 -24-44 -0028 87,500 R 1,030
33-028 - 2444.0073 147,300 CC 0
33-028 -2444 -0074 108,900 C 0
33-028 -24- 44-0075 107,100 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0076 119,700 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0077 91,200 C 0
33-028 -24- 44-0078 78,100 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0080 283,500 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0081 78,700 C 0
33-028 -24-44 -0082 91,200 C 0
33-028 -2444 -0083. 128,300 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0084 135,100 C 0
33-028 -24- 44.0085 87,200 CC 0
33-028 - 2444.0086 75,100 C 0
33-028 -2444-0087 230,600 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0088 128,400 CC 0 '
33-028 -24- 44-0089 393,100 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0090 216,600 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0091 110,600 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0092 53,800 C 0
33 -028 -24-44 -0093 53,800 C 0
33 -028 -24- 44-0094 100,300 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0095 55,400 CC 0
33-028- 24-44- 0095 64,000 R 0
33-028 - 2444 -0096 232,000 C 0
33-028 -24- 44-0097 148,100 CC 0
33-028 - 2444-0099 295,100 CC 0
33-028 - 2444-0100 221,100 C 0
33 -028 -24-44 -0101 150,800 CC 0
7,622, 700 71,021
R1100-18 . Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94A
03/16194 . City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project PHASE I - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2
Phase I
Phase I
Retail
B
C
D
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Market Square
Values Feet
2,849,600 45,000
2,659,600 42,000
1,583,100 25,000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7,092,300 112,000
Tax Taxes.
Construct
131,082 4.00 1994 19%
122,343 4.00 1994 19%
72.823 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 19%
0 4.00 1994 19%
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
326,248
71,021 71,021 0
R1100 -18
B -7
Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94A
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi - Annual Admin Semi - Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 15.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr,
0.0 02 -01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08 -01 1994
0.5 08-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02 -01 1995
1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 1995
1.508-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996
2.0 02 -01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 2.5 08-01 1996
2.5 08-01 1996 71,021 326,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,164 127,473 3.0 02 -01 1997
3.002-01 1997 71,021 336,035 50,405 214,608. 147,349 14,735 132,614 3.5 08-01 1997
3.5 08-01 1997 71,021 336,035 50,405 214,608 147,349 14,735 132,614 4.0 02 -01 1998
4.0 02 -01 1998 71,021 346,116 51,917 223,177 153,232 15,323 137,909 4.5 08-01 1998
4.5 08-01 1998 71,021 346,116 51,917 223,177 153,232 15,323 137,909 5.0 02 -01 1999
5.0 02 -01 1999 71,021 356,500 53,475 232,003 159,292 15,929 143,363 5.5 08 -01 1999
5.508-01 1999 71,021 356,500 53,475 232,003 159,292 15,929 143,363 60 02 -01 2000
6.002-01 2000 71,021 367,195 55,079 241,094 165,534 16,553 148,981 6.5 08-01 2000
6.5 08-0'1 2000 71,021 367,195 55,079 241,094 165,534 16,553 148,981 7.0 02 -01 2001
7.002-01 2001 71,021 378,210 56,732 250,457 171,963 17,196 154,767 7.5 08.01 2001
7.508-01 2001 71,021 378,210 56,732 250,457 171,963 17,196 154,767 8.002-01 2002
8.002-01 2002 71,021 389,557 58,434 260,102 178,585 17,858 160,726 8.5 08-01 2002
8.508-01 2002 71,021 389,557 58,434 260,102 178,585 17,858 160,726 9.0 02 -01 2003
9.002-01 2003 71,021 401,243 60,187 270,036 185,405 18,541 166,865 9.5 08-01 2003
9.5 08-01 2003 71,021 401,243 60,187 270,036 185,405 18,541 166,865 10.0 02 -01 2004
10.002-01 2004 71,021 413,281 61,992 280,267 192,430 19,243 173,187 10.5 08-01 2004
10.5 08-01 2004 71,021 413,281 61,992 280,267 192,430 19,243 173,187 11.0 02 -01 2005
11.0 02 -01 2005 71,021 425,679 63,852 290,806 199,666 19,967 179,699 11.5 08-01 2005
11.508-01 2005 71,021 425,679 63,852 290,806 199,666 19,967 179,699 12.0 02 -01 2006
12.0 02 -01 2006 71,021 438,450 65,767 301,661 207,119 20,712 186,407 12.5 08-01 2006
12.508-01 2006 71,021 438,450 65,767 301,661 207,119 20,712 186,407 13.002-01 2007
13.0 02 -01 2007 71,021 451,603 67,740 312,841 214,795 21,480 193,316 13.5 08-01 2007
13.5 08-01 2007 71,021 451,603 67,740 312,841 214,795 21,480 193,316 14.0 02 -01 2008
14.0 02 -01 2008 71,021 465,151 69,773. 324,357 222,702 22,270 200,432 14.5 08-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 71,021 465,151 69,773 324,357 222,702 22,270 200,432 15.0 02 -01 2009
15.002-01 2009 71,021 479,106 71,866 336,218 230,846 23,085 207,761 15.5 08-01 2009
15.5 08-01 2009 71,021 479,106 71,866 336,218 230,846 23,085 207,761 16.0 02 -01 2010
16.002-01 2010 71,021 493,479 74,022 348,436 239,234 23,923 215,311 16.5 08-01 2010
16.5 08-01 2010 71,021 493,479 74,022 348,436 239,234 23,923 215,311 17.0 02 -01 2011
17.0 02 -01 2011 71,021 508,283 76,242 361,019 247,874 24,787 223,087 17.5 08-01 2011
17.5 08-01 2011 71,021 508,283 76,242 361,019 247,874 24,787 223,087 18.0 02 -01 2012
TOTALS 6,115,326 611,533 5,503,794
PRESENT VALUE 2,625,814 262,581 2,363,233
R1100 -18
B -7
Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94A
PHASE II
With Fiscal Disparities Election Change)
Im
03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 -.3% Inflation Page 1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION
3.400%
District: LL.N.
