HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Establishment of Downtown-Brockway Tax Increment Financing District-,
uald a4j Idope
of Al!o aqj aol paa jou s! lenoidda � lunoo 'ueid ail aqj Bulpae6aa `g I!ady uo uo lnlosai
a passed paeo8 A4unoo aql `uo!l!ppe ul weld anlsuagajdwoo paldope s,A4!o aql 4l!m
aouewaoIuoo u s! veld a4l }eql 6u!lels `£ L I!ady uo uoiInjosai a passed uo!sslwwoo 6uiuueld
a41 tOOZ `g I!ady a!agl le jo!aislQ juawdolanapa�{ aqj 6ulpuawe pue Ueld Jl1
94} panoadde Al!joglny }POd a41 'VOOZ `OZ Iladd uO ueld All 941 JOI 6u1aea4 ollgnd aqj 6ur4as
`uo!lnlosai ael!w!s a passed l!ounoo aqj_ 'lo!als!p d11 AemNoaa8- umolum0a a4j aol 6upea4
oilgnd a las o} 1!ounoo aqj buiNse tOOZ `£ konaga= uo uoiInlosaa a passed /}!joglny Od a41
aNnomomove
•sdew pagoe:4e a4j uo pajeaullap s! g3jgm `eaay lo!jls!Q juawdolanapa�l
aqj ulgl!m papuedxa aq Isnw laulslQ dll aql w04 spun] Auy •ajnlnl a4j ul pau!wialap aq ll!m
s }oafoA lenp!n!pu! aol 6ulpund }oa(oid umolumoa aye ao �(enn�looa8 a4} aayl!a JOI lanai 6urpunj
Aue jo aml!puedxa aql aalueaenb }ou saop ueid 94110 lenoaddy •SOII!n!13e Iuawdolanapaa
6uiA4!lenb jol pasn aq ueo jegj juawaaou! aleaaua6 0140 941 smolle ueid :3Il 9 41
}oa(oid }eql aol aouelslssa leloueug awns 6u }senbaa
aq ll!M aadolanap Aewgooa8 a4j legl paloadxe osle s! 11 •paalnbai s! Ue ld dll p
a4j `eaae UMoJUMop aqj }o ualezlle}!naJ JOI ws!ue4oaw 6UIOUeUI} a ap!noid Ol aapio ul
3i1SSl
:NOIlaV
uoijnlosa�l_anoaddy of uollovi •6u!JeaH oilgnd plOH :N011a`d a3aN3WWO33M
suo!jnlosa
uo!ssiwwoa bu!uueld pie Al!aoglny
}aOd paldopy `loa(Oad juawdolanapaj
junowaso�l aql u!4l!m (Puls!p juawdolanapaa
:A9 a3AO2IddtJ
e)1o!aIslQ buloueu! j juawaJoul xe1
AemN3o18- umojuMOQ a41 jo luawgsllgelse
94l JO} ueid 6uloueu!J luawaJoul
xe1 `kewwnS ueid JIl `uo!jnlosa� :4e :S1N3WHOVr1J.d
aoloaa!d
WN b
juawdolanaa Aj!unwwoo `jslnbpu! wiN :A8 a3HVd3Nd
6u!Je9H o!lgnd
Ueld ail jo uolldopy pue bubeaH o!lgnd mau vaNgOV
:NOI133S HaN30V
1 `OZ I!ady :ale(] bulleaVi i!ounoo Al!o
NOlI3V 110d kHvwwnS 3Alino3X3
1NnomsOH clO Ally
.r
CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875 `145 hS St teet West
Rosemount, MN
55068 -4997
Phone: 651- 423 -4411
Hearing Impaired: 651 - 423 -6219
Fax: 651.423 -5203
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTED
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF DAKOTA) §
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT )
I, Linda J. Jentink, being duly sworn, on oath says:
I am a United States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota.
On March 30th, 2004, acting on behalf of the City, I posted at Rosemount City Hall, 2875
145 Street West, the attached Notice of Public Hearing to consider at City Council the
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND THE PROPOSED
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN - BROCKWAY TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT, A REDEVELOPMENT FINANCING_ PLAN
THEREFORE, on April 20, 2004, at the regular City. Council meeting.
Dated this 19th day of April, 2004.
Linda J. Jent' , Ci Jerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
CITY O F RO J E 1 V! o U N ! 2875 CITY HALL Street West
Rosemount, MN
55068-4997
Phone: 651-423 -4411
Hearing Impaired: 651- 423 - 6219
Fax: 651-423 -5203'
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE PROPOSED
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN- BROCKWAY TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT, A REDEVELOPMENT
-- -- -- DISTMCT,THEREIN-ANDTHE ADOPTION- GRA-T-AX - INCREMENT _.
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Dakota County,
State of Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on April 20, 2004, at approximately 7:30 P,M. at
the Rosemount City Council Chambers in City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount,
Minnesota, relating to the Rosemount Port Authority's proposed adoption of a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan
Modification "), the proposed establishment of the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment
Financing District (a redevelopment tax increment financing district) within. the Rosemount
Redevelopment Project, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF
Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to
collectively herein as the "Plans "), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 469.124 to 469.134 and
Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Copies of the Plans are on file and
available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk at City Hall.
The property to be included in the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District is
located within the Rosemount Redevelopment Project and the City of Rosemount. A map of the
Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District and the Rosemount Redevelopment
Project is set forth below. Subject to certain limitations, tax increment from the Downtown-
Brockway Tax Increment Financing District may be spent on eligible uses within the boundaries
of the Rose Redevelopment Project.
t
� /onw11
i
�_.
uIS
a�! u EU �_ m -- F
i m
t 11 � �e� � R� A� Wr:•��`.
.
N
WT,
CITYOF ROSEMOUNT '
The Rosemount Town Pages PUBLIC NO
CITY - COUNCIL TO HOLD A PUBLIC
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
HEAR ING M D I IF PROPOSEDADOPTI ON
rOFA MODIFICATION TO THE `
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVLOPMENT PROJECT NO, I AND THE 1
Chad Richardson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
a agent and employ of the p ublisher Of the new known as The DOi{N F I NANCING( T A INCREMENT
g P rnvANCnvc (TIFF DIS TRICT, A
Rosemount Town Pages, and has full knowledge of the facts which are REDEVELOP DISTRICT, THEREIN 1
AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT
stated below FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. '
(A) The `newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting xoTlcE is HEREBY GIVt N that-the cit covaen
qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statutes of the city of Rosemount, Dakota • County; State of
331A.02, 331A.0 Ixd other a icab laws, as amended. Minnesota, will hold a public h 6n April 20,
P 2004; at approximately 7:30 p.m: at the Rosemount
-City Council Chambers in City Hall,
(B) The printed 2875 -145th
.. s Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota, relatingA0 the
Rosemount. Port. Authority's proposed adoption . of it
,. _ Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
' Rosemount Redevelopment Project the
"Redevelopment Plan Modification "), the proposed a
which is attached, was cut from the columns of sa' newspaper, and Was establishment of the Downtown- Brockwa�'Tax 1
increment Financing District (a redevelopment tax
printed and published once each week for successive increment financin district) within the Rosemount
weeks; it as first published on Friday, the _ —_ �_- _- ____ -_ day f
Rede Protect, and the pr oposed adopti of
P Y> - -"'–'– Y a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF. Plan")
2004 and was thereafter and published on every therefor '(the Redevelopment Plan Modification and
Friday, to and includ Fri the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein;as'tne
Y> g Y= — —°– –_ ° -- the day of "Plans "), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 469.124 to
2004' and printed below is a copy Of the 469,04 and Sections 469.174 to469.1799 all inclu-
sive, as amended. Copies of the Plans are on file and ,
lower case alphabet from A to Z, both ' inclusive, which is hereby available for public inspection at the office of the City
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition Clerk at cit Hall. '
and publication of the notice: The property .to be included in the Downtown -
°Brockway Tax Increment Financing District is located
within the Rosemount Redevelopment Project and the
City of Rosemount. A, map of the Downtown-
Brockway Tax Increment Financing District and the
abcdefghijk"mnopgrsmvwxyz Rosemount Redevelopment Project is set forth below. -
Subject to certain limitations, tax increment from the -
Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing
_ District may be spent on eligible uses within the
B - boundaries of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project. _
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and
Subscribed an sworn t before me On this l as present their views orally or prior to the meeting in
`Y Y writing..
of t , 2004.
Notary Public
AFFIDAVIT DAWN M SMITH
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005
3
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ,
Dated this 6th, day of April, 2004
!s/Linda Ientink, City Clerk
.:...Rosemount, Miimesout
Auxiliary aids and services are available - Please can-
tact the City Clerk. at 651- 322 -2003 or 651- 322 -6219
(TDD number) to: make a request. Examples of auxil-
iary aids or services may include: sign language inter-
- preter,. assistive listening kit, accessible meeting loco-
. _ Lion: etc.
4/09104
SUMMARY
The proposal is to approve a TIF Plan to allow a financing mechanism for redevelopment of
the Downtown and the Brockway project. The TIF District will be a redevelopment district that
has a duration of 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment.
The TIF Plan has some key components, which set some parameters for future use. The
attached TIF District map cannot be altered after approval of the Plan. Similarly, total
increment generated cannot be increased from that shown in the Plan. Therefore, the city's
financial consultant, Ehlers and Associates, has estimated at the high end of valuation for the
development of properties within the TIF Plan. The budget included in the Plan capitalizes on
these projections, estimating up to $57,500,000 can be spent over the life of the District. The
budget recognizes costs for land and building acquisition, site improvements, public utilities,
parking facilities, streets and sidewalks, interest, and administrative costs. Although each
budget line item has a specified cost, monies can be shifted between the various eligible
activities.
The TIF Plan itself is comprised of 73 parcels. Five are associated with the Brockway project
while the remaining 68 are located in the City's downtown area. The TIF District includes one
condominium that means that there are more property identification numbers than actual
physical parcels in the District. The SEH evaluated the properties for compliance with the
state requirements for lot coverage and conditions of buildings test. They found that the
District meets both of the standards, when considering that three of the Brockway parcels will
be combined. The lot combination has been approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council and has been forwarded to the County for recording.
Since action by the Port Authority the document has been modified slightly. The modification
to the Redevelopment District has been folded into the larger TIF Plan document. There were
some other minor modifications to verbiage in the document but there were no changes of
substance.
