The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9.b. Request Redevelopment Plan Tax Increment Financing Plan and Interfund Loan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Meeting Date: February 4, 2020 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Resolution Adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project; Approving the Elimination of Parcels from the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District; and Establishing the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor and Approval of the City Interfund Loan Resolution AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Eric Van Oss, Economic Development Coordinator AGENDA NO. 9.b. ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions, TIF Plan, Planning Commission Resolution APPROVED BY: LJM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve the Resolution Adopting a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project; Approving the Elimination of Parcels from the Downtown-Brockway Tax Increment Financing District; and Establishing the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor and Motion to Approve a Resolution Approving the City Interfund Loan Resolution BACKGROUND As the Council is aware, staff has been working with representatives from Ron Clark Construction & Design to redevelop the Rosemount Plaza and Shenanigan’s properties. The developer is working on land acquisition, environmental assessment, and site planning issues. The City has been working with Rebecca Kurtz of Ehlers to assist in potential public financial assistance to facilitate the redevelopment project. On January 21, 2020, the final Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Plan was made available and presented to the Port Authority and City Council by Ms. Kurtz. Additionally, the City Council held a public hearing on the TIF Plan, which resulted in no public comments. On January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission approved a resolution affirming the TIF Plan conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. The Plan reflects the anticipated revenues and expenditures for the specific TIF district. The City Council is now being asked to consider a resolution removing a parcel from the Downtown – Brockway TIF District; one that is currently part of the Rosemount Plaza site and considering the KenRose TIF Plan for approval. Additionally, the City Council is being asked to consider an interfund loan resolution, which allows the City to reimburse itself for any expenses. The City has determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of land/building acquisition, site improvements/preparation, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs referred to as "Qualified Costs.” The City intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of the Interfund Loan Resolution. 2 The last time the City approved a new TIF District was in 2004 when the City modified the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemount Redevelopment Project and established the Downtown- Brockway Tax Increment Financing District. In November 2013, the Redevelopment Plan and TIF District were modified to include some parcels not initially included in the 2004 area. The anticipated actions will again modify the Redevelopment Plan and establish a new TIF District. Staff believes the KenRose TIF Plan conforms to the redevelopment strategy outlined in the 2017 updated Downtown Framework and the City’s draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. RECOMMENDATION Motion to approve the TIF Plan and the City Interfund Loan Resolutions. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020- RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMOUNT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; APPROVING THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM THE DOWNTOWN – BROCKWAY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT; AND ESTABLISHING THE KENROSE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 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"), modify the Downtown-Brockway Tax Increment Financing District to eliminate parcels from the District, establish the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District, 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 469.1794, 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 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 modifying the Downtown – Brockway Tax Increment Financing District and eliminating the property identified by property identification number 34.03700.51.010 from the Downtown – Brockway Tax Increment Financing District, to include the parcel in the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District. 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 KenRose 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 b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside 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 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 4th day of February 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. _______________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Erin Fasbender, City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. ___________ The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District (the “District”), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10. The District consists of 13 parcels and vacant right-of-way, with plans to redevelop the area for approximately 124 market rate, rental units and approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space. Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures 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 D 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 the KenRose Tax 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 the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by a substandard building and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a pro forma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. 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 District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, construction costs, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $22,040,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $5,694,736. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $14,949,864 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission will review the TIF Plan on January 14, 2020 and determine if the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the KenRose 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 No. 1 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. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE KENROSE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City has heretofore approved the establishment of the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District") the Rosemount Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and has adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City has determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of land/building acquisition, site improvements/preparation, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs"), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City funds available for such purposes. 1.03. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City is authorized to advance or loan money from the City's general fund or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City intends to reimburse itself for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan"). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City hereby authorizes the advance of up to $1,000,000 from the Enterprise Funds or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs. The City shall reimburse itself for such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 5% and will not fluctuate. 2.02. Principal and interest ("Payments") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid annually on each December 31 (the "Payment Date"), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.03. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Finance Director, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City by Dakota County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.05. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.06. The City may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. _______________________________ William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Erin Fasbender, City Clerk MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1 - AND - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Establishment of the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) Rosemount Port Authority City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota Public Hearing: January 21, 2020 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 2 Table of Contents Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 ................................ 3 Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 3 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District ...................... 4 Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 4 Statutory Authority .................................................................................................................. 4 Statement of Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4 Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................................................................................. 