Inflation Rate 3.0000%
Present Value Rate. 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTD RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000%
VACANT LAND 4.600%
PID
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE
BASE
TAX
CAPACITY
33-028 -24-43 -0009 0 R 0
33-028 - 2443-0010 1,470,000 A 0
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24-43 -0015 114,000 LC., N/A
Cloverleaf 33-028- 24=43-0016 50.000 R N/A
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24- 43-0017: 226,000 LC: NIA
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24-43 -0018 740,200 CC N/A
33-028- 2444 -0025 146,900 VL 0
33-028 -24- 44-0026 94,700 CC 0
33-028- 24- 44-0027. 166,500 C 0
33. 028 -24-44 -0028 91,800 CC 0
33-028 -24- 44-0028 87,500 R 0
33-028 -24- 44-0073 147,300 CC 5,176
33-028 -24-44 -0074 108,900 C 5,009
33-028 -24- 44-0075 107,100 CC 3,327
33-028 -2444 -0076 119,700 CC 3,906
33-028 - 2444 -0077 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 -2444 -0078 78,100 CC 2,343
33-028 -24-44 -0080 283,500 CC 11,441
33-028 -24- 44-0081 78,700 C 3,620
33-028 -24- 44-0082 91,200. C 4,195
33-028 -24- 44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302
33-028 -24- 44-0084 135,100 C 6,215
33-028 -24- 44-0085 87,200 CC 2,616
33-028 -24-44 -0086 75,100 C 3,455.
33-028 - 2444 -0087 230,600 CC 9,008
33-028 -24- 44-0088 128,400 CC 4,306
33 -028 -24-44 -0089 393,100 CC 16,483
33-028 -2444 -0090 216,600 CC 8,364
33-028 -24-44 -0091 110,600 CC 3,488
33-028 -24- 44-0092 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24-44 -0093 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 - 24-44-0094 100,300 CC 3,014
33-028 -24- 44-0095 55,400 CC 1,662
33 -028 -24- 44-0095 64,000 R 640
33-028 -24-44 -0096 232,000 C 10,672
33-028- 24- 44-0097 148,100 CC 5,213
33-028 - 24-44- 0099 295,100 CC 11,975
33-028 -24- 44-0100 221,100 C 10,171
33-028 -24-44 -0101 150,800 CC 5,337
7,622,700 155,079
IM
R1100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C
03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase 11 - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2
Development Type
1994
Market
Values
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Square Tax Taxes
Feet Capacity /Sq. Ft. Construct Payable
Retail Phase I A 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase 1 B 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase I C 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II 0 2,216,400 35,000 101,952 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II C 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II E 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II F 1,293,400 20,425 59,497 ' 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II G 854,900 13,500 39,324 4.00 1994 1996
Retail H 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail 1 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail J 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail K 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail L 0 0 0 4.00 1994 19961
Retail M 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail N 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail 0 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
TOTALS
378,542
7,530,900 118,925 346,420
15,343 138,086 7.0 02 -01
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi - Annual Admin Semi - Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Caoacitv 0.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.5 08-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02 -01 1995
1.002-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 1995
1.5 08-01- 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02 -01 1996
2.002-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 08-01 1996
2.5 08-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 02 -01 1997
3.0 02 -01 1997 155,079 346,420 0 191,340 131,373 13,137 118,236 3.5 08-01 1997
3.5 08-01 1997 155,079 346,420 0 191,340 131,373 13,137 118,236 4.0 02 -01 1998
4.0 02 -01 1998 1.55,079 356,812 0 201,733 138,509 13,851 124,658 4.5 08-01 1998
4.5 08-01 1998 155,079 356,812 0 201,733 138,509 13,851 124,658 5.0 02 -01 1999
5.0 02 -01 1999 155,079 367,517 0 212,437 145,858 14,586 131,272 5.5 08-01 1999
5.5 08-01 1999 155,079 367,517 0 212,437 145,858 14,586 131,272 6.0 02 -01 2000
6.0 02 -01 2000 155,079 378,542 0 223,463 153,428 15,343 138,086 6.5 08-01 2000
6.5 08-01 2000 155,079 378,542 0 223,463 153,428 15,343 138,086 7.0 02 -01 2001
