CR 05-095 Public Hearing - Tax Increment Dist 1-3
c' T Y OF:
July 12,2005
-cg.
Council Report 2005-095
ItOPKINS
PUBLIC HEARING - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 1-3
Proposed Action
Staff recommends approval of the following motion:' continue public hearing to Julv 26. 2005. 5 p.m.. to
consider Resolution 2005-055. modifying the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Proiect 1 and
establishing Tax Increment District 1-3 therein and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefore.
subiect to HRA approval ofHRA Resolution 430.
With this action staff is recommending that the Council open the hearing and accept public comments at
the July 19 meeting.
Overview'
Over the last several months, staff and the City Council have been working with GPS Financial Group to
undertake a redevelopment project on the block bounded by Fifth and Sixth A venues, north of Mainstreet
and south of First Street North (Block 64). The proposed project would consist of approximately 220
condominium housing units and 8,800 square feet of retail space.
Staff has also been working with The Cornerstone Group on a redevelopment project for the property
north of Mainstreet between Sixth and Eighth Avenues.
Tax Increment District 1-3 would encompass a number of parcels between Fifth and Eighth Avenues,
north of Mainstreet and south of First Street North. (A map is located within the plan document.)
State statute requires that a public hearing be held prior to a establishment of a tax increment district. The
Council previously held a public hearing on this matter on June 21. At this meeting, the hearing was
opened, comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Based on the public comment received, a
second public hearing on the creation of the district has been scheduled for July 19.
The proposed district would be a redevelopment district. A property inspection report was prepared by
LHB with a determination that the subject area meets statutory qualifications for this type of district. The
Council has previously been provided a copy of this report. LHB is attempting to schedule a reinspection
of the Park Plaza property.
The establishment of the district does not obligate the City nor HRA to provide tax increment assistance.
The Planning Commission approved a resolution on May 31, 2005, with a finding that the proposed
district is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council, acting as the HRA, will also need to take action on the establishment of the district.
This is being recommended for consideration at a special HRA meeting on July 26.
Issue to Consider
. What are the specifics of the action being recommended by staff?
Supportin!! Documents
. Resolution 2005-055
. Modification to redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project I and the tax increment plan for
the establishment ofTIF District 1-3 within Redevelopment Project 1, dated June 1, 2005
. Zoning & Planning Commission Resolution RZ05-16
. etter from Bradley Gunn, Leonard Street and Deinard, dated June 21, 2005
conomic Develo ment Director
Financial Impact: $ N/A _ Budgeted: YIN _ Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Council Report 2005-095, July 12,2005 - Page 2
Issue to Consider
. What are the specifics of the action being recommended by staff?
The specifics of the action being recommended by staff are as follows:
. Open the public hearing at the July 19 meeting on creation of Tax Increment District 1-3
and receive public comment.
. Continue the hearing until July 26 to provide additional time to respond to the comments
that were provided at the June 21 and July 19 hearings.
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Council member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-055
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1; AND ESTABLISHING TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3 THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
Section 1.
Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (the "HRA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. I 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. I (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification") and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3 (the "District") therein and adopt a Tax
Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIP Plan
are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"); aIr pursuimt to and in conformity with applicable law,
including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.00 I to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, 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, approval of the Plans by the HRA on June 7, 2005, and the holding ofa public hearing upon
published notice as required by law.
1.04. Certain written reports including, the TIF application, Redevelopment and Blight Analysis by
LHB dated May 2005, Block 64 Redevelopment Relocation Plan by Wilson Development Services dated
January, 2005, Market Analysis Hopkins Main Street Residential Campus by GPS Financial Group dated
March 2005, (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 include data, information and/or substantiation constituting orrelating
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 incolporated 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.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans
2.0 I. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the
effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public interest and accomplish
certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein.
Section 3.
Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
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).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment wcmld 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 ofthe projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District pennitted by the Tax Increment
Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development orredevelopment ofthe 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 detennines 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 Puroose
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 remove, prevent and reduce blight,
blighting factors and the causes of blight, to prepare the area for redevelopment in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general
economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose.
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 ofthe 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 COlmty 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 10 the County Auditor in such fonn and content as the Auditor
may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building pennits 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 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member
, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Dated: July 26, 2005
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
(Seal)
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-055
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No.1 (pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047) and the adoption of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3 (District), as reqUired pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
]. Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. ]-3 is a redevelopment district as defined in MS., Section
469.]74, Subd. lO(a)(]).
The District consists of25 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for housing and commercial 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. .
(See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.)
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
Tax Increment Financing District No. ].3 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 this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high
cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of
commercial and for sale housing property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible
land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible
only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The proposed development will clean up
blighted sites and remove substandard buildings in the City=s downtown are and continue with the
redevelopment of the area. The proposed development will also provide additional senior housing in the
community and therefore allow single-family homes to be available for new residents. 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. (See attachment in Appendix G of the TIF Plan.)
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 TIF District permitted by the Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public
improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, site and public improvements
costs in this. area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. At the current time,
the site has an estimated $20 million in land acquisition, demolition and relocation costs. In addition, the site
requires from $3.5 million to $5 million for on-site structured parking to accommodate the buyers of the for
sale housing. These two factors result in a cost per unit for land that greatly exceeds market conditions. The
tax increment is needed to reduce these costs and make them marketable. Therefore, 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.
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. If all development which is proposed to be
assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to
$53,561,555. The present value oftax increments from the District is estimated to be $18,803,224. It is the
Council's finding that no development with a market vallie of greater than $34,758,331 would occur without
tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general
past experience with the high cost of acquisition and public improvements in the general area of the District.
(See Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan.)
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I -3 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 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I -3 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 TIF District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of
Minnesota, the redevelopment of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high
quality development to the City. Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the HRA and City will also
increase the availability of safe and decent life-cycle housing in the City.
------
.
.
I
As of June /, 2005
Draft for City Council Review
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. 1-3
(a redevelopment district)
, within
"}
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
HOPi<INS HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF HOPKINS
. HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: June 21, 2005
Adopted:
. EHLERS Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
, 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
& A S so Cl A TE SIN C 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION 1- MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreword .............................................................
A. Plan History .......................................................
B. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Statement of Need and Public Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Statutory Authority .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Project Boundaries .................................................
F. Property Acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Redevelopment Project Financing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3
1-4
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3 ........................ 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 ofthe District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration ofthe 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/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 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 ...........................;...... 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9
Subseclion2-17. Modifjcations to the District ................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-10
Subsection 2-19. limitation of Increment .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Use ofTax Increment .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-12
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments.... .. . . . . ..... '" . . . . . . ... .... . . . . '" 2-12
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer. .. ... . . . . . . .. 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-13
Subsection 2-24. Administration ofthe District ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-13
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-13
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-13
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-14
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-14
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-1
APPENDIX B
MAP(S) OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE DISTRICT .... . . . . . . ., B-1
.
;;..'
.'
~,'
.{f
,
,",..
,'" ,
.,,\,'
,
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
BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS.. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. G-1
SECTION I- MOD/FICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
4?!:
,,~
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I.
This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. I. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-3.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I 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.
In addition the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I is hereby amended and supplemented
lis follows:
A. Plan History
Redevelopment Project No.1 was originally created in 1971 as a federal urban renewal area. Redevelopment
Project No. I was subsequently modified numerous times. In 1989 the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority In and For the City of Hopkins (the "HRA") and the City of Hopkins (the "City") caused to be
prepared a Reorganization and Modification of Redevelopment Projects and Tax Increment Financing
Districts dated November 7, 1989, which was approved by the City and the HRA (the" 1989 Modification").
The 1989 Modification contains a statement of the history of Redevelopment Project No. I and the
RedevelopmentPlan. The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I was modified several times
after the 1989 Modification in connection with the creation or modification of tax increment financing
districts located within Redevelopment Project No.1.
..:
B. Definitions
Unless specifically defmed in this Modification, all capitalized tenns shall have the meaning given to such
terms in the 1989 Modification.
c. Statement of Need and Public Purpose
A. The lIRA reaffirms the statements of need and public purpose contained in the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I, and all modifications thereto. The HRA further seeks
to achieve the following goals and objectives:
I. Acquire substandard or blighted areas and other real property for the purpose of removing,
preventing or reducing blight, blighting factors or the causes of blight;
2. Clear any areas acquired and install, construct or reconstruct streets, utilities and site
improvements essential to the preparation of the sites for redevelopment;
3.
Provide a sufficient supply of adequate, safe and sanitary dwellings;
4.
Protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens of the City;
~
.)'
Hopkins HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I
J.1
,
i'
,;-.,
.' ,
"
,
5. Encourage related development and redevelopment in order to protect and improve the tax
base and general economic vitality of the City, and
6. Assure that the long term housing needs of the City are met.
B. The HRA hereby reaffirms all findings contained in the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No.1, all amendments thereto, and all resolutions of the HRA or City approving the
same and specifically finds for Redevelopment Project No. I that:
1. The land within the area of Redevelopment Project No. I would not be available for
redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan and corresponding
documents, including the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3;
2. The RedevelopmentPlimfor Redevelopment Project No. 1 will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by
private enterprise; and
3. The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I confonns to the general plan for
the development of the City as a whole.
C. The HRA reaffirms its fmding that Redevelopment Project No. 1 is a "redevelopment project"
within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002 subd. 14, of the HRA Act.
The factual basis for the above finding includes:
1. The HRA. relies on the various studies, surveys and planning documents prepared in
connection with'the creationofRedevelopment Project No.1 to the extent that subsequent development
activities have not cured the conditions that allowed designation of Redevelopment Project No. 1 as a
"redevelopment project." . '
2. In May of2005 um, Inc. ("LHB") conducted a study of building conditions in the portion
of the area of Redevelopment Project No.1 proposed to be inclUded in Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-3.. That stu'dy determined that a substantial percentage of the buildings in that portion of the area of
Redevelopment Project No. I are struc,turally substaUllar<!,as def\ned in ~innesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
subd. 10. Such findings and other evidence on file with the HRA'support the conclusion that said portion of
the area of Re!levelopment Project No. 1 is a "blighted area", within the meaning of Section 469.002,
subdivision II of the liRA Act: Datafrom ttie LHB study are on file with the Authority: These study results
will also be used when considering the establishment of Tax Iricrement Financing District No. 1-3. '
D. Statutory Authority
The HRA is authorized under the the HRA Act to undertake and admiuister Redevelopment Project No. I,
and to finance Public Redevelopment Costs through issuance of bonds secured by Redevelopment Project
No.1 revenues.
Hopkins HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
1-2
.
.
E. Project Boundaries .,
The boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. I are described in the existing Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. I and modifications thereto and are not being changed by this Modification.
F. Property Acquisition
The Authority may acquire any property within the area of Redevelopment Project No.1, or interests therein,
as the Authority may deem necessary or desirable to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1. Acquisition may be accomplished by negotiation or by the exercise of the
Authority's powelS of eminent domain.
