CR 2012-133 (PH Regarding a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No 2-11, Within Redevelopment Project No. 1)November 7, 2012 loco
Council Report 2012-133
City of Hopkins
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINACNING DISTRICT NO. 2-11, WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2012-087 adopting a
modification to the Tax Increment Financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
Adoption of this motion amends the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF 2-11
Overview
The City will be completing a modification to the above referenced TIF district to complete the
following:
1. Decertify parcel 19-117-21-33-0027 (existing SUPERVALU Warehouse) since:
a. No redevelopment commenced within the nine (9) year time frame required under the
special legislation for the district (would have to commenced redevelopment by 2009); and
b. The market value today for tax purposes is less than when the district was certified (base
value), therefore it is a negative drag on the TIF district (meaning it is taking dollars away
because it generates negative increment)
2. Clarify that parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0015 (new parcel from combination of 25-117-22-12-0008
and 25-117-22-12-0009 in November 2000) should have been removed in November 2000 when it
was replatted. Parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0008 was originally in the District and parcel no. 25-117-
22-12-0009 was not. Therefore when replatted into one parcel (25-117-22-12-0015) parcel no.
25-117-22-12-0008 should have been removed from the District, since parcels cannot be
combined within a TIF district if both are not located in the District.
3. Update TIF plan to incorporate special legislation approved in 2003 and 2008, which extended the
term of the District by 4 years (2003) and clarified what TIF dollars could be spent on outside of
the boundaries of the TIF district (2008)
4. Update budget to reflect actual increment to date and expected through the extended term of the
District; and
5. Update the TIF plan to be in conformance with Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting
requirements
Primary Issues to Consider
• Increased increment collections for TIF 2-11 bonds as a result of eliminating a parcel with negative
increment
Supporting Information
• Resolution 2012-087
• TIF Plan for the modification of TIF District 2-11 within Redevelopment Project I.
�vl�iZ� / • 6
Christine M. Harkess, CPA, CGFM
Finance Director
Council member
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-087
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINACNING DISTRICT NO. 2-11,
WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota ("City"),
as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment
Authority ("HRA") has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") and
adopted a Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the EDA and the City that the City adopt
a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 2-11 (the "Modification), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as
amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Modification, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The EDA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Modification and have
caused the Modification to be prepared.
1.03. The EDA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification, including, but not limited to, notification of
Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 270, having taxing jurisdiction over the property
in the TIF District, a review of and written comment on the Modifications by the City Planning
Commission on October 22, 2012, approval of the Modification by the HRA on November 7, 2012 and
the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. Notice of the public hearing
was published in the Hopkins -Minnetonka Sun Sailor, the official newspaper of the City, on October 25,
2012.
1.05. The City is modifying the boundaries of the TIF District to decertify parcel numbers 19-
117-21-33-0027 and 25-117-22-12-0008.
1.06. The City is not extending the duration of the TIF District, but is clarifying the term of the
District pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 31. The extension of the
term is to 30 years after the receipt of the first increment by the City (terminates December 31, 2029).
Section 2. Findings for the Modification to the TIF Plan
2.01 The Council hereby reaffirms the original findings for the TIF District, namely that when
it was established, it was established as a "redevelopment district".
2.02 The modification to the TIF Plan is being completed to decertify two parcels from the
District, update the TIF Plan to incorporate special legislation approved in 2003 and 2008, which
extended the term of the District by 4 years (2003) and clarified what TIF dollars could be spent outside
the boundaries of the District (2008), update the budget to reflect actual increment to date and expected
through the term of the District and update the TIF Plan to be in conformance with the OSA reporting
requirements.
2.03 The modification to the TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole. The fact supporting this finding is that the modification to the TIF
Plan will generally complement and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive
plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
2.04 The modification to the TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the
sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Project Area by private
enterprise. The facts supporting this finding are that the modification to the TIF Plan will continue the
redevelopment by private enterprise that has been stimulated under the original plan for the TIF District.
2.05 The Council further finds that the future redevelopment, in the opinion of the City, would
not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable
future and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Modification conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to redevelop an area of the State which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to provide housing opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the
general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Section 3,
the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF
Plan. A private developer will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially
feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a developer are incidental and do not outweigh the
primary public benefits.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Modification
5.01. The Modification, as presented to the Council on this date, is hereby approved, ratified,
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Manager.
5.02. The staff, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed
with the implementation of the Modification and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present
to this Council for its consideration all further Modifications, resolutions, documents and contracts
necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Modification does not constitute approval of any project or a
Development Agreement with any developer.
5.03. The City Manager is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Modification to the
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of' Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to
M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4a.
5.04. The City Manager is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Modification
with the Hennepin County Auditor.
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: November 7, 2012
Gene Maxwell, Mayor
(Seal)
ATTEST:
Mike Morrison, City Manager
Draft as of'Octoberr 18, 2012
.dor Public Hearing
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the modification of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
(a redevelopment district)
within
Redevelopment Project No. 1
Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority
City of Hopkins
Hennepin County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: October 6, 1998
Adopted: October 6, 1998
Modification No. 1: December 4, 2001
Public Hearing on Modification No. 2: November 7, 2012
EHLERS Prepared by: EHLERS i ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Jor reference purposes only)
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11 .............................. 2-1
Subsection
2-1.
Foreword ....................................................
2-1
Subsection
2-2.
Statutory Authority .............................................
2-1
Subsection
2-3.
Statement of Objectives .........................................
2-1
Subsection
1-4.
Redevelopment Plan Overview ...................................
2-2
Subsection
1-5.
Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing
District No. 2-11 ...............................................
2-3
Subsection
1-6.
Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 ............
2-4
Subsection
1-7.
Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ...............................
2-5
Subsection
1-8.
Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ................
2-6
Subsection
1-9.
Property To Be Acquired ........................................
2-8
Subsection
1-10.
Uses of Funds .................................................
2-9
Subsection
1-11.
Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ..........................
2-10
Subsection
1-12.
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................
2-12
Subsection
1-13.
Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 ...............
2-12
Subsection
1-14.
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .....................
2-13
Subsection
1-15.
Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 ...........
2-16
Subsection
1-16.
Administrative Expenses .......................................
2-17
Subsection
1-17.
Limitation of Increment ........................................
2-18
Subsection
1-18.
Use of Tax Increment ..........................................
2-19
Subsection
1-19.
Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .......................
2-20
Subsection
1-20.
Excess Tax Increments .........................................
2-20
Subsection
1-21.
Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ...................
2-20
Subsection
1-22.
Assessment Agreements ........................................
2-21
Subsection
1-23.
Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 ..........
2-21
Subsection
1-24.
Financial Reporting Requirements ................................
2-21
Subsection
1-25.
Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ...........................
2-23
Subsection
1-26.
Fiscal Disparities Election ......................................
2-24
Subsection
1-27.
Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ......................
2-25
Subsection
1-28.
State Tax Increment Financing Aid ...............................
2-27
Subsection
1-29.
County Road Costs ............................................
2-27
Subsection
1-30.
Economic Development and Job Creation ..........................
2-27
Subsection
1-31.
Summary ...................................................2-29
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B
BOUNDARY MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11 .............................. B-1
APPENDIX C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11 .............................. C-1
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11 .. D-1
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ....... E-1
.'' 0I1 . 0
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 2-11 ................................................................... G-2
City of Hopkins Modification ofilic Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-1
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The City of Hopkins ("City"), the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and
consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment ofTax Increment Financing
District No. 2-11 ("District No. 2-11"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S.'), Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174
through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in
financing public costs related to this project.
This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for District No. 2-11. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
The Tax Increment Financing Plan TIF District 2-11 is being modified to include the increased term
of the district and extension of the flve-year rule pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127,
Article 10, Section 31, to increase the budget to reflect the extended term and actual development to date
and to clarify use of TIF outside of the District pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 2008, Chapter 366,
Article 5, Section 21. The extension of the term is to 30 years after the receipt of the first increment by
the City (May, 2000) and the five-year rule has been extended to nine -years, thus obligations had to be
in place by April 5, 2008. Tax increment may be spent outside of the District for administrative costs
and housing activities, provided that expenditures outside may not exceed 20 percent of the total tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
District No. 2-11 currently consists of 11 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. District No.
2-11 is created to facilitate the redevelopment of the SuperValu complex and potentially redevelop other
adjacent properties in the City of Hopkins. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined
in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment
Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities.
These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District No. 2-11 and Redevelopment Project No. 1.
(Modified November 20, 2001, to add the following)
District No. 2-11 is being modified to facilitate the redevelopment of the SuperValu complex and assist a
developer in developing a 300,000 to 400,000 square foot corporate headquarters. Funds will be used to
purchase the SuperValu parcels, demolish the building, and assist a developer with purchasing land, site
preparation and constructing parking facilities. The Modification will also restate the parcels and reflect that
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-2
one parcel was previously removed from the District, so the District consists of 10 parcels of land and adjacent
and internal rights-of-way.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
District No 2-11 is being modified to:
1. Remove parcel no. 19-117-21-33-0027 from the district since no redevelopment has commenced
on the site and no redevelopment is contemplated within the next several years. Since the current
tax capacity of the parcel is lower than the frozen tax capacity, a formal modification in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175 Subd 4 (b) is required for the District.
2. Clarify that parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0015 (new parcel from combination of 25-117-22-12-0008 and
25-117-22-12-0009 in November 2000) should have been removed in November 2000 when it was
replatted. Parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0008 was originally in the District and parcel no. 25-117-22-12-
0009 was not. Therefore when replatted into one parcel (25-117-22-12-0015) parcel no. 25-117-
22-12-0008 should have been removed from the District, since parcels cannot be combined within
a TIF district if both are not located in the District.
3. To include the increased term of the district and extension of the five-year rule pursuant to the
Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 31. The extension of the term is to 30
years after the receipt of the first increment by the City (terminates December 31, 2029) and the
five-year rule has been extended to nine -years, thus obligations had to be in place by April 5, 2008.
4. To increase the budget to reflect the extended term and actual development to date; and
5. To clarify use of TIF outside of the District pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 2008, Chapter 366,
Article 5, Section 21. Tax increment may be spent outside of the District for administrative costs
and housing activities, provided that expenditures outside may not exceed 20 percent of the total
tax increment from the District.
Subsection 24. Redevelopment Plan Overview
Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District No. 2-11 may
be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan.
2. Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter
117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 2-11 or may lease land or
facilities to a developer.
4. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work
within District No. 2-11.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan tin' Tax Increment Financing District No, 2-11 2-3
Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
District No. 2-11 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below.
Please see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of District No. 2-11( County No.
1169 and 1170).
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-12-0008
25-117-22-11-0001
25-117-22-11-0002
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-33-0027
19-117-21-32-0032
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
(As Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-11-0001
25-117-22-11-0002
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-33-0027
19-117-21-32-0032
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-4
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-11-0001 - Replatted to New PID # 25-117-22-11-0003
25-117-22-11-0002 - Replatted to New PID # 25-117-22-11-0003
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-32-0032 - Replatted to Eight New PID #'s 19-117-21-31-0068, 19-117-21-31-0069, 19-117-
21-32-0033, 19-117-21-32-0036, 19-117-21-32-0038, 19-117-21-32-0039, 19-117-21-32-0040, and 19-
117-21-32-0041
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
19-117-21-23-0103
19-117-21-23-0092
19-117-21-31-0070
* Parcel is being removed from the TIF district due to no qualifying redevelopment activity being
completed.