7.0 02 -01 2001 155,079 389,898 0 234,819 161,226 16,123 145,103 7.5 08-01 2001
7.5 08-01 2001 155,079 389,898 0 234,819 161,226 16,123 145,103 8.0 02 -01 2002
8.0 02 -01 2002 155,079 401,595 0 246,516 169,257 16,926 152,331 8.5 08-01 2002
8.5 08-01 2002 155,079 401,595 0 246,516 169,257 16,926 152,331 9.0 02 -01 2003
9.0 02 -01 2003 155,079 413,643 0 258,564 177,529 17,753 159,776 9.5 08-01 2003
9.5 08-01 2003 155,079 413,643 0 258,564 177,529 17,753. 159,776 10.0 02 -01 2004
10.0 02 -01 2004 155,079 426,052 0 270,973 186,049 18,605 167,444 10.5 08-01 2004
10.5 08-01 2004 155,079 426,052 0 270,973 186,049 18,605 167,444 11.0 02 -01 2005
11.0 02 -01 2005 155,079 438,834 0 283,755 194,825 19,482 175,342 11.5 08-01 2005
11.5 08-01 2005 155,079 438,834 0 283,755 194,825 19,482 175,342 12.0 02 -01 2006
12.0 02 -01 2006 155,079 451,999 0 296,920 203,864 20,386 183,477 12.5.08-01 2006
12.5 08-01 2006 155,079 451,999 0 296,920 203,864 20,386 183,477 13.002-01 2007
13.0 02 -01 2007 155,079 465,559 0 310,480 213,174 21,317 191,856 13.508-01 2007
13.5 08-01 2007 155,079 465,559 0 310,480 213,174 21,317 191,856 14.002-01 2008
14.0 02 -01 2008 155,079 479,526 0 324,446 222,763 22,276 200,487 14.508-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 155,079 479,526 0 324,446 222,763 22,276 200,487 15.002-01 2009
15.0 02 -01 2009 155,079 493,912 0 338,832 232,640 23,264 209,376 15.508-01 2009
15.5 08-01 2009 155,079 493,912 0 338,832 232,640 23,264 209,376 16.002-01 2010
16.0 02 -01 2010 155,079 508,729 0 353,650 242,814 24,281 218,533 16.508-01 2010
16.5 08-01 2010 955,079 508,729 0 353,650 242,814 24,281 218,533 17.002-01 2011
17.0 02 -01 2011 155,079 523;991 0 368,911 253,293 25,329 227,963 17.5-08-01 2011
17.5 08-01 2011 155,079 523,991 0 368,911 253,293 25,329 227,963 18.002-01 20121
TOTALS 5,653,201 565,320 5,087 881
PRESENT VALUE 2,292,606 229,261 2,063,345
O
R11OD -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C
03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1
SHADED AREAS MAY'REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION
Distract: I.L.N.
Inflation Rate 3.0000%
Present Value Rate 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of.Tl Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE '
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTD RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000%
VACANT LAND 4.600%
PID
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY
VALUE TYPE '
BASE
TAX
CAPACITY
33-028 -24- 43-0009 0 R 0
33-028 -24- 43-0010 1,470,000 A 0
cloverleaf 33-028 -24-43 -0015 114,000 LC
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24-43 - 0016.. 500,000 R NIA
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24=43 -0017 226,000 LC . N/A
Cloverleaf 33-028 -24-43 -0018 740,200 CC N/A
33-028 -24- 44-0025 146,900 VL 0
33-028 - 2444-0026 94,700 CC 0
33-028 - 2444-0027 166.500 C 0
33-028 -24- 44-0028 91,800 CC 0
33-028 -24-44 -0028 87,500 R 0
33-028 -2444 -0073 147,300 CC 5,176
33-028 -24-44 -0074 108,900 C 5,009
33-028 -24-44 -0075 107,100 CC 3,327
33-028 -24- 44-0076 119,700 CC 3,906
33-028 -24- 44-0077 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 - 2444-0078 78,100 CC 2,343
33-028 -2444-0080 283,500 CC 11,441
33-028 - 2444 -0081 78,700 C 3,620
33-028 -24-44 -0082 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 -24- 44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302
33-028 -24-44 -0084 135.100 C 6,215
33-028 -24-44 -0085 87,200 CC 2,616
33-028 -2444 -0086 75,100 C 3,455
33-028 - 2444-0087 230,600 CC 9,008
33-028 -24-44 -0088 128,400 CC 4,306-
33-028 -24-44 -0089 393,100 CC 16,483
33-028 -24-44 -0090 216,600 CC 8,364
33-028 -24-44 -0091 110,600 CC 3,488
33-028 -2444 -0092 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24-44 -0093 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24- 44-0094 100,300 CC 3,014
33-028 -24-44 -0095 55,400 CC 1,662
33-028 - 2444 - 0095 64,000 R 640
33-028 -24-44 -0096 232,000 C 10,672
33-028 -24- 44-0097 148,100 CC 5,213
33-028 - 2444- 0099 295,100 CC 11,975
33-028 -24-44 -0100 221,100 C 10,171
33-028 -24- 44-0101 150,800 CC 5,337
7,622 700 155,079
B -12
RI100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C
03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2
Development'Type
TaxesMarket
Values
Square
Feet
Retail Phase I A 0 0
Retail Phase 1 B 0 0
Retail Phase 1 C 0 0
Retail Phase II D 2,216,400 35,000
Retail. Phase II C 1,583,100 25,000
Retail Phase II E 1,583,100 25,000
Retail Phase II F 1,293,400 20,425
Retail Phase II G 854,900 13,500
