VII.2. TIF Substandard Property Findings – 325 Blake Road; ElverumJuly 11, 2018 Council Report 2018-084
TIF SUBSTANDARD PROPERTY FINDINGS – 325 BLAKE ROAD
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 2018-063 Finding
Parcels Are Occupied by a Structurally Substandard Building and Meet the Requirements of a
Redevelopment TIF District Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd.10.
With this motion, the former cold storage facility at 325 Blake Road can be demolished while
preserving the ability to establish a TIF Redevelopment District including the property.
Overview
The City of Hopkins has been planning for the redevelopment of the former Cold Storage facility at
325 Blake Road, in partnership with the owner, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). A
preferred developer, Kraus Anderson, has been named and project development is in early stages.
Today the building is vacant and due to the liability that poses to the MCWD and a desire to deliver a
cleared site to the developer, environmental remediation of asbestos and demolition of the building is
currently being bid. In order to preserve the ability to establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Redevelopment District, the City needs to document the building conditions that would qualify the
project as a TIF Redevelopment District. In June of 2017, LHB conducted the necessary inspections
and provided the attached building condition report.
The Resolution accepts the blight findings and documents the qualification as a redevelopment
district so that the building can be demolished fall 2018.
Primary Issues to Consider
Declaring the building substandard and qualifying it for inclusion in a TIF Redevelopment District does
not bind the City to the creation of the district or to providing a financial subsidy to a new
development, but keeps the option open as the redevelopment project is further defined.
Supporting Information
• Resolution 2018-063
• Report of Inspection Procedures and Result for Determining Qualifications of a Tax
Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District
____________________________
Kersten Elverum
Director of Planning & Development
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: Y/N _N___ Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Excess TIF
529569v2 AMB HP145-47
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-063
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS FINDING PARCELS
ARE OCCUPIED BY A STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD
BUILDING AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A
REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT UNDER MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTION 469.174, SUBD. 10
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City Council for the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, (the
“City”), create a tax increment financing district in an area within the City to be designated a redevelopment
district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (the “TIF District”); and
WHEREAS, in order to create this type of TIF District, the City must make a determination that
before the demolition or removal of any substandard buildings, certain conditions exist; and
WHEREAS, the conditions found by the City to exist throughout the proposed TIF District are
that 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; and
WHEREAS, in order to deem a parcel as being occupied by a structurally substandard building,
the City must first pass a resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by one
or more structurally substandard buildings and that after demolition and clearance the City intended to
include the parcel within the proposed tax increment financing district; and
WHEREAS, there exists in the City on the parcel at 325 Blake Road, Hopkins, MN, PID # 19-
117-21-14-0002 (collectively, the “Parcel”) one structurally substandard building to be demolished or
removed (the “Substandard Building Condition”); and
WHEREAS, a parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building if the parcel
was occupied by a substandard building or met the criteria of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174,
Subd. 10(e) within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district
with the county auditor, in addition to other requirements as are required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Hopkins that:
1. The Council has received from LHB, Inc. the “Report of Inspection Procedures and Results
for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District –
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District”, dated June 9, 2017 (the “Inspection Report”), finding
that, based on an inspection of the building located on the Parcel, such building was determined to be
substandard under the definition set forth in the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as
amended (the “TIF Act”). Based on the Inspection Report and other information available to the Council,
the Council finds that the building on the Parcel is structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation (i.e. 100% of the buildings in the proposed TIF District) or clearance and at least 15% of the
529569v2 AMB HP145-47
area of the Parcel identified on Exhibit A attached hereto contains improvements including one structurally
substandard building and therefore more than 70% of the area of the proposed TIF District is occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures as required by the TIF
Act.
2. After the date of approval of this resolution, the buildings on the Parcels may be demolished
or removed by the City, or such demolition or removal may be financed by the City, or may be undertaken
by a developer under a development agreement with the City.
3. The City intends to include Parcels in a redevelopment TIF District, and to file the request
for certification of such district with the Hennepin County auditor within 3 years after the date of demolition
of the building on the Parcels.
4. Upon filing the request for certification of a new tax increment financing district, the City
will notify the Hennepin County auditor that the original tax capacity of the Parcel must be adjusted to
reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel, or (b) the estimated market value of the
Parcel for the year in which the building was demolished or removed, but applying class rates for the current
year, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10(d).
