Agenda- HRA1. ITEM 2008 -08 PUBLIC HEARING: Authorization of eminent
domain proceedings - -Block 64
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 453, authorizing eminent
• domain proceedings
•
JUNE JULY
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S MAXWELL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 BRAUSEN
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 HALVERSON
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 1617 18 19 ROWAN
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 YOUAKIM
29 30 27 28 29 30 31 GETSCHOW
ELVERUM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. NEW BUSINESS
Board Action:
III. ADJOURNMENT
Board Action:
HOPKINS HRA SPECIAL MEETING
June 17, 2008
7 p.m.
•
June 4, 2008 N O P K I N S HRA Report 2008 -08
AUTHORIZATION OF DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS — BLOCK 64
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 453,
authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain property for redevelopment
purposes.
With this motion a petition will be filed in Hennepin County District Court commencing
eminent domain proceedings.
Overview
In July 2005 the Hopkins City Council and Hopkins HRA approved a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No. 1 Project Area, established Tax
Increment Financing District 1 -3 and adopted a tax increment plan for the purposes of
facilitating a redevelopment project on property referred to as Block 64.
A Contract for Private Redevelopment was entered into between the HRA and GPS
Development obligating the HRA to provide tax increment assistance in order to facilitate a
mixed -use housing and retail project of 220 condominiums and 13,000 square feet of retail
space. This agreement was later amended and in March 2008 the HRA approved the
assignment of the Contract for Redevelopment from GPS LLC to Doran -Pratt Development
LLC.
• The only significant obstacle to the redevelopment of this site, thus meeting the HRA's
goals, is the acquisition of two properties: 525 Mainstreet and the property known as the
Hopkins Park Plaza. Negotiations with the owners have not resulted in an acceptable
price and as a result the HRA is now considering the use of eminent domain.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Does the HRA have the legal authority to use eminent domain?
• What are the public benefits that will occur with the acquisition of the twd
properties?
• What has been done to reach a reasonable purchase price with the owners?
• How will the HRA's costs of acquisition through the use of eminent domain be
recovered?
Supporting Documents
• Resolution Mn 4
erste Iverum
Direc • r of Planning . Development
C ITY Op
Financial Impact: $ 0 Budgeted: YIN Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
•
•
•
Analysis of Issues:
• Does the HRA have the legal authority to use eminent domain?
The project was grandfathered under Minnesota Laws of 2006, Chapter 214, Section 22
(b) (1) due to the fact the properties were intended to be acquired in the tax increment plan
adopted prior to February 1, 2006, the assignor of redevelopment rights had acquired a
portion of the redevelopment property in reliance on the HRA's commitment to condemn a
portion of the property if needed, and that the HRA had entered into a binding agreement
to issue or sell bonds to finance the costs of the tax increment plan and no bonds have
been sold.
Based on this, it is the HRA legal counsel's opinion that the HRA does have the legal
authority to use eminent domain in this case.
• What are the public benefits that will occur with the acquisition of the two
properties?
In the staff's opinion, the following public benefits will occur from the HRA's acquisition of
the Acquisition Property (525 Mainstreet property and Hopkins Park Plaza property) and
redevelopment thereof by Redeveloper (Doran Pratt Development LLC) pursuant to the
Redeveloper's plan of development:
(a) The acquisition and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property
(including the Acquisition Property) will help remove, prevent and reduce blight,
blighting factors and the causes of blight and facilitate redevelopment in accordance
with the Redevelopment Plan;
(b) As shown by the LHB Report (done for the HRA in 2005), more than 50
percent of the buildings in the TIF District, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. These
conditions are reasonably distributed through the District. Some of these
substandard buildings will be removed as a result of the Redeveloper's
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan;
(c) Removal of the structures in the Redevelopment Property will eliminate
buildings that don't comply with the City building code, and implementation of the
Redeveloper's proposed development will replace these buildings with buildings
that meet the building code;
(d) Various of the existing buildings within the Redevelopment Property are
vacant or underutilized. The proposed redevelopment will substantially improve
this situation by eliminating these buildings and replacing them with modern, high
quality buildings;
(e) The proposed redevelopment includes 254 luxury residential apartments and
13,000 square feet of new retail development, which will clean up blighted sites and
remove substandard buildings in the City's downtown area and advance
redevelopment of that portion of the City;
(f) The proposed redevelopment will substantially increase the assessed
valuation of the Redevelopment Property;
(g) Acquisition of the Acquisition Property by the HRA will enable assemblage of
the Redevelopment Property by a single owner and eliminate multiple ownership as
a barrier to implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property. The Redevelopment Property has been owned by
separate owners for several years without any indication that any of the owners is
able or willing to proceed with redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in the
foreseeable future in accordance with a plan for development which is acceptable to
the HRA, without public assistance;
(h) Redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan would not be economically feasible in the foreseeable future
without public assistance;
(i) Redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redeveloper's proposal and the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased
employment in the City and State, the redevelopment of substandard properties,
increased tax base for the City, additional high quality development to the City, and
increased supply of safe and decent life -cycle housing in the City;
(j) The Redeveloper's Plan will provide a type of housing (luxury apartments) in
an area of the City in which this type of housing is in short supply; and
(k) The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan and will partially implement the Redevelopment Plan.