Staff believes the TIF Plan is consistent with the Council goals of obtaining downtown
redevelopment and therefore recommends approval of the attached resolution, approving the
TIF Plan.
z
- 2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 --
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND
ESTABLISHING DOWNTOWN- BROCKWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN THEREFOR.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota
(the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") in and for the City established
the Rosemount Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Project" and adopted the Rosemount
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan ") related thereto pursuant to its authority under the HRA
Act, now codified as Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047. On September 15, 1992, the
Rosemount Port Authority (the "Port Authority"), successor in interest to the HRA, adopted a
modification to the Redevelopment Plan. It has been proposed by the Port Authority and the City that the
City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project (the
"Redevelopment Plan Modification ") and establish _Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing
District (the "District ") therein 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 469.048 to
469.068, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the
"Act ") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The Port Authority and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have
caused the Plans to be prepared.
1.03. The Port Authority and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed
prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including,
but not limited to, notification of Dakota County and Independent School District No. 196 having taxing
jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans
by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required
by law.
1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports ") relating to the Plans and to the activities
contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council
and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information
and /or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in
this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby
incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein.
1.05 The City is expanding the boundaries of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project. Land
will be added which is intended for inclusion in a new tax increment financing district which the Port
Authority will establish to carryout the objectives of the modified Redevelopment Plan.
RESOLUTION 2004 --
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plans, are intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development in the public interest
and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment
district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of
the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District
permitted by the TIF Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent
with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by
private enterprise.
3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings
stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3.04. The City of Rosemount elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, which means the fiscal disparities
contribution would be taken from outside the District.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will
help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment
opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves
a public purpose.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plans
5.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the
findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Community Development Director.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council
for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Dakota County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the
District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original
net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit
RESOLUTION 2004- -
this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a
list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months
immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution.
5.04. The Community Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of
the Plans with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
ADOPTED this 20th day of April 2004, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by
the City Council of Rosemount at a duly authorized meeting thereof, held on the 20`h day of April, 2004,
as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession.
(SEAL)
Linda J. Jentink, Rosemount City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
RESOLUTION 2004 --
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax
Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as
follows:
1. Finding that the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as
defined in M. S , Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a) (1).
The District consists of consists of 71 parcels of land (plus 2 parcels consisting of dedicated or vacated
right of way and 21 condominium parcels), with plans to redevelop area for residential, retail, and
office /service purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the District are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF plan).
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum
duration of Downtown- Brockway Tar Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported by the fact
that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the
high cost of acquisition and demolition on the parcels currently occupied by substandard and incompatible
buildings, difficult access from Highway 3 project, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements
and environmental clean -up, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment
financing. The City has experienced many failed attempts at redevelopment in the downtown area and
what development has occurred has been less intense than proposed in the TIF Plan.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of
demolition, site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically,
site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment
assistance. The TIF Plan budget for downtown Rosemount includes increases to the tax base which could
total as much a 10 times current market value. The downtown and other properties have been vacant or
underutilized for well over 20 years. Without the use of TIF, the increase in tax base would likely be less
than two, to seven times current market value. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other
redevelopment of similar size and scope is anticipated on this site in the near term without substantially
similar assistance being provided to the development.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and
the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to
be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up
RESOLUTION 2004- -
to $171,866,800. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to be $12,004,289. It
is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $159,862,511 would occur
without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from
general past experience with the high cost of acquisition, demolition, environmental clean -up, and public
improvements in the general area of the District (see Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan).
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment
of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of
Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality
development to the City.
Through the implementation of the TIF Plan, the City will also increase the availability of safe and decent
life -cycle housing in the City.
EHLER
& ASSOCIATES INC
Ehlers & Associates, Inca
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
Rosemount Port Authority and the City of Rosemount -
The Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed
information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Proposed action: Establishment of the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment
Financing District and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing
Plan.
Redevelopment Plan: Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount
Redevelopment Project.
Type of TIF District: A Redevelopment District
Parcel Numbers: Please see attached list of 71 parcels
Proposed Development: The proposed District is being created to facilitate multi -phase
and multi -use redevelopment of the Downtown Rosemount and
Brockway area in the City of Rosemount. The Metropolitan
Council through a Livable Communities grant has funded a study
of downtown Rosemount in 2003 and early 2004 involving a
cross- section of the Rosemount community. There is widespread
agreement that the core of downtown must be revitalized through
additional retail, office, and other commercial development. The
vitality of downtown will be enhanced by additional residential
development in the Brockway area as well as housing
interspersed in the core of downtown.
Maximum duration: The duration of the TIF District could be 25 years from the date
of receipt of the first increment (26 years of increment). The date
of receipt of the first tax increment is expected to be 2006. Thus,
it is estimated that the TIF District, including any modifications
of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
terminate after 2031, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied
Estimated annual tax Up to $2,199,211
increment:
TIF District Overview
Proposed uses: The TIF Plan contains the following budget:
Land/Building Acquisition ............... .....................$9,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation ....... .....................$6,000,000
Public Utilities .. ............................... .....................$1,000,000
Parking Facilities .............................. ....................$3,000,000
Streets and Sidewalks ...................... .....................$1,000,000
Interest .................................. ............................... $31,750,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) ......................... $5,750,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL ............ .................
See Subsection 2 -10, page 2 -7 of the TIF Plan for the full budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which
include interfund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
Form of financing: The project will be financed by a combination of general
obligation (GO) TIF bonds, interfund loans, and pay -as- you -go
notes.
Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
LGAMACA penalty: Was repealed by the 2001 Legislature and does not apply to the
District.
Interfund Loan If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a
Requirement: tax increment fund, it is recommended that a resolution
authorizing a loan from another fund be passed PRIOR to the
issuance of the check.
3 Year Activity Rule At least one of the following activities must take place in the
( §469.176 Subd. 1a) District within 3 years from the date of certification:
• Bonds have been issued
• The authority has acquired property within the district
• The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within the district
• The estimated date whereby this activity must take place
is April 2007.
4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one
(§ 469.176 Subd 6) of the following activities must have been commenced on each
parcel in the District:
• Demolition
• Rehabilitation
• Renovation
• Other site preparation (not including utility services such
as sewer and water)
• If the activity has not been started by the approximately
April 2008, no additional tax increment may be taken
from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying
activitv.
Page 2
EHLERS
TIF District Overview
5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax
(§ 469.1763 Subd 3) increments must be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax
increments are considered to have been expended on an activity
within the District if one of the following occurs:
• The revenues are actually paid to a third party with
respect to the activity
• Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the
activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues
are spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the
bonds either are reasonably expected to be spent before
the end of the later of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a
reasonable temporary period within the meaning of the
use of that term under §. 148(c)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably required
reserve or replacement fund
• Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the activity and the revenues are spent
under the contractual obligation
• Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the
revenues are spent to reimburse for payment of the costs,
including interest on unreimbursed costs.
• Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after
approximately April, 2009, will not be eligible for
repayment from tax increments.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for Downtown -
Brockway TIF District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in
Exhibit A of the resolution.
Page 3
EHLE�RS
TIF District Overview
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed
below.
AXPIN
' FULLNAME
340211002131
' JAMES D PICKENS
340201001012
' CUE PROPERTIES LLC
340201001077
CUE PROPERTIES LLC
340201001091
i BROCKWAY GLASS COINC
340201001288
? CUE PROPERTIES LLC
340370004700
i DAKOTA CENTRAL PARTNERS
340370005000
DAVID J FINNEGAN
340370004400
DAVID J FINNEGAN
340370001131
; DAVID J FINNEGAN
340370001029
' JAMES V AHERN
346480008105
MICHAEL R KOKER
346480007006
ROSEMOUNT AM LEGION 65
346465002001
ROSEMOUNT PLAZA LMT PTNSHP
346465001401
ROSEMOUNT PLAZA CO
346465001301
STEVEN D NIELSEN
340370001032
i ROSEMOUNT CORNERSTONE INC
340370001033
HAROLD O III HAWK
340370001034
! E & E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001035
JDAKOTA CENTRAL REALTY LTD
346480008205
' ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
346480006006
i ROSEMOUNT AM LEGION POST 65
346480005005
? PETER F RAUCHWARTER
340370002032
DAKOTA AWARDS & ENGRAVING LLC
346480005006
i ROSEMOUNT POST 65
340370001049
+. E & E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001047
E & E ENTERPRISESINC
346465001201
ROSEMOUNT PLAZA CO
340370001050
E & E ENTERPRISESINC
340370002048
; E & E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001048
i E & E ENTERPRISESINC
346465101001
ROSEMOUNT PLAZA CO
346480003005
RAYMOND E BENDT
346465102001
i DUANE L BERGH
340370001051
E & E ENTERPRISESINC
346480002006
i ROSEMOUNT POST 65
346480002005
DAVID ACKERMAN
340370001052
; E & E ENTERPRISESINC
Page 4
EHI.ERS
TIF District Overview
340370004061
E & E ENTERPRISESINC
346480001205
j MIKE R & LUCILLE SMOLAK
340370001053
' E & E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001054
': MC -HERMS LLC
340370005261
MC -HERMS LLC
346480001105
JAMES E & SHARON STAATS
346480007003
DONALD A RATZLAFF
346480009003
s ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
346480009103
MARION MCNEARNEY
346480007104
i JAMES E & SHARON STAATS
346480007204
; LI CHING CHEUNG
340370001155
MC -HERMS LLC
340370005161
' TERRY INVESTMENTS
346480010003
': ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
346480005004
j JEROME R CLARKE
346480004003
1 ROSEMOUNT SAW & TOOL CO
346480013003
ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
346480004004
JEROME R CLARKE
346480003003
j KURT WALTER HANSEN
340370001058
HALIM S & NAWAL A ZERKA
346480003004
i. FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
340370003061
' DAN JOHNSON
340370002061
': TAD P JOHNSON
340370001061
j ROBERT S & LUANA THOMPSON
346480002003
? KURT WALTER HANSEN
340370001060
i HALIM S & NAWAL A ZERKA
346480002004
FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
346480001003
i KURT WALTER HANSEN
346480014003
j ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
340380013014
JOHN F RYAN LIVING TRUST
340370001062
FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
342485001001
•: JOHN F & MARGIE M RYAN
340370002062
': FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
342485002001
! JOHN F & MARGIE M RYAN
UNIDENTIFIED
DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH OF
TAXPIN 34- 03700 - 020 -62
IDENTIFIED
GAP PARCEL SOUTH OF
TAXPIN 34- 03700- 051 -61
346465120302
'• PATRICIA R RATZLAFF
346465130502
' KEVIN J & MARY K ERVASTI
346465120402
EDWARD B TSTE MCMENOMY
346465130602
; MILTON T BRUFLODT
346465110002
1 HARRIET H TSTE BARFKNECHT
Page 5
EHLES
TIF District Overview
346465110102
ROBERT L ERICKSON JR
346465110202
DORIS J LOFTUS
346465120502
GERTRUDE A MEYER
346465110302
': JOANNE A VAREY
346465120602
WALTER H JR & ETHEL KRIESEL
346465110402
VICKI R LOEDING
346465130002
; ELIZABETH A MCDONOUGH
346465110502
WAYNE H & HELEN R LUCKING
346465130102
; GLORIA L EDWARDS
346465110602
PHYLLIS M BRUNELLE
346465130202
KRISTINA BULLINGER
346465120002
RONALD R & JOAN A GOETTSCH
346465130302
' FRANCIS A & MARY J LIPINSKI
346465120102
': H KENNETH & VIRGINIA STRESE
346465130402
EVERETT L & PHYLLIS SWANSON
346465120202
MARJEAN L TREBIL
Page 6
EHLERS
a as xusrxxaa r.