** Parcel 25-117-22-12-0008 and 25-117-22-12-0009 were combined in November, 2000 to form 25-
117-22-12-0015. This modification confirms this parcel should be removed from the District.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that District No. 2-11, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(x)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a tipe of tax increment.financing district consisting (?f a
project, or portions ofa project, within which the aulhorit. 1indti by resolution that one ofthe
following conditions, reasonabh' distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting o/'70 percent ofthe area in the district are occupied b1,
buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements cmd more than 50 percent of
the bitildings, not inchtding outbuildings, are structurally• .substandard to a
degree requiring sithstantial renovation or clearance; or
(2) The properh• consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriateh, used, or
infi•eqtell th• used ratilrards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated
railroad rights-of-wal'.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "strut tnrallr .cuhstandarc!" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements ora combination of def icicncies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation,, f ire protection including adequate egress, la1-out and condition of interior partitions,
or similar- fiietors, which defects or deficiencies are ol'stifficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-$
(c) A building is notstructurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost ofless than 15 percent
of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The
municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the
preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age
of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar
reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior
inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the
cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not
required, if the municipalityfinds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access
to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or
controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the
building is structurally substandard...
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other
improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements.
In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings:
■ District No. 2-11 is a redevelopment district consisting of 11 parcels.
■ An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in District No. 2-11 are occupied
as defined in the TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within District No. 2-11 fmds that more
than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix E)
(As Modified November 20, 2001 to add the following)
■ District No. 2-11 is a redevelopment district consisting of 10 parcels that still qualify as a redevelopment
district.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
■ District No. 2-11 is a redevelopment district consisting of 18 parcels that still qualify as a
redevelopment district.
Subsection 2-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 andMS., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for District No. 2-11 is based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 1999 for taxes payable 2000.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. I and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
change in tax exempt status of property;
reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
change in the use of the property and classification;
change in state law governing class rates; or
change in connection with previously issued building permits.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-6
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District No. 2-11 declines below the ONTO, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA.
The original local tax rate for District No. 2-11 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1999.
The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District No. 2-11 appear in the table below.
(As Adopted October 6, 1998)
Original Tax Capacity Value $956,473
Percent Retailed by HRA 100%
Original Local Tax Rate 1.37995
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Frozen Tax Capacity Value $254,118
Percent Retailed by HRA 100%
Original Local Tax Rate 1.22000 (Estimate only)
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
TIF District 2-11 has two (2) separate original local tax rates due to being in two different unique taxing
areas ("UTA"). The parcels in County District No. 1169 have the original local tax rate of 1.41581,
which is the rate for taxes payable in 1999. The parcels in County District No. 1170 have the original
local tax rate of 1.41755, which is the rate for taxes payable in 1999.
County District No. 1169
Frozen Tax Capacity Value $120,034
Percent Retailed by HRA 100%
Original Local Tax Rate 1.4158l(Pay 1999)
County District No. 1170
Frozen Tax Capacity Value $142,650
Percent Retailed by HRA 100'%
Original Local Tax Rate 1.41755 (Pay 1999)
Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 46 9.1 74Sulhcl. 4 and M.S.. Section 469.177, Suhc1. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured
Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 2-11, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the
project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA
request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current
expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2000. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values
when the project is completed.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan tier Tax Increment Financing District No, 2-11 2-7
(As Adopted October 6, 1998)
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion
$2,299,932
of Project (PCT)
$110,034
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
956,473
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
1,343,459
Estimated Annual Tax Increment
$1,845,738
(CTC x Local Tax Rate)
$424,035
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion
$1,433,295
of Project (PCT)
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
254,118
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
1,179,176
Estimated Annual Tax Increment
(CTC x Local Tax Rate)
$1,438,594
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
Tax Increment District 2-11 Parcels in County District No. 1169
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)
$572,610
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
$110,034
Fiscal Disparities Reduction
$163,076
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
$299,500
Original Local Tax Rate
1.41581 Pay 1999
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
$424,035
Percent Retained by the HRA and City
100%
The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacit,.of the District in year 14 (2013).
The fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-8
Tax Increment District 2-11 Parcels in County District No. 1170
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)
$2,567,120
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
$142,650
Fiscal Disparities Reduction
$854,724
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
$1,569,746
Original Local Tax Rate
1.41755 Pay 2001
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
$2,225,193
Percent Retained by the HRA and City 100%
The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 14 (2013). The
fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year.
Subsection 2-9. Property To Be Acquired
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 2-11 including interior and adjacent street rights
of way.
Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA 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 following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired:
The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from
willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions
will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
(Modifie(l November 20, 2001, to add the following)
In connection with the project, the following parcels and all adjacent rights-of-way may be acquired:
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-11-0001
25-117-22-11-0002
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-33-0027
19-117-21-32-0032
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan liar Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-9
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for District No. 2-11 is a proposal to facilitate certain redevelopment activities
by SuperValu. The City and HRA have determined that it may be necessary to provide assistance to the
project for certain costs. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment ofproperty
in and around District No. 2-11. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of District
No. 2-11, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with District No. 2-11 is outlined in the
following table.
