Loading...
HRA Agenda and Packet February March CUMMINGS _S M T W T F S _S M T W T F S CAMPBELL 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 GADD 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HALVERSON 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 KUZNIA 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MORNSON 28 29 ELVERUM 27 28 29 30 31 HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING February 2, 2016 7 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve minutes of the January 5, 2016, regular meeting 2. Approve disbursements through January 31, 2016 3. Schedule special HRA meeting to approve redevelopment agreement for The Moline project Recommendation: approve consent agenda Board Action: ___________________________________________ III. NEW BUSINESS ITEM HRA 2016-04 1. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1/Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No 1-5 Recommendation: adopt Resolution 510 Board Action: ____________________________________________ III. ADJOURNMENT Board Action: ____________________________________________ UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF HOPKINS HRA REGULAR MEETING January 5, 2016 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority was held January 5, 2016,at Hopkins City Hall. Present were Chair Molly Cummings, Commissioners Katy Campbell, Jason Gadd, Kristi Halverson and Aaron Kuznia. Also present were Executive Director Mike Mornson, Executive Director Stacy Unowsky, Assistant Executive Director Kersten Elverum and City Attorney Scott Riggs. I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. II. CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approve minutes of the December 1, 2015, regular meeting 2.Approve disbursements through December 31, 2015 3.Item HRA 2016-01 Adopt 2016 City Council meeting calendar for the HRA Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Campbell seconded, to approve the consent agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. III. NEW BUSINESS ITEM HRA 2016-02 Public hearing for Annual and Five-Year Plans for the HRA, adopt Resolution 508 Ms. Unowsky gave an overview of the plans. Chair Cummings asked when federal funds would be certain. Ms. Unowsky replied that typically they are available in the summer, but if delayed due to Congress and the upcoming election year, it could be later. Chair Cummings opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak. Commissioner Halverson moved, Commissioner Kuznia seconded, to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously and the meeting closed. Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Halverson seconded, to adopt Resolution 508, authorizing approval of the PHA Annual Plan and the Five-Year Action Plan, and subsequent submission to HUD. The motion was approved unanimously. Minutes of the Hopkins HRA Regular Meeting, January 5, 2016 Page 2 ITEM HRA 2016-03 Public hearing for acceptance and use of 2016 capital funds, adopt Resolution 509 Chair Cummings opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak. Commissioner Gadd moved, Commissioner Kuznia seconded, to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously and the meeting closed. Commissioner Campbell moved, Commissioner Halverson seconded, to adopt Resolution 509, authorizing HRA Board and Executive Director to accept and use the 2016 Capital Funds. The motion was approved unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Halverson moved, Commissioner Campbell seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m. ____________________________________ Molly Cummings, Chair ____________________________________ MichaelJMornsonExecutiveDirector ., HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS RESOLUTION NO. 510 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-5 (THE MOLINE) THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota (the "HRA"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals 1.01. The Board of Commissioners of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the HRA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 The Moline (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The HRA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 270 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 2016, approval of the Plans by the HRA on February 2, 2016, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the ''Reports") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports, including the redevelopment qualifications reports and planning documents, include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The City is not modifying the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, but is however, modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification. 2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) of the Act. 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.04. The Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a developer are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans 5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Dated: February 2, 2016 ATTEST: __________________________________ _____________________________________ Chair Executive Director EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 510 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of one parcel, with plans to redevelop the area for housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, and the need to construct a public parking facility for the future SWLRT line, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of redeveloping the site, cost of public parking facility and required public improvements add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $33,652,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $11,315,549.. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $22,336,451 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the redevelopment of a substandard property, increased tax base of the State, increase in availability of safe and decent life-cycle housing and add a high quality development to the City. Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Hopkins Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 The Moline The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 The Moline. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete Tax Increment Financing Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 The Moline (District) and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan). Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No. 1 includes the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 The Moline, which represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Type of TIF District: A redevelopment district Parcel Numbers: 24-117-22-43-0151 24-117-22-43-0152 24-117-22-43-0132 24-117-22-43-0134 City ROW Proposed The District is being created to facilitate the construction of 241 market rate Development: apartments and a 189-stall public parking ramp for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Stop in the City. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: The duration of the District will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment (26 years of increment). The City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2018. It is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after December 31, 2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. Estimated annual tax Up to $1,334,042 increment: Authorized uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition .................................................. $4,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation ........................................... $2,000,000 Public Utilities .................................................................... $1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements ......................................... $5,541,056 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ....................................... $2,393,724 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .............................................. $14,934,780 Interest .............................................................................. $11,396,187 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL$26,330,967 ........................................... See Subsection 2-10, on page 2-6 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and possible bond issue. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Interfund Loan If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures or capital Requirement: expenditures from a tax increment fund, it is recommended that a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: Demolition Rehabilitation Renovation Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately February 2020, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) expended or obligated to be expended . Any obligations in the District made after approximately February 2021, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit A of the City resolution. Page 2 As of January 26, 2016 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline) (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Hopkins Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: February 2, 2016 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 of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1..........................................1-1 Foreword.............................................................1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5..................................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......................................2-13 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...............................2-14 Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements...........................2-14 Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations.................................2-14 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 Redevelopment Project No. 1 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 Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline). For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the City Clerk at the City of Hopkins. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1-1 Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline) Subsection 2-1.Foreword The Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Hopkins (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (the Moline) (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of four parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the construction of 241 market rate apartments and a 189-stall public parking ramp for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Stop in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA will be entering into a contract with Doran 810 Apartments LLC and expects development to occur in 2016. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview 1.Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2.Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3.Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4.The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-1 Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a)"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, 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 or other 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 a combination 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 Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-2 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 a new 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 a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal 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 a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph (e), as the case may be, within three years of the 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, a parcel 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). In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: •The District is a redevelopment district consisting of four parcels. •An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. •An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). •The City has passed a demolition resolution prior to certification of the District. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-3 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111,273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The HRA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2018, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2018) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1.Change in tax exempt status of property; 2.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3.Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4.Change in the use of the property and classification; 5.Change in state law governing class rates; or 6.Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2018. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-4 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$918,569 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$31,225 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$887,344 Original Local Tax Rate1.50341Pay 2015 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$1,334,042 Percent Retained by the HRA100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one is estimated to be $316,313. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. 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 preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. The City did issue a demolition permit and pass a demolition resolution prior to certification of the District. Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and possible bond issue. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDSTOTAL Tax Increment$23,937,243 Interest$2,393,724 TOTAL$26,330,967 The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $14,934,780. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-5 Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of 241 market rate apartments and a 189-stall public parking ramp for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Stop. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. TOTAL USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition$4,000,000 Site Improvements/Preparation$2,000,000 Utilities$1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements$5,541,056 $2,393,724 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) PROJECT COST TOTAL$14,934,780 Interest$11,396,187 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL$26,330,967 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant toM.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11.Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (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 and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-6 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 to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. It is not anticipated that the District will contain commercial/industrial property. As a result, there should be no impact due to the fiscal disparities provision on the District . According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c)The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district 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 Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2)Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-7 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13.County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-8 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2015/Pay 2016Estimated Captured Total NetTax Capacity (CTC)Percent of CTC Tax CapacityUpon Completionto Entity Total Hennepin County 1,467,566,893887,3440.0605% City of Hopkins16,210,817887,3445.4738% Hopkins ISD No. 270103,765,150887,3440.8551% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2015PercentPotential Extension Ratesof TotalCTCTaxes Hennepin County 0.46398030.86%887,344411,710 City of Hopkins0.62503041.57%887,344554,617 Hopkins ISD No. 2700.30340020.18%887,344269,220 7.38%887,34498,495 Other0.111000 Total1.503410100.00%1,334,042 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2016 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $23,937,243; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is not expected. The Hopkins police department does track all calls for service including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The existing building, which will be eliminated by the new development, has public safety concerns. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District is expected to contribute an estimated $2,485 per unit in sanitary sewer (SAC) connection fees. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-9 The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $4,830,536; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,387,033; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA and City's findings: •Downtown Hopkins Station: Southwest Corridor Investment Framework - Transitional Station Area Action Plan. Subsection 2-16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1.Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2.The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3.Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4.Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5.Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6.The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-10 Subsection 2-17.Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2.Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3.A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4.Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5.Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6.Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-18.Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1.Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2.Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3.Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4.Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5.Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-11 counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section authorizedanddocumented 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits ofM.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19.Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: 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 a parcel located within a tax 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 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 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-12 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. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately February 2020 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20.Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1.To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2.To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3.To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4.To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5.To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6.To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7.To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21.Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1.Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2.Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3.Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4.Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-13 District. Subsection 2-22.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-23.Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24.Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the City Clerk. Subsection 2-25.Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26.Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-14 to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF 1.General Limitations Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. . At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on 2.Pooling Limitations activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. . Tax increments derived from the District shall 3.Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. . At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a 4.Redevelopment District redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the HRA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-15 Subsection 2-28.Summary The Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline)2-16 Appendix A Project Description Doran 810 Apartments LLC is proposing to construct a 5-story, 241-unit market rate apartment with underground parking and an attached 189-stall public parking facility for the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Stop (SWLRT) in the City. The building will consist of 119 one-bedrooms, 103 two-bedrooms, 13 three-bedrooms and six one-level, walk-up units. It is anticipated that after the building and parking are constructed, that the 189-stall public parking facility will be sold to Metro Transit for use by riders utilizing the new SWLRT stop to be located at Excelsior th Boulevard and 8 Avenues. AppendixA-1 Appendix B Map(s) of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District AppendixB-1 Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 Redevelopment Project No. 1 City of Hopkins Hennepin County, Minnesota Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel NumbersAddressOwner st 24-117-22-43-0151810 1 ST. SDORAN 24-117-22-43-0152810 1 st ST. SDORAN st 24-117-22-43-0132810 1 ST. SDORAN 24-117-22-43-0134810 1 st ST. SDORAN ROW 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) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. AppendixE-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District AppendixF-1 Report ofInspection Procedures and Resultsfor Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 Hopkins, Minnesota August 28, 2015 Prepared For the City of Hopkins Prepared by: LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 LHB Project No. 150472 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 –EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................2 Purpose of Evaluation................................................................................2 Scope of Work...........................................................................................3 Conclusion.................................................................................................3 PART 2 –MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS.......3 A.Coverage Test......................................................................................4 B.Condition of Buildings Test...................................................................4 C.Distribution of Substandard Buildings...................................................5 PART 3 –PROCEDURES FOLLOWED.........................................................................6 PART 4 –FINDINGS......................................................................................................6 A.Coverage Test......................................................................................6 B.Condition of Building Test.....................................................................7 1.Building Inspection....................................................................7 2.Replacement Cost.....................................................................8 3.Code Deficiencies.....................................................................8 4.System Condition Deficiencies..................................................9 C.Distribution of Substandard Structures.................................................9 PART 5 -TEAM CREDENTIALS..................................................................................11 APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 1of 12Final Report PART1 –EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Hopkinsto inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the stth City. The proposed TIF District is bound by 1 Street South, 8 Avenue South, Excelsior th Boulevard and 9 Avenue South (Diagram 1).The purpose of LHB’s work isto determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether one building on four (1) parcelsand one (1) right of way parcel, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 2of 12Final Report SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of four (4) parcels and one (1) right of way parcel with one (1) building. The building was inspected on August 17, 2015. A Building Code and Condition Deficiency Report for the building that was inspected is located in Appendix B. CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and 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 qualifies as a Redevelopment District because: The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. 100 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is abovethe 50 percent requirement. The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 –MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under 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 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.” DOCUMENTATION “Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).” QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels: Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 3of 12Final Report A.COVERAGE TEST …“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots…” The coverage required by the parcel to be considered 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, 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.” B.CONDITION OF BUILDINGS TEST Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally 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, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination 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.” a.We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by 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 Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. 2.Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: “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 a new 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.” “Items of evidence that support such a conclusion \[that the building is not disqualified\] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.” LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 4of 12Final Report The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, “Buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.” Furthermore, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, “References to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy Code…” The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. C.DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, defines a Redevelopment District and requires one or more of the following conditions, “reasonably distributed throughout the district.” (1)“Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other 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, orexcessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3)tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities…” Our interpretation of the distribution requirement is that the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the district as compared to the location of all buildings in the district. For example, if all of the buildings in a district are located on one half of the area of the district, with the other half occupied by parking lots (meeting the required 70 percent coverage for the district), we would evaluate the distribution of the substandard buildings compared with only the half of the district where the buildings are located. If all of the buildings in a district are located evenly throughout the entire area of the district, the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the entire area of the Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 5of 12Final Report district. We believe this is consistent with the opinion expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. PART 3 –PROCEDURES FOLLOWED st LHB inspectedthe Johnson Buildingat 810 1Street South in Hopkins, Minnesotaduring the day of August 17, 2015. PART 4 –FINDINGS A.COVERAGE TEST 1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mappingand site verification. 2.The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 3.The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percentminimum requirement was met.The total square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. FINDING: The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1). Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 6of 12Final Report Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures B.CONDITION OF BUILDING TEST 1.BUILDING INSPECTION The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk- thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non- code deficiencies in the building. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 7of 12Final Report 2.REPLACEMENT COST The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for 2015. A replacement 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 in Hopkins, Minnesota. Replacement cost includeslabor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs 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 deficiencies exist with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings 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 a result, it was 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 such buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the 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 specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works 2015; Unit and Assembly Coststo determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were then able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. FINDING: One (1) building (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). The Building Code,Condition Deficiency and Context AnalysisReport for the building in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 8of 12Final 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 significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above. System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors. The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that component’s deficiencies. After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” FINDING: In our professional opinion, one building (100 percent) in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination 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. 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 buildings as they relate 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 parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels that contain buildings. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 9of 12Final Report Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings Shaded green area depicts parcels with substandard buildings. Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 10of 12Final Report PART 5 -TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP -Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 28 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for TIF Districts. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota planning commission. Michael has also managed and designed several award- winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997. PhilipWaugh –Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Phil Fisher –Inspector For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings. M:\\15Proj\\150472\\400 Design\\406 Reports\\Final Report\\150472 20150825 TIF 1-5 Johnson Building Redevelopment Final Report.docx Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 11of 12Final Report APPENDICES APPENDIX AProperty Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX BBuilding Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX CBuilding Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5 LHB Project No. 150472Page 12of 12Final Report APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports Johnson Building TIFDistrict 1-5 Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report August 17, 2015 Map No. & Address: Parcels A-D - 810 1st Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): August 5, 2015, 9:30 am Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies:It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $6,941,404 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $1,421,659 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 20.48% Defects in Structural Elements 1.Structural block work has both vertical and horizontal cracking indicative of differential settlement. 2.Block parapet walls have deteriorated beyond their life expectancy. 3.Steel columns are rusting. 4.Steel lintels are rusting. Combination of Deficiencies 1.Essential Utilities and Facilities a.All 19 restrooms are non-compliant with accessibility codes. b.There is not a compliant accessible route into or out of the building. c.The showers are non-compliant with accessibility codes. d.Staff break room sinks do not meet ADA requirements. e.10 inch kick plates are required per code on all exterior glass doors. 