HRA Agenda 06-27-2005
.
.
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Monday, .June 27,2005 - 5:30 p.m.
505 Walnut Street - Boom Island Room
Commissioners:
Chair Darrin Lahr. Vice Chair Dan Frie, Steve Andrews, Brad Barger, and Bill
Pair.
Council Liaison:
Wayne Mayer.
Staff: Rick Wolf<jteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Angela Schumann.
Guests: Jim Fleming, Attorney for the Monticello Ice Arena.
1. Call to Order.
2. Consideration to approve the June 1,2005 liRA minutes.
3. Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
4.
Consent Agenda.
A. Consideration for information only: liRA requested to issue a tax exempt bond for
expenditures associated with the Monticello Ice Arena.
B. Consideration to review final draft of the Mission Statement for the I lousing and
Redevelopment Authority.
C. Consideration to review revised 2004 year-end HRA Fund and 'T'IF Reports including
interest income.
5. Tabled - Consideration to approve a resolution adopting a modification to the Redevelopment Plan
and geographic boundaries for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan No. I and
establishing TIF District No. 1-34 (a Renewal and Renovation District) and adopting the TIF Plan
therefor. Applicant: City of Monticello.
6. Consideration to adopt a resolution requesting the City Council call f(lr a public hearing date for
modification ofthe Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan No.
1 and establishing TIF District No. 1-35 (a Redevelopment District) and TIF Plan. Applicant:
Master's Fi flh A venue, Inc.
7. Consideration to review the Appraisal f(x 154 West Broadway and authorization to make an offer
to acquire.
8. Consideration to authorize payment of liRA bills.
9. Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
10.
Committee Reports: Marketing
Fiocr Optics
II. Other Business.
Next HRA meeting - Wednesday, August 3,2005.
12. Adjournment.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, .June 1st, 2005
505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room
Coml1l issioncrs Present;
Stcve Andrcws, Brad Barger, Bill Fair, Dan Fric
Coml1l issioncrs Abscnt;
Chair Darrin Lahr
Council Liaison Absent:
Wayne Mayer
Staff Prcsent:
Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Angela Schumann.
1. Call to Order
Vice Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6;00 PM and declared a quorum.
2. Consideration to approve the May 4, 2005 liRA minutes.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BARGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
MAY 4TII, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FlUE.
.
MOTION CARRIED WITlI COMMISSIONER FAIR ABSTAINING.
3. Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
NONE.
4. Consent Agenda.
NONE.
5. Update on Landmark SCluare Phase II
Brad Johnson stated that they will be requesting that the HRA create a TIF district
related to their proposed development project. Johnson rcported that they had
tlmnd two-three prospective tenants for the project. They are currently going
through the process of evaluating construction costs and may need to slightly
adjust their construction design based on costs.
Koropchak noted that the developers had entered into their preliminary agreement
and supplied their deposit. She cxplained that the HRA will nced an updated site
plan for the square footage calculations.
.
Fair asked if they have all the rcquired parcels acquired. Johnson and Harry Fluth
confirmed they had been acquircd. Koropchak stated that with the new TIF
district being established, and the fact that the redevelopment project will be
lIRA Minutes 6/1/2005
.
subject to new rulcs, including an intcrior/exterior inspection, the process will
take some time. Fluth askcd about the costs of the inspection. Koropchak stated
that Ehlers recommended using an outsidc inspector. Ehlcrs will also put together
a timetable for the TIF assistance.
Johnson stated that their timetable to begin the project is August or September.
Fair asked if the developer's plan was still to havc drive-through on the corner.
Johnson confirmed, noting that the drive-through requires a conditional use
permit. Frie asked percent of thc space they have tenants for. Johnson stated that
at this time, it is about 40-50%.
Johnson commented on getting people off of Highway 25 into the downtown area.
He explained that all prospective tenants are interested in exposure. Johnson
recoIn mended some type of sign at the corner of Highway 25 and Broadway.
Fluth indicated that he might even contribute to that venture.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF
TIF DISTRICT 1-35 AND TO PLACE THE FORMAL RESOLUTION ON THE
AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 2i'\ 2005.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER. MOTION
CARRIED.
.
Johnson commented on the Cub TIF situation, requesting that Wolfsteller and
Koropchak sit down with them to discuss the matter. Fluth commented that they
receive a small check when it was supposed to be big enough to pay on the loan.
Andrews asked if they were asking the HRA to forgive something. Johnson
stated that they are just looking for possible solutions.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO MEET WITH
JOIINSON AND FUrrH TO REVIEW TIlE TIF AGREEMENT ON THE CUB
DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO REVIEW POSSIBLE INEQUITIES
RELATED TO TIF LAWS AND REPORT BACK TO THE BRA ON THE
STA TlJS OF THE PROCESS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER. MOTION CARRIED
WrrH COMMISSIONER ANDREWS IN DISSENT.
6. Consideration to approve a resolution adopting a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan and geographic boundaries t(.)f Central Minnesota
Redevelopment Proiect Plan No.1 and establishing TIF District No. 1-34 (a
Renewal and Renovation District) and adopting the TIF Plan therefore.
.
2
HRA Minutes 6/1/2005
.
Koropchak reported that the HRA attorney recommends tabling any action and
recommended setting a special meeting at a later date to approve. The findings
have not been made yet for the purpose of establishing the district.
Koropchak stated that the TIF district site includes the proposed Target site and
Ready Mix sites, on which it is the City's plan to collect the tax increment.
Koropchak clarified that it is important to note that the tax increment goes for
public purpose tl)r City's cost of interchange project. The TIF district is not being
created to provide assistance to Ryan or Weinand.
Fair asked if the funds would go for the Dahlheimer building removal.
Koropchak stated that thc district is being revicwed as a renovation and rencwal
district, which requires a special inspection. She noted that it is the first time the
City has used this type of district, and the qualifications for TIF are different. An
outside consultant has been hired for the inspection. Those fIndings have not
come back yet. Fair asked about the purpose of the inspection. Wolfsteller stated
that it must be found to be substandard, in terms of today' s standards for building
code. Koropchak stated that the A VR site is included to maximize the amount of
expenditures. If it is found that the site doesn't meet the qualifications, the City
will continue as previous, without TIF.
.
Koropchak recommended that the special meeting be held Monday, June 27th
before the Council meeting. Koropchak also noted the extension of the
boundaries to include the Otter Creek Crossing and the A VR site.
Koropchak noted that the County can request a portion of the TI F, although they
have not done that previously.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BARGER TO TABLE ACTION ON THE
MODIFICATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO
REDEVELOPMETN PROJECT PLAN NO. I AND ESTABLISHING TIF
DISTRICT NO. 1-34 AND ADOPTING 'fHE TIF PLAN THEREFOR AND TO
SET A SPECIAL MEETING DATE OF JUNE 2i'\ 2005 AT 5:30 PM.
MOTION SECONDED BY ANDREWS. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Consideration of an update to the May 26 meeting with property owners of Block
35.
.
Frie explained that at the previous liRA meeting, the Mayor had asked the HRA
to meet with the property owners on Block 35. Frie stated that they had explained
the role of the HRA in the redevelopment, provided a handout of information and
a short survey. Frie stated that there didn't seem to be the level of interest that
perhaps thc Mayor had thought there was and that it seemed that property owners
had unrealistic expectations of the City. Frie noted that the purpose of the
meeting at that point was to gather information. Koropchak confirmed. Frie's
.,
.)
BRA Minutes 6/1/2005
.
analysis and stated that three property owncrs were not present, Frie reported that
while most property owners said they see the need for redevelopment, they are not
interested in actually doing so at this time. Once the majority are interested, the
HRA may dccide on a further course of action.
Barger asked of those interested, were any properties contiguous. Frie answered
that going east from Dino's, those property owners seemed to be interested all the
way to Agosto's building. Koropchak stated that she should have the appraisal
for the Dino's property back for the next meeting.
Fair stated that his concern is that we will have to pay relocation to Dino's.
Koropchak stated that the appraisal is only on the real estate. Fair stated his
reservation on acquiring any parcels that would require paying relocation. Barger
asked ahout the possibility of the renter's heing gonc as they were reported to be
on a month-to-month hasis. Koropchak stated that in any case, thc survey will be
a gauge of interest.
8. Consideration to discuss a mission statement for the I lousing and Redevelopment
Authority.
.
Koropchak noted the speeial meeting held hy Council on the 9th of May at which
the staff were directed to develop Mission Statements for their departments.
Koropchak stated that she believed it was also important for the City's
commissions to do thc same in order to create a clear sense of purpose. AS such,
she recommended that the HRA define mission and goals.
Koropchak read a suggested mission statement as follows: To increase the tax
basc, to create jobs at liveable wage Icvels, and to maintain decent, safe, and
sanitary housing for pcrsons of low and moderate income and their f~lInilies
within the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
The Commissioncrs expressed their support of the statement, and recommended
that that the mission statement be revised to read "sustainable wage levels" and to
include a statement regarding thc creation of a "spectrum of housing options".
Koropchak also reviewed the proposed goal statements for the HRA. The
Commissioners requested the following changes to the statements.
. Goal number 1 to read "maximize" rathcr than maximum.
· Removal of "elderly" from goal number 8.
Koropchak also suggestcd a goal relating to their Transformation Home Loan.
Koropchak noted that she would bring the revisions hack during the Special
meeting for review.
.
4
HRA Minutes 6/112005
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS TO ADOPT TIlE HRA MISSION
STATEMENT, PURPOSE AND GOALS, SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS AS
NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER. MOTION
CARRIED.
9. Consideration to authorize payment of HRA bi Us.
NONE.
10. Consideration of the Executive Director's Report.
Koropchak reported that marketing efforts had begun for the Monticello Business
Campus, including postcard mailings, a new website, and a billboard, which will
be located in the high trafJic arc a of 1-94 betwecn Rogers and Maple Grovc.
Koropchak noted that there had been 16 total inquiries on the Transformation
I Iome Loan program, of which two are seriously eonsidering the program.
.
Koropchak stated that she and Jeff O'Neill had met with Suntide Commercial on
redevelopment of Block 53. She also had received a caU regarding possible re-
use of the theater building for a Minneapolis arts/theater group.
Koropchak explained that Council had authorized a task force for the llber optics
project and asked the HRA for a volunteer to that committee. Andrews
volunteered with his IT background.
11. Committee Reports: Marketing
As noted above.
12. Other Business
NONE.
13. Adjournment
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS TO ADJOURN AT 7:45.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER. MOTION
CARRIED.
.
5
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
4A.
Consideration for information onlv: lIRA reQuested to issue a tax exemot bond for
expenditures associated with the Monticello Ice Arena.
This item appears on the HRA agenda f()f the purpose of information only. This is to give the
BRA an advanced notice that in the future the liRA will be requested to consider issuance ofa
tax exempt bond for expenditures associated with the construction of the community ice arena
by the Monticello Youth Hockey Association. Initially on May 24, 2004, the Council
approved a resolution declaring the oi1icial intent of the City to reimburse certain expenditures
from the proceeds of honds to he issued by the City. However, as Ruff, Bubul, and
W olfstcller began to prepare for issuance of bonds associated with various city improvement
projects, it became apparent that the city will maximize its annual limitation of $1 0 million for
2005. Because the HRA has the statutory powers to issue tax exempt bonds for non-profit
organizations, the HRA will be requested to do so at a later date. In the past, the lIRA has
issued bonds 1'(;)1' other non-profit organizations such as the Mississippi Shores project
(Presbyterian Homes) and St. Bencdicts Senior Center project (St. Cloud Hospital.)
Attorney Jim Fleming who represents the Ice Arena or Hockey Association lllay attend the
lIRA meeting to take questions.
Attached is a copy of City Resolution No. 2004-36 and an explanation memo from liRA
Attorney Bubul.
.
.
.
liRA Agenda - 06/27/05
48. Consideration to rcview final draft of the Mission Statement for the Housim! and
Redevelopment Authoritv.
