The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.a. Providing Structure and Guidance for Rosemount Development Projects CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUNIlKARY FOR ACTION PORT AUTHORITY COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 20, 1993 AGENDA ITEbt: PROVIDING STRUCTURE AND AGENDA SECTION: GUIDANCE FOR ROSEMOUNT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS NEW BUSINESS PREPAR.ED BY: MIKE MILES, AGENDA NO. CITY ATTORNEY 7. A ATTACHMENTS: MEMO AP OVED BY: Please see attached memorandum. RECON�tENDED ACTION: None requ i red. PORT AUTHORITY ACTION: :y M E M O R A N D U M T0: John Miller FRQM: Mike Miles DATE: July 6 , 1993 RE: Providing Structure and Guidance for Rosemount Development Projects TFIE PROBLEM During the past several Rosemount Port Authority meetings I have observed concerns and some frustration upon the part of members of the RPA in canjunction with the consideration of several economic development proposals . These concerns seemed most apparent at the RPA meeting of Tuesday, June 22, 1993 . Specifically, it appeared that some members of the RPA were distressed that the proposals presented were not more definitive, financed in such a way as to protect the RFA' s interests and sufficiently complete. The bottom line seemed to be that there was a qulf between the place the RPA wanted to be and where the proposers wexe. PROPOSED SOLUTION In order ta avoid this type of difficulty in the future ( for the benefit of both the RPA and various praposers ) , I wauld recommend that the RPA develop a philosophy and concomitant criteria for considering proposals presented to it: In other words, the RPA should, at a minimum, promulgate guidelines which will alert development proposers as ta what the RPA will consider and what it wi11 not. In order to circumspectly develop the philosophy and resulting criteria recommended, the RPA may wish to consider undertaking the following steps : 1 . DEVELOP A POLICY STATEMENT ON ROSEMOUNT'S DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. It has been suggested by some that Rasemount must be a humble supplicant for development possibilities and should consider itself fortunate to receive any realistic economic development projects . To the contrary, I believe it can be very strongly argued that Rosemaunt' s location and growth potential make it a prime place for any number of competitive d�velopment proposals . For example, being the developer of the first theater complex or motel in Rosemount is a "plum" for the fortunate developer. In any event, I would recommend that the RPA promulgate a position statement on this issue. July � , 1993 Page 2 � . SURVEY THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA OF OTHER ENTITIES . In order to take advantage of economic development activity already undertaken by other public bodies , the RPA should review the requirements, if any, established by ather communities or economic development bodies sueh as : Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights and St. Paul, as we11 as the State Department of Trade and Economic Development and Dakata County. I understand that John Miller is already providing some information to you in this vein. Far your information, a legal assistant in our firm is also gathering this data for your review. Xou may conclude that Rosemount' s specific needs are not met by any of the criteria of the above-referenced entities, but, even if so, you will at least know what other agencies and your neighbors are doing in this area . 3 . CREATE MEANINGFUL CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS . The best way in which to avoid the frustrations noted above, is for the RPA to autline �he specific circumstances under which it will ente-rtain proposals . Among other things, the c�iteria should touch upon the following subjects : • The basic "economic benefit" required af a project for consideration by the RPA (i .e, , jobs created, property taxes augmented, additional needed services provided ta Rosemount residents , etc , } ; • The minimum financial cantribution of develogers/private investors in a praject; • The requirement of personal guaranties and the financial stability of the guarantor required; • The types of assistance the RPA will provide (i ,e. , TIF inanies, provzsi.on of land for the project, etc . ) ; • The "ownership" of a project { for example, if the RPA is a significant financial stakeholder, should it have an ownership and/or management in�erest in �he project) ; • Specific time lines within which the RPA will receive and dispose of proposals; • Instances of pro�ect default and what actions the RPA will take; July 6 , 1993 � Page 3 O The RPA' s philasophy in terms of helping a develaper deal with other units of government (Dakota County and the State af Minnesota) on important project issues . BENEFITS As mentioned above, adoption of some or all of the suggestians in this memo should assist the RPA in "winnowing down" the many proposals and proposal conditions it receives sa as to reduce the concerns and frustrations presently experienced by some Port Authority members . Additionally, it is impartant ta note that developers and other potential investors in the City of Rosemount wi11 also benefit from a clear understanding of the circumstances under which the RPA will do business with them. The projection by the RPA of a no-nansense, well thaught-out process will benefit all who immerse themselves in economic development activities and, potentially, attract more investment in the City. Cityrose\Port.Aut\Develop.Mem MEMO TO: Chair Dunn Commissioners Anderson, Carroll, Edwards, McMenomy, Sinnwell, Wippermann FROM: John Miller, Economic Development Coordinator � � DATE: 7uly 16, 1993 RE; Theater Proposal from Guetschoff Theaters, Inc. The Rosemount Port Authority has received an unsolicited proposal from Guetschoff Theaters, Inc. to construct a six screen theater in Rosemount. On July 7 I called Bob Guetschoff to advise him that on July 6 the port authority had taken action "... to continue negotiations with the Mullers..." Guetschoff had planned to employ an architect and incur other expense in preparing a proposal. In fairness I wanted him to know the board's position. After giving the situation some thought, Mr. Guetschoff informed me that GTI wanted to submit an unsolicited proposal to the commissioners. I received the proposal (again without solicitation) on July 14. It has not been formally accepted and was not placed on the port authority agenda because of board action on July 6. In brief the Guetschoffs propose to: L Buy six acres of land in the business park and pay $39,204 for it. 2. Pay for utility costs estimated at $222,156 as special assessments over a period of ten year. 3. Provide private financing for construction of the building and parking lot. Purchase the equipment for the theater from private funds. 4. Request no city financial assistance. This is provided to you for information purposes only. dw LAW OFFICES PARKER, SATROM, O'NE1�, LIND6ERG & MCKINNIS, P.A. � � � A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION . . . .. . . . .. . � � 123 SOUTH ASHLAND �.. � � � . � � . . � . � . � � ROBERT 5.PARKER � � � � TELEPMONES � � . � � � THOMAS L.SATROM / CAMBRIOGE, MINNESOTA 55008-1553 � . . � . . � � �� . � - � PATRICKT.O'NEIL .(�.CLL(TtA.tEl29 OVEt L�D IJL(lt1 Of�RL G7ttVLQf � <6�2)689-3000 � . . JIMMY I�.UNDBERG . . � . � � MINNEAPOGS � � � (61?a 4343433 � � � � D.SHERWOOD MCKIPlNIS � � � � � . � � . � MARK W.BENJAMIM � � � � � BRAHAM ORFICE � � JEFFREY M.LANG � . . . � � � �. . . <612>.398-3722� . � . . JEFFREY A.