TIF District Overview
BOUNDARY MAPS OF THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
THE DOWNTOWN - BROCKWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Downtown - Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Flnancing District
Rosemount Redevelopment Project
City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota
Page 7
EHLERS
x xaz acuzsa �x<
I-,- I — - '� - 9
I \V =� F
(UOPaar UM0111AALOW
uiosautim ` )4unoa violiva junoumo-a jo 4ia
foid juat udolaAapa junotuasa-d
Oat - t(I tuPlIVUH luauaa.tatq xujL juauudolae.apau SuAupwq - umolumo(j
TIF District Overview
Downtown - Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
Rosemount Redevelopment Project
City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota
(Northern Section)
' TABLE OF CON TENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I- MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Subsection 1-1. Background .... .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. ... . . ... . . . . . .... . . ..... 1-1
Subsection 1-2. Purpose ofModificat ................................... 1-1
Subsection 1-3. Definitions ' .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Subsection 1-4. Redevelopment Phan Objectives ......'..................... 1-1
Subsection 1-5. Redevelopment Activities . . . . ., . . - . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . 1-2
SECTION H - TAX FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE DOWNTOWN-BROCKWA Y TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT....
2-1
Subsection .
Foreword ...............................................
2~1
Subsection 2-2.
Statutory Authority ........................................
2-1
Subsection 2-3.
Statement ofObjectives '...................................
2-1
Subsection 2-4.
Redevelopment Plan Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-2
. Subsection 2-5,
Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired .
2-2
Subsection 2-6.
Classification of the District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-3
Subsection 2-7.
Duration of the District . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-4
Subsection 2-8.
Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/increment and Notification mf Prior Planned Improvements ................
5
Subsection 2-9.
Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ....................
2'6
Subsection 2-10.
Uses ofFunds ...........................................
2-7
Subsection 2-11.
State Tax Increment Financing Aid (Local Contribution) ...........
2-8
Subsection 2-12.
Fiscal Disparities Election . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-8
Subsection 2-13.
'
Business Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.2-9
�
Subsection 2-14.
County Road Costs .`....................................
2-10
Subsection 2-15.
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................
2-10
Subsection 2-16.
Supporting Documentation ................................
2-11
Subsection 2-17.
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues .......................
2-11
Subsection 2-18.
Modifications 10 the District ................................
2-11
Subsection 2-19.
Administrative Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-12
Subsection 2-20.
Limitation ofIncrement ...'...............................
2-13
Subsection 2-21.
Use ofTax |ncronlon1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
2-14
Subsection 2-22.
Excess Increments .,....................................
2-14
Subsection 2-23.
Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ..............
2-14
Subsection 2-24.
Assessment Agreements ......................,..........
2-15
Subsection 2-25.
Administration of the District ...............................
2-15
Subsection 2-26.
Annual Disclosure Requirements ...........................
2-15
' Subsection 2-27.
Reasonable Expectations .................................
2-15
` Subsection 2-28.
Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment .................
2-16
Subsection 2-29.
Summary .....................,........................
2-16
APPENDIX
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................'.............. A-1 '
APPENDIX
MAPS OF THE ROSEMOUNTREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE DISTRICT .. 84
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C -1
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT ... ................ ... D -1
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E -1
APPENDIX F -
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT .................... F -1
APPENDIX G
BUT /FOR QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ G -1
APPENDIX H
PRIOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ...... .............................. H -1
SECTION l - MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Subsection 1 -1. Background
On May 1, 1979, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the city of Rosemount (the "HRA")
established the Rosemount Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Project" and adopted the Rosemount
Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") related thereto pursuant to its authority under the HRA Act,
now codified as Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047. On September 15, 1992, the
Rosemount Port Authority (the "Port Authority "), successor in interest to the HRA, adopted a modification
to the Redevelopment Plan. The modification expanded the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project to be
coterminous with the boundaries of Development District No. 1
Subsection 1 -2. Purpose of Modification
The purpose of this modification is to expand the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project. Land will be
added which is intended for inclusion in a new tax increment financing district which the Port Authority will
establish to carry out the objectives of the modified Redevelopment Plan. The map of the expanded
boundaries of the Redevelopment Project is included in Appendix B attached hereto. The Redevelopment
Plan will also be modified to update the goals and objectives of the plan.
Subsection 1 -3. Definitions
This modified Redevelopment Plan incorporates the definitions included in the 1992 modification with the
following additions. "Public Costs" shall include all costs associated with public infrastructure improvements
constructed within the Redevelopment Project. "Tax Increment Financing District" and "Tax Increment
Financing Plan" shall also include the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District and related
Plan adopted by the Port Authority and City at the time of adoption of this modification to the Redevelopment
Plan. "Administrative Expenses ", as the term relates to the TIF District, has the meaning given to it under
the TIF Act.
Subsection 1 -4. Redevelopment Plan Objectives
The Port Authority intends to achieve the following objectives through the modified Redevelopment Plan:
1. Remove structurally substandard buildings for which rehabilitation is not feasible;
2. Acquire and remove economically or functionally obsolete or underutilized buildings;
3. Acquire land which is vacant, unused, underused, or inappropriately used, and public or semi - public
properties already devoted to a public use which are underutilized;
4. Acquire property of irregular form and shape. or inadequate size which has prevented private
development or redevelopment;
5. Eliminate blighting influences which impede potential development or redevelopment;
6. Preserve and encourage the rehabilitation and/or expansion of structures which will remain;
7. Provide land for expansion of existing businesses;
Rosemount Port Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project I -1
8. Provide redevelopment sites of such size and character to assure the redevelopment of the area;
9. Construct new buildings and improvements for sale, for lease in whole or in part by private
individuals, firms, partnerships, or other private interests to public agencies;
10. Eliminate or correct physical deterrents to the development and redevelopment of land;
11. Provide adequate streets, utilities, and other public improvements and facilities to enhance the area
for development and redevelopment;
12. Achieve a high level of design and landscaping quality to enhance the physical environment;
13. Create effective buffers, screens, and/or transitions between residential and non - residential uses to
minimize the potential blighting effects of divergent land uses;
14. Improve the financial base of the City;
15. Provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City, for development and
redevelopment by private enterprise;
16. Provide increased employment opportunities;
17. Provide a retail service level required by the residents of the community;
18. Maintain and enhance structures that define the heritage and identity of Rosemount;
19. Encourage appropriate residential development in and near downtown to facilitate redevelopment
and to provide additional market for downtown businesses; and
20. Build and maintain systems that provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians in the downtown.
21. Achieve affordability in housing options.
Subsection 1 -5. Redevelopment Activities
The objectives of this Redevelopment Plan will be accomplished through the following actions:
1. Clearance and redevelopment;
2. Rehabilitation of buildings to remain;
3. Construction of buildings and other improvements;
4. Vacation of rights -of -way;
5. Dedication of new rights -of -way;
6. New installation and/or improvement of streets and alleys;
Rosemount Port Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project 1 -2
7. Replacement and improvement of public and private utilities and facilities;
8. Other project improvements;
9. Acquisition of land; and
10. Assembly of suitable redevelopment sites.
In addition, the Port Authority may from time to time adopt specific land use plans for all or portions of the
Redevelopment Project, which plans are intended, in part,, to carry out the goals and objectives of the
modified Redevelopment Plan.
Subsection 1 -6. Acquisition
The Port Authority may acquire those properties necessary or convenient to carry out the objectives and
activities described in the modified Redevelopment Plan. Specific parcels to be acquired through the use of
tax increment financing will be identified in the relevant tax increment financing plan, including the plan for
the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District.
Rosemount Port Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project 1 -3
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE DOWNTOWN- BROCKWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Subsection 2 -1. Foreword
The Rosemount Port Authority (the "Port Authority "), the City of Rosemount (the "City "), staff and
consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Downtown-
Brockway Tax Increment Financing District ( "the District "), a redevelopment tax increment financing district,
located in the Rosemount Redevelopment Project.
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 Port Authority and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes (,,MS.,), Sections 469.048 to 469.068, inclusive, as amended, and MS., Sections 469.174
to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act "), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the Downtown - Brockway Tax
Increment Financing District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of 71 parcels of land (plus 2 parcels consisting of dedicated or vacated right
of way and 21 condominium parcels) and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. The District is being created
to facilitate multi -phase and multi -use redevelopment of the Downtown Rosemount and Brockway area in
the City of Rosemount. Specifically, the TIF plan anticipates development, when ultimately built -out,
consisting of:
• • Approximately 480 owner- occupied homes and 120 rental units constructed in the Brockway area. This
project is expected to be developed by CPDC and Rottlund/David Bernard over a five year period.
Significant demolition and environmental clean-up costs are associated with this project as it transitions
from a industrial site into a residential development. The Port Authority and City will work with
developers of the housing assure affordibility to a portion of the housing in cooperation with other local
and state housing agencies.
• • 60,000 s.f of retail redevelopment located primarily within the core of downtown Rosemount centered
around Highway 3 and 145`
• • 80,000 s.f of office /service redevelopment also located within the core of downtown Rosemount.
• • Over 250 additional housing units in the core of the downtown area. Some of these units may be stand -
alone buildings of either rental or owner- occupied units and some of the units may be constructed in a
vertical mixed use of housing over retail/office.
The number of units and square footages are based upon market study analyses and developer proposals
known to the Port Authority and City at this time. The TIF Plan is intended to present budgets and
development potential as not -to- exceed estimates only. It is possible that the actual development over the
next five to ten years may be only 75% or even 50% of the totals presented in the TIF Plan. Much of the
development schedule will depend upon factors outside of the City and Port Authority's control, such as
demand for commercial facilities, availability of land, and interest rates.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -1
The District incorporates separate geographic areas, but the City and the Port Authority view the District as
integrated. The development of Brockway in the northern edge of the District would not occur as quickly
or with the same intensity absent tax increment financing assistance due to the costs of acquisition,
demolition, and environmental clean -up. The additional housing units in Brockway will provide additional
demand for commercial development in the core area of downtown.
The City and Port Authority are authorized under the TIF Plan to issue various types of debt to enable
redevelopment to occur. The actual amount of debt will depend upon future proposals and the need for TIF.