• What has been done to reach a reasonable purchase price with the owners?
525 Mainstreet
In April 2008 an appraisal was conducted on 525 Mainstreet. The appraisal indicated a
value of $440,000. The HRA made an offer to the owner of the property of 110 percent of
the value, or $484,000, and the owner was provided with a copy of the HRA's appraisal
report. That offer was made on May 23, 2008, and there has been no communication from
the owner since that date. The offer indicated that a response was needed within 30 days.
The developer has also attempted to negotiate a purchase independent of the HRA and
has been unsuccessful. Indications are that the owner is insisting on the price negotiated
by a representative of GPS that was not based on an appraisal and is not financially
feasible.
Hopkins Park Plaza
In November 2006 the Hopkins HRA entered into a purchase agreement for the Hopkins
Park Plaza property. The terms and purchase price were based on the proposed
condominium project by GPS Development. The original purchase price under the
agreement was $6.2 million with an additional $30,000 per month added until closing
• occurred. At the May 6, 2008, HRA meeting it was determined that the HRA would not be
performing under the agreement, which had escalated to a purchase amount of $6.74
million, because the amount was not supported by an appraisal and the redeveloper's
project would not be economically feasible at that price, and the agreement was
terminated.
Under the Third Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment the
developer is responsible for all costs associated with the eminent domain action. A
deposit of $50,000 per property is required prior to the commencement of an eminent
domain action. If at any time it is determined that additional funds are needed to cover the
• costs, the developer is obligated to provide the additional funds within 10 days.
•
An appraisal of the property conducted in February 2008 indicated a value of $5 million
based on an income approach. The HRA has offered the owner $5.5 million based on
110% of the appraised amount and the HRA provided a copy of its appraisal report to the
owner. No communication has been received regarding that offer. The developer has
also attempted to purchase the property independent of the HRA with no success.
Both owners will be given until June 23, 2008, to respond to the offers, and no legal action
regarding the use of eminent domain will be undertaken until this date has passed.
• How will the HRA's costs of acquisition through the use of eminent domain be
recovered?