5. City staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent
of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 17th day of July, 2018.
_______________________
Molly Cummings, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
(Seal)
529569v2 AMB HP145-47
A-1
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL AND PROPOSED TIF DISTRICT
Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for
Determining Qualifications of a
Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
Hopkins, Minnesota
June 9, 2017
Prepared For the
City of Hopkins
Prepared by:
LHB, Inc.
701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
LHB Project No. 170285
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 1 of 11 Final Report
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
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 2 of 11 Final Report
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of Hopkins to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment
Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the City. The
proposed TIF District is located at the southeast intersection of Lake Street Northeast and Blake Road
North (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District
meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether one (1) building on one (1) parcel, located
within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 3 of 11 Final Report
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of one (1) parcel with one (1) building. One (1) building was
inspected on May 4, 2017. 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 above the 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:
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 4 of 11 Final 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:
• 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.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 5 of 11 Final Report
• 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, or excessive 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
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.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 6 of 11 Final Report
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB inspected one (1) building during the day of May 4, 2017.
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 mapping and 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 percent minimum 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).
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 7 of 11 Final 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.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 8 of 11 Final 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
2017.
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 median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in
Hopkins, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, 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
2017; Unit and Assembly Costs to 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) out of one (1) buildings (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). Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 9 of 11 Final Report
reports for the buildings in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this
report.
4. SYSTEM CONDITION DEFICIENCIES
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally substandard”
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s defects or
deficiencies should be of sufficient total 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 (1) out of one (1) buildings (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).
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 10 of 11 Final Report
FINDING:
The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels
that contain buildings.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded green area depicts parcels with buildings.
Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 11 of 11 Final Report
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has 29 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 an Architectural Principal 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 and is currently a member of the Edina city council. 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.
Philip Waugh – 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.
O:\17Proj\170285\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\170285 20170609 Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF Report.docx
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF DistrictHopkins, MinnesotaProperty Condition Assessment Summary SheetTIF Map No.PID # Property AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandardA1911721140002 325 Blake Rd N Improved Interior/Exterior733,621 529,820 72.2% 733,621 1 $17,045,968 $2,556,895 $4,977,430 1 1TOTALS 733,621733,621 1 11100.0% 100.0%O:\17Proj\170285\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[170285 20170609 Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF Summary.xlsx]Property Info100.0%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF DistrictLHB Project Number 170285Page 1 of 1Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District Page 1 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 170285 Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
June 9, 2017
Parcel No. & Building Name: Parcel A Hopkins Cold Storage - Commercial
Address: 325 Blake Road North, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Parcel ID: 19-117-21-14-0002
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): May 4, 2017 3:30 PM
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: $17,045,968
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $4,977,430
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 29.20%
Defects in Structural Elements
1. Foundation walls are cracked and allowing for water intrusion contrary to code.
2. Metal structural building members are rusting and should be repaired and protected per code.
3. Interior structural walls are showing signs of separation at intersections.
Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There are no ADA compliant restrooms.
b. There is no ADA compliant entrance into the building.
c. There is no ADA compliant way to get between levels.
d. Door hardware is not ADA code compliant.
e. Overhead warehouse doors are not code compliant for lack of functional safety devices.
f. Shower is not ADA code compliant.
g. Staff break room is not ADA code compliant.
h. Stairway handrails do not comply with ADA code.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. HVAC system does not comply with mechanical/building code.
b. Light fixtures are damaged or missing in several areas.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District Page 2 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 170285 Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. No code required smoke detectors were observed.
b. Code compliant emergency lighting should be installed.
c. The exterior concrete steps do not meet code compliance for tread rise.
d. The exterior metal steps do not meet code compliance for tread rise.
e. Interior controlled doors do not comply with code for emergency egress. There is no power
backup or manual override device.
f. The freezer room doors are not code compliant because they cannot be operated from the
inside if door is locked from the outside.
g. Vinyl floor tile is missing/damaged creating an impediment to emergency egress, contrary to
code.
h. Carpeting is wrinkled causing an impediment to emergency egress, contrary to code.
i. The boiler room should have a second means of egress installed per code.
j. The stairway leading to the upper breakroom should be enclosed per code.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior walls should be painted.
b. Carpeting should be replaced.
c. Vinyl tile should be replaced.
d. Concrete floors are cracked.
e. Ceiling tile is missing/damaged.