�MONTGOMERY . � 7U l Y � �' q n n�. � �� FACSIMILE � . . .. . V � �7 . ce�2�6a9-Z9aa Mr. John Miller City of Rosemount P.O. Box 510 Roseznount , MN 55088-0510 RE: PROPOSAL FOR MOVIE THEATRE BY G.T. I. Dear Mr. Miller: Please be advised that I represent Guetschoff Theatres , Inc . (G.T. I. ) . G.T. I , is proposing a new six or seven-screen theatre in the Rosemount area, which would be expanded to ten screens at sueh time as business supports such an undertaking. It would be a first-run theatre. This theatre would have the plushness and quality of the G.T. I . theatre in Hastings , Minnesota , or better. The exterior would be of block and brick . The interior would consist of marble , granite and chandeliers in the lobby area. The auditoriums would have rocker seats , Tivoli aisle lighting and curved screens . The projeetion booth would have the most modern pro�eetion equipment available. Together , all of � these features would provide you and the eitizens of Rosemount with the quality presentation that you would expect in a fine movie theatre. G.T. I . is hereby proposin� to purchase approxim�tely 6 acres of land from the City of Rosemount in the new business development area. They would pay one dollar per square foot for the improved land , after the utilities , roads and other imp.rovements have been put in by the City. The total purchase price would be $261 , 360 for this improved land. G.T. I . would make a down payment of $39 , 204 , with the balance of $222 , 156 to be paid over the ensuin� ten years throu�h the special assessments on taxes , at an interest rate of approximately seven (Z) percent . G.T. I . has obtained their own finaneing on the building, equipment and parking 1ot for the proposed theatre. No bond issue will be required. Enclosed please find letters of credit from both Cambridge State Bank and Peoples Bank of Commerce to verify this private financing. Page 2 July 13 , � 993 Mr. John Miller City of Rosemount Also enelosed are three letters of reference from other cities whe .re G. T. I . runs theatres , those being the cities of Hastings , Cambridge , and Elk River. The City of Shakopee has given G.T. I . a recommendation by telephone . These are being offered for the purpose of assuring you that G. T. I . runs first-rate operations that would be an asset to the Cit,y of Rosemount . We are also including in this packet pictures of existing G.T. I . theatres and a rendering of the front-view of the oroposed Rosemount Theatre . G.T. I. ?aoi�ld begin construction on the new theatre complex in the fall of 1993 , or as soon thereafter as the land would be a��ailable for const .ruetion . In the event that this proposal is accepted , G. T. I . would respectfully request that a moratorium be impos�d on all new theatre b�zilding permits in Rosemount during the construction phase of the project and until such time as they open for business . Once they open for business , they would expect that the moratorium T,�ould be lifted . Please do not hesitate to contaet me if you have any questions concerning the above , or if you need additional information . Thank you for your anticipated cooperarion . Yol�r,s yery truly , `7 r . �� ._��r�`_1: "' �/�- C�'=�2�-., Thomas L . Satrom TT�S/eb-ky GUFTS1 /2 Enclosures ��r � � � � City of �� Elk • R�ver July 8, 1993 Stephan Jilk, City Administrator City of Rosemount Post Office Box 510 Rosemount, MN 55068-0510 Dea� Mr. Jilk: I recently received a telephone call from Bob Guetschoff in which we discussed the status of the Elk River Theaters and the proposal for new theaters in the City of Rosemount. Without any reservations, I can say that the City of Elk River has has a very good working relationship with representatives of the Elk River Theaters and that this operation has created no problems for the City. The Elk River Theaters is operating in the Elk River Mall . One of the issues with this proposal at the time it was considered by the City Council, was youth related problems . When the Council approved the permit for the theaters, it was agreed upon that if problems developed with the theater becoming a "youth hangout" and additional police services were required, then the theater would assist the City in this financial obligation. This has not been necessary, although the mall is a location for the youth in the community to gather in the summer months . To help deal with this concern, the theater and other mall tenants have combined financially to pay for an Elk River Police Reserve Officer to be on site approximately 20 hours per week. The owners of the Elk River Theater have been good corporate citizens and business owners, and as a City we are very pleased to have their business in our community. Based on the number of vehicles in the parking lot in the evenings, the theaters are clearly meeting a community need. We would sincerely enjoy having more business owners like them in our community. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, . � it,.c,� �'C c�.�--r-�--' .�f�� Patrick D. Klaers City Administrator P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612j 441-7425 Cit of Hastin s y g . � �'=��Y�� ,� ��_ ,-^:._ �- - _.,. �.�=-- „ � ''�- HASTINGS � �� - ON THE _ "�- MISSISSIPPI �- , v� �:,. 100 Sibley Street • Hastings, Minnesota 55033-0097 612�437�4127 • Fax: 612�437�7082 July 7 , 1993 Stephan Jilk , City Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount , MN 55068 Dear Steve: I recent 1 y rece i ved a request f rom Bob Guet schof f of Guet schof f Theaters, Inc. (GTI ) , to provide a letter of reference from the City of Hastings . Mr . Guetschoff explained that GTI has approached the City of Rosemount with interest in developing a movie theatre. In early 1993 GTI began operation of a seven screen movie theatre complex situated at 1325 South Frontage Road in Hastings . GTI retro-fitted a 35 ,000 sq . ft . building previously used as the "Top Home Center" lumber and supply store . The substantial investment of GTI , transformed the building into beautiful theatre complex . This was a cultural amenity that the City of Hastings strongly desired and it was made possible through the investment of GTI with no public subsidy. During the planning review and construction pracess, GTI , and its representatives fully cooperated with City officials and staff , avoiding any delays or pitfalls in completion of the project . Ta dat e, Hast i ngs i s ext remel y pl eased wi t h t he Hast i ngs 7 Theat re and has found GTI to be an excellent corporate neighbor. It is our understanding that business has been good to date and many residents have expressed their pleasure about being able to see first run movies at a beautiful theatre without leaving town . Overall the City of Hastings has had an excellent experience in dealing with GTI , and we are quite pleased with the Hastings 7 Theat re. Sincerely, ��u�� G�� Michael A. Wozniak, AICP Community Development Director An Equal Opportunity Employer CAMBRIDGE STATE BANK 127 SOUTH MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 472 CAMBRIDGE, MN 55008-0472 (612)689-2500�METRO:(6 i 2)434-6775 �ui y 8, 1�93 Ci;ty of Rosem�tant RE: 7-plex Theatre to be built in the City of Rosemount Dear Sir: We've been requested by E1gin Gunderson, Richard Guetschoff, Robert Guetschoff, Deborah Zei:se, and JoAnn Sprino to finance a 7-plex theatre in the Rosemount area sometime in the fall of 1993 when land and facilities are avai'lable to start construction. This letter is to advise you that this graup, known as Guetschoff Theatres Tnc. has done projects similar to this in the past and we do not feel it i:s unreasonable or improbable that they would be able ta camplete t6is: projeet. We hav� talked to these individuals and ha�e advised them that financing would �e on a 75/25 percent basis for the land, building and contents of this faci'l i ty. We feel the line of credit to handle a project is available to this group. Tf you would like more information in regard to our financial agreement, we would be happy to forward them to you as we get exact costs of all specifi- cati:�ns of this project. Yours truly, CAMBRIDGE BAN o ge . Eric on President GOE/sas. w��aw»+w.