(As Adopted October 6, 1998)
Uses of Funds
Phase IA
Phase IB
Phase 11
Phase 111
Land Acquisition
$2,450,000
$685,000
$835,000
$1,240,000
Site Improvements
2,450,000
685,000
835,000
1,240,000
Public Improvements
2,100,000
583,000
727,500
1,063,500
Interest
8,200,000
2,300,000
2,800,000
4,300,000
Administrative Costs
1,600,000
472,000
577,500
871,500
(up to 10%)
$
500,000
$
5,710,000
TOTAL
$16,800,000
$4,725,000
$5,775,000
$8,715,000
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Uses of Funds
As Adopted
As Modified
Total
for SuperValu
11/20/2001
Land Acquisition
$
5,210,000
$
5,000,000
$
10,210,000
Demolition
$
1,900,000
$
1,900,000
Site Improvements
$
5,210,000
$
500,000
$
5,710,000
Public Improvements
$
4,474,000
$
4,474,000
Parking Ramp
$
9,500,000
$
9,500,000
Interest
$
17,600,000
$
12,200,000
$
29,800,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
$
3,521,000
$
5,000,000
$
8,521,000
TOTAL
$
36,015,000
$
34,100,000
$
70,115,000
*Note: an adjustment was made in the budget adopted October 6, 1998, to match the sources to the uses of funds.
The costs set forth above constitute estimates only and not a commitment on the part of the HRA or City to
use tax increment to assist any particular development or redevelopment effort or to pay any particular costs.
The HRA or City will only provide tax increment assistance in connection with a development if the HRA and
the developer have entered into a development agreement detailing the nature and amount of the assistance
to be provided.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-10
Estimated costs associated with District No. 2-11 are subject to change among categories without a
modification to this 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 469.1763, Subd. ?, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property
within District No. 2-11 will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of District
No. 2-11 but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which
are considered to be spent outside of District No. 2-1 1) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following
table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $16,050,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $20,000,000
Utilities $1,000,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $12,000,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $3,450,000
PROJECT COST TOTAL $52,500,000
Interest $16,500,000
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $69,000,000
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the
total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-11.
Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by
modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF
Plan, so long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above.
Further, the HRA or City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for
administrative and housing activities (described in the table above) located outside the boundaries of
the District but within the boundaries of the Project Area, subject to all other terms and conditions of
this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the
Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA
reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan and the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road
maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and
investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan.
It is currently assumed that any assistance will be provided through a pay -as -you -go -note. Additional
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-11
indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded
indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $36,000,000
without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or
HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the developer.
The estimated sources of funds for District No. 2-11 are contained in the table below.
(As Adopted October 6, 1998)
Sources of Funds Phase IA Phase IB Phase II Phase III
Tax Increment $16,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,500,000 $8,300,000
Local Contribution 800,000 225,000 275,000 415,000
TOTAL $16,800,000 $4,725,000 $5,775,000 $8,715,000
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Sources of Funds As Adopted for As Modified Total
SuperValu 11/20/2001
Tax Increment $ 34,300,000 $ 34,100,000 $ 68,400,000
Local Contribution $ 1,715,000 $ 1,715,000
TOTAL $ 36,015,000 $ 34,100,000 $ 70,115,000
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The HRA and City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of
the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by, TIF Revenue
Bonds, PAYGO Notes and interfund loans Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost
without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur
debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such
action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $68,000,000
Interest $1,000,000
TOTAL $69,000,000
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 1-1
The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax
increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $52,500,000. Such bonds may be in
the form of pay-as-you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans.
This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan
as of the date of approval.
Subsection 2-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the authority with
tax increments;
3. repayments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and
4. interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment
financing district include all of the items listed above in the initial TIF plan and the following potential
revenue sources:
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts
for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District No. 2-11
must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of District No.
2-11 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the tirst increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt
by the City of Hopkins of the first tax increment will be approximately 2000. Thus, it is estitnated that District
No. 2-11, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate
after 2025, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No. 2-11
prior to the legally required date.
Although the duration of District No. 2-11 is legally permitted to be 25 years from the receipt of the first
increment and the City and HRA reserve the right to collect tax increment for the full period allowed, it is
expected that the City and HRA will impose their oxvn restrictions on the use of tax increment. For example,
it is expected that no more than 7 years of tax increment will be used to provide assistance to the developer
of Phase IA, which is the development expected to occur on the property known as the "Hennepin County
Public Works Site'. In addition. it is expected that any assistance will only be provided in connection with
phases in addition to Phase IA and only if the terms of such assistance are agreed to in a development
agreement between the developer and the HRA. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to legally restrict the
City's or HRA's ability to collect or use tax increment beyond the restrictions contained in the Tax Increment
Act.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan lin Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-13
(As Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District No. 2-11
must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1(b), the duration of District No.
2-11 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt
by the City of Hopkins of the first tax increment will be approximately 2000. Thus, it is estimated that District
No. 2-11, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate
after 2025, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No. 2-11
prior to the legally required date.