Alternatives
The HRA has the following alternatives regarding this item:
• Pass Resolution 453 as recommended by staff
• Hold the public hearing and continue the item
• Elect not to proceed with eminent domain proceedings
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 453
AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners is the official governing body of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Hopkins ( "HRA "); and
WHEREAS, the HRA was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469 -01 —
469.047 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act ") and was authorized to transact business and
exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hopkins ( "City ") pursuant
to Section 469.003 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the HRA has undertaken a
program for the clearance and reconstruction or rehabilitation of blighted, deteriorated,
deteriorating, vacant, unused, under used or inappropriately used, areas of the City, and in this
connection is engaged in carrying out a redevelopment project known as the Hopkins
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Project ") relating to a portion of the
City which is hereinafter referred to as the ( "Project Area "); and
WHEREAS, as of the date of this resolution there has been prepared and submitted to the
HRA and the City Council of the City a redevelopment plan for the Project (which Plan is
hereinafter referred to as the "Redevelopment Plan "); and
WHEREAS, Doran Pratt Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(assignee and successor in interest to GPS Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company) (hereinafter referred to as the "Redeveloper ") has presented to the HRA a proposal for
the redevelopment of certain real property located within the Project Area (which real property is
referred to herein as the "Redevelopment Property ") through the construction of a mixed use
retail /commercial /residential development, which proposal involves the HRA's use of tax
increment and other funds pursuant to that certain Third Amended and Restated Contract for
Private Redevelopment By and Between the HRA and the Redeveloper, dated May 22, 2008,
( "Third Amended Redevelopment Contract ") to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of the cost
of acquiring the Redevelopment Property, preparing it for development and constructing site
improvements to serve the new development; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has approved within the Project Area its Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1 -3 (the "Tax Increment District ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 -.179, in order to create a funding source to finance the public redevelopment costs of the
Project; and
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
•
•
•
•
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, in its Resolution No. 2005 -032A, the City Council of the
City of Hopkins scheduled a public hearing for June 21, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. on the proposed
adoption of a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the
proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 -3 (the "TIF district No. 1 -3 "),
a redevelopment district, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF
Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans "), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 469.001
to 469.047 and §§ 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, in an effort to encourage the development and
redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City, and directing other actions to be taken
in preparation for that public hearing, as described in said Resolution No. 2005 -032A; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2005, and May 6, 2005, Ehlers Associates, Inc. ( "Ehlers "), on
behalf of the City, gave written notice to Hennepin County Commissioners Randy Johnson and
• Linda Koblick, respectively, of the City's proposed creation of TIF District No. 1 -3, solicited
comments concerning that proposed action, and gave notice of the public hearing herein to be
held on June 21, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.; and
•
WHEREAS, the HRA believes that the development of the Project Area pursuant to the
Redeveloper's proposal and the fulfillment generally of the Third Amended Redevelopment
Contract, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare
of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and
local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted,
and is, therefore, willing to provide the financial assistance outlined in the Third Amended
Redevelopment Contract; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2005, Ehlers, on behalf of the City, gave written notice to the
Hennepin County Auditor of the City's proposed adoption of TIF District No. 1 -3, transmitted a
draft of the TIF Plan for the District to the County Auditor, and gave notice of the public hearing
to be held June 21, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published on June 9, 2005, in the Sun -
Sailor newspaper concerning the public hearing to be held on June 21, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. with
respect to the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed establishment of TIF District No. 1 -3 within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed adoption of the TIF Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2005, Ehlers gave written notice to Hennepin County that on
June 21, 2005, the City Council of the City opened and closed the public hearing on TIF District
No. 1 -3 and scheduled the reopening of the public hearing to occur on July 19, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the HRA and GPS Development, LLC ( "GPS ") entered into that certain
Contract for Private Development, dated July 27, 2005, (the "Original Contract ") to effectuate
the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property, which Original Contract provided for certain
target dates for delivery and/or completion of various tasks by GPS relating to the
Redevelopment Property; and
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
2
WHEREAS, the redevelopment plan for the Hopkins Redevelopment Project No. 1 was
approved by the Board of Commissioners of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the
City of Hopkins (HRA), was determined to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan by
the City's Planning Commission, and was approved by the City Council of the City of Hopkins;
and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the HRA retained LHB, Inc., 250 Third Avenue North, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, to inspect and evaluate whether the properties within a tax increment financing district
( "TIF District ") proposed to be established by the HRA, met the statutory requirements for
coverage, and whether buildings on 23 different parcels located within the proposed TIF District,
met the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. The resulting report, entitled "Report
of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing
District As A Redevelopment District, Block 64 Tax Increment Financing District, Hopkins,
Minnesota ( "LHB Report") details the conditions present in the Project Area and the extent to
which they constitute blight; and.