Each development budget will be scrutinized by the Port Authority, staff and consultants for the demonstrated
amount of gap created by eligible costs of acquisition, demolition, environmental remediation, and site
improvements. Redevelopment which emphasizes the re -use and upgrade of substandard buildings will also
be encouraged along with the demolition and new construction of structures.
Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is
likely to occur beginning in 2004 and in several phases in subsequent years. This TIF Plan is expected to
achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment
Project.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the Port Authority or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the Port Authority or City may sell to a developer selected properties that
it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The Port Authority 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 (including all dedicated or vacated rights -
of -way) identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix
B for further information on the location of the District.
The Port Authority 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 Port Authority or City only
in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed
public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or
development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The Port Authority or City may
acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -2
the objectives ofthis TIF 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 Port Authority and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance
with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is
a redevelopment district pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type oftax incrementfinancing district consisting ofaproject,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way;
(3) tankfacilities, orproperty whose immediatelyprevious use wasfor tankfacilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(xxvi) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(xxvii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(xxviii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition ofinterior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) 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. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the 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.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -3
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the
request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or
removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development
agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the
authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph ()9.
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(n For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the Port Authority and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• • The District is a redevelopment district consisting of 71 parcels (plus 2 parcels consisting of dedicated
or vacated rights -of -ways and 21 condominium parcels).
• • An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District consist of
parcels which are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar
structures.
• • An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Pursuant to M.S. 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified
under the provisions ofM.S 2 73. 111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473Hfor taxes 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 M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must
be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 b, the duration of the District
will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the Port Authority or City (a total of 26 years of tax
increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2006. Thus, it is
estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other
changes, would terminate after 2031, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2007, the
term of the District will be 2032. The Port Authority or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior
to the legally required date.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469:-174, Subd. 7 and M. S, Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2003 for taxes payable 2004.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2005) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of.
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Port Authority or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2004, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2004. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Rosemount Redevelopment Project, upon
completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below.
The Port Authority and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of
its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2006. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $2,113,000
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $181,665
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,931,335
Original Local Tax Rate 1.1387 Pay 2004
Estimated Annual Tax Increment(CTC x Local Tax Rate) $2,199,211
Percent Retained by the Port Authority 100%
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the Port Authority shall, after a due and diligent search,
accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice ofthe 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 M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall
increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a
building permit was issued.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -5
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found four parcels for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City.
Following are the parcels and the estimated increase in market value as a result of the building permit:
Parcel Number Estimated Valuation of Improvement
346465002001 $63,492
340370001048 $9,000
340370001048 $20,000
340370001048 $9,000
Please see Appendix H for copies of the building permits that were issued.
Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness
Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets and sidewalks,
environmental remediation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be
financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The Port Authority or City reserves the
right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Port Authority 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.
The Port Authority or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result
of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a combination of general obligation
(GO) TIF bonds, interfund loans, and pay -as- you -go notes. Additional indebtedness may be required to
finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a GO TIF
bond, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $18,000,000 without
a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $18,000,000
will be financed with tax increment revenues.
This provision does not obligate the Port Authority or City to incur debt. The Port Authority 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 Port Authority or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through
loans from funds of the Port Authority 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 on the next page
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
SOURCES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
Tax Increment
$52,000,000
Interest
$500,000
Land Sales
$5,000,000
PROJECT REVENUES
$57,500,000
Interfund Loans
$18,000,000
Transfers
$18,000,000
Bond Proceeds
$18,000,000
Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate multi -phase multi -use redevelopment
of the Downtown Rosemount and Brockway area. The Port Authority and City have determined that it will
be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The Port Authority has studied the
feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the
establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax
increment 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 the following table.
USES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition* $9,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $6,000,000
Public Utilities $1,000,000
Parking Facilities $3,000,000
Streets and Sidewalks $1,000,000
Interest $31,750,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) $5,750,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $57,500,000
Interfund Loans $18,000,000
Transfers $18,000,000
Loan Interest $18,000,000
*The Port and City will endeavor to provide affordability in the new housing units through a number of
efforts, including land write -down to eligible developments in cooperation with other state and local housing
agencies.
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 $57,500,000 as is presented in the budget above.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -7
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget on the previous page pursuant to the applicable statutory
requirements. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent ofthe tax increment paid
by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside
ofthe District but within the boundaries ofthe Rosemount Redevelopment Project, (including administrative
costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this
TIF Plan.
Subsection 2 -11. State Tax Increment Financing Aid (Local Contribution)
M.S., Section 273.1399 (LGA/HACA penalty) was repealed by the 2001 Legislature and does not apply to
the District.
Subsection 2 -12. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the Port Authority or City may elect one of two methods to
calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside
the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the
application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the original net
tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax
capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than
the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current
net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereofwhich the
authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing
districts is the retained captured net. tax capacity ofthe authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity ofthe authorityfrom the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
ofthe authority as well as the net tax capacity ofthe local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax
rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the
authority.
The Port Authority will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a (outside the District).
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -8
Subsection 2 -13. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116.1.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S. Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature.
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The Port Authority will comply with M.S., Section 116J993 to 116J.994 to the extent the tax increment
assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9
Subsection 2 -14. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the Port Authority or City to pay
for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax
increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring
construction of road improvements or other road costs 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. At a
meeting on April 6, 2004, the County Board requested $100,000 in tax increments to provide funding for
certain upgrades of existing county roads.
Subsection 2 -15. 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 Port Authority 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:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2003/2004 Estimated Captured
Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Entity Total
Dakota County 298,666,431 1,931,335 0.6467%
City of Rosemount 13,895,450 1,931,335 13.8990%
Rosemount -Apple Valley 112,883,942 1,931,335 1.7109%
Eagan ISD No. 196
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
2003/2004 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
Dakota County 0.303000 26.61% 1,931,335 585,195
City of Rosemount 0.523680 45.99% 1,931,335 1,011,402
Rosemount -Apple Valley - 0.260740 22.90% 1,931,335 503,576
Eagan ISD No. 196
Other 0.051280 4.50% 1,931,335 99,039
Total 1.138700 100.00% 2,199,211
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on actual Pay 2004 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rates.
Rosemount Pon. Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -10
Subsection 2 -16. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1 a, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the f ndings 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:
• An Update ofa Market Potential Analysis for Downtown Rosemount, Minnesota, Maxfield Research
Inc., November 2003
Subsection 2 -17. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the Authority
with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
and
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
Subsection 2 -18. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
I . Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project or the
District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd: 4e;
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that 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 of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the Port Authority or City;
5. Increase in the estimate ofthe cost ofthe project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the Port Authority or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plana
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(b), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination
that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses
(1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if
(1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Rosemount Redevelopment Project or the
District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds
the net tax capacity ofthose parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the Port Authority agrees
that, notwithstanding M S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more
than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -11
The Port Authority or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the
geographic area of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project 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 -19. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative
expenses means all expenditures of the Port Authority 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
project;
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 sections 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. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and
documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the Rosemount
Redevelopment Project, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the Port Authority 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.
Rosemount Port Authority _ Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown - Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -12
Subsection 2 -20. Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. ]a, no tax increment shall be paid to the Port Authority 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 ofthe 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 Port Authority or City has acquired property within the District, or
(3) The Port Authority or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements
within the District.
The bonds must be issued, or the Port Authority or City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximatelyApril, 2007 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, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of
property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel
but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a
parcel located within a tax incrementfinancing district by the authority or by the owner ofthe 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 of the parcel
subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that
parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has
commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereofas 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 fora parcel must be submitted by February I of the fifth year following
the year in which the parcel was certif ed as included in the district. For purposes ofthis subdivision,
qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2)
relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The Port Authority or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately
April, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -13
Subsection 2 -21. Use of Tax Increment
The Port Authority or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of
taxable 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 finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project
pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.048 to 469.068;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
Port Authority or City or for the benefit of the Rosemount Redevelopment Project by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 4620 MS., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 4620, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Dakota County to the Port Authority for the Tax
Increment Fund of said District. The Port Authority or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount
not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition,
public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment
funds will be used for Port Authority or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public
improvement activities outside the District.
Subsection 2 -22. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
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 Port Authority or City may,_subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the
TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Rosemount Redevelopment Project or the District.
Subsection 2 -23. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The Port Authority 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 Port Authority or City to demonstrate the conformance
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -14
of the development with City plans and ordinances. The Port Authority or City may also use the Agreements
to address other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the Port Authority or City
as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax
increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the
acreage, the Port Authority or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the
property acquired and which provides recourse for the Port Authority or City should the development or
redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2 -24. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the Port Authority 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 of the 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 -25. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director.
Subsection 2 -26. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the Port Authority 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. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides
that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before
August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S. Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2 -27. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment 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 Port Authority and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A
comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -15
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 2-28. 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 cost of redevelopment of the pursuant
to the M.S., Sections 469.048 to 469.068. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy
limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or
maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a
municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal
government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the
construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the Port Authority or City, including the cost of preparation of the
development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2 -29. Summary
The Port Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard
areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by
Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697 -8500.
Rosemount Port Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District 2 -16
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Metropolitan Council through a Livable Communities grant has funded a study of downtown Rosemount
in 2003 and early 2004 involving a cross- section of the Rosemount community. There is widespread
agreement that the core of downtown must be revitalized through additional retail, office, and other
commercial development. The vitality of downtown will be enhanced by additional residential development
in the Brockway area as well as housing interspersed in the core of downtown.
The Port Authority is authorized to use TIF through a variety of methods including G.O. TIF Bonds, interfund
loans and developer notes. The development of the potential 800 to 875 new housing units and 140,000 s.f.
of commercial space will occur over several years involving a multitude of developments.
APPENDIX A4
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE DISTRICT
Downtown - Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
Rosemount Redevelopment Project
City of Rosemount Dakota County, Nfinnesota.
APPENDIX
B -1
Downtown - Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
Rosemount Redevelopment Project
City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota
(Downtown Section)
Downtown - Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
Rosemount Redevelopment Project
City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota
(Northern Section)
APPENDIX
B -3
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below.