f. Interior glass windows are not code compliant.
g. Mold is growing on interior surfaces.
h. Mechanical devices are not protected per OSHA code.
i. Interior pallet racking is not secured and is out of alignment.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Exterior face brick is damaged and/or missing, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to
code.
b. Exterior concrete block is damaged and/or missing allowing for water intrusion, contrary to
code.
c. Expansion joint caulking is damaged and/or missing, allowing for water intrusion, contrary
to code.
d. Metal window frames are rusting and should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per
code.
e. Concrete window sills are damaged/cracked and allowing for water intrusion, contrary to
code.
f. Caulking around air vents is missing allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
g. Exterior walls need to be repainted.
h. Exterior electrical outlets are not code compliant.
i. Canvas awnings are damaged and stained.
j. One third of the roof is allowing for water intrusion, which is contrary to code.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. Foundation walls should be repaired to prevent water intrusion per code.
2. Metal structural members should have rust removed and surfaces protected per code.
3. An ADA code compliant restroom should be installed.
4. A building entrance should be modified to create an ADA code compliant means of access.
5. Elevators should be installed to create an accessible route between levels.
6. ADA code compliant door hardware should be installed.
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District Page 3 of 3 Building Report
LHB Project No. 170285 Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
7. Safety devices should be installed on all overhead warehouse doors per code.
8. The shower on the second floor is not ADA code compliant.
9. Staff break room is not ADA code compliant.
10. Stairway handrails do not comply with code.
11. The HVAC system does not comply with mechanical/building code.
12. Code compliant smoke detectors should be installed.
13. Code compliant emergency lighting should be installed.
14. Exterior concrete stairs do not meet code for proper tread rise.
15. Exterior metal stairs do not meet code for proper tread rise.
16. Interior transfer doors do not meet code for emergency exiting in the event of power failure.
17. Freezer room doors do not comply with code for emergency egress if they are locked from the
outside.
18. Vinyl flooring is damaged and causing an impediment to emergency egress per code.
19. Carpeting is wrinkled and causing an impediment to emergency egress per code.
20. The boiler room should have a second means of egress per code.
21. Metal stairway leading to the upper break room should be enclosed per code.
22. Metal stairway leading out of mechanical room basement should be enclosed per code.
23. Interior glass windows are not code compliant.
24. Mechanical pumps in the boiler room are not properly protected per code.
25. Mechanical door opener at tall bay storage area is not properly protected per code.
26. Exterior brick is damaged/missing allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
27. Exterior concrete block is damaged/missing allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
28. Expansion joint caulking should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
29. Metal window frames are rusting and should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
30. Concrete window sills are cracked and allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
31. Caulking is missing around air vents allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
32. Exterior electrical outlets are not code compliant.
33. One third of the roof is allowing for water intrusion and should be replaced per code.
Overview of Deficiencies
This cold storage facility has been in operation for 67 years with at least two or more additions. The stress of
this type of operation is showing on both the inside and outside of the buildings structure. Exterior brick and
block surfaces over the entire building are damaged, cracked, or missing allowing for water intrusion, contrary
to code. Metal structural members are rusting and should be protected per code from further erosion. All
exterior surfaces should be repainted. Metal window frames are rusting and should be replaced. The building
is not ADA code compliant for access into the building and to all levels. There is no ADA code compliant
restroom. The building HVAC system is not code compliant. Code compliant smoke detectors and an
emergency notification system should be installed. Freezer doors, interior transfer doors and overhead
warehouse doors are not code compliant, lacking code compliant safety devices. The boiler room does not
comply with code because it has only one means of egress. Vinyl and carpeted flooring should be replaced.