WHERAS, the proposed TIF District which is analyzed within the LHB Report is generally
bounded by 8 Avenue North, First Street North, Fifth Avenue North and Mainstreet and contains
23 parcels, 13 of which are within Block 64, which is bounded by First Street North, Fifth Avenue
North, Mainstreet and Sixth Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, after inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District,
and applying statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minn. Stats. § 469.174, Subd. 10,
LHB concluded that, in its opinion, the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District,
(see LHB Report, p. 4); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the LHB Report was to document the conditions present in the
TIF District and the Project Area and thereby support consideration of a proposed Modification to
the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Project Area. Based on the LHB Report,
on May 31, 2005, the Planning Commission for the City of Hopkins adopted its Resolution No.
RZ05 -16 finding that the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
conforms with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole as
described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City; and
WHEREAS, based on the LHB Report, on July 26, 2005, after due and proper notice, the
City Council held a public hearing and adopted City Council Resolution No. 2005 -055, approving a
modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1 -3 therein, adopting the tax increment financing plan, therefor,
and making detailed findings as described therein in support of those actions; and
WHEREAS, based on the LHB Report, on July 26, 2005, the Board of Commissioners of
the HRA approved HRA Resolution No. 430 approving a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Redevelopment Project No. 1, establishing TIF District No. 1 -3, and adopting a Tax Increment
Financing Plan; and
WHEREAS, the HRA and GPS entered into an Amended and Restated Contract for
Private Redevelopment, dated February 7, 2006 (the "First Restated Contract "), which amended
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
3
•
•
•
•
•
and restated the Original Contract in its entirety and which extended the dates by which GPS was
required to complete various tasks relating to the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property;
and;
WHEREAS, the HRA and GPS entered into a Second Amended and Restated
Amendment for Private Redevelopment, dated November 7, 2006 (the "Second Restated
Contract "), which amended and restated the First Restated Contract in its entirety; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Assignment of Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated
February 12, 2008, GPS duly assigned and transferred its interest under the Original Contract,
the First Restated Contract and the Second Restated Contract, and all claims arising thereunder,
to Doran-Pratt Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, the Redeveloper in
the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract; and
WHREAS, in March, 2008, pursuant to HRA Report 2008 -03, the HRA Board approved
the assignment of the Redeveloper's rights pursuant to the Contract for Private Redevelopment
dated July 27, 2005, as amended and restated, by GPS to Doran-Pratt Development, LLC; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, the City Council of the City received Council Report 08-
32, which described the proposal of Doran Development, LLC to redevelop the Redevelopment
Property with a luxury apartment complex containing 254 units in a seven -story building
(including two stories of parking and five stories of residential development), a swimming pool,
children's play area, and approximately 13,000 square feet of retail development, as soon as the
Redeveloper has control of all of the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, effective as of May 22, 2008, the HRA and Redeveloper entered into the
Third Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment By and Between the HRA and
Doran Pratt Development, LLC ( "Third Amended Redevelopment Contract "); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Property consists of several parcels of property with
multiple owners. The Redeveloper has entered into the GPS Purchase Agreement under which
the Redeveloper is entitled to acquire those parcels of the Redevelopment Property that are
owned by GPS and GPS's interest in various purchase agreements, options and other instruments
which entitle GPS to acquire other parcels of the Redevelopment Property, all of which parcels
of the Redevelopment Property are described on Schedule A to the Third Amended
Redevelopment Contract and Exhibit A attached hereto ( "Redeveloper Property"); and
WHEREAS, the portion of the Redevelopment Property which the Redeveloper is not
currently contractually entitled to acquire consists of the Park Plaza Property and the 525 Main
Property (collectively the "Acquisition Property," legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto)
which properties are owned by separate owners; and
WHEREAS, the HRA finds that the Redeveloper's proposal for the redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Property (legally described on Exhibit C and containing the Redeveloper
• Property and the Acquisition Property) is in the best interests of the HRA, the City and the City's
residents and will assist the HRA and City in attaining their goals for the Project; and
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
4
WHEREAS, due to the high cost of acquiring and redeveloping the Redevelopment
Property, the HRA has determined that the Minimum Improvements described in the Third
Amended Redevelopment Contract would not be constructed without the financial participation
of the HRA as proposed by the Redeveloper. Therefore, the HRA has agreed, subject to
satisfaction of the pre - conditions for doing so, if any, described in the Third Amended
Redevelopment Contract, to assist the Redeveloper's proposed development of the