TAXPIN 'FULLNAME
340211002131 'JAMES
D PICKENS
340201001012 'CUE
PROPERTIES LLC
340201001012 'CUE
PROPERTIES LLC
340201001077 'CUE
PROPERTIES LLC
340201001091 !BROCKWAY
GLASS COINC
340201001288 'CUE
PROPERTIES LLC
340201001091 !BROCKWAY
GLASS COINC
340370004700 'DAKOTA
CENTRAL PARTNERS
340370005000 'DAVID
J FINNEGAN
340370004400 'DAVID
J FINNEGAN
340370001131 'DAVID
J FINNEGAN
340370001029 'JAMES
V AHERN
346480008105 'MICHAEL
R KOKER
3464480007006 !ROSEMOUNT
AM LEGION 65
346465002001 -
ROSEMOUNT PLAZA LMT PTNSHP
346465001401 'ROSEMOUNT
PLAZA CO
346465001301 'STEVEN
D NIELSEN
340370001032 !ROSEMOUNT
CORNERSTONE INC
340370001033 !HAROLD
O 111 HAWK
340370001034 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001035 'DAKOTA
CENTRAL REALTY LTD
346480008205 !ROSEMOUNT
PORT AUTHORITY
346480006006 !ROSEMOUNT
AM LEGION POST 65
346480005005 'PETER
F RAUCHWARTER
340370002032 'DAKOTA
AWARDS & ENGRAVING LLC
346480005006 !ROSEMOUNT
POST 65
340370001049 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001047 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
346465001201 !ROSEMOUNT
PLAZA CO
340370001050 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370002048 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001048 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
346465101001 !ROSEMOUNT
PLAZA CO
346480003005 !RAYMOND
E BENDT
346465102001 '
DUANE L BERGH
340370001051 1 E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
346480002006 'ROSEMOUNT
POST 65
346480002005 'DAVIDACKERMAN
340370001052 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370004061 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
346480001205 !MIKE
R & LUCILLE SMOLAK
340370001053 'E
& E ENTERPRISESINC
340370001054 'MC
-HERMS LLC
340370005261 'MC
-HERMS LLC
346480001105 !JAMES
E & SHARON STAATS
346480007003 'DONALD
A RATZLAFF
346480009003 'ROSEMOUNT
PORT AUTHORITY
346480009103 'MARION
MCNEARNEY
APPENDIX C-1
346480007104
!JAMES E & SHARON STAATS
346480007204
'LI CHING CHEUNG
340370001155
-MC -HERMS LLC
340370005161
1 TERRY INVESTMENTS
346480010003
!ROSEMOUNTPORTAUTHORITY
346480005004
, JEROME R CLARKE
346480004003
' ROSEMOUNT SAW & TOOL CO
346480013003
! ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
346480004004
!JEROME R CLARKE
346480003003
!KURT WALTER HANSEN
340370001058
i HALIM S & NAWAL A ZERKA
346480003004
1 FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
340370003061
DAN JOHNSON
340370002061
1 TAD P JOHNSON
340370001061
!ROBERT S & LUANA THOMPSON
346480002003
!KURT WALTER HANSEN
340370001060
1 HALIM S & NAWAL A ZERKA
346480002004
1FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
346480001003
KURT WALTER HANSEN
346480014003
! ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY
340380013014
iJOHN F RYAN LIVING TRUST
340370001062
I-FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
342485001001
'JOHN F & MARGIE M RYAN
340370002062
FLUEGEL ELEVATOR INC
342485002001
!JOHN F & MARGIE MRYAN
UNIDENTIFIED
I DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH OF
ITAXPIN 34- 03700 - 020 -62
UNIDENTIFIED
iGAP PARCEL SOUTH OF
1TAXPIN 34- 03700 - 051-61
346465120302
!PATRICIA R RATZLAFF
346465130502
'KEVIN J & MARY K ERVASTI
346465120402
!EDWARD B TSTE MCMENOMY
346465130602
!MILTON T BRUFLODT
346465110002
!HARRIET H TSTE BARFKNECHT
346465110102
!ROBERT L ERICKSON JR
346465110202
!DORIS J LOFTUS
346465120502
!GERTRUDE A MEYER
346465110302
-JOANNE A VAREY
346465120602
!WALTER H JR & ETHEL KRIESEL
346465110402
!VICKI R LOEDING
346465130002
'ELIZABETH A MCDONOUGH
346465110502
!WAYNE H & HELEN R LUCKING
346465130102
-.GLORIA L EDWARDS
346465110602
!PHYLLIS M BRUNELLE
346465130202
1 KRISTINA BULLINGER
346465120002
!RONALD R & JOAN A GOETTSCH
346465130302
iFRANCIS A & MARY J LIPINSKI
346465120102
1 H KENNETH & VIRGINIA STRESS
346465130402
iEVERETT L & PHYLLIS SWANSON
346465120202
1 MARJEAN L TREBIL
APPENDIX
C -2
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT
D -1
4IM004
Page 1 of 2
` 1 E.HLER S
.ee :e
Brockway /Downtown Redevelopment District
Rosemount Port Authority
District
Redwalopment
District 6
Sfate-wkle
Property
Tax Rate
inflation Rate - Every _ Years
0.0000%
Total
Market Value
Taxes Per
Total
Market
Class
New
Use -
. FUUnits
Sq. FEJUntfs
Sq. FUUnits
Texas
Value
Rafe
Tax Capacity
Condo
fig
180,000.00
2,337.56
140,260
10,800,000
1.00%
108,OOD
Apartment
240
100,000.00
1,583.38
380,010
24,000,000
1.25%
300,000
Row Townhomes
2DO
220,000.00
2,857.14
571,428
44,000,000
1.00%
440,000
We Townhomes
102
190,000.00
2,467.53
251,688
19,380,000
1.00%
193,800
Gable Townhomes
112
185,000.00
2,402.60
269;091
20,720,000
. 207,200
207,200
One Level Townhomes
- 6o
210,000.00
- 2,72727
163,636
12,600,000
1.00 -A
126,000
Single Family
50
295,000.00
3,831.17
191,558
14,750,000
1.00%
147,500
Larger Single Family
50
425,000.00
5,519.48
275,974
21,250,000
1.00%
212,5W
Retail
60,000
135.0
5.00
299,705 -
8,100,000
2.00%
162,000
Office
80,000
135.00
5.00
399,607
10,800,000
2.00%
216,000
0
0
34,000
275,974
Re11a0
162,000
105,297
56,703
TOTAL
Note:
871
housing units
119,902
2,942,967
166,400,000
12,960
2,113,000
` 1 E.HLER S
.ee :e
Brockway /Downtown Redevelopment District
Rosemount Port Authority
District
Redwalopment
District 6
Sfate-wkle
Property
Tax Rate
inflation Rate - Every _ Years
0.0000%
PayA -Go Interest Rate:
6.0000%
Note Issued Date (Present Value Date):
01-Aug-04
Local Tax Rate - Maximum
113.6700% Pay 2004
Fiscal Disparities Election (A - outside or B - Inside)
A
Year District was certified
Pay 2004
Assumes First Tax Increment For District
2006
Year District was Modified
.17,290
Development located in modified area
Yes
- Assumes Fast Tax Increment For Dw
2006
Years of Tax Increment
26
Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment
2031
Fiscal Disparities Ratio
35.0017% Pay 2OD4
Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate
137.1070% Pay 20D4
Local Tax Rate - Current
113.6700% Pay 2004
State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)
56.0000'% Pay 2004 Estimate
Market Value Tax Rate (used for total taxes)
0.1600% Pay 2004 Estimate
Commercial bukart ial Class Rate
1.5% -2.0% Pay 2003
First 150,000
1.50%
Over 150,000
2.00%
Rental Class Rate -
125% Pay 2004
Residental Class f - Under $500,000
1.00%
_ Over $500,000
1.25%
Assumes bu0dout suer five years 12004 to 2008)
Use
Total
Tax
Cap:i
Local
T
Ca az
Fiscal
Disparities
Tax Ca
Local
Tax
Rate
Fiscal
Disparities
Tax Rate
Sfate-wkle
Property
Tax Rate
Local
Texas
Fiscal
Disparities
Texas
State -wide
Property
Taxes
Market
Value
Taxes
Total
Taxes
Condo
108,000
108,000
0
1.13870
122,990
0
0
.17,290
140,260
Apartment
300,000
300,000
0
1.13870
341,610
0
0
38,400
380,010
R ow Townhomas
440,000
440,00
0
1.13870
501,029
0
0
70,400"
571,428
Ville Townhomes
193,800
193,800
0
1.13870
22'680
0
0
31,008
251,688
Gable Townhomes
207,200
. 207,200
0
1.13870
235,939
0
0
33,152
269,081
One Level Toembomes
126,000
126,00
0
1.13870
143,476
0
0 -
20,160
36
Single Single Family
147,500
147,500
0
1.13870
167,966
0
0
23,600
191,658
Larger Single Family
212,500
212,500 -
0
1.13870
241,974
0
0
34,000
275,974
Re11a0
162,000
105,297
56,703
1.13870
1.37107
0.55000
119,902
77,743
88,100
12,960
299,705
Office
216,00
140,396
75,604
1.13870
1.37107
0.55000
159,869
103,658
118,800
17 ,280
399,607
TOTAL
2,113,000
1,980,694
132,906
1.13870
2,255,416
181,401
207,900 0
298,2.00
2,942,857
Note:
1. Residential do not pay State-wide pmpeny tax or Fiscal Disparities.
2. Residential tax estimates arc before market value homestead credit is subtracted.
Prepared by Ehlers
91 run 3.17.04
wile mu IB
. M43 A9 pond -d
149 i94'BSL :0s41 aaal M W.—I -1 M-46N —0 ei -4-A
98i 100 LL amuwaul xsl La anl-A ING
MFON — UL WO'0019Bt 'h3' anitA Ia*tW maN
OOZ'EES' /L V3 - anlaA 1-WM Wad
--n AUadoul amen wWm to sexry f4 adold apps aMI. aa,gdea Lou soap 1LL '9
•paanadn ag louuea save xea uo uollegul 'f
- an1eA WWII uo wilullul put 01npa4os u0110ngsuoa 1 -p. sstl0'salea xua •anitA WM+tw uodn Bwpaadap k.A IOM 3uawausuL to lunowtl •E
'90oZ.W p!ad sl luaw -4 1sM put SOOZ in passasse w paIDnlasuoo ul luauu'olaAep sawnsstl •Z
7wlsrp to "al »" asuanul Acid put lenve ZOOL Ad 1 ;M4 as& uodn pasaq sl lumA d lotlpntl alms - G
:S310N
A11MON1(ltl 1 1N1)O W3SOM
Z 1000ftd. .S y ln
f00ZIM
BLL LBZ 6
f90'66Z Z
990 CB
6BL f110 ZL
0
Z9BLLLLf
09990£'9
ZO9&BL
f0£'9LZ'CS
sIM-1
ME -
LOzO
0'9Z.