4 Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired......................................... 5 Classification of the District .................................................................................................... 5 Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ......................................................... 6 Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ..................................................................... 6 Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ............................................................................... 7 Uses of Funds ........................................................................................................................ 8 Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ..................................................................... 9 Supporting Documentation ....................................................................................................10 Administration of the District ..................................................................................................11 Appendix A: Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF District ................................12 Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District .................................................................13 Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications .........................................................14 Appendix D: Redevelopment Qualifications for the District ...................................................16 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 3 Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1, is recommended. It is available from the Community Development Director at the City of Rosemount. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1. Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 4 Tax Increment Financing Plan for the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 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 KenRose Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist 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 ("M.S."), Sections 469.048 - 469.068, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, 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 District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of 13 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the development of approximately 124 units of market rate, rental housing and approximately 4,000 square feet of retail in the City. The Port Authority has not entered into an agreement or designated a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan but anticipates entering into an agreement with RonClark Construction & Design. Development is likely to begin in 2020. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. 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 Rosemount Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Redevelopment Plan Overview Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and authorizing state statutes, the Port Authority or City is authorized to undertake the following activities in the District: 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. 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 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 5 selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 3. The Port Authority or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel number 34.03700.51.10 is being removed from the Downtown – Brockway Tax Increment Financing District. Please also see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the District. 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 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). $ The District is a redevelopment district consisting of 13 parcels. $ An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District 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 D). Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Parcel number Address Owner 34.03700.34.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.47.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.48.010 14555 Robert Tr S E&E Enterprises 34.03700.48.020 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.49.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.50.010 14555 Robert Tr S E&E Enterprises 34.03700.51.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.52.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.53.010 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.61.040 NA E&E Enterprises 34.03700.54.010 14605 Robert Tr S Shenanigans 34.03700.61.052 NA Shenanigans 34.03700.55.011 NA Shenanigans Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 6 Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., 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 Port Authority or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2023, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2048, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The Port Authority or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. 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 2019 for taxes payable 2020. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2021) 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 2020, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2020. 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 Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, 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, Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 7 beginning in the tax year payable 2022. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Note: Tax capacity includes a 3.0% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one is estimated to be $263,500. 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 of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., 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. The City reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined no building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: The 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 incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by pay-as-you-go notes and interfund loans. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the 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 issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $6,916,126. Such bonds Project estimated Tax Capacity upon completion $589,216 Original estimated Net Tax Capacity -$18,565 Fiscal Disparities -$12,492 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity $558,159 Original Local Tax Rate 89.5810%Pay 2019 Estimated Annual Tax Increment $500,004 Percent Retainted by the City 100% Project Tax Capacity SOURCES Tax Increment 9,046,575 Interest 904,657 TOTAL 9,951,232 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 8 may be in the form of pay-as-you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the development of 124 units of market rate, rental housing and approximately 4,000 square feet of retail. The Port Authority and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain District costs, as described. 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. The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in the Sources of Revenue section. 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 above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. 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. The Port Authority will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b (inside). USES Land/Building Acquisition 2,500,000 Site Improvements/Preparation 1,500,000 Utilities 1,000,000 Other Qualifying Improvements 1,011,469 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)904,657 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL 6,916,126 Interest 3,035,106 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL 9,951,232 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 9 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: The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the Pay 2019 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on Pay 2019 figures. The District will be certified under the Pay 2020 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $9,046,575; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect the impact to be significant, and it does not anticipate the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or facilities. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Entity 2018/Pay 2019 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) upon completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Dakota County 491,799,021 558,159 0.1135% City of Rosemount 27,989,372 558,159 1.9942% ISD # 196 181,878,931 558,159 0.3069% Impact on Tax Base Entity Pay 2019 Extension Rate Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Dakota County 39.3550%43.93%558,159 219,663 City of Rosemount 25.3860%28.34%558,159 141,694 ISD # 196 20.6130%23.01%558,159 115,053 Other 4.2270%4.72%558,159 23,593 Total 89.5810%100.00%500,004 Impact on Tax Rates Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 10 Typically, new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The existing buildings, which will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns that will be eliminated with the new development. These concerns include the current building not having a sprinkler system or alarm system; and the new buildings will have both. In addition, emergency response time will improve due to remote monitoring; and with the new development, ADA requirements will be met throughout the site. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or facilities. Finally, the new development will allow for improved fire department access and egress routes. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The current infrastructure for storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Improvements will be needed to address sanitary sewer needs for the site. It is anticipated that the developer and tax increment will pay for the needed improvements. The development in the District is expected to contribute an estimated $437,400 in sanitary sewer (SAC) and $17,290 in water (WAC) connection fees. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $2,081,658; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $3,974,369; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. 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 Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 11 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. (i) In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon (1) written representation made by the developer to such effects; and (2) City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site within the District, which is further outlined in the city council resolution approving the establishment of the TIF District and Appendix C. (ii) A comparative analysis of estimated market value both with and without establishment of the TIF District and the use of tax increments has been performed. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix B 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 TIF District and the use of tax increments. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director. Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 12 Appendix A: Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF District CRYSTAL PATH 152ND ST W BO U L D E R T R L BELFAST ST W DAFFO D ILPATH140TH ST W UPPER 143RD ST W CANADAAVEDANBURY CTAUT U M N PATHCHERRY PATHS ROBERT TRL (STH 3)BITTERSWEET CTBLO O MFIELDWAYAUDOBON W A Y A U G U STAWAY CRANFORD CI R CRUSHE E N C T CROSSRIDGE WAY CROSSGL ENPATH150TH ST W (CSAH 42) 147TH ST WCONNEMARA TRBACARDI AVE153RD ST W 151ST ST W BRAZIL AVE156TH ST W UPPER 148TH ST WDAHOMEY AVE W149TH ST W UPPER 149TH ST WCRESTVIEW AVE152ND CT W B ELM ONTCT COLUMBIAWAYLOWER 150TH ST W BAYBERRYC T SROBERT TRL(STH3)133RD CT W C R O S S L O U G H T R L LOWER 138TH ST W CIN N A M ONWAYCRESTONE AVED A NBURYPATHC R O S S C L IF F E PATH AURORA AVEATWAT E R PATHDANDE R C T CROCUSAVECAMBRIAN AVE158TH ST W 148TH ST W 142ND ST W 138TH ST W COVINGTON AVEBUNRATTY AVEBEECH ST WCROMPTON AVEBE N T LEYWAYAT W O O D T R L C ARROUSELWAYUPPER 147TH ST WDANNER PATHBAYBE R R Y TRL CARDINAL ST W LOWER 147TH ST WDAWSON C T DAHLIACT CASCADE PATH D AM A S K C T S ROBERT TRL (STH 3)S ROBERT TRL (STH 3)BISCAYNE AVEBIRDSONGCTDANE AVEBURMA AVEUPPER 138TH ST W B ISCAYNEWAYCO B ALTAVE COLORADO AVECOUCHTOWN PATH BUSINESS PKYDELLWOODWAYBRIANBORU AVEBIR C H S T W CANADACIRCAMERO LNCORNELL TRL W 144TH ST W 155TH ST W CHILI AVE147TH ST W 146TH ST W 143RD ST W BRASSPKW Y BONAIRE PATH W COBBLER AVEBIRCHWOOD AVEBLOOMFIELD P A T H CAMEO AVE148TH ST WDALLARA AVE W132ND ST W BELMONT TR137TH ST W BLANCA AVEAZALEA AVECLARET AVECRANDALL AVEAZALEA PAT H 138TH ST W B O U L D E R AVECIMARRON AVE WAV ALO NPATH BOXWOOD PATHCHIANTI AVEAUTUMNCTBANYAN LNCR O M W E L L TRCRUMPETPATHDAISY CT154TH CT W DALTONLN C H ILIC T C L A R E D O W N S P A THA U T U M N WOODAVE CIMARRONAVEBUSINESSPKWYBAYBERRY CIR BURNLEY AVECROM PTONCT BOYSENBERRY CTCHROMEAVEDANUBECIR CLAREDOWNS W A YCROMWEL L A V E CROSSC LIF F E P L COLUM B I A CTBURGUNDYCTBURMA AVEBURNLEY WAYC R O SS MO OR AV E S CROSSCROFTPLC ARB A C H WAY134TH ST W CARLINGFORDLANECARLINGFORDWAY CHRYSLER AVEBRICK PATH151ST CT WCANTATA AVE WCHORLEYAVEWCAMFIELD CIR137THCTWCHARLSTON AVEBIRDSONG PATH COLESHIRE PATH 151ST ST W BIRCHWOODAVESROBERTTRL(STH3)145TH ST W 145TH ST W 145TH ST W 145TH ST W CRY S T A L PATH154THSTW 153RD ST W C IM ARRONCTCRESTVIEW CIR CIMARRONAVEWCORMORANTWAY 143RD ST W UPPER 14 3 R D S T W 144TH ST W WA Y CROC U S W A Y CLOVER L NCOBBLER A V E CROS SCROFTAVE CICERONECTBUNDORAN AVEA U T U MNWOODCTBURGUNDYAVECIRCLEAVEC O P PERCTB L U E B E R R Y C T 141ST CT W CROCUSCT CARDINALCT COUCHTOWNAVEAZ A L E ACTDERBYCIR146TH ST W LOWER 147TH ST W CHILI AVE143RD ST W BIRC H S T W CLARET AVECICERONEPATHCRESTONE CTCHASEWOODCOURTCHESTNUTWAY BRASSPKWY1 3 6 T H S T W CORMA C K C IR BROUGHSHANEAVEC R E GGS C IR DARWINWAYDAKOTALNBLACKBERRY WAY CICERONEPATHCHOKECHERRY AVEDALLARA AVE WU. 149THCTCHEVELLECT NBRENNER CT BOSTONCIRBOISE CIR143RD ST WC R O F T O N C T CRESCENT CIRBIRMINGHAMCT BELVIDERE CTDELLWOODCT C LARET C IR 137th ST W 136th ST W BRONZE CTCRESTONECIRC R ANBERR Y CROSSMOORAVE153RD ST W 143RD ST W CANADA AVE148TH ST W CHIPPENDALE AVE147TH ST W UPPER 149THSTW 136TH ST W 154TH ST W 149TH ST W 151ST ST W 146TH ST WDODD BLV D 144THSTW CIMARRONAVEWUPPER 149TH ST W PRIVATE RDUPPER 149TH ST W 147TH ST W CIMARRONAVEWTR CIMARRON WAY CORLISS COUCHTOWNCORCORANAVECORCHMANAVECOUCHFORDAVECRUMFIELDPA T H CLA R EDOW NSW A Y CI MM A R O N AV E CHERRY P A T HCOLUMBARY CTCORNELLCT SCRYSTAL CTCARDINAL CIRCHIPPENDALE AVECHIPPENDALE AVECOLUMBARY CIRCHOKECHERRY AVE1 3 3 R D S T W BROCKWAYAVEBRILL IANTGEM AVE 1 3 5 T H S T W BLANCA CTBLARNE YCT BLANCAAVE139TH ST W COUCHT O W N CT CUR R A N T C I R SHANNON PKWYSHANNON PKWYSHANNONPKWYEVERM O O R PKWYE V E R MOORPKWYCONNEMARA TR CONNEMARATR CONNEMA R A T R DAWSON PL 145TH ST W CROSSCROFTAVECR OSSLOUGHTR156T H S T W 140TH ST W BREMEN AVEBROCKWAYAVEBRI CKPATHBRO N ZE PKW Y BIRNAMWOODTR BELMONT TR BELMONT TRBELFAST CT BELLE C T B L O O MFIELDPATHBLOOMFIELDPATHBISCAYNE AVECOBALT LNCOBALT DRIVE 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) BL O O M F I E L D CI R BLOOMFIELDPL BITTERSWEETCIR 150TH ST W (CSAH 42)UPPER 145TH ST W UPPER 145TH ST W C OUCHTOWNCT CA R R A C H A V E COACHFORDAVECOACHFORDWAYCARRACH AVECRESTONEPATHCORNE L L TRAIL 156TH S T W CORNELLCT ND A M ASKAVESDODD BLVDSHANNON PKWYSHANNON PKWYSHANNON PKWYSHANNON PKWYBO U L D E R CT 140TH CIR BURGUNDYWAY 139TH ST W BONAIRE PATH W CARBURY WAYBRON ZE PKWY 135TH S T W 133RD ST W 134TH ST WBUTTERFLY PATHC A R BURYAVECOACH F O RD AVE D ODDBLVDL 147TH CT W CARLIN GFORDLANE149TH ST W AYREFIELDCI RBURGUNDY AVECAFFREY AVE137TH ST W BROOK PATHBROOKVIEWPATHBROOKSTONEPATHBROOKSIDE PATHU±XX ?§A@ SchwarzPond Park Connemara Park Biscayne Park Camfield Park Kidder Park Twin Puddles WindsPark Chippendale Park Shannon Park Dallara Park JayceePark Charlie's Park CarrollsWoods Park Erickson Park Claret Park Birch Park Central Park BrockwayPark MeadowsPark BloomfieldPark HorseshoePark Rosemount Redevelopment Project Area Document Path: T:\Project\CommDev\Downtown\DowntownRedevelopment.mxd KenRose TIF District Rosemount Redevelopment Project Area KenRose TIF District Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 13 Appendix B: Estimated Cash Flow for the District 1/16/2020 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 KenRose TIF District - 3% Inflation City of Rosemount, MN 124 units of market rental and 4,800 SF of retail ASSUMPTIONS AND RATES DistrictType:Redevelopment District Name/Number:KenRose TIF County District #:TBD Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00% First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2021 Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.) Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining First $150,000 1.50% Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,000 2.00% Interest Rate:3.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00% Present Value Date:1-Aug-21 Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25% First Period Ending 1-Feb-22 Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental) Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2020 First $150,000 0.75% Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2023 Over $150,000 0.25% Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit) Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2048 First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,000 1.25% Incremental or Total Fiscal Disparities Incremental Homestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.) Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 36.0740%Pay 2019 First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate 143.9920%Pay 2019 Over $500,000 1.25% Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 89.581%Pay 2019 Agricultural Non-Homestead 1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)89.581%Pay 2019 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)42.4160%Pay 2019 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.26162%Pay 2019 Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class After Land Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After Conversion Map ID PID Owner Address Market Value Value Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. 1 34.03700.34.010 E&E Enterprises NA 45,400 10,600 56,000 100%56,000 Pay 2020 C/I Pref.840 Rental 700 1 2 34.03700.47.010 E&E Enterprises NA 46,100 32,900 79,000 100%79,000 Pay 2020 C/I 1,580 Rental 988 1 3 34.03700.48.010 E&E Enterprises 14555 Robert Tr S 92,300 8,400 100,700 100%100,700 Pay 2020 C/I 2,014 Rental 1,259 1 4 34.03700.48.020 E&E Enterprises NA 53,600 6,800 60,400 100%60,400 Pay 2020 C/I 1,208 Rental 755 1 5 34.03700.49.010 E&E Enterprises NA 26,900 85,300 112,200 100%112,200 Pay 2020 C/I 2,244 C/I Pref.1,683 1 6 34.03700.50.010 E&E Enterprises 14555 Robert Tr S 26,800 85,400 112,200 100%112,200 Pay 2020 C/I 2,244 C/I 2,244 1 7 34.03700.51.010 E&E Enterprises NA 45,400 10,600 56,000 100%56,000 Pay 2020 C/I 1,120 Rental 700 1 8 34.03700.52.010 E&E Enterprises NA 45,400 10,600 56,000 100%56,000 Pay 2020 C/I 1,120 Rental 700 1 9 34.03700.53.010 E&E Enterprises NA 12,400 2,900 15,300 100%15,300 Pay 2020 C/I 306 Rental 191 1 10 34.03700.61.040 E&E Enterprises NA 58,400 18,800 77,200 100%77,200 Pay 2020 C/I 1,544 Rental 965 1 11 34.03700.54.010 Shenanigans 14605 Robert Tr S 118,000 418,600 536,600 100%536,600 Pay 2020 C/I Pref.9,982 Rental 6,708 1 12 34.03700.61.052 Shenanigans NA 112,700 18,300 131,000 100%131,000 Pay 2020 C/I 2,620 Rental 1,638 1 13 34.03700.55.011 Shenanigans NA 2,800 0 2,800 100%2,800 Pay 2020 C/I 56 Rental 35 686,200 709,200 1,395,400 1,395,400 26,878 18,565 Note: 1. Base values are for pay 2020 based upon review of County website on April 23, 2019. 