Attached is the fInal draft of the Mission Statement for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority following the commissioner's suggestions ofJune 1,2005. Please review fClr
comments and questions.
4C. Consideration to review revised 2004 vear-end HRA Fund and TIF Reports including
interest incomc.
As you recall at the Annual Meeting of the HRA in April, the year~end report did not include
interest income. Wolfsteller informed the commissioners at a later date a revised report
including the interest income would be submitted to the commissioners for review. Please
review for comments or questions.
ASSUMING THE COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT THE INFO WITHIN 4A, THE FINAL
DRAFT OF THE MISSION STATEMENT WITHIN 48, AND REVISION TO THF: 2004
YEAR-END HRA FUND AND TIF DISTRICT REPORTS WITHIN 4C; THE
RECOMMENDF:D MOTION IS:
A MOTION TO ACCI<:PT ITEMS 4A, 4B, AND 4C.
.
.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-36
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO TO REIMBURSE
CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. g 1.150-2 (the
"Reimbursement Regulations") providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse
prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, the City or a conduit borrower expects to incur certain expenditures that may
be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a tax-
exempt bond;
WHEREAS, the City has determined to make this declaration of official intent
("Declaration") to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the
Reimbursement Regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City expects to participate in the financing of a community ice arena (the
"Project") to be constructed by the Monticello Youth Hockey Association or a related entity (the
"Borrower").
2. The City reasonably expects to reimburse expenditures made by the Borrower or the
City for certain costs of the Project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal
amount of $1 ,500,000. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance
of the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2( d)(3) of the
Reimbursement Regulations.
3. This Declaration has been made not later than 60 days after payment of any
original expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of
bonds, except for the following expenditures: (a) costs of issuance of bonds; (b) costs in an amount
not in excess of$1 00,000 or 5 percent ofthe proceeds of an issue; or (c) "preliminary expenditures"
up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate issue price of the issue or issues that
finance or are reasonably expected by the Borrower or the City to finance the project for which the
preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term "preliminary expenditures" includes
architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar costs that are incurred prior to
commencement of acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of a project, other than land
acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction.
4. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based .
on the facts and circumstances known to the City as of the date hereof. The anticipated original ..
expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in paragraph 2 are
consistent with the City's (and to the best of the City's knowledge, the Borrower's) budgetary
and financial circumstances. No sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City
are, or are reasonably expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set
aside pursuant to the City's (or to the best of the City's knowledge, the Borrower's) budget or
financial policies to pay such Project expenditures.
5. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
Approved by the City Council ofthe City of Monticello this 24th day of May, 2004.
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
~
DA~..P
Mayor
Ck~~ /
.
Attest:
Ci~A~ 0~
.
SJB-247767vl
MN190-112
2
.
.
.
~13.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
2005
Mission Statement
To increase the tax base, to create jobs at a sustainable wage-level, and to maintain a
spectrum of housing mix within the City of Monticello, Minnesota.
Purpose
To coordinate, facilitate, and implement proposals and commitments to undertake development and
redevelopment consistent with the objectives set forth in the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. I Plan and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Monticello.
Goals
I. To maximize the opportunity for development and redevelopment by private enterprise.
2. To encourage redevelopment of an area in a manner that will increase the financial base of the
City and improve the source of public revenue.
3.
To provide increased employment opportunities through permanent businesses located in the
area.
4. To acquire and remove buildings that are structurally substandard and/or buildings that are
economically or functionally obsolete and infeasible of being rehabilitated.
5. To strive to accomplish the optimum quality of development for the project through site planning
and landscape architecture, the treatment of open space, building design, the use of materials,
scale, appropriateness, and functional utility.
6. To accomplish convenient and adequate parking to serve the needs of the area.
7. To establish and to promote development incentives to facilitate new industrial construction on
vacant land.
8. To develop high density housing in immediate proximity to public and commercial facilities.
9. To provide adequate streets, utilities, and other public improvements and facilities to enhance
the area for both existing and new development.
.
.
.
10.
To provide a service to developers that is user-friendly and professional.
11. To establish and to promote renovation/redevelopment incentives to foster a vibrant core city.
2
UJ
0>
0
0
"" 0
00 0
""....
O1-..j
001
00
.... ....&1 00
00 00 00
~
0
N
0
.... 0
00 0
~ U> ....
W W
Ol W N
01 N 01
N :.... 00
"" W W
N :! cP 0
-
&I ....
.... .... ........
W ~~ WOl
-..j 001
0> NO, 00
~.... CPN 00
Ol-..j 0>0'> 00
If>
W
-..j
.cp
.... '" 0
00 0 0
VI
"" .... If> ~
i.n VI ~f f ""
N "" ~
0 :" 001 01
en cP 00 &10 ....
.f>.
-..j....0l 00 00 N
OCPCP 00 0
.... '"
01 01
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
....
0
....
0
'"
0
~ '"
....
0> 0>
01 Ul
0 0
VI 0 0
0 0 0
~ ........
.... ""....
-..j 01 CPo>
W 0 !"....
f.o :..., O'
01 00
Ol"" -..j 00
cP 0
~ In VI
N W t:
~ N
cP 0
<0 m <:>
ON N 0
o>w 0 0
.... :'1 ....
"" W
N N N
0> 0 <:>
-..j 0> 0
01 ", W 0
""&I ~ ""
~ 0
.... ~ ~ ....
....
s: '"
00 !D
0, .... 0, ~
01 ~ ~
N
~
II> "" ....
0 0 0
:'1 .... .... ~ II> ....
!;3 N ....
Ol N W 01
0, N m <II m t.:>
N m ~ N ~ 01
0 ~ "" Ol
<0
:'1 ~ <II ....
.... N
:" ~3i N W
-..j .... N 0,
0, .... N~ "" N
W 0>
N N -..jN W W N
<0 N01 N 0>
:'1 ~ .... ....
-..t
"" -..j :...,
m '" :... W
~ N N <0
./>. 01
:'1 .... ~ '"
.... N
N ~~ 1II <0 .... '"
~ N "" :'1 N 01
01 .... "" 9' W ~
W 00> '-..j 0 -..j ....
<0 ON 0 ~ <0 ....
Ol ./>. 0 ~ -..j
.... <0 001 N 0 W W
N 00 0 0 0
~ffi .... ~ ~
01
, Ol Ol :....
.f>.' W
OlW ""
-..j"" .... '" 0>
cP cP 0
m ~ ~
N
~
::JI
~~ ~ "OF;
./>0
.... ~
Nw W 00
:::~ 0> ~
0
l ~ ~
:'1 00
Ol N
0 -..j
"OF; ~ "OF;
'" '" :::j
0
f.o W 0,
N 0 0 w
0 0> 00 01
01 01
~ .... ~ iA
~ 0>
<0
0 0
i If> VI ....
N -..j -..j '"
--..j '" u, -..j
cP 0 0 -..j
Ol 0 0 01
'" <II VI ~~ If>
~ w .... Ol &I ~ 01
01 N ... 01 .... <ow N
'" W cP 01 :'1 N N O~ U, 0
01 "" 0,0, N 0> WOl 0> 0 ....
N<O N
N 0 ./>oW W ow <0 0
'" VI .... ~ ....
N W ~
0 cP w
8l N cP '" '"
N :i
0> 0> ~
0> 0 0 0
i ~ .... ~
.... N
OJ '" 0> '"
:..., ~ u, -..j
w
:€ N 01 0
N '" ~
N ....w
::! t!:::
wO
2! .....f>.
~
I-- -
'"
./>0
01
0
0
'" '" .... Ifl'" '" .... 0
00 00 00 00 0
UJ
W
OJ
:...,
'" '" ... ... :'!
OO~ 0 00
'" ....
;:;; .... '" N ...
....N 00 Ol W
<0 "'01 9' 0 N
W :"'0 0 0 0
to .... 0 0 ....0 0
0 0100 0 00 0
.... ...
00 0
~
~
0,
II> ... ... :'!
00 0 0
'" ....
W W
01 Ol
'" 01
--..j 0
cp <II'" ... 0
N~ 00 0 0
'" ....
W '" .... W
01 ~~ -..j 01
'" .0 0
ex, :"'0 0 0
cp ""0 0 0
OJ '" 00 0 0
.... ...
.... ....
0101
010
00
... .... .... "'''' 00
0 0 00 00 00
'"
N
W
0
'" 0
00 0
""
.... '"
./>oN
001
00
.... .... 00
00 0 00
:'1 '"
Ol 00
01 0
0 0
III ... ...0 0
00 0 00 0
~
-..j
i.n
... VI 0
00 0 0
~ ~.
.... "" ~ ... ....
0 0 0 0
... ~ ....
0 0
~ '" '" '" '"
W w :i
N.... cp to
01<0 en ex, <0
00
o -..j -..j "" ..... W
00 '" 0 00 0
~ '"
0
~ ~ ""
0
~ ~ '"
"" ./>0
.... :'! w
-..j N
I:..> N 0,
cp 01 tl
OJ OJ
~ ~ <II :'1
<It '" t: -..j
W <It N W
o-..j :..., a, "in
O~-..J 01 Ol 01
00 00 N W
00
~ ~ .... '"
0 0
~ ~ '"
0
~ ~ "'.... ...
00
~ ~ ""
0
~ ~
n n
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
5.
Tabled - Consideration to approve a resolution adoptill!! a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan and !!eol!raphic boundaries for the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project Plan No.1 and establishinl! TIF District No. 1-34 and adoptine
the TI F Plan therefore.
A. Reference and backl!round:
On June 1. 2005, the HRA tabled any actionfor approval ofa resolution adopting a
modification to the Redevelopment Plan and geographic boundaries for the Central
Redevelopment Project Plan No. 1 and establishing n F District No. 1-34 and adopting
the TIF Plan theref(>re and calledfor a 5pecial meeting date (~f Monday, June 27, 2005,
5: 30 p. m. Reasons. Need the findingsfcJr establishment ofa Renewal and Renovation
TlF District by Mike Fisher, LIlB, Inc., and thefindingsfhr enlargement of the
geographic boundary lines of'the Redevelopment Plan of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Prqject Plan No. 1.
On June 7, 2005, the Planning ('ommission approved a resolution finding the proposed
project "Vvithin nF District No. 1-34 was consistent with the development and
redevelopment goals (~fthe city.
The Judge ruled infavor (~fthe City declaring the condemnation of the A VR site wasfhr
public purpose.
Preparedfor the June 1, 2005 HRA meeting - The liRA is asked to approve a resolution
adopting the modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project Plan No. 1. In addition to the normal modification, the modification includes enlarging
the Project No. I boundaries to include the A VR site (requested for annexation) and Otter
Creek Crossing (future economic development of Monticello Business Center.)
The resolution also adopts the establishment of T'IF District No. 1-34. This proposed District
includes the Dahlheimer site and the parcel currently under condemnation. 'fhe properties arc
being assessed by Mike Fischer, LHB, Inc., to qualify as a Renewal and Renovation District.
To qualify for a Renewal and Renovation District means improved parcels, structurally
substandard buildings, and buildings requiring substantial renovation or clearance - 70% of area
is improved, 20% oCbuildings are structurally substandard, 30% of other buildings require
substantial renovation or clearance. Sixteen years duration and 90% must be used to correct
redevelopment issues.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
.
The City Council at the May 23 Council meeting adoptcd a resolution calling for a public
hearing date of Monday, June 27, 2005. It was necessary fix the Council to call for the public
hearing prior to the HRA June meeting because of timing issues to establish thc TIF District
prior to commencing construction improvements or acquisition of eligible TIF expenditures and
to allow Cor the 30-day comment period by other jurisdictions.
The City is coordinating the 1-94 interchange project at the east end of Monticello. The project
cost are estimated at $16,000,000 and the City's sharc is over $4,000,000, but could be
higher. The reason for the increased costs is the unknown payment for land on a piece of
property in which the City has commenced condemnation and has also commenced annexation
proceedings. Thc tax increment will assist in covering a portion of the City's cost and to
minimize the impact of a higher than expected payment f(x land associated with the public
improvements. The private developers will be responsible for their own land acquisition and
are being assessed or traded for land at over $5.4 million.