�....eawsiaa000 . . FDIC �►''�� Peo les Bank of Commerce tv p �� July 8, 1993 City of Rosemount Re: 7-Plex Theatre Proposal for Rosemount, MN Dear Sir: The Richard Guetschoff family, through Guetschoff Theatres, Inc. , has been active in the operation and construction of area theatres for a number of years. Recently our bank has helped finance two new projects. We have been asked by Guetschoff Theatres, Inc. and Elgin Gunderson, to consider financing a 7-Plex Theatre in Rosemount sometime in the fall of 1993, or whenever a suitable location can be obtained. In our opinion, the Guetschoff Threatres, Inc. group is very experienced and very capable of doing a project of this kind. Our experience with them suggests that financing to do the Rosemount Theatre would be available to them. Obviously, more data for the project will be required before we could move forward on a financial commitment; however, feel free to contact me if you require further financial references. Sincerely, PEOPLES BANK OF COMMERCE � Dennis w. Troff President DWT/vmz 234 East First Avenue 209 South LaGrande Avenue 21420 Aberdeen Street Cambridge,MN 55008 Princeton,MN 55371 East Bethel,MN 55011 (612)689-1212•Metro 434-6763 (612)389-4350 (612)434-4462 FAX(612)689-9628 FAX(612)389-3703 � 612-689-3211 METRO 434-3655 139 EAST FIRST ST. CAMBRIDGE,MN 55008 � � Ot1� L(/�1 LlJti2/t July 13, 1993 *q�. C fnr.hah �:.�;� r City Administrator City of Rosemount P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN 55068-0510 Dear Steve: This letter is to follow-up the phone conversation we had the other day. As you recall, I contacted you on behalf of Mr. Dick Geutschoff, who is president of GTI Theatres. Mr. Geutschoff has informed me that he would like to work with you and the city of Rosemount, in any way that he can, to construct a new theater facility. I have personally known Mr. Geutschoff for many years. The city of Cambridge was involved with the first expansion Mr. Geutschoff ever undertook with his theater company. As I mentioned to you on the phone, over ten years ago Dick bought the "Hollywood Theater" which was located in downtown Cambridge. After making this one- screen facility as much as a success as he could, he decided to undertake an expansion project that would call for th.ree screens i.� �� k;�aw�; a� �:ai„'.t'iY'i�y2 c:intr�a IIi. �i�iie city �ecame involved witii Mr. Geutschoff at that time by using Tax Increment Financing to help with some of the land costs that were a part of the project. The Cantbridge Cinema III has been very successful as it allowed Mr. Geutschoff to expand his company into many other cities primarily around the metropolitan area. When we discussed this on the phone the other day, you indicated to me that you were well aware of his other theater locations. Over the past 18 months Dick has also undertaken another expansion project here in Cambridge which exparided Cambridge Cinema III to a five-screen complex. The expansion also included needed office space which will at some point serve as the headquarters for GTI Theatres. The city again was involved by establishing a Redevelopment District that allowed for the demolition of the older portion of Cambridge Cinema III and the construction of three new EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Mr. Stephen Jilk Page 2 screens in its place. Mr. Geutschoff also worked with the Cambridge Economic DevelopmEnt Authority on this project. This project is not yet totally complete. However, when it is, it will be easy to tell that it is a first-rate facility and is operated in a very professional manner. The city of Cambridge has had an excellent working relationship with GTI Theatres and Mr. Dick Geutschoff. Mr. Geutschoff has shown a great deal of commitment to our community. He seems to ��W3:'S be WOz"�1??(�T t;p �-ril �nri maL� �t�Ii�: 0.�1=��tiS��o .�,.;;.'�.i interesting. When he isn't busy with GTI Theatre business, he is a very active member of the Cambridge Business Development Company which is a local for-profit agency that promotes growth and development in the city. We have found Dick to be a very willing participant in a variety of civic matters. I am quite sure that at some point, the city of Rosemount would also feel the benefit of these intangibles along with the construction of a new theater that will be very well maintained and professionally operated. Thanks very much to you and whoever else will be dealing with this matter for taking the time to give our letter some consideration. Yours very truly, �"!.�- �, o-� �� Scott G. Larson Clerk Administrator SGL:jo � , ' � Draft Proposal 1 . Pro�ect Plan Budget 1 - Rosemount V�ila e Square 1 g � Rosemount, Minnesota 1 • Submitted to 1 Port Authority City of Rosemount 1 1 i i Dated July 15, 1993 , for July 20, 1993 Port Authority Meeting , , � � � ' Table of Contents Rosemount Viltage Square 8.6 Acre Commercial Development ' Rosemount, Minnesota by Carlson Properties of Rosemount ' A. Project Background tB. Current Project Recap C. Project Development Team Assembled ' 1. Carlson Properties of Rosemount - Developer, Sponsor & Owner P.O. Box 69 Rosemount. MN 55068 Phone: (612) 423-2222 ' Partners Cliff Carlson. Ron Carlson and Rich Carlson 2. Land'Sake - Project Coordinator. Real Estate Broker, Leasing Agent ' P.O. Box 24127 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone: (612) 431-7500 Company Representative: Tom Heiberg ' 3. Architect: Runyan-Voge1 Group Suite 6200 1300 Godward St. ' Minneapolis, MN 55413 Mr. Gary Vogel , Company Representative Mr. John Kohler, Company Representative , (612) 379-4100 (612) 379-4847 FAX 4. Engineer: Rehdor & Associates. Inc. � Suite 24Q , 3440 Federal Drive Eagan. MN 55122 (612) 452-5051 ' (b12) 452-9797 FAX 5, Surveyor: Sigma Surveying Services 3908 Sibley Memorial Highway � Eagan, MN 55122 Mr. Wayne D. Cordes, Company Representative (612) 452-3077 , 6. Contractor: ECI Building Contractors 1771 Yankee Doodle Road Eagan, MN 55121 ' Mr.- Mike Gresser, Chairman of the Board Mr. Larry Gre11 , President and Company Representative (612) 452-0555 , (612) 452-0057 FAX _, � '' 1 D. Legal Description and Boundary Survey 1. Legal Description ' 2. Boundary Survey E. Proposed Development ' 1. Conceptual Site P1an 2. Conceptual Building Elevations ' F. Statement of Need And/Or Assistance G. Project Impact , 1 . Job Creation 2. Estimate of Real Estate Taxes Generated � 3. Psychic Benefits to the Community H. Impact on Public Infrastructure � 1. Sanitary Sewer 2. Storm Sewer 3. Water ' 4. Roads, Highways and Traffic - Ex Roadway Access - Letter from Dakota County Plat Commission I . Development Time Table ' J . Cost Estimate of Project ' 1 . ShoPP�n9 Center 2. Pad Sites for Freestanding Retail Structure K. Nature and Amount of Project Assistance Requested ' 1 . Amoun t 2. Expenditure Categories ' L. Preliminary Cost Recap and Financial Information ' M. Fifteen Year Projected Cash Flow 1 . Assumptions Summary ' 2. Cash Flow Without Assistance 3. Cash Flow With Assistance N. Assistance Funding Mechanism and Repayment Source P1an , 0, Summary , ' � , , A. Project Background The 8.6 acre site is a part of the South Rose Park Addition Replat � and its second addition. The site has been commercially zoned for ten years or more. Rosemount's comprehensive guide plan designates the