The City Council determined that the term of the District is the full 26 years.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
The Tax Increment Financing Plan TIF District 2-11 is being modified to include the increased term
of the district pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 31. The
legislation allowed the HRA and City to extend the term by four (4) years, for a total of 30 years of tax
increment. The first tax increment was received by the City in 2000, thus, it is estimated that District
No. 2-11, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after 2029, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City and HRA does reserve the right to decertify
District No. 2-11 prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without
the creation of District No. 2-11. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to
other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the
fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following
estimated impact of District No. 2-11 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
(As Adopted October 6, 1998)
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
1997/1998
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Hennepin County 1,041,418,995
I.S.D. No. 270 76,733,133
City of Hopkins 11,936,742
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Project Completion
1,343,459
1,343,459
1,343,459
Percent of CTC
to Entity
0.1290%
1.7508%
11.2548%
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-14
Hennepin County
I.S.D. No. 270
City of Hopkins
Metro Region
Watershed
Total
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
1997/1998
Extension Rates
0.383860
0.610630
0.304550
0.074830
0.006080
1.379950
Percent
of Total
27.82%
44.25%
22.07%
5.42%
0.44%
100.00%
CTC
1,343,459
1,343,459
1,343,459
1,343,459
Potential
Taxes
515,700
820,356
409,150
100,531
0
1,845,738
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on Pay 1998 figures. District No. 2-11 will be certified under the actual 1998/1999 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
Hennepin County
City of Hopkins
Independent School
District No. 270
Watershed
Hennepin County
City of Hopkins
Independent School
District No. 270
Metro Region
Watershed
Total
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2000/2001
Total Net
Tax Capacity
$1,385,934,076
$17,820,610
$117,836,531
$331,118,422
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
$1,179,176
$1,179,176
$1,179,176
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
2000/2001
Extension Rates
0.376240
0.311360
0.442200
0.058290
0.013630
1.201720
Percent
of Total
31.31%
25.91%
36.80%
4.85%
1.13%
100.00%
$1,179,176
Percent of CTC
to Entity
0.0851%
6.6169%
1.0007%
0.3561%
$1,179,176
$1,179,176
$68,734
$16,072
$1,417,038
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated 2000/Pay 2001 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above
are based on Pay 2001 figures. District No. 2-11 will be certified under the actual 2000/2001 rates.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-15
Potential
CTC
Taxes
$1,179,176
$443,653
$1,179,176
$367,148
$1,179,176
$521,431
$1,179,176
$1,179,176
$68,734
$16,072
$1,417,038
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the estimated 2000/Pay 2001 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above
are based on Pay 2001 figures. District No. 2-11 will be certified under the actual 2000/2001 rates.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-15
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The
tax rate used for calculations is the pay 1999 frozen rate, since it is lower than the current rate (pay
2012) for the District and the rate that is utilized to calculate tax increment. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 2012 figures.
IMPACT ON TAX BASE - DISTRICT 1170
2011/2012 Estimated Captured
Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Enti , Total
Hennepin County 1,251,745,096 $1,569,746 0.1254%
City of Hopkins 14,953,670 $1,569,746 10.4974%
ISD No. 270 87,779,278 $1,569,746 1.7883%
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-16
IMPACT ON TAX BASE - DISTRICT 1169
2011/2012
Estimated Captured
Total Net
Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent
of CTC
Tax Capacity
Upon Completion to Entity Total
Hennepin County
1,251,745,096
$270,151
0.0216%
City of Hopkins
14,953,670
$270,151
1.8066%
ISD No. 270
87,779,278
$270,151
0.3078%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES - DISTRICT 1169
1998/1999
Percent
Potential
Extension Rates
of Total CTC
Taxes
Hennepin County
0.409940
28.95% $299,500
122,777
City of Hopkins
0.324420
22.91% $299,500
97,164
ISD No. 270
0.589410
41.63% $299,500
176,528
Metro Region
0.085530
6.04% $299,500
25,616
Watershed #1
0.006510
0.46% $299,500
1,950
Total
1.415810
100.00%
424,035
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The
tax rate used for calculations is the pay 1999 frozen rate, since it is lower than the current rate (pay
2012) for the District and the rate that is utilized to calculate tax increment. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 2012 figures.
IMPACT ON TAX BASE - DISTRICT 1170
2011/2012 Estimated Captured
Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Enti , Total
Hennepin County 1,251,745,096 $1,569,746 0.1254%
City of Hopkins 14,953,670 $1,569,746 10.4974%
ISD No. 270 87,779,278 $1,569,746 1.7883%
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-16
Hennepin County
City of Hopkins
ISD No. 270
Metro Region
Watershed #3
Total
IMPACT ON TAX RATES - DISTRICT 1170
1998/1999
Percent
Extension Rates
of Total
0.409940
28.92%
0.324420
22.89%
0.589410
41.58%
0.060350
4.26%
0.033430
2.36%
1.417550
100.00%
2,225,194
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The
tax rate used for calculations is the pay 1999 frozen rate, since it is lower than the current rate (pay
2012) for the District and the rate that is utilized to calculate tax increment. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 2012 figures.
Subsection 2-15. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, SIAL 4, any:
1. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 or District No. 2-11;
2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize
interest on debt if that detennination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the
amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA;
4. increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or
5. designation of additional property to be acquired by the City or HRA,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original plan.
The geographic area of District No. 2-11 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 (1) the only modification is elimination of
parcel(s) from Redevelopment Project No. 1 or District No. 2-11 and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of
the parcel(s) eliminated from District No. 2-11 equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in
District No. 2-11'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 District No. 2-11.
The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of District No. 2-11 or Redevelopment Project No. 1. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District
No. 2-11 in the form of budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax hncremcnt Financing Plan Jor Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-17
Potential
CTC
Taxes
$1,569,746
643,502
$1,569,746
509,257
$1,569,746
925,224
$1,569,746
94,734
$1,569,746
52,477
2,225,194
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The
tax rate used for calculations is the pay 1999 frozen rate, since it is lower than the current rate (pay
2012) for the District and the rate that is utilized to calculate tax increment. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 2012 figures.
Subsection 2-15. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, SIAL 4, any:
1. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Redevelopment Project No. 1 or District No. 2-11;
2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize
interest on debt if that detennination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the
amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA;
4. increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or
5. designation of additional property to be acquired by the City or HRA,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original plan.
