The URL can be used to link to this page

012714 PacketPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January27, 2014 7:00p.m. Introductory Proceedings Roll Call Approval of Minutes Study Session andRegular Planning Commission meetingsofDecember 9, 2013 Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 th13-APUD-07 100 66Street W (HUB Center)–AmendPlanned Unit Development toallow aCharter School serving students in grades 6-12 to operate in the former Bally Total Fitness building. NewBusiness ITEM #2 PC Letter #1 Finding ofConsistency–TIFDistrict 2014-1 (City Garage site) OldBusiness Liaison Reports Community Services Advisory Commission City Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Richfield School Board Transportation Commission Chamber of Commerce Other CityPlanner’s Report ththDiscussrenaming77/76Street Next Meeting Date:February24, 2014 Adjournment Auxiliary aid for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours inadvance tothe City Clerk at 612/861-9738”. AS:PHGENDAECTIONUBLICEARING AI#1GENDATEM R# EPORT C#13-APUD-07ASE PCSRLANNINGOMMISSIONTAFFEPORT PCMD:J27,2014EETINGATEANUARY ITEMFORPLANNINGCOMMISSIONCONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding a request for an amendment to aplanned unit development to allow a public schoolwithin an existing shopping center (HUB Shopping Center–former Bally’s Fitness Building). I.RA: ECOMMENDEDCTION Conductandcloseapublichearingandbymotion:Recommend approval ofanamendmenttotheapprovedPlannedUnit Development,FinalDevelopment Plan,Conditional UsePermitat100 West66thStreet(HUBShoppingCenter) toallowapublicschool. II.BACKGROUND The addition of a new use, not included in the Final Development Plan, is considered to be a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development(PUD). The owners of the HUB Shopping Center have applied for a major amendment to permit a charter school (Flex Academy)to operatewithin the former Bally’sTotal Fitness building. The proposedschoolwill serve approximately 300 students in grades 6-12. Parking requirements for the proposed use are easily met within the Shopping Center and no plan for specific designation of spaces is proposed.No student bussing is proposed. Younger students are anticipated to be dropped off by parents/guardians and older students may arrive in a variety of ways–drop-off, own vehicle, walk, bike, public transportation, etc. Parking requirements take this flexibility into account.Flex Academy administratorswill work with the City’s Transportation Engineer and Public Safety Department to developa student drop-off planthat will not be overly disruptive to the mall or the surrounding neighborhood. Applications for land use permit amendments require compliance with current Code standards.Historically, the City hasrequired the addition of parking lot screening when new uses have been introduced into the Shopping Center.The screening has typically been required adjacent to the new use. In this case, however, itwould be difficult to add parking lot screening on the perimeter of the property because it would result in an odd lot configuration that would create confusion in an already difficult parking lot. In the past, the City’s Public Works Department has occasionally allowed required screening to be located within the public right-of-way. Public Works’ staff believe that would be inappropriate in this location because it would conflict with future plans to reconstruct 65th Street.Instead of providing screening in the right-of-way, the Council could require thescreening to be provided along the northern boundary of the site in exchange for excess parking; however, this would create the odd configuration mentioned above.Existing parking exceeds requirements by over 200 spaces. Alternativelyor additionally, the Council could require the addition of parking lot islands in order toreduceimpervious surface, which also exceeds allowable limits. III.BRASISOFECOMMENDATION A.POLICY The addition of a new use to an existing PUD requires approval of a Major Amendment to the PUD. The site does not meet current landscaping, impervious surface or parking requirements (exceeds parking maximums). An amendment to the PUD requires the applicant to make improvements to bring the property into compliance with current standards, except where itis determined that the changes would be extremely impractical or extensive. Additionally, alternative landscaping and screening plans can be approved when they are found to be in compliance with the purpose and intent of requirements. Historically, the addition of parking lot screening has been an importanto component of improvingthe appearance ofnonconforming sites.These improvements were required for a tenant within the shopping center in 2011. Given the potential for reconstruction of 65th Street at some point in theo future, the Public Works Department has recommended against screening in the right-of-way as originally proposed by the applicant. Possible site improvement options now include requiring the applicant too submit new plans with screening outside of the right-of-way, the addition of parking lot islands in order to reduce excess impervious surface, or approval of the plans without any landscaping and screening improvements. The total parking requirement for the Shopping Center and School is 855 spaces; there are 1,050 spaces available throughout the site. The findings necessary for approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit, Final Development Plan and Planned Unit Developmentaredescribed in the City Code (Subsections542.09, Subd. 3 and 547.09. Subd. 6) and further articulated in the attached document. B.CIRITICALSSUES An amendment to a Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit requires that the City evaluate the development conformance with zoning regulations. Nonconforming site improvements are governed by Section 509 of the Zoning Code.The intent of the regulations is to improve properties without requiring impractical site changes,and historicallythe parking lotscreening adjacent to new proposed usehasbeenaddressed. In 2011, thepropertyownerwas been made aware of the fact that if and when additional amendments were requested for areas throughout the site, additional site improvements will be necessary. The applicanthas attempted to comply with these requirements in a manner thatwas originally thought to be acceptable to the Public Works Department. After additional consideration, the Public Works Department has recommended against the proposal given that the screening could one day be removed as part of a road reconstruction project. Revised requirements will require the submittal of new plans at the applicant’sexpense. C.FINANCIAL The required application processing fee has been paid. D.LEGAL Notification: Noticeof this public hearing was published in the Sun Current in accordance with State and Local requirements. Properties within 350 feet were notified by mail. Council consideration is scheduled for February 11, 2014. IV.AR() LTERNATIVEECOMMENDATIONS Recommendapproval of the proposed amendment with additional and/or modified stipulations. Recommend denial of the proposed amendment. V.ATTACHMENTS Resolution Required Findings Existingsite plan Shopping Center tenant plan Proposed landscapingplan Flex AcademyMission, Vision & Purpose document Planning & Zoning maps VI.PPEMRINCIPALARTIESXPECTEDATEETING Flex Academy representatives Mr. Jeffrey P. Agnes of AArchitects, LLC DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TOTHEPLANNED UNITDEVELOMENT, FINAL DEVELOMPENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TOALLOW APUBLIC SCHOOLFACILITY WITHIN THE “HUB” SHOPPING CENTER AT100WEST 66THSTREET WEST WHEREAS an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests an amendment tothe Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permitto allowapublic schoolto occupy the 26,185 square foot building within the HUB Shopping Center development legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the public school would serve approximately 300 students in grades 6-12; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of Richfieldrecommended approval of therequestedamendmentat itsJanuary 27, 2014meeting; and WHEREAS, therequested amendmentmeets thoserequirements necessary for approvingaPlanned UnitDevelopment as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Section 542.09, Subd. 3 and as detailed in City Council Staff Report No.____; and WHEREAS, the requested amendmentmeets those requirements necessary for approving a Conditional Use Permit as specified in Richfield’s Zoning Code, Section 547.09, Subd.6and detailed in City Council Staff Report No.____; and WHEREAS the City has fully considered the request for approval of theamended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan andConditional UsePermit. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1.An amended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit are issued to allow apublic school, as described in City Council Staff Report No.____,in the 26,185 square foot buildingon the Subject Property legally described in Exhibit A. 2.This amendedPlanned Unit Development, FinalDevelopment Plan andConditional UsePermit is subject to the following conditions: That the applicant work with the City Engineer and Public Safety Department to develop an appropriate student drop-off plan. Landscape requirements? Required plantersinfront of the building must be continuously maintained and include live plant materials during the spring, summer and fall and décor over the winter. That the conditions and stipulations of all previously approved plans not specifically changed through thisamendment remain effective. That the recipient of thisamended Planned Unit Development, Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permitrecord this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 547.09, Subdivision8. 3. ThePlanned Unit Development, Final Development Plan andConditional Use Permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions regulating it are observed, and shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required by theZoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this11thday of February, 2014. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, according to th County, Minnesota. Together with that part of vacated Pleasant Avenue described as follows: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 28, Range 24, Hennepin Countydescribed as follows: Beginning at the most northerly northwest corner of Lot3, Block 1, Richfield Hub Superblock, as platted and of record in the office of the County 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing, along th Lot 3, a distance of 142.11 feet; thence South 89 degrees 56 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 30.00 feet, to the most westerly line of said Lot 3; minutes 18 seconds East along the northerly extension of said mo distance of 142.11 feet to the westerly extension of the most northerly line of said Lot 3; thence along said westerly extension 30.00 feet to the point of Together with all that part of said Southeast Quarter of the Nor Commencing at the intersection of the southerly extension of theand the southerly line of saidSoutheast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degr 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 183.00 feet to the most westerly southwest corner of said Lot 3 and the actual point of described; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East al Lot 3 a distance of 48.13 feet to a westerly line of said Lot 3; thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 33.00 feet to the most sou Lot 3; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds East along a distance of 253.99 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 3;thence South 00 degrees 25 minutes 38 seconds West along the westerly line of Lot 2 said Bl extension a distance of 107.00 feet to a line drawn parallel witrtherly of said southerly line ofSoutheast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degr minutes 52 seconds West parallel with said southerly line of sai Northwest Quarter a distance of 35.90 feet; thence North 00degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 27.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 southerly line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarte line drawn parallel with and282.00 feet easterly of said southerly extension of the westerly of said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20minutes 18 seconds East along said parallel line a distance of 71.56 feet to the north line of the south 141.56 feeof the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 52 seconds the south 141.56 feet a distance of 282.00 feet to said southerl said Lot 3; thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 18 seconds East along said southerly extension a distance of 41.44 feet to the point of beginning. DRAFTRequired Findings Part1: The following findings are necessary for approval of a PUD application 542.09 Subd. 3): 1.The proposed development conforms to the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and any applicable redevelopmentplans.This requirement is met. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use. 2.The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries.This requirement is met. The building is an existing structure that has previously been fully occupied by a use with similar peak times. 3.The development is in substantial conformance with the purpose and intent of the guiding district, and departures from the guiding district regulationsare justified by the design of the development.The purpose of the guiding C-2 General Commercial) District is to allow a wide variety of uses serving Richfield and beyond. This requirement is met. These uses are expected to be attractive in appearance from all sides and compatible with nearby residential properties through compliance with the Performance Standards specified in Section 544.Section 509.25, Subdivision 7 specifically addresses upgrading nonconforming site improvements that affect the appearance and impacts of a site. It is not intended to require extensive changes that would be extremely impractical such as moving or lowering buildings. Nonconforming landscaping and screening: The existing site does not meet landscaping or screening requirements. The east side of the building will be enhanced through theo addition of large planters with year-round plantings and décor. Parking lotscreening, impervious surface andparkingo maximums exceeded. Discuss reasonable requirements givenspecifics of this case. The appearance of the north side of the building will be enhanced through the addition of more windows. 4.The development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets or other public facilities and utilities that serve or area proposed to serve the development.The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and that adequate services are or will be available. 5.The development will not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties.No undue adverse impacts are anticipated. 6.The terms and conditions proposed to maintain the integrity of the plan are sufficient to protect the public interest.This requirement is met. Part2: All uses are conditional uses in thePC-2District. The findings necessary to issue a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are as follows (Subd. 547.09, Subd. 6): 1.The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City’sComprehensive Plan.See above: Part 1, #1. 2.The proposed use is consistent with thepurposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.The purpose of the Zoning Code is to protect and promote the general welfare of the City. The proposal does not conflict with this purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development Districts is to provide an opportunity for innovative and creative development. The proposal is for the reuse of an existing building within the PUD and does not conflict with this purpose. 3.Theproposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines.N/A 4.The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 544 of this code.The site is legally nonconforming and regulations related to nonconforming site improvements Discuss compliance withitemsrelated toparking lotislands, apply. screening and parking maximums. 5.The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities,services, or existing or proposed improvements.The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and that adequate services are or will be available. 6.The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare.No undueadverse impacts are anticipated. 7.There is a public need for such use at the proposed location.The successfulreuse of vacant buildings is a benefit to the City. 8.The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for thegranting of such conditional use permit.This requirement does not apply as public schools and other similar learning institutions are a permitted use within the guiding (C-2) District. 100 66th St W (HUB West) - APUD 1/2014 Surrounding Zoning MR-2 RR R MR-2 RRR MR-2R 65TH STREETRMR-2 MR-2MR-2MR-2 MR-2 65TH STREET PC-2 PC-2 PC-2 C-2 PC-2 C-2 66TH STREET RPC-2 C-2 - GeneralCommercialFeet 080160320480640800PC-2 - PlannedGeneralCommercial R - Single FamilyResidential MR-2 - Multi-FamilyResidential MR-3 - HighDensity Multi-FamilyResidential Path: I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\PlanningTech\Projects\100 66TH W - Z.mxd 100 66th St W (HUB West) - APUD 1/2014 Surrounding Comprehensive Plan MDR LDRLDR LDR MDR LDRLDRLDR MHDMHD 65TH STREETMHDMHD MHDMHDMHDMHD 65TH STREET MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED MIXED 66TH STREET SCHMIXED MIXED - MixedUseFeet 080160320480640800MHD - Medium-High DensityResidential MDR - MediumDensityResidential LDR - LowDensityResidential SCH - School Path: I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\PlanningTech\Projects\100 66TH W - CP.mxd AS:NBGENDAECTIONEWUSINESS AI#2GENDATEM R#1EPORT C# ASE PCSRLANNINGOMMISSIONTAFFEPORT PCMD:J27,2014EETINGATEANUARY ITEMFORPLANNINGCOMMISSIONCONSIDERATION: Consideration ofa resolution finding that the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and establishment of the2014-Tax Increment Financing District and Tax Increment Financing Planare consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. I.RA: ECOMMENDEDCTION Bymotion:Consideration ofaresolution finding thatthemodification totheRedevelopment PlanfortheRichfieldRedevelopment Project Areaandestablishment ofthe2014-1TaxIncrement Financing District andTaxIncrement Financing Planareconsistentwiththe Richfield Comprehensive Plan. II.BACKGROUND On January 14, 2014 the Richfield City Council discussed establishing a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District for the former City Garage and Gleason’sMortuary sites. While there is no current redevelopment proposal for those sites, the buildings contained on the site have been deemed to be “structurally substandard,” thus qualifying the site for the creation of a redevelopment TIF District.As a result of that discussion, a Public Hearing to consider the establishment of the 2014-1 Redevelopment TIF District has been scheduled to occur at the February 25 City Council Meeting. If the City Council and Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) were to take the necessary steps to establish this TIF District, then the HRA and City Council could use TIF funds to reimburse them for the money expended on demolition and environmental cleanup. These funds would be contingent upon an adequate development occurring on this site within five years of establishing such a TIFDistrict. Policy makers would also have the ability to make a future decision about the allocation of any additional tax increment funds that were generated by such a development. Minnesota State Statutes require that the Planning Commission consider whether the creation of any TIF District is consistent with the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s review of the Comprehensive Planfound anumber of statements that could be viewed as being supportive of the proposed TIF District, most specifically the statement that “Richfield will continue to promote targeted redevelopment efforts… in order to continue to replace aging and outdated structures.” III.BRASISOFECOMMENDATION A.POLICY Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, the Planning Commission is required to reviewRedevelopment Plans and comment on conformance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan (typically by means of a Resolution). A finding that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would not construe the granting of any land use approvalsfor any future development. B.CIRITICALSSUES The City Council has made a call for a Public Hearing to be held at their February 25, 2014meeting to consider final approval for the establishment of this TIF District and modification of the RichfieldRedevelopment Project Area. C.FINANCIAL Any Tax Increment generated by future development on the site could be used to reimburse the City and/or HRA for costs incurred in conducting environmental mitigation and demolishing the structures. D.LEGAL Chapter469 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that whenever the City adopts ormodifies a RedevelopmentPlan, the Planning Commission must review the plan for consistency with the City’sComprehensive Plan. IV.AR() LTERNATIVEECOMMENDATIONS Defer considerationof this item until a later date in order to collect further information; Decline to adopt the attached resolution. V.ATTACHMENTS Resolution Modification and TIF Plan document VI.PPEMRINCIPALARTIESXPECTEDATEETING None PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE 2014-1 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (CITY GARAGE SITE) CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") and the City of Richfield (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 2014-1 Tax Increment Financing District (City Garage Site) (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3,and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: January 27, 2014 Rick Jabs, Chair ATTEST: Dan Kitzberger, Secretary As of January 22, 2014 Draft for Planning Commission Modification tothe Redevelopment Plan for theRichfield Redevelopment Project and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment ofthe 2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (City Garage Site) aredevelopment district) within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority City ofRichfield Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: February 25, 2014 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555www.ehlers-inc.com Table ofContents for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.................................1-1 Foreword.............................................................1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 2014-1 Tax Increment Financing District (City Garage Site).................2-1 Subsection 2-1.Foreword...............................................2-1 Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority........................................2-1 Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives...................................2-1 Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview..............................2-1 Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired .2-2 Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District.................................2-2 Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District...........2-4 Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements....................2-4 Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued......................2-5 Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds...........................................2-6 Subsection 2-11.Fiscal Disparities Election..................................2-6 Subsection 2-12.Business Subsidies.......................................2-7 Subsection 2-13.County Road Costs.......................................2-8 Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions.................2-8 Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation................................2-10 Subsection 2-16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues.......................2-10 Subsection 2-17.Modifications to the District................................2-11 Subsection 2-18.Administrative Expenses..................................2-11 Subsection 2-19.Limitation of Increment...................................2-12 Subsection 2-20.Use of Tax Increment....................................2-13 Subsection 2-21.Excess Increments......................................2-14 Subsection 2-22.