The Authority currently anticipates, and finds a need to acquire, the parcels including but not limited to the
following in order to carry out this Redevel9pment Plan:
'.:,PilrceINumb'er' ,- , . Address
24 117 22 42 0005 33-6"Ave.N.
24 117 22 42 0006 Parklnp tot
24 117 22 42 0008 517 Malnstreet
24 117 22 42 0009 501 Mafustreet
24 117 22 42 0012 44 - 5" Ave. N.
2411722420013 30 - st' Ave. N.
2411722 42 0014 36 - 5" Ave. N. .
24-5" Ave. N. .,
2411722 420015
2411722 42 0016 10 - 5" Ave. N.
2411722420017 15 6" Ave. N.
. 24 11722 42 0018 13 6" Ave. N.
24 117 22 42 0019 ParkiDlI Lot
24 177 22 42 0029 66tbAveN
24 11722420030 611 Mainstreet
2411722420031 Unasslpoed
24 117 22 42 0032 Unasslpned
24 11722420033 621 Malnstreet
2411722 42 0048 UnassillDed
24 117 22 42 0049 701 Malnstreet
2411722420050 UoasslllDed
24 11722420056 19 Eiabtb Ave. N.
24 117 22 42 0057 21 8t. Ave. N.
2411722420166 525 Mainstreet
24 11722 42 0167 Uoassilloed
2411722420169 Uoassllmed
,
". 2::
Hopkins HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. ] 1.3
i
I,,,:,
, .' .""~.
,
G.
Redevelopment Project Financing
The HRA may establish one or more TIF Districts in Redevelopment Project No. I to finance Public
Redevelopment Costs. The HRA may also use any other revenues available to the HRA to pay such costs,
including without limitation grant funds, property tax abatements through the City under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, and proceeds ofa special tax, if any, levied under Section 469.033 of the
HRA Act.
Hopkins HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No.1
J.4
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3
~.
.~'
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. 1-3 (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in
Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists 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 ("MS. ''), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and MS., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, 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 lncrement Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment.Financing District
No. 1-3. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. L
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of25 parcels ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is
being created to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the downtown area and construct a mixed-use
commercial and housing development in the City of Hopkins. Please see Appendix A for further project
information. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but
Phase I of the development is likely to begin in the Fall of2005. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many
of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I.
"
.'
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. I 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 orprovide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
lei'"
...,.;C
{8i,,,.
': -'t~~
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.3
2-1
,
i'"
,,".>
" .~.
,
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. 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 TIP
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance offunding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The HRA imd City, in detemrining the need "to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799; 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 ihat one or more ofthe
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of70 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 o/vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yO/'ds, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tankfacilities, or property whose immediately previous use wasfor tankfacilities, as defined
" in Section 115 C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(il) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropliately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifYing disaster area, as defined in Subd. lOb.
(b) For pwposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of defiCiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
vimtilation,fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of in teli or partitions,
or similar factors, which defects" or deficiencies are" of sufficient total significance to justifY
substantial renovation or clearance.
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-2
(c) A building is not structurally substandard ifit is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building. code at a cost oj less than 15
percent oj the cost oj constructing a new structure oj the same square Jootage 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 oj reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age oj the building, the average cost oj plumbing, elect,ical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection oj the property, but need /Jot have an independent, expert appraisal ..
prepared oj the cost of repai,' and'rehabilitation oj the building. An interior inspection oj 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 fi'om the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence othe,wise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied .by a structurally substandard building Jor purposes oj the
finding under paragraph (a) if all oj the Jollowing conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years oj the filing oj the
request Jor certification oj the parcel as part oj the distlict with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building was 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 Jound by resolution beJore the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the
authority intended to include the parcel within a distlict; and
(4) upon filing the request Jor certification oj the tax capacity oj the parcel as part oj a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity oJthe parcel must be
adjusted as provided by 9 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (j).
(e) For pUlPOSes oJthis subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent oj the area oj the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. .
(j) For districts consisting oj 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 oj
the district must satisfY paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and fmdings:
.. The District is a redevelopment district consisting of25 parcel(s).
.. 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 ~e District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defmed in the TlF Act. (See Appendix F).
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
i'A
""",-
;. ''''''~
r',.
, .
".
'~0
:;v
2-3
,
i'
,
Pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.176 SuM. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 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 ofthe District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. I, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must
be indicated within the TIF Plan. PursuanttoM.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District
will be 25 years after receipt of the fmtincrement by the HRA or City (a total of26 years of tax increment).
The date of receipt by the City of the fmt tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the
District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate
after 2032, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied, whichever occurs first. If increment is received in 2006, the
term of the District will be 2031. 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/lncrement and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. I, 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 2004 for taxes payable 2005.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2007) 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 2005, asswning the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2005. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table on the following page.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 SuM. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, SuM. I, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captuted Net Tax Capacity (CTe) of the, District, within Redevelopment Project No.1, upon completion of
the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table on the following page.
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 2007. The Project Tax Capacity
(pTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
HoplOns HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing Disuict No. 1-3
2-4
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)*
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
Original Local Tax Rate
Estimated Annnal Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
Percent Retained by the HRA
$1,097,255
$99,120
$998,135
1.20839
~
..
Pay 2005
$1,206,136
100%
'The tax capacity is the estimated tax capacity for 2009. The cashflow incOlporates the Phasing for each project and
an inflation rate, which will result in higher CTC in future years.
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, SuM. 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'
petmit was issued.
'The City of Hopkins has reviewed tbe area to be included in the District and found tbat no building
permits bave been issued during tbe 18 montbs immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan hy the ,r
City. ..'
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets and sidewalks, and site
preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be fmanced primarily through the annual
collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap-
plicable to the HRA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general
property taxes, state aid forroad maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale ofland, othercontribu-
tions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a combination of a bond issue, a pay-as-you-go
note, and an interfund loan or transfer. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized
activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond,
or other indebtedness related to the use oftax increment financing will not exceed $48,400,000 without a
modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $48,400,000
in bonded indebtedness will be financed with tax increment revenues.
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 HRA or City, as the case
may be. The HRA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through
loans from funds of the HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible
costs paid for by a developer.
,
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2.5
,
Jili.,'
.'
.
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$54,400,000
$54,400,000
Tax Increment
PROJECT REVENUES
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of the
downtown area and construct a mixed-use commercial and housing development in the City of Hopkins . The
HRA and City have detennined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs.
Tbe HRA bas 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 imancing 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.
. USES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$20,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$18,960,000
$5,440,000
$54,400,000
Land/Building Acquisition
Site ImprovementslPreparation
Parking Facilities
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL
It is estimated that .the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $54,400,000 as is presented in the budget above.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TlF 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
to M.s., Section 4~9.1763, Subd. 2, no more t1ian 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. I, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be
spent outside ofthe 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 cun'ent 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
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Ta.x Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-6
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
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 distl"ict tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the autholoity is the tax increment of the authority.
The BRA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a districtpursuantto paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the samefor 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. Sections 116J993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy ofless than $25,000;
(2) Assistance that is genezally available to aU businesses orto 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 polIuted 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 th~ 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 polIution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment fmancing
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;
",y,,,
-~..:;.,,'"
-o\<'.
Hopkins liRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-7
, (14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
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 Intemal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defmed under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19; .
Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent ormore of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
iechnical nature.
Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
Business loans and loan'guarantees of $75,000 or less; and
Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The HRA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TlF Plan does noi fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
it
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1 a, 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 judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs arid 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 TlF Plan. 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 asswnes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TlF
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 ifthe "but for" test was not met:
. IMPACT ON TAX BASE
,
Hennepin County
City of Hopkins
ISO No. 270
2004/2005
Total Net
Tax Canacitv
1,092,690,078
14,654,509
80,103,617
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Unon Comoletion
998,135
998,135
998,135
Percent of CTC
to Entitv Total
0.0913%
6.8111%
1.2461%
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2.8
,
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Hennepin County
City of Hopkins
ISD No. 270
Other
Total
2004/2005
Extension Rates
0.441720
0.489440
0.191760
0.085470
1.208390
Percent
of Total
36.55%
40.50%
15.87%
7.07%
100.00%
Potential
Taxes
440,896
488,527
191,402
85.311
1,206,136
CTC
998,135
998,135
998,135
998.135
The estimates listed above display !he captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual2004lPay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on aCtual Pay 2005 figures.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to MS. Section 469./75 Subd /, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in MS. Section 469./75 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is' a list of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
TIF application
Redevelopment and Blight Analysis by LHB dated May 2005
Block 64 Redevelopment Relocation Plan by Wilson Development Services dated January, 2005
Market Analysis Hopkins Main Street Residential Campus by GPS Financial Group dated March
2005
..
..
..
..
J:i~
.
Subsection 2-16.
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. / 74, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment fmancing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
I. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed
under M.S., Section 469./77;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the
Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax
increments; and
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from fax increments.
Subsection 2-17.
Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469./75, Subd. 4, ~y:
Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. I or the
District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469./ 75, Subd. 4(e);
Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
1.
2.
,.'~'
.~~
:;;.;",'
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.IR3
2-9
-
CiiiIi.. .-
..
I
3.
A detennination to capitalize interest on debt if that detennination was not a part of the
original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be
capitalized; .
Increase in the portion of the caprured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will
be paid or fmanced with tax increment from the District; or
Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
4.
5.
6.
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
.!'ursuantto 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, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to
(5), must be documented in writing and retained. The.requirements of this paragraph do not apply if(l) the
only modification is elimination ofparcel(s) from Redevelopment Project No.1 or 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 liRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 or .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 tIJan:
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
~~~; .
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
project; or .
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 fmance
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,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax
increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented 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.
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 ~3
2-10
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. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
j$"
"xc'
"
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. II, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the BRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
. deducted to the State Treasurer 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 fmancing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. I a, no tax increment shall be paid to the HRA or City for the District
after three (3) yearS from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable
property in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuantto M.S., Section
469.178, or any othet law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152
to 469.165, or
(2) The HRA or City has acquired property within the District, or
(3) The HRA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within
the District.
The bonds must be issued, or the HRA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
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 10 provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuanllo M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, afterfour yearsfrom 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 finan"cingplan, 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 incrementfinancing 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 requi,'ed activity has taken place for each parcel
.'"
,'-,>).
t:w
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. J-3
2-11
.'
~ ,"-,
i:.:'
.~
.
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 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 BRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June, 2009
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The BRA or City hereby detennines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
I. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of Redevelopment Project No. I pursuant
to the M.S.. Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIP 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
BRA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. I 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 t~ the TIP 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 BRA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The BRA or City will pay to the develop~r(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 BRA or City admiuistration (up to 10 percent) and 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:
I. 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.
In addition, the BRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIP Plan
in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. I or the District.
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2-12
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 imd 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 conrormance 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 of25 percent of the acreage, the HRA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment ofthe property acquired and which
provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuantto 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 establisl;1es a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration ofthe 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 ofthe District will be handled by the City Clerk.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
PursUant to M.S., Section '469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake fmandal reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and
Sc~ool Board on or before August I 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 infonnation required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6. the OSA 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
to occur without the use of tax increment fmancing 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
~"""
^<~
.",
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2.13
,
Q
..,
I
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIP Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representations made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. 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
I. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIP
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the
Redevelopment Project No. I pursuant to the 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.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to fmance
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, througb 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.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to h!lve satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in MS., 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 cormnitted expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelooment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal andrenovation districts under M.S., Sectio1l469.176 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.