area as a major commercial area within the city. ' Over the years several proposals for a retail center on the site have been proposed and have not been completed for numerous , reasons, such as high construction costs relative to market rents, lack of adequate population, high interest rates, and the siphoning of retail sales demand by large stores in adjacent communities to the north and west. , B. Current Project Recap ' The current concept is for a 67,000 square foot, two phase, project plus two areas designated for freestanding retail buildings out in front of the shopping center near County Road 42. , The initial phase will consist of a 25,000 square foot grocery store anchor tenant, a 10,000 square foot secondary anchor tenant and approximately 17,000 square feet for small shops to house smaller retail , businesses and personal service businesses. The second phase will accommodate a 15,000 square foot expansion of the ' grocery store as the market demands . ' ' ' � , ' ' ' ' � , C. Project Development Team Assembled l. Carlson Properties of Rosemount , The Carlson Group has been developing land and buildings in the Rosemount area for many years. Through their efforts twenty or ' more strong businesses have developed in South Rose Park, including the doctors and professional building tenants, Rosemount Gardens, a contractor service building, Holiday Station Store and the Carlson Chippendale Retail Center. These facilities are a � strong part of Rosemount's commercial identity. 2. Land'Sake ' Land'Sake and its owner Tom Heiberg have been active in the commercial land and building business as a broker and developer in ' northern Dakota County and the Twin Cities metropolitan area since the early 1970s. Land'Sake has developed or been the development manager for single family land. commercial , retail , office land as well as buildings and industrial buildings, motels , and ' restaurants . Land'Sake has managed and leased shopping centers, offices and , office service warehouses in the last ten years. 3. Architect: Runyan-Vogel Group, Architects and Planners The Runyan/Vogel Group is an architectural , planning and interior , design firm established in 1973 as David Todd Runyan & Associates and was subsequently changed to The Runyan/Voge1 Group> Inc. in 1987. The firm has a diverse practice which encourages innovation ' and creativity while dealing with a wide variety of building types. These include office, office/retail , institutional including health care, retail , governmental , light industrial / ' manufacturing/warehousing, and multi -family housing. Since the firm's inception, it has been involved in the planning and design of over six million square feet of constructed space. These projects include new as well as remodeled and/or renovated space. ' � 4. Engineer: Pending � 5. Surveyor: Sigma Surveying Services 1 6. ECI Building Contractors t ECI is an Eagan, Minnesota , contractor that has built a strong � reputation as a reliable builder with high integrity that delivers a quality product and dependable service to their client and the � community. , � � D. Legal Description and Boundary Survey 1 . Lega1 Description � Proposed Property Division Description -- p/o Block l, SOUTH ROSE PARK ADDITION REPLAT-- � -Parcel C- Lot 1, Block l , SOUTN ROSE PARK ADDITION REPI.AT, according to the ' recorded plat thereof, Dakota County. Minnesota. Except the West 225.00 feet thereof, as measured at right angles to and parallel with the west line of said Lot l. , Together with a 30 foot wide non-exclusive driveway easement being 15.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot l, distant , 208.33 feet Southerly of the northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence Easterly at right angles to said west line. a distance of 225.00 feet and there terminating. r and Lot 3, Block 1, SOUTH ROSE PARK 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County. Minnesota . , and (Common Driveway) , The North 60.00 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, SOUTH ROSE PARK 2ND ADDITION, as measured at right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lot 4. ' -Parcel C- Land Area = 375.236 Sq. Ft. (8.612 acres) ' , , � � r i � ' ' D. Legal Description and Boundary Survey , 2. Boundary Survey � COUNTY STATE_ , Al0 HIGHWAY NO. 42 NB7�I3'9"E IJSi �N:739�]E 1:�5aa�. --vHB°3��5'"E �5330'- �._._._._. - - _ _ _ — - • I n=i�i0'00� I ,•I �tzs oo , � ' I �1, � � � :� � � " �� , o ' �.( �bu S� : �` ��`�w . � N /t :�J I QP,+ �;� i :� ^ `' . ' c I �. tl Y\-----=irs.00:----•--' � l'� .:. ^ .`�� n j N ' �t_� ' • .? �: , �:.` � �O � �rV a ` � t �/-��%': �, .�y„ ` � $ I ��JO''�OIIIV[��r�-[�S[Y(Mls��a� y� � N l�� '(+. I � I �/�` ` � v . q �.� •��`-O �� • n P��esl '� <J I i t. `: .0 •�� (�� le� \ � ' ` ' Z' � ft ir- -N8E°�5':T';E =25.0 � � c� �� I ry� �,(_�� I :i , ��'�� O � ��,236 � `o Common Dr:vewor�/ , � � P�.�Y' �� ''� s . a � ! � \ �'�� a J �� ' zte.00— "� _ �: �'� %'-SB8°55�57"w �30496 1 �;�: � �` � �� , � � ; ..� � .._. . �-_._ � ' G� � o $$ ,. � __ " d•g�eS9'�•. " ' � ^n�i _ ' ��`� So� � ' �____,.� � ' : `. � � o p' .b b � :rJot � � .\ -- 1 `' > I � —_ SIS�- ' v = ` � ^ - !� — I • ;� - - � ` \ ',:9jOS � -v�i ' � 4 / o J ' \ , N �� I \ ` � I \ •` I � // , 4:� ��f�. � , �a,� aG,�So. i s� S3 a_�js I i ' �� R� T 5�� ` �� . �„ � 2� �--_ - � / �, /� � - - -�_� , /°J� / \ � � ��'3� � � ' - --- �,`� �e � I ' � � � ' , scaie� l"= to,�, ' ' ' , � E. Proposed Development � 1 . Concepted Site Plan _._ _ __ - ---- ___.,� ___ __ __ _ _ _.___ _� -- -- --- - __ � �-�av— _ — __ _ — _ -- 't'Ygg{{ .�� "__ "_'_?lM��}'.j/�..s�R,_r C. '.�., �� -_�— � e.._._ � ,..i_ -�;y'.j" L �'_ " � .�'�`.^�'+1��..�._' �� — — � _ -- +� .._ 6.ae ._.. ..�.. . .. ... ... , �,_-:.... , --,�-r.�^�� . _._ _ _ � b�� .I ..'� ...._ ..— .._ .�. ...__ . _I _._._. . .... .. ....,e —" .i _ � _ ..,._.. � .,_. . �' —�� /�� ',' _�� . —�sl. ;� I - , , � � � , ' , , . , � � __ � i U ^ 3 � � , -- ' - 9�_ i � -� -- - � � _ __ '-_. � _�___ . ' � � � p�w w w s.�. � � - — � , + -- -- _ + +- � � _ .. _ _ q u . ___ ' � � ' IMF ` '�I- : � �, � �\\� _ _` _ i —. _ � ��.; � �__ — — —i — — � � � — � . ,. '� _ _ � \ �., p _ � . A � � —� . � � ,, ,� � , � `�� — — -_ _-- i�C^t.�� ' � � �� _ _._ i, � • � , �v_� �_, _ � ;' i0,(7C��A:¢�. ;� / I J ;.� -�--._— � — - — -- -- - . � j , ,, ,. .-�;� — � ._— _ �— ; � ,r — . o ' �j1 � „� . , . . - � �. � . - . — , : I i J � . _ . �.. .: ' t - J' . � w`��.t ��wm��=.'� , �� '+ __ � __. ._. . ' � 1 ..,,. , i _�r= i . � � I � _ . , , � � , - - - �t� <,� r,,�'+�>�: �- �.„.,, � � u.�cc�yt� ;�;�i: �@1y ____� �- ,.x ,z�,,`� � � - � � �— ,� �, . _ __. �_ �a � � __ _ � _ . . . .`v� �� ..`. - `� (�._..�_,__��L__ '.;_ � .: \ — � � - - , �, �- _ �� __. .--� _ .� _ ; . .__� � �_ �. �- _,�, .- -� � ,, _ _ .__� , , �_ ��,_ ,�,,,,�„a,� � � � �-.�`�; .. ,� ,� `� SITE AND BUYLDIc`��L�.3'I"� r�` ,e-'s'"` +�;J g,� .so��x.it.!�/ - SQUARC FEEf RGQUIRm PROVIDm � �� :�Y Pc�&9C➢N(i -PAHtKWG ��, __ ____. , '� . _— - .: � Grocery Anchor 5.000 _ ' Grocery Fxpansion I5.000 .`8[ ParAing Required a[6/1000 2diQ� ��U Parldng ProvidW � � RUail 17,OOb ParAing Required at 5/1000 l5 � Parking Provided $i Drug Anchor IO.b00 Parking Required at 5l1000 5PD Parking Providul . 5�1 TOTALS 67,000 l� .,� � Outlot A Building I,SJO Outb[A Parking �! Outiot 6 6uilding 1,600 OutloL B Parking � �.. __._—.__._. �_ � flVERALLTOTAL 72,130 � 'COTAL SITE AREA INCIUDING OUTLOTS �,5�:2 S�.:�T" d�'9. ��'� HARD SURFACE COVERAGG MCLUDING n,�;;r;,nr� �v.t�;SQ F .�.1"5 GREEN SPACF INCL,UDING OU'I'1 O'I'S `I^?T�' � '�'.3� B . oaw b4m 9d� � � ' , E. Pro osed Develo ment P p ' 2. Conceptual Rendering of Shopping Center � ' ��-1�� _ � S :�� '", �'> � -._- . 