.
The property included in the TIf District includes the parcel under condemnation and a portion
of the new development, limited to the Target Store and adjacent retail of approximately
35,000 sq. ft. Early estimates indicate the District will generate at least $60,000 in tax
increment which would be pledged by the HRA to the City for bond payments. The proposed
IIome Depot and other strip~retail development is not included in the TiF District.
Without the interchange and right-of-way acquisition, development in the TIF District of similar
sizc and scope would not occur and development of the area would take longer and would not
be expected to result in a market value as high as expected with the new commercial in the TIF
District and commercial and industrial development adjacent to the interchange.
Since the City is the TIF applicant, there will be no Preliminary Development Agreement,
deposit, and Contract for Private Redevelopment. At a future date, the I IRA will consider
entering into a Pledge Agreement with the City.
Please review the revised nF Plan and resolution and the report on thefindingsfor the
renewal and renovation district. At the 7:00 p.m. Council meeting. the Council will open
and continue the public hearing until July 25, 2005. as the legal description oj'the TIF
District vvas inaccurately described. The County was not(fied and the 30-day comment
period extended.
.
2
.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
B.
Alternative Action:
1. Motion to approve a resolution adopting a modification to the Redevelopment Plan and
geographic boundaries f()r Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan No.1 and
establishing Tlf District No. 1-34 and adopting the TI F Plan theref'iJr.
2. Motion to deny approval of a resolution adopting a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan and geographic boundaries f()r Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan
No.1 and establishing TIF District No. 1-34 and adopting the TiF Plan therefor.
3. Motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
.
The City Administrator and BRA Executive Director recommend Alternative No. I. Reasons:
The tax increment is proposed for use in acquiring the parcel under condemnation, currently, at
an unknown acquisition price and for other public improvement costs incurred by the City. The
proposed District boundaries only covers a portion of the new development; therefore, the
remaining portion of the new development will disburse immediate economic benefit to the City.
Since the tax increment as proposed will assist with costs associated in construction of a publ ic
road system, the public purpose is satisfied.
D. Supporting Data:
Revised resolution f()r adoption as prepared by Kennedy & Graven, TIF Plan and Project
No.1 Plan as prepared by Elhers & Associations. Copy of the findings for renewal and
renovation district as prepared by UIB, Inc
.
..,
-)
.
.
.
MONTlC~~LLO HOllSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJF:CT NO. I
AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-34
THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
THEREFOR.
WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "liRA") and the City of Monticello (the "City")
that the HRA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan Modification") for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I (the "Project") and establish Tax Increnlent Financing
District No. 1-34 and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment
Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans"), all pursuant to and
in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as rctlccted in the Plans and
presented for thc Board's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the lIRA has investigated the f~lcts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to
be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the liRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
adoption of the Plans. The HRA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide for review
of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon
published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1_ The HRA approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that: (a)
the land within the Project area as expanded would not be available for redevelopment without the
financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified. will
afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the
Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as 11l0d i fled, conforms to the general
plan for the development of the City as a whole.
2. The HRA approves the TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34, and
specifically finds that such district is a "renewal and renovation district" under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subd. lOa, and finds that the Plans conf"l1fm in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and wi II help ful fi II a need to redevelop an area of the State of Minnesota wh ich is underutil ized, and that
the adoption of the proposed TIF Plan will preserve and enhance the tax base of the City and the State
because it redevelop substandard areas, provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development by
improving the efficiency of the transportation system, including access to the interstate highway system
and roads adjacent to the interchange with the interstate highway, and thereby serves a public purpose.
.
.
.
3. The HRA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with
the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the project area by
private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private
developments financially feasible.
4. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans.
5. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the HRA's advisors and legal
counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose
to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further plans, resolutions,
doculnents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval
of any project or agreement with any developer.
6. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the I IRA is
authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the
Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
7. The Executive Director of the lIRA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the
Plans to the Wright County Auditor and request that the Wright County Auditor certify the original tax
capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177.
Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Monticello Ilousing and Redevelopment
Authority this 27th day of June, 2005.
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
j1NfF/JjlJEDAsof June 22,2005
l),.aftJor Fiscal1mplications
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
and the
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT No. 1-34
(a renewal and renovation district)
within
.
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: June 27, 2005
Public Hearing Continued: July 25, 2005
Adopted:
This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF
Plan contains the estimatedfiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The
City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing.
.
o I ~.~t~,~,~,~
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION 1- MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Expansion of Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
SECTION" - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Business Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-6
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-8
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-9
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-11
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-11
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ........................... 2-12
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-12
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-27. Summary ............................................. 2-13
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-1
APPENDIX B
MAP OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TIF DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . .. C-1
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D-1
.
.
.
SECTION 1- MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Foreword
The following text represents a modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Project Plan") for Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 (the "Project"). Generally, the goals and objectives ofthe Project
Plan remain unchanged. The purpose of this modification is to increase the geographic area of the Project,
and recognize the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34 ("TIF District No. 1-34"),
located partially within the prior Project boundaries and partly in the area to be added by this expansion.
This modification supplements the Project Plan, a copy of which is available from the Executive Director of
the HRA at the City of Monticello. Other relevant information about the Project is contained in the tax
increment financing plans for each of the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Project.
Expansion of Project
The Authority finds that there is a need to expand the Project area in order to remedy blight and blighting
conditions, prevent the spread of blight, promote the health, safety and welfare of City residents, encourage
related development and redevelopment in order to protect and improve the tax base and general economic
vitality of the City.
More specifically, the Authority has identified two areas in which future redevelopment activities may be
needed to address blight, prevent the emergence of blight, or otherwise carry out the Authority's
redevelopment mission.
1. TIF District No. 1-34. Proposed TIF District No. 1-34 is a renovation and renewal tax increment
financing district (for the reasons described in the TIF Plan). A portion of the property in that
District was recently annexed to the City and is therefore not currently part of the Project. The
area to be added to the Project (and included in TIF District No. 1-34) is occupied by a
deleterious and obsolete land use (a cement plant). Further, the existing land use impedes the
redevelopment of adjacent areas, as this property is needed to construct an interchange with
Interstate 94 that will serve this general portion of the Project. Additional details regarding the
status of the existing property can be found in the analysis prepared by LHB Architects in
connection with the establishment ofTIF District No. 1-34, which the Authority expressly adopts
as additional evidence of blight and blighting conditions for the purposes ofthis Redevelopment
Plan modification.
2. Otter Creek Area. The area south and west of Interstate 94 and Highway 25 consists of
approximately 180 acres that is partly used as a gravel mine and partly vacant. The gravel
mining operation is obsolete (it will continue only through 2005), and a portion of the mined area
needs to be reclaimed. Further, none ofthis property is served by City utilities, hampering it's
long-term potential for productive use. Given these factors combined, this area generally
constitutes underused or inappropriately used land within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.028, Subd. 4 (which is an additional criteria for inclusion within a redevelopment
project).
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I 1-1
.
.
.
The Authority specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project Area as expanded would not be available
for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the
Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City
as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and ( c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as
modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
The Authority further reaffirms that the Project, and the activity described in this modification to the
Redevelopment Plan, is a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.002, Subd. 14 and 460.028.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 1-2
.
.
.
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-34
Subsection 2-1.
Foreword
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA "), the City of Mont ice II 0 (the "City"), staff
and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-34 (the "District"), a renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, located
in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2.
Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("MS. ''), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and MS., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TlF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TlF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-34. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2-3.
Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of nine parcels ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the construction of various public improvements including a new interchange
with Interstate 94 and a portion ofthe public improvements adjacent to the District. Of the several hundred
square feet ofthe new commercial/industrial development to be constructed as a result ofthese improvements
(including approximately 500,000 s.f. of new retail immediately), only 200,000 s.f. of new building area are
included in the District. Please see Appendix A for further project information. Contracts for this have not
been entered into at the time of preparation ofthis TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur in late 2005
and early 2006. This TlF Plan is expected to achieve many ofthe objectives outlined in the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TlF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the District.
Subsection 24.
Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
MS., Chapter 1] 7 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-1
.
.
.
4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the District.
Subsection 2-5.
Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location ofthe District.
Parcel Numbers*
]550] 1000122
]550] 1000123
1550]1000]51
]55011000]52
]55011000153
1550] 1000] 70
213000182300
213 ] ] 1000 161
unidentified parcel that is located between
parcel numbers 213000182300 and
213 ] ] 1000 161
* The parcels are being replatted or annexed. It is expected that upon approval of the
District, new parcels will be created and new parcel numbers will be assigned by Wright
County.
The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more ofthe following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TI F
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
MS, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
renewal and renovation district pursuant to M.S.. Section 469.174, Subd. lOa. as defined below and on the
next page:
(a) "Renewal and renovation district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a
project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that:
(1) (i) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures;
(ii) 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard; and
(iii) 30 percent of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance
to remove existing conditions such as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses
or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. ]-34
2-2
.
unit density, obsolete buildings not suitablefor improvement or conversion, or other
identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well-being of the community;
and
(2) the conditions described in clause (1) are reasonable distributed throughout the geographic
area of the district.
(b) For purposes of determining whether a building is structurally substandard, whether parcels are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures,
or whether noncontiguous areas qualify, the provisions of subdivision 10, paragraphs (c), (e),
and (f) apply.
In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
D The District is a renewal and renovation district consisting of nine parcels.
D An inventory shows that the more than 70 ofthe area of the District consist of occupied parcels. To be
occupied, at least] 5% of the area ofthe parcel is covered by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel
parking lots, or other similar structures.
D An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 20 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix E).
D An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 30 percent of the buildings
require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions such as defined in the TIF Act.
(See Appendix E).
.
Pursuant to MS. Section 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of MS. Section 273.111 or 273.112 of Chapter 473Hfortaxes payable in any
ofthe five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the
District will be ]5 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of]6 years of tax
increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2008. Thus, it is
estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other
changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. Ifincrement is received in 2007, the
term of the District will be 2022. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the
legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Valuellncrement and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant toMS., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTe) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2005 for taxes payable 2006.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2008) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
.
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-3
.
.
.
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2006, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2006. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1,
upon completion of the redevelopment, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the
table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment
ofits obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2008. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity(ONTC)
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
Original Local Tax Rate
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
Percent Retained by the HRA
$347,780
$35,554
$312,226
1.22111
$381,262
Pay 2005
100%
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to MS.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval ofthe TIF Plan by the
City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs
and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments or a general obligation (00) tax increment financing/special assessment bond and/or an internal
loan. The HRA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the HRA or
City and the TIF 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.
Monticcllo Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-4
.
.
.
The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result ofthe TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by general obligation (00) bond/interfund
loan/transfer. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total
principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (00) TIF bond, or other
indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $10,000,000, of which $5,900,000
will be TIF related with the remainder being paid with assessments or taxes. Any increase in bonded
indebtedness will require modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is
estimated that $500,000 in interfund loans will be financed with tax increment revenues.
This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The HRA or City
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the
HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a
developer.
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$5,500,000
$100,000
$5,600,000
$500,000
$5,400,000
Tax Increment
Interest
PROJECT REVENUES
Interfund Loans
Bond Proceeds
Subsection 2-10.
Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of various public
improvements including a new interchange with Interstate 94 and a portion of the public improvements
adjacent to the District. The HRA and City have detennined that it will be necessary to provide assistance
to the project for certain costs. The HRA and City have studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or
redevelopment ofthe District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost
of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is
outlined in table on the following page.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-5
.
USES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$3,000,000
$500,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$750,000
$550,000
Land/Building Acquisition
Site Improvements/Preparation
Public Utilities
Ramps, Bridges, Streets and Sidewalks
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $5,900,000
Interfund Loans $500,000
Bond Principal* $5,400,000
*Including assessments, bond principal could total over $10,000,000
The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms.