2. ISD# 196; Watershed: Vermillion River. Area/ Phase Tax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity) Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\Minnsota\Rosemount\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\KenRose TIF - est 2020\TIF Runs\2019\TIF - TIF PLAN - Revised 1/16/2020 Base Value Assumptions - Page 2 KenRose TIF District - 3% Inflation City of Rosemount, MN 124 units of market rental and 4,800 SF of retail Estimated Taxable Total Taxable Property Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First Year Market Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./Units Value Class Tax Capacity Capacity/Unit 2021 2022 2023 2024 Payable 1 Apt 170,000 170,000 124 21,080,000 Rental 263,500 2,125 100%100%100%100%2023 2 Retail 240 200 4,000 960,000 C/I Pref.18,450 5 0%100%100%100%2024TOTAL22,040,000 281,950 Subtotal Residential 124 21,080,000 263,500 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.4,000 960,000 18,450 Note: 1. Market values are based upon estimates from the Developer dated 11.8.2019. Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide Market Tax Disparities Tax Property Disparities Property Value Total Taxes Per New Use Capacity Tax Capacity Capacity Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Sq. Ft./Unit Apt 263,500 0 263,500 236,046 0 0 55,149 291,195 2,348.35 Retail 18,450 6,656 11,794 10,565 9,584 7,190 2,512 29,850 7.46TOTAL281,950 6,656 275,294 246,611 9,584 7,190 57,661 321,046 Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. Total Property Taxes 321,046 Current Market Value - Est.1,395,400 less State-wide Taxes (7,190)New Market Value - Est.22,040,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(9,584) Difference 20,644,600 less Market Value Taxes (57,661)Present Value of Tax Increment 5,694,736less Base Value Taxes (15,361) Difference 14,949,864 Annual Gross TIF 231,250 Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:14,949,864 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSIS TAX CALCULATIONS PROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity) Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\Minnsota\Rosemount\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\KenRose TIF - est 2020\TIF Runs\2019\TIF - TIF PLAN - Revised 1/16/2020 Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3 KenRose TIF District - 3% Inflation City of Rosemount, MN 124 units of market rental and 4,800 SF of retail. Administration at 10%. TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi-Annual State Admin.Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax Payment OTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36%10%Increment Value Yrs.Year Date - - - - 02/01/22 - - - - 08/01/22 - - - - 02/01/23 100%263,500 (18,565) - 244,936 89.581%219,416 109,708 (395) (10,931) 98,382 92,694 0.5 2023 08/01/23 100%263,500 (18,565) - 244,936 89.581%219,416 109,708 (395) (10,931) 98,382 184,017 1 2023 02/01/24 100%289,855 (18,565) (5,239) 266,051 89.581%238,332 119,166 (429) (11,874) 106,863 281,748 1.5 2024 08/01/24 100%289,855 (18,565) (5,239) 266,051 89.581%238,332 119,166 (429) (11,874) 106,863 378,035 2 2024 02/01/25 100%298,551 (18,565) (5,439) 274,547 89.581%245,942 122,971 (443) (12,253) 110,276 475,928 2.5 2025 08/01/25 100%298,551 (18,565) (5,439) 274,547 89.581%245,942 122,971 (443) (12,253) 110,276 572,374 3 2025 02/01/26 100%307,507 (18,565) (5,644) 283,298 89.581%253,781 126,891 (457) (12,643) 113,791 670,423 3.5 2026 08/01/26 100%307,507 (18,565) (5,644) 283,298 89.581%253,781 126,891 (457) (12,643) 113,791 767,024 4 2026 02/01/27 100%316,732 (18,565) (6,060) 292,108 89.581%261,673 130,837 (471) (13,037) 117,329 865,156 4.5 2027 08/01/27 100%316,732 (18,565) (6,060) 292,108 89.581%261,673 130,837 (471) (13,037) 117,329 961,839 5 2027 02/01/28 100%326,234 (18,565) (6,284) 301,385 89.581%269,984 134,992 (486) (13,451) 121,055 1,060,117 5.5 2028 08/01/28 100%326,234 (18,565) (6,284) 301,385 89.581%269,984 134,992 (486) (13,451) 121,055 1,156,944 6 2028 02/01/29 100%336,021 (18,565) (6,515) 310,941 89.581%278,544 139,272 (501) (13,877) 124,894 1,255,364 6.5 2029 08/01/29 100%336,021 (18,565) (6,515) 310,941 89.581%278,544 139,272 (501) (13,877) 124,894 1,352,330 7 2029 02/01/30 100%346,102 (18,565) (6,753) 320,784 89.581%287,362 143,681 (517) (14,316) 128,847 1,450,886 7.5 2030 08/01/30 100%346,102 (18,565) (6,753) 320,784 89.581%287,362 143,681 (517) (14,316) 128,847 1,547,987 8 2030 02/01/31 100%356,485 (18,565) (6,998) 330,922 89.581%296,443 148,222 (534) (14,769) 132,919 1,646,675 8.5 2031 08/01/31 100%356,485 (18,565) (6,998) 330,922 89.581%296,443 148,222 (534) (14,769) 132,919 1,743,905 9 2031 02/01/32 100%367,180 (18,565) (7,251) 341,364 89.581%305,797 152,899 (550) (15,235) 137,113 1,842,721 9.5 2032 08/01/32 100%367,180 (18,565) (7,251) 341,364 89.581%305,797 152,899 (550) (15,235) 137,113 1,940,077 10 2032 02/01/33 100%378,195 (18,565) (7,511) 352,120 89.581%315,432 157,716 (568) (15,715) 141,434 2,039,016 10.5 2033 08/01/33 100%378,195 (18,565) (7,511) 352,120 89.581%315,432 157,716 (568) (15,715) 141,434 2,136,493 11 2033 02/01/34 100%389,541 (18,565) (7,779) 363,198 89.581%325,356 162,678 (586) (16,209) 145,883 2,235,550 11.5 2034 08/01/34 100%389,541 (18,565) (7,779) 363,198 89.581%325,356 162,678 (586) (16,209) 145,883 2,333,144 12 2034 02/01/35 100%401,227 (18,565) (8,055) 374,608 89.581%335,578 167,789 (604) (16,718) 150,466 2,432,316 12.5 2035 08/01/35 100%401,227 (18,565) (8,055) 374,608 89.581%335,578 167,789 (604) (16,718) 150,466 2,530,023 13 2035 02/01/36 100%413,264 (18,565) (8,339) 386,361 89.581%346,106 173,053 (623) (17,243) 155,187 2,629,306 13.5 2036 08/01/36 100%413,264 (18,565) (8,339) 386,361 89.581%346,106 173,053 (623) (17,243) 155,187 2,727,121 14 2036 02/01/37 100%425,662 (18,565) (8,631) 398,466 89.581%356,950 178,475 (643) (17,783) 160,049 2,826,511 14.5 2037 08/01/37 100%425,662 (18,565) (8,631) 398,466 89.581%356,950 178,475 (643) (17,783) 160,049 2,924,431 15 2037 02/01/38 100%438,432 (18,565) (8,933) 410,934 89.581%368,119 184,060 (663) (18,340) 165,057 3,023,923 15.5 2038 08/01/38 100%438,432 (18,565) (8,933) 410,934 89.581%368,119 184,060 (663) (18,340) 165,057 3,121,945 16 2038 02/01/39 100%451,585 (18,565) (9,243) 423,777 89.581%379,623 189,812 (683) (18,913) 170,216 3,221,537 16.5 2039 08/01/39 100%451,585 (18,565) (9,243) 423,777 89.581%379,623 189,812 (683) (18,913) 170,216 3,319,656 17 2039 02/01/40 100%465,132 (18,565) (9,563) 437,004 89.581%391,473 195,736 (705) (19,503) 175,529 3,419,343 17.5 2040 08/01/40 100%465,132 (18,565) (9,563) 437,004 89.581%391,473 195,736 (705) (19,503) 175,529 3,517,557 18 2040 02/01/41 100%479,086 (18,565) (9,893) 450,629 89.581%403,678 201,839 (727) (20,111) 181,001 3,617,336 18.5 2041 08/01/41 100%479,086 (18,565) (9,893) 450,629 89.581%403,678 201,839 (727) (20,111) 181,001 3,715,641 19 2041 02/01/42 100%493,459 (18,565) (10,232) 464,662 89.581%416,249 208,125 (749) (20,738) 186,638 3,815,509 19.5 2042 08/01/42 100%493,459 (18,565) (10,232) 464,662 89.581%416,249 208,125 (749) (20,738) 186,638 3,913,901 20 2042 02/01/43 100%508,262 (18,565) (10,581) 479,117 89.581%429,198 214,599 (773) (21,383) 192,444 4,013,854 20.5 2043 08/01/43 100%508,262 (18,565) (10,581) 479,117 89.581%429,198 214,599 (773) (21,383) 192,444 4,112,330 21 2043 02/01/44 100%523,510 (18,565) (10,941) 494,005 89.581%442,534 221,267 (797) (22,047) 198,424 4,212,366 21.5 2044 08/01/44 100%523,510 (18,565) (10,941) 494,005 89.581%442,534 221,267 (797) (22,047) 198,424 4,310,923 22 2044 02/01/45 100%539,216 (18,565) (11,312) 509,339 89.581%456,271 228,136 (821) (22,731) 204,583 4,411,038 22.5 2045 08/01/45 100%539,216 (18,565) (11,312) 509,339 89.581%456,271 228,136 (821) (22,731) 204,583 4,509,674 23 2045 02/01/46 100%555,392 (18,565) (11,694) 525,134 89.581%470,420 235,210 (847) (23,436) 210,927 4,609,865 23.5 2046 08/01/46 100%555,392 (18,565) (11,694) 525,134 89.581%470,420 235,210 (847) (23,436) 210,927 4,708,576 24 2046 02/01/47 100%572,054 (18,565) (12,087) 541,402 89.581%484,994 242,497 (873) (24,162) 217,461 4,808,840 24.5 2047 08/01/47 100%572,054 (18,565) (12,087) 541,402 89.581%484,994 242,497 (873) (24,162) 217,461 4,907,623 25 2047 02/01/48 100%589,216 (18,565) (12,492) 558,159 89.581%500,004 250,002 (900) (24,910) 224,192 5,007,959 25.5 2048 08/01/48 100%589,216 (18,565) (12,492) 558,159 89.581%500,004 250,002 (900) (24,910) 224,192 5,106,811 26 2048 02/01/49 Total 9,079,260 (32,685) (904,657) 8,141,917 Present Value From 08/01/2021 Present Value Rate 3.00%5,694,736 (20,501) (567,423) 5,106,811 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only N:\Minnsota\Rosemount\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\KenRose TIF - est 2020\TIF Runs\2019\TIF - TIF PLAN - Revised Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 14 Appendix C: Findings Including But/For Qualifications The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF Plan) for the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District (the “District”), as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the KenRose Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10. The District consists of 13 parcels and vacant right-of-way, with plans to redevelop the area for approximately 124 market rate, rental units and approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space. Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures 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 D 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 the KenRose Tax 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 the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by a substandard building and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing. The developer was asked for and provided a letter and a pro forma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. 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 District permitted by the TIF Plan: This finding is justified on the grounds that the cost of site and public improvements and utilities add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, construction costs, site and public improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. The City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of similar scope is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 15 b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $22,040,000. c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $5,694,736. d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $14,949,864 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission will review the TIF Plan on January 28, 2020 and determine if the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the KenRose 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 No. 1 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. Rosemount Port Authority KenRose Tax Increment Financing District 16 Appendix D: Redevelopment Qualifications for the District Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount, Minnesota January 17, 2020 Prepared For the City of Rosemount Prepared by: LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 LHB Project No. 170849 Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 1 of 11 Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 2 Purpose of Evaluation ................................................................................ 2 Scope of Work ........................................................................................... 3 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 3 PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS ....... 3 A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 4 B. Condition of Buildings Test ................................................................... 4 C. Distribution of Substandard Buildings ................................................... 5 PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED ......................................................................... 6 PART 4 – FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 6 A. Coverage Test ...................................................................................... 6 B. Condition of Building Test ..................................................................... 7 1. Building Inspection .................................................................... 7 2. Replacement Cost ..................................................................... 8 3. Code Deficiencies ..................................................................... 8 4. System Condition Deficiencies .................................................. 9 C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ................................................. 9 PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS .................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 2 of 11 Final Report PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Rosemount to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the City. The proposed TIF District is located at the southwest corner of 145th Street West and Robert Trail South (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB’s work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether three (3) buildings on thirteen (13) parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 – Proposed TIF District Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 3 of 11 Final Report SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of thirteen (13) parcels with three (3) buildings. One (1) building was inspected on December 20, 2017, and two (2) buildings were inspected on December 22, 2017. Building Code and Condition Deficiency reports for the buildings that were inspected and found substandard are located in Appendix B. CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District because: • The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. • 66.7 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement. • The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states: INTERIOR INSPECTION “The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...” EXTERIOR INSPECTION AND OTHER MEANS “An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard.” DOCUMENTATION “Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).” QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels: Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 4 of 11 Final Report A. COVERAGE TEST …“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots…” The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, 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.” B. CONDITION OF BUILDINGS TEST Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;” 1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.” a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. 2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states: “A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.” “Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.” LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons: • The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction standards are required by law. Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 5 of 11 Final Report • Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, “Buildings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.” Furthermore, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, “References to the International Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy Code…” • The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota. • In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code. • Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures. C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, defines a Redevelopment District and requires one or more of the following conditions, “reasonably distributed throughout the district.” (1) “Parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures 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) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities…” Our interpretation of the distribution requirement is that the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the district as compared to the location of all buildings in the district. For example, if all of the buildings in a district are located on one half of the area of the district, with the other half occupied by parking lots (meeting the required 70 percent coverage for the district), we would evaluate the distribution of the substandard buildings compared with only the half of the district where the buildings are located. If all of the buildings in a district are located evenly throughout the entire area of the district, the substandard buildings must be reasonably distributed throughout the entire area of the district. We believe this is consistent with the opinion expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 6 of 11 Final Report PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED LHB inspected one (1) building during the day of December 20, 2017, and two (2) buildings during the day of December 22, 2017. LHB verified that no building permits have been requested from the City since our original inspections. In addition, we revisited each of the buildings on January 16, 2020 to verify that no improvements have been made since our original inspections. PART 4 – FINDINGS A. COVERAGE TEST 1. The total square foot area of the parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. 3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement was divided into the total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. FINDING: The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1). Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 7 of 11 Final Report Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures B. CONDITION OF BUILDING TEST 1. BUILDING INSPECTION The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial walk- thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non- code deficiencies in the building. Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 8 of 11 Final Report 2. REPLACEMENT COST The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot models for 2017. A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in Rosemount, Minnesota. Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated in Appendix A. 3. CODE DEFICIENCIES The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State Building Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only requirements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted international codes. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works 2017; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were then able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 9 of 11 Final Report FINDING: Two (2) out of three (3) buildings (66.7 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis reports for the buildings in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report. 4. SYSTEM CONDITION DEFICIENCIES If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the building’s defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted “substantial renovation or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above. System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors. The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that component’s deficiencies. After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies is of sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.” FINDING: In our professional opinion, two (2) out of three (3) buildings (66.7 percent) in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of Subdivision 10a(1). C. DISTRIBUTION OF SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3). Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 10 of 11 Final Report FINDING: The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels that contain buildings. Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings Shaded green area depicts parcels with buildings. Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings. Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 11 of 11 Final Report PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 32 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for TIF Districts. He is an Architectural Principal at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota planning commission and is currently a member of the Edina city council. Michael has also managed and designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997. Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations, material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Phil sits on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis, TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing. Phil Fisher – Inspector For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000 buildings. M:\17Proj\170849\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\170849 Rosemount KenRose Redevelopment TIF Report.docx APPENDICES APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet Rosemount KenRose TIF DistrictRosemount, MinnesotaProperty Condition Assessment Summary SheetTIF Map No.PID # Property AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandardA340370034010 N/A Improved Exterior 8,249 8,249 100.0% 8,249 0B340370047010 N/A Improved 8,386 8,386 100.0% 8,386C340370048010 14555 ROBERT TRL S Improved 16,767 16,767 100.0% 16,767D340370061040 N/A Improved 10,600 10,600 100.0% 10,600E340370061052 N/A Improved Exterior 18,788 18,209 96.9% 18,788 0F340370049010 N/A Improved 4,124 4,124 100.0% 4,124G340370050010 14555 ROBERT TRL S Improved 4,124 4,124 100.0% 4,124H340370048020 N/A Improved Exterior 8,249 8,249 100.0% 8,249 0I340370051010 N/A Improved Exterior 8,249 8,249 100.0% 8,249 0J340370052010 N/A Improved Exterior 8,249 8,249 100.0% 8,249 0K340370053010 N/A Improved Exterior 2,250 2,250 100.0% 2,250 0L340370054010 14605 ROBERT TRL S Improved Interior/Exterior 18,147 18,147 100.0% 18,147 1 Note 10M340370055011 N/A Improved Exterior 377 377 100.0% 377 0TOTALS 116,559 116,559 3 2 2100.0% 66.7%M:\17Proj\170849\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\[170849 Rosemount KenRose Redevelopment TIF Summary Spreadsheet.xlsx]Property Info66.7%1111Interior/Exterior1 $4,179,389 $626,908 $832,675Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: Note 1: This building did not appear to be substandard during our initial inspection, so we did not complete further analysis.Interior/Exterior1 $762,853 $114,428 $181,138Rosemount KenRose TIF DistrictLHB Project Number 170849Page 1 of 1Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet APPENDIX B Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Reports Rosemount KenRose TIF District Page 1 of 3 Building Report LHB Project No. 170849 Rosemount Plaza Rosemount KenRose TIF District Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report Building Name: Rosemount Plaza Address and Parcel ID: 14555 Robert Trail S, Rosemount, MN 55068 Parcel IDs: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 22, 2017 1:00 PM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $4,179,389 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $832,675 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 19.92% Defects in Structural Elements 1. Exterior concrete block walls are damaged and should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Thresholds do not comply with code for maximum height. b. The exterior wooden ramp is damaged and should be repaired/replaced to create an accessible route into the building. c. There is one set of ADA compliant restrooms but there is not an accessible route to them. d. Door hardware is not ADA code compliant. e. There is no code required means of access to all levels of the building. 2. Light and Ventilation a. Exterior light fixtures are rusting. b. One half of the HVAC roof top units should be replaced to comply with mechanical/building code. c. Interior lighting is damaged and/or missing. d. Electrical panel was removed exposing live wires which is contrary to code. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. Glass doors should have code required 10-inch kickplates installed. b. Boiler room does not have a code required second means of egress. c. Electrical junction boxes are not properly protected per code. Rosemount KenRose TIF District Page 2 of 3 Building Report LHB Project No. 170849 Rosemount Plaza d. A gas-powered snow blower is stored inside, contrary to code. e. Emergency lighting is not code compliant. f. There are not code required smoke detectors in the building. g. There is no code required emergency notification system in the building. h. The building does not have a code required building sprinkler system. 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. Carpeting is stained and damaged. b. Vinyl baseboard is missing. c. Vinyl floor tile is damaged creating an impediment to emergency egress contrary to code. d. All stairways do not have code compliant handrails. e. Wooden stair treads are open and do not comply with code. f. Sheet rock walls are damaged and should be repaired/repainted. g. Basement foundation walls have effervescence indicative of water intrusion, contrary to code. h. Electrical conduit is not secure as required by code. i. Ceiling tile is damaged and should be replaced. 5. Exterior Construction a. Windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. b. Caulking is damaged/missing and should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. c. Steel lintels are rusting and should be protected per code. d. Canvas awnings are stained. e. Brick mortar should be repointed to prevent water intrusion, per code. f. Exterior walls have graffiti sprayed on them. g. Wooden stairs by loading areas are damaged and should be repaired. h. Wooden door frame around loading area is damaged and should be replaced. i. Exterior block walls should be repainted. j. One half of the roofing is beyond its life expectancy and it is allowing for water intrusion contrary to code. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Thresholds should be modified to comply with code for maximum height. 2. An ADA code compliant route should be created to enter the building. 3. An ADA code compliant route should be created to access the restroom. 4. An ADA code compliant route should be created to reach all levels of the building. 5. All door hardware should comply with ADA code. 6. One half of the HVAC roof top units should be replaced to comply with mechanical/building code. 7. Glass doors should have code required 10-inch kick plates installed. 8. A code required second means of egress should be created in the boiler room. 9. All electrical junction boxes should be properly covered per code. 10. All gas-powered equipment should be stored properly per code. 11. Emergency lighting should be made code compliant. 12. Install code required smoke detectors. 13. A code required emergency notification system should be installed. 14. A code required building sprinkler system should be installed. 15. Damaged vinyl flooring should be replaced to create a code compliant unimpeded means of egress from the building. 16. Install code compliant handrails on all stairways. 17. Enclose wooden stairway to comply with code. Rosemount KenRose TIF District Page 3 of 3 Building Report LHB Project No. 170849 Rosemount Plaza 18. Windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. 