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 TIP Plan for
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
2.14
the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Hopkins HRA
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
.
.
~
.~
2-15
,
,.,.,
. ;,:x""~-,'
^.'
I'
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tax Increment Financing District 1-3 is being established to facilitate the redevelopment of a portion of Main
Street in the downtown area of Hopkins. The area consists of I3 buildings of which 1 have been deemed to
be substandard.
The tax increment district will contain two separate projects. The first project is a mixed- use project
proposed by the Cornerstone Group. It is a continuation of the type of project they completed across the
street. The project consists of approximately 60 for sale town homes and condos and 5,000 to 8,000 square
feet of retail.
The second project is proposed by GPS corporation and consists of approx 260 for sale condos and 8,000 to
12,000 square-feet of retail space. GPS has completed a market study, relocation plan, geotechnical analysis
and has begun the phase I analysis of their site.
At the current time both projects have engaged architects for design. Both projects are scheduled to begin in
the Fall of2005 with final phased completion in 2008 and 2009.
APPENDIX
A-I
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
MAP(S) OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND THE DISTRICT
''''
..'''''''
. ~~
.
~.<.n
ti'
8.1
e.J
1 .
1-3
Redevelopment Project No.
Tax Increment Financing District No.
City of Hopkins
Hennepin County, Minnesota
..
'"
:
!l
::>
9
Iil
PAU.
EDINA
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3
The shaded area represents
Redevelopment Project No.1
<12.
MINNBTDNU
.."'"
1111IIIalCT.... ..
I'IIIIZIDC'I" ...
.'.~II(1.
"'1 r.--C1.
III MIIS~..&
.,._....
It> ,..........
,.,~t'I.
........--.
.", ~_s...
1111___"
c~ ..........
1121_"""
nu .....nacoa,
III1....a""
..
'"
:
'"
s
g
Iii
~
2;
S
..
.)
f
ej
B. N. S.
~
..
2;
~
2;
z
i
TIF District No. 1-3
City of Hopkins
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(91) (115):
- -
"; 1ST ST N 1<;
..
t
-'
'-
o
<.0
".
(157
138)
",' ",
39)
(
I',.,
(114
(3
.)
.
~~~'I" 2
~/1 '
.w
!>
'iO<t
-
..c
9+-
L{)
r
.
3333
><
'.
2
w
>
<t
<
21)
."
(22)
j:
(23)
::..'
'(24)
--;"""'
(25)
,.
(26
(27
(8)
'/."
1<;
."
o
z
u
o
o
1<;
2 -',1,,--
';, ,(~I)u
, ..' '.
W . ,/ ',; .(40)
> ...."...
<t : .. (3..9)
L '.{ ::'~38)
+-. :.' (~.
I""- L,.\ ,) 71
. "I.'!. '.,1
~.~' (36
..
66
'J.
42
:"
43
m.J...~~L~_~'
~....: (4~$ ~
cmL~p.L__
'\,' . .'
, '>(47)~;
i4
.'ii11)
ctP>ct4.CIXI
,: '. ;"
!'...;....,
~I!li ,
'(172)1 .
0. III III 00
~ . ,. . '.
'.j'
62
--'-
------_______1
63)
L
+-
CO
-.-.-.---.-
TIl
.,
~ fI
66
66
'(65)
I
~
.~
,
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.
- ..-' . . " . ~.. APP~i1d~~
.. Pai:cd"N!lnib~~~ .. . . : Address. O~er
.,.:. ',,';::.";';' -"''; . .'0'- ".':- .,""',"', . .. .. MliIl Parcel#
24 II? 22 42 0005 33-6" Ave.N. 33 - 6" Ave. N. Ltd. 12
Partnershio
2411722420006 Parking Lot 5" Avenue 7
Partnershio
2411722420008 5l7.Mainstreet 5" Avenue 4A
Partnershio
2411722420009 50 I Mainstreet Sinclair Oil 5
Corooration
24 11 722420012 44-5thAve.N. Thomas W. Roof II
2411722420013 30 - 5" Ave. N. 5" Avenue 9
Partnershio
24 11722420014 36 - 5" Ave. N. 5th Avenue 10
Partnershio
24 11722 42 0015 24 - 5" Ave. N. 5th Avenue 8
Partnershio
24 11722420016 10 - 5" Ave. N. 5" Avenue 6
Partnershio
2411722420017 15-6" Ave. N. Albert Feiler 13
24 I 1722420018 13 - 6" Ave. N. 5" Avenue 14
Partnershio
24 11722420019 Parking Lot 5" Avenue 15
Partnershio
24177 22 42 0029 66thAveN J D Siler and L A 17
Stroessner
24 117 22 42 0030 61 I Mainstreet Luther Co. Ltd. 16
Partnership
24 117 22420031 Unassigned Luther Co. Ltd. 17
Partnership
24 11 7 22 42 0032 Unassigned Luther Co. Ltd. 18
Partnershin
24 II 7 22 42 0033 621 Mainstreet Luther Co. Ltd. 3
Partnershio
24 117 22 42 0048 Unassigned Luther Co. Ltd. I
Partnership
2411722420049 70 I Mainstreet Luther Co. Ltd. 2
Partnershin
24 11 7 22 420050 Unassigned Luther Co. Ltd. 17
Partnership
APPENDIX
c-]
24117 22 42 0056 19 Eighth Ave. N. Luther Co. Ltd. 20
Partnershin
24 117 22 42 0057 21 8th Ave. N. Luther Co. Ltd. 21
Partnershin
24 11722420166 525 Mainstreet Aleksandr Tenlitski 4
24 117 22 42 0167 Unassigued Luther Co. Ltd. 4
Partnershin
24117 22 42 0169 Unassigned Luther Co. Ltd. 17
Partnershin
APPENDIX
.
j
,..:Ji"
. .~'2Jr}
C.2
,
~
.
I
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX
0.1
512712005
HOPKlNS2.11
PAGE 1 of6
CITY OF HOPKINS - MAIN STREET
PROJECT A
II
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
PLEASE READ ALL ASSUMPTIONS
NEW Redevelopment DIstrict
5.0000%
1.00%
6.15%
1.20"
26.0824%
10.00%
1.5%-2.0%
2007
26
2032
26
NlA
1208390
1208390
0.511012
1.291l<l3O
D1sll1ct
InflallonRate
Pay As You Go Note Rate
Take out Revenue Nole Rate
eke out Revenue Note Coverage
Ascal D1sp. Contribution Rallo
Pooling Assumption
Class Rate AssumptiOllS
surnes First Tax Increment
Years of Tax Inmtment
Assumes tast Tax Increment
Yeers of Tax Increment
Assumes Note Issued
ax Capacity (Extension) Rate - Frozen
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rala - Current
State education Rate
WIde Rate
fA IncnlMnt wllIvll'/ depending upon martet veIue,llIlll'lltH, cllISa rat..,
c:tlon acbtduIII, apdlnflaUon on _rUt value. lnfllItfon Ol'IWCndu
not be ell cl.
EST Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
FROZEN TAX CAPACITY PAYABLE Pay 2005
TotalMartl.et c,... BaseTax
P'D OwoM Add,... V.... "Ie C
4-111-22-42..oo!~SlhAv. PannerstIlp 3Q.SthAv.N. 541,000
'&.117.22-42.oo'.&5lhAv PerlnelahIp 36-5thAv.N. 541,000
24-117-22-42-oD1SISlhAv.Partnenhlp24-5thAv.N. 541,000
24-U7-22-42-ODUsthAv.PaItnerMlp10-5thAv.N. ....000
2.&.117-22-42.ooollsthAv.PanrlelIhlp 517 MalnalrMl 1,589.000
2-4-117.22-42-llOOEsthAv. Plrlnelahlp Pal1dng lot '.000
24-117-22-42.oo18sthAv, PIMeIlhIp 13-6th Av. N. 1.000
24-117-22-42-oD1iSlhAv. PITlnInhlp Parking Lot 1.000
2....117-22-42-00011 SInc:laIrOUCorp 501 Malnstreel 294,000
....117-22-42'016liA...!1lI.. TeplilBlll 525 Maln street 231,000
24-t17-22-42-0017 -- t5-6thAv,N. 209,000
2.&.n7-22-42.oo12 ThomaaW, Roof 44-5th Av, N. 131.000
24."7-22-42.oo05~AvNPlnah 33-6thAv N. 2451.000
T.., 7,419000 .~
Commerc:iD1 1.91% 141,817 1.5%-2,0% 2,086
Ho"" 98.09% 7,277183 1.00% 72,772 "~,
T'" 7.419,000 74858
TAXES PAYABLE
Total c'~ FIsDIs
Development Tox Tox Tox c,~ FisOis .....ED TOIaI
T C. "" c. Ca eel Tox.. Tox.. Tox.. Taxes
For$aIflU'" 903,127 903.127 0 1,091,330 0 0 1,091,330
-~. ..050 ~"O 2,100 7,190 2,727 4,114 14,031
ResllIwalt .0.. 5950 2.100 7,190 2.727 4.114 14031
T.., 919.227 915.028 4,199 1.105710 5.453 8,227 1,119391
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Numb_of Tom' TIF
Sq.Fl- Cost Per Percent Of Um~ ......, Tox Tox Tox
T U.... .FL U"" 250 Val... "Ie C c.
ForSa.UNls 344.105 262 100.00% ".Oll% 45,156.355 1.0ll% 451,564 451,564 2008
R....... 4.400 100 N/A NlA "'.000 1.5%-2.0% ao.. 5.050 2008
R....... 4.400 '00 NIA N/A ... 000 1.5%-2.0% .050 5.050 2008
T.., 46036.355 467,664 ...,464
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Number of Total TIF
Sq.FL- Cost Per PereentOf UnIts Market Tox Tox Tox
T Unlls .FL U"" 250 Value .... C "" C. Pa able
"'....""" 344.705 262 1 00.00% 100,00% 90,312,710 1.00% 903,127 903.127 2000
.....-. 4,400 100 NlA NlA 440,000 1.5%-2.0% 8,050 5,950 2009
-. 4,400 '00 NIA NlA ... 000 1,5%-2,0% .050 6,050 2000
T.., 91.192,710 919.227 915028
~
CashflowS.1Hl5
512712005 HOPKINS 2-11 PAGE2of6
I CITY OF HOPKINS _ MAIN STREET
PROJECT A
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Annual Project Minus Fis Ois Captured Semi-Annual Auditor Administration Semi-Annual EndingPertod
Base~~ Tox TaxCapaclly Tax Capacity Gross G.... PAYMENT DATE
M". y,. Ca." Ca:':~'" Increment 0.36% 10.00% Increment Mth. y,.