2.Light and Ventilation a.The original ventilation system is not code compliant. b.There is non-compliant exposed wiring in several areas. 3.Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a.95% of interior door hardware is non-compliant. b.There are five offices that do not have code compliant side access to egress doors. c.Railings are needed on both sides of the stairs in the eastern most office suite to meet code compliance. d.Exterior door thresholds are higher than code allows. e.Code compliant anunciator panel is missing. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5Building Report LBH Project No. 150472Page 1of 3Parcels A-D 4.Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a.Ceiling exhibits signs of cracking drywall. b.Ceiling tile is stained from water intrusion. c.The stair railing does not meet current codes for spacing between rail openings. d.The interior walls require hole repair and new paint. e.Interior walls require drywall replacement in some areas. f.Rubber wall base requires replacement in some areas. g.Wood door threshold requires replacement. h.Ships ladder to roof does not meet correct angle for code compliance. 5.Exterior Construction a.Greater than 75% of the exterior block walls need to be re-pointed to prevent water intrusion. b.Greater than 10% of the exterior CMU needs to be replaced to prevent water intrusion. c.Exterior walls should be painted/sealed to prevent water intrusion. d.Exterior steps have deteriorated and are a potential hazard. e.Exterior windows have seals that have failed and are allowing water intrusion. f.The roof appears to have failed as evident by the number of stained ceiling tile, the stained pooling on the roof and reports by tenants. g.All caulk joints have failed allowing water intrusion. Description of Code Deficiencies 1.Point CMU's to prevent water intrusion per code. 2.Replace damaged and or missing CMU's to prevent water intrusion per code. 3.Remove and replace all caulking at control joints to prevent water intrusion per code. 4.Remove and replace all caulking around exterior door and window openings to prevent water intrusion per code. 5.Paint/seal exterior CMU's to prevent water intrusion per code. 6.Remove and replace roof to prevent water intrusion per code. 7.Correct spacing on interior stair railing to meet code. 8.Repair concrete steps to prevent injury per code. 9.Remove and replace original HVAC system to comply with code. 10.Repaint/protect steel structural columns per code. 11.Repaint/protect steel lintels per code. 12.Remodel 19 restrooms to comply with Accessibility code. 13.Replace hardware on 100 interior doors for code compliance. 14.Install accessible door opener on garage door to main building interior for ADA compliance. 15.Install an accessible route for ADA egess compliance. 16.Correct two of the three exterior door thresholds for ADA compliance. 17.Install 10 inch kick plates on exterior glass doors for code compliance. 18.Enclose wiring where exposed per code. 19.Make showers ADA compliant. 20.Remodel five offices to comply with side access to egress doors for ADA compliance. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5Building Report LBH Project No. 150472Page 2of 3Parcels A-D Overview of Deficiencies This building constructed in 1974 is in need of repair/replacement in several critical building components. The roof is past its anticipated life expectancy as noted by the number of roof leaks reported by tenants. A visual inspection of the roof shows rusting on the metal flashing, cracking of the built up membrane and signs of ponding water in numerous areas. The exterior block walls show significant signs of deterioration. The mortar joints are in need of re-pointing to prevent water intrusion. Window seals have failed and are allowing water intrusion. There is no means of building access or egress to meet ADA compliance. There are no ADA compliant restrooms in the building. The HVAC system is original and does not meet current code requirements. Johnson BuildingTIF District 1-5Building Report LBH Project No. 150472Page 3of 3Parcels A-D APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Johnson Building TIF District 1-5 Replacement Cost Report Square Foot Cost Estimate Report8/7/2015 Date: Hopkins Johnson Building Estimate Name: City of Hopkins 801 1st Street South , Hopkins , Minnesota , 55343 Warehouse with Concrete Block / Steel Frame Building Type: MINNEAPOLIS, MN Location: 1 Story Count: 24 Story Height (L.F.): 70000 Floor Area (S.F.): OPN Labor Type: Basement Yes Included: ear 2014 Quarter 3 Y Data Release: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Cost Per Square $99.19 Foot: Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. $6,941,404.35 Building Cost: ** Area entered is outside the range recommended by RSMeans. % of TotalCost Per S.F.Cost A Substructure17.10%15.411,078,874.45 A1010Standard Foundations2.26158,218.85 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 0.5739,633.55 12" deep x 24" wide Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 100K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 4' 1.69118,585.30 - 6" square x 15" deep A1030Slab on Grade5.45381,737.30 5.45381,737.30 Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced A2010Basement Excavation4.18292,319.30 Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site 4.18292,319.30 storage A2020Basement Walls3.52246,599.00 Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF, 12" 3.52246,599.00 thick B Shell46.39%41.822,927,251.24 B1010Floor Construction19.861,390,335.99 Cast-in-place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story height, 4.05283,806.44 142 lbs/LF, 4000PSI Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column, 15'x15' 13.67957,026.70 bay, 75 PSF superimposed load, 153 PSF total load Floor, concrete, slab form, open web bar joist @ 2' OC, on W beam and 2.14149,502.85 column, 25'x25' bay, 32" deep, 125 PSF superimposed load, 170 PSF total B1020Roof Construction10.37726,124.00 Roof, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 25'x25' bay, 20" 8.58600,474.70 deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 60 PSF total load Roof, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 25'x25' bay, 20" 1.79125,649.30 deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 60 PSF total load, add for column B2010Exterior Walls4.43309,764.45 Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Replacement Cost Report Page 1 of 3 LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI, reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted4.43309,764.45 B2030Exterior Doors1.283,981.29 Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, narrow stile, double door, hardware, 6'- 0.213,970.00 0" x 10'-0" opening Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" 0.2618,305.79 opening Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, electric operator, 12'-0" x 12'-0" 0.7451,705.50 opening B3010Roof Coverings5.81406,769.89 Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, 3.2224,286.30 mopped 2.05143,402.70 Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite 0.3927,480.25 Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face 0.1711,600.64 Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick B3020Roof Openings0.1510,275.62 Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'-6" x 3'-0", galvanized steel, 0.01960.29 165 lbs 0.139,315.33 Smoke hatch, unlabeled, galvanized, 2'-6" x 3', not incl hand winch operator C Interiors6.64%5.99419,059.21 C1010Partitions0.856,085.46 0.856,085.46 Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish C1020Interior Doors0.2316,146.90 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'-0" 0.2316,146.90 x 7'-0" x 1-3/8" C2010Stair Construction0.4128,369.80 0.4128,369.80 Stairs, steel, grate type w/nosing & rails, 20 risers, with landing C3010Wall Finishes1.74121,614.60 1.1781,553.32 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler 0.3222,262.02 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats 0.2517,799.26 Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler C3020Floor Finishes2.09146,148.87 0.5538,382.12 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum 1.1983,044.71 Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, maximum 0.3524,722.04 Vinyl, composition tile, maximum C3030Ceiling Finishes0.7250,693.58 Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar & channel 0.7250,693.58 grid, suspended support 26.91%24.271,697,915.19 D Services D2010Plumbing Fixtures1.46101,902.56 0.4632,274.59 Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung 0.1611,080.54 Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung 0.4934,322.59 Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 18" x 15" 0.2316,334.70 Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" 0.117,890.14 Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH D2020Domestic Water Distribution0.4128,455.59 0.4128,455.59 Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 75.5 MBH input, 63 GPH D2040Rain Water Drainage1.69118,228.99 0.9868,649.75 Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 grooved, 5" diam piping, 10' high Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Replacement Cost Report Page 2 of 3 LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 5" diam piping, for each additional foot 0.7149,579.24 add D3020Heat Generating Systems5.17361,791.11 5.17361,791.11 Warehouse ventilization with heat system 24,000 CFM Supply and Exhaust D3050Terminal & Package Units0.9264,255.59 0.9264,255.59 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, offices, 3,000 SF, 9.50 ton D4010Sprinklers3.81266,859.60 Wet pipe sprinkler systems, grooved steel, black, sch 40 pipe, ordinary hazard, 3.81266,859.60 1 floor, 10,000 SF D4020Standpipes2.13148,829.86 0.4632,007.77 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, 1 floor 1.67116,822.09 Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, additional D5010Electrical Service/Distribution0.2316,380.90 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 0.053,182.05 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A 0.032,362.50 Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 1 0.1510,836.35 phase, 400 A D5020Lighting and Branch Wiring5.8405,777.26 2.39167,578.60 Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 5 per 1000 SF, .6 watts per SF 0.149,767.80 Wall switches, 1.0 per 1000 SF 0.149,767.80 Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts 0.042,920.26 Central air conditioning power, 3 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 0.8 watt per SF, 20 FC, 5 2.31162,047.34 fixtures @32 watt per 1000 SF Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 2.4 watt per SF, 60 FC, 15 0.7753,695.46 fixtures @ 32 watt per 1000 SF D5030Communications and Security2.65185,433.73 Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 100 detectors, 2.45171,363.52 includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire 0.214,070.21 Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire & conduit 2.97%2.68187,267.50 E Equipment & Furnishings E1030ehicular Equipment2.68187,267.50 V rchitectural equipment, dock boards, heavy duty, 5' x 5', aluminum, 5000 lb A 0.3222,400.00 capacity 2.36164,867.50 Architectural equipment, dock levelers, hydraulic, 7' x 8', 10 ton capacity E1090Other Equipment00 0%00 F Special Construction G Building Sitework0%00 100%$90.17 $6,310,367.59 SubTotal Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)10.00%$9.02 $631,036.76 0.00%$0.00 $0.00 Architectural Fees User Fees0.00%$0.00 $0.00 $99.19 $6,941,404.35 Total Building Cost Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Replacement Cost Report Page 3 of 3 LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D Johnson Building TIF District 1-5 Code Deficiency Cost Report Parcels A-D - 810 1st Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 Parcel Numbers: 2411722430151, 2411722430134, 2411722430132, 2411722430152 Unit Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Total Quantity Accessibility Items Entrance/Egress Modify main entrance for ADA compliance Install accessible ramp10,000.00$ lump1 10,000.00$ Install exterior door assist system3,500.00$ Ea1 3,500.00$ aƚķźŅǤĻƌĻǝğƷƚƩƷƚƚƦĻƓźƓƷƚƌƚĬĬǤ $ lump130,000.00 30,000.00$ Modify garage level entrance for ADA compliance Install exterior door assist system3,500.00$ Ea1 3,500.00$ Restrooms Modify 19 restrooms for ADA compliance5,000.00$ Ea19 95,000.00$ Door hardware Install ADA compliant door hardware250.00$ Ea100 25,000.00$ Showers Modify showers for ADA compliance5,000.00$ Ea2 10,000.00$ Staff break rooms Modify sink area in staff break rooms for ADA compliance1,000.00$ Ea5 5,000.00$ Exterior doors Modify three exterior thresholds to meet code compliance250.00$ Ea3 750.00$ Structural Elements Columns Repaint all steel columns to prevent rust5,000.00$ lump1 5,000.00$ Lintels Repaint all steel lintels to prevent rust2,500.00$ lump1 2,500.00$ Windows Remove and replace window caulking to prevent water intrusio$ LF6722.06 1,384.32$ Exiting Exterior glass doors LƓƭƷğƌƌĭƚķĻƩĻƨǒźƩĻķЊЉδƉźĭƉƦƌğƷĻƭƚƓğƌƌŭƌğƭƭķƚƚƩƭ $ Ea10100.00 