Redevelopment Property by acquiring the Acquisition Property and conveying it to the
Redeveloper, providing the HRA Assistance to the Redeveloper to write down the cost of
acquiring the Acquisition Property, and reimbursing the Redeveloper for a portion of its costs of
redevelopment through the issuance and payment of the Note, all as described in the Third
Amended Redevelopment Contract; and
WHEREAS, the HRA is a public body corporate and politic under Minnesota law and is
authorized by law to acquire real estate which it may deem necessary for its purposes, after a
public hearing and adoption by it of a resolution declaring that the acquisition of the real
property is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the "Acquisition Property" is located within the Project Area and is part of
the Redevelopment Property; and
WHEREAS, acquisition of the "Acquisition Property is necessary in order to enable
redevelopment of the Acquisition Property and the remainder of the Redevelopment Property in
accordance with the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract, and the Redevelopment Plan for
the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract, the Redeveloper has
agreed to redevelop the Redevelopment Property by, among other things, acquisition of the
remainder of the Redeveloper Property, removal of the present improvements, replatting the various
properties to simplify property descriptions, and construction of Minimum Improvements including
a 254 unit luxury apartment building and approximately 13,000 square feet of retail space; and
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to facilitate completion of the redevelopment activities
which are contemplated by the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract and to implement the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Hopkins Redevelopment Project No. 1; and
WHEREAS, the HRA finds that, even though the Redeveloper is a private party which will
benefit from the redevelopment pursuant to the Project, the Project will result in substantial public
benefits, which outweigh the private benefits, such that acquisition of the Acquisition Property
through use of eminent domain for the Project is primarily for the public benefit; and
WHEREAS, among the public benefits of acquisition of the Acquisition Property and
redevelopment thereof by Redeveloper pursuant to its plan of development are the following:
(a) The acquisition and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property (including the
Acquisition Property) will help remove, prevent and reduce blight, blighting factors and the
causes of blight and to facilitate redevelopment in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan;
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
5
•
•
•
•
•
(b) As shown by the LHB Report, more than 50 percent of the buildings in the TIF
District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance. These conditions are reasonably distributed through the
District. Some of these substandard buildings will be removed as a result of the
Redeveloper's redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan;
(c) Removal of the structures in the Redevelopment Property will eliminate buildings
which don't comply with the City building code and implementation of the Redeveloper's
proposed development will replace these buildings with buildings which meet the building
code;
(d) Various of the existing buildings within the Redevelopment Property are vacant or
underutilized. The proposed redevelopment will substantially improve this situation by
eliminating these buildings and replacing them with modern, high quality buildings;
(e) The proposed redevelopment includes 254 luxury residential apartments and 13,000
square feet of new retail development which will clean up blighted sites and remove
substandard buildings in the City's downtown area and advance redevelopment of that
portion of the City;
(f) The proposed redevelopment will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the
Redevelopment Property;
(g) Acquisition of the Acquisition Property by the HRA will enable assemblage of the
Redevelopment Property by a single owner and eliminate multiple ownership as a barrier to
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property. The Redevelopment Property has been owned by separate owners for several
years without any indication that any of the owners is able or willing to proceed with
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in the foreseeable future in accordance with
a plan for development which is acceptable to the HRA, without public assistance;
(h) Redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redevelopment Plan would not be economically feasible in the foreseeable future without
public assistance;
(i) Redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the
Redeveloper's proposal and the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased employment in
the City and State, the redevelopment of substandard properties, and increased tax base for
the City, will add a high quality development to the City, and will increase the supply of safe
and decent life -cycle housing in the City;
(j) The Redeveloper's Plan will provide a type of housing (luxury apartments) in an
area of the City in which this type of housing is in short supply;
• (k) The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and
will partially implement the Redevelopment Plan.
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
6
WHEREAS, the private benefits that will be enjoyed by Redeveloper if it is able to proceed
with its project if the HRA acquires the Acquisition Property and grants the various approvals
necessary to enable the Redeveloper to proceed are (1) provision of tax increment assistance and (2)
the HRA's use of eminent domain to acquire the Acquisition Property. The HRA finds these
"private benefits" are necessary for the City and HRA to accept in order to achieve the many public
benefits which implementation of the Redeveloper's plan will provide. These public benefits would
not be likely to occur without the HRA's public assistance.