1-Feb 200. 74.858 74,858 0 0 0 0 0 ,- 2005
1.Aug 2005 7~858 74,858 0 0 0 0 0 1-Fob 2006
1-Fob 2006 74,858 ' 74,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '''''' 2006
1-Aug 2006 74,858 74.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-Feb 2007
l-Feb 2007 74,858 74,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.' 1-Aug 2007
1-Aug 2007 74,858 74,858 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.0 ,.... 2006
1-Feb 2008 74,858 ' 463,464 3.655 384.951 232,565 (837) (23,259) 208,490 ,~ ,....8 2006
1-Aug 2llO6 74,858 463,464 3.655 384,951 232,585 (837) (23,259) 208,490 2.0 1-Feb 2008
l-Fob 2009 74,858 915,028 3,655 836,515 505,418 (1,820) (50,542) 453,057 2.' 1-Aug 2009
1-Aug 2009 74,858 915,028 3,655 836,515 505.418 (1,820) (50,542) 453.057 3.0 ,.... 2010
1-Feb 2010 74,858 915,028 3.655 836,515 505,418 (1,820) (50,542) 453,057 3.6 1-Aug 2010
1-Aug 2010 74,858 915,028 3,655 836,515 505,418 (1,820) (50,542) 453,06T 4.0 '"'' 2011
l-Feb 2011 74,858 960,779 3,838 882,083 532,950 (1,919) (53,295) 4n,737 4.' 1-Aug 2011
1-Aug 2011 74,858 960,779 3,838 882,083 532,950 (1,919) (53,295) 4n,737 5.0 1-Feb 2012
1-Feb 2012 74,858 1,008,818 4.030 929,930 561,859 (2,023) (56,186) 503,651 5.5 ,..... 2012
l-Au9 2012 74,858 1,008,818 4,030 92~,930 561,859 (~023) (56,186) 503,651 6.0 ,"'' 2013
1-Feb 2013 74,858 1,059,259 4,231 980,110 592,214 (2,132) (59,221) 530.860 6.' ,....8 2013
,..... 2013 14,858 1,059,259 4,23' 980,110 592,214 (2,132) (59,221) 530.860 7.0 ,.... 2014
1-Feb 2014 74,858 1,112,222 4._ 1,032,921 624,086 (2,247) (62,409) 559,430 7.5 1-Aug 2014
,..... 2014 74,858 1,112,222 4,443 1,032,921 624,086 (2,247) (62,409) 559,430 8.0 1-Feb 2015
1-Feb 2015 74,858 1,167,833 4,665 -1,088,310 657,551 (2,367) (65,755) 589,429 8.' ,..... 2015
,-Au. 2015 74,858 1,167,833 4,665 1,088,310 657,551 (2.367) (65,755) 589.429 '.0 ,.... 2016
1-Feb 2016 74,858 1,228.225 4,898 1,146,468 692,691 (2,494) (69,269l 620,928 8.' 1-Aug 2016
l-Aug 2016 74,858 1,226,225 4,898 1,146,458 692,691 (2,494) (69,269) 620,928 10.0 ,.... 2017
1-Feb 2017 74,856 1,287,538 5,143 1,207,535 729,586 (2,627) (72,959) 654,001 10.5 1-Aug 2011
1-Aug 2017 74.858 1,287,536 5,143 1.207.535 729,586 (2,627) (72,959) 654,001 11.0 l-Feb 2018
1.Feb 2018 74,858 1,351,913 6,400 1.271,654 769,327 (2,166) (76,833) 888,729 11.5 ,..... 2016
'....8 2018 74,858 1.351.913 ',400 1,271,654 788,327 (2,769) (76.833) 688,729 12.0 ,0/''' 2019
l-Feb 2019 74,858 1,419,508 5,670 1,338,980 809,005 (2,912) (80,901) 725,192 12.5 10Aug 2019
l-Aug 2019 74,858 1,419,508 5,670 1,338,980 809,005 (2,912) (80,901) , 725,192 13.0 ,.... 2020
1-Feb 2020 74,858 1,490,484 '.954 1,409,672 851.717 (3,066) (85,172) 763,479 13.' ,..... 2020
'''ug 2020 74,858 1.490,484 5,954 1,409,672 851,717 (3,066) (85,172) 763,479 14.0 ,.... 202'
1-Feb 2021' 74.858 1,565,008 6.251 1,483,898 896,564 (3,228) (89,656) 803,680 14.5 ,..... 202'
, l-Aug 2021 74,858 1,565,008 6,251 1.483,898 896.564 (3.226) (89,656) 803.860 15.0 1-Feb 2022
"'1';; ,.... 2022 74,858 1.643,259 6.564 1,561,836 943,654 (3,397) (94,365) 845.891 15.5 ,..... 2022
'-AuO 2022 74.858 1,643,259 6,564 1,561,836 943.654 13,397) (94,365) 845,891 16.0 1-Feb 2023
l-Feb 2023 7~,8~ 1,725,421 6,892 1,643,671 993,098 (3.515) (99,310) 890,213 16.5 ,..... 2023
l.-Aug 2023 74,858 1.725,421 6.892 1,643.671 993,098 (3,575) (99,310) 890.213 17,0 ,.... 2024
1-Feb 2024 74,858 1,811,693 7,231 1,729,598 1,045,014 (3,762) (104,501) 936,751 17.5 1-Aug 2024
l-Aug 2024 74.858 1,811,693 7,237 1,729.598 1,045,014 (3,762) (104.501) 936,751 18.0 '''ob 2025
1-Feb 2025 74,858 l,902,2n 7.589 l,819.B20 1,099,526 (3,958) (109,953) 985,615 18.5 1-Aug 2025
1-Au9 2025 74,858 1,902,2n 1,599 1,819,820 1,099,526 (3,958) (109,953) 985.615 19.0 1-Feb 2026
1-Feb 2026 74,858 1,991,391 7,979 1,914,554 1,156,764 (4,164) (115,676) 1,036,923 19.5 ,...., 2026
1-Au9 2026 74,858 _ 1,997,391 7,919 1,914,554 1,156,764 (4,164) (115,676) 1,036,923 20.0 1-Feb 2027
1.Feb 2027 ~4,858 2,097,261 8,378 2.014,025 l,2t6,864 (4,381) (121,686) 1,090,191 20.5 ,...., 2027
1-Aug 2027 74,858 2,097,261 8,378 2,014,025 1,216,864 (4,381) (121,686) 1.D90,797 21.0 ,.... 2028
l-Feb 2028 74,858 2,202,124 8.796 2,118,469 1,219,968 (4,608) (127,991) 1,147,364 21.5 1-Aug 2028
1-Aug 2028 74,858 2,202,124 8;796 2,118.469 1,279,968 (4,808) (127,997) 1,147,364 22.0 ,.... 202'
1.Feb 202. 74,858 2,312,230 8,236 2.228,135 1,346,228 (~...) (134,623) 1,206,759 22.5 l-Aug 2029
l-Au9 2021> 74,858 2,312.230 9,236 2,228,135 1,346,228 (4,846) (134,623) 1.206,759 23,0 1-Fob 2030
1-Feb 2030 74,858 2,427,841 9,698 2.343,285 1,415,801 (5.097) (141,580) 1,269,124 23~ 1-Aug 2030
1-Aug 2030 74,858 2,427,841 9,698 2,343.285 1,415,801 (~097) (141,580) 1,269,124 24.0 1-Feb 203'
1-Feb 2031 74,858 2,549,233 10.183 2.464,192 1,488,853 (5,380) (148,885) 1.334,607 24.5 l-Aug 2031
1-Aug 2031 74,858 2,549,233 10,183 2,464,192 1,488,853 (5,360) (148,885) 1,334,607 25.0 ,.... 2032
1.Feb 2032 74,858 2,676,695 10.692 2,591,145 1,565,551 !;636) (156.5~1 1,403,365 25.5 1-Aug 2032
1-Au" 2032 74858 2,676695 10,692 2,591,145 1565557 '.636 156,556 1,403,365 26.0 1-Feb 2033
TOTAlS 45,022,597 (162.081) (4,502,260) 40.35ll,256
PRESENT VALUE 15,704,792 (56.537) 14.077,776
,
Cashflow5-17.QS
5/27/2005 PAGE3of6
#
CITY OF HOPKINS. MAIN STREET "':~~'\
PROJECT B
BASIC ASSUMPnONS
PLEASE READ ALL ASSUMPTIONS
District NEW Redevelopment Dislncl
InflationRale 5.0000%
Pay As You Go Note Rate 6.750/0
Take out Revenue Nole Rate NlA
Take out Revenue Nole Coverage NlA
FIscal Di$p. Conbibution Ratio 26.4202% EST Pay 2005
Pooling Assumption 10.00%
Crass Rate Assumptions 1.5%-2.0%
Assumes Arst Tax Increment 2007
YeaIS of Tax Increment 26
Assumes l8stTax Incremel'lt 2032
Years of Tax Incremel'lt 26
Assumes Note Issued NlA
Tax CapacIty (extension) ,Rate - Frozen 1.208390 Pay 2005
Tax Capacity (Extension) Rate - Current 1.208390 Pay 2005
State Education Rate 0.541090 Pay 2005
Area Wide Rate 1.371070 Pay 2005
AmountoflllCf8lllantwlU vary depending upon matkelvlllue, t/IX rates, class rales,
C_trIlcUO~~dUla, and InftaUon on market value. lnftaUon on tax ratas
cannot bo CIl ted.
FROZEN T~ CAPACITY PAYABLE Pay 2005
Total Market crass Base Tax
PIO Owner Address Value Rale C......acit..
24-111-22-42~33 130,300
24-111-22-42-0032 n,OOO
24-111-22-42-0031 14.000
24-117-22-42.0000 89,000
, 24-111-22-42-0049 493,500
24-111-22-42-0050 117,000
24-111-22-42.(1048 210.000
24-111-22-42.0161 48.000
24-111-22-42.oos6 52,000
24-117-2242.0169 48.000
4-117-22-42-0051 n,ooo ,
24-171-22-42.0029 230.000
ToIal 1,585,800
Co~~a1 9.94% 157,621 1.5%-2.0% ~402
Hoo 90.06% 1,428.179 1.00% 14,282
Tolal 1,s85,800 16.684
PROJECT VAWE INFORMATION
Number of
Development Sq FL- Total Cost Units Taxes Pet Total Market Tax Tax
T";'" Unlb Per Una 60 Sn.Fl.Unlt Taxes Value Rate Ca~:cl "'.....bIe Pavabl
eo.."" 1,022 220,000 51 $2.668 $135,581 11,220,000 1.00% 112,200 200' 2008
T_a 2,365 490,000 9 $5.921 $53,290 4,410,000 1.00% 44,100 200' 2008
Ralall 5,518 163.10 5,518 $5.60 $30,920 900.000 1.5%-2.0% 17.250 200' 2008
ToO. 5.518 $219.791 16.530,000 173,550.