19. Protect block foundation walls from water intrusion per code. 20. Repoint all mortar joints and replace damaged concrete block to prevent water intrusion per code. 21. Repaint exterior block walls to cover graffiti per city code. 22. Replace one half of roofing material to prevent water intrusion per code. Overview of Deficiencies This enclosed shopping mall is lacking many of the current building code requirements. Code required emergency systems are non-compliant or non-existent. Exterior surfaces should be repaired/replaced. The interior accessibility is limited to stairs only, contrary to code. Interior surfaces should be repaired/replaced do to age and appearance. The lower most level is currently uninhabitable because of demolition work being performed. O:\17Proj\170849\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\14555 Robert Trail S - Rosemount Plaza\14555 Robert Trail S - Rosemount Plaza Building Report.docx Rosemount Kenrose TIF District Page 1 of 2 Building Report LHB Project No. 170849 Car Repair and Hair Salon Rosemount KenRose TIF District Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report Building Name: Car Repair and Hair Salon Address: 14555 Robert Trail S, Rosemount, MN 55068 Parcel IDs: 340370049010, 340370050010 Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): December 20, 2017 1:45 PM Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because: - Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found. - Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies. Estimated Replacement Cost: $762,853 Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $181,138 Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 23.74% Defects in Structural Elements 1. None. Combination of Deficiencies 1. Essential Utilities and Facilities a. Thresholds do not comply with code for maximum height. b. The weekend entrance into the salon is not ADA code compliant. c. Restroom is not ADA code compliant. 2. Light and Ventilation a. HVAC system does not comply with mechanical/building code. 3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress a. Glass doors do not have code required 10-inch kick plate. b. Electrical circuit panels do not have code required 36-inch clear space in front of them. c. There is no code required emergency notification system. d. There is no code required building sprinkler system. e. The door between the two businesses does not comply with code for proper fire rating. f. An emergency exit door is not code compliant because it has barrel bolt locking hardware. 4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials a. Interior ceiling tile is water stained. b. Interior walls in garage should be repainted. Rosemount Kenrose TIF District Page 2 of 2 Building Report LHB Project No. 170849 Car Repair and Hair Salon c. Install code required drinking fountain. 5. Exterior Construction a. Concrete aprons are cracked and damaged. b. Block walls should be repainted. c. Block walls are cracked/damaged allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code. d. Steel lintels are rusting and should be protected per code. e. Windows are allowing for water intrusion contrary to code. Description of Code Deficiencies 1. Thresholds are not ADA compliant. 2. An ADA code compliant weekend entrance into the salon should be installed. 3. Restroom is not ADA compliant. 4. Glass doors need 10-inch kickplate to comply with code. 5. HVAC system is not mechanical/building code compliant. 6. Electrical circuit panels do not have code required 36 inches of clear space in front of them. 7. A code required emergency notification system should be installed. 8. A code required building sprinkler system should be installed. 9. A code compliant rated fire door should be installed between the two businesses. 10. Code compliant hardware should be installed on the emergency exit door. 11. Exterior concrete block walls should be repaired/replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. 12. A code required drinking fountain should be installed. 13. Steel lintels should be protected from rust per code. 14. Windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code. Overview of Deficiencies This block building houses two different businesses. The automotive repair occupies two thirds of the building and a hair salon is in the balance of the building. Exterior surfaces of the building are failing and should be repaired and repainted. Accessibility to the salon is through the repair shop side. This would not comply with ADA code or for emergency egress. The building does not have a code required sprinkler system and the door between the two businesses does not have a code compliant fire rating. The owner indicates that the HVAC system is older than 20 years. O:\17Proj\170849\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\14555 Robert Trail S - Car Repair and Salon\170849 14555 Robert Trail S - Car Repair and Hair Salon Building Report.docx APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports Code Deficiency Cost Reports Photographs Rosemount KenRose TIF District Replacement Cost Report Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:12/26/2017 Rosemount Plaza City of Rosemount 14555 Robert Trail South , Rosemount , Minnesota , 55068 Building Type: Store, Department, 3 Story with Face Brick & Concrete Block / Rigid Steel Location:ROSEMOUNT, MN Story Count:2 Story Height (L.F.):16 Floor Area (S.F.):25000 Labor Type:OPN Basement Included:Yes Data Release:Year 2018 Cost Per Square Foot:$167.18 Building Cost:$4,179,389.78 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 12.11% 18.41 460,068.50 A1010 Standard Foundations 6.52 162,900.34 1.15 28,843.46 5.36 134,056.88 A1030 Slab on Grade 2.79 69,645.50 2.79 69,645.50 A2010 Basement Excavation 1.90 47,432.75 1.90 47,432.75 A2020 Basement Walls 7.20 180,089.91 7.20 180,089.91 39.17% 59.52 1,488,129.05 B1010 Floor Construction 29.24 731,037.74 6.05 151,246.08 2.25 56,345.27 7.06 176,502.50 13.58 339,481.25 0.30 7,462.64 B1020 Roof Construction 5.55 138,766.38 5.55 138,766.38 B2010 Exterior Walls 14.06 351,500.00 Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide Estimate Name: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. A Substructure Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 200K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 6' ‐ 0" square x 20" deep Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF, 12" thick B Shell Cast‐in‐place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story height, 142 lbs/LF, 4000PSI Steel column, TS14, 500 KIPS, 16' unsupported height, 109 PLF Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column, 15'x15' bay, 75 PSF superimposed load, 153 PSF total load Floor, composite metal deck, shear connectors, 5.5" slab, 35'x35' bay, 32.5" total depth, 125 PSF superimposed load, 170 PSF total load Fireproofing, sprayed fiber, 1.5" thick, 14" steel column, 2 hour rating,10.8 PLF Roof, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 35'x35' bay, 28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 1 of 4 Replacement Cost Report Rosemount Plaza 14.06 351,500.00 B2020 Exterior Windows 4.70 117,531.01 2.52 62,929.72 2.18 54,601.29 B2030 Exterior Doors 1.92 48,088.52 1.73 43,200.21 0.12 2,974.86 0.08 1,913.45 B3010 Roof Coverings 3.96 98,938.27 1.57 39,262.63 1.09 27,183.63 0.80 20,006.74 0.16 3,885.75 0.34 8,599.52 B3020 Roof Openings 0.09 2,267.13 0.09 2,267.13 21.94% 33.33 833,521.29 C1010 Partitions 1.10 27,510.17 1.10 27,510.17 C1020 Interior Doors 2.03 50,698.67 2.03 50,698.67 C2010 Stair Construction 8.81 220,282.00 8.81 220,282.00 C3010 Wall Finishes 3.40 85,082.35 2.80 69,968.32 0.21 5,130.07 0.14 3,417.73 0.26 6,566.23 C3020 Floor Finishes 10.54 263,595.10 2.60 64,983.00 3.04 75,968.50 4.91 122,643.60 C3030 Ceiling Finishes 7.45 186,353.00 7.45 186,353.00 26.79% 40.72 1,017,726.41 D1010 Elevators and Lifts 3.23 80,651.00 1.91 47,844.05 1.31 32,806.95 D1020 Escalators and Moving Walks 6.65 166,182.63 Brick wall, composite double wythe, standard face/CMU back‐up, 8" thick, styrofoam core fill C Interiors Aluminum flush tube frame, for 1/4"glass,1‐3/4"x4", 5'x6' opening, no intermediate horizontals Glazing panel, insulating, 1/2" thick, 2 lites 1/8" float glass, clear Doors, stainless steel & glass, balanced, standard, premium, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0" opening Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐ 0" opening Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, electric operator, 10'‐0" x 10'‐ 0" opening Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, mopped Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face Flashing, aluminum, no backing sides, .019" Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick Smoke hatch, unlabeled, galvanized, 2'‐6" x 3', not incl hand winch operator D Services Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, 1/4" sound deadening gypsum board, 2‐1/2" @ 24", same opposite face, no insulation Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8" Stairs, steel, pan tread for conc in‐fill, picket rail,24 risers w/ landing 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 coats Vinyl wall covering, fabric back, medium weight Ceramic tile, thin set, 4‐1/4" x 4‐1/4" Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz Terrazzo, maximum Tile, porcelain type, minimum Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar & channel grid, suspended support Hydraulic freight elevator, 4000lb. 3 floor, 16 FT story height, 50FPM Hydraulic passenger elevator, 3500 lb., 3 floor, 16' story height, 125 FPM Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 2 of 4 Replacement Cost Report Rosemount Plaza 6.65 166,182.63 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 1.93 48,238.97 1.28 32,048.85 0.07 1,802.17 0.20 5,099.27 0.20 4,943.68 0.17 4,345.00 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.49 12,172.63 0.49 12,172.63 D2040 Rain Water Drainage 0.67 16,682.70 0.29 7,364.45 0.37 9,318.25 D3050 Terminal & Package Units 8.27 206,759.25 8.27 206,759.25 D4010 Sprinklers 2.21 55,204.85 0.79 19,743.30 1.36 34,053.25 0.06 1,408.30 D4020 Standpipes 1.78 44,572.64 0.16 3,922.14 1.63 40,650.50 D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 4.32 108,017.10 0.87 21,764.38 2.31 57,744.80 1.14 28,507.92 