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer..............2-14 Subsection 2-23.Assessment Agreements.................................2-14 Subsection 2-24.Administration of the District...............................2-15 Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements...........................2-15 Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations.................................2-15 Subsection 2-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment.................2-15 Subsection 2-28.Summary..............................................2-16 Appendix A Project Description......................................................A-1 Appendix B Map(s) of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District...............B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District............................C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District........................................D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form.......................................E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District..................................F-1 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications.....................................G-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following textrepresents aModification totheRedevelopment Plan forthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents acontinuation ofth Redevelopment Planforthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of2014-1TaxIncrement Financing District (CityGarage Site). For further information, areview oftheRedevelopment Plan fortheRichfield Redevelopment Project Area isrecommended. Itisavailable fromtheCommunity Development Director attheCity ofRichfield. Other relevant information iscontained inthe Tax Increment Financing Plans forthe Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Are Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 1-1ModificationtotheRedevelopmentPlanfortheRichfieldRedevelopmentProjectArea Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 2014-1 Tax Increment Financing District (City Garage Site) Subsection 2-1.Foreword The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City ofRichfield (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared thefollowing information toexpedite theestablishment ofthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (City Garage Site) (the "District"), aredevelopment tax increment financing district, located inthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement isnecessary to cause development or Minnesotaredevelopmenttooccur. To this end, the HRA and City havecertain statutory powers pursuant to Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.001 to 469.047M.S., Sections 469.174 toinclusive, asamended, and 469.1794 inclusive, asamended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "T public costs related tothisproject. Thissection contains theTax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information iscontained intheModification totheRedevelopment Planfor the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives The District currently consists offive parcels ofland andadjacent andinternal rights-of-way. TheDistrict isbeing created tofacilitate the construction ofamulti-phase, affordable, rental housing development inthe City. Please seeAppendix Aforfurther District information. The HRA has notentered into anagreement ordesignated adeveloper atthe timeofpreparation ofthis TIFPlan, butdevelopment islikely tooccur in 2015. ThisTIF Planisexpected toachieve many oftheobjectives outlined intheRedevelopment Planfor the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated inthe Modification totheRedevelopment Planand theTIF Plandonot preclude theundertaking ofother qualified development orredevelopment activities. These activities areanticipated tooccur overthe life ofthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Ar Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview 1.Property tobeAcquired - Selected property located within the District maybeacquired by theHRA orCity and isfurther described inthisTIF Plan. 2.Relocation - Relocation services, tothe extent required byla M.S., Chapter 117andother relevant state andfederal laws. 3.Upon approval ofadeveloper'splanrelating tothe project and completion ofthe necessary legalrequirements, the HRA orCitymay sell toadeveloper sele acquire within theDistrict ormayleaselandorfacilities toa 4.TheHRA orCitymayperform orprovide for some orall necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, andrequired utilities and public street Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-1TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property andadjacent rights-of-way andabutting roadways identified bythe parcels listed inAppendix Cofthis TIFPlan. Please also see themap inAppendix Bforfurther information on thelocation oftheDistrict. The HRA orCity currently owns theproperty tobeincluded inth Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District The HRA andCity, indetermining the needtocreate atax increment financing district inaccordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 as amended, inclusive, findthattheDistrict, tobeestablish M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) redevelopment district pursuant to asdefined below: a)"Redevelopment district" means atype of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of aproject, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: 1)parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots orother similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; 2)The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; 3)tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: i)have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; ii)are located adjacent to rail facilities; or iii)have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or 4)a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b. b)For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or acombination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. c)A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing anew structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such adetermination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-2TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. d)A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the following conditions are met: 1) the parcel was occupied by asubstandard building or met the requirements of paragraph e), as the case may be, within three years ofthe filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; 2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; 3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and 4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f). e) For purposes of this subdivision, aparcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). Inmeeting thestatutory criteria the HRA andCity relyonthef TheDistrict isaredevelopment district consisting offive par An inventory shows thatparcels consisting ofmore than 70perc occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved orgravel parking lotsor other similar structures. An inspection ofthebuildings located within the District finds that more than 50percent ofthe buildings are structurally substandard as defined inthe TIFAct. (SeeAppendix F). M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7Pursuantto , the District doesnot contain anyparcel or partofaparcel that M.S., Sections 273.111273.112Chapter 473Hqualifiedundertheprovisionsoforor fortaxes payable in any ofthe fivecalendar years before the filing oftherequest Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-3TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1Pursuantto , theduration and first yearoftax M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b. increment oftheDistrict mustbeindicated within theTIF Plan. Pursuant to , the duration ofthe District willbe25years afterreceipt oft 26 years oftax increment). TheHRA orCityelects toreceive thefirsttaxincrement in2018, which isno later than fouryears following the yearofapproval ofthe District. Thus, itisestimated thattheDistrict, including any modifications ofthe TIFPlanfor subsequent phases orother changes, would terminate after 2042, orwhen theTIFPlanissatisfied. TheHRA orCityreserves theright todecertify theDistrict priorto thelegally required date. Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1Pursuantto , the Original NetTax Capacity ONTC) ascertified for the District will bebased onthe market values placed onthe property bythe assessor in2013 for taxes payable 2014. M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1and 2Pursuantto, theCounty Auditor shallcertify ineach year (beginning inthepayment year2017) the amount bywhich the original value hasincreased or decreased as aresult of: 1.Change intaxexempt status of property; 2.Reduction orenlargement ofthegeographic boundaries ofthe d 3.Change due toadjustments, negotiated orcourt-ordered abatements; 4.Change inthe useof the property andclassification; 5.Change instate lawgoverning class rates; or 6.Change inpreviously issued building permits. Inany year inwhich thecurrent Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value ofthe District declines below the ONTC, no value willbe captured andno taxincrement willbe payable totheHRA orCity. The original local taxrate forthe District will be thelocal taxrate for taxes payable 2014, assuming the request forcertification ismade before June 30, 2014. TheONTC and theOriginal Local Tax Rateforthe District appear inthetable below. M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4Pursuantto , theestimated Captured NetTaxCapacity (CTC) oftheDistrict, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion ofthe projects within theDistrict, willannually approximate taxincrement revenues asshown inthetable below. The HRA andCityrequest 100percent ofthe available increase intaxcapacity for repayment ofitsobligations andcurrent expenditures, beginning inthetaxyearpayable 2018. The TaxCapacity (PTC) listed isanestimate ofvalues when the projects within the District are completed. Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-4TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$399,126 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$19,028 Fiscal Disparities Reduction$0 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$380,098 EstimatedOriginalLocalTaxRate1.53946 Pay 2014 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC xLocal Tax Rate)$585,146 Percent Retained by the HRA100% Tax capacity includes a3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischartistheestimatedtaxcapacityoftheDistrictinyear25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimatedtobe $190,625. M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4Pursuantto , the HRA shall, after adue anddiligent search, accompany its M.S., request forcertification tothe County Auditor or its notice of theDistrict enlargement pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 4with alisting ofall properties within theDistrict orarea ofenlargement forwhich building permits have beenissued during the eighteen (18) month M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. TIF Planbythe municipality pursuant to TheCounty Auditor shallincrease the original net tax capacity oftheDistrict bythenet tax cap permit wasissued. TheCity has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preced City. Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued Thecosts outlined intheUses ofFunds willbe financed primarily through theannual collection oftax increments. TheHRA orCity reserves the right toincur bonds orother indebtedness asaresult ofthe TIF Plan. Aspresently proposed, the projects within theDistrict willbe financed byapay-as-you-gonote. Any refunding amounts will be deemed abudgeted cost without aformal TIFPlan Modification. Thisprovision doesnot obligate the HRA orCitytoincur debt. TheHRA orCitywill issue bonds orincur other debtonly upon thedetermination that suchaction isinthebest interest The totalestimated tax increment revenues for theDistrict areshown inthetable below: SOURCES OF FUNDSTOTAL Tax Increment$10,514,151 Interest$1,051,415 TOTAL$11,565,566 TheHRA orCitymayissue bonds (asdefined intheTIFAct) secured inwhole orinpart with taxincrements fromthe District inamaximum principal amount of $6,182,219. Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-5TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) you-gonotes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. Thisestimate oftotal bonded indebtedness isacumulative statement ofauthority under thisTIF Plan asofthe dateofapproval. Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds Currently under consideration forthe District isaproposal tofacilitate the construction of amulti-phase, affordable, rental housing development. The HRA and Cityhavedetermined that itwill benecessary to provide assistance totheproject(s) forcertain District costs, asdescribed. The HRA has studied the feasibility of thedevelopment or redevelopment ofproperty inand around the District. Tofacilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of theDistrict, thisTIFPlan authorizes theuse of tax increment financing topay forthe cost ofcertain eligible expenses. The estimate ofpublic costs anduses of funds associated with the District isoutlined inthe following table. TOTALUSESOFTAXINCREMENTFUNDS Land/Building Acquisition$2,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation$750,000 Other Qualifying Improvements$2,380,805 Administrative Costs (up to10%)$1,051,415 PROJECT COST TOTAL$6,182,220 Interest$5,383,346 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL$11,565,566 Thetotal project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed inthe table above doesnot exceed the total projected taxincrements fortheDistrict asshown inSubsection Estimated costs associated with theDistrict aresubject tochange among categories without amodification tothisTIFPlan. Thecostof all activities tobeconsidered fortax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant tothe applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2to, no morethan 25 percent ofthe taxincrement paid by property District will bespent onactivities related todevelopment orredevelopment outside oftheDistrict but within the boundaries ofthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (inc considered tobe spent outside ofthe District) subject tothe limitations as described inthisTIFPlan. Subsection 2-11.Fiscal Disparities Election M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3Pursuantto , theHRA orCitymay electone oftwomethods tocalculate fisc M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause bdisparities. Ifthe calculations pursuant to , (within the District) are followed, thefollowing method ofcomputation shallapply: 1)The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-6TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. 2)The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The HRA will choose tocalculate fiscal disparities by clause b M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: According to c)The method of computation of tax increment applied to adistrict pursuant to paragraph (a) or b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12.Business Subsidies M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3Pursuantto , the following forms offinancial assistance are not considered abusiness subsidy: 1) Abusiness subsidy of lessthan $150,000; 2)Assistance that isgenerally available toallbusinesses or toageneral class of similar businesses, suchasaline ofbusiness, size, location, orsimilar general c 3) Public improvements tobuildings orlands owned by thestate orlocal government thatserve a public purpose anddo notprincipally benefit asingle business ordefined group ofbusinesses at the timethe improvements are made; M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; 4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in 5) Assistance provided forthe solepurpose ofrenovating old or decaying building stock or bringing itup tocode andassistance provided fordesignated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance isequal toorlessthan 50% ofthe total cost; 6) Assistance toprovide job readiness andtraining services ifthesole purpose oftheassistance isto provide those services; 7) Assistance forhousing; 8) Assistance forpollution control orabatement, including assistance forataxincrement financing M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23hazardoussubstancesubdistrictasdefinedunder ; 9) Assistance for energy conservation; 10) Taxreductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; 11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; 12) Benefits derived from regulation; 13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance toeducational institutions; 14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued torefund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued forthebenefit ofan organization described insection 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of1986, asamended through December 31, 1999; Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-7TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) 15) Assistance for acollaboration between aMinnesota higher education institution and abusiness; M.S., Section16) Assistance foratax increment financing soils condition district asdefined under 469.174, Subd. 19 17) Redevelopment when therecipient'sinvestment inthe purchase ofthesiteand insitepreparation is70 percent ormore ofthe assessor'scurrent year'sestimated 18) General changes intaxincrement financing lawand other general taxlawchanges ofaprincipally technical nature; 19) Federal assistance until theassistance has beenrepaid to, government agency; 20) Funds from dock andwharf bonds issued by aseaway port au 21) Business loans andloanguarantees of $150,000orless; 22) Federal loan funds provided through theUnited States Depa Development Administration; and M.S., Section469.181323) Property tax abatements granted under to property thatissubject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995TheHRAwillcomplywithtotheextent thetax increment assistance under thisTIF Plandoesnot fallunder anyoftheabove exempti Subsection 2-13.County Road Costs M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1aPursuantto, thecounty board mayrequire the HRA orCitytopayfor allor part ofthe costofcounty road improvements iftheproposed development tobeassisted by tax increment will, inthe judgment ofthe county, substantially increase theuseofcounty roads requiring construction of road improvements orother road costs andifthe road improvements arenot scheduled within thenextfive years under acapital improvement planorwithin fiveyears unde Ifthecounty elects touseincrements toimprove county roads, itmust notify theHRA orCitywithin forty- five days ofreceipt ofthisTIFPlan. In theopinion of theHRA andCity and consultants, theproposed development outlined inthis TIF Plan will have littleornoimpact upon county roads, therefore theTIFPlan wasnot forwarded tothe county 45 daysprior tothepublic hearing. TheHRA and Cityareaware thatthe county could claim that taxincrement should be used for county roads, even afterthe public hearing. Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that theredevelopment contemplated bythe TIF Plan would occur without thecreation ofthe District. However, the HRA orCityhas determined that such development or redevelopment would notoccur "butfor" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. Theestimate follows ifthe "but for" testwasnot met: Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-8TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) IMPACT ON TAX BASE EstimatedEstimated Captured Pay 2014Tax Capacity (CTC)Percent of CTC Total NetUpon Completionto Entity Total Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,236,174,443380,098 0.0307% City of Richfield22,509,172380,098 1.6886% Richfield Schools ISD 28029,072,073380,098 1.3074% IMPACT ON TAX RATES PercentPotentialEstimated Pay 2014of TotalCTCTaxes Extension Rates Hennepin County 0.49859032.39%380,098 189,513 City ofRichfield0.65889042.80%380,098 250,443 Richfield Schools ISD 2800.27584017.92%380,098 104,846 Other0.1061406.89%380,098 40,344 Total 1.539460100.00%585,146 Theestimates listed above display thecaptured taxcapacity when allconstruction iscompleted. Thetaxrate usedfor calculations istheestimated Pay 2014 rate. The totalnet capacity for theentities listed above are based onestimated Pay2014 figures. TheDistrict willbecerti wereunavailable atthetime thisTIF Plan wasprepared. M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) Pursuant to : 1) Estimate oftotaltaxincrement. Itisestimated thatthetotal amount oftax increment thatwillbe generated overthe life ofthe District is $10,514,151; 2) Probable impact oftheDistrict oncity provided services an Animpact ofthe District on police protection isexpected. TheRichfield Police location, type, and date, though not bytype ofproperty. With any addition ofnewresidents or businesses, police calls for service willbe increased. New developments addanincrease intraffic, and additional overall demands tothe callload. The Citydoes not expect thatthe proposed development, inand ofitself, will necessitate newcapital inve The probable impact oftheDistrict on fireprotection isnot ex buildings generate few calls, ifany, andare ofsuperior construction. The existing buildings, which willbe eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns that include several unprotected old buildings withissues suchas access, hydrant locations, andconverted structures. The impact ofthe District on public infrastructure isexpected tobe minimal. Thedevelopment is notexpected tosignificantly impact any traffic movements inthearea. Itisanticipated that the Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-9TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer andwater will beable tohandle theadditional volume generated from anew development. Itisalsoanticipated that there will not beadditional costs associated withstreet maintenance, sweeping, plowing, li development intheDistrict would beexpected tocontribute tosanitary sewer connection fees (SAC). TheCity currently doesnot collect water connection fees (WAC). The probable impact ofany District general obligation taxincrement bonds on theability toissue debt forgeneral fund purposes isexpected tobeminimal. Itisnotanticipated thatthere will beany general obligation debtissued inrelation tothisDistrict andfuture projects, therefore there willbe no impact ontheCity'sability toissue future debtorontheC 3) Estimated amount oftax increment attributable toschool dis Itisestimated that the amount oftax increments over thelifeoftheDistrict that would beattributable toschool district levies, assuming theschool district'sshare ofthe total local remained thesame, is $1,884,136; 4) Estimated amount oftaxincrement attributable tocounty lev Itisestimated thatthe amount of tax increments over thelifeofthe District thatwould beattributable tocounty levies, assuming the county'sshare ofthe totallocal taxrate foralltaxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $3,405,534; 5) Additional information requested by thecounty orschool district. The Cityisnot aware of any standard questions inacounty orschool district written policy regarding taxincrement districts and impact oncounty orschool district services. Thecounty orsch M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) information pursuant to within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from thecounty or school district regarding the proposed development for theDistrict havebeen received. Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7Pursuanttothe TIF Planmust contain identification and M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. description ofstudies andanalyses usedtomake thedeterminati 3, clause (b)(2) and thefindings arerequired inthe resolution approving theDi reports and studies on fileatthe Citythat support the HRA andCity'sfindings: Report of Inspection Procedures and Results forDetermining Qualifications of aTaxIncrement Financing District as aRedevelopment Districts: Public Works TI January 9, 2014. Subsection 2-16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25Pursuantto , taxincrement revenues derived from ataxincrement financing district include allof thefollowing potential revenue sources: M.S., 1.Taxes paidby thecaptured nettaxcapacity, but excluding any excess taxes, ascomputed under Section 469.177 2.The proceeds from thesale orlease ofproperty, tangible orintangible, tothe extent theproperty was purchased bythe Authority with tax increments; 3.Principal and interest received on loans orother advances made bythe Authority withtax increments; Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-10TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) 4.Interest orother investment earnings onorfrom tax increment 5.Repayments orreturn of tax increments made totheAuthority under agreements fordistricts for which therequest forcertification wasmade afterAugust 1, 199 M.S., Section 273.13846.The market value homestead credit paidtotheAuthority under . Subsection 2-17.Modifications to the District M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4Inaccordancewith , any: 1.Reduction orenlargement ofthe geographic area ofthe Distric M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e) requirements of ; 2.Increase inamount ofbonded indebtedness tobeincurred; 3.Adetermination tocapitalize interest ondebt ifthat determination wasnotapartoftheoriginal TIF Plan; 4.Increase intheportion of thecaptured nettax capacity tobe retained by theHRA orCity; 5.Increase intheestimate ofthe costoftheDistrict, including administrative expenses, thatwillbepaid orfinanced with taxincrement from theDistrict; or 6.Designation of additional property tobe acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after thediscussion, public hearing and findings required forapproval ofthe original TIFPlan. M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f) Pursuant to , the geographic areaofthe District maybereduced, butshall beenlarged after fiveyears following thedate ofcertification ofthe original net taxcapacity bythe county auditor. Ifaredevelopment district isenlarged, the reasons and supporting factsfor the determination that M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10theadditiontothedistrictmeetsthecriteriaof , must bedocumented in writing andretained. The requirements of thisparagraph do not apply if (1) the onlymodification is elimination ofparcel(s) from theDistrict and (2)(A) thecurrent nettaxcapacity ofthe parcel(s) eliminated fromthe District equals or exceeds thenettaxcapacity ofthose parcel(s) intheDistrict'soriginal net tax M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1capacityor (B) theHRA agrees that, notwithstanding , theoriginal nettax capacity willbe reduced by nomore than thecurrent net tax capacity ofthe parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The HRA orCity mustnotify theCounty Auditor ofanymodificati District intheformofabudget modification oranexpansion of Plan. Subsection 2-18.Administrative Expenses M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, In accordance with administrative expenses means all expenditures ofthe other thanHRAorCity, : 1.Amounts paid forthe purchase of land; 2.Amounts paidtocontractors orothers providing materials and engineering services, directly connected withthe physical devel District; 3.Relocation benefits paidtoorservices provided for persons residing or businesses located inthe District; or 4.Amounts usedtopayprincipal or interest on, fundareserve f M.S., Section 469.178pursuantto ; or Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-11TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) 5.Amounts used topayother financial obligations tothe extent those obligations wereusedtofinance costs described inclauses (1) to (3). Fordistricts for which the request forcertification weremade before August 1, 1979, or afterJune 30, 1982, andbefore August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond M.S., Sectioncounsel, fiscal consultants, and planning oreconomic development consultants. Pursuant to 469.176, Subd. 3 authorizedanddocumentedtaxincrementmaybeusedtopayany administrative expenses fortheDistrict up tobutnot toexceed 10percent ofthe totalestimated tax increment expenditures M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clauseauthorizedbytheTIFPlanorthetotaltaxincrements, asdefin 1) from theDistrict, whichever isless. For districts forwhich certification was requested after July 31, 2001, notax increment may beused topay anyadministrative expenses forDistrict costs which exceed ten percent oftotal estimated tax increment M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. expenditures authorized by the TIFPlan orthetotal taxincrements, as defined in 25, clause (1) from the District, whichever isless. M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4hPursuantto , taxincrements maybeused topayfor theCounty'sactual administrative expenses incurred inconnection with theDistrict andare not subject tothepercentage limits M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3of. Thecounty may require payment ofthose expenses byFebruary year following theyeartheexpenses were incurred. M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11Pursuantto , theCounty Treasurer shalldeduct an amount (currently .36 percent) ofany increment distributed tothe HRA or Cityand the County Treasurer shallpay the amount deducted totheState Commissioner ofManagement andBudget for deposit inthe state general fundtobe appropriated totheState Auditor for thecost offinancial reporting oftax increment financing information and thecostofexamining and auditing authorities' useoftaxincrement financing. Thisamount may be adjusted annually bythe Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19.Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged tothe payment ofbonds andinterest thereon maybe discharged andthe District maybe terminated ifsufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited inthedebt service fund orother escrow account heldintrust foralloutstanding bonds toprovide for the payment ofthe bonds atmaturity or redemption date. M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6Pursuantto : if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on aparcel located within atax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-12TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. TheHRA orCity oraproperty owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately February 2018 and report suchactions totheCounty Auditor. Subsection 2-20.Use of Tax Increment The HRA orCityhereby determines thatitwilluse 100percent ofthe captured net tax capacity oftaxable property located inthe District forthe following purposes: 1.Topay theprincipal ofandinterest onbonds issued tofinanc 2.tofinance, or otherwise paypublic redevelopment costs ofthe theRichfield Redevelopment Project M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047Areapursuantto ; 3.Topay forproject costs as identified inthebudget set forth M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 44.To finance, orotherwise payforother purposes as provided in; 5.Topay principal and interest onany loans, advances or other payments made tooronbehalf ofthe HRA orCityorforthe benefit ofthe Richfield Redevelopment Pr 6.Tofinance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs forinsurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due ofprincipal ofandinterest on bonds pursuant tothe TIF Plan orpursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165M.S., Sections 469.178and/or ; and 7.To accumulate ormaintain areserve securing the payment when dueofthe principal andinterest on M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152thetaxincrementbondsorbondsissuedpursuantto through 469.165M.S., Sections 469.178and/or . These revenues shall notbe usedtocircumvent anylevy limitations applicable tothe City norfor other M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. purposes prohibited by Taxincrements generated inthe District willbe paid byHennepin County totheHRA fortheTaxIncrement Fund ofsaidDistrict. The HRA orCitywillpay tothedeveloper(s) annually anamount not toexceed an amount asspecified inadeveloper'sagreement toreimburse the costs ofland acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will beused for HRA orCity administration (up to10 percent) andfor thecosts ofpublic improvement activities outside theDistrict. Subsection 2-21.Excess Increments M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2Excessincrements, asdefined in , shall beused only todo oneormore ofthe following: 1.Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2.Discharge thepledge oftaxincrement for anyoutstanding bond 3.Payintoanescrow account dedicated tothe payment ofany out 4.Return the excess totheCounty Auditor forredistribution tothe respective taxing jurisdictions in Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-13TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) proportion totheir local taxrates. The HRA or City must spend orreturn theexcess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the endoftheyear. Inaddition, theHRA orCity may, subject tothelimitations setforth herein, choose to modify theTIF Plan inorder tofinance additional public costs inthe Richfield Redevelopment Project Area orthe District. Subsection 2-22.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer TheHRA orCitywillreview anyproposal for private development todetermine itsconformance with the Redevelopment Planandwith applicable municipal ordinances andcodes. Tofacilitate thiseffort, the following documents may berequested forreview andapproval: siteplan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm other drawings ornarrative deemed necessary bythe HRA orCity development withCity plans andordinances. The HRA orCitymayalsousetheAgreements toaddress other issues related tothedevelopment. M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5Pursuantto , nomore than 25percent, by acreage, of theproperty tobe acquired inthe District asset forth inthe TIF Plan shallatany time be owned by the HRA orCity asaresult M.S., Section 469.178ofacquisitionwiththeproceedsofbondsissuedpursuanttotowhich taxincrements fromproperty acquired ispledged, unless priortoacquisition inexcess of25percent oftheacreage, theHRA orCity concluded anagreement forthe development or redevelopment oftheproperty acquired andwhich provides recourse for the HRA orCityshould thedevelopment or redevelopment notbecompleted. Subsection 2-23.Assessment Agreements M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8Pursuantto , theHRA orCity may enter intoawritten assessment agreement inrecordable form with thedeveloper ofproperty within theDistrict which establishes aminimum market value ofthe landandcompleted improvements for theduration ofthe District. Theassessment agreement shallbe presented tothe County Assessor who shall review the plans andspecifications for theimprovements tobeconstructed, review the market value previously assigned totheland upon which theimprovements are tobeconstructed and, solong as theminimum market value contained inthe assessment agreement appears, inthe judgment oftheassessor, tobe areasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24.Administration of the District Administration oftheDistrict will behandled bythe Community Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6bPursuanttotheHRA orCitymust undertake financial reporting foralltax increment financing districts tothe Office ofthe State Auditor, County Board andCounty Auditor M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5onorbeforeAugust1ofeachyear. also provides that an annual statement shall be published inanewspaper ofgeneral circulation inthe Cityon or before August 15. M.S., SectionIftheCityfailstomakeadisclosureorsubmitareportcontainingtheinformationrequiredby 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA willdirect the County Auditor towithhold the distribu increment from theDistrict. Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-14TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations Asrequired by theTIFAct, inestablishing theDistrict, the determination has beenmade thatthe anticipated development would not reasonably beexpected tooccur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and thattheincreased market value ofthesitethat could reasonably be tooccur without theuse of taxincrement financing would be less thanthe increase inthemarket value estimated toresult from theproposed development aftersubtracting thepresent value oftheprojected tax increments for themaximum duration ofthe District permitted by reliance hasbeenplaced upon written representation made by thedeveloper tosucheffects andupon HRA andCity staffawareness ofthe feasibility ofdeveloping the project site(s) within the District. Acomparative analysis ofestimated market values both with andwithout establishment oftheDistrict andtheuse oftax increments hasbeenperformed asdescribed above. Suchanalysis isincluded with thecashflow inAppendix D, andindicates thattheincrease inestimated market value oftheproposed development (lessthe indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value ofthesiteabsent the establishment ofthe District andthe useof taxincrements. Subsection 2-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1.General Limitations. Allrevenue derived fromtaxincrement shall beusedinaccordance withtheTIF Plan. The revenues shall beusedtofinance, orotherwise paypublic redevelopment costs of thethe M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047RichfieldRedevelopmentProjectAreapursuantto . Taxincrements maynotbe usedtocircumvent existing levylimitlaw. Notax increment may beused forthe acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, ormaintenance ofabuilding tobe usedprimarily and regularly fo conducting thebusiness ofamunicipality, county, school district, orany other local unit ofgovernment orthestate orfederal government. This provision does not prohibit the useofrevenues derived from tax increments fortheconstruction orrenovation ofaparking struc 2.Pooling Limitations. Atleast 75percent of tax increments from theDistrict must activities intheDistrict ortopay bonds, totheextent thatthe proceeds ofthe bonds were used tofinance activities within saiddistrict ortopay, orsecure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not morethan25 percent ofsaidtax increments maybe expended, through adevelopment fund orotherwise, onactivities outside oftheDistrict except topay, or secure payment of, debtservice oncredit enhanced bonds. Forpurposes ofapplying this restriction, alladministrative expenses must betreated asifthey were solely foractivities outside of theDistrict. 