WHEREAS, as provided in Minnesota Laws of 2006, Ch. 214, Section 22 (b)(1), the
Acquisition Properties were identified as intended to be acquired in a tax increment plan which had
been approved by the City prior to February 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Minnesota Laws of 2006, Ch. 214, Section 22 (b)(1)(i), by May
1, 2006, GPS, the assignor of redevelopment contractual rights to Redeveloper, had acquired a
portion of the Redevelopment Property (in reliance upon the HRA's commitment to condemn a
portion of the Redevelopment Property if needed to implement the Redeveloper's proposed
redevelopment of the Redevelopment Property pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract); and
WHEREAS, as provided in Minnesota Laws of 2006, Ch. 214, Section 22(b)(1)(ii), by May
1, 2006, the HRA had entered into a binding agreement to issue or sell bonds or other obligations to
finance the costs of the tax increment financing plan and no bonds have yet been sold pursuant to
the Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 469.012, Subd. lg, the HRA may acquire real
property within the City by the exercise of eminent domain, in the manner provided by Minn. Stat.
Ch. 117, which it may deem necessary for its purpose, after the adoption by it of a resolution
declaring that the acquisition of the real property is necessary ... to carry out a redevelopment
project; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2008, after due and proper notice in accordance with Minn. Stat.
469.012, Subd. lg(c) the Board of Commissioners of the HRA held a public hearing on the
proposed acquisition by the HRA of the Acquisition Property by use of eminent domain
proceedings as above provided; and
WHEREAS, although the HRA at one time had entered into a Purchase Agreement to
purchase a portion of the Acquisition Property, that Purchase Agreement was voluntarily terminated
by agreement of the parties after the HRA concluded that redevelopment of the Redevelopment
Property in accordance with the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract would not be
economically feasible if the HRA were to acquire that portion of the Acquisition Property at the
price established in the Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper,
and convenient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Hopkins that title to and possession of the Acquisition Property be
acquired for redevelopment in accordance with the Third Amended Redevelopment Contract in
333497v6 RJL HP 130-4
7
•
•
•
• furtherance of the Project and that acquisition of the Acquisition Property for redevelopment in
accordance with the Redevelopment Plan is a pubic purpose and for the public benefit.
•
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
HOPKINS IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that it is the considered judgment of the
Board of Commissioners that the Acquisition Property be acquired for the stated public purposes
and, if necessary, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director and Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, as attorneys for the HRA, are authorized to take all steps necessary to acquire the
Acquisition Property by an action in eminent domain.
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
for the City of Hopkins this 17 day of June 2008.
ATTEST:
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
, Secretary
8
, Chair
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Redeveloper Property
All of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
The South One Hundred Ten (110) feet of Lot Six (6), Auditor's Subdivision 242, County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Further described as beginning at a point at the
intersection of Excelsior and 5th Avenue and running West 89.33 feet along the North line
of Excelsior Avenue thence North 110 feet, thence East 89.33 feet, thence South 110 feet
parallel with the West line of 5th Avenue to point of beginning.
Subject to an easement over the East 33 feet thereof for street purposes.
And
The North 75 feet of part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision Number 242, lying South of the
South line of 1st Street North extended, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
Lot 6, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second Division and the South 50 feet of the North
162.2 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
333497v6 RJL HP130-4
A -1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exhibit B
Legal Description of the Acquisition Property
Parcel 1 (PIN # 24- 117 -22 -42 -0166) (525 Main Street, Hopkins, MN)
Legal Description
Tract A:
Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second Division;
Tract B:
That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying South of an extension across said Lot of the North line of Lot 4 of said
Subdivision.