1,,;- / � ,� `� �"' -�r��'`�q ..s' � � rv1 � �� _ � � '� � ,r•r` � (/g�� A��qK +� �.��,�+r+"��.,, -► .. ar.. �g:`- '--'-' ' �^��i��7� �ai� -..jl"'v �t ' .... . '-F...r'f'L' r p ��=.� = -. -< - �� --,.�.� „ - • - ' -="__- � ��` t~ � . . _ — ::-c�� x - - , � � 1_1 , �f�� ` J —_�� ,. _ � � > > . � _ _ � � � " � - - . � , --��-- , i,�� . � , �� , � �; .;;�aa��,fi, �.�� : . ,,, a z � ��', ,� ' �� ,�.�. r. , , , �, . _, �, _ _ . . .. � ` y �. � �,, , �� 1 - . �- � ��; �. ,��; �-�--- - _ _ .__ ,� � � ; r � , ' .,- ,.�. � ,.. _ -�-- � , _..�.. .. ,.. -- "'�'�� .. .._'— � .f�...- � .._...�.�.� ..�._ ._ . � c �...._ . .�• � 1 ./ � dc�s 1 __.._ _ �.�_.._ . . � """ ' _ � � I `�_...._..-.,-_ ..,�y-.-y.r��.-�y—�s�-=—�'�' -' ..-^.. _- .- __. - ,l ..F --- ,., �� . ' y,.�.z.�.�,��j�ymz_ ..--- _ � ; .._------ �o-�,�� "1 4_�, .�_. � � " ' � ` �' `t�� r , '`" __ ' � � �,��! ./ ,,�'^�-•-�_,, �`°' �''�' ��.-r �- ` �-.,,�._� � ' •� ,,� , �. , . ,�.e;� �a'"`"v _. _ �r .. � . ,-_ � .. .: �v: .. . .. w-r �a�.±�:.. - ..a� ^= � `_ - ,i: .� : . u. ,. . . . .. y-� � � �� /� ` - -- , .-� _ ,.-� r �� . - _. 1 �, .. 1 ' Rosemount Village Square Image Sketch � r � � � � r , F. Statement of Need And/Or Assistance In today's retail market, community shopping centers like the proposed � Rosemount Village Square are competing in many respects with the regional shopping areas. This is particularly evident in the Twin Cities grocery market where two major grocery wholesalers are supplying � better than 70% of all grocery stores. These two suppliers have two major retail outlets . Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods that often anchor the regional shopping centers. Because these large stores have such drawing power they siphon off normal demand in growing and developing areas. � This is the case in Rosemount. A second significant factor at work in determining the feasibility of � shopping center development is that these large stores build in "anticipation" that the population is going to grow and therefore growth and demand will occur. Because they are large they can incur some initial losses, to build a competitive advantage by keeping competition , out of the market place and therefore strongly influencing development. Since Rosemount is only four (4) miles from one of these regional , centers Rosemount might be passed over if it does not build its own community shopping area now, before the next regional area is identified. tRosemount is not alone, as other second and third ring suburbs work to develop and keep their retail areas strong by offering community assistance. Chanhassen is an example of a community that was , experiencing a siphoning of retail demand fram retail areas in neighboring communities. Recently the City stepped forward and provided a package of incentives and a significant center has developed. Along , with the center has come substantial additional retail demand and development as residents are attracted to the area for shopping. Both existing and these emerging retailers are benefiting from this expanded , act;v;ty. Most retail professionals familiar with Chanhassen have said that Chanhassen would not have the retail business it has today if the , community hadn't stepped forward with a package of incentives principally for a grocery store anchor and the proper secondary anchor. � The combination of siphoning off demand and going to the next regional retail center site in "anticipation" that growth will occur puts the smaller retail areas at a competitive disadvantage. I , It is a generally recognized fact that to have a healthy community shopping center with its service shops and small retail business, a grocery store anchor is required to draw customers in significant � numbers and on a regular basis to help other small retail businesses (such as dry cleaners, shoe shop, video store, dr"ug sto�re, beauty shop, barber, travel agent, sports store, clothing store, etc. ) have the ' customer base to survive in today's competitive retail market. We believe that Rosemount desires and deserves a one stop community shopping center. If one is to develop it needs a grocery store anchor. � � t , To get a grocery store anchor the developer needs to provide the grocery store anchor with significant incentive the first couple of years and less incentive in the later years of its lease. With the balanced mix , of incentives the whale community will prosper. Not only does the grocer need help and assistance, the smaller 1 businesses and the secondary anchors need smaller amounts of assistance. This assistance will produce significant payroll , employment and real estate taxes for the community. which will contribute positively to Rosemount's quality of life. � Without the help of the community and its economic development catalyst. the Port Authority, it is unlikely that a community shopping cerrter will ' develop in the near term. ' 1 1 � i t 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 i ' G. Project Impact 1. Job Creation ' Full -time Part-time s�s.�.s. sl�� L ' Grocery (1994) 30 45 75 Shops 20 30 50 Secondary Anchor 7 18 25 ' Freestanding Retail Sites � �2 � Tota1 62 143 205 � 2. Estimate of Real Estate Taxes Generated Phase I Shopping Center E150.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars ' Freestandin Retail Sites (2> 9 A. Approx. 41,550 sq. ft. 18.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars ' B. Approx. 12,160 sq. ft. 7.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars Total First Phase 5175.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars Phase II Shopping Center 5 45,000 Annual Rea1 Estate 1993 Tax Dollars r Total at Full Completion b220.000 Annual Real Estate 1993 Tax Dollars ' 3. Psychic Benefit to the Community , A significant part of a community's identity is its shopping area. Currently our principle shopping area has served the needs of the community well over the years. However, now as the community ' grows, our population increases and our traffic patterns change. we need the area for more stores and related parking to serve the shopping needs of our larger population. We are fortunate to`have 1 the space to expand the downtown area down Highway 3 to include the County Road 42 corridor. ' Today's customers are looking for one-stop shopping and the Rosemount Village Square, as proposed, will begin to address this one-stop shopping need. It should help keep residents ' shopping activity in Rosemount and their dollars spent in town which should , ' make all business within Rosemount stronger and give us a new sense of pride for our community. � ' ' � - ' ' H. Impact on Public Infrastructure - 1 . Sanitary Sewer: ' Sanitary Sewer currently serves the property and no burden greater than what was planned is expected. , 2. Water: Water currently serves the property and no need greater than what was , planned is expected. 3. Storm Sewer: ' Further analysis needs to be conducted to determine the likely impact that the project will have on the storm water system. Such analysis and proper sizing will be part of the final submission to the City. ' 4. Roads, Hi hwa s and Traffic 9 Y ' A. Access to the site wi11 be off of Chippendale Avenue and Canada Avenue and directly off of County Road 42. Customers will exit in a reverse but similar fashion. There ' wi11 be an eastbound deceleration lane on County Road 42 for entering traffic. B. Trip Generation ' Further analysis of the trip generation from the proposed development and its impact on surrounding streets ' needs to be completed prior to final approval . ' ' , ' , - , ' � � GARY H.STEVENSON,R.I.S. D/ 1 �O T/ \ �O�.J / V T y LAND INOFORM T ON DIRECTOR (612)891-7087 SURVEY&LAND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT FAX(612)891-703t • 14955 GALAXIE AVENUE APPLE VALLEY,MINNESOTA 55124-8579 . —.