TAXES PAYABLE
Tolal c.~ F1sDis
Development Tax ToX Tax City FisDls State ED
T'~' Ca~acltv CaDadtv C="'" T_ Taxes Taxes
ComI" 112,200 112,200 0 135,581 0 0
DWnhom!lS 44,100 44,100 0 53.200 0 0
...., 17.250 12,693 4.557 15,338 6.249 9.384
Total 173.550 168.993 4,557 204,209 6.249 9,334
,
S
,.,.'
CashflowS-17-05
5f1T11005
\'
... .",..'
oPKUlS . "'....,.
C\'N Of H ?aoJ.EC't 'B
~~~~bOI'l
,i:/. iNC ..._
................ ,..00"
GrO$S 0.3&0/0
~
poOlll'lg
1S-00o/D
pAGE4of6
-
E,l\dm9 Period :re \
..-""'" p~~"" Y',-,
GoO" ...,. ,...
~ ,.... ....
,.... ....
~ 1.~9 '/fJfJl
o '\.,.fe'p 1dJ1
o ,\..p.ug 2006
,.."" ....
I). ,\.#J9 2009
66.913 '\.f'Ql:I 21)09
68,973 ,\-NJ9 20'\0
12.796 ,\~eb 20'\0
12:r9& ,-AU9 201'1.
76.614 ,\-Feb 2.0'\1
16,8'\4 '\~ ZO'\2.
8'\.0'3'\ 1.fd:J 1011.
8'\.031 ,-AUI 20'\~
&5,45& 1.feb 20"
&5.456 ,,\./419 2014
gO,"\Oe. '\.feb zO,4
110.'\00 ,\....1W9 2015
9'\,969 ,.feb 20'\'1
94.989 '\~ 2G'\6-
1uG.11~ 1.fe\) 1016
101>;11, ,\.$\'ll9 20'\7
'\05.49' ,\,.'fetl 20'1
,0&,491 1..JW'J 2016
",,146 1-fe\) 2.1:)'\$
111.146 1-P.\19 Zi)'\9
111,<)&1 1.f9b 2019
117,0&'\ 14W9 2020
1'l3,312 't.f'etJ 2020
'\za.~ ,..fW9 202.'
129. 1.f>eb 2021
119.1554 1-A\l9 Z1Z2.
136:722 ,.feb 2022
136,722 1-Nl9 ZI)'23
143,qa'a 1.fetl ~
143,93'5 1-1W9 21)24
151.soB 1..feb 2.024
151,f/JB 1-P.ug 2025
159,459 'I..feD 102$
15'<J.459 1-AU9 2l)1.&
181,130& 1..feU ~
161,608 ,-1W9 2027
176,'51~ ...fob 2'3').1
116.51 1-AU9 202.6
'&5.~ 1..f9tl 2.01&
1&5.16 ,..NJ9 2029
1Q!J,MS '\-Fe'D 21J19
195.44S 1..p,ug ~3C
205.594 1-Fe\> 'lJ)'$>
21)5.594 1~ :1;031
'216;250 1-Fob '2D3'
216,250 1..;.u9 ~
221,436 1.fe'o 20~2
xz:r,~ 1.p.I.IQ 2t\]1..
~~&6 1.f@ ~
...",.154 .I
1,363.317
o
o
o
o
o
\""1
\""1
\35'1
\35')
l.1ll1
\3101
(391)
\39'1
~412.\
t4'\2\
\4351
\"51
\45ll1
\45ll1
\...)
\...1
\50')
\50')
\S"I
("'.)
\"'1
\"'1
\50S1
\50S)
\...1
\...)
\0S!l1
\0S!l1
\...1
\...1
In'l
t731)
\109l
l1e91
\...1
\...1
\"",1
l~
~1l961
\ll43)
111431
\...)
\...1
l",0431
\,."'\
~1.o91~
~,\.~1)
\,.'~\
i, '\64
\33....1
t'"'~99'l
o
o
o
o
o
1.....'1
t1~.661)
\".6301
("\4.ti3lll
~15,431)
\".431\
\"....,
l1.6.'lf,4)
(11.114~
(1.1.114)
t'\8.'\O&)
t\6.'\0!)
{19.089'l
\19.069)
(2Il,'2IlI
\2Il,'2Il)
t1.1,Wl'\)
t1.'t.'ltJ1)
\22.3371
\22...71
(Z>....\
\Z>....)
lZ4.18,\)
\......'1
\...\l961
1...\l961
~'21.416)
~'l1.41&)
\...92<1
\'25.92.6)-
\30....1
l~().448)
\3'/.."""1
t~'l..o4\\)
\...124\
\...124)
\35,0465)
\..,"'1
(31....1
\.1....)
\39.216l
\....161
l41,31n
\4,\,31.1)
(......1
\......1
\45.1Gn
l4S.TOn
\...~\
'.. ...
\'.39'~)
\".....\
o
o
o
o
o
gZ,4C1
92/.fJ1
91.53'2
91,5>gl.
'\0'2.,9'\2-
102..911
,.......
108,562
'\14,494
114.494-
120.123
120.723
12.7,1S3
121,263
'\34:\'30
134.1$1)
141.$41
1.41,'341
1@,91Z
'\46.9'\2
'\56._
156.&67-
,...209
,......
113.973
,......,.
163.116
1&3.1'16
1.92.&39
,-'
.......
202,96&
21.3.6'36
'Z1.3.et>6
224,624
22.4,82.4
.......
2S8,56.9
z46,9G't
24&.901
261.850
..,,65ll
'2.15,.447
275.447
2.69,7Z3
........
31)4.114
~1\4
S20.453
."'~
9.?J6.a71
3,\&6~
~ '{f.
~b ;:~
1-Au9 2005
1-Fe\} 1006
,"\-10119 2D07
,.fa'o 200'
1~9 zOO6
1-feb ...nCL
1-AU9 2.1JV1o'
....
i_fe\) tQ09
,\-IW9 2010
1.fe'o 2010
1~ 2011
1.fOb 2011
,-AlJ9 2012.
'\-feb 1.1)'\'2.
1.Jl.U9- 2013
1-feb 2G'\3-
1-Au9 2014
1"feb 2014
,-~ 1015
1.feb 20'\5-
'\-1W9 2016
1..feb 2016
1..Jlo\l9 2.011
1..fe'O 201.1
1~ 2019
,..fe'O 20'8
1.~ 1019
1-Feb m'log
1~ 20:20
1._Feb 2020-
,oM 2QZ.1
'\~fe'O 2021
1..Al.l9 2022
1..feb 2022
,.... .~.
,-fob ~U"'"
1.M~
. -fetl 2024
. 1.O'l4
,~.Ml9 202.5
1"fe'b 2025
1#9 2.026
1..fOb 20'26
'\~Pi\l9 ?J)Z7
'l..feb 2027
1~ 2.026
1..feb 2018
1-All9 '2D~
'\-fetl 2029
,.... ..
1~oD 20......
....
,\.j\U9 2.()31
'\-Feb 20'3'\
,\.Au9
,....
,.,..
^"""'"
.... ''''
c 16.664
'\6.e&\
16.684
,.....
1fl.e&'
......
......
,.....
16.664
16.684
1.6,664
16,684
16.684
,.....
1&.686
,.....
......
16.684
,.....
'16,6&4
16,664
......
'\6~
,6.e84
16~
16,664
......
......
16,664
,.....
,.....
,.....
16,684
16,eeA
1&.664
16.664-
'\6,6&4
16~
'6,6811
'\6.684
16.664-
16,664
16.&&4
1&.684
1&~
,.....
16,&84-
16.6&4
,.....
'\6.6&4
,\6,8&4
'\6,e&4
1e.&&4
16,664
'\6.664
ztl'l '\6SlYi
= '0'....
~a<'''~
~
lAit'lJSf'I5~',.a.K~
.~ 'T'" capoO\1
1'~ NJ9Ust 2005
. C& ~ ent~bat6 0
16:6&4 pres 0 Q
16.~ Q 0
,6,6&'\ lJ 0
16.6&4 \) 0
16.664 0 152.943
...... ..... ,......
1.13,5'SO 3,9'2.3 '\6,\.4'24
113,550 4,1'\9 161,42.4
162.226 4,119 11G.aso
,...... 4.''l5 ,,0,3S0
191,339 . 4,3'1S '\79,6&'\
'\9'\.339 4,54'\ 179.661
7f/J.gJ6 4.64'\ '\69.499
:zOO..... ...... ,......
210,951 4.168 1'99.60&
210.951 5,001 199.60&
'22'\,499 &$JO' 1.10,833
22'\.499 5.2.51 210,633
n2.514 '5,~1 ",",996
232.':,.,4 5.520 2.'21,99&
2.44.202. 5.520 23'3,,932
244,202 5.TQ6 233.932.
2$6,4'\2. 5;19& 2;46,463
256,412. 6,085 2.460463
....... ..oos ......'
269.233 -G.3g() 2,59.621
'28'2.695 6.390 2.73.436
'J1!f2.... ..1(l\l .n....
....... .;100 .1l1....
296.629 1.045 281,94'},
311.611 7.G45 $63.113
311,671 7,391 ~Qs.'\15
321,'1ff14 1,391 3'\9.166
3'll.2&4 7,767 3'\9.'\66
'343,6'1 1 ;t61 '3'3!1.959
3AS.617 8.155 3o?oO,9S9
360,196 6,155 35a,591
300.196 8.563 353.591
378.838 8,563 372.105
37&.838 a~ 312.'105
:wr,1en 6,~1 '391..5M
391;r...~ 9.441 391,'544
411,l;jIl;)'ll' 9.441 411.955
411.~ 9,913 411.9$
~!Ff2. 9.9\3 4$3;J81
....5fI' ,..... .......1
4IJ/J.4fdJ 10.406 4~,69'
46G.460 10.929 455,e91
463,504 10,929 419.52.0
4&3,604 11,416 A.19,SZ1
'!Il7,,19 "11,416 504,~
!J)7,679 12.049 504,~
5S3-.063 <\z,049 530,361
53'3.()63 12,651 53Q: 361
559J1fi 12.651
~716
it
I-'
~
I
o
o
o
o
o
~9.~4\)
\9.241)
\..1S'1
'\..1S')
~'10,Z9'\)
{w.W1)
\'''1l501
\......)
{11.449l
~,\,\,4A9)
{'\2.,01Z)
{12.(72)
(12.116)
(12.1Z6}
~,\~,41:l)
(13,4'\3)
l14.1'34)
(14.1'34)
l1..e.91}
\'\4.691)
\'\5.686)
\......1
l1&,52.1)
\1&,52'tl
\<1...71
\,\1.397)
l16.3't6)
(18.$.'\&)
(19.264)
l19,Z&4-)
\"'....)
(",,"'1
\.,....1
\2,....\
.........
(......1
\2....,1
\.....11
\......)
\.4....1
(26....65)
\Z8,1&5}
\"....1
\27.545)
\2..912\
lZ6,91Z)
(~0.471)
\30,411)
(",04~\
~32~
\921 ~"1
....3'\6,637)
castdloWS.11'
-
5/2712005
HOPKINS 2-11
CITY OF HOPKINS. MAIN STREeT
Summary
PAGESof6
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
PLEASE READ ALL ASSUMPTIONS
NEW Redevelopment DlstrIct
5.0000%
7.00%
6.75"-
1.2."