1,000.00$ Hand rails Modify horizontal metal stair railings for code compliance5,000.00$ lump1 5,000.00$ Install code required hand railings in eastern most suite250.00$ Ea2 500.00$ Interior office hallways Modify interior office hallways for exiting code compliance5,000.00$ Ea5 25,000.00$ Ships ladder Install code compliant ships ladder to roof3,500.00$ Ea1 3,500.00$ Fire Protection Annunciator panel5,000.00$ ea1 5,000.00$ Install code compliant annunciator panel Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Code Deficiency Cost Report Page 1 of 2 LHB Project No.150472Parcels A-D Unit Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Total Quantity Exterior Construction Exterior walls Tuck point exterior CMU's1.75$ SF 66,500 116,375.00$ Replace damaged CMU's8.00$ Ea1,000 8,000.00$ Remove and replace all exterior control joint caulking to prevent water intrusion$ LF2,5002.06 5,150.00$ Paint exterior to prevent water intrusion1.74$ SF70,000 121,800.00$ Exterior steps Repair/Replace exterior steps to prevent injury3,500.00$ Lump1 3,500.00$ Roof Construction Replace roof Remove existing roofing0.91$ SF 70,000 63,700.00$ Install new roof to prevent water intrusion5.81$ SF 70,000 406,700.00$ SF720 -$ Mechanical- Electrical Ventilation Replace original HVAC system with code compliant system6.09$ SF70,000 426,300.00$ Electrical Enclose exposed wiring per code3,500.00$ Lump1 3,500.00$ Upgrade electrical service for new HVAC system0.50$ SF70,000 35,000.00$ Total Code Improvements1,421,659.32$ Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Code Deficiency Cost Report Page 2 of 2 LHB Project No.150472Parcels A-D Johnson Building TIF District 1-5 Photos: Parcels A-D, 810 1st Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343 P1040975.JPGP1040976.JPGP1040977.JPG P1040978.JPGP1040979.JPGP1040980.JPG P1040981.JPGP1040982.JPGP1040983.JPG P1040984.JPGP1040985.JPGP1040986.JPG Page 1 of 14 P1040987.JPGP1040988.JPGP1040989.JPG P1040990.JPGP1040991.JPGP1040992.JPG P1040994.JPGP1040995.JPGP1040998.JPG P1040999.JPGP1050002.JPGP1050004.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 2 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050005.JPGP1050006.JPGP1050007.JPG P1050008.JPGP1050009.JPGP1050010.JPG P1050011.JPGP1050012.JPGP1050013.JPG P1050015.JPGP1050016.JPGP1050017.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 3 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050018.JPGP1050019.JPGP1050020.JPG P1050021.JPGP1050022.JPGP1050023.JPG P1050024.JPGP1050025.JPGP1050026.JPG P1050027.JPGP1050028.JPGP1050029.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 4 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050030.JPGP1050031.JPGP1050032.JPG P1050033.JPGP1050034.JPG P1050035.JPG P1050036.JPGP1050037.JPGP1050038.JPG P1050039.JPGP1050040.JPGP1050041.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 5 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050042.JPGP1050043.JPGP1050044.JPG P1050045.JPGP1050046.JPGP1050047.JPG P1050048.JPGP1050049.JPGP1050050.JPG P1050051.JPGP1050052.JPGP1050053.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 6 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050054.JPGP1050055.JPGP1050056.JPG P1050057.JPGP1050058.JPGP1050059.JPG P1050060.JPGP1050061.JPGP1050062.JPG P1050063.JPGP1050064.JPGP1050065.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 7 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050066.JPGP1050067.JPGP1050068.JPG P1050069.JPGP1050070.JPGP1050071.JPG P1050072.JPGP1050073.JPGP1050074.JPG P1050075.JPGP1050076.JPGP1050077.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 8 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050078.JPGP1050079.JPGP1050080.JPG P1050081.JPGP1050082.JPGP1050083.JPG P1050084.JPGP1050085.JPGP1050086.JPG P1050087.JPGP1050088.JPGP1050089.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 9 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050090.JPGP1050091.JPGP1050092.JPG P1050093.JPGP1050094.JPGP1050095.JPG P1050096.JPGP1050097.JPGP1050098.JPG P1050099.JPGP1050100.JPGP1050101.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 10 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050102.JPGP1050103.JPGP1050104.JPG P1050105.JPGP1050106.JPGP1050107.JPG P1050108.JPGP1050109.JPGP1050110.JPG P1050111.JPGP1050112.JPGP1050113.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 11 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050114.JPGP1050115.JPGP1050116.JPG P1050117.JPGP1050118.JPGP1050119.JPG P1050120.JPGP1050121.JPGP1050122.JPG P1050123.JPGP1050124.JPGP1050125.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 12 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050126.JPGP1050127.JPGP1050128.JPG P1050129.JPGP1050130.JPGP1050131.JPG P1050132.JPGP1050133.JPGP1050134.JPG P1050135.JPGP1050136.JPGP1050137.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 13 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D P1050138.JPGP1050139.JPGP1050426.JPG P1050428.JPGP1050429.JPGP1050431.JPG P1050434.JPG Johnson Building TIF District 1-5Page 14 of 14Photos LHB Project No. 150472Parcels A-D Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (District), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1.Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The District consists of one parcel, with plans to redevelop the area for housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area of the parcels in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. 2.Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, and the need to consturct a public parking facility for the future SWLRT line, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of redeveloping the site, cost of public parking facility and required public improvements add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a.The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b.If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $33,652,000. c.The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $11,315,549. AppendixG-1 d.Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $22,336,451 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3.Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4.Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the redevelopment of a substandard property, increased tax base of the State, increase in availability of safe and decent life-cycle housing and add a high quality development to the City. But-For Analysis Current Market Value2,498,000 New Market Value - Estimate36,150,000 Difference33,652,000 Present Value of Tax Increment11,315,549 Difference22,336,451 22,336,451 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: AppendixG-2