�^, a.'�:,-�_�.�c ��,�" 1.: -- �� July 13 , 1993 ' , City of Rosemount 1167 - 145th St. E. pL�So?!:C�'.2$'i�� FQ�$ ' ATT: Stephan Jilk, Administrator ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE SQUARE � Dear Mr. Jilk: The Dakota County Plat Commission met on July 12, 1993, to , reconsider the revised preliminary plat of ROSEMOUNT VILLAGE SQUARE, Said plat is adjacent to C.S.A.H. NO, 42 and are, therefore, subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat ordinance. � The Plat Commission on a 3 to l vote recommends the following: ' l. ) A right in only at the proposed access location is the only allowed intersection with the existing conditions , at Canada Avenue. This is a variance from our guidelines since it is not a .public street. However, with the internal road network of the development it serves the same purpose. Right turns onto C.S.A.H. NO. � 42 from this property need to be prevented at this time to minimize L'-turns an C.S.A.H. �P:O. 42 at Canada P.�T�n�ae. ' 2 . ) If the median at Canada Avenue is closed now, a right out and a left in would be possible. Future guidelines, however, may not a11ow this type of intersection this ' close to Chippendale Avenue. 3 . ) In conjunction with this development, staff recommends that the County and City work together to improve ' traffic in this area by installing right turn lanes at Chippendale, Canada, and TH #3 . ' The City should respond to these concepts before the development moves to the final plat stage. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a ' permit is obtained from the County Highway Department. , � . � � 4' � . � � - � .. �. o� y� D_�o��7_�� a,ti EQUALOPP�RTUNITY EMPLOYER � Printed on Recycled Paper ��D�� U!G f . ' , � ' Sin erely, � ' / Gary H. Stevenson Dakota County Surveyor & Land Information Director � Secretary, Plat Commission �HS j vi ' cc: Carlson Properties Bud Osmundson, City Engineer Tom Heilberg ' Dave Everds, County Engineer Louis Breimhurst, Physical Development Director Brandt Richardson, County Administrator ' Steven Loeding, County Commissioner ' ' , � , ' ' , ' ' ' ' I . Development Time Table The developer anticipates the necessary leasing and financing ' commitments so construction can commence late summer or early fall 1993, presuming an adequate City assistance package is agreed to by the necessary public agencies. ' J. Cost Estimate of Project 1. Shopping Center � A. Land L 750.000 B. Construction and Improvements E2.500.000 � 2. Pad Sites for Freestanding Retail Structures ' A. Land 1. Large outlot -- Range of Value b180.000 to $225,Q00 2. Smaller outlot -- Range of Value 5100,000 to 5125,000 � B. Construction & Improvements 1. Large outlot Range of Value $500.000 to 5650.000 2. Smaller outlot -- Range of Value $125,000 to �280,000 , K. Nature and Amount of Project Assistance Requested 1. Site Development Assistance , A. Amount: A roximatel t380,000 over six to seven years . PP y ' B. Expenditure Categories l. Roadway improvements, including grading 2. Parking lot construction; surface and curbs � 3. Parking 1ot lighting 4. Landscaping 5. Storm sewer construction ' ' ' ' , � ' ' , L. Preliminary Cost Recap and Financial Proforma Rosemount Village Square , Preliminary Cost Recap and Project Financial Proforma 6I8/93 ' Building Area: 52,000 S.F. Leasable Area: 52.00Q S.F. � Parking Provided: Approximately 375 autos Shopping Center Costs: � Land $775,000 (Approximately 7.2 acres or 313,600 sq. ft. ) 52.47/sq. ft. Buildings ' Site Costs: 5400,000 General Conditions 5140,000 Building Shell $1,050,000 ' Leasehold Improvements A) Grocery 490,000 B) Retail 270.000 ' Total Direct Costs Buildings $2.350.000 ' Indirect Costs: Architect. Leasing. Marketing and Professional Fees 225,000 ' Financing Fees 50,000 Interim Interest 135,000 Legal and Consulting ' and Miscellaneous 75.000 Total Indirect Costs $485,000 ' Shopping Center Costs �3,610.000 ' � � ' � � ' ' Rosemount Village Square � Preliminary Income and Expense Summary � Gross Scheduled Income: Renfis Averaged Over First Five Years of Lease June 30, 1993 Draff ' q• g•» * Rents required by *" Market rents ' costs and retum on investment standards ' Per Market Five Leased Square Required Per Square Scheduled Annuai (5)Year ' Tenant Area foct Rate g� Foot Rent ggpt Difference Difference Grocer 25,OOOS.F. 57.� 5175,000 S 4.25 S 108,375 566.625 5333,125 Sub Anchor 10,000 S.F. 59.� $ 90,000 S 7.50 S 75,000 S 15,000 S 75,000 ' Shops 14,600 S.F. $12.00 $175,200 510.00 S 146,000 529,200 ST46.000 Total Annual Gross Scheduled Income $440,200 Total Diff. $329,375 $110,825 $554,125 � q B Annual Gross Scheduled Income: $440200 5329,375 S110,825 $554,125 � Less Vacancy and Credit Loss(3�0) $ 22,000 S 22,000(bJ%) Adjusted Gross Schedule Income 5418,200 5307,375 Less Expenses: � Vacancy Charges S 11,050 S 11,050 CAM Charge 2,600 S.F. x$4.25/S.F, ' �easing and Remodeling Expense S 30,000 S 30,000 Administrative Expense $ 5,000 S 5,000 Structural and Roof Maintenance 7 00 7 500 , Total Expenses: $ 53,550 S 53,550 Net Operating Income: S364,650 S253,825 � Debt Service Summary; � Proposed Debt and Terms: Mortgage $2,850,000 9%Interest 25 Year Amortization ' Less Debt Service 5286,995 $286,995 Cash Flow $ 77,655 <S 33,170> ' � , ' ' M. Fifteen Year Projected Cash Flow 1 . Assumptions Summary -- following two pages ' 2. Cash Flow Without Assistance -- pages three and four that follow � 3. Cash Flow With Assistance -- pages five and six that follow � � � , � , ' � ' r � r � � r � ' � CARLSON'PROPERTIES OF ROSEMOUNT ROSEMOUNT VILtAGE SQUARE � 52,000 SQ. F7. C(N�Ih1UNITY SHOPPING CENTER SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECTION ASSUMPTIONS ' FIFTEEN YEAR PERIOD NOT AUQITED � This financial projection is based on deveioping a nex 52,000 square foot shopping centsr in Rosemaunt, Minnesota at County Road 42 and Chippendale Avenue. The center is to be > � anchored by a grocery store and a drug store.- This projection presentsf as >of June 2S; 1993, to the best of management's knowledge and bel ief, the Center's expected-cash f lows for the projection period whert the Center is developed. The purpose of this preaentation is to � analyze the feasibility of developing the Certter. Accordingly, this projection may not be useful for ather purposes. The assumptions disctosed herein are those that management believes are significant ta the projection; however, management has not decided that it will � develop the Center. Even if such a Center is developed, there witl usualty be differences between projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and thoae differences may be material. , 1 . The City of Rosemaunt has expressed the possibility of offering up to $250,OOQ cash of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as the form of reimbursement of inf�astructure coats associated with the development. To avoid bonding costs,the project can laok at a pay- , as-you-go Tax Increment Financing plan. Calculating the present value of a s.ix and one half (6 1/2) year payback of the $250,000.00 at ten percent (10�) intere�t it is approximately $364,000.00. One run shoas $2,B50,000.00.with no Tax Increment Finaneing pay-as-you-go assistance and the other run shows $2,850,Od0.00 of debt plus the annuaJ , Tax Increment Financing income. 2. The Grocery Tenant's annual Base Rent is projected to reflect a letter of intent with ' Gateway Food dated April 23, 1993. 3. The Grocery Tenant is respansible for maintenance of hard surfaces, snow removal, parking lot & building lighting, maintenance of a security system and lawn 8� shrub � maintenance in the area designated Groce�y Tenants comman area. 4. The Second Anchor Tenants' annual Base Rent on 1d,000 square feet of space is assumed ' to be $65,000 for year one, $75,000 (10,000 square feet x $7.