BL9'L69OZ
ZBO'986
999'601
696E
909'660't
0
Sff''£6't
0o0'4'L'z
.599'181
'tot
&0 9'9Z
ME
10
Tee
OSS'LBVOZ
Z90'986
(S9s'600
(696'£)
909'860'9
0
SEE LC6't
OOO'EL1'z
999'191
LCOZ
Lo 0'9Z
ttoZ
IOZo
0* SE
OOVL6Z'OZ
ZOO'996
(994'600
(696'C)
909'660'1
0
SEt'Lf6't
0o0'Ett'Z
S99'tot
OEM
LOBO 9W
OCOZ
10
5'fZ
SS9'L6O'OZ
Z90'986
(599'601)
(696'E)
9OW660'L
0
SCVIC6'L
000'f ICZ
599'toI
ME
LO 0'fZ
ME
wzo
0
SE9'BL9'Bt
Z9o'986
(S9S'601)
(696'£)
909'660'1
0
SC£'tE6'&
oU 0'EICZ
99'
5tBl
ME
10 S'CZ
OEM
10
_ S'tz
fSf't99'61
Z90'996
(S9S'600
(BS6'£)
9OW66WL
0
9EVtE6'L
O6o't&Cz
999'91
OEM
WED O'tZ
ME
t0
Wee
ZZ9'9EV6'
Z90'996
(S9S'600
(BSB'C)
909'660'£
0 -
SCVICW'
000'£11$
599'£8£
BZoZ
10 TEE
SZOZ
Lo
S'zz
Lto toz'81
Z90'906
(995'601)
(896'C)
909'660'1
0
gee Its'L
o00'tI L'Z
S99'L81
OEM
Wes O'ZZ
ME
Lo .
0'zZ
LIZ '996'9,I
Z80'996
(999'600
(898'£)
909'660't
0
SEE Its!I
000'CLCZ
999'191.
Me
t090 9
ME
LOBO
Ole
lZf'OZL'96
Z90'996
(999'601)
(856'£1
909'660'1
0
SCt'LC6't
000'CLL'Z
S99'tBt -
ME
Lo Ole
LZOZ
LO
Ole
O9VL9VB1
Z90'906
(999'801)
(BS6'£)
909'660'1
0
SEt'L£61
000'Ett'Z
Soviet
9zoz
LO TOE
ME
10
S'OZ
66f'9ovel
Z90'996
(99S'60 I)
(696'£1
909'860'1
0
9CE'LC6'&
OOO'CLfz
S99'L8t
9ZOZ
lo•ZO O'OZ
ME
Lo
0'Oz
916'LC6'LL
Z80'996
(999'60 t)
(696'£)
909'660'1
0
SCVKV6
000'Elt'Z
S99'9B1
9ZOZ
LOBO 9'61
ME
1090
9'69
ODE 199`L1
Z80'986
(999'601)
(696'£)
909'660'L
0
9CC'L£6'L
000'C117
99WLBt.
SZOZ
LO 0'61
SZOZ
LOzo
0'B'
ZK 9L£'Lt
ZSO'9B8
(995'601)
(999'£1
909'660'L
0
9CCUWL
000'ELL'Z
999'191
ME
10 S'BL
fZOZ
1090
S'BI
Let ZOO I '
Z610
(S95'601)
(696'£1
909'660'1
0
_
ScE:U6'1
000'E&L'z
999'181
Roo
Lo20 O'9L
ME
LO-ZO
0'91
999'081'91
Z80'996
(999'601)
(696't)
909'660'1
0
get LCB'L
oo0'CL L'z
599'LBL
ME
WOO SYL
ME
1090
9'Lt
LOZ'69V9L
Z80'996
(995'601)
(656'£1
909'660'1
0
911''161
o0o'ClL'Z
999'191
£ZOZ
t0 OYl
tza
LO
0'Ll
8099ft'91
Z90'986
(999'601)
(BSB'E)
909'660'1
0
S8t'LC6't
000't4l'Z
Sw ist
ZZOZ
LO 9'9t
ME
LOBO
9'9t
L8''9w'9L
Z80'986
(99S'600
(696'6)
909'660'1.
0
SEC'LC6'L
00o'Cll'Z
299't8L
ZZOZ
Lo 0'9L
ZZOZ
lo
0'91
196'LLV9I
ZBO'986
(899'60 L)
(696'f) -
909'660'1.
0
S£E't£8't
000'ELt'Z
999'M
ME
LO S'SL
LZOZ
10
9'91
%S'LZL'91
ZOO'986
(99S'60 L)
(6S6'C)
909'660'1
0
SC1'Lf6'1
000'EICZ
"SUL
ME
W70 O'SL
IZOZ
l0
0'S'
699'99L'ft
Z90'996
(994'600
(BS6'£)
909'660'1
0
get ' Les 1
000'£1 L$
999
OEM
WOO S'fl
OEM
10
S'fL
06['46£'8
Z80'996
(999 Got)
(996'0
909'660'1
0
' 1
SEE'LEW
OOO'11l'Z
L L:
999'wl
OEM
to 0'fL
OZOZ
LOZO
0'41
899'104'
£80'986
(SBS'600
(656'£)
909'880'1
0
SEf'tf6'l
OOO'flt'Z
999'191
BLOZ
LOBO S'Cl
B Ioz
1090
S'Cl
1.CVLw'EL
ZBO'996
(S9S'600
(BSB'C)
909'880'0
0
Scc'l16't
000'Ell'Z
999'181
6LOZ
t0 O'EL
B LOZ
LO
0'Ct
9OVM'CL
ZBO'996
(599'600
(698'f)
909'660'1
0
9CCUWt
000'ELL'Z
599'181
BLOZ
LOBO S'Zt
ME
10
S'Zl
"I'Z61'ZL
Z80'996
(599'60)
(696'E)
909'660'1
0
set'LeWl
000'£Lt'Z -
S99'lat
BIOZ.
LO O'Zt
ME
lO
ov
tSn 9C'Zl
ego go
(SOS'80 t)
(BS6'£)
909'880'1.
0
S££'L£8't
000'f ll'z
999'181
1102.
LOBO Olt
ME
10-90
S'tL
LZB2t6'it
Z9o'996
(999'801)
(696'£1
909'660'1
0
SEC'lt8'&
000'Ett'Z
59v
LIOz
lO-zO. 0'11
ME
Lo-ZO
O'LL
98S'09Vt1
Z90'9B6
(S9S'600
(696'9)
9o9'B60'1
0
SC£'1C6'&
000't Wz
999'LBt
ME
LOBO S'OL
910E
1090
S'OL
9ZW686'Ot
Z90'996
(99S'600
(656'£)
909'660'1
0
9EC'LC6'L
000'f ICE
999'LOL
ME
lOZO O'OL
ME
LOzo
0'01
Of9'fOS'OL
Z90'996
(999'600
(698'£)
909'660'1
0
S U.6't
o00'ml
999'M
Me
1090 S'6
ME
10-90
S'8
106400'01
Z90'986
(999'600
(696't)
909'860'1
0
9CE'LE61
000'CL''Z
999'm
ME
LOzo 0'6
SLOE
&OZO
0'6
ZLZb8V6
ZSV996
(599'601)
(696V
909'660'1
0
SEE KWI
000'£11'9
999'191
WE
10.90 S'9
KOZ
10-80
9 '9
f0E'096'9
Z90'986
(999'600
(6SWE)
909'660'1
0
SCE'lt8'l
000'9LL'Z
S99'LBL
Me
LO-Zo 0'8
ME
LO-ZO
0'9
Kz"It
MOM
(594'600
.(696'£)
9OV66o'L
0
SEE' its' L
000'Clt'z
S99'LBt
ME
LO-90 Tt
ME
LOBO
9'L
S9BUV4
Z80'996
(99S'60 it
(696'£)
909'6601
0
Set' Let I
OOO'£tl'Z
599'18&
ME
l0-ZO 0'L
f E
LO-ZO
0'L
999'ZLZ'L
280'986
(599'601)
(696'£)
909'660't
0
S£E't£6'1
000'£tl'Z
999'191
ME
to-8o 9'9
ZLOZ
t0 -s0
S'9
OLO'9L9'9
Z80'926
(999'600
(698't)
909'680'1
0
9CCUS1
Oo0'Ett'Z
999M
ME
WED 0'9
ZLOZ
to-Zo
0'9
915'190'9
Z8o'996
(999'601)
(856'1)
9OV660'1
0
9ECU61
000'a VE
_ 99WLOL
£LEE
to-so S'S
L LOZ
1090
S'S
Lf9'8Z4'S
290'996
(999'604)
(696'£1
909'660'1
0
SCVICW'
000'£1'$
S99' Lot
IWE
Lo-z0 0'S
LLOz
LO-ZO
0'S
OCL'9L1'f
Z90'996
(994'601)
(696'r.)
909'660'1
0
Ste' Les I
000'111'2
Soviet
ME
to-go S'f
ME
LO-90
9
99Z so L'f
Z90'996
(999'601)
(696'£)
909'660'[
0
91t'LEB'L
000'ELL'Z
999'191
OLOZ
t0-ZO 0'f
0toZ
LO
O'f
8f9'CN'E
99VCZ6
(O&WZ01)
(LOVE)
COB'6Z0'1
0
9tL'BOWL
OOV066'1
599'LB4
6002
WOO S'E
BOOZ
LOBO
5'C
ZU 91L 'Z
9BVfZ6
(Ot9'z00
(LOL'C)
E0@'6Z0'L
0
SECBOB'L
OOVO66'1
S99'LBt
600E
Lo-ZO OT
BOOZ
10-70
0'C
KV690'Z
Z99'9S9
(Z96'ZL)
(9C9'z)
l9t'ZCL
0
SCL'98Z't
009Y9f'1
999191
SOOZ
WOO 9'Z.
900E
1080
9
no'959'L
Z99999
(Z96
(9C9'Z)
t9Z'Z£1
0
SC L'9BZ'L
009'L9VI
99viol
800E
LO-ZO O'Z.
900E
10 -z0
0'Z
6LV4CO't
see 69C
(91£'64)
(99g I)
6tVVCf
0
9ES'E91
OoZ'S/6
S9VIN
LOW
LOBO 91
LOW
to-so
9 'L
9OVOZL
9£8'69£
(Ste . CV)
(See' I)
6&L'fft
0
SE5'E91
OOZ'846.
S99'wl
Lose
LOZO 0'L
LOOZ
10-20
0'1
IM16E
8ZL'SZE
(v WOE)
(fob)
9fo'LSZ
0
SE6'0tf
0o9'zz9
S99'wl
9002
Lo90 S'0
9002
'090
9 '0
fZ0'OR
OzV9ZZ
(4t0'Sz)
(406)
9f0'&6Z
0
9£6'044
CLOVEN
599'191
- 90OZ
LOZo 0'O
9002
LOZO
0'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S99''9C
599'191
5002
to 0'0
4002.