3.FiveYear Limitation on Commitment ofTax Increments. Tax increments derived fromthe District shall be deemed tohavesatisfied the 75percent testset forthinparagraph (2) above only ifthe five year rule M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3setforthin , has been satisfied; andbeginning withthesixth year following certification oftheDistrict, 75 percent ofsaid tax permitted under saidfive yearrulemust beused onlytopay previously committed expenditures orcredit M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5enhancedbondsasmorefullysetforthin . 4.Redevelopment District. Atleast 90percent of the revenues derived from taxincremen redevelopment district must beused tofinance the costofcorrecting conditions thatallow designation M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. ofredevelopment andrenewal and renovation districts under These costs include, but arenotlimited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements orhazardous substances, pollution, orcontaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary toprovide asiteofsufficient sizetopermit development, demolition and rehabilitation ofstructures, clearing oftheland, theremoval ofhazardous substances orremediation necessary for development of the land, andinstallation ofutilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for thesite. The allocated Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-15TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) administrative expenses ofthe HRA orCity, including thecost ofpreparation ofthedevelopment action response plan, maybe included inthe qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28.Summary TheRichfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority isestablishing the District topreserve and enhance the taxbase, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities inthe City. TheTIFPlan theDistrict was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Richfield Housing andRedevelopment Authority 2-16TaxIncrementFinancingPlanforthe2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (CityGarage Site) Appendix A Project Description The2014-1Tax Increment Financing District (Garage Site) isbeing established to facilitate the redevelopment oftheformer CityGarage Siteand adjacent properties owned by theCity andHRA. The HRA anticipates thatmulti-family housing will bedeveloped on the site; however, the HRA hasnotreceived proposals for development, andadeveloper hasnot been identifi AppendixA-1 Appendix B Map(s) of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District AppendixB-1 CEDAR CEDAR 18th 18th 17th 17th 16th 16th BLOOMINGTONBLOOMINGTON 15th15th 14th14th 13th13th 12th12th 11th11th 10th10th ELLIOT ELLIOT CHICAGO CHICAGO COLUMBUS COLUMBUSPARK PARKOAKLAND OAKLAND PORTLAND PORTLAND 5th 5th 4th 4th CLINTON CLINTON 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd STEVENS STEVENS 1st 1st NICOLLET NICOLLET BLAISDELL BLAISDELL WENTWORTH WENTWORTH PILLSBURY PILLSBURY PLEASANT PLEASANT GRAND GRAND HARRIET HARRIET GARFIELD GARFIELD LYNDALE LYNDALE ALDRICH ALDRICH BRYANT BRYANT COLFAX COLFAX DUPONT DUPONT EMERSON EMERSON FREMONT FREMONT GIRARD GIRARD HUMBOLDTHUMBOLDT IRVINGIRVING JAMES JAMES KNOX KNOX LOGAN LOGAN MORGAN MORGAN NEWTON NEWTON OLIVER OLIVER PENN PENN QUEEN QUEEN RUSSELL RUSSELL SHERIDAN SHERIDAN THOMAS THOMAS UPTON UPTON VINCENT VINCENT WASHBURN WASHBURN XERXESXERXES Tax Increment Financing District No. 2014-1 (City Garage Site) Former PW Garage Site 76th Street 34-028-24-34-0049 7600 Pillsbury Ave. 34-028-24-34-0070 34-028-24-34-0067211W. 76th St. 7608 Pillsbury Ave. 34-028-24-34-0072 Address Pending 77th Street 34-028-24-34-0073 7700 Pillsbury Ave. PublicStorage 02550100150200 TIF District BoundariesFeet Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property andadjacent rights-of-way andabutting roadways identified bythe parcels listed below. Parcel NumbersAddressOwner th34-028-24-34-0070211 76 St. WRichfield HRA 34-028-24-34-00497600 PillsburyRichfield HRA 34-028-24-34-00677608 PillsburyRichfield HRA 34-028-24-34-0072PendingCity of Richfield 34-028-24-34-00737700 PillsburyCity ofRichfield Right-of-way AppendixC-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District AppendixD-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) AMinnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be usedtoreport and/orupdate each calendar year's activity byApril 1of thefollowing year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm forinformation andforms. AppendixE-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District AppendixF-1 REPORT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS FOR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Public WorksTIF District Richfield, Minnesota LHBProjectNo. 130637.00 January 9, 2014 Prepared For The City of Richfield Prepared by LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 4!",% /& #/.4%.43 PART 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................3 Purpose of Evaluation............................................................................................3 Scope of Work.......................................................................................................4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................4 PART 2 MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS.............4 A.Coverage Test..................................................................................................5 B.Conditionof Buildings Test.............................................................................5 PART 3 PROCEDURES FOLLOWED.....................................................................................6 PART 4 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................6 A.Coverage Test..................................................................................................6 B.Condition of Building Test..............................................................................8 1.Building Inspection.............................................................................8 2.Replacement Cost................................................................................8 3.Code Deficiencies...............................................................................8 4.System Condition Deficiencies...........................................................9 C.Distribution of substandard structures...........................................................10 PART 5 -TEAM CREDENTIALS.............................................................................................11 APPENDIX AProperty Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX BBuilding Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX C BuildingReplacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Page2 PART1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by theCity of Richfieldto inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District (TIF District proposed to be established by the thCity. The proposed TIF District is located immediately South of 76Street on the West side of thPillsburyAvenue,bisected by 77Street(Diagram 1).The purpose of LHB sworkisto determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether fivebuildingsonsixparcels,located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 Proposed TIF District Page3 SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists ofsix(6)parcelswithfive(5)structures.The buildings wereinspected on December 4, 2013.Building code and Condition Deficiency reports are located in Appendix B. CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposand applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifiesas a Redevelopment District because: The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 95percentwhich is above the 70 percent requirement. 80percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is ahe 50 percent requirement. The substandard buildings arereasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings PART 2 MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174,SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following r Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: Interior Inspection The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property... Exterior Inspection and Other Means An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the 1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or control 2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that substandard. Documentation Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interi conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdi Page4 Qualification Requirements Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: A.Coverage Test parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots The coverage required by the parcel to beconsidered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets parking lots unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots. B.Condition of Buildings Test and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbui substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; 1.Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes,Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: For purposes of this subdivision, structurall substandard shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ve including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior part factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovationor clearance. a.We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds r Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as structurally substandard due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfieldcase filed November 13, 2001. 2.Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substan certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: A building is not structurally substandard if it is in complian code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find t disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sen reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or evidence. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the builnot disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or Page5 housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or othe evidence. LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code t byMinnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas high the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where min construction standards are required by law. Theindex page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minneso Energy Code as a Required Enforcement area compared to an addi list of Optional Enforcement chapters. The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Cod Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Indust confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throu State of Minnesota. In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Manag Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the M Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactmen Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between thereplacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repai be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code s order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code ch be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estima automatically applies the construction cost of complying with th Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified existing structures. PART 3 PROCEDURES FOLLOWED LHB wasable to inspect four of the five buildingsduring the day of December 4, 2013. The inspector did not have access to the interior of the single fami December 4th. It was later decided that inspection of that structure would not be necessary based on the substandard condition of the remaining buildings in PART 4 FINDINGS A.Coverage Test 1. The total square foot area of each parcel in the proposed TId from City records, GIS mappingand site verification. Page6 2.The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on theparcelsin the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mappingand site verification. 