Retail H 0 0
Retail 1 0 0
Retail 1 0 0
Retail K 0 0
Retail L 0 0
Retail M 0 0
Retail N 0 0
Tax Taxes
apacity Sq.Ft. Construct Payable
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
101,952 4.00 1994 1996
72,823 4.00 1994 1996
72.823 4.00 1994 19961
59,497 4.00 1994 19961
39,324 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4:00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
0 4.00 1994 1996
RI100 -18
B -13
Prepared by Pubiicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi - Annual Admin Semi - Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Ca aci Capacity 15:00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02 -01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 1994
0.508-01 1994 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995
1.002-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 1995
1.508-01 1995 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 1996
2.0 02 -01 19% 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 2.508-01 1996
2.5 08-01 1996 155,079 155,079 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 02 -01 1997
3.0 02 -01 1997 155,079 346,420 51,963 139,377 95,696 9,570 86,126 3.5 08-01 1997
3.5 08-01 1997 155,079 346,420 51,963 139,377 95,696 9,570 86,126 4.0 02 -01 1998
4.0 02 -01 1998 155,079 356,812 53,522 148,211 101,761 10,176 91,585 4.5 08-01 1998
4.5 08-01 1998 155,079 356,812 53,522 148,211 101,761 10,176 91,585 5.0 02 -01 1999
5.002-01 1999 155,079 367,517 55,127 157,310 108,008 10,801 97,207 5.508-01 1999
5.5 08-01 1999 155,079 367,517 55,127 157,310 108,008 10,801 97,207 6.0 02 -01 2000
6.0 02 -01 2000 155,079. 378,542 56,781 166,681 114,443 11,444 102,998 6.5 08-01 2000
6.5 08-01 2000 155,079 378,542 56,781 166,681 114,443 11,444 102,998 7.0 02 -01 2001
7.002-01 2001 155,079 389,898 58,485 176,334 121,070 12,107 108,963 7.5 08-01 2001
7.5 08-01 2001 155,079 389,898 58,485 176,334 121,070 12,107 108,963 8.0 02 -01 2002
8.0 02 -01 2002 155,079 401,595 60,239 186,277 127,897 12,790 115,107 8.5 08-01 2002
8.5 08-01 2002 155,079 401,595 60,239 186,277 127,897 12,790 115,107 9.0 02 -01 2003
9.0 02 -01 2003 155,079 413,643 62,046 196,517 134,928 13,493 121,435 9.5 08 -01 2003
9.5 08-01 2003 155,079 413,643 62,046 196,517 134,928 13,493 121,435 10.0 02 -01 2004
10.0 02 -01 2004 155,079 426,052 63,908 207,065 142,170 14,217 127,953 10.5 08-01 2004
10.5 08-01 2004 155,079 426,052 63,908 207,065 142,170 14,217 127,953 11.0 02 -01 2005
11.0 02 -01 2005 155,079 438,834 65,825 217,930 149,629 14,963 134,666 11.5 08-01 2005
11.5 08-01 2005 155,079 438,834 65,825 217,930 149,629 14,963 134,666 12.0 02 -01 2006
12.002-01 2006 155,079 451,999 67,800 229,120 157,313 15,731 141,581 12.5 08-01 2006
12.5 08.01 2006 155,079 451,999 67,800 229,120 157,313 15,731 141,581 13.0 02 -01 2007
13.0 02 -01 2007 155,079 465,559 69,834 240,646 165,226 16,523 148,704 13.5 08-01 2007
13.508-01 2007 155,079 465,559 69,834 240,646 165,226 16,523 148,704 14.0 02 -01 2008
14.0 02 -01 2008 155,079 479,526 71,929 252,518 173,377 17,338 156,040 14.5 08-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 155,079 479,526 71,929' 252,518 173,377 17,338 156,040 15.0 02 -01 2009
15.0 02 -01 2009 155,079 493,912 74,087 264,745 181,773 18,177 163,596 15.5 08-01 2009
15.5 08-01 2009 155,079 493,912 74,087 264,745 181,773 18,177 163,596 16.0 02 -01 2010
16.0 02 -01 2010 155,079 508,729 76,309 277,340 190,420 19,042 171,378 16.5 08-01 2010
16.5 08-01 2010 155,079 508,729 76,309 277,340 190,420 19,042 171,378 17.0 02 -01 2011
17.0 02 -01 2011 155,079 523,991 78,599 290,313 199,327 19,933 179,395 17.5 08-01 2011
17.5 08-01 2011 155,079 523,991 78,599 290,313 199,327 19,933 179,395 18.0 02 -01 2012
TOTALS 4,326,076 432,608 3,893,468
PRESENT VALUE 1,739,951 173,995 1,565,956
RI100 -18
B -13
Prepared by Pubiicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94C
PHASE V& PHASE II
With Fiscal Disparities Election Change)
B -14
03116/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION
District: I.L.N.
Inflation Rate 3.0000%
Present Value Rate 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 0.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
1,470,000
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTD RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000%
VACANT LAND 4.600%
BASE BASE
MARKET PROPERTY TAX
PID VALUE TYPE CAPACITY
33-028 -24-43 -0010 1,470,000 A 49,9.80
33- 028 -24- 43-0015 114,000 LC N/A :.
33-028 -24-43 -0016 .' 500,000 R NIA
33-028 -24113 -0017 226,000 L.C. N/A .