The geographic area of District No. 2-11 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 (1) the only modification is elimination of
parcel(s) from Redevelopment Project No. 1 or District No. 2-11 and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of
the parcel(s) eliminated from District No. 2-11 equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in
District No. 2-11'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 District No. 2-11.
The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of District No. 2-11 or Redevelopment Project No. 1. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District
No. 2-11 in the form of budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax hncremcnt Financing Plan Jor Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-17
(AS MODIFIED ON NOVEMBER 7, 2012 TO INCLUDE NEW LANGUAGE IN CURRENT LA 09
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd 4, any:
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original
TIF Plan;
• Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will
be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative
expenses means all expenditures of the City or HRA, other than:
1. amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and
services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical
development of the real property in the district;
2. relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
district; or
3. amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.178.
Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and
documented administrative expenses for District No. 2-11 up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures
for Redevelopment Project No. 1, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with District No. 2-11. The county may require payment of
those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.25 percent
of any increment distributed to the City or HRA 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 financing.
(AS MODIFIED ON NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of
the HRA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural
and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property
in the District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-18
issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to
finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30,
1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services
provided by bond 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.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to
pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax
increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S.
Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage
limits ofM.S., Section 469.176, Subd 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February
15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently
.36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the
amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general
fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment
financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment
financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-17. Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Suhcl. 1(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for District
No. 2-11 after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the
taxable property in District No. 2-11 by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(a) bonds have been issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or in aid of a
project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to
M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or
(b) the City or HRA has acquired property within District No. 2-11, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public
improvements within District No. 2-11.
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately October, 2001.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be
terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account
held in trust for all outstanding.: bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date.
City of Hopkins Modification ofthe Tax Increment Financing Plan liar Tax Increment Financini, District No. 2-11 2-19
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
incrementfinancingdistrictpursuant 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 incrementfznancing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax incrementfinancing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision... Forpurposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements ofa street are limited
to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation ofa street, and (3) substantial
reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within District No. 2-11 by approximately
October, 2002.
Subsection 2-18. Use of Tax Increment
The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in District No. 2-11 for the following purposes:
1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Redevelopment Project No.
1 pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget;
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 the City or
HRA or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by the developer;
6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or
other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment
bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S.,
Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both; 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 and M.S.,
Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both.
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 District No. 2-11 will be paid by Hennepin County to the City of Hopkins for the
Tax Increment Fund of said District No. 2-11. The City or HRA will pay to the developer(s) annually an
amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-20
acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining
increment funds will be used for City or HRA administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public
improvement activities outside District No. 2-11.
Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County
Auditor or its notice of District No. 2-11 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District No. 2-11
or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months
immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3.
The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District No. 2-11 by the value of improvements for
which a building permit was issued.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA has reviewed the area to be included in District No. 2-11
and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding
approval of the Plan by the City and HRA.
Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount
necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as
provided in M.S., Section 475.61, Subcl. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the
following:
1. prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such 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 City or HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order
to finance additional public costs in District No. 2-11 or Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to detennine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or 11RA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA 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 District No. 2-11 as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA 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, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of
the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-21
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
As of the date of this modification, the HRA has entered into contracts with the following developers for
the following development activities:
1. Super Value, dated February 18, 2003. Activity is construction of new warehouse facility.
Completed.
2. Opus Northwest LLC, dated March 29, 2006. Activity is construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2
of approximately 450,000 sq/ft office. Completed.
2. Cargill Incorporated, dated March 15, 2007. Activity is construction of Phase 3 of
approximately 150,000 sq/ft office. Completed.
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form
with the developer of property within District No. 2-11 which establishes a minimum market value of the land
and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 2-11. The assessment agreement shall be
presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements 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 assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-23. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
Administration of District No. 2-11 will be handled by the Economic Development Director of the City of
Hopkins.
Subsection 2-24. Financial Reporting Requirements
A. Filing with State Auditor, County Auditor, County Board and School Board: Pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 5, the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment
financing districts, including District No. 2-11. The report shall be filed with the County Board, County
Auditor, School Board, and the State Auditor on or before July 1 (August 1 beginning for reports to be filed
in 1999) of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall include the following information:
1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account;
3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding
bond indebtedness;
4. the original net tax capacity of District No. 2-11;
5. the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA;
6. the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
7. the tax increment received; and
8. any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment
financing plan.
B. Newspaper Statement: 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 showing:
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-22
I . the tax increment received and expended in that year,
2, the original net tax capacity,
3. captured net tax capacity,
4. amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness,
5. the amount of District No. 2-1 1's increment paid to other governmental bodies,
6. the amount paid for administrative costs,
7. the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located
outside of District No. 2-11, and
8. any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary.
C. State Auditor filing for District No. 2-11: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 6, the City or HRA
must annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1 (August 1 beginning for reports to be filed in
1999), a financial report which shall:
1. provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in District No. 2-11;
2. permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial reports;
3. permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of District No. 2-11 or that is funded in part
or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other tax
increment districts or with public money; and
4. be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
1. the original net tax capacity of District No. 2-11,
2. the captured net tax capacity of District No. 2-11, including the amount of any captured net
tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
3. the amount budgeted under the Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the
following categories (for the reporting period and for the duration of District No. 2-11):
a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase;
b. site improvements or preparation costs;
C. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other
similar public improvements;
d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city;
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements; and
4. the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for
properties sold to developers);
5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3),
that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 2-11.