3.The percentage of coverage for eachparcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percentminimum requirement was met.The total square footage of parcels meetingthe 15 percent requirement wasdivided into the total square footage of the entire districtto determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. Finding: The proposed TIF Districtmetthe coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 95percentof the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,paved or gravel parkinglots, or other similar structures(Diagram 2). This exceedsthe 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1). Diagram 2 Coverage Diagram Shadedareadepictsaparcelmorethan15percentoccupiedbybu Pavedorgravelparkinglotsorothersimilarstructures Page7 B.Condition of Building Test 1.Building Inspection The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspect walk-thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total signific substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector docum photographs code and non-code deficiencies in the building. 2.Replacement Cost The secondstep in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its re This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same squ site. Replacement costs were researchedusing R.S. Means Cost Works square foot modelsfor 2013. Areplacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential,etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain the appropriate medianreplacementcost, which factors in the costs of construction inRichfield, Minnesota. Replacement cost includeslabor, materials, and the contractor s overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated in Appendix A. 3.Code Deficiencies The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicab in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c),specifically provides that a building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to s buildingscontained in City Building Inspection records and making interio exterior inspections of the buildings. LHButilizesthe current Minnesota State Building Code as the official code for our evaluations.The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifica Page8 requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amend international codes. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we useR.S. Means Cost Works2013; Unit and Assembly Coststo determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the corre replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting c deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. Finding: Four(4)out offive(5) buildings (80percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies,exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c).Complete Building Code and Condition Deficiency reportsfor thebuildingsin the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix Bof this report. 4.System Condition Deficiencies If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c),then in order for such building to be structurally substandard under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b),the building s defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total substantial renovation or clearance.Based on this definition-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold und Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c),to determine if the total deficiencies warranted substantial renovation or clearance based on the criteria we o System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or su deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanic components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior part floors and doors. The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviavailable information contained in City records, and making interior and e the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencie upon our inspection of the building or contained in City recordsdid notconsider the amount of service life used up for a particular component obvious part of that component s deficiencies. After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each buil professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovationor clearance. Finding: In our professional opinion, four(4)out offive(5)buildings(80percent)in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial Page9 renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elemen deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ve including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total si substantial renovation or clearance.This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1). C.Distribution of substandard structures Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual b to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District(Diagram 3). Finding: The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout of the proposed TIF District. Diagram 3 Substandard Buildings Shadedareadepictsparcelswithsubstandard buildings Page10 PART 5 -TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP -Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, pro project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educa governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB an Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards a including a term as a City Council President, Chair of a Metroponning organization, and most recently, Chair of the Planning Commission in Edina, Minnes architects in the country to receive the National "Young Archite Institute of Architects in 1997. Phil Waugh –Project Manager/TIF Analyst Phil is a project manager with 13 years of experience in histori investigations, material research, and construction methods. He preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Di Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include proj preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, wr preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Hi applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. M:\13Proj\130637\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF Report\Final Report\Richfield Public Works Redevelopment TIF Analysis 1-9-13.doc APPENDICES APPENDIX AProperty Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX BBuilding Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX CBuilding Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Page11 APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports RICHFIELDTIF DISTRICT CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS January 9, 2014 ndMapNo. & Building Name: MapNo. 2 -Mortuary(with 2floor apartments) thAddress & PID: 211 West76Street,PID34-028-24-34-0070 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 4, 2013,9:45AM January 4, 2014; 12:30 PM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies:SubstandardItisourprofessionalopinionthatthisbuildingisbecause: Substantial renovation isrequired tocorrect Conditions found. Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% ofreplacement cost. Estimated Replacement Cost:$1,118,962 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:$199,550 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies:17.8% Description of Condition Deficiencies Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that itcontains defects instructural elements oracombination of facilities, light andventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout andcondition partitions, orsimilar factors, which defects ordeficiencies ar substantial renovation orclearance. A.Defects inStructural Elements 1.Theroof has leaks inthe mortuary andapartment areas. nd2.There isalargeholeinthesouth wallof the2floor apartment. nd3.Floor joists in the2floor apartment have been notched orcut excessively for plumbin violation of IBC2308.10.4.2. B.Combinationof Deficiencies 1.Essential Utilities andFacilities a.The building does nothavean accessible entrance. Provide accessible parking stalls, signage, and path tothe entry. b.Doors lackhandles meeting requirements for accessibility. c.Therestrooms arenot accessible. d.The building lacks theplumbing fixtures required foritssizea e.The building isnot connected toutilities: water, sewer, gas a atthe street. f.Electrical outlets atsinks, kitchen counters and garage should beGFCIs. g.All appliances are missing from apartment kitchens. 2.Light andVentilation a.Ventilation system isinadequate. Install fresh/makeup air for entire building. b.Install combustion airfor gas-fired furnaces and water heaters c.Thegaragelacks asystem toventilate vehicle exhaust. d.Apartment kitchen stoves lack range hoods. 3.FireProtection/Adequate Egress a.Therequired 2-hour fire separation of the A-3-Occupancy onMain Level andthe R ndOccupancyonthe2Flooris notprovided. b.The required 2-hour fire separation ofthegarage and the mortuary (or1-hour separation witha sprinkler system) islacking. c.The plywood andwood stud partition between large westside meet Code forfire protection ofcombustible wallmaterials. d.Front doorlacks anaccessible approach. e.Exit doors lackpanic hardware. f.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 g.There isagreater than ½change inlevelonthe outside ofthe ndh.Stair from 2Floor apartments does not meet requirements for size ofrisers andtreads. 1sti.North stair from floor tobasement istoo steep tomeet Code. stj.Southwest stair from 1floor tobasement: railing istoo lowand does notmeet Code requirements for extensions. k.Guard railattopofsouthwest stairdoes notmeet Code requirements forheight and spacing of balusters. 4.Layout andCondition ofInterior Partitions/Materials a.There are unpatched openings inwalls. b.Mortuaryceiling hasnumerous missing, stained and broken ceiling tiles. c.Apartment walls have many holes and breaks inthefinish drywall particular locations. d.Carpet isstained, mildewedand torn andhas been partially removed inplaces. e.Apartment kitchen floor sheet vinyl isstained andworn. 5.Exterior Construction a.The roof lacks adequate ventilation. b.The flatroof lacks required insulation. c.The flatroof has numerous leaks. d.Theapartment roofhasseveral large leaks andatleastonesign e.There arecracks and holes inthestuccowall surface. f.Many windows anddoor litesare broken andhavebeen boarded up. Overview of Condition Deficiencies thThebuildingat211West76Street isaformer mortuary and funeral home with attached resid onthe north side. The mortuary building isa1-story CMU structure with aprecast concrete plank floor over afullbasement. The roofstructure islightweight steelj building iswood stud construction with anexterior brick veneer dimensional lumber. The building hasbeenvacant for many years. Itisfilled withdebrisand isindisrepair. Itcurrently lacks all utility connections.Stained andmoldy ceiling finishes indicate numerous holes inth Intotal, the defects anddeficiencies inthis building areof sufficient total significance toj substantial renovation orclearance. Description of Code Deficiencies 1.Building lacks accessible parking stalls, signage, and pathtotheentry. 2.Building lacks required combustion / make upair. 3.Building lacksan exhaust system forgarage. st4.1floor restroomsdo notprovide required accessibility: clear floor area, fixture clearances, grab bars, entry and access. 5.Building lacks anaccessible drinking fountain. 6.Stairs donotmeet coderequirements for riserand tread size. 7.Southwest stairguard railandhandrails donot meet codefor height, extensions between guard balusters. 8.Exit doors lackpanic hardware. 9.Building lacks the required fire-rated partition and door between mortuary and garage. 10.Building lacks therequired 2-hour fireseparation between theresidential units andthe mortu 11.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 12.Kitchen ranges require ducting toexterior. Energy Code Inaddition tothe building codedeficiencies, the existing building doesnot comply withthe cur energy code; however, these deficiencies arenot included inthe deficiencies or listed as condition deficiencies. Buildings exterior envelope (walls, roof and foundation walls/perimeter slab) do not haveinsulation with R-values needed tomeet current energy code requirements. Building sheating, cooling andlighting arenot asefficient as RICHFIELDTIF DISTRICT CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS January 9, 2014 Map No. & Building Name: MapNo. 5A -Vehicle StorageGarage(west sideof yard) Address & PID: Address UnassignedPID 34-028-24-34-0072 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 4, 2013, 10:45AM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies:SubstandardItisourprofessionalopinionthatthisbuildingisbecause: Substantial renovation isrequired tocorrect Conditions found. Building Code deficiencies total more than15% of replacement cost. Estimated Replacement Cost:$806,532 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:$180,339 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies:22.4% Description of Condition Deficiencies Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states thatabuilding i itcontains defects instructural elements oracombination of facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition ofinterior partitions, orsimilar factors, which defects ordeficiencies ar substantial renovation orclearance. A.Defects inStructural Elements 1.The roofissignificantly corroded andleaks inanumber oflocations. 