26.0824% EST Pay 2005
10.00%
"""""
Infl8IlonRate
Pay As Vou Go Note Rate
taka out Revenue Note Rate
Teke out Revenue Note Coverage
FIscal D1sp.COn1tlbution RatIo
PooDngAssumpbon
Class Rate Assumpllons
mas First Tax Inctllment
Vears of Tax Increment
Assumes LastTax Inaement
Vears of Tax lncntment
Assumes Note l$$Ued
Tax Capacity (ExtensIon) Rale - Frozen
Tax CapaCIty (Extension) Rate. ClUTent
State Education Rate
W1d._
AIIlOUlItd~wUIv..,deplIndlngVpC>>l...,utYlll"'.IQtatea.cbSsmn.
_1nIctIon sdll4ullJ..,d lnftaIlon Q/I marbtv._ lnltallon on tax l'lItn
C41nnolbllCII
2007
2.
2032
2.
N/A
1.208390
1.208390
0.511012
1.298630
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Pay 2005
Cashffow5-fT-GS
*
..Ii..~'
.>
#
--
. 6127/2005 HOPKINS 2.11 PAGE6of6
I CITY OF HOPKINS. MAIN STReET
Summary
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Annual Project MinusFlsOis CapWred Sem\oAnnual Auditor Admlnlslrallon Seml-Annual Ending Period
BaA= C Tax....., TaxCapaclty TaxCapaclty Gross G.." PAYMENTOATE
Mlh. y,. C. ,,,..,"" ..36% 15.00% Increment Mlh. y,.
l.fob 2OlJ5 91,542 91,542 . 0 . . . '..... 2OlJ5
'''''''' 2OlJ5 .,.... 91.542 . . . . . '.fob 2llO6
1-Feb 2llO6 91,542 91,542 . 0 . . . . . ,- 2llO6
'''''''' 2llO6 91.542 91.542 . . . . . . . '.fob z007
1-Fob z007 91,542 91,542 . . . . . . ... '.... z007
'''''''' z007 91,542 91,542 . . . . . . ,.. 1-Feb ZOO,
1-Feb 2008 91.542 637,014 (7,578) 537.894 324,993 (1.170) (46.360) 217,463 1.5 ,''''''' 2008
'.... 2008 91,542 637,014 (1,578) 537,894 324,993 (1.170) (46,360) 2n,463 2.. '.fob 2009
1-Feb 2009 91,542 1,097.255 (7.774) 997,939 602.950 (2,171) (T4,925) 525.854 2._ ''''''''' 2009
1-Aug 2009 91,542 1,097,255 (7,774) 997,939 602,950 (2,171) (74,925) 525,854 3.. 1-Feb 2010
1.Feb 2010 91.542 1.106,367 (7.980) 1,006,844 608,330 (2,190) (76.270) 529,870 3._ 1-Aug 2010
''''''''' 2010 91.542 1,106.367 (7.980) 1.006,844 608.330 (2,190) (76,270) 529.870 4.. '.fob 2011
1..feb 2011 .,.... 1,161,685 (8.379) 1.061,764 641,512 (2,309) (80,436) 558,767 ..- 1-Aug 2011
'.... 2011 91.542 1,161,685 (8,379) 1.061,764 641,512 (2,309) (80.436) 558,767 _.. 1..feb 2012
'.fob 2012 .,.... 1,219,769 (..798) 1,119,429 676.353 (2.435) (84,809) 589,109 5._ ,"'US 2012
,''''''' 2012 91.542 1,219,769 (8,798) 1,119,429 679.353 (2.435) (84,809) 589,109 ... 1-Feb 2013
'.fob 2013 91,542 1,280,758 (.,238) 1.179,978 712,931 (2,561) (89,402) 620,968 ..- '.... 2013
'.... 2013 91.542 1.280,758 (9,238) 1,179,978 712,937 (2,561) (89,402) 620,968 7.. '.fob 2014
1-Feb 2014 91,542 1,344,796 (9,700) 1.243,554 751,349 (2,705) (94.224) 654,420 7.' ''''''''' 2014
,'''''''' 20" 91,542 1,344,796 (9,700) 1.243,554 751,349 (2,705) (94,224) 654,420 8.. 1-Feb 2015
1-Feb 201_ 91,542 1,412,035 (10,185) 1,310,308 191,682 (2,850) (99,288) 689,544 8._ ''''''''' 2015
''''''. 2015 91,542 1,412,035 (10,185) 1,310.308 791,682 (2,850) (99,288) 689,544 ... 1-feb 2018
1-Feb 2016 91,542 1,482,637 (10,694) 1,380,401 834,031 (3,003) (104,604) 726,425 ..- 1-Aug 2016
''''''' 2016 91,542 1,482,637 (10,6941 1,380,401 834,031 (3,003) (104,604) 726,425 10.0 l-Feb 2017
1-Feb 2017 .,.... 1,556,769 (11.229) 1,453,998 878,498 (3,163) (110,187) 765,149 10.5 1-Aug 2017
1-Aug 2017 91,542 1,556,769 (11.229) 1,453,998 - 878,498 (3,163) (110,187) 765,149 11,0 1..feb 2018
1-Feb 2018 91,542 1,634,608 (11,790) 1,531,275 925,189 (3,331) (116,O48) 805,810 11.5 1-Aug 2018
1-Aug 20'8 91,542 1.634,608 (11,790) 1,531,275 925,189 (3,331) (116,048) 805,810 12.0 1-Feb 2018
'.fob 2019 91,542 1.716,338 (12.380) 1,612,416 974.214 (3,507) (122.203) ....504 12.5 ''''''''' 2019
'.... 20'. .,.... 1,716.338 (12,380) 1.612,416 974.214 (3,507) (122,203) ....504 13.0 '.fob 2020
'.fob 2020 91,542 1,802,155 (12,998) 1,697,$14 1,(125,690 (3,692) (128,665) 893,332 13.5 ,"'US 2020
,...... 202. 91,542 1.802,155 (12.998) 1,697,614 1,025,690 (3,692:) (128,665) 893,332 14.0 '.fob 202'
'.fob 202' .,.... 1.892,263 (13,648) 1,787,012 1,079,740 (3,887) (135,450) 840.,"" 14~ 1.-Aug 202'
'.... 2021 91.542 1,892,263 (13,648) 1,787,012 1,079,740 (3,887) (135.450) 940,402 15.0 '.fob 2022
Ii 1-Feb 2022 91,542 1,986,876 (14,331) 1,881,002 1,136,492 (4,091) (142,575) 989,826 15.5 ,""US 2022
, ." ,''''''' 2022 91,542 1,986,876 (14,3311 1.881,002 1,136,492 (4,091) (142,575) 989,826 16.0 '.fob 2023
1.fob 2023 91,542 2,086,219 (15.047) 1,979.630 1,196,082 (4,306) (150.056) 1,041,721 16.5 1-Aug 2023
,- 2023 91,542 2,086,219 (15,041) 1,979,630 1,196,082 (4,306) (150,056) 1,041,721 17.0 1-Feb 202'
1..feb 2024 91,542 2,190,530 (15,800) 2,083,188 1,258,652 (4,531) (157.911) 1,096.210 17.5 ''''''''' 2024
1-Aug 2024 91,542 2,190,530 (15,800) 2,083,188 1,258,652 (4.531) (157,911) 1,096,210 18.. l.fob 2025
1-Feb 202_ 91,542 2,300,057 (16,590) 2,191,925 1,324,350 (4,768) (166,159) 1,153,424 18,5 1-Aug 2025
'.... 2Il25 91,542 2,300,057 (16,590) 2,191,925 1,324,350 (4,768) (166,159) 1,153,424 19.0 '.fob 2026
l.fob 2026 91,542 2,415,060 (17,419) . 2,306,098 1.393,333 (5,016) (174,819) 1.213,498 19.5 1-Aug 2026
,'''''''' 2026 91,542 2,415,060 (17,419) 2.306.098 1,393,333 (5,016) (174,819) 1,213,498 20.0 1-Feb 2021
'.fob 2027 91.542 2.*,813 (18,290) 2.425,980 1,465.765 (5,271) (183,912) 1,276,571 20.5 '''''''' 2021
''''''' 2027 91,542 2.535.813 (18.290) 2,425.980 1.465,765 (5,277) (183,912) 1.278.577 21,0 1-feb 202S
'.fob 2028 91,542 2,662.603 (19,205) 2,551,856 1,541,819 (5,551) (193.459) . 1,342.809 21.5 ''''''''' 2028
'.... 202S 91,542 2,662.603 (19,205) 2.551.856 1,541,819 (5,551) (193,459) 1.342.809 22.. '.fob 2029
'.fob 202. 91,542 2,795,734 (20,165) 2,684,026 1,621.675 (5,836) (203,485) 1,412,353 22._ """" 202S
1-Aug 2029 91,542 2,795,734 (20,165) 2,684,026 1,621,675 (_.838) (203.485) 1,412,353 23.. '.fob "'"
1.fob 2030 91,542 2,935,520 (21,173) 2,822,805 1.705.524 (6,140) (214,011) 1,485,374 23.5 ''''''''' 2030
1-Aug 2030 91,542 2,935,520 (21,173) 2,822,805 1,705.524 (6,140) (214,011) 1,485,374 24.0 '.fob 2031
'.fob 2031 91,542 3,082,296 (22,232) 2,968,522 1.793,566 (6,457) (225,064) 1,562,046 24.5 1-Aug 2031
1-Aug 203' 91,542 3,082,296 (22,232) 2,968,522 1,793,566 (8,457) (225,064) 1,562,046 25.0 1-Feb 21132
1-Feb 2032 91,542 3.2:36,411 ~~3,~~! 3.121,525 1,886.010 j~.7~~( j~36..~~~ 1,642,551 2_~ '''''''' 2032
'''',~ 2.32 91.542 3,236,411 23.343 3121 525 1.886010 679. 236.669 1642551 26.0 1-Feb 2033
TOTALS 54.301,474 (195,485) (6,821,979) 47,284,010
PRESENT VALUE 18,871,160 (67,936) 16,520,917
.
Cashflow5.17.oS
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
APPENDIX
Ii
.:~
~'
~
E-l
my ===
. " '. JnI1CS&!t1 Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21)
I
'. '>: Minnesota Business Assistance Form
. The Minnesota Business Assistance Fonn (MBAF) is used to report each business subsidy and financial assistance
agreement signed fromAU/lUst 1. 1999 tl.rou,!l. December 31. 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported
in a MBAF per Minn. Stat. ~1l6J.993 to ~1l6J.995.
. The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: I) any local government/agency that signed a business
subsidy agreement since January I, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government
agencies authorized to provide business subsidies.
. If a local or state government agency that is required to report has not done so by April 1, DEED will mail a
warning. If it fails to report by June I, it may not award any business subsidies until a report has been filed.