33-028 -24- 43-0018 740,200 CC N/A-
33-028-24-44-0025 146,900 VL 6,757
33-028 - 24-44- 0026 94,700 CC 2,841
33-028 -24-44 -0027 166,500 C 7,659
33-028 - 2444-0028 91,800 CC 2,754
33-028 -24- 44-0028 87,500 R 1,030
33-028 -24-44 -0073 147,300 CC 5,176
33-028 -24- 44-0074 108,900 C 5,009
33 -028 -24-44 -0075 107,100 CC 3,327
33-028 -24-44 -0076 119,700 CC 3,906
33-028 -24-44 -0077 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 -24-44 -0078 78,100 CC 2,343
33-028 -24-44 -0080 283,500 CC 11,441
33-028.24 -44 -0081 78,700 C 3,620
33-028 -24-44 -0082 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 -24- 44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302
33-028 -24-44 -0084 135,100 C 6,215
33-028 -24- 44-0085 87,200 CC 2,616
33-028 -24- 44-0086 75,100 C 3,455
33-028 -24-44 -0087 230,600 CC 9,008
33-028 -24- 44-0088 128,400 CC 4,306
33-028 -24-44 -0089 393,100 CC 16,483
33-028 -24-44 -0090 216,600 CC 8,364
33-028 -24-44 -0091 110,600 CC 3,488
33-028 -24-44 -0092 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24-44 -0093 53,800 C 2,475
33 -028 -2444 -0094 100,300 CC 3,014
33-028 -24- 44-0095 55,400 CC 1,662
33-028 -24-44 -0095 64,000 R 640
33-028 -24-44 -0096 232,000 C 10,672
33-028 -24-44 -0097 148,100 CC 5,213
33-028 -24-44 -0099 295,100 CC 11,975
33-028 - 2444 -0100 221,100 C 10,171
33-028 - 2444-0101 150.800 CC 5.337
R1100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F
03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase 1 And 11 - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 2
Development Type
Market
Values
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Square Tax Taxes
Feet Capacity /S .Ft. Construct Payable
Retail Phase I A 2,849,600 45,000 131,082 4.00 1994 19%
Retail Phase I B 2,659,600 42,000 122,343 4.00 1994 19%
Retail Phase I C 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase 11 D 2,216,400 35,000 101,952 4.00 1994 19%
Retail Phase II C 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II E 1,583,100 25,000 72,823 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase 11 F 1,293,400 20,425 59,497 4.00 1994 1996
Retail Phase II G 854,900 13,500 39,324 4.00 1994 1996
Retail H 0 0 0 4.00 1994 ' 1996
Retail 1 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail J 0 0 0 4.00 1994 19%
Retail K 0 0 0 4.00. 1994 1996
Retail L 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail M 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail N 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
Retail O 0 0 0 4.00 1994 1996
TOTALS
320,466
14,623,200 230,925 672,667
1998
4.5 08-01 1998
RI100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dis. Captured Semi - Annual Admin Semi - Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity 0.00% Capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02 -01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 1994
0.5 08-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02 -01 1995
1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 08-01 1995
1.508-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.002-01 19%
2.002-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 2.5 08-01 1996
2.5 08-01 1996 71,021 326,248 0 255,226 175,237 17,524 157,713 3.0 02 -01 1997
3.0 02 -01 1997 226,101 672,667 0 446,566 306,610 30,661 275,949 3.5 08-01 1997
3.5 08-01 1997 226,101 672,667 0 446,566 306,610 30,661 275,949 4.0 02 -01 1998
4.0 02 -01 1998 226,101 692,847 0 466,747 320,466 32,047 288,419 4.5 08-01 1998
4.5 08-01 1998 226,101 692,847 0 466,747 320,466 32,047 288,419 5.0 02 -01 1999
5.0 02 -01 1999 226,101 713,633 0 487,532 334,737 33,474 301,263 5.5 08-01 1999
5.5 08-01 1999 226,101 713,633 0 487,532 334,737 33,474 301,263 6.0 02 -01 2000
6.0 02 -01 2000 226,101 735,042 0 508,941 349,436 34,944 314,493 6.5 08-01 2000
6.5 08-01 2000 226,101 735,042 0 508,941 349,436 34,944 314,493 7.0 02 -01 2001
7.0 02 -01 2001 226,101 757,093 0 530,992 364,577 36,458 328,119 7.5 08-01 2001
7.5 08-01 2001 226,101 757,093 0 530,992 364,577 36,458 328,119 8.0 02 -01 2002
8.0 02 -01 2002 226,101 779,806 0 553,705 380,171 38,017 342,154 8.5 08-01 2002
8.5 08-01 2002 226,101 779,806 0 553,705 380,171 38,017 342,154 9.0 02-01 2003
9.002-01 2003 226,101 803,200 0 577,099 396,233 39,623 356,610 9.5 08-01 2003
9.508-01 2003 226,101 803,200 0 577,099 396,233 39,623 356,610 10.0 02 -01 2004
10.0 02 -01 2004 226,101 827,296 0 601,195 412,778 41,278 371,500 10.5 08-01 2004
10.5 08-01 2004 226,101 827,296 0 601,195 412,778 41,278 371,500 11.0 02 -01 2005
11.002-01 2005 226,101 852,115 0 626,014 429,818 42,982 386,836 11.5 08-01 2005
11.5 08-01 2005 226,101 852,115 0 626,014 429,818 42,982 386,836 12.0 02 -01 2006
12.0 02 -01 2006 226,101 877,678 0 651,577 447,370 44,737 402,633 12.5 08-01 2006
12.5 08-01 2006 226,101 877,678 0 651,577 447,370 44,737 402,633 13.0 02 -01 2007
13.002-01 2007 226,101 904,009 0 677,908 465,448 46,545 418,903 13.5 08-01 2007
13.5 08-01 2007 226,101 904,009 0 677,908 465,448 46,545 418,903 14.0 02 -01 2008
14.0 02 -01 2008 226,101 931,129 0 705,028 484,069 48,407 435,662 14.5 08-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 226,101 931,129 0 705,028 484,069 48,407 435,662 15.0 02 -01 2009
15.0 02 -01 2009 226,101 959,063 0 732,962 503,248 50,325 452,923 15.5 08-01 2009
15.5 08-01 2009 226,101 959,063 0 732,962 503,248 50,325 452,923 16.0 02 -01 2010
16.002-01 2010 226,101 987,835 0 761,734 523,003 52,300 470,702 16.5 08-01 2010
16.5 08-01 2010 226,101 987,835 0 761,734 523,003 52,300. 470,702 17.0 02 -01 2011
17.002-01 2011 226,101 1,017,470 0 791,369 543,350 54,335 489,015 17.5 08-01 2011
17.5 08-01 2011 226,101 1,017,470 0 791,369 543,350 54,335 489,015. 18.0 02 -01 2012
TOTALS 12,873,101 1,287,310 11,585,790
PRESENT VALUE 5,403,876 540,388 4,863,488
RI100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F
PHASE I & PHASE II
ithout Fiscal Disparities Election Change)
B -17
03/16/94 City of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And II - $4.00 - 3% Inflation Page 1
SHADED AREAS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION
District: I.L.N.