2.The corrosion ofthe metal roofdeckissuchthat itisunsound. B.Combinationof Deficiencies 1.Essential Utilities andFacilities a.There are no restroom facilities. b.There isno water ordrain plumbing. c.The building does nothavean accessible entrance. Provide accessible parking stalls, signage, and path tothe entry. d.Doors lackhandles meeting requirements for accessibility. e.Thebuilding is notconnected to utilities: electrical servicesthe street. f.Electrical outlets throughoutgarage should beGFCIs. 2.Light andVentilation a.Thegaragelacks asystem toventilate vehicle exhaust. 3.FireProtection/Adequate Egress a.The building lacks thesecond exit (person door) required by IBC. b.South doorlacks an accessible approach. c.Exitdoorlackspanic hardware. d.Thresholdat doorexceedsallowable 1/2 4.Layout andCondition ofInterior Partitions/Materials a.All interior materials areinpoor condition. 5.Exterior Construction a.Theroof hasnumerous leaks. b.The exterior walls need repainting. c.Manyof the overhead doors are inpoor condition or non-functionaland in need of replacement. d.Thesouth doorisbroken and doesnot open or close properly. Overview of Condition Deficiencies Theformer CityofRichfield vehicle storagegarage hasCMU walls with brick veneer panels atthenorth end. The roof structure islightgauge steeltrusses withmetal de the 58 span. Thebuilding was vacated several years agoand shows significant decay. Many of the 15 overhead doors are inpoor condition. Theperson dooratthesouth sideisbadly rusted andcoming apart. The roof hasbeenleaking inseveral areas. According toDave Conrads of theCityof Richfield, roofing contractors haverefused to doanyfurther work on theroof because ofthe danger ofworkers or equipment breaking through therusted decking. To make the building usable under current building codes, an acc plumbing and fixtures would need to be installed.An additional exitdoor would also need to be provided. In total, the defects and deficiencies inthis building areof s substantial renovation orclearance. Description of Code Deficiencies 1.Building lacks accessible parking stalls, signage, and pathtotheentry. 2.Building lacksan exhaust system forgarage. 3.Electrical outlets throughout garage should be GFCIs. 4.Thebuilding sroofdoes not meet IBC requirements and should be replaced including decking. 5.Building lacks required restroom facilities. 6.Building lacks anaccessible drinking fountain. 7.The building lacks thesecond exit (person door) required byIBC 8.The existing exitdoor isnon-functional. 9.Exitdoorlackspanic hardware. 10.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 Energy Code Inaddition tothe building code deficiencies, the existing buil energy code; however, these deficiencies arenot included inthe deficiencies or listed as condition deficiencies. Building sexterior envelope (walls, roof andfoundation walls/perimeter esnot have insulation with R-values needed tomeet current energy code requirements. Building sheating, cooling and lighting are not asefficient as current energy codewould require. RICHFIELDTIF DISTRICT CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS January 9, 2014 Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 5B-Vehicle Maintenance Garage Address & PID: Address UnassignedPID 34-028-24-34-0072 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 4, 2013, 9:45AM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies:SubstandardItisourprofessionalopinionthatthisbuildingisbecause: Substantial renovation isrequired tocorrect Conditions found. Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% ofreplacement cost. Estimated Replacement Cost:$1,135,477 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:$255,749 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies:22.5% Description of Condition Deficiencies Minnesota Statutes, Section469.174, Subdivision 10, states that abuilding isStructurally itcontains defects instructural elements oracombination of facilities, light and ventilation, fireprotection including aderess, layout and condition ofinterior partitions, orsimilar factors, which defects ordeficiencies ar substantial renovation orclearance. A.Defects inStructural Elements 1.The roof has leaks inanumber oflocations. B.Combinationof Deficiencies 1.Essential Utilities andFacilities a.The building does nothavean accessible entrance. Provide accessible parking stalls, signage, and path tothe entry. b.Doors lackhandles meeting requirements for accessibility. c.Therestrooms arenot accessible. d.The building lacks theplumbing fixtures required foritssizea e.The building isnotconnected toutilities: water, gas andelectrical services f.Electrical outlets atsinks, kitchen counters andthroughout garagebaysshould be GFCIs. 2.Light andVentilation a.Ventilation system isinadequate. Install fresh/makeup air for entire building. b.Install combustion airfor gas-fired furnaces and water heaters c.Thegaragelacks asystem toventilate vehicle exhaust. 3.FireProtection/Adequate Egress a.Front doorlacks anaccessible approach. b.Exit doors lackpanic hardware. c.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 d.There isagreater than ½change inlevelonthe outside ofthe e.Stairfrommezzanine(s)doesnot meetrequirements for size ofrisers andtreads. f.Guard railatmezzaninedoes not meetCode requirements forheight and spacing ofbalust 4.Layout andCondition ofInterior Partitions/Materials a.There are unpatched openings inwalls. b.Awooden mezzaninehas been built in 2bays; itdoes nothave adequate guard rails or clearance from theceiling. 5.Exterior Construction a.The roof lacks adequate ventilation. b.Theroof hasnumerous leaks. c.The exterior walls need repainting d.Manyoftheoverhead doorsare broken andinneedofreplacement. Overview of Condition Deficiencies Theformer CityofRichfield vehicle maintenance garage has CMU wall east side. The roofstructure consists oflight gauge steeltrusses with metal deck. Acentral wide flange beam divides the 58 span. The building wasvacated several yea ofthe 17overhead doors are inpoor condition. Both person doorequire excessive force tooperate. Theroof hasbeen leaking inseveral areas. In total, the defects and deficiencies inthis building areof s substantial renovation orclearance. Description of Code Deficiencies 1.Building lacks accessible parkingstalls, signage, and pathtotheentry. 2.Building lacks required combustion / make upair. 3.Building lacksan exhaust system forgarage. 4.Restroomsdo notprovide required accessibility: clear floor area, fixture clearances, grab bars, entry andaccess. 5.Building lacks anaccessible drinking fountain. 6.Wooden mezzanine violates code requirements for guard rails and material isnot compatible with the restofthe building. 7.Exit doors lackpanic hardware. 8.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 Energy Code Inaddition tothe building code deficiencies, the existing buil energy code; however, these deficiencies arenot included inthe deficiencies or listed as condition deficiencies. Building sexterior envelope (walls, roof andfoundation walls/perimeter esnot have insulation with R-values needed tomeet current energy code requirements. Building sheating, cooling and lighting arenot asefficient asent energy code would require. RICHFIELDTIF DISTRICT CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS January 9, 2014 Map No. & Building Name: MapNo. 6 -Maintenance Office Address & PID: 7699Pillsbury Ave S.PID 34-028-24-34-0073 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 4, 2013, 11:00AM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies:SubstandardItisourprofessionalopinionthatthisbuildingisbecause: Substantial renovation isrequired tocorrect Conditions found. Building Code deficiencies totalmore than 15% ofreplacement cost. Estimated Replacement Cost:$472,864 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:$77,049 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies:16.3% Description of Condition Deficiencies Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that abuilding isStructurally Substan itcontains defects instructural elements oracombination of facilities, light and ventilation, fireprotection including adeyout and condition ofinterior partitions, orsimilar factors, which defects ordeficiencies ar substantial renovation orclearance. A.Defects inStructural Elements 1.The roofleaks inanumber oflocations. B.Combinationof Deficiencies 1.Essential Utilities andFacilities a.The building lacks accessible restrooms. b.The building doesnot havean accessible entrance. Provide accessible parking stalls, signage, and path tothe entry. c.Doors lackhandles meeting requirements for accessibility. d.The building lacks an accessible drinking fountain. e.Thebreak area doesnot meet requirements for accessibility: co adequate knee space isnotprovided atthe sink. f.Electrical outlets atsinks should beGFCIs . 2.Light andVentilation a.The restrooms lack afunctioning ventilation system 3.FireProtection/Adequate Egress a.The building lacks thesecond exit (person door) required byIBC b.South doorlacks an accessible approach. c.Exitdoorlackspanic hardware. d.Thresholdat doorexceedsallowable 1/2 e.Interior doors tostorage areashould be fire-rated. 4.Layout andCondition ofInterior Partitions/Materials a.Walls are worn and inneed ofpainting. b.Ceiling tiles arebroken andmissing andstained and moldy inplaces duetoroofleaks. c.Paint ispeeling fromthegypboard ceiling inthemen slocker room. d.VCT floors are damaged inplaces, stained and generally worn. S partially removed, exposing adhesive on the concrete slab. e.Carpeted areas show damage and wear and tear. Some carpet ispa other places carpet tileshave been removed. f.Concrete block near the westdoorinstorage area isdamaged and leakage. g.Plumbing inmen slocker room showers has been ripped out leaving holes inthe wal h.Wood interior window frames/trimare decaying anddamaged from m 5.Exterior Construction a.Theroof hasnumerous leaks. b.The exterior walls need repainting. c.Thewest storage door isdamaged thebottom isduct-taped. d.Window frames and doors are corroded. Overview of Condition Deficiencies Theformer CityofRichfield maintenance office building was constructed in1963 aspartoft maintenance garage tothenorth. The concrete block storage areaatthe north sideof the office isthe thsouthernendofthatgaragewhichwasseveredwhenWest77Street wasre-aligned. Theoffice portion is brick-faced CMU with light gauge steel roofjoists andmetal deck abov Thebuilding isinpoor condition andwould needsignificant remodeling tomake itusabl To make thebuilding usable under current building codes,twoaccessible toilet roomsand allthe associated plumbing andfixtures would need tobe installed. An additional exitdoor would alsoneed to beprovided. In total, the defects and deficiencies inthis building areof s substantial renovation orclearance. Description of Code Deficiencies 1.Building lacks accessible parking stalls, signage, and pathtotheentry. 2.Electrical outlets atsinks should beGFCIs . 3.Thebuilding sroofdoes not meetIBC requirements and should bereplaced . 4.Building lacks required accessible restroom facilities. 5.Building lacks anaccessible drinking fountain. 6.Thebuilding lacks thesecond exit required by IBC Table 1019.1. 7.Interior andexterior doors lackCode compliant hardware; they 8.Exitdoorslackpanic hardware. 9.Thresholds atdoors exceed allowable 1/2 10.Doors tothe storage areado notmeet code: they needtohavea45-minute fire-resistance rating. Energy Code Inaddition tothe building code deficiencies, the existing buil energy code; however, these deficiencies arenotincluded intheestimated costs tocorrect code deficiencies or listed as condition deficiencies. Building sexterior envelope (walls, roof andfoundation walls/perimeter esnot have insulation with R-values needed tomeet current energy code requirements. Building sheating, cooling and lighting are notasefficient ascur APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code DeficiencyCost Reports Photographs Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications Additional information to be added to prior to the public hearing But-For Analysis Current Market Value1,522,253 New Market Value - Estimate15,250,000 Difference13,727,747 Present Value of Tax Increment4,549,031 Difference9,179,716 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 9,178,716 AppendixG-1