. Questions? Call (651) 296-0580. Infonnation on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 4.
Section 1 Grantor Information
I. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this fonn
3. Street address 4. City 5. ZIPcode
6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address
to. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2.
it Narne!ritle Phone number Street address City ZIP code
>- ".~"
."
II. Classification of grantor, (Mark one. If grantor is entity 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and
created by gov'( agency, please indicate affiliation. For adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in
example, a city EDA would check "City govemment. '? compliance with Minn. Slat. ~ 1 t6J.994? (Mark olle.)
. -City government . .Yes, in 2004 (attach criteria)
. .Yes, in 2004 but have not yet adopted criteria
. -County government . 'Yes, prior to 2004
. -Regional government ifY..:
Hearing Date: Year Criteria Submitted:
. -State government
. -No
. >Other (please specify.) . -Other (Please attat:h explanation.)
13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, J 999
through December 31,2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a previous filed MBAF? (Mark one.)
. 'Yes (Complete the remainder of the fonn unless 'goals have been achieved and . -No ~tOD here. go to section 5 on page 4.)
repodell in apreviouslyfi/eIl MBAFper Mi.lIl. S.a.. SJ /6J.993 alld S/ /6J.994.)
Section 2 Recinient Information
14. Name of business or organization 15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance
receiving subsidy or financial assistance will be used
Street address City Slate ZIP code
16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.)
, . 'Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. lfmore than one, indicate ultimate owner.)
. 'No
Name of parent corporation Street address City Slate ZIP code
Minnesota Business Assistance Fonn (1/14/04) Page lof4 Dept of Employment & Economic Development
17. InduslIy of recipient's fucility (Malt one.):
. '".M'anufacturing . .services . -Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
. -Retail Trade . 'Wholesale Trade . -Construction . <Jther (please specifY)
18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.)
. .Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete (Iris project at that address.)
. 'No (Go to Question 19.)
City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address
19. Would the recipient have remained in previous location or re~ocated elsewhere if not awarded this business subsidy or
financial assistance? (Mark one.)
. -Remained at previous location . -Relocated to different Minnesota location .. -Relocated outside Minnesota
Ii
Section 3 A2reement In ormation
20. Total doUar value of business subsidy or financial 21. Date agreement signed (In addition to t.n.e agreement
assistance (Please separate value hy type ill Questions 24 dale. indicate any dates the agreement was amended.)
and 25.)
22. Benefit date (Indicate the date tire recipient will benefit fivm the business subsidy OF filla/ldal assistance. For example.
indicate the date improvements were fillished, equipme1Jt was placed into senrice, or the recipient occupied the property,
whichever is earlier.)
23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to
be reported? (Mark one.)
. -business supsidy . -financial assistance
24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please 25. If the assistance was one ofthe four types offinanciaJ
indicate the type(s) and total dollar yalue for each type. assistance, please indicate the type(s).
- <not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance - -not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy
. ~oan (only principal) $ - 'aSsistance for property polluted $
. ogrant (i.e., forgivable loan) $ by contaminants
- ~ abatement $ . 'aSsistance for renovating building $
- -TlF or other tax reduction or deferral $ srock or bringing it up to code, and
- -guarantee of payment $ assistance provided for designated
- "'COntribution of property or infrastructure $ historic preservation districts, when
- -preferential use of governmental facilities $ 50% or less of total cost
-. -Jand contribution $ - -assistance for pollution control or $
. 'Otl1er (SpecifY subsidy type.) $ abatement
- 'aSsistance for a TIF soils condition district $
26. lftbe assistance included tax increment financing, please 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or
indicate the type ofTIF district? (Mark olle.) financial assistance to the same project? (Mark 011 e.)
. -not applicable, assistance was not in the form ofTIF - -Yes (Specify each grantor and the value of their
assistance beloll,.'; attach an additional slreet if necessary.)
- "I"edevelopment
- -renewal and renovation . -No
- -soils condition
- -economic development Grantor(s) and value ofthe agreement(s):
- 'I11ined underground space
- obazardous substance subdistrict
Grantor Value ($)
Grantor Value ($)
Minnesota Business AssJstance Fonn (!/J4/04)
Pagelof4
Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
-
ti'
.~
~;~
.'
.~~
-
~
..
,
Section 4 Goals and Public Purnose Identified in the Al!reement
28. Minn. SIal. ~ 1 t 6J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which
of the following public purposes were Slaled in the agreement? (Mark all that apply.)
. -Enhancing economic diversity . '1ncreasing tax base (catinot be ooly purpose)
. -Creating high.quality job growth . -Other (please specifY)
. .Job retention
. -Stabilizing the conunuoity
29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals
at the time of this report. (Fill ill the boxes and attainment daters) for each goaL)
Goals Target attamment All goals
established? ,dates (month & year) attained?
A) Specific wage and job goals 10 be aita.i~ed within 2 years . .Yes . -No . .Yes . -No
B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals . .Yes . -No . .Yes . -No
C) Other wage goals . .Yes . -No . .Yes . -No
D) Other goals other than wage and job goals . .Yes . -No . .Yes . -No
(please attach descriptioJls of goals and progress toward
attainment if not documented in Questions 30 and 3/.)
30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention goals stated in the
agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. (On/\' indicate job
creation goals infitll-tim~ equivalents if you are unable to separate goals byjUlI- and part-time positions.)
Fnlf.tfme Part~dme/ FTE lonl" if gosls not
Hourly Wage Job Seasonavremp. staled a. FTJPT) Job Retention Hourly Value of
(ad.ding benefits) c.reation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance
no hourly wage-level goal - - - - ,-
less tban 57.00 - - - - '-
57.00 to 58.99 - - - - '-
59.00 to 510.99 - - - '-
511.0010512.99 - - - - .'-
$13.00 00$14.99 - - - - '-
515.00 and higher - - - - '-
31. For each of the following wage ca~gories. indicate the number o~ actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit
date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance fur those jobs. (.Onlv illdicate job creatiOll in
full-time equivalents if you are una.hle to separate job creation into full- and part-time positions.)
F\lU-tlme Part-timel FTE (onlv if unable to
Hourly Wage Job SeasonaVfemp. separate FT/PT) Job Retention Hourly Value of
(excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Health Insurance
less than 57.00 - - - - '-
$7.00 to 58.99 - - - -- '-
59.0010510.99 - - - - '-
511.0000512.99 - - - - '-
513.0010514.99 - - - - '-
515.00 and higher - - - - '-
32. Has the recipient achieved all.oals (see Questions 29, 30 and 31) and fulfilled all obli..tioos stipulated in the agreement?
(Mark one.)
. .Yes . -No
Minnesota Business Assistance Fonn (1114/04)
Page 3 of4
Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
-- -- --- --- -- ----- --- ------ ----
.
Section 5 Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations ,
(Do not comvlete this sectioni( you completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED,)
33. During the period January I, 2003 through December 31, 2003, did your organization have any recipients who failed to
report as required by Minn. Stat. ~116J.993 and ~1l6J.994? (Mark one.)
. .Yes (indicate the name of each recipiem failing to rep0l1 and the value of subsidy or financial assistance av.'arded to that
recipient. Attaclr additional pages ifnecessary.)
. -No
Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 and 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance
34, Did your organization have any recipients who faiJed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an
agreement signed on or after August t, 1999, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.)
. .Yes (Complete the remainder afthis section.) . -No (Stop here and submit fonn to DEED.)
35. _ 39. Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that
were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additional pages if necessary.)
35. Information on recipient and agreement:
Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance Initial value of
sub~idy or assistance
Street address of recipient City/ZIP code of recipient Outstanding value of ,-,HO,
.
subsidy or assistance "
36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all 'hat apply.):
. -recipient ceased operation . 1"ecipient relocated to a different conununity
. orecipient was unable to fill vacant positions . 'Other (Specify reason.)
37. To date. has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.)
. .Yes . -No~ recipient has begun to repay the assistance. . -No. recipient has not bewn to repay the assistaOce.
38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark DUe.)
. .Yes . -No
39. Descnbe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy:
Return your completed MBAF(s) by Avrill. 2004, to:
Minnesota Business Assistance Fonn
Minnesota Department ofEmploymenl and Economic Development. AEO
500 Metro Square, 121 East?'" Place
St. Paul, MN 55101-2146
Or fax to: (651) 215-3841 ,
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1114/04) Page4of4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
-
"
I
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT
InMay of2005, LHB prepared a Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications
of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District. This report is being submitted under a
separate cover.
APPENDIX
F.I
APPENDIX G
BUTIFOR QUALIFICATIONS
/., .- .",""
",
"
,
-. ;'" .' .~,"'.:", '\\~ {'l,1 ,"'..!j>~.. ~.,~ -:', ._,.i
1!ut-FOf An~~,s~ ':,,:); ',;~ , ,.., ,
l- '>. _' ".,~ ,
.,' ::""
~ ;;,; ': ';.i/},:"; >:. ~:.,.
Current Market Value - Estimate
$9,004,800
62.566.355
$53,561,555
18.803.224
$34,758,331
New Market Value - Estimate
Difference
Present Value of Tax Increment
.Difference
Value Likely to Occnr Without TIF is Less Than:
$34,758,331
At the current time, the site has an estimated $20 million in land acquisition, demolition and relocation costs.
In addition, the site requires from $3.5 million to $5 million for on-site structured parking to accommodate
the buyers of the for sale housing. These two factors result in a cost per unit for land that greatly exceeds
. market conditions. The tax increment is needed to reduce these costs and make them marketable.
,
APPENDIX
-
.;
#
o.!
USES
Construction Costs
Soft Costs
Relocation
Sales Commission
TOTAL USES
Price/SQ. Ft.
SOURCES
Condos 344,705
Retail Sales 2 4,400
Parking 100 30,000
TIF
Non
.
" TOTAL SOURCES
Profit
Profit Percent
--
~
APPENDlX
CITY OF HOPKINS
BUT FOR TEST
DISTRICT #3
SUMMARY BASED ON THREE DIFFERENT MARKET ANALYSIS
High Average High
3yr 3yr 6yr
$60,000,000 $60,000,000 $66,000,000
$28,632,248 $28,632,248 $28,632,248
$2,860,000 $2,860,000 $2,860,000
$4,915,028 $4,669,276 $5;308,230
$96,407,276 $96,161,524 $102,800,478
254.46 232.50 287.51
89,364,137 $84,895,930 96,513,268
$1,117,600 $1,117,600 $1,117,600
$3,000,000 $3,OOO,00Q $3,000,000
$15,000,000 $19,000,000 $15,000,000
$108,481,737 $108,013,530 $115,630,868
$12,074,461 $11,852,006 $12,830,390
12.52% 12.33% 12.48%
G.2
CITY OF HOPKINS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
RESOLUTION RZ05-16
RESOLUTION OF THE HOPKINS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING
THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1-3
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Hopkins, Minnesota (the "City"), has proposed
to adopt a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District 1-3 (collectively, the "Plan'') and has
submitted the Plan to the Hopkins Planning Commission (the "Commission"), pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine its confonnity with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive
Plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plan confonns with
the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Adopted this 3151 day of May 2005.