Inflation Rate 3.0000%
Present Value Rate 8.50%
Fiscal Disp. Contribution Ratio 15.0000%
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate 1.373190
Year District Created: Nov. 1985
First Year of Increment: June 1987
Last Date of TI Payment: June 2011
PROPERTY TAX CLASS RATES - PAY 1994
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY'
VALUE TYPE
APARTMENT 3.400%
COMMERCIAL: FULL MV 4.600%
COMMERCIAL <100K 3.000%
COMMERCIAL >100K 4.600%
NONHMSTD RESID 2.300%
HOMSTD RESID <72K 1.000%
HOMSTD RESID <72K -115K 2.000%
HOMSTD RESID 115K+ 2.000%
VACANT LAND 4.600%
PID
BASE TAX CAPACITY
BASE
MARKET PROPERTY'
VALUE TYPE
BASE
TAX
CAPACITY
33-028 -24-43 -0009 0 R 0
33-028 -24-43 -0010 1,470,000 A 49,980
Cioverleai 33-028 -24-43 0015. 114,000. N/A.
cicoerleat . ; 33-028 -24- 43-0016 500,000 R<, NlA
Cloverleaf 33-028 =24 -03 -0017 226,000 LC.. NIA
Cloverleaf' .33-028-24-43-0018 740;200 CC N/A ,
33-028-2444-0025 146,900 VL 6,757.
33-028 -24-44 -0026 94,700 CC 2,841
33-028 -24-44 -0027 166,500 C 7,659
33-028 -24-44 -0028 91,800 CC 2,754
33-028 -24-44 -0028 87,500 R 1,030
33-028 -2444 -0073 147,300 CC 5,176
33-028 -24 -44-0074 108,900 C 5,009
33-028- 2444-0075 107,100 CC 3,327
33-028 -24-44 -0076 119,700 CC 3,906
33-028 - 2444-0077 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 - 2444-0078 78,100 CC 2,343
33-028 -2444 -0080 283,500 CC 11,441
33-028 -24- 44-0081 78,700 C 3,620
33-028 - 24-44 -0082 91,200 C 4,195
33-028 -24- 44-0083 128,300 CC 4,302
33-028 -24-44 -0084 135,100 C 6,215
33-028 -24- 444085 87,200 CC 2,616
33-028 -2444-0086 75,100 C 3,455
33-028 -24-44 -0087 230,600 CC 9,008-
33-028-24-44-M 128,400 CC 4,306
33-028 -24-44 -0089 393,100 CC 16,483
33-028 -24-44 -0090 216,600 CC 8,364
33-028 -24-44 -0091 110,600 CC 3,488
33-028 -24-44 -0092 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24- 440093 53,800 C 2,475
33-028 -24- 44-0094 100,300 CC 3,014
33-028 -24-44 -0095 55,400 CC 1,662
33-028 -24- 44-0095 64,000 R 640
33-028 -24-44 -0096 232,000 C 10,672
33-028 -24-44 -0097 148,100 CC 5,213
33-028 - 24-44- 0099 295,100 CC 11,975
33-028 -24-44 -0100 221,100 C 10,171
33-028 - 2444-0101 150,800 CC 5,337
7,622,700 226,101
B -18
R1100 -18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Please review all assumptions. CSM94F
03/16/94 Clry of Richfield - C.S.M. Project Phase I And It - 64.00 - 3% Inflation Pape 2
PROJECY VAL1l MFORMAT15R
pmant TyiV
Phase I
Phase I B
Phase I C
Phase 11 D
Phase If C
Phase II E
Phase If F
N
0
Market Square Tea Taxes
Captured Semi- Annual
Values Feet Capacity- Construct. Payable
8• dv ;GOO 1,
Sq_171.
Sea r g
2,859,600 42,000 122,343 4;00' 1094 1908
1,583,100 25,000 72,823:'. 4,00 1994 1996
2,216,400 35,000 101,952 4,00 1094 1996
1,583,100 25,000 72,623 00 1994 1908
1,583,100 26,000 72,823 f0. 1994 1096
1,293,400 20,425 69,497 4 ;00 1904 19%
854,900 13,500 39,324 4,00: 1994 1096
0 D 0 4,00: 1994 1996
0 0 0 1:00. 1994 1996
0 0 0 i i.! :::: `x:00 1994 10%
0 0 0. 4.:00: 19W 1994 19%
0 0 0 A00' 1994 1996
0 0 0 1994 1996
0 0 0'.; 4.00 1994 1906
0 0 0'. 1',,Q0 . 1994 1096
14,623,200
237,333
872,887
213,600 4.002-01
TAX NCREMENT CASHFLOW
Beginning Period Annual Project Fis. Dls. Captured Semi- Annual Admin Seml- Annual Ending Period
Base Tax Tax Tax Capacity Tax Gross Tax Payment Net Tax
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Ca acl Cepaci1 -0091 capacity Increment 10.00% Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr.