It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $5,900,000 as is presented in the budget above.
.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. Pursuant to MS Section 469.176. Subd 4(c), revenues derived from increments must be
spent only to assist the facility directly or for administrative expenses.
Subsection 2-11.
Business Subsidies
Pursuant to MS Sections 116.1.993. Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
. (11)
A business subsidy of less than $25,000;
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;
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;
Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in MS Section 116.1.552, Subd. 3;
Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying bui Iding 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;
Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
Assistance for housing;
Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under MS. Section 469.174. Subd. 23;
Assistance for energy conservation;
Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-6
. (12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21 )
(22)
Benefits derived from regulation;
Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
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;
Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section
469.174. Subd. 19;
Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more ofthe assessor's current year's estimated market value;
General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes ofa principally
technical nature.
Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
Business loans and loan guarantees of$75,000 or less; and
Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The HRA will comply with MS, Section 116J.993 to 116.1. 994 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TlF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. The project is expected to be exempt
under clause (3 and/or 17).
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs
.
Pursuant to MS.. Section 469.175. Subd. 1 a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or
part ofthe 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 ifthe road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
Jfthe county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notifY the City within forty-five days
of receipt of this TlF Plan. The HRA and City are aware that the County could claim that tax increment
should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2.13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
.
Tax 1ncrement Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-7
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
.
.
.
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Wright County
City of Monticello
ISD No. 882
2004/2005
Total Net
Tax Capacity
90,204,086
11,863,014
18,405,444
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
312,226
3 12,226
312,226
Percent ofCTC
to Entitv Total
0.3461%
2.6319%
1.6964%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Wright County
City of Monticello
ISD No. 882
Other (Hospital)
Total
2004/2005 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
0.344140 28.18% 312,226 107,449
0.586510 48.03% 312,226 183,124
0.263790 21.60% 312,226 82,362
0.026670 2.18% 312.226 8.327
1.221110 100.00% 381,262
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual 2004/Pay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2005/Pay 2006 rates,
which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Subsection 2~14. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to MS Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in MS. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district.. Following is a list of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
A list of applicable studies wiII be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-15. 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 MS.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the HRA or City
with tax increments;
3. Repayments of loans or other advances made by the HRA or City with tax increments; and
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Inerement Financing Plan for Tax Inerement Financing District No. 1.34
2-8
. Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District
In accordance with MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement ofthe geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
1 or the District, ifthe reduction does not meet the requirements of MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt ifthat determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion ofthe captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that wi\l be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original T1F Plan.
The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the
form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses
.
In accordance with MS., 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
proj ect;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
project; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to MS., 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,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to MS., 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 ofthe total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan
or the total tax increments, as defined by MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District,
whichever is less.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-9
.
Pursuant to MS., 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 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. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 a, no tax increment shall be paid to the HRA or City for the District
after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable
property in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to MS., Section
469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to MS., Sections 469.152
to 469.165, or
(2) The HRA or City has acquired property within the District, or
(3) The HRA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within
the District.
The bonds must be issued, or the HRA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S.. Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
.
if, afterfour years from the date of cert{fication of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to MS., 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 incrementfinancingplan, 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 qf the parcel
subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that
parcel including qual{fied improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel. in accordance with the
tax increm ent ,financing plan, the authority shall cert{fY to the county auditor that the activity has
commenced and the county auditor shall certifY the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified
by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
.financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority
must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel
in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth yearfollowing
the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision,
qual{fied improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2)
relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-10
.
.
.
The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June, 2009
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment
The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity oftaxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To pay for project costs including as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
3. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
4. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
HRA or City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by a developer;
5. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TI F Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 462C. MS., Sections 469,152 through 469.165, and/or MS., Sections 469.178; and
6. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due ofthe principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to MS., Chapter 462C. MS., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or MS., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the HRA or City nor for
other purposes prohibited by MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan
in order to finance additional public costs in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District.
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with HRA or City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to
address other issues related to the development.
Monticcllo Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Incrcment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-11
.
.
.
Subsection 2-22.
Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value ofthe land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA.
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175. Subd. 5. 6 and 6a the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for
all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and
School Board on or before August 1 of each year. MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual
statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the HRA or City on or before August
15.
Ifthe HRA or City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by MS.
Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of
tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and thatthe increased market value ofthe site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA or City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
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
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 pursuant to the MS.. Sections 469.124 to 469.134. 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
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No, ).34
2-12
.
.
.
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 MS.
Section 469.176, Suhd. 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. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds ofthe 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 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside ofthe District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in MS. Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 80 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 MS, Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Renewal and Renovation District. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176. Subd. 4j. At least 90 percent of
the revenues derived from tax increment from a renewal and renovation district must be used to finance
the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of renewal and renovation districts under M.S.,
Section 469.174. 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 ofthe land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities
for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the HRA or City, including the cost of preparation
of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-27.
Summary
The HRA or City is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard
areas, provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development by improving the efficiency of the
transportation system, including access to the interstate highway system and roads adjacent to the interchange
with the interstate highway. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060
Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113.1105, telephone (651) 697.8500.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment financing District No. 1-34
2-13
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Monticello is coordinating a large public improvement project which involves the State of
Minnesota, Wright County, and private parties in the construction ofa new freeway interchange with 1-94.
As a part of the estimated $16,000,000 project, the City is responsible for acquiring key pieces of property
for right-of-way purposes. The City's estimated share of the project is over $4,000,000, but could be much
higher. The reason for the increased costs would be for an unknown payment for land on a piece of property
for which the City has commenced condemnation and has also commenced annexation proceedings. TIF will
assist in covering a portion of the City's cost and to minimize the impact of a higher than expected payment
for land associated with the public improvements.
Without the interchange and right-of-way acquisition, development in the TIF district of similar size and
scope would not occur. Development ofthe area would take longer and would not be expected to result in
a market value as high as expected with the new commercial in the TIF District and commercial and industrial
development adjacentto the interchange. Because the property to be included in the District contain buildings
which meet the qualifications ofTIF with substandard and inefficient buildings and land uses, the timeframe
for improving the area would also be extended substantially.
The property to be included in the TIF includes the parcel under condemnation and a portion of the new
development, limited to the Target store and adjacent retail of approximately 35,000 s.f. Therefore, a
substantial public benefit will be realized immediately from the City's efforts from new development.
The private developers will be responsible for their own land acquisition and are being assessed or traded for
land at over $5.4M.
APPENDIX
A-I
.
.......... 1
.'..........,
,............,) !
(/.} !
J:t'+d. .~fi~ ii
mr:\:'f'~'F::" J~.~----
\;~:::::~ b I~ ~ --]
'\;::\-'
.... .mm..'\C\('.,_
>.\ ...." \.
\v'l...,
.
~
Zl;:1
!='-
UJ
-..;!
Ie!
",n
l/lo...;!
~
III.
!I i
II II'
Ii H!
~~~!Z!~;g
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
....~ tl~
l-
.
~
~
~
C1
==
-3(j
(j~
0--3
C~
20
-3~
-.~ a:
:=0
~2
2-3
z~
t'!'j(j
r.lJ.t'!'j
Ol:""l
--3l:""l
>0
-3
>
~
~
z
(j
~
t'!'j
a:
~ t'!'j
t'!'j 2
t::l -3
t'!'j ~
-< ~
t'!'j Z
l:""l (j ~
o t'!'j (j
--C Z ~
:= --3 Z
t'!'j ~ C1
Z > 0
-3 l:""l t;l
--C a: --3
~ 0 ~
o ~
.. z (j
t'!'j --3 -3
(j ~ Z
1-3 (j 0
Zt'!'j.
o l:""l I--'
. l:""l ~
I--' 0 .J;oo.
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TIF DISTRICT*
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below.
Ori!:!:inal Parcel Numbers To Be Platted As:
155011000122
155011000123
155011000151 The parcels are being re-platted or
155011000152 annexed. It is expected that upon
155011000153 approval of the District, new
parcels will be created and new
155011000170 parcel numbers will be assigned by
213000182300 Wright County.
213111000161
unidentified parcel that is located between parcel
numbers 213000182300 and 213111000161
APPENDIX
C-l
.
.
.
6122/2005
Page 1 of 2
e
EHLERS
4 "~1-1".'" y~ ( lli~'
Monticello HRA: 1-94 Improvements
TIF District #34
1 V,.1l\lIl".$Il"FI;(MU.~ 1':Bar1l*, ;;,1
District Type RAnewalllmd Renovation
District Number 34
Inflation Rate - Every Year 0.0000%
Interest Rate !i .50001~<l
Present Value Date 01-Aug-O:S
Local Tax Rote. Maximum 122.1110% P.y 2005
Fiscal DisparitiEl$ Election (A-inside or B-oulside) N/A
Yeilr District was certified Pay 2006
Auumes First Tax Increment For Di5trict 2008
Year District waS modified N1A
Development located in modified area No
Assumes First Tax Increment for Project 2008
Years of Tax Increment 1&
Assumes LUI Year of Tax Increment 2023
Fiscal Disparities Ratio
Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate
Local Tax Rate - Current
State Wide Propll!!llrty Tax Rate (u5ed ((lr total taxes)
Market Value Tax Rate (used (or total taxes)
0.0000%
0.0000%
122.1110% P.y 2005
51.1210% Pay 2005
0.0544% P'Y 2005
Commercial Industrial Class Rate
First 150,000
Over 150,000
Rental Cla55 Rate
Residental Class Rate
First 500,000
1.500/0-2.00%
1.50%
2.00%
1.25%
1.00%.1.25%
1,00%
mr.,'''''''''' !illilllillAIl1ll1I'i'lIill'Qll.Ml\1llON ~q
Class Rille AI"'r
Land Building TOlal Clo.. Ba5e After Conversion Da'"
Map 10 PID Market Value Market Value Market Value R.... Tax Copacity Conven;lon Tax C.paoltv Payable
213111000161 340,500 161,900 502,400
213000162300 59,500 0 59,500
155011000122 161,200 699,000 660,200
155011000153 7,700 0 7,700
155011000151 69,100 0 69,100
155011000170 219,100 97,200 316,300
155011000152 219,100 97,200 100
155011000123 219,100 97,200 450,000
ROW parcel
TOlal. 2,265.300 35,554 1.50%-2,00% 35,554 2008
, ,',""/""IMIIBD41111/IIJNF"IIMiTlllll\lil ) ~ '''''i'ii'iiiii
Tolal Market Value Taxes Per Tolal Market CI.s& Project Year D....
Phase U.. SQ, Ft.lUnlla SQ. FI./Unlt. SQ. FI.IUnit. TBxe5 Value Rato Tax C.pacily con.truct.d Payable
1 Target 174,550 80.00 $2.81 490,093 13,964,000 1.50%r2.00% 278,530 2006 2008
2 Retail 35,000 100,00 $3.48 121,665 3,500,000 1,50%-2.00% 59,250 2007 2009
TOTAL 611.958 17,464.000 347,180
Note:
1. Tax e5:tlmM~s are based Qn rnnrket value.
2. TIF run .a&~um'@il\ 100% of the bl~lIdin.g is con5tructed by January 2. 2006 rOor payable 2007.
Hii""".'.,,""''''' ':,""1
TOlal Loool Fiscal L.ocal Fiscal State-wide Fiscal State-wldo Market
U.. Tax Tax Di.parities Tax Dispariti.. Property Local Disparith:l:s Property Value TOlal
Ca.,ocltv Ca...oltv Tax Ca.,ooltv Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Taxe.. Taxes Taxes TaxeS Tax.55
Torgot 278,530 278,530 0 1.22111 0,00000 0.51121 340,116 0 142,387 7.589 490,093
Relall 59,250 69,250 0 1.22111 0.00000 0.51121 84.582 0 35,401 1.90:2 121.885
TOTAL 347.780 347.780 0 424,618 0 177.789 9.492 611,858
Note:
1. Monticello does not pay Fisc::.l DIspantilil!il.
NQt
Copturod
Not
Copturod
Ptf:l)Clre<l ~ Ehlel1i
ltfrun 2
612212005
.