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 8.79 219,689.62 1.26 31,410.27 0.27 6,738.00 0.57 14,227.00 0.08 2,068.91 0.19 4,832.68 0.12 3,069.01 6.29 157,343.75 D5030 Communications and Security 2.38 59,555.02 1.84 46,072.17 0.13 3,235.90 0.41 10,246.95 0% 0 0 E1090 Other Equipment 0 0 Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, department stores, 10,000 SF, 29.17 ton Moving stairs, escalator type, 15FT ht, 32" width, glass balustrade Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18" Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 5" diam, 10' high Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 5" diam, for each additional foot add Motor installation, three phase, 460 V, 10 HP motor size Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 50,000 SF Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, each additional floor, 50,000 SF Standard High Rise Accessory Package 3 story Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, 1 floor Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, additional floors Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 1200 A Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 1200 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 3 phase, 1200 A Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 2.5 per 1000 SF, .3 W per SF, with transformer Miscellaneous power, 1 watt Central air conditioning power, 4 watts Motor installation, three phase, 460 V, 15 HP motor size Motor feeder systems, three phase, feed to 200 V 5 HP, 230 V 7.5 HP, 460 V 15 HP, 575 V 20 HP Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 100 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Internet wiring, 2 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. E Equipment & Furnishings Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 3 of 4 Replacement Cost Report Rosemount Plaza 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 100% $151.98 $3,799,445.25 10.00% $15.20 $379,944.53 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $167.18 $4,179,389.78 Architectural Fees User Fees Total Building Cost Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) F Special Construction G Building Sitework SubTotal Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 4 of 4 Replacement Cost Report Rosemount Plaza Rosemount KenRose TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report 14555 Robert Trail S, Rosemount, MN 55068 - Parcel 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Rosemount Plaza Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Accessibility Items Thresholds Modify thresholds to comply with ADA code for maximum height 250.00$ EA 30 7,500.00$ Building Entrance Create a code compliant accessible route into the building 5,500.00$ Lump 1 5,500.00$ Restroom Create a code compliant accessible route to the restroom 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$ Accessible Route Install an elevator to create an accessible route to all levels within the building.9.88$ SF 25000 247,000.00$ Door Hardware Install code compliant door hardware 250.00$ EA 20 5,000.00$ Stairways Install code compliant handrails on all stairways 2,000.00$ Lump 1 2,000.00$ Structural Elements Walls Protect concrete block foundation wall from water intrusion per code 0.25$ SF 25000 6,250.00$ Tuck point all mortar joints to prevent water intrusion per code 2.75$ SF 25000 68,750.00$ Replace damaged brick and block to prevent water intrusion per code 0.12$ SF 25000 3,000.00$ Exiting Boiler Room Create secondary emergency egress from boiler room 10,000.00$ Lump 1 10,000.00$ Vinyl Floor Tile Replace damaged floor tile to create a code required unimpeded means of egress 2.60$ SF 5000 13,000.00$ Glass Doors Glass doors should have code required 10-inch kickplates installed 100.00$ EA 30 3,000.00$ Fire Protection Gas-Powered Equipment Properly store all gas powered equipment per code 500.00$ EA 1 500.00$ Emergency Lighting Install code compliant emergency lighting 0.98$ SF 25000 24,500.00$ Smoke Detectors Install code required smoke detectors 1.84$ SF 25000 46,000.00$ Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 1 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Rosemount Plaza Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Emergency Notification System Install code required emergency notification system 0.13$ SF 25000 3,250.00$ Sprinkler System Install code required building sprinkler system 3.99$ SF 25000 99,750.00$ Wooden Stairway Enclose wooden stairway to comply with code 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$ Exterior Construction Graffiti Repaint exterior block walls to remove graffiti per city code 300.00$ Lump 1 300.00$ Windows Windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code 4.70$ SF 25000 117,500.00$ Roof Construction Roofing Material Remove damaged roofing material 0.99$ SF 12500 12,375.00$ Replace damaged roofing material to prevent water intrusion per code 4.05$ SF 12500 50,625.00$ Mechanical- Electrical Mechanical Replace one half of HVAC roof top units to comply with mechanical/building code 8.27$ SF 12500 103,375.00$ Electrical Properly cover all junction boxes per code 500.00$ Lump 1 500.00$ Total Code Improvements 832,675$ Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 2 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Rosemount Plaza Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 1 of 11 P1170210.JPG P1170211.JPG P1170212.JPG P1170213.JPG P1170214.JPG P1170215.JPG P1170216.JPG P1170217.JPG P1170218.JPG P1170219.JPG P1170220.JPG P1170221.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 2 of 11 P1170222.JPG P1170223.JPG P1170224.JPG P1170225.JPG P1170226.JPG P1170227.JPG P1170229.JPG P1170230.JPG P1170231.JPG P1170232.JPG P1170233.JPG P1170234.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 3 of 11 P1170235.JPG P1170236.JPG P1170237.JPG P1170238.JPG P1170239.JPG P1170240.JPG P1170241.JPG P1170242.JPG P1170243.JPG P1170244.JPG P1170245.JPG P1170246.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 4 of 11 P1170247.JPG P1170248.JPG P1170249.JPG P1170250.JPG P1170251.JPG P1170252.JPG P1170253.JPG P1170254.JPG P1170255.JPG P1170256.JPG P1170257.JPG P1170258.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 5 of 11 P1170259.JPG P1170260.JPG P1170261.JPG P1170262.JPG P1170263.JPG P1170264.JPG P1170265.JPG P1170266.JPG P1170298.JPG P1170299.JPG P1170300.JPG P1170301.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 6 of 11 P1170302.JPG P1170303.JPG P1170304.JPG P1170305.JPG P1170306.JPG P1170307.JPG P1170308.JPG P1170309.JPG P1170310.JPG P1170311.JPG P1170312.JPG P1170313.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 7 of 11 P1170314.JPG P1170315.JPG P1170316.JPG P1170317.JPG P1170318.JPG P1170319.JPG P1170320.JPG P1170322.JPG P1170323.JPG P1170324.JPG P1170325.JPG P1170326.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 8 of 11 P1170327.JPG P1170328.JPG P1170329.JPG P1170330.JPG P1170331.JPG P1170332.JPG P1170333.JPG P1170334.JPG P1170335.JPG P1170336.JPG P1170337.JPG P1170338.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 9 of 11 P1170339.JPG P1170340.JPG P1170341.JPG P1170342.JPG P1170343.JPG P1170344.JPG P1170345.JPG P1170346.JPG P1170347.JPG P1170348.JPG P1170349.JPG P1170350.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 10 of 11 P1170351.JPG P1170352.JPG P1170353.JPG P1170354.JPG P1170355.JPG P1170356.JPG P1170357.JPG P1170358.JPG P1170359.JPG P1170360.JPG P1170361.JPG P1170362.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Rosemount Plaza - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370047010, 340370048010, 340370061040 Page 11 of 11 P1170363.JPG P1170364.JPG P1170365.JPG P1170366.JPG P1170367.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Replacement Cost Report Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:12/26/2017 Car Repair and Salon City of Rosemount 14555 Robert Trail South , Rosemount , Minnesota , 55068 Building Type: Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Steel Joists Location:ROSEMOUNT, MN Story Count:1 Story Height (L.F.):14 Floor Area (S.F.):7600 Labor Type:OPN Basement Included:No Data Release:Year 2018 Cost Per Square Foot:$100.35 Building Cost:$762,853.87 % of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost 18.03% 16.46 125,067.69 A1010 Standard Foundations 8.26 62,758.78 5.34 40,571.50 2.92 22,187.28 A1030 Slab on Grade 7.88 59,912.78 7.88 59,912.78 A2010 Basement Excavation 0.32 2,396.13 0.32 2,396.13 32.11% 29.30 222,684.27 B1020 Roof Construction 6.15 46,759.38 6.15 46,759.38 B2010 Exterior Walls 10.32 78,440.32 10.32 78,440.32 B2020 Exterior Windows 1.61 12,239.59 1.61 12,239.59 B2030 Exterior Doors 3.24 24,589.95 0.85 6,443.54 2.39 18,146.41 B3010 Roof Coverings 7.95 60,403.70 3.14 23,871.68 2.17 16,527.64 Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI, reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted Estimate Name: Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly. A Substructure Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage B Shell Roof, steel joists, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on bearing walls, 40' bay, 25.5" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 61 PSF total load Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5' x 3' Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐ 0" opening Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'‐0" x 12'‐ 0" opening Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, mopped Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 1 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Car Repair and Hair Salon 1.84 13,990.73 0.79 6,013.65 