ATTEST:
~/~
Mary Hatcher, Ch
'''"::.>
<<
LEONARD
STREET
AND
DEINARD
I SO SOUTH FIFTH STREET SUITE 2.300
MINNF.APOLlS, MINNESOTA 55401
612-335.1500 MAIN
612'335'1657 fAX
BRADLEY J. GUNN
612-335-1671 DIRECT
BRADLEY.GUNN@LEONARD.COM
June 21, 2005
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
City of Hopkins
City Hall
1010 First Street South
Hopkins,~ 55343
Re: Use of Tax Increment Financing for Block 64 Redevelopment Proposal
LS&D File No. 18630.00010
''Cl
Dear Mayor Maxwell and Councilmembers:
Our office represents the owners of Hopkins Park Plaza in connection with the
proposed redevelopment of Block 64. I am writing to express our objections to, and
concerns over, the request to use tax increment financing ("TIP") to subsidize the
proposed redevelopment. Our objections and concerns are as follows:
1. We Were Not Provided With Kev Documents on a Timelv Basis.
Our office has had numerous conversations and meetings with City staff over the
past 8 weeks, attempting to obtain all of the documents relating to the Block 64
redevelopment proposal. During this period, we were consistently told that the TIP
. inspection reports were not complete and not available. Last Wednesday, the TIP
inspection reports were finally made available and we discovered that they appear to have
been prepared in February, March and April of2005.
It apparently took the City's consultants at least four months to prepare the TIP
inspection reports, and it is not fair or reasonable for Hopkins Park Plaza to have to
analyze and respond to these reports in only four working days. This evening's hearing
should be continued to allow Hopkins Park Plaza a fair opportunity to respond to the
opinions and conclusions in the TIP inspection reports.
LAW OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL, MANKATO, SAINT CLOUD AND WASHINGTON, D.C. A ProfessiontJ1 Association
WWW.LEONARD.COM
\ '
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 2
June 21, 2005
Finally, we have never received a copy of the draft TIP Plan for the Block 64
project, which is another essential document. The proposed Block 64 redevelopment is
obviously very important to our clients, and it should be equally important to the City
because of its financial and legal implications. The City Council should be permitted to
fully consider both sides of these issues, which cannot happen if this request is "rushed"
for approval Without an adequate opportunity for Hopkins Park Plaza to respond.
2. The Block 64/GPS Project Fails the "But For" Test for the Use ofTlF.
Minnesota law is clear that public subsidies such as TIP may not be used unless
the redevelopment would not occur without the public subsidy. Minn. Stat. ~ 469.175,
subd. 3(b )(2). This is commonly known as the "but for" test, and it is intended to prevent
unnecessary public subsidies in areas that are ripe for redevelopment without such
subsidies.
In this case, our client, Hopkins Park Plaza, L.L.C., has entered into a purchase
agreement to sell Hopkins Park Plaza to Spyder Development, L.L.C., for $6.7 million.
Hopkins Park Plaza (by Wayne Rixmann) and Spyder Development, L.L.C. (by Jan
Susee, who has accomplished a number of successful redevelopment projects) have been
preparing a substantial condominium and assisted housing project for Block 64 that
would require no public subsidies. A preliminary outline of this project has been
completed, and we anticipate presenting it to City staff in more detail in the next few
months. See Exhibit A.
If Block 64 is to be redeveloped, it seems only fair--and in the best interests of the
City-to favor a project by experienced redevelopers who have already invested in, and
own, much of the block, especially when they do not require a public TIP subsidy that
will diminish the revenues of the City and the County for 15 years. Perhaps more to the
point, the RixmannlSusee plan demonstrates that TIP is not needed for the redevelopment
of Block 64, and therefore that the use ofTIF is unlawful.
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 3
June 21,2005
3. The Proposal to Use TlF for Block 64 Is Unlawful Because the Proiect
Is Not Primarilv for a Public Purpose.
The leading case on the use ofTIF for redevelopment projects makes it clear that
TIF funds may be expended only for primarily public purposes. Walser Auto Sales. Inc.
v. City of Richfield. 635 N.W.2d 391,399-400 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), aff'd by equally
divided court, 644 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 2002). To the best of our knowledge, the City has
not even addressed this issue.
The proposed Block 64/GPS project contemplates the destruction of
approximately 162 units of housing for primarily low-income residents. . This fact alone
raises a serious question about whether the project is primarily for a public purpose. In
addition, the cost of displacing and relocating these residents is estimated to exceed
$1.8 million, which is an extraordinary "add on" to an otherwise questionable public
investment. Most importantly, it appears that GPS Financial Group, and not the public,
will be the primary beneficiary of the TIF expenditures, which is clearly unlawful. At an
absolute minimum, the City needs to direct its staff to address this issue, to estimate the
public's costs and benefits and compare them to the private costs and benefits, and to
allow Hopkins Park Plaza an opportunity to respond to the seeming rush to approve the
Block 64/GPS proposal. The Court in Walser clearly requires this kind of comparative
analysis.
4. The Proposed Use of TlF Is Unlawful Because Over 50% of the
Properties Are Not "Structurallv Substandard."
In order to qualify as a TIF redevelopment district, more than 50 percent (50%) of
the buildings in the district must be "structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance." Minn. Stat. ~ 469.174, subd. 10(a)(1). The
applicable statute defines "structurally substandard" as follows:
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
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 4
June 21, 2005
similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total
significance to justifY substantial renovation or clearance.
Minn. Stat. ~ 469.174, subd. 10(b) (emphasis added). In other words, the test for whether
or not a property is "structurally substandard" is focused on whether the property exhibits
sufficient defects or deficiencies so as to justify substantially renovating or clearing it. If
a building does not require substantial renovation or bulldozing, it is not, by statutory
definition, structurally substandard.
As noted above, we have not had nearly enough time to analyze and respond to the
City's TIF inspection reports. Nonetheless, even a cursory review reveals that they are
fundamentally flawed for the reasons that follow:
a. Hopkins Park Plaza is subject to annual housing inspections, and to the best
of our knowledge it is in full compliance with all of the City's requirements. In other
words, the six buildings owned by our clients are in compliance with the applicable
codes, and they do not require substantial renovation or clearance. This should be the
end of the City Council's inquiry. While the City's consultants concluded (on erroneous
grounds discussed below) that our clients' buildings were structurally substandard, this
conclusion defies common sense and the law.
Subtracting even the six Hopkins Park Plaza buildings from the alleged 11 of 14
structurally substandard buildings in the proposed TIP District means that only 5 of the
14 buildings are allegedly structurally substandard. This, in turn, means that the 50%
requirement is not met and that TIF may not be used for the proposed project.
b. The City's consultants' conclusion that the buildings at Hopkins Park Plaza
are structurally substandard is flawed in several other important respects.
. First, the City's consultants apparently focused on whether the cost of
bringing the buildings up to the current building code exceeded 15% of the cost of
replacing the buildings. See Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for
Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District As a Redevelopment
District, Appendix A spreadsheet. This is fundamentally incorrect, because it
presupposes that buildings whose costs of obtaining code compliance exceed 15% are
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 5
June 21, 2005
necessarily structurally substandard. The Minnesota Court of Appeals specifically
rejected this approach, stating that:
[A]1though Minn. Stat. ~ 469.174, subd. 10( c), specifically provides a
mathematical formula for determining, for certain, when a building is not
structurally substandard, [the City's consultants] flipped this guideline
around; every property that the statutory formula did not specifically
exempt from those potentially structurally substandard was determined to
be structurally substandard. There is no legal basis for this methodological
assumption.
Walser. suora. 635 N.W.2d at 402. In this case, the City's consultant's sometimes refer
to 15%, and sometimes to 20%, but in either case the approach is fundamentally flawed.
. Second, the City's consultants estimate the costs of code compliance for the
six Hopkins Park Plaza buildings, as a percentage of replacement cost, as follows:
Total Percental!e
TIF Code No. Percental!e From ADA
4A 21% 5.0%
6A 17% 11.3%
6B 19% 10.7%
8 24% 13.7%
9 24% 13.7%
10 24% 13.7%
As the table indicates, approximately half of the alleged code compliance costs arise from
accessibility or ADA issues. These costs are flawed, however, and should not be
considered for two reasons:
(I) Hopkins Park Plaza consists of five buildings on a single lot, plus the
TIP Parcel4A building on a separate lot. Accordingly, on the parcel containing the five
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 6
June 21, 2005
buildings all of the ADA compliant units and features could be located in a single
building, and no ADA compliance costs would be incurred on the other four buildings.
(2) The Minnesota building code does not require any of the Hopkins
Park Plaza buildings to be made compliant with the ADA. The ADA itself does not
require the kinds of alterations proposed by the City's consultants, because they are not
readily achievable and would impose an undue burden. Moreover, the applicable statute,
Minn. Stat. ~ 469.174, subd. 10(c), refers to buildings that are "in compliance with the
building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building
code. . ." (emphasis added). In other words, buildings are only required to "satisfy the
building code," and Hopkins Park Plaza already satisfies the building code with respect to
accessibility issues.
(3) In Walser. the City of Richfield's consultant concluded that most of
the buildings evaluated were structurally substandard because they did not meet the
standards of the Minnesota Energy Code. The Court of Appeals rejected this approach,
stating that substandard insulation in an older building did not make a property
"structurally substandard." Similarly, in this case the fact that an older building is not
ADA compliant does not make it structurally substandard.
. Third, the City's consultants' alleg~d code compliance costs are in any event
way too high. In determining these costs, they appear to have used the most expensive
ways possible to achieve compliance with the code, but if the code can be "satisfied" at a
lower cost, the lower cost must be used. Our analysis of the actual costs of achieving
code compliance indicates that none of the six Hopkins Park Plaza buildings meets the
15% threshold, and therefore none of them may be regarded as structurally substandard.
See Exhibit B.
. Fourth, the City's consultants provide absolutely no information to support
their opinions as to the alleged replacement costs of the buildings. This information is
critical because it directly affects the question of whether the 15% threshold is met. We
believe that the City's consultants have significantly underestimated the replacement
costs of the buildings, thus overstating the percentage costs of code compliance.
The Honorable Eugene Maxwell and
Members of the City Council
Page 7
June 21, 2005
. Finally, the City's consultants claim, in some parts of their report, to use a
20% figure for determining whether a property is structurally substandard. ,There is,
however, absolutely no legal basis or authority for applying such a standard. Moreover,
in practice it is clear that the consultants actually used a 15% figure (which the Court
already prohibited in Walser). See, for example, TIF parcels 2, 5, 6A and 6B on the
Exhibit A spreadsheet to the consultants' report: All were found to be structurally
substandard even though their alleged costs of code compliance were less than 20% of
their replacement costs as determined by the City's consultants.
For all of these reasons, we believe that the use of tax increment financing on the
Block 64 project would be unlawful. We therefore respectfully request the City Council
to deny the request to provide such fmancing.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
By ~~~~
Bradley J. Gunn
BJG:clp:2635766