PERIOD BEGINNING
y",. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02-01 2005
0.0 08-01 2005
0.0 02-01 2008
0.0 08-01 2006
0.0 02-01 2007
0.0 08-01 2007
0.0 02-01 2008
0.5 08-01 2008
1.0 02-01 2009
1.5 08-01 2009
2.0 02-01 2010
2.5 08-01 2010
3.0 02-01 2011
3.5 08-01 2011
4.0 02-01 2012
4.5 08-01 2012
5.0 02-01 2013
5.5 08-01 2013
6.0 02-01 2014
6.5 08-01 2014
7.0 02-01 2015
7.5 08-01 2015
8.0 02-01 2018
8.5 08-01 2016
9.0 02-01 2017
9.5 08-01 2017
10.0 02-01 2018
10.5 08-01 2018
11.0 02-01 2019
11.5 08-01 2019
12.0 02-01 2020
12.5 08-01 2020
13.0 02-01 2021
13.5 08-01 2021
14.0 02-01 2022
14.5 08-01 2022
5.0 02-01 2023
5.5 08-01 20.23
Pre$ent Value Date n e...o1-Ol5
Ba,.
Tax
Cop',elly
35.554
35,554
35.554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35.554
35.554
35.554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35.554
35.554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35.554
35.554
35.554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,554
35,5_54
proj.et
Tax
Capa~11y
35,554
35,554
35.554
35,554
35,554
35,554
278,530
278,530
347,780
347.780
347.780
347.780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347.780
347,780
347.780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347.780
347,780
347.780
347,780
347.780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347,780
347.780
347,780
Totals
.
EHLERS
... ,a~~<$~,l~:!*~ '.,,1:
MONTICELLO HRA: 1-94IMPRDVEMENTS
Flsc.1
Disparitie.
Re~uction
INCRIlM
Captul"8d Seml-Annual
Tax Gros. Tax
Capacity Incl'llment
o Present Value Date - 8-01..05
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
..~-
o
o
o
o
242.976
242,976
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,228
312.226
312.226
312.226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312.226
312.228
312,226
312,226
312,228
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312.228
312,226
312.226
312,226
312,226
312,226
312,226
o
o
o
o
146,350
148.350
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190.631
190.631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190.631
190.631
190,631
190,631
190.631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190,631
190.631
190,631
190,631
190,631
19D,631
6015635
3.535 893
Admin. Seml-Annuol Seml-Annual PAYMENT DATE
ot Net Tax p"".nt PERIOD ENDING
.,,~"4~ment Value Yrs.
---' 0.0
o 0 0 0 0.0
o 0 0 0 0.0
o 0 0 0 0.0
o 0 0 0 0.0
o 0 0 0 0.0
(534) (14,782) 133,035 113,051 0.5
(534) (14,782) 133,035 223,076 1.0
(686) (16,994) 170,950 360,675 1.5
(666) (18,994) 170,950 494,591 2.0
(686) (18,994) 170.950 624,923 2.5
(686) (18,994) 170.950 751.767 3.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 875.217 3.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 995,362 4.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,112,291 4.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,226,091 5.0
(686) (18.994) 170,950 1.336,846 5.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1.444,636 6.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,549,541 6.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,651.639 7.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,751,004 7.5
(666) (16,994) 170,950 1,847,709 6.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 1,941,827 8.5
(686) (18,994) 170.950 2,033.425 9.0
(886) (16,994) 170,950 2,122,572 9.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 2,209,333 10.0
(686) (18.994) 170,950 2.293,772 10.5
(686) (18.994) 170,950 2,375,951 11.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 2,455.930 11.5
(686) (18,994) 170.950 2,533.769 12.0
(686) (18,994) 170.950 2,609.525 12.5
(686) (18,994) 170,950 2,683.253 13.0
(666) (18,994) 170,950 2,755,008 13.5
(686) (16,994) 170,950 2,824,842 14.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 2,692,808 14.5
(686) (18,994) 170.950 2,956,954 15.0
(686) (18,994) 170,950 3.023,330 15.5
(6~~170.950 .. 3085,963~
21 656 599 398 5 394 581
12.389 342.887
State
Auditor
0.36%
3.085 983
Note:
1. SUite Auditor p<1yment is bt:ltu~;d on 1st half, PIiY 2004 ~cllAa.1 and may jncrease over term of di.stri(:t,
2. AS!i1.umes developm"illlt is eon:s!:rucred in 200G, asse~sed in 2001 :and fir'$t increment i$ paid in 2008.
3. Amount of increm~n1 will vary d&pending upon market value, t,a)( rates, cla1;S rates, construction schedlj!il and inflation on market vah.le.
4, lI"l.flation on ta)::. l'"i,'Ues cannot bl:!' captured ~ TAX RATES COULD DECLINE
.1;, TIF does not capture ~tate wide pl'Op9rty taxes or market value property taxa:!i.
G, Assumes no inflationary iflcren-umt in 2007.
fluw Tal: Increment iil> Calculatel
Total Property Ta:le!;
lettSStateTaJ:
ll..~! Market VnlpcToIl:l
le!ll~ Edulng Tp.:lC!l
Annual T811l'cremcnt Finsnc,ing
.
611,958
-177.789
-9,492
-43.415 Estimate
381.262 le'!11 any lldmin. (<"eel;
Page 2 of 2
!.1th. Yr.
0&-0~05
02-01 2006
08-01 2006
02.01 2007
08-01 2007
02-01 2008
08-01 2008
02-01 2009
06-01 2009
02-01 2010
08-01 2010
02-01 2011
08-01 2011
02-01 2012
08-01 2012
02-01 2013
08-01 2013
02-01 2014
08-01 2014
02-01 2015
08-01 2015
02-01 2016
08-01 2016
02-01 2017
08-01 2017
02-01 2018
08-01 2018
02-01 2019
08-01 2019
02-01 2020
08-01 2020
02-01 2021
08-01 2021
02-01 2022
06-01 2022
02-01 2023
08-01 2023
02-01 2024
"RlIl!<)I!l'IIiillYSIS,j,H .'.,))))))))')H,)"". .;it))I))H1H"
Current Market Value - EI!;t. 2,265,:300
New Market Vilh,Je - Est. 11,464,000
Difference 15,196,700
~resent Vl!llu" Qf T'IIx Increment 3,523,505
Dil'feft8:nce 11,67~.H'5
Value Likel to Occur Without Ttlx Increment i$ l..es8 Than: 11,875.196
Pr.l)lred by Ehler.
tlfrun 2
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
REDEVELOPMENT QUALlFICA TJONS FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34
To be added to prior to final approval by the City Council
APPENDIX
E-I
.
.
.
APPENDIX F
BUTIFOR QUALlFICA TIONS
Current Market Value - Est.
New Market Value - Est.
Difference
Present Value of Tax Increment
Difference
Value Likely to Occur Without Tax Increment is Less Than:
2,265,300
17,464,000
15,198,700
3,523,505
11,675,195
11,675,195
More information to be added to prior to final approval by the City Council.
APPENDIX
F-l
.
REPORT OF
INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
FOR
DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AS A RENEWAL AND RENOVATION DISTRICT
1-94/County Road 18 Interchange
TIF District No. 1-34
Monticello, Minnesota
LHB Project No. 050166.10
June 23, 2005
.
Prepared For The
City of Monticello
Prepared by
.
LHB, Inc.
250 Third A venue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
.
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Palle
Executi ve Summary.........."",..............,."...............,.,..............,...,..,......3
Purpose of Evaluation. .................., ......................... ............. ......3
Scope of Work...............................................,.. .........................4
Conclusion..........,."................,..."..............,............................. .4
Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subdivision 10 Requirements ...................4
Procedures Followed.......,......................................................................6
Findings....,...,......................................................,................................. .6
A. Coverage Test ............................................................................6
B. Condition of Building Test ........................................................7
1. Replacement Cost .................... ........ ..................... ......... ...... 7
2. Code Deficiencies..... ................. ......... ............... ..................7
3. System Condition Deficiencies............................................8
C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ......................................9,
Team Credentials.................................................................................1 0
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
Property Condition Assessment
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Page 2
.
.
.
PART 1- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EV ALVA TION
LHB was hired by the City of Monticello to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Renewal and Renovation District ("TIP District") proposed to be
established by the city. The proposed TIP District is located in the City of Monticello, in a
general area between C.S.A.H. 75 on the North and Interstate 94 on the South, with County
Road 18 bisecting the site (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB's work was to determine whether
the proposed district meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether buildings on
six different parcels, located within the proposed TIP District, meet the qualifications required
for a Renewal and Renovation District.
Diagram 1- Proposed TIF District No. 1-34
Page 3
.
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed district consists of six (6) parcels, comprised of three (3) commerciallIndustrial
buildings.
All of the buildings in the proposed district received an on-site interior and exterior inspection.
Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for each building inspected by LHB are located
in Appendix B.
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIP District and applying
current statutory criteria for a Renewal and Renovation District under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision lOa, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIP District
qualifies as a Renewal and Renovation District.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 - MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174. SUBDIVISION lOa REQIDREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
.
Interior Inspection
"The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally
substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..."
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
"An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the
municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to
obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence
otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard."
Documentation
"Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not
conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1)."
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied
parcels:
A. Coverage Test
...''parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots"
.
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: "For purposes of
this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
Page 4
.
parking lots unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities,
or paved or gravel parking lots."
B. Condition of Buildings Test
... "and 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard; and 30 percent of the
other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions
such as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships,
overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete
buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the
health, safety, and general well-being of the community."
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(b), which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, 'structurally
substandard' shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance."
Definition of Substantial Renovation
Because "Substantial renovation" can mean different things to different people, LHB
has attempted to clarify exactly what we consider to be "substantial renovation" as it
relates to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 1 O( a) (1).
.
a. First we researched national standards as to how much building owners should
budget for annual maintenance and repair on their buildings as a percentage of
replacement cost of the building.
1. According to the University of California "Facilities Renewal Budget
Model" report of 1999, building owners should budget between two and
three percent of current replacement value of their buildings for maintenance
and repair work. This does not include routine janitorial work and routine
items such as changing light bulbs and filters.
2. According to the Building Research Board of the National Research Council,
one and one-half to three percent of a building's replacement value should be
budgeted for maintenance and repair.
b. Based on this information, LHB utilized two and one-half percent as the desired
amount of maintenance and repair that should be budgeted annually to keep a
building in good working condition. We recognize through experience that only
a small percentage of sophisticated building owners actually budget for and
spend this amount of money every year on maintenance and repair. This is
because most business owners are driven by other budgetary issues and tend to
neglect the building maintenance and repair line items in their annual budgets.
.
Page 5
.
c. By establishing how much a building owner should be budgeting per year for
maintenance and repairs, LHB is of the opinion that we could more easily
establish an amount that would be considered "substantial" in comparison. If an
owner is budgeting 2.5 percent of the building's replacement cost annually, most
business owners or home owners would have to take out a loan to cover the cost
of a substantial building improvement. Assuming they had a fixed level of
income to work with, they would have to keep the loan payment at a level very
near the original 2.5 percent they should have been budgeting each year. In
addition, they still would have to budget for the original 2.5 percent on top of the
loan. In most cases, the mortgage terms would have to extend out to a point
beyond the life expectancy of the building they were trying to improve, as most
buildings built in the past fifty years are not designed to last beyond 40 years.
d. Based on the calculations described above, we have defined substantial
renovation for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision
1 O( a)( 1), as renovation with costs exceeding 20% of the building's replacement
value.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet
certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision lO(c) which states:
.
"A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building
code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a
cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same
square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not
disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of
reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the
average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable
evidence. "
"Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not
disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or
housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable
evidence."