�olsf) for years twa through five, and then increase 4% annua}ly thereaftsr. ' � � ' ' , � 5. The in-1 ine 'fenants annual Base Rent is assumed to ave�age $10.50/sf for the f irst one year and then increase 4X annualJy the�eafter. In-line Tenant Base Rent assumes each � tenant will aveeage two-montfis of free Base Rent as a leasing incentive. The 17,000 square feet of in-line tenant space is leased according to the following schedule: ' SQuare Feet Timin� 5;500 At Opening ' 4,500 Six Months Later 4.3�0- Start of Year 2 14,300 2.700 Vacancy allowance (15.94� of in-line � tenant space; 5X bf tota1 space) 17,000 , 6. Common area participation assumes tennants pay their pro rata share of the annual common area operating expenses of the 52,000 square foot Center. ' 7. Operating expenses are based on management's estimates for a comparable center of this size and design. Expenses, other than real estate taxes, management fees and leasing commissions (separately estimated), are expected to increase at an annual rate of 4%. ' S. In each case, a 9% rate of interest and a twenty-five (25) year amortization period are used. The annual debt service is projected to be $287,005 based on a loan ' principal balance of $2,850,000. 9. Total and net project costs are estimated to be: , A. Project costs: Construction Costs and Land Value $3,475,000 ' Construction Period Interest $ 135`,000 Tota1 Project Costs $3,610,000 , Equity: $ 760,000 Loan of: $2,850,000 , ' , , , CIBLSON PflOPEHTIES 0E BOSENOUNT 7/ 1/93 ' flOSE�00NT VILLdGE SQUlflE PROJECTION OE CASH ELOifS �ITHOUT TAY-INCHE�Ei(i EINA�CIBG , _YEI� t__ YEAB 2 YEAfl 3 YEAfl 4 YEIfl 5 YEAfl 6 YEA� 1 YEA� fl IHCQNE ---«---- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- B1SE flENTS , Grocery store 112,500 125,000 131,500 150,000 I58,250 181,250 181,250 t81,250 2nd lnchor 65,000 �5,000 75,000 75,Od0 75,000 78,000 81,I00 84,300 In-liae tenants 71,500 151,300 163,592 1T0,170 I77,034 184,t84 t91,620 t9S,342 ' ----'---- ----'---------'---- ----'---- ----'---- ----'---- ----'---- ----'---- _ Total baee rents 255 000 359 300 376 092 395 170 408 284 443 434 453 9T0 464 89Z ' COK�AN AflEI PAflTICIPATION Grocery atore � 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 2nd Anchor 18,000 48,604 56,940 59,000 61,300 63,BOA 66,400 69,1U0 In-tine tenants l3,950 71,405 ` 8Z,232 85tS45 88,894 9Z,412 9&,070 99,896 ' __�� _� ��._ ___._ww--- --------- ---- Total participatioa 31;950 120;005 139,132 144,545' 150,t94 156,Z12 16Z,470 1B8,916 ' TAX INCflE�ENT EINANCIIIG IttCO�E 0 0 0 __ 0_ 0 0 ____ 0_ __-M_ 0 TOTAt, INCOKE 2B6,950 479,305 515,224 539,7(5 558,478 599,646 816,440 633,868 , OPEflATING E%PENSES: CQNHOti AflEA EYPENSES Reat eatae tares 8,000 75,500 94,500 98,280 14Z,Z11 106,299 110,551 114,9T3 ' Insurance 6,380 6,635 6,900 7,116 1,4�3 9,762 8,072 9,395 Nanageeent iees 7,I25 1I,6f5 11,930 IZ,259 12,602 - l3,I09 13,636 14,t82 Utilities 8,180 8,507 8,B47 9,20t 9,569 9,852 10,350 t0,984 ' Traah reeoval 12,150 13,260 13,790 14,342 14,916 t5,5t3 16,134 16,1T9 LaMn care 2,650 2,166 2,871 2,992 3,t12 3,236 3,385 3,500 Parkinq lot sMeeping �40 7T0 801 833 B66 902 931 974 Snor reaoval 3,t90 3,318 3,451 3,589 3,133 3,882 4,037 4,198 � Cleaning and �aiatenaace 4,250 4,420 4,59? 4,TB1 4,972 5,191 5,378 5,593 flepairs 2,860 2,166 2,BT7 2,992 3,i12 3,236 3,365 3,500 Advertisiag 2,t30 2,215 2,304 2,396 2,492 2,59Z 2,696 2,804 ' Suppliea 434 447 465 484 503 523 S44 586 Security 1,060 1,102 1,146 1,i92 1,240 1,290 t,34Z (,39B License fees 16Q i66 (73 180 189 194 202 Z10 �isceilaneoua ' ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Coason Area EYp 59,T15 133,487 154,658 160,69T 166,998 193,680 t80,609 1BT,B34 ' NON CONMON AflEA EYPENSES I.easing codiisainne 15,000 1,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,OU0 5,200 5,410 Legal E profesaional 1,000 1,040 [,080 1,120 1,160 I,210 1,260 1,3I0 Vacant area etpenee ' Anchor proao & iacent 85,000 45,000 20,000 Anchor aanage�ent 4,500 6,250 6,B15 9,500 7,813' 3,063 9,063 9,063 Reaerve for strncturai/rooi 3,190 3,320 3,450 3,590 3,730 3,880 4,040 4,204 ' Kiacellaneoue Totat Noa-Co��oo- trea Exp t08,690 63,1f0 36,405 17,2t0 19,703 19,153 I9,563 19,983 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ' TOTAL OPERATING EYPENSES 168,405 196,597 191,063 119,909 184,681 192,813 200,172 209,8t1 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- NET OPEfltTING INC08E 1lB,545 280,�08 9Z4,18I 36I,$08 373,797 406,833 416,268 426,051 , DEBT SEflVICE 287,005 281,005 289,005 28T,005 287,005 287,005 281,005 28�,005 NET CASH FtOW (168,460) (6,Z91) 31,156 74,803 86,792 119,829 I29,263 139,046 , -======== --=====-- --====--= -=-=-==== =-===-=== -==-=---- =-------= --------- C1flLSON PaOPEflTIES OF flOSE�DUNT � flQSEMOUNT VILLAGE SQ01BE Pfl4JEC?ION OE CISH FL4iiS 4ITHQOT T1X-IliCflENENT EIl1A�CItIG � YEAfl 9 YEAfl 10 YEAB !1 YEAfl 12 YEIB"l3 YEAH-14 YEAfl [5 INCOKE --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- BASE flENTS , Grocery store 18i,250 181,25� 193,750 193,750 i93,750 193,75Q l93,?50 Znd lnchor 87,10Q 91,Z00 94,8Q0 98,600 IOZ,500 106,8�0 tIb,900 In-line tenants 207,350 215,644 224,224 233,233 24Z,528 252,252 262,405 ' ---;---- ----'---- ----;---- ----i---- ----±-- ----'---- ----'---- Total base renta 4T6 300 488 094 5I2 974 525 583 536 118 55Z 602 569 055 , CONMAN AflEI PAflTICIPATIOM Grocery atore 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 2ad Inchor 91,flfl0 74,800 77,8U0 80,900 84,I04 81,500 91,000 In-line taniata 103,845 t01,980 112,288 116,79I 121,490 126,320 I31,31T' � ---- -- ----------- ---_____ __��__--------_ ?otal participation 175,945 182;T8ff 19Q,089 197,69! 205,590 213,820 22Z,377 ' Tl% INCflE�E�T EIN1NCIliG INCU�E 0 0 0 0 -----0- -- 0 ----M-O- TOTAL INCO�E 852,045 610,874 702,B6Z 723,274 744,388 166,422 788,432 ' OPEflATING E%PENSES: CO�NON AflEA E%PEHSES fleel eatae taies 119,572 124,355 129,329 134,502 139,882 145,477 151,Z98 � Insurance 8,73! 9,080 9,443 9,B21 t0,2t4 1Q,623 I1,048 Nanagevent fees 14,953 15,342 15,951 I6,592 17,25I i1,943 (8,865 Otilitiea 11,195 11,643 12,109 12,593 13,097 13,6Z1 14,186 Trash reroval 17,450 18,t48 18,894 t9,629 20,414 21,231 22,080 , Larn care 3,640 3,786 3,337 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605 ParYing lot ereeping 1,013 1,054 1,096 1,144 i,186 1,233 1,282 Snox reeoval 4,386 4,541 4,723 4,9I2 5,108 5,312 5,524 ' Cieaning nnd raintenance 5,817 6,050 6,292 6,544 8,806 7,078 7,361 flepaira 3,840 3,988 3,939 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605 Advertiaing 2,916 3,033 3,154 3,280 3,41I 3,54? 3,689 , Supptiea 589 613 63B 664 691 719 748 Secnrity 1,452 1,510 1,570 1,633 1,69B 1,766 1,837 I.icense feea ZIB Z27 236 245 255 265 276 Kiscellaneoue � --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Codvoa Area Eip 195,352 203,t68 211,289 219,�43 228,529 Z37,671 247,182 � NOIi CO�NOR AflEA EgPENSES I.easing C00�18810�8 5,630 5,860 6,090 6,330 B,5fl0 6,840 9,110 I,egal k protesaional i,360 1,410 L,410 1,530 1,590 1,650 1,920 Vacant area eYpeaee ' Anchor pro,o k incent Anchor aanageeent 9,063 9,063 9,668 9,688 9,688 9,688 9,688 fleserve for atructural/root 4,310 4,540 4,720 4,910 5,110 5,310 5,520 ' Niscelleneous Totai Non-CoAoon Area EYp 20,4Z3 20,873 21,968 22,459 22,988 Z3,488 24,038 � TOTAL OPEflATING EgPENSES -Z15_775_ _2Z4-04I_ _233,257_ _242,201_ _251_497_ _261_159_ -Z11_Z20_ NET OPEflATING INCONE 436,270 446,833 469,605 48I,093 492,871 505,263 518,212 ' DEBT SERVICE 287,005 287,005 287,Q05 287,005 287,005 287,005 289,005 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- NET CASfl FI.Oii t49,265 I59,826 I92,600 194,068 205,866 218,258 231,206 ' =====---= --=-===-= ====-=--- -=----=-- -=---===- -=--=-=== =--===--= CAflLSON Pfl4PEHTIES UF HOSE!