Interior ceiling tile is missing and/or damaged. Interior office lights are missing and/or damaged. One third
of the roof has failed and should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
O:\17Proj\170285\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\170285 20170609 Hopkins Cold Storage Building Report.docx
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
Replacement Cost Report
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:5/15/2017
Hopkins Cold Storage
City of Hopkins
325 Blake Road , Hopkins , Minnesota 55343
Building Type:
Warehouse with Brick Veneer / Reinforced
Concrete
Location:HOPKINS, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):24
Floor Area (S.F.):270000
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2017
Cost Per Square Foot:$62.78
Building Cost:$17,045,968.15
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
12.37% 7.75 2090449.19
A1010 Standard Foundations 1.58 426347.39
0.74 200686.25
0.37 99848.25
0.47 125812.89
A1030 Slab on Grade 5.99 1616279.40
5.99 1616279.40
A2010 Basement Excavation 0.18 47822.40
0.18 47822.40
39.74% 24.87 6713673.90
B1010 Floor Construction 3.67 989707.37
1.09 294611.21
0.79 212861.31
1.79 482234.85
B1020 Roof Construction 6.07 1638900.00
6.07 1638900.00
B2010 Exterior Walls 8.68 2344411.86
8.68 2344411.86
B2020 Exterior Windows 0.16 42162.40
Concrete I beam, precast, 18" x 36", 790 PLF, 25' span, 6.44 KLF superimposed
load
Cast‐in‐place concrete beam and slab, 7.5" slab, two way, 12" column, 25'x25'
bay, 40 PSF superimposed load, 149 PSF total load
Roof, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns and bearing wall,
20'x25' bay, 20" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 60 PSF total load
Brick wall, composite double wythe, standard face/CMU back‐up, 8" thick,
perlite core fill, 3" XPS
Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 20", square, tied, minimum reinforcing, 500K
load, 10'‐14' story height, 375 lbs/LF, 4000PSI
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF,
12" deep x 24" wide
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 100K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 4' ‐
6" square x 15" deep
Slab on grade, 5" thick, non industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 30,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site
storage
B Shell
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
0.16 42162.40
B2030 Exterior Doors 1.24 335630.03
0.19 51899.63
0.26 71305.20
0.79 212425.20
B3010 Roof Coverings 5.00 1350528.23
1.65 446058.90
2.98 803989.80
0.26 70138.13
0.11 30341.40
B3020 Roof Openings 0.05 12334.01
0.01 1147.15
0.04 11186.86
5.61% 3.51 1035106.12
C1010 Partitions 0.85 230841.60
0.28 75711.02
0.22 59864.00
0.21 57882.13
0.14 37384.45
C1020 Interior Doors 0.24 151200.00
0.56 151200.00
C2010 Stair Construction 0.12 32598.90
0.12 32598.90
C3010 Wall Finishes 0.47 126472.79
0.19 51906.20
0.09 23848.06
0.19 50718.53
C3020 Floor Finishes 1.78 480732.83
0.54 145759.91
1.19 321222.92
0.05 13750.00
C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.05 13260.00
0.05 13260.00
30.53% 19.09 5156814.37
D1010 Elevators and Lifts 0.58 157504.00
0.58 157504.00
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 0.52 141451.20
0.21 55360.80
0.04 11878.20
0.11 28789.20
0.11 29295.00
Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum
Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, maximum
Vinyl, composition tile, maximum
Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, 1" x 3" wood, 12" OC grid,
wood support
D Services
Hydraulic, passenger elevator, 4500 lb, 2 floors, 100 FPM
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 18" x 15"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer &
2 coats
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'‐6" x 3'‐0", galvanized steel,
165 lbs
Smoke hatch, unlabeled, galvanized, 2'‐6" x 3', not incl hand winch operator
C Interiors
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 6" thick, no finish
framing, same opposite face, no insulation
Gypsum board, 1 face only, exterior sheathing, fire resistant, 5/8"
Add for the following: taping and finishing
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 8'‐0"
x 10'‐0" x 2"
Stairs, steel, grate type w/nosing & rails, 20 risers, with landing
2 coats paint on masonry with block filler