PART3-PROCEDURESFOLLOWED
A. LHB was able to schedule interior and exterior inspections for all three buildings in the
proposed TIP District. Inspections were conducted on June 6 and June 15,2005.
PART 4 - FINDINGS
A. Coverage Test
.
1. The total square foot area of each parcel in the proposed TIP District was obtained
from City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
Page 6
.
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIP District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site
verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was
computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total
square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the
total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement
was met.
Finding:
The district met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 93.6 percent of the area of
the proposed TIP District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or paved
drives or parking lots. This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the
proposed TIP District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
B. Condition of Building Test
.
1. Replacement Cost
The first step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost.
This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on
site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot
models for 2004.
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail,
residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and
building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the
costs of construction in Monticello, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor's overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other "soft" costs
not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is
tabulated in Appendix A.
2. Code Deficiencies
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist
with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building
which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings
in the State of Minnesota.
.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a
building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not
at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was
Page 7
.
necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the
proposed TIP District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and
exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the 2003 Minnesota State Building
Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is
actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only
requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted
international codes.
We chose not to count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b) and 10(c), due to concerns
expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc.
vs. City of RicJifield case filed November 13, 2001.
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost
Works 2004: Unit and Assemblv Costs to determine the cost of correcting the
identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the
replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code
deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold.
.
Finding:
Two (2) out of three (3) buildings (67 percent) in the proposed TIP District contained
code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and Condition
Deficiency report for each building in the proposed TIP District can be found in
Appendix B of this report.
3. System Condition Deficiencies
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial
deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical
components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings,
floors and doors.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information contained in City
records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings.
LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our
inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the
amount of "service life" used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious
part of that component's deficiencies.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), provides for the minimum
threshold of code deficiencies that must be met in order to consider a building
.
Page 8
.
substandard. If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such
building to be "structurally substandard" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(b), the building's defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total
significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Based on this definition,
LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total
deficiencies warranted "substantial renovation or clearance" based on the criteria we
outlined above.
Finding:
In our professional opinion, two of the three buildings in the proposed TIP District are
structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance,
because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential
utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress,
layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.
.
C. Distribution of substandard structures
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate
to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It
is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the
geographic area of the proposed TIP District.
Finding:
The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area
of the proposed TIP District.
.
Page 9
PART 5 M TEAM CREDENTIALS
.
Michael A. Fischer, AlA M Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has nineteen years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager,
project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and
governmental projects. He is a Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Community
Design Group in LHB's Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning
and Real Estate Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards and
community task forces, including a term as City Council President and Chair of the
Duluth/Superior Metropolitan Planning organization. He is currently a Planning Commissioner
in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive the National
"Young Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997.
Todd Koneczny, AlA - Project Manager/Inspector
Todd has twenty-one years of design and construction experience in a wide variety of building
projects for municipal, institutional, healthcare and commercial clients. His responsibilities
often include project management, architectural design, construction document preparation and
construction administration. His seventeen years of design experience and four years of
construction management experience has given him the ability to understand all aspects of
building systems and components.
.
Dennis Swartz, CSI - Inspector
Dennis has over 34 years of experience as a project architect and specifier, working for clients
throughout the United States and around the World. He is an active member of the Construction
Specifications Institute (CSI) and is the former Treasurer of the Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter.
Bruce Chalupsky, ASIA - GIS/Coverage Analysis
Bruce has more than ten years of experience as a landscape architect/planner. During this time,
he has specialized on site master planning for public and private clients. Bruce has also pursued
specialization in Geographic Information Services (GIS) and is proficient in the administration
of community data and the production of maps for a variety of needs.
M:\05Proj\050233\ADMN\F200\Reports\050l66 final report.doc
.
Page 10
APPENDICES
.
Appendix A - Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
Appendix B - Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
Appendix C - Property Condition Assessment
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
.
.
Page 11
.
.
.
I-94/County Road 18 Interchange
TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34
Monticello, Minnesota
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS
June 23, 2005
Map No. & Building Name: #9 - Dahlheimer Distributing - Cold Storage Building
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): June 6, 2005, 5:00 PM
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is not Substandard because:
Building Code deficiencies total less than 15% of replacement cost.
$469,119
$ 20,000
4.3%
Estimated Replacement Cost:
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:
Percentage of Replacement Cost:
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance. "
Structural Elements
Corrosion present on underside of roof panels
Small pin holes observed in roof panels
Essential Utilities and Facilities
Building owner reports that building is not connected to municipal sewer system.
Outlet to trench drains are blocked at vehicle parking.
Light and Ventilation
Warehouse area is dimly lit. Fixture age might also be an issue.
Fire Protection! Adequate Egress
Guardrails missing around truck dock.
No fire hydrants present - no municipal water supply at site.
Layout and Condition of Interior PartitionslMaterials
Deficient 1 exit door.
Similar Factors
Description of Code Deficiencies
Exterior accessible route insufficient width through out complex (beginning at man door location) MN
1341.0403.
No emergency lighting or illuminated exit signs present when 2 exits required in building or room MN
1003.2.10 and 1003.2.11
Add guardrails at existing loading dock mc 1003.2.12
Additional exit required - common path of travel greater than 75 feet. mc 1004.2.5
Enerev Code
Existing building is unheated therefore the existing building does not need to comply with the energy code.
1-94/County Road 18 Interchange
TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34
.
Monticello, Minnesota
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS
June 23, 2005
Map No. & Building Name: #5 - Dahlheimer Distributing - Warehouse and Office Building
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): June 6, 2005, 3:30 PM
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost.
$1,981,725
$ 402,748
20.3 %
Estimated Replacement Cost:
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:
Percentage of Replacement Cost:
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fITe protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance. "
.
Structural Elements
North exit door stoop is cracked and broken.
Essential Utilities and Facilities
Building owner reports that building is not connected to municipal sewer system.
Oil separator servicing, trench drains at vehicle parking area have been decommissioned.
Building serviced by private well water system.
Light and Ventilation
Adequate ventilation and makeup air not provided at vehicle parking area.
Warehouse area is dimly lit. Fixture age might also be an issue.
Fire Protection!Adequate Egress
Fire separations missing between office and warehouse area.
Layout and Condition of Interior PartitionslMaterials
Toilet Rooms are not accessible.
Existing drywall partitions have large holes requiring removal and/or replacement.
Similar Factors
N/A
.
Description of Code Deficiencies
Exterior accessible route insufficient width through out complex (access to toilets and exiting) MN
1341.0422
Provide handicapped parking spaces
Gravel parking area is not finn and stable MN 1341.0426
Parking requires signage MN 1341.0428
Handicap parking shall be on accessible route MN 1341.0403
Existing toilet facilities are not accessible
Access Route MN 1341.0403
Door Swing Clearance and Size MN 1341.0442
.
.
.
Fixture Clearances MN 1341.0448
Un-insulated piping MN 1341.0454
Building not sprinkled mc 903.11
No 2-hour fire separation between office and warehouse area me Table 302.1.1
No 2-hour fire separation between warehouse area and refrigeration equipment. mc Table 302.1.1
Vehicle parking area not provided with adequate ventilation as required for enclosed parking garage mc
406.4.2
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air
exchanges.
No emergency lighting or ilIuminated exit signs present when 2 exits required in building or room MN
1003.2.10 and 1003.2.11
Mezzanine Stair
- Riser greater than 7" me 1003.3.3.3
- Handrail less than required by mc 1003.3.3.11.5
- Handrail less than 34" me 1003.3.3.11
Mezzanine guardrail
- Guardrail at mezzanine stair less than 42" high mc 1003.2.12.2
Ener2V Code
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard:
Buildings exterior envelope (walls, roof and foundation walls/perimeter slab) do not have insulation with R-
values needed to meet current energy code requirements.
Building's heating, cooling and lighting are not as efficient as current energy code would require.
I.94/County Road 18 Interchange
TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34
.
Monticello, Minnesota
CODFJCONDITION DEFICIENCY/CONTEXT ANALYSIS
June 23, 2005
Estimated Replacement Cost:
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies:
Percentage of Replacement Cost:
Map No. & Building Name: #1 - A VS - Apple Valley Ready Mix
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): June 15,2005.9:30 AM
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
Substantial renovation is required to correct eonditions found.
Building eode deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost.
$ 1,240,800
$ 297,685
23.9 %
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities. light
and ventilation. fire protection including adequate egress. layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance. "
.
Structural Elements
N/A
Essential Utilities and Facilities
Electrical system equipment mounted to combustible wood surfaces.
Light and Ventilation
Lacks adequate ventilation and makeup air at vehicle parking area.
Fire Protection! Adequate Egress
Lacks adequate fire separations between individual uses.
Lacks illuminated exit and emergency lighting systems.
Layout and eondition of Interior PartitionslMaterials
Toilet Rooms are not handicap accessible.
Interior water staining suggests replacement of roof at office is required.
Similar Factors
N/A
.
Description of Code Deficiencies
Exterior accessible route insufficient width through out complex (access to toilets and exiting) MN
1341.0422
Provide handicapped parking spaces
Parking requires signage MN 1341.0428
Handicap parking shall be on accessible route MN 1341.0403
Existing toilet facilities are not accessible
Access Route MN 1341.0403
Door Swing Clearance and Size MN 1341.0442
Fixture elearances MN 1341.0448
Un-insulated piping MN 1341.0454
Building not sprinkled per mc 903.11
.
.
.
No 2-hour fire separation between office and batch area IBC Table 302.1.1
No 3-hour fire separation between batch and repair, between repair and garage. IBC Table 302.1.1
Vehicle parking area not provided with adequate ventilation as required for enclosed parking garage IBC
406.4.2
For building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air
exchanges.
No emergency lighting or illuminated exit signs present when 2 exits required in building or room MN
1003.2.10 and 1003.2.11
Mezzanine Stair Batch Plant
- Handrail less than required by IBC 1003.3.3.11.5
- Handrail less than 34" IBC 1003.3.3.11
Mezzanine Stair Repair Shop
- Handrail less than required by IBC 1003.3.3.11.5
- Handrail less than 34" IBC 1003.3.3.11
- Guardrail at mezzanine stair less than 42" high mc 1003.2.12.2
Ener2V Code
In addition to the building code deficiencies listed above, the existing building does not comply with the current
energy code. These deficiencies are not included in the estimated costs to correct code deficiencies and are not
considered in determining whether or not the building is substandard:
Buildings exterior envelope (walls, roof and foundation walls/perimeter slab) do not have insulation with R-
values needed to meet current energy code requirements.
Building's heating, cooling and lighting are not as efficient as current energy code would require.
.
z
o
OJ::
..J<C-.:r
..J>M
wO~
(J z .
-wo
!Zo::z
~co
wr:~~
O..JO
>-;$u..
1->-
-wI-
Uz
W
0::
.
E91~
..~
..
..
'"
~I
~ ~ - ~ '" '"
o.
0"
~
~~'E
a"ij-.
i~H .. .. 0
>- >- z
r"
,gO
'" 0
..
'E
a~~ <0 ::\, ..
'" . 0 .. '" g
.._0
"'I .. ..
0:
ll.",
.5~
.. -
;;:: ~': .. '"
~i~ - ~
0.0
,.
o ..
z'"
i WI >.
"'I" '" "' ~
f,)t)Ib- ..
g'.i~i '" !
~ 0;
ih~-2O :l
i:~!..
o i ~ '" '" <0
N
~~8 ~ ~ ~
.--g.
0:
. ~, or> '"
r~~ 0-
~~8 .. '" <0
N
109- ;; ;; ..
0:
- ..
o . ~ '"
ail - '" - .. ..