10.90
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
998'191
999'191
SOOE
10 00
9We
1OZ0
0'0
O
0
0
0
'0
0
599'L9L
999'191
WE
to 0'0
ME
l --
0 .0
S99'L9t
999'wt
fooz
LO Vo
'IA
- LOW
'nA
SMtA
Luawalaul
%00'OL
%96'0
luwwaui
OPW3
e9
AM=dvo
a0
'+A
'law 'CIA
ONION.OLE, d
luasaad
xtl WN
R
IoOpntl
xtl ssaO
pagsawoll
xel
Ml
xel
ONINNIG38 O0Itl3d
31tl01N3WAtld
IsMuv4u" lenuuy -.wag
•upupv
GIVIS
Rnuuvluulg
AN
pwMd.3
U-9-d
aaeg
A11MON1(ltl 1 1N1)O W3SOM
Z 1000ftd. .S y ln
f00ZIM
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
APPENDIX E-1
o w l W , 01FIft Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21)
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
• The Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) is used to report each business subsidy and financial assistance
agreement signed from August 1. 1999 through December 31, 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported
in a MBAF per Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 to § 116J.995.
• The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business
subsidy agreement since January 1, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government
agencies authorized to provide business subsidies.
• If a local or state government agency that is required to report has not done so by April 1, DEED will mail a
warning. If it fails to report by June 1, it may not award any business subsidies until a report has been filed.
• Questions? Call (651) 296 -0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 4.
Section l Grantor Information
1. Name of grantor (funding entity)
2. Name of person completing this form
3. Street address
4. City
5. ZIP code
6. County
7. Phone number
8. Fax number
9. E -mail address
10. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2.
Name/Title Phone number Street address City ZIP code
11. Classification of grantor (Mark one._Ifgrantor is entity
12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and
created by gov't agency, please indicate affiliation. For
adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in
example, a city EDA would check "City government.')
compliance with Minn. Stat. § 116J.994? (Mark one)
• City government
Yes, in 2004 (attach criteria)
• Yes, in 2004 but have not yet adopted criteria
• County government
Yes, prior to 2004 .
• -Regional government
If Yes:
Hearing Date: Year Criteria Submitted.
• -State government
• No
• -Other (Please specify.)
• -Other (Please attach explanation.)
13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, 1999
through December 31, 2003 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a previous filed MBAF? (Mark one)
• Yes {Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and No ( Stop here. go to section 5 on page 4.)
reported in a previously filed MBAFper Minn. Slat. §116J.993 and §116J.994.)
aection Z Recipient info rmation
14. Name of business or organization
receiving subsidy or financial assistance
15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance
will be used
Street address City State ZIP code
16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.)
• Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.)
• No
Name of parent corporation Street address City State ZIP code
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (I/14/04)
Page 1 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
17. Industry of recipient's facility (Mark one.):
• •Manufacturing • -Services • finance, Insurance, Real Estate
• Retail. Trade • -Wholesale Trade -Construction • -Other (please specify)
18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one)
• Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.)
• No (Go to Question 19)
City /State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address
19. Would the recipient have remained in previous location or relocated elsewhere if not awarded this business subsidy or
financial assistance? (Mark one.)
• Remained at previous location Relocated to different Minnesota location • *Relocated outside Minnesota
Section 3 Agreement Information
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04)
20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or financial
21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement
assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24
date, indicate any dates the agreement was amended.)
and 25.)
22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient will benefit from the business subsidy or financial assistance. For example,
indicate the date improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the property,
whichever is earlier.)
23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to
be reported? (Mark one.)
• •business subsidy • -financial assistance -
24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please
25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financial
indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type.
assistance, please indicate the type(s).
• not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance
• not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy
• •loan (only principal) $
• -assistance for property polluted $
• grant (i.e., forgivable loan) $
by contaminants
• tax abatement $
• -assistance for renovating building $
• TIF or other tax reduction or deferral $
stock or bringing it up to code, and
• guarantee of payment $
assistance provided for designated
• -contribution of property or infrastructure $
historic preservation districts, when
• preferential use of governmental facilities $
50% or less of total cost
• -land contribution $
• -assistance for pollution control or $
• -other (Specify subsidy type) $
abatement
• -assistance for a TIF soils condition district $
26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please
27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or
indicate the type of TIF district? (Mark one.)
financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one)
• not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF
Yes (Specify each grantor and the value of their
assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary.)
• -redevelopment
• -renewal and renovation
• No
• soils condition
• -economic development
Grantor(s) and value of the agreement(s):
• -mined underground space
• -hazardous substance subdistrict
Grantor Value ($)
Grantor Value ($)
Page 2 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
Cectinn 4 Gnalc and Pnhlic Rrrnnae irientifierl in the Agreement
28. Minn. Stat. § 1161994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which
of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Mark all that apply.)
• Enhancing economic diversity Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose)
• -Creating high- quality job growth • -Other (please specify)
• Job retention
• -Stabilizing the community
29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals
at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.)
Goals Target attainment
All goals
established? dates (month & year)
attained?
A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years Yes No
• -Yes No
B) Other job- creation and/or retention goals • -Yes No
• -Yes No
C) Other wage goals • -Yes No
Yes No
D) Other goals other than wage and job goals Yes No
Yes No
(Please attach descriptions ofgoals and progress toward
attainment if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.)
30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and /or retention goals stated in the
agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. ( Only indicate job
creation goals in full -time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full- and part -time positions.)
Full -time Part -time/ FTE (2111 if goals not
Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) Job Retention
Hourly Value of
(excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation
Health Insurance
no hourly %age -level goal
$
less than $7.00
s
$7.00 to $8.99
s
$9.00 to $10.99
s
$11.00 to $12.99
s
$13.00 to $14.99
s
$15.00 and higher
s
31. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit
date and the actual hourly value of any employer - provided health insurance for those jobs. ( Only indicate
job creation in
full -time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part -time positions)
Full -time Part -time/ FTE (qK11 if unable to
Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. separate FT/PT) Job Retention
Hourly Value of
(excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation
Health Insurance
less than $7.00
a
$7.00 to $8.99
s
$9.00 to $10.99
s
$11.00 to $12.99
$
$13.00 to $14.99
s
$15.00 and higher
$
32. Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Questions 29, 30 and 31) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in
the agreement?
(Mark one.)
• -Yes • No
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14/04)
Page 3 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
Section 5 Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations
(Do not complete this section ifyou completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED..
33. During the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, did your organization have any recipients who failed to
report as required by Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 and § 116J.994? (Mark one)
• Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value ofsubsidy or financial assistance awarded to that
recipient. Attach additional pages ifnecessary.)
• No
Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 and 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance
34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an
agreement signed on or after August 1, 1999, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.)
• -Yes (Complete the remainder of this section) No (Stop here and submit form to DEED )
35. - 39. Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that
were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additional pages if necessary.)
35. Information on recipient and agreement:
Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance Initial value of
subsidy or assistance
Street address of recipient City/ZIP code of recipient Outstanding value of
subsidy or assistance
36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply):
• -recipient ceased operation • -recipient relocated to a different community
• recipient was unable to fill vacant positions • -other (Specify reason)
37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one)
• Yes • No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance. • No, recipient has not begun to repay the assistance.
38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark one.)
-Yes No
39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy:
Return your completed MBAF(s) by April 1, 2004 to:
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development- AEO
500 Metro Square, 121 East r Place
St. Paul, MN 55101 -2146
Or fax to: (651) 215 -3841
Minnesota Business Assistance Form (1/14104) Page 4 of 4 Dept. of Employment & Economic Development
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS -FOR THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX F_1
Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment
Proposed Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment
TIF District
Rosemount, MN
November 21, 2003
(Revised April 5, 2004)
Prepared by:
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH)
Butler Square Building, Suite 710C
100 North 6` Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
SEH No. A- ROSEM0302.00
City of Rosemount
Proposed Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment TIF District
November 21, 2003 (Revised April 5, 2004)
PURPOSE
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) was hired by the City of Rosemount Port
Authority, Minnesota, to survey and evaluate the properties within the proposed
Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment Project. The proposed district is generally
comprised of two non - contiguous project areas. Project area 1 is located east of Robert
Trail S. between 132 Street and Connemara Trail. Project area 2 is generally located on
both sides of Robert Trail S. between 145 Street and Lower 147 Street, including five
properties north of 145 and six properties south of Lower 147 The purpose of our
work was to independently ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment
eligibility, as required under Minnesota Statute, could be met.
The findings and conclusions drawn herein are solely for the purpose of tax increment
eligibility and are not intended to be used outside the scope of this assessment.
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed district consists of 73 parcels comprised of the following types of
improvements: 31 commercial structures on 38 parcels, 13 single or multi- family
structures, and 14 vacant parcels with only parking or streets improvements and 8 vacant
parcels with no improvements. Within the district are also several accessory structures —
for the purposes of this assessment, these are considered `outbuildings' and are not
included in the Condition of Buildings Test.
EVALUATIONS
Interior inspections were completed for all buildings except 11. An exterior inspection
was completed for all buildings except 1.
FINDINGS
Coverage Test —
Project Area # 1: 1 of the 5 properties met the coverage test resulting in a total of
44 % area coverage. This does not exceed the 70% area coverage requirement.
We understand that four of the subject properties will be combined into a single
property. If combined as proposed, Project Area #1 - Proposed will result in a
total of 94% area coverage. This will exceed the 70% area coverage requirement.
Project Area #2: 61 of the 68 properties met the coverage test resulting in a total
of 94% area coverage. , This exceeds the 70 % area coverage requirement.
Total Consolidated Project Area: The two areas combined, as proposed, result in a
total of 94% area coverage. This exceeds the 70 % area coverage requirement.
2
Condition of Buildings Test —
Project Area #1: 66% of the buildings — 2 of the 3 buildings — were found to be
"structurally substandard ". This exceeds the Condition of Buildings Test
whereby over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found
"structurally substandard."
Project Area 42: 70 % of the buildings — 29 of the 41 buildings — were found to be
"structurally substandard ". This exceeds the Condition of Buildings Test
whereby over 50 % of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found
"structurally substandard."
Total Consolidated Project Area: The two areas combined result in a total of 70%
of the buildings — 31 of the 44 buildings - were found to be "structurally
substandard ". This exceeds the Condition of Buildings Test whereby over 50% of
buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard."
CONCLUSION
Our surveying and evaluating of the properties within this proposed Redevelopment
District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eligible under
the statutory criteria and formulas for Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
(State Statute 469.174 Subd. 10).
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
- Site Occupied/Building Substandard Determination table
TIF Assessment maps: Buildings Under Study, Occupied Surfaces, Percent
Occupied (Project Area #1, Project Area #2)
- Report on Building Condition (one per building, excluding parcel 74)
- Individual Building Summary Report (one per building, excluding parcel 74)
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following
requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (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; and 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 building findings and reasons why an
interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, clause (1)." Refer to attached Exhibit A — Documentation of
Contacts/Evaluations for documentation for these purposes. One building (parcel 74) is
included in the project area but was not evaluated for the purposes of the Condition of
Buildings Test. For this reason, this building is not included in Exhibit A documentation
and is considered to be not substandard.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS
The City of Rosemount sent letters to all property owners located in the district
requesting that an inspection and evaluation be made of their property. SEH conducted
assessments between August 5 and August 22, 2003, including two assessments on
October 13, 2003 and three assessments on December 30, 2003.