(OONT 1/ 1/93 84SEdUUNT VILLAGE SQUIflE PB4JECTI011 OF CASH FLOY3 iIITH TAI-INCHEHENT FIIitNCI�G YEIfl I YElB 2 YEtfl 3 YEtfl 4 YEAfl 5 YE19 � YE1B 1: YEAA 8 INCONE ---�___ _�_w_� --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ..�� BLSE flENTS Grocery store 112,500 125,000: 137,500 150,000 156,250 181,250 18t,Z50 181,254 Bnd lnchor 85,000 75,000 75,040 75,000 95,004 18,OOQ 81+100 84',30A Ia-line tenaats 17,500 I51,300 163,592 110,t10 I71,034 184,184 191,62� i99,343 f ' --------- --------- ---- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Totil Dase renta 255,000 35T,340 3T6,092 395,IT0 408,284 441,434 453,970 4�4,t97 � CON�AN LflEA PAflTICIPLTION Grocerr etore 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 2nd Anchoc t8,000 48,800 56,900 59,OOQ 61,300 63,BOQ 66,404 68,fQ0 In-hiae tentats 13,950 7I,405 8a,232 B5,545 86,894 92,4IZ 36,Q10 99;896" r __�_�___ _______ ___ _ ______�__ _ _____._ r Tottt participation- 3T,950 120,005 139,t32 144,545 150;t94 156,21Z t6Z�,474 166,8TB � T1Y INCflEHEtiT EINANCIAG INCOKE 0 40,000 54,004 54,000 54,000_ 54,OOa 54,000 54,000 TOTAI, INCO�E 2B6,950 519,305 569,224 583,115 6t2,498 653,846` 670,444 6B'i,8B8 - � QPEflATING EIPENSES: CON�ON AflEA EYPENSES fleal estae taxes 8,000 95,500 94,500 98,280 IO2,Z11 106,299 110;55f 114,993 � Inanrance 6,380 6,835 6,9Q0 1,tT6 7,483 �,162 8,092 8,385 �aatgevent fees 7,125 li,BtS 11,930 12,259 t2,602 t3,t09 13,636- I4,18Z Utilities B,t80 8,509 6,841 9,201 9,569 9,952 10,350 I0,764 Traeh re�oval l2,150 13,26� 13,790 14,342 14,916 15,513 16,134 16,799 ' LaNn care 2,660 2,966 2,89T 2,992 3,t12 3,236 3,385 3,50Q- Parking lot sreeping 740 970 801 833 868 901 93i 974 Saor re�ovat 3,I90 3,3I8 3,45i 3,589 �,T33 3,882 4,037 4,199 � Cleaning and �nintenance 4,250 4,420 4,597 4,781 4,972 5,171 5,378 5,593 flepairs Z,860 Z,166 Z,8T7 2,992 3,112 3,Z36 3,385 3,50Q Advertising 2,130 2,215 Z,304 2,396 2,492` 2,592 2,696 2,804 ' Snppliea 430 449 465 - 484 503 5Z3 544 588 Security 1,060 I,IOZ i,148 1,192 t,244 1,29Q 1,342 1,396 Licsaae feea I60 166 173 180 18T t94 ZOZ 210 biscetlaneoue ' --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Conan Area Exp 59,115 133,487 154,65B 160,699 186,998 113,660 18U,609 18i,834 , NON CO�NON AflEA E%PENSES I.easiag eo0�issions 15,000 1,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,2�0 5,4I0 I.egal � profeaeionel I,000 I,040 l,08Q 1,120 1,t60 t,214 1,260 t,3t0 Vacant area expense ' Anchor pravo & incent 85,000 45,U00 20,000 Anchor 0anage�ent 4,500 8,250 6,895 7,500 1,8t3 9,063 9,063 9,463 fleserve for structural/rooi 3,190 3,320 3,450 3,590 3,730 3,880 4,040 4,ZOQ , �iscellaneoue Tota1 Non-Cov�on Area Ezp 108,690 83,110 36,405 t1,210 t9,703 19,153 19,583 19,983 , T4TAL OPEflATING E%PENSES _I6B_405_ _196_587_ _I91_063_ _[77_907_ _184_681 _192_Bt3- _200,yI72_ -20T,8(9_ NET OPEEATIBG INCONE It8,545 320,708 39B,t61 415,808 42T,797 460,833 470,268 484,051 ' DEBT SEHVICE 287,005 287,005 289,005 287,005 281,005 291,005 287,005 28T,005 IfET CASH FLOW (168,460) 33,T03 9I,156 128,803 140,792 1T�,827 183,263 193,046 ' -=---= ' --------- --=---=== ----=--=- ---====-= ---===-=- =====---- -=--� --- ' C1flLSON PflOPEBTIES OF flOSEtIDUMT HOSENOUAY VILLIGE SQOI�E PflOdEC?ION OF CASH FLO�S fiITH TA%-IIiCBE�EHT EIi(t�CIMG , _YEAfl-9M _YEIfl 10 YEIfl 11 TE1fl i2 YEIfl 13 YEA� 14 YE1fl 15 ItICONE -------- ----w� --------- --------- --------- --------- I H13E flENT3 Grocery etore 181,250 18I,250 193,150 193,T50 193,I50 193,150 193,150 2nd Anchor 81,T00 91,200 94,800 98,604 t-01,500 106,600 110,900 In-iine tenanta ZOT:,350 215,644 Z24,2a4 233,233 242,528 252,252 262,405 ' .--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total baee rents 476,300 488,094 512,114 5Z5,593 538,T78 552,602 569;055 � COH�AN AflEA P1flTICIPITION Grocerp stare 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2n� iachor 9f,8QQ 74,800 17,800- 80,90� 9l,I00 89,540 91,000 In-rine teasats 103,845 IOT,980 111,Z8B 11&,i81 iZ1,490 I28,320 131,317 � _____�� ____:. --� _,________�._________ . Total partictp�fiia�� 195,'I45 182;980 190,08� 19T,69t ZOS,590 2I1,8Z0 Z2Z;399- , TAY INC8EME1(T FININCING INCOME TOTAI, IItCOHE 652,045 676,874 T02,862 723,274 744,368 766,422 789;432 , OPEflATIAG EYPENSES: COH�ON AEEA E%PENSES Real eatae tarea I19,572 124,355 129,329 134,502 139,882 t45,417 151,296 ' Inearance 8,131 9,060 9,443 9,821 l0,214 I0,623 I1,048 ; Nanage�ent feea 14,753 15,342 15,951 16,592 ti,251 IT,943 �IB,665 Utilities t1,195 li,G43 12,I09 iZ,593 13,091 13,621 14,l66 Trae6 re�oval 19,450 i8,148 18,874 13,629 20,414 21,231 ZZ,080 ' I.arn care 3,840 3,986 3,93T 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,605 Par�ing lot areeping 1,013 1,054 I,096 1,140 l,IBB 1,333 1,28Z SnoM re�oval 4,366 4,541 4,723 4,912 5,t08 5,312 5,524 � Cleaning and �ainteaance 5,919 6,050 6,292 6,544 6,806 7,078 1,361 flepaira 3,640 3,186 3,937 4,094 4,258 4,428 4,805 Advertising 2,9IB 3,033 3,154 3,280 3,41I 3,541 3,689 ' Supptiea 599 Bt3 638 664 691 7t9 748 Security 1,452 1,510 1,570 t,633 t,688 1,966 1,831 I.icenae fees 218 Z2T Z36 Z45 255 265 2T6 Kisceilaneous ' --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Total Goadon Area EYp 195,352 203,t6B 211,289 2I9,943 228,529 237,671 247,182 ' N4N COMHON AflEA EgPENSES leaain� coa�issions 5,630 5,88U 6,090 6,330 6,580 6,840 7,I10 I,egal E professional t,360 1,4t0 1,49U t,530 I,590 1,650 1,9Z0 Vacant area eipenee ' Anchor provo t iacent Inchor vanage�ent 8,063 9,063 9,688 9,688 9,688 9,688 9,6B8 fleeerve ior atrncturiU rooi 4,370 4,540 4,720 4,910 S,IIA 5,310 5,520 � Miaceilaneous Totai Non-Co��on /rea Eip 20,423 20,813 21,988 22,458 22,988 23,488 Z4,038 � TOTdb OPEflATING EXPENSES _215T915_ _224_041_ 233_257- _242-201_ -25I_#99_ _281,t59_ _27I-2Z0_ NET OPEflATING INCONE 43B,270 446,833 489,605 48t,073 492,87t 505,Z63 5I8,212 DEBT SEflVICE Z87,Q05 281,005 287,005 287,005 281,�05 289,045 289,005 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- NET CASH FIOK t49,265 I59,828 182,600 194,068 265,866 2t8,258 231,206 � , N. Assistance Funding Mechanism and Repayment Source Plan. The project, through future tax receipts, should support the requested ' assistance. The mechanism for such support is a local effort tax increment financing plan. Most of the city portion of tax revenue is used to finance the support. � Carlson Properties of Rosemount is agreeable to a pay as you go plan so no bonding is required. but rather a semi -annual refund of locaT tax is , made to Carlson Properties for a period of six and one half years. This refund up to 5380,000 includes interest on the unpaid amount of $250.000 at an interest rate that is equal to the interest rate on the project mortgage from the private sector. ' ' ' ' ' � � ' ' , ' ' , ' � t0. Summary Upon final agreement from the City of Rosemount detailing its commitment , to provide E380,000 of funds for site improvements. Carlson Properties of Rosemount is prepared to commit to build a shopping center containing approximately 52,000 square feet to serve the community and its ' surrounding area, subject to final lease negotiations and permanent financing on approximately seven (7) acres of an 8.6 acre site. Carlson Properties of Rosemount is excited about the opportunity to help ' the City of Rosemount grow and reach out to meet the needs and wants of the community. We look forward to continuing the dialogue about our request and action on our request by the Planning Commission, the Port ' Authority and City Council . ' ' ' ' � � ' ' , ' , � '