Z"
II>
~~~ .. N
ill ~- .. <0
0- .. ~ ~
S&e ~ ;i ~- :;
~
'EJl
~ ~
.. ~ ~ '" ; ~ ~ ~
g.e N
i~
80s
'I;
. . N
..~.., '" '" '" N
~~~ '" ~- " N '"
.. i'i .,; ",' m
~ "- '"
0:5
0
- 0- ill '" lOJ, - :t_ :;::
e... ~
"'''- -g,' :; sf '" ~
~~ '"
'" ~
~ 0 '0 .. .. !
hi ~ ~ ~ ~
,," ~ ~ Jj
.;;> '" "' .~
:; ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~
z z
'"
i~ ~ "ii 11 ] ] ]
>- - ! t ~ e ~ ~
o . ]"
- - li li .. ..
..,.
:5
~ ~ ~ ~
:z 0 ~
"
. " " 0
= ~ ~ '"
..
10 j
i 8 b " " b
0 ()
~ ... ... ! ! OJ
~ ~ ~ ~
0
N " '" ..
.. i '" '" ~
'"
"
0: '" " " ~
or> or> or>
11 !II !II !II III
'" ~ -. l ~ g
~ "- "- ....
11'-
....
.,; t
CD
~
!
!Ii
.. ~
...
... ~
iii ~
11
..
...
=
'"
..,
:0
III
...
"
..
c
..
e
..
ll.
....
...
.,;
CD
...
'0
~
'"
~
;;
>-
"
e
..
'u
'"
..
...
.. .!
...
0 .a
u .l!
'"
.!l
..
(jj
...
..
0.
.!!!
~
"
11
..
...
c
.... .l!I
CD '"
.,.; .a
:0
'" '"
J::
C 'i! ..
.. .a
e "
.. .5
D-
.. '"
~ ...
c
.. ..
>- ..
0 ...
u ~
i!
0 "
.... >-
"
c
..
'li
'"
..
...
..
...
0
"
J!l
..
.
E
...
c
:E
:;
ID
.
u:
-.
E
~
Ii
<;
~
~
~
'"
3
()
t:i
g,
j
~
I
~
"'
..
~
~
9
<,)
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
6.
Consideration to approve a resolution reauestin:: the City Council call for a public
headn!! date for modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project Plan No.1 and establishinl! TIF District No. 1-35 (a
Redevelopment District) and TIF Plan. (Applicant: Master's Fifth Avenue, Inc.)
A. Reference and back::round:
^t the June 1 HRA meeting, the commissioners authorized staff to begin preparation of TI F
District No. 1-35 (a Redevelopment District) based on the information and direction of Barry
Fluth. Brad Johnson informed the commissioners that the restaurant of intent decided not to
commit; however, they have two to three tenants. The proposed building concept remains
similar with the exception of no outside patio and the need for a drive-through. Johnson noted
the need for support for a directional sign along Highway 25. He foresees the problem is not
traffic count but no one knows a business is located downtown. Koropchak informed Fluth
and Johnson of the need for an exterior and interior inspection by an outside consultant. The
lIRA consultant and attorney have recommended a consultant. The inspection and written
report is necessary for establishment ofredeveIopment and renewal and renovation districts,
this a change from 1997. The HRA also directed Wolfsteller and Koropehak meet with Fluth
to find a solution or clarify the context of the Contract relative to available tax increment
associated with the redevelopment of the Mall.
In follow~up discussion with Barry Fluth relative to time frame associated with establishment of
TIF and the Planning application cycle, the discussion of the inspection by a consultant came
up. The inspection for adequate coverage and structurally substandard and the report must be
completed for HRA and Council review prior to their respective approval of the TIF District.
Barry requested a cost estimate, list of available consultants, and qualification of inspectors
prior to moving ahead. Both Steve Rubul and Mark Ruff recommend Mike Fischer at LHB,
Inc. for the qualify of work and timeliness. Others arc available and have been tried, but not
recommended. The developer is responsible for the payment of the inspection report, the cost
can be rolled into the project costs.
Given Barry has just received this information and no schedule has been determined for
construction and the public hearing date, the resolution has not been prepared. Barry has
asked f()r preliminary TIF numbers which will be completed within the next day.
My assumption is Barry or Brad will attend the HRA meeting.
HRA Agenda - 06/27105
.
B.
Alternative Action:
1. A motion to approve a resolution requesting the City Council call for a public hearing
date for modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project Plan No. I and establishing '['IF District No. 1 ~35 and TIF Plan.
2. A motion to deny approval of a resolution requesting City Council call for ...........
3. A motion to table any action.
4. The project is premature, no action necessary.
C. Recommendation:
Wolfsteller and Koropchak recommend Alternative No.4. Wolfsteller and Koropchak do
support the recommendation of the consultant and attorney for the hiring of LHB, Inc.
D. Supportin~ Data:
.
Copy of the proposal from LHB for TIF District No. 1-35.
.
2
.
.
.
250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
612.338,2029
Fax 6]2.338.2088
www.LIlBcorp.com
June 21,2005
Ollie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
PROPOSAL FOR TIF DISTRICT 1-35 INSPECTION SERVICES
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for the City of Monticello TIF District 1-
35 inspection services. LHB is a full-service architecture and engineering firm with ] 45
employees in our Minneapolis and Duluth offices.
Our Community Design studio has extensive experience working with local governments on
their planning, design, architectural and engineering needs. I-laving been personally
involved as a City Council President, I understand how cities function and the importance of
maintaining the support of the city council and community throughout the process.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
LHB has significant experience with a variety of inspection and facility assessment projects,
including the analysis of over 30 TIF districts in the past four years. Examples include:
City of Columbia Heights TIF inspection services
City of St. Paul TIF inspection services
City ofSt. Anthony Village, NW Quadrant 'fIF inspection services
City of St. Louis Park TIF District inspection services
City of Mound TI F District" 1-2" inspection services
City ofOsseo TIF inspection services
City of New Richmond, WI TIF inspection services
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system facility assessments
State of Minnesota facility assessments
Property Condition assessments for the St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic
Development (Frankl in/Emerald Neighborhood)
Condition survey of every property along the 1-394 corridor for the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, prior to and during the construction of 1-394
ADA compliance assessments for the State of Minnesota (82 buildings in 1992)
Duluth, MN
Minneapolis. MN
Proposal for Monticello TIF District 1-35 Inspection Services
Page2of6
June 21, 2005
.
METHODOLOGY
A. Survey the proposed TIF district to determine if it meets the "Coverage
Test":
1. To lneet the coverage test, parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the
district must be "occupied" by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
parking lots.
2. A parcel is not considered "occupied" unless at least 15(% of its total area
contains improvemcnts.
B. Make the following attempts to inspect the interior of each building in the
district:
1. Obtain property owner's consent for inspection.
2. Document all property conditions relative to Minncsota Statutes Section
469.174 Subdivision 10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
C. Determine replacement cost for each building:
Replacement cost is thc cost of constructing a new structurc of the same
square footage and type on the sitc.
A basc cost will be calculatcd by establishing thc building class, typc and
construction quality.
Identify amenitics, which increasc thc value of the building over thc
'standard construction quality level.
Review building permits for cach parcel.
The base cost and cost of amenities will be totalcd to determinc the
replacement cost for the property.
D. Determine the existing condition of each building:
I. "Structurally substandard shall mean containing defects in structural
clemcnts or a combination of deficiencies in cssential utilities and facilities,
light and ventilation, fire protection including adequatc egress, layout and
condition of intcrior partitions, or silnilar factors, which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance."
E. Determine Code Deficiencies in each building:
1. Determine technical conditions, which are not in compliance with current
building code applicable to new buildings.
2. Determine costs to correct identified deficiencics.
3. Compare cost of deficiency corrcctions to replacemcnt value of bui Iding.
4. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliancc with building
code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy thc building
code at a cost of less than 15 percent of replacement cost.
.
Proposal for Monticello TI F District ] -35 I nspection Services
Page 3 of6
June 21,2005
.
F. Prepare a final report outlining findings:
1. Prepare a tabulated spreadsheet of the entire proposed district properties
conel itions.
2. Prepare a written narrative analysis of the redevelopment district describing
why the property within the district does or does not meet the criteria as
"structurally substandard" as established in Minnesota Statutes Section
469.174, subdivision 10.
3. Deliver final reports to City staff.
ASSUMPTIONS
Preliminary boundaries of the prospective district include three (3) parcels that will be
analyzed for the coverage test. If the coverage test is met, three (3) buildings will require an
interior inspection.
.
'r'he City of Monticello will provide the following:
. A list of building permits issued for the parcels in the last three years.
. A letter to the property owners authorizing and explaining thc inspections.
. Other doculnents as may be required to assess the condition of the buildings and
determine coverage tests, including maps and GIS information with specific
parcel data.
. A parcel map of the area to be inspected.
. A list of all parcels including owner, current known busincss or resident name
and addrcss.
COST AND FEE STRUCTURE
We propose to work on an hourly basis with the following key stafr:
Project Principal, Michael Fischer (TIF analysis)
Project Manager! Architect/lnspcctor, Jerry Putnam
Project Administrator (Property owncr contacts, documcntation)
Technician Assistance (if necessary)
$152/hour
$11 O/hour
$51/hour
$90/hour
We will work on an hourly basis with a not-to-excced fee budget of $5,400 plus
rcimbursable expenses for the inspection of the 3 structures and a full report outl ining the
findings for the 'I'll; district.
SCHEDULE
Upon acceptance of this proposal, we are able to begin work within two wceks. Assuming
full coopcration of the property owners and the City, we will complete the final report within
45 days of the stat1 date_
.
Proposal for Monticello '1'1 F District 1-35 I nspection Services
Page 4 of6
June 21,2005
.
TERMS
We propose using an AlA Document B727 (Standard Form of Agrccmcnt Between Owner
and Architect for Special Services). The contract will includc "limit of liability" language
(equal to our fee or $10,000 maximum, whichever is greater). In addition, the contract will
contain language negotiated with the city indicating that LHB and the City, acting through
thc City's legal representative, will, to the fullest reasonable cxtcnt, cooperate and coordinate
efforts in prcparing responses to any third party challenges to the inspections.
TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, A/A - Project Principal/TI F Ana~yst
Michael has nineteen years of architectural experienee as project principal, project
manager, project designer and project architcct on municipal planning, educational,
commercial and governmental projects. He is a Vice President at LlfB and currently
leads the Community Design Group in LHB's Minneapolis office. Michael completed a
two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999, earning
Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development. Michael has scrved on
over 35 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as City Council
President and Chair of the Duluth/Superior Metropolitan Planning organization. He is
currently a Planning Commissioner in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in
the country to receive the National "Young Architects Citation" from the American
Institute of Architects in 1997.
.
.Jerry A. Putnam, AlA, FCSI, CCS ~ Project Manager/Inspector
Jerry is a senior architect in LHB's Minneapolis office with twenty-five years of
experience in all phases of the architectural process, from pre-design through construction
administration, including specialty eonsulting in investigations for buildings, building
condition surveys, TIF inspections, code reviews, estimating and specification writing.
Jerry is an active member in the Construction Specification Institute (CSI). He has been
recognized as a Fellow of CSI f()r his dedication and leadership in the construction
industry. In addition to being past president of the largest CSI chapter in the United
States, he serves on many local, regional and national committees, and has given
presentations at many specification writing classes and workshops.
Dennis Swartz. CSI -Inspector
Dennis has over 34 years of experience as a project architect and specifier, working for
clients throughout the United States and around the World. He is an active member of the
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and is the former Treasurer of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter.
.
Todd Koneczny, AlA - Project Manager/Impector
Todd has twcnty-one years of design and construction experience in a wide varicty of
building projects for municipal, institutional, healthcare and commercial clients. His
responsibilities often include project management, architectural design, construction
document preparation and construction administration. His seventeen years of design
experience and four years of construction management experience has given him the
abi I ity to understand all aspects of building systcms and components.
Proposal for Monticello TIF District 1-35 Inspcction Services
Pagc5of6
June 21,2005
.
Bruce cltalupsky, ASLA - GIS/Coverage Analysis
Bruce has more than ten years of experience as a landscape architect/planner.