According to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the
Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (Registered Property
pursuant to Certificate of Title no. 1098174)
Apparent Owner
Alexander M. Teplitski
525 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
B -1
Parcel 2
Property Tax Parcels
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0008 (Tract A)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0006 (Tract B)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0018 (Tract C)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0019 (Tract C and D)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0013 (Tract E)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0014 (Tract E)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0015 (Tract E)
PIN 24- 117 -22 -42 -0016 (Tract E)
Addresses
517 Mainstreet, Hopkins, MN
13 - 6 Avenue North, Hopkins, MN
30 - 5 Avenue North, Hopkins, MN
36 - 5 Avenue North, Hopkins, MN
24 - 5 Avenue North, Hopkins, MN
10 - 5 Avenue North, Hopkins, MN
Legal Description
Tract A:
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242. According to the map or plat thereof on file
and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County,
Minnesota (Abstract Property).
Tract B:
The Easterly 48 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying South of the extension across said Lot 3 of the North line of
Lot 7, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract Property).
Tract C:
Lots 7 and 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division and that part of Lot 3, Auditor's
.Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second
Division, thence East and parallel with the North boundary line of said Lot 3,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, a distance of 122.33 feet, to the East line of said Lot
3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, and thence South along said East line of said Lot 3,
a distance of 100 feet to the Northeast comer of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242;
thence West to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second
Division a distance of 122.33 feet; thence North along the East boundary lines of Lots
7 and 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division to the point of beginning,
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
B -2
•
•
•
•
•
•
except the Easterly 48 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the extension across said Lot 3, of the
North line of Lot 7, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division. All according to
the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract
Property).
Tract D:
That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, lying North of the North line of
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242 and South of the line beginning at the Northeast
corner of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, thence West to the Southeast corner of
Lot 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division, a distance of 122.33 feet more
or less (Abstract Property).
Tract E:
That part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying Northerly of a line 110 feet North of and parallel to the North line of Excelsior
Avenue and Southerly of a line 75 feet South of and parallel to the South line of First
Street North, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds in and for said County (Abstract Property).
Apparent Owner
Hopkins Park Plaza, LLC a
Minnesota limited liability company
181 River Ridge Circle South
Burnsville, MN 55337
333497v6 RJL HP130-4
B -3
Exhibit C
Legal Description of the Redevelopment Property
Redeveloper Property
All of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
The South One Hundred Ten (110) feet of Lot Six (6), Auditor's Subdivision 242, County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Further described as beginning at a point at the
intersection of Excelsior and 5th Avenue and running West 89.33 feet along the North line
of Excelsior Avenue thence North 110 feet, thence East 89.33 feet, thence South 110 feet
parallel with the West line of 5th Avenue to point of beginning.
Subject to an easement over the East 33 feet thereof for street purposes.
And
The North 75 feet of part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision Number 242, lying South of the
South line of 1st Street North extended, Hennepin County, Minnesota
And
Lot 6, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second Division and the South 50 feet of the North
162.2 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Acquisition Property
Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 64, "West Minneapolis Second Division"
And
That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South
of an extension across said Lot of the North Line of Lot 4 of said Subdivision.
(the "525 Main Property ")
And
Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And
333497v6 RJL 1- 1P130 -4
C -1
•
•
•
• The Easterly 48 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying South of the extension across said Lot 3 of the North line of Lot
7, Block 64, West Minneapolis, Second Division, according to the recorded plat thereof,
and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
•
•
And
Lots 7 and 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second Division and that part of Lot 3,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second
Division, thence East and parallel with the North boundary line of said Lot 3, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 242, a distance of 122.33 feet, to the East line of said Lot 3, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 242, and thence South along said East line of said Lot 3 a distance of
100 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242; thence West to
the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 64, West Minneapolis Second Division a distance of
122.33 feet; thence North along the East boundary lines of Lots 7 and 8, Block 64, West
Minneapolis Second Division to the point of beginning, except the Easterly 48 feet of that
part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South
of the extension across said Lot 3, of the North line of Lot 7, Block 64, West Minneapolis
Second Division, all according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota
And
That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, lying North of the North line of Lot 4,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 242 and South of the line beginning at the Northeast corner of
Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, thence West to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block
64, West Minneapolis Second Division, a distance of 122.33 feet more or less.
And
That part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
Northerly of a line 110 feet North of and parallel to the North line of Excelsior Avenue and
Southerly of a line 75 feet South of and parallel to the South line of First Street North,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in
and for said County.
(the "Park Plaza Property ")
333497v6 RJL HP130 -4
C -2