D. State Auditor filing for all Tax Increment Financing Districts: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175,
Subd. 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report to the State Auditor before or on July 1 (August 1
beginning for reports to be tiled in 1999) of each year the following amounts for the entire Cite:
1. the total principal amount of non-defeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year; and
2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar
year on:
(i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and
(ii) other tax increment financing bonds; and
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan lot -Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-23
for each tax increment financing district within the City:
1. the type of tax increment financing district;
2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified;
3. the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements
and the uses of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and
are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding
calendar year;
4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year;
5. whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment
revenues to be expended outside of each district; and
6. any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards. If the City fails to make
a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by Section 469.175 sudb. 5, 6 and 6a, the
State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to hold the distribution of tax increment from District No. 2-11.
Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District
No. 2-11 as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
Finding that District No. 2-11 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
10(a)(1).
District No. 2-11 consists of 11 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial purposes.
At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in District No. 2-11 are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in District No. 2-11, not
including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or
clearance (See Appendix E).
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 reasonablyforeseeablefuture 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 District No. 2-11 permitted by the 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 acquiring and redeveloping the parcels currently occupied by substandard
buildings, which parcels are under multiple ownership, the limited amount of commercial/industrial
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 increased market value of the site that could reasonable 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: The City supported this finding on the
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-24
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. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other
redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being
provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax
increment assistance is $0.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 2-11 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described
above. If all development which is estimated to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in
District No. 2-11, the total increased market value would be up to $58,192,400. The present value of
tax increments from District No. 2-11 is estimated to be $12.629,028. It is the Council's finding that
no development with a market value of greater than $45,563,372 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 District
No. 2-11 (see the Cashflows in Appendix C).
3. Finding that the Tax hicrernent Financing Plan for District No. 2-11 con_ forins to the general plan, for
the development or redevelopment cif the nnuniicipality as a whole.
The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 29, 1998. The Planning
Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan fir District No. 2-11 will of n -d maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the Cite• as « it -hole, for the development or
redevelopment ol'Redevelopment Project No. I hr private enterprise.
The projects to be assisted by District No. 2-11 will be undertaken by private businesses, will result
in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard
properties, increased tax base of the State and add high quality developments to the City.
Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
Subsection 2-26. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Suhd. 3, the City or HRA may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Suhd. 3, clause a, (outside District No. 2-11)
are followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the
application of the.liscal dispco-itr proi•i.sions of 'Chaptc r 276,4ot- 473F. IVhcre the origirnad net tax
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tat' capacih', there is no captured net tax
capacity and no tax increment determination. IG'here the original net tax capacity is less that the
current net tax capacity, the diffc u•ence betwe'e'n the original net tax capacih' and the current net tax
capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereofirhich 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 authorih•.
(2) The county auditorshall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity ol'the authority. i-oin the net
tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tact rates. The local tax
rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the
City of Hopkins Modification oflhe Tax Increment Financing Plan lin' Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-25
authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the
extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to
the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within District No. 2-11) are followed,
the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude anyfzscal disparity
commercial -industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year
multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision
7 orM.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 authorityfrom the net
tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax
rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the
authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the
extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The City or HRA shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method
of computation of fiscal disparities the City or HRA elected.
The City of Hopkins will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax
increment shall 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 shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or
renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social,
recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-26
Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from District No. 2-11 must be expended
on activities in District No. 2-11 or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were
used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit
enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a
development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of District No. 2-11 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 District No.
Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from District No.
2-11 shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the
five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the
sixth year following certification of District No. 2-11, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain
after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed
expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment 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 and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These
costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings
or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels
necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of
structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for
development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the
site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City or HRA, including the cost of preparation of
the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
(AS MODIFIED ON NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with
the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and
administration costs of Redevelopment Project No. 1 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. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 41.,
no tax increment may be used for a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for
social, recreational, or conference purposes. This subdivision does not apply to a privately
owned facility for conference purposes or a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2008, Chapter 366, Article 5, Section 21,
no increments may be spent on activities located outside of he are of the district, other than:
1. To pay administrative expenses; or
2. To pay the costs of housing activities, provided that expenditures under this clause may not
exceed 20 percent of the total tax increments from the district.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota 2008,
Chapter 366, Article 5, Section 21, the five-year limitation was extended to nine ,years.
City of Hopkins Modification ol'the Tax Increment Financing Plan Ibr Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-27
Subsection 2-28. State Tax Increment Financing Aid
Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested
after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied
to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA)
second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC)
of the tax increment financing district.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA
penalty. District No. 2-11 is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a
qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the
exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain
percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local
contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity, after
which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent of
the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the
general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant-in-aid which may be spent for general government
purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer
payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government
purposes.
The HRA elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-
HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal
to 5 percent of annual tax increment for District No. 2-11, subject to the limitations described above, in any
year in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in form
of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this
Plan or other costs related to that development or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made in the
form of public improvements financed by the City or HRA or other unit of government with unrestricted funds.
(Modified November 20, 2001, to read as follows)
Subsection 2-28 is deleted.
Subsection 2-29. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City or HRA 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 and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years
under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will have
little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must
notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan.
Subsection 2-30. Economic Development and Job Creation
To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agrees to comply with M.S., Section 116J.991, which states that a
business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes,
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-28
including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota
within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix D).
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
Subsection 2-30. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not
considered a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar
businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve
a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of
businesses at the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd.
3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or
bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts,
provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance
is to provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment
financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds,
and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a
business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site
preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a
principally technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Rn' Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-29
The City and HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 1161993 to 1161995 to the extent the tax increment
assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-31. Summary
The City of Hopkins is establishing District No. 2-11 to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop
substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for
District No. 2-11 was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55402-4100, telephone (651) 697-8500.