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer &
2 coats
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5' x 3'
Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, narrow stile, double door, hardware,
6'‐0" x 10'‐0" opening
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0"
opening
Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, electric operator, 12'‐0" x 12'‐0"
opening
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 60 mils, loosely laid, stone ballast
4" thick, R20
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
0.06 16128.00
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.25 67266.00
0.25 67266.00
D2040 Rain Water Drainage 0.50 134974.00
0.44 118539.00
0.06 16435.00
D3020 Heat Generating Systems 5.21 1407261.60
5.21 1407261.60
D3050 Terminal & Package Units 0.84 226292.40
0.84 226292.40
D4010 Sprinklers 4.13 1113912.00
4.13 1113912.00
D4020 Standpipes 0.50 135846.00
0.50 135846.00
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.06 17234.13
0.01 2961.88
0.01 2335.50
0.04 11936.75
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 3.70 999845.91
0.83 224915.40
0.14 38491.20
0.16 44093.70
0.06 16919.82
2.50 675425.79
D5030 Communications and Security 2.80 755227.13
2.59 699906.60
0.20 55320.53
2.96% 1.85 500291.10
E1030 Vehicular Equipment 1.85 500291.10
0.32 85050.00
1.54 415241.10
0%0 0
100% $57.07 $15,496,334.68
10.00% $5.71 $1,549,633.47
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
$62.78 $17,045,968.15
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Central air conditioning power, 3 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 0.8 watt per SF, 20 FC, 5
fixtures @32 watt per 1000 SF
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 100 detectors,
includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire & conduit
E Equipment & Furnishings
Architectural equipment, dock boards, heavy duty, 5' x 5', aluminum, 5000 lb
capacity
Architectural equipment, dock levelers, hydraulic, 7' x 8', 10 ton capacity
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts
Roof drain, DWV PVC, 5" diam, 10' high
Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 5" diam piping, for each additional foot
add
Warehouse ventilization with boiler heat system 24,000 CFM Supply and
Exhaust
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, offices, 3,000 SF, 9.50 ton
Dry pipe sprinkler systems, grooved steel, black, sch 40 pipe, ordinary hazard,
1 floor, 10,000 SF
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, 1 floor
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire,
3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V,
3 phase, 400 A
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 5 per 1000 SF, .6 watts per SF
Wall switches, 1.0 per 1000 SF
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 75.5 MBH input, 63 GPH
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A -325 Blake Road North, Hopkins, MN 55343 - Parcel ID 19-117-21-14-0002
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Restroom
Install ADA code compliant restroom 0.52$ SF 270,000 140,400.00$
Building Entrance
Create ADA code compliant entrance into building 5,000.00$ Lump 1 5,000.00$
Elevators
Install two ADA code compliant elevators to gain access to all
levels 0.58$ SF 270,000 156,600.00$
Door Hardware
Install ADA code compliant door hardware on all doors 250.00$ EA 50 12,500.00$
Shower
Install ADA code compliant shower on second floor 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Staff Break Room
Modify staff break room to comply with ADA code 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Structural Elements
Concrete Foundation Walls
Repair concrete foundation walls to prevent water intrusion per
code 0.38$ SF 270,000 102,600.00$
Metal Structural Members
Exterior metal structural members should be repaired and
protected from rust per code 0.69$ SF 270,000 186,300.00$
Interior Windows
Interior windows are not code compliant and should be replaced
with tempered glass 150.00$ Lump 12 1,800.00$
Exiting
Overhead Warehouse Doors
Install code compliant safety devices 1,000.00$ EA 25 25,000.00$
Stairways
Install code compliant hand rails 250.00$ Lump 1 250.00$
Modify exterior concrete stairs to comply with code for proper