_Requests for evaluation appointments were made with the building owner or building
tenants. An interior inspection and evaluation was completed if consented to by the
owner. An exterior inspection and evaluation was made where the owner refused interior
access to their property. In all cases, an exterior evaluation was completed.
For all subject buildings, the City of Rosemount provided copies of all available building
permits on record for review by SEH. These permits provide a basic description of type
of work completed for each permit (Building, Electrical, or Plumbing, scope of work)
and, in some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Some buildings had no
permit records. Additional building data was collected from public taxpayer information
available from Dakota County (building area, year built, etc.). Building data from these
public records was combined with and reviewed against information gathered in the field.
4
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests
for tax increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, required under the following
Minnesota Statutes, could be met.
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1) requires two tests for
occupied parcels:
1. Coverage Test — "parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar
structures ..."
Note: The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (e) which states: "For.
purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15% of the area of the
parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similar structures."
2. Condition of Buildings Test - " .. and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not
including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance;
The term `structurally substandard', as used in the preceding paragraph, is defined by
a two -step test:
Conditions Test: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), 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."
Code Test: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) also provides that
a building may not be considered structurally substandard if it: ". . . is in
compliance with 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.
Based on the above requirements, the substandard determination of a particular
building is a two -step process; therefore, the findings of each step are independent of
each other and both steps must be satisfied in order for a building to be found
structurally substandard. It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally
substandard solely because the Code Test is satisfied. It is theoretically possible for a
5
building to require extensive renovation in order to meet current building codes but
still not meet the main test of the Conditions Test.
Furthermore, deficiencies included in the Conditions Test may or may not include
specific code deficiencies as listed in the Code Test. In many cases, specific building
code deficiencies may well contribute to the data which supports satisfying the
Conditions Test; conversely, it is certainly possible that identified hazards or other
deficiencies which could be included in the Conditions Test do not necessarily
constitute current building code deficiencies. By definition, the nature of the two
steps is slightly different. The Conditions Test is more subjective, whereas the Code
Test is an objective test. Conditions Test deficiencies are less technical and not
necessarily measurable to the same extent of the code deficiencies in the Code Test.
To the end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the
satisfaction of the less technical Conditions Test, the following code requirements are
defined in terms that go beyond the technical requirements of the code and
demonstrate their relevance in terms of ... deficiencies in essential utilities and
facilities, light and ventilation, etc..."
International Building g ode (IBC: The purpose of the IBC is to provide
minimum standards to safeguard public health, safety and general welfare through
structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light
and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and
other hazards attributed to the built environment (IBC 101.3). A deficiency in the
building code (insufficient number of building exits, insufficient door landing
area, etc.) adversely affects one or more of the above standards to safeguard
`public health ...and safety to life'; therefore, a deficiency in the building code is
considered a deficiency in one or more "essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, etc.".
Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements
for accessibility all building occupancies. The Minnesota Accessibility Code
closely follows the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG), which sets the guidelines for accessibility to places of public
accommodations and commercial facilities as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a federal anti - discrimination statute
designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities
from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to persons without
disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essentially, a deficiency in the accessibility code
(lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of clearance at a toilet fixture,
etc.) results in a discrimination against disabled individuals; therefore, a
deficiency in the accessibility code is considered a deficiency in "essential
utilities and facilities
Minnesota Food Code, Chapter 4626: This chapter is enforced by the Minnesota
Department of Health and is similar to the IBC in that it provides minimum
standards to safeguard public health in areas of public /commercial food
6
preparation. A deficiency in the food code (lack of non - absorbent wall or ceiling
finishes, lack of hand sink, etc.) causes a condition for potential contamination of
food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities ".
National Electric Code (NEC): The purpose of the NEC is the practical
safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of
electricity. The NEC contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety
(NEC 90 -1 (a) and (b)). A deficiency in the electric code (insufficient electrical
service capacity, improper wiring, etc.) causes a hazard from the use of
electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities ".
International Mechanical Code (IMC): The purpose of the IMC is to provide
minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare
by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of
materials, location, operation, and maintenance or use of mechanical systems
(IMC 101.3). The IMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation,
exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number
of complete clean air exchanges for a building based on its occupancy type and
occupant load. A deficiency in the mechanical code adversely affects the `health .
and public welfare' of a building's occupants; therefore, a deficiency in the
mechanical code is considered a deficiency in "light and ventilation ".
Note: The above list represents some of the more common potential code
deficiencies considered in the assessment of the buildings in the proposed district.
This list does not necessarily include every factor included in the data used to
satisfy Step 1 for a particular building. Refer to individual building reports for
specific findings.
Finally, the tax increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building
is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the Code Test 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
structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on -site property
appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar
reliable evidence."
Noncontiguous Areas
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (f) states that "for districts
consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district" both individually and collectively under the two tests above.
7
MEASUREMENTS AGAINST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS
Coverage Test
SEH utilized a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) system database, available
through Dakota County, to obtain individual parcel information. The GIS system
contains graphic information (parcel shapes) and numerical data based on county tax
records. This information was used by SEH for the purposes of this assessment.
The total square foot area of each property parcel was obtained from county records
(GIS) and general site verification.
The total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recent
aerial photography (Spring, 2000). The total square footage of site improvements was
then digitally measured and confirmed by general site verification.
The total percentage of coverage of each property parcel was computed to determine if
the 15% requirement was met. Refer to attached maps: Occupied Surfaces map and
Percent Occupied map.
For each noncontiguous area, the total area of all qualifying property parcels was
compared to the total area of all parcels to determine if the 70% requirement was met.
This procedure was again calculated for the total project area (all parcels combined) to
determine if the 70% requirement was met. The area occupied by public rights -of -way
has not been considered in the coverage test calculations. All of the public rights -of -way
are improved. If all of the public rights -of -way were treated as a parcel for the purpose of
coverage test calculations, the 70% requirement of the coverage test would still be met.
Condition of Building Test
Replacement Cost — the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on
site:
R. S. Means Square Foot Costs (2003) was used as the industry standard for base
cost calculations. R. S. Means is a nationally published reference tool for
construction cost data. The book is updated yearly and establishes a "national
average" for materials and labor prices for all types of building construction. The
base costs derived from R. S. Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable,
against our professional judgment and experience.
A base cost was calculated by first establishing building type, building
construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to
obtain the appropriate Means cost per square foot. This cost was multiplied times
the building square footage to obtain the total replacement cost for an individual
building. Additionally, to account for regional/local pricing, a cost factor was
added to the total cost according to R.S. Means tables. Using R. S. Means,
consideration is made for building occupancy, building size, and construction
type; therefore, the cost per square foot used to construct a new structure will vary
accordingly.
8
Building Deficiencies: Conditions Test (Condition Deficiencies determining the
combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance.
On -Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from city records and making interior and /or exterior
evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. Deficiencies in
structural elements, essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire
protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or
similar factors, were noted by the evaluator. Condition Deficiencies may or may
not include Code Deficiencies as defined below. Energy code compliance was
not considered for the purposes of determining Condition Deficiencies.
Deficiencies were combined and summarized for each building in order to
determine their total significance.
Building Deficiencies: Code Test (Code Deficiencies) — determining technical conditions
that are not in compliance with current building code applicable to new buildings and the
cost to correct the deficiencies:
On -Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from city records and making interior and /or exterior
evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. On -site evaluations
were completed using a standard checklist format. The standard checklist was
derived from several standard building code plan review checklists and was
intended to address the most common, easily identifiable code deficiencies.
Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and Building Code Officials were
also consulted in the development of the checklist.
Deficiencies were generally grouped into the following categories (category
names are followed by its applicable building code):
• Building accessibility — Minnesota Accessibility Code
Building egress, building construction — International Building Code
• Fire protection systems — International Building Code
• Food service — Minnesota Food Code
• HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) — International
Mechanical Code
• Electrical systems — National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy
Code
• Energy code compliance - Minnesota Energy Code
For the purposes of determining the Code Test (Code Deficiencies), Energy code
compliance is relevant because its criteria affect the design of integral parts of a
majority of a building's systems. The intent of these criteria is to provide a means
for assuring building durability, and permitting energy efficient operation
(7676.0100). The energy code addresses general building construction (all forms
E
of energy transmission in an exterior building envelope — walls, roofs, doors and
windows, etc.) and energy usage by lighting and mechanical systems. A
deficiency in the energy code (inadequate insulation, non - insulated window
systems, improper air infiltration protection, etc.) reduces energy efficient
operation and adversely affects building system durability and therefore applies to
the Code Test.
Office evaluations — Following the on -site evaluation, each building was then
reviewed, based on on -site data, age of construction, building usage and
occupancy, square footage, and known improvements (from building permit data),
and an assessment was made regarding compliance with current mechanical,
electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also completed regarding
the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways, for example),
sprinkler systems, or elevators.
Deficiency Cost — Costs to correct identified deficiencies were determined by
using R. S. Means Cost Data and our professional judgment and experience. In
general, where several items of varying quality were available for selection to
correct a deficiency, an item of average cost was used, as appropriate for typical
commercial or residential applications. Actual construction costs are affected by
many factors (bidding climate, size of project, etc.). Due to the nature of this
assessment, we were only able to generalize the scope of work for each
correction; that is to say that detailed plans, quantities, and qualities of materials
were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to determine a
preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that is known. This
process was similar to our typical approach for a cost projection that may be given
to an owner during a schematic design stage of a project.
Costs to correct deficiencies wero computed for each building and compared to
the building replacement cost to determine if the 15% requirement was met.
For each noncontiguous area, the total number of buildings determined to be "structurally
substandard" by satisfying both the Conditions Test and the Code Test in this manner was
compared to the total number of buildings in the proposed district to determine if the 50 %
requirement was meta This procedure was again calculated for the total project area (all
parcels combined) to determine if the 50% requirement was meta
Reports on Building Conditions and Individual Building Summary Reports are available
for review at the offices of SEH and the City of Rosemount.
Technical Conditions Resources — the following list represents the current building codes
applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency review:
2003 Minnesota State Building Code
2000 International Building Code
2000 International Housing Code
MN 1341 — Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341 (1999)
10
2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676
1999 National Electric Code _
2000 International Mechanical Code
PROJECT TEAM:
Leon A. Grothe, AIA, Project Architect
Jason P. Zemke, AIA, Project Manager
11