50.0 0 4 71,021 71,021 t5.. 0 0 Ol-01. 1W
0.608-01 1994 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 1.002-01 1995
1.002-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 O 0 1.606-01 1995
1.608-01 1995 71,021 71,021 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02 -01 1996
2.0 02 -01 1996 71,021 320,248 48,937 206,289 141,637 14,184 127,473 2.508-01 1996
2.5 0"1 1996 71,021 326,248 46,937 206,269 141,637 14,164 127,473 3.002-01 1997
3.0 02 -01 1997 228,101 672,667 1,00,000 345,666 237,333 23,733 213,800 3.608-01 1997
3.508-01 1997 226,101 672,667 100,900 345,666 237,333 23,733 213,600 4.002-01 1998
4,0 02 -01 1998 226,101 692,847 103,927 362,819 249,110 24,911 224,199 4.508-01 1998
4.6 08 -01 1998 226.101 692,847 103,927 382,819 249,110 24,011 224,199 6.002-01 1999
5.0 02.01 1999 226,101 713,633 107,045 380,487 261,240 26,124 235,116 6.6 08-01 199D
5.5 08-01 1999 226,101 713,633 107,045 380,487 261,240. 26,124 235,116 6,002-01 2000
8,0 02 -01 2000 226,101. 735,042 110,256 198,685 273,735 27,373 246,361 8.508-01 2000
8,5 08.01 2000 228,101 735,042 110,256 398,685 273,735 27,373 248,361 7.002-01 2001
7.002-01 2001 226,101 757,093 113,584 417,428 286,604 28,660 257,944 7.5 08-01 2001
7.5 08-01 2001 226,101 757,093 113,564 417,428 288,604 28,660 257,944 8.002-01 2002
8.002-01 2002 226,101 779,806 116,971 436,734 299,859 20,986 269,673 8.5 08-01 2002
8.5 08-01 2002 226,101 779,806 116,971 438.734 299,859 29,986 289,873 9.0 02-M 2003
9.002-01 2003 226,101 803,200 120,480 456,619 313,512 31,951 282,161 0,5 OB-01 2003
9.5 08-01 2003 228,101 803,200 120,480 468,810 313,512 31,361 282,181 10.002 , M 2004
10.0 02 -01 2004 226,101 827,296 124,094 477,101 327,575 32,767 294,817 10.5 08.01 2004
10.5 M01 2004 226,101 827,290 124,094 471,101 327,675 92,757 294,817 11,002-01 2005
11,0 02 -01 2005 226,101 852,115 127,617 408,197 342,059 34,206 307,853 11.508-01 2005
11.5 08.01 2005 228,101 852,115 127,817 498,197 342,059 34,208 307,853 12.002-01 2008
12,0 02.01 2008 226,101. 877,678 131,652 519,928 356,978 35,698 321,281 12.508-01 2008
12.8 09.01 2008 226,101 877,678 131,852 519,028 356,978 35,698 321,281 13,0 02.01 2007
13.002-01 2007 226,101 004.00D 135,601 642,307 372,346 37,234 335,110 13.5 08-01 2007
13-608-01 2007' 226,101 904,009 135,801 542,307 372,345 37,234 336,110 14.0 02 -01 2008
14.002-01 2008 226,101 931,129 139 ,669 685,359 388,172 38,817 349,355 14.5 08-01 2008
14.5 08-01 2008 226,101 931,129 139,669 685,359 388,172 38,817 340,355 15.002-01 2009
15.002-01 2009 228,101 959,063 143,859 689,103 404,475 40,447 384,027 16.5 08-01 2009
15,5 08 -01 2009 226,101 959,063 143,859 689,103 404,475 40,447 364,027 18.002-01 2010
16-002-01 2010 226,101 987,835 146,175 613,659 421,266 42,127 570,140 16.508-01 2010
16.508-01 2010 226,101 987,835 148,175 613,559 421,288 42,127 370,140 17.0 02-01 2011
17,002-01 2011 226,101 1,017,470 152,820 638,748 438,561 43,858 394,705 17.608-01 2011
17.5 0801 2011 28,101 1017470
TOitC§ '
152,620 638,74.0_ 438 56.1 43 394,705
022 8933 035
18.0 02 -01 2013
S.I:NTVALIj
228 92 9
277.284 427,7 8 3.840,666
B -19
R1100.18 Prepared by Publicorp Inc. - Pkme review an assumptions, CSM04F
APPENDIX C
IMPACTS ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS
C -1
IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS - With Fiscal Disparities Election Change
The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment
assistance provided to a proposed development project impacts taxing jurisdictions; (b.) determine
the level of impact as it relates to tax base; and (c.) determine the amount of taxes a taxing entity
would need to levy in order to increase their respective tax base by the amount the project brings
in absent the project.
If the "But For" test were not met, construction would not occur. That is, without the creation
and existence of the tax increment district, construction would not occur because the cost of
developing the proposed project by a private developer would be prohibitive. Acceptable rates of
return on project investment could not be met and risk would be too high. Development would
not move forward. Construction would not occur without the assistance of the city. In light of
this, the impact to taxing jurisdictions would be $0. Foregone would be the benefits of a new
construction project, increase overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact
of the IL,N Tax Increment District would be as follows if the project were built without tax
increment financing:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax
rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes
column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if
the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing
the project.