rise of tread 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Modify exterior metal stairs to comply with code for proper rise of
tread 1,500.00$ EA 10 15,000.00$
Interior Overhead Transfer Door
Install code approved safety device to release door in the event
of a power failure 1,000.00$ EA 1 1,000.00$
Freezer Room Doors
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 1 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A, Cold Storage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Install code approved safety device to release door from the
interior should the exterior side be locked 1,500.00$ EA 40 60,000.00$
Flooring
Replace damaged vinyl tile to create an unimpeded emergency
egress per code 0.05$ SF 270,000 13,500.00$
Replace wrinkled carpet to create an unimpeded emergency
egress per code 0.05$ SF 270,000 13,500.00$
Boiler Room
Install second means of egress from boiler room per code 25,000.00$ Lump 1 25,000.00$
Interior Metal Stairways
Metal stairway to second floor breakroom should be enclosed
per code 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Metal stairway from basement mechanical room should be
enclosed per code 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Fire Protection
Smoke Detectors
Install code compliant smoke detectors 2.59$ SF 270,000 699,300.00$
Emergency Lighting
Install code compliant emergency lighting 0.75$ SF 270,000 202,500.00$
Exterior Construction
Exterior Brick
Repair/replace damaged and missing brick to prevent water
intrusion per code 4.15$ SF 70,000 290,500.00$
Exterior Concrete Block
Repair/replace damaged and concrete block and mortar joints to
prevent water intrusion per code 4.15$ SF 200,000 830,000.00$
Exterior Control Joints
Remove/replace caulking in exterior control joints to prevent
water intrusion per code 4.23$ LF 1,000 4,230.00$
Windows and Sills
Remove/replace metal windows to prevent water intrusion per
code 0.16$ SF 270,000 43,200.00$
Repair/replace concrete window sills to prevent water intrusion
per code 1,000.00$ EA 2 2,000.00$
Air Vents
Remove/replace caulking around exterior air vents 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$
Roof Construction
Roofing Material
Remove damaged one third of roofing material 0.50$ SF 90,000 45,000.00$
Replace damaged one third of roofing material 5.05$ SF 90,000 454,500.00$
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 2 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A, Cold Storage
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Mechanical- Electrical
Mechanical
Install code compliant HVAC system 6.05$ SF 270,000 1,633,500.00$
Mechanical pumps in the boiler room should be protected per
code 250.00$ EA 2 500.00$
Mechanical door operator in high bay room should be protected
per code 250.00$ EA 1 250.00$
Electrical
Install code compliant exterior electrical outlets around building 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Total Code Improvements 4,977,430$
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285 Page 3 of 3
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Parcel A, Cold Storage
Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
Photos: Parcel A - 325 Blake Road North - Hopkins Cold Storage
Page 1 of 25
20170504_162409.jpg 20170504_162445.jpg 20170504_163047.jpg
20170504_163059.jpg 20170504_163307.jpg 20170504_163348.jpg
20170504_163523.jpg 20170504_163526.jpg 20170504_163823.jpg
20170504_163836.jpg 20170504_163843.jpg 20170504_163850.jpg
Page 2 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
20170504_163927.jpg 20170504_164210_001.jpg 20170504_164217.jpg
20170504_164300.jpg 20170504_164314.jpg 20170504_164621.jpg
IMG_0183.JPG IMG_0184.JPG IMG_0185.JPG
IMG_0186.JPG IMG_0187.JPG IMG_0188.JPG
Page 3 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0189.JPG IMG_0190.JPG IMG_0191.JPG
IMG_0192.JPG IMG_0193.JPG IMG_0194.JPG
IMG_0195.JPG IMG_0196.JPG IMG_0197.JPG
IMG_0198.JPG IMG_0199.JPG IMG_0200.JPG
Page 4 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0201.JPG IMG_0202.JPG IMG_0203.JPG
IMG_0204.JPG IMG_0205.JPG IMG_0206.JPG
IMG_0207.JPG IMG_0208.JPG IMG_0209.JPG
IMG_0210.JPG IMG_0211.JPG IMG_0212.JPG
Page 5 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0213.JPG IMG_0214.JPG IMG_0215.JPG
IMG_0216.JPG IMG_0217.JPG IMG_0218.JPG
IMG_0219.JPG IMG_0220.JPG IMG_0221.JPG
IMG_0222.JPG IMG_0223.JPG IMG_0224.JPG