City of Hopkins Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 2-30
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-11 is being modified to facilitate the redevelopment of the SuperValu
complex and assist a developer in developing a 300,000 to 400,000 square foot corporate headquarters. The
project includes purchasing parcels from SuperValu, demolishing the building, and assisting a developer with
purchasing land, site preparation and constructing parking facilities. A site would also be made available for
a 150,000 square foot office user.
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
District No 2-11 is being modified to:
1. Remove parcel no. 19-117-21-33-0027 from the district since no redevelopment has commenced on
the site and no redevelopment is contemplated within the next several years. Since the current tax
capacity of the parcel is lower than the frozen tax capacity, a formal modification in accordance with
Minnesota Statues Section 469.175 Subd 4 (b) is required for the District.
2. Clarify that parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0015 (new parcel from combination of 25-117-22-12-0008 and
25-117-22-12-0009 in November 2000) should have been removed in November 2000 when it was
replatted. Parcel no. 25-117-22-12-0008 was originally in the District and parcel no. 25-117-22-12-
0009 was not. Therefore when replatted into one parcel (25-117-22-12-0015) parcel no. 25-117-22-
12-0008 should have been removed from the District, since parcels cannot be combined within a TIF
district if both are not located in the District.
3. To include the increased term of the district and extension of the five-year rule pursuant to the Laws
of Minnesota 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 31. The extension of the term is to 30 years after
the receipt of the first increment by the City (first increment in 2000, thus district terminates
December 31, 2029) and the five-year rule has been extended to nine -years, thus obligations had to
be in place by April 5, 2008.
4. To increase the budget to reflect the extended term and actual development to date; and
5. To clarify use of TIF outside of the District pursuant to the Laws of Minnesota 2008, Chapter 366,
Article 5, Section 21. Tax increment may be spent outside of the District for administrative costs
and housing activities, provided that expenditures outside may not exceed 20 percent of the total tax
increment from the District.
APPENDIX A-1
APPENDIX B
BOUNDARY MAPS OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2011)
APPENDIX B-1
City of Hopkins
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ax Increment Financing District No. 2-11
Redevelopment Project No. 2
=• __- _• __ ° _
S
0._12
S1 _ :� C ii an
Redevelopment Project No. 2
E:
TIF District No. 2-11
APPENDIX C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-12-0008
25-117-22-11-0001
25-117-22-11-0002
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-33-0027
19-117-21-32-0032
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
(As Modified November 20, 200 1)
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-11-0001
25-117-22-11-0002
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-33-0027
19-117-21-32-0032
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
APPENDIX C-1
(AS MODIFIED NOVEMBER 7, 2012)
Parcel Numbers
25-117-22-11-0001 - Replatted to New PID # 25-117-22-11-0003
25-117-22-11-0002 - Replatted to New PID # 25-117-22-11-0003
24-117-22-44-0046
24-117-22-44-0047
24-117-22-44-0048
24-117-22-44-0040
19-117-21-32-0032 - Replatted to Eight New PID #'s 19-117-21-31-0068,19-117-21-31-0069, 19-117-
21-32-0033, 19-117-21-32-0036, 19-117-21-32-0038, 19-117-21-32-0039, 19-117-21-32-0040, and 19-
117-21-32-0041
19-117-21-31-0020
19-117-21-23-0101
19-117-21-23-0103
19-117-21-23-0092
19-117-21-31-0070
**25-117-22-12-0008 Replatted to 25-i!7-22-12-0015
Parcel is being remoNed from the TIF district due to no qualifying redevelopment activity being
completed.
** Parcel 25-117-22-12-0008 and 25-117-22-12-0009 were combined in November, 2000 to form 25-117-
22-12-0015. This modification confirms this parcel should be removed from the District.
APPENDIX C-?
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11
SEE ORIGINAL TIF PLAN AND 2001 MODIFICATION FOR ESTIMATED CASH FLOW
APPENDIX D-1
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
APPENDIX E-1
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-11
SEE ORIGINAL TIF PLAN FOR QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX F-1
APPENDIX G
SPECIAL LEGISLATION
2003 Special Legislation
Laws of 2003, Chapter 127, Article 10, Section 31
Sec. 31. [HOPKINS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.I
Subdivision 1. [DISTRICT EXTENSION.] (a) The governing body of the city of Hopkins may elect to
extend the duration of its redevelopment tax increment financing district 2-11 by up to four additional
years.
(b) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, effective upon approval of this subdivision, no
increments may be spent on activities located outside of the area of the district, other than
to pay administrative expenses.
Subd. 2. [FIVE-YEAR RULE.] The requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision
3, that activities must be undertaken within a five-year period from the date of certification of tax
increment financing district must be considered to be met for the city of Hopkins redevelopment tax
increment district 2-11, if the activities are undertaken within nine years from the date of certification
of the district.
[EFFECTIVE DATE.] Subdivision 1 is effective upon compliance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.1782, subdivision 2, and 645.021. Subdivision 2 is effective upon compliance by
the governing body of the city of Hopkins with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021.
2008 Special Legislation
Laws of 2008, Chapter 366, Article 5, Section 21
Sec. 21. Laws 2003, chapter 127, article 10, section 31, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. District extension. (a) The governing body of the city of Hopkins may elect to extend the
duration of its redevelopment tax increment financing district 2-11 by up to four additional years.
(b) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, effective upon approval of this subdivision, no
increments may be spent on activities located outside of the area of the district, other than:
(1) to pay administrative expenses; or
(2) to pay the costs of housing activities, provided that expenditures under this clause may
not exceed 20 percent of the total tax increments from the district.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
APPENDIX G-1