During this time, he has specialized on site master planning for public and private
clients. Bruce has also pursued specialization in Geographic Information Services
(GIS) and is proficient in the administration of community data and the production of
maps for a variety of needs.
REFERENCES
Stephen 1. Bubul
Kennedy & Graven
612/337-9300
Mary L. Ippcl
Briggs and Morgan
65 1/223-6620
NEXT STEP
Upon acceptance of this proposal, wc wi II draft an AlA Owncr/ Arch itect agreement for your
review.
.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for your projcct. Please contact me at
(612) 752-6920 if you have any questions.
LHB INC.
~~
MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AlA
DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DESIGN GROUP
c: TJK/MAF/JAP
C:\Conllnunity Design Studio\Proposal Letters\Monticcllo TIT'" District 1-356-2] -05.doc
.
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
7.
Consideration to review the appraisal for 154 West Broadwav and authorization to
make an offer to acquire.
A. Reference and backl!round:
On May 4,2005, the commissioners made a motion to obtain an appraisal f()r the property
located at 154 West Broadway. The current owner, Craig Swiecichowski, who attended the
meeting inl()[med the commissioners the property was on the market and that the three
residential tenants were on a monthly lease. Goeman Realty had provided some market
information for Dino's stating a list price 01'$395,000.
The motion also requested scheduling a meeting with Block 35 property owners to define the
role of an HRA and to determine the level of interest in redevelopment. Six of the nine
property owners were present: Schneider, Loch, Swiecichowki, Lodge, Thickpenny, and
McCarty. Those not in attendance: Brad Larson, Jim Agosto, Marin Flicker and City. See 9[
for a summary of the survey.
The appraisal prepared by Heartland Appraisal, Inc. is included. Remember, an HRA
appraisal is confidential during negotiation and only shared after acquisition of the property.
^eeording to Attorney Bubul, the HRA is obligated to moving and replacement costs lor the
tenants unless they have vacated the property prior to the HRA making an offer. If the tenants
have resided at the location lor at least 180 days or more, the maximum replacement cost is
$22,000 each plus moving costs.
The HRA needs to consider the costs to acquire and relocation. What is the plan for the site
(demolition or rental property?) What is the plan for the Block? Is it real istic to think a
redevelopment project would take place within five years? Is this the only parcel with tenants?
No cost analysis or cash tlows have been run.
B. Alternative Action:
1.
A motion to authorize making an offer in the amount of $
the property located at 154 West Broadway.
for
2. A motion of no interest to purchase the property locatcd at 154 West Broadway.
3. A motion to table any action.
HRA Agenda - 06/27/05
.
c.
Recommendation:
The City Administrator and Executive Director recommend not to purchase the property at the
appraised final opinion value because the list price was less and the HRA has additional costs
fiJr replacement/moving. Other things to think about: perhaps demolition and asbestos costs.
Only two of the buildings are owner-occupied meaning the rest of the buildings have one to
three business or residential tenants each. By our survey response, it appears at this time we do
not have contiguous parcels of size for a partial redevelopment. (fthe HRA remains interested,
a hypothetical budget and cash 1low could be put together. Mark Ruffs suggestion is
acquisition at a reasonable price and if a project has merit within the next five years. You may
recommend continued working with the Block 35 property owners
D. Supportine Data:
Appraisal as prepared by Heartland Appraisal, Inc.
.
.
2
..,
~~a~'
.
.
.
QUICKTIF 8~o INVOICE
Thank you for ordering QuickTIF 8.0 Tax Increment Finance Reporting Software.
~ I..\~? 0 I. 3 c <i. \
g..\ ...J..
t>_oS
~~~ ~
June 17, 2005
Ollie Koropchak
City of Monticello
505 Walnut St.
Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
1 Copy of QuickTIF 8.0 - Upgrade
Cost
$250.00
Subtotal
$250.00
Minnesota State Sales Tax
Subtotal Due
Total Paid
Total Due
(6.5%)
$16.25
$266.25
$0.00
$266.25
Thank you for your prompt payment. Checks may be made payable to Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
and can be sent to:
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
C/O QuickTIF 8.0
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact Nikki McDonald at 651-697-
8518 or at nmcdonald(CU,ehlers-inc.com.
o
EHLERS
.... ASSOCIATES INC
~
.
File Number: 101
H R A Monticello
MONTICELLO MINNESOTA
File No.1 01
?-t ~. "-l ~ ~ ?- '":L. · ? l q '1
\""!. 't- \ ~ 'J.. ~ ~c.J...... ~
"'''''''''''''**'''''' INVOICE "''''''''''''''''''''''''' Lr. ~ l c:; -0 S
File No.1 01
~\~. l.ll,. ~ ~ ~ ?t qq
\"'1: 'i:- \ .. "?. ~ ~c....1.., ~
"'''''''''''''*''''''* INVOICE ********* l-. - l c:; -0 S
File Number: 101
H R A Monticello
MONTICELLO MINNESOTA
Borrower :
Invoice # :
Order Date:
Reference/Case # :
PO Number:
154 w. BROADWAY MONTICELLO MN. 55362
Appraisal Services
$
$
2,600.00
Invoice Total
State Sales Tax @
Deposit
Deposit
$
$
($
($
2,600.00
0.00
)
)
Amount Due
$
2,600.00
Terms:
Please Make Check Payable To:
Heartland Appraisal
P.O. Box 312
Monticello Mn. 55362
. Fed. 1.0. #: 41-1504191
.
.
.
9.
ORA Agenda - 06/27/05
Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
a) I did visit three manufacturing companies as follow-up to the Expo. They all met our
criteria but one stood out by job density and type of business: precision machining. All
three companies are now located in Maple Grove or Elk River and have been working
with the City of Elk River. The one company has decided to proceed in Elk River
because of timing and better offer. Elk River's land price is $1.80 per sq. n. and they
use TIF to write the land down to $1. They able to do this by using tax abatement and
the city's tax increment is collected over 11 years and the county's tax increment over
13 years. This an interesti ng concept.
b) Prior to the Council meeting of June 13, Colliers Turley Martin Tucker made a
presentation to list the city-owned industrial land. Darrin Lahr and Dan Olson from the
Marketing Committee were in attendance. They left a proposal for the Council at the
end of the presentation. I'm unaware of the Council's intent when to respond or take
action.
The Fiber Optics Task Force as been established and will meet for the first time on
June 22. HRA Commissioner Andrews will serve on the task force. The Council
authorized tour-hours of consultant service for organizational purpose. The group will
define their goals and role, review broad band options, and make recommendations to
the Council. All interested persons have IT knowledge: Steve Andrews; Kathy
Shuman; Lynne Dahl-Fleming; Sue Heidt, lligh School Technology Director; Wanda
Terrazas, I.S. Department, Hospital District; and Wayne Mayer. UMC plans to send
some one. One of the companies I visited asked about fiber optic capabilities.
Next month, I'll begin working on the Annual TIF Reports for the State Auditor. They
are due the end of July.
Block 53 (Old Theater) - We did get an update from Suntide on their progress. They
requested staff to review their latest concept at site review for comments and plan to
meet with staff and Steve Grittman is a couple weeks. They are planning to meet with
the two remaining property owners in the next couple of weeks.
I3lock 35 - Attached is a summary of the level of interest. Al Loch wants to contact
those who did not respond.
TIF District No. 1-33 for Tapper's Holding, Inc. will be certified at the County prior to
July 1,2005. Building and graveling permits have been issued. Westlund is moved in
and part of Strategy. footings on the expansion are expected to be poured next week.
Interchange at 1-94 and County Road 18 - The judge did rule on the public purpose in
b.vor of the city. The A VR could appeal which could delay the project.
Have a meeting scheduled with Dahlheimers and Streeter, Wednesday 11.30 a.m.
Interested in city property again.
c)
d)
c)
I)
g)
h)
i)
q ~.
<::
. 0
'"
'-
".I X X
...J X X ",
-ci
<::
0
c..
'"
~
.8 0
'"
0 :::
tJ) "tJ
~ X X X X "., "tJ
S
..0
Il)
;;>-\ 0
.: <::
::: '"
Il) "tJ
c.. ::: <::
.:>!. 0 E
,~ 'f: ~
..L: 0 <::
f- X X X X X 0...
Il)
'-
Il)
.:>!. ~
'"
~ Il)
00
0 "tJ
..L: 0
0 ...J
t-- 'u "tJ
Z Il) <::
~ '"
~ VJ X X X X X X X X ~
~ '"
OJ
if! 0
'-
if! ".I
~ c..
if! ~
if! N '-
Il)
-< :E' :2
;,;.. u Il)
0 <::
~ ...J X X X X X X X X ..r::
. u
;> VJ
"tJ
c=: :::
~ o:l
~
if! Il)
VJ 0
lrl 2:- 0 <::
o:l
M ~ :; "tJ
~ U c.::: '-0 <::
0 >- @) E
U 2 X X X X X M ('.1 X <e
0 :::
~ a
= 5
Q: ~
Il)
.:>!.
..L: 0
", '"
'-
'r. Il) u...
f"l ::: "...; "tJ
..:G $ ,,-, Il) :::
0 0 ::: ".I
0 '- ~ c') $ >..
0 ~ .:>!.
co .... Il) 0 0 0:;
Il) .:
c.. '" Il) E 0 ;>-, -e
0 ".I S c.. ", OS t Il)
OJ ~ 0 Il) Il) >
>- '" >- E c..
Il) .9 Il) Il) ".I 0 "tJ
"tJ >- :;... ", ..L: Il) '- Il)
Il) Il) ::: Il) "tJ E c.. "tJ
'- 'il) "tJ :l <::
'- '", Il) 0 c.. Il)
c.::: Il) 0 ..s 0
.8 ", Il) '- c.. >. ", OJ c..
J:: ~ '-' '- :l ", 0 E >.. '"
"tJ o:l t8 0 S "tJ >- ..0 ~
Il) '" ::: 0 Il) Il)
Il) c.. '" Il) Il) 9 0 '" ~ "tJ 'r. ....
::: E Il) c.. '- E ij) ~ t') 0
<:: o '", '- "tJ
Il) '- '", Il) Il) ".I Il) .:>!. '"
Il) .8 '-
-5 E '" ::: i:l ::: '- u o:l
S :l "tJ ~ E tJ)
bI) ::: ~ .... .3 ...J
~ ..0 0 0 ~
0 0 >... '" co
<:: '- <:: Il) "tJ
~ .3 ..:: :l Q. >). >.. <:: Il) '- 4- ".I
'" '" t t '" '" Il) 0'3
0 0 E o:l .5 0
Il) ~ ".I ;,;..-~ Il) Il) Il)
Il) .5? Il) c.. '" c.. c.. ...J <:: "tJ
'- 0 :; Il) ".I 0 0 :;: 0
00 <e Il) '- 4- <:: '-2 <::
".I >-~ ..:G >.. 0. 0 0 '- o:l ".I
0 U c.. ".I ~)
:l ,~ _~ 0 c.. ..r:: Il) 0:; Il) 0 .8
c.. '- ~ ..L:
?,- '" >. ..L: '- c..
0 ~ :l Il) o:l :l Il) Sf) :l E Il)
. >.. ~ 0 0 Il) '"
'" co c.::: ::r: '" '" Il) Il) 0 <:: Il) <:: -5 o:l '" 0
0 Il) 0 ..:: ;;.-.. Il) 0 .....1 Il) 0 >, <:: ~ ..c Il) >- ::: 0 4- Il) 0 OJ)
0 >- 7- :s ~~ ~~ :!2 >- Z :!2 >- ;z ::::: 0 f- f- ...J '-l: ~ :; :!2 0 >- ;z ~
o:l ..0 0 "tJ
-
.
.WSllndustries Inc., a Wayzata-based contract manufacturer of
h_precision parts for a wide range ofindustries, has reached a
partnering arrangement with an undisclosed biosciences firm. WSI
estimates that the arrangement could increase sales by about 10
percent as the arrangement evolves in the next 12 to 18 months.
Y'I\~ ~' ~
~~~~
.