Page 6 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0225.JPG IMG_0226.JPG IMG_0227.JPG
IMG_0228.JPG IMG_0229.JPG IMG_0230.JPG
IMG_0231.JPG IMG_0232.JPG IMG_0233.JPG
IMG_0234.JPG IMG_0235.JPG IMG_0236.JPG
Page 7 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0237.JPG IMG_0238.JPG IMG_0239.JPG
IMG_0240.JPG IMG_0241.JPG IMG_0242.JPG
IMG_0243.JPG IMG_0244.JPG IMG_0245.JPG
IMG_0246.JPG IMG_0247.JPG IMG_0248.JPG
Page 8 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0249.JPG IMG_0250.JPG IMG_0251.JPG
IMG_0252.JPG IMG_0253.JPG IMG_0254.JPG
IMG_0255.JPG IMG_0256.JPG IMG_0257.JPG
IMG_0258.JPG IMG_0259.JPG IMG_0260.JPG
Page 9 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0261.JPG IMG_0262.JPG IMG_0263.JPG
IMG_0264.JPG IMG_0265.JPG IMG_0266.JPG
IMG_0267.JPG IMG_0268.JPG IMG_0269.JPG
IMG_0270.JPG IMG_0271.JPG IMG_0272.JPG
Page 10 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0273.JPG IMG_0274.JPG IMG_0275.JPG
IMG_0276.JPG IMG_0277.JPG IMG_0278.JPG
IMG_0279.JPG IMG_0280.JPG IMG_0281.JPG
IMG_0282.JPG IMG_0283.JPG IMG_0284.JPG
Page 11 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0285.JPG IMG_0286.JPG IMG_0287.JPG
IMG_0288.JPG IMG_0289.JPG IMG_0290.JPG
IMG_0291.JPG IMG_0292.JPG IMG_0293.JPG
IMG_0294.JPG IMG_0295.JPG IMG_0296.JPG
Page 12 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
IMG_0297.JPG IMG_0298.JPG IMG_0299.JPG
IMG_0300.JPG IMG_0301.JPG IMG_0302.JPG
P1130352.JPG P1130353.JPG P1130354.JPG
P1130355.JPG P1130356.JPG P1130357.JPG
Page 13 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130358.JPG P1130359.JPG P1130360.JPG
P1130361.JPG P1130362.JPG P1130363.JPG
P1130364.JPG P1130365.JPG P1130366.JPG
P1130367.JPG P1130368.JPG P1130369.JPG
Page 14 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130370.JPG P1130371.JPG P1130372.JPG
P1130373.JPG P1130374.JPG P1130375.JPG
P1130376.JPG P1130377.JPG P1130378.JPG
P1130379.JPG P1130380.JPG P1130381.JPG
Page 15 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130382.JPG P1130383.JPG P1130384.JPG
P1130385.JPG P1130386.JPG P1130387.JPG
P1130388.JPG P1130389.JPG P1130390.JPG
P1130391.JPG P1130392.JPG P1130393.JPG
Page 16 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130394.JPG P1130395.JPG P1130396.JPG
P1130397.JPG P1130398.JPG P1130399.JPG
P1130400.JPG P1130401.JPG P1130402.JPG
P1130403.JPG P1130404.JPG P1130405.JPG
Page 17 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130406.JPG P1130407.JPG P1130408.JPG
P1130409.JPG P1130410.JPG P1130411.JPG
P1130412.JPG P1130413.JPG P1130414.JPG
P1130415.JPG P1130416.JPG P1130417.JPG
Page 18 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130418.JPG P1130419.JPG P1130420.JPG
P1130421.JPG P1130422.JPG P1130423.JPG
P1130424.JPG P1130425.JPG P1130426.JPG
P1130427.JPG P1130428.JPG P1130429.JPG
Page 19 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130430.JPG P1130431.JPG P1130432.JPG
P1130433.JPG P1130434.JPG P1130435.JPG
P1130436.JPG P1130437.JPG P1130438.JPG
P1130439.JPG P1130440.JPG P1130441.JPG
Page 20 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130442.JPG P1130443.JPG P1130444.JPG
P1130445.JPG P1130446.JPG P1130447.JPG
P1130448.JPG P1130449.JPG P1130450.JPG
P1130451.JPG P1130452.JPG P1130453.JPG
Page 21 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130454.JPG P1130455.JPG P1130456.JPG
P1130457.JPG P1130458.JPG P1130459.JPG
P1130460.JPG P1130461.JPG P1130462.JPG
P1130463.JPG P1130464.JPG P1130465.JPG
Page 22 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130466.JPG P1130467.JPG P1130468.JPG
P1130469.JPG P1130470.JPG P1130471.JPG
P1130472.JPG P1130473.JPG P1130474.JPG
P1130475.JPG P1130476.JPG P1130477.JPG
Page 23 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130478.JPG P1130479.JPG P1130480.JPG
P1130481.JPG P1130482.JPG P1130483.JPG
P1130484.JPG P1130485.JPG P1130486.JPG
P1130487.JPG P1130488.JPG P1130489.JPG
Page 24 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130490.JPG P1130491.JPG P1130492.JPG
P1130493.JPG P1130495.JPG P1130496.JPG
P1130497.JPG P1130498.JPG P1130499.JPG
P1130500.JPG P1130501.JPG P1130502.JPG
Page 25 of 25Hopkins Cold Storage Redevelopment TIF District
LHB Project No. 170285
Photos
Parcel A, Hopkins Cold Storage
P1130503.JPG P1130504.JPG P1130505.JPG
P1130506.JPG P1130507.JPG P1130508.JPG
P1130509.JPG P1130510.JPG P1130511.JPG
P1130512.JPG P1130513.JPG P1130514.JPG