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Entity's
Captured
of Captured
Taxing Entity
Total Net Captured Tax Capacity
Taxing Entity Tax Ca aci Tax Ca aci To Enti Total
Hennepin County 813,900,929 446,566 0..055%
City of Richfield 16,794,256 446,566 2.659%
School District 280 24,250,257 446,566 1.841%
The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax
rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes
column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if
the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing
the project.
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education
upon school district funding.
C -3
Current Captured Potential
Taxing Entity Tax Rate Tax Capacity Taxes
Hennepin County 37.441 446,566 167,199
City of Richfield 26.164 446,566 116,840
School District 280 66.190 446,566 295,582.
Other 7.524 446,566 33,600
Total 137.319 446,566 613,220
In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education
upon school district funding.
C -3
IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS - Without Fiscal Disparities Election Change
The purpose of analyzing impacts on taxing jurisdictions is to (a.) determine how tax increment
assistance provided to a proposed development project impacts taxing jurisdictions; (b.) determine
the level of impact as it relates to tax base; and (c) determine the amount of taxes a taxing entity
would need to levy in order to increase their respective tax base by the amount the project brings
in absent the project.
If the 'But For" test were not met, construction would not occur. That is, without the creation
and existence of the tax increment district, construction would not occur because the cost of
developing the proposed project by a private developer would be prohibitive. Acceptable rates of
return on project investment could not be met and risk would be too high. Development would
not move forward. Construction would not occur without the assistance of the city. In light of
this, the impact to taxing jurisdictions would be $0. Foregone would be the benefits of a new
construction project, increase overall tax base, and other project objectives. The estimated impact
of the ILN Tax Increment District would be as follows if the project were built without tax
increment financing:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax
rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes
column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if
the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing
the project.
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Entity's
Captured
of Captured
Taxin Entity
Total Net Captured Tax Capacity
Taxing Entity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity To Enti Total
Hennepin County 813,900,929 345,666 0.042%
City of Richfield 16,794,256 446,566 2.058%
School District 280 24,250,257 446,566 1.425%
The following table displays captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax
rates and tax capacities are the payable 1994 figures for all jurisdictions. The potential taxes
column is the estimate of the amount of taxes each jurisdiction would theoretically have to raise if
the goal of taxing entities was to raise tax base equal to that of the project without constructing
the project.
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Hennepin County
Current Captured Potential
Taxin Entity Tax Rate Tax Ca aci Taxes
Hennepin County 37.441 345,666 129,421
City of Richfield 26.164 345,666 90,440
School District 280 66.190 345,666 228,796
Other 7.524 345,666 26,008
Total 137.319 345,666 474,665
In addition, the impact on the school district does not include the effect of state aid for education
upon school district funding.
C -5
CRY Of R10HRELD
mmnm oommssion
Lotter
Item: #5 Agenda Section: New Business
PC Letter: #11 Date: April 12, 1994
GENERAL INFORMATION
Subject Property: That area bounded by 77th Street on the north, Lyndale Avenue on the east, I-
494 on the south, and Emerson Avenue on the west, except for 7700 Lyndale
Avenue South (Conoco).
Subject: Acquisition and disposition of subject property by the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA), with respect to the CSM proposal.
Type of Request: Consideration of a resolution finding that the proposed use of the subject
property is in conformance with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan.
References: Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever any public
agency buys or sells property within the City, the Planning Commission must
review the proposed use of the site for consistency with the city's
comprehensive plan.
BACKGROUND
Proposed Zoning: PC -2 (planned general commercial)
Comp. Plan Freeway strip
Proposed Use: mixed land use of retail and restaurant
Public Notice: Not required
City Council: Planning Commission approval would facilitate the acquisition /disposition of
this property by the Council in a timely manner.
ANALYSIS
Issues: The CSM proposal would redevelop the subject property, pursuant to the
Planned Unit Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended
Action:
Preferred: Adopt the attached resolution, finding that the proposed acquisition /disposition
and use of the subject property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Basis: 1. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject property is designated for
freeway strip uses.
2. Establishment of a PUD district would result in conformance to all zoning
regulations.
Alternative: Reject the attached resolution, finding that the proposed use of the subject
property does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. However, such action
would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD PLANNING
COIWSSION REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY OF
CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND ACQUISITIONS AND SALES WITH
THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield (the "HRA ") has previously adopted and the city council of the City of
Richfield (the "City ") has previously approved a redevelopment plan and tax
Increment financing plan (the "Plan ") for the Interstate /Lyndale /Nicollet
redevelopment project area (the "Project Area "); and
WHEREAS, additional land acquisitions and sales and changes in the public and
private improvements to be constructed with the Project Area have necessitated a
modification to the Plan ( "Modification No. 4 ") ; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 462.556, subd. 2, requires that the
planning commission review any proposal to acquire or dispose of public land for
compliance with the community's comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has submitted Modification No. 4 to the planning
commission for the purpose of reviewing the proposed land acquisitions and sales for
their consistency with the City's comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission has thoroughly reviewed Modification No
4, including specifically the section entitled " Acquisitions, relocations and clearance
activities. "
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
The proposed public land acquisitions and disposals outlined in
Modification No. 4 are consistent with the Richfield comprehensive plan.
Passed this 12th day of April, 1994 by the planning commission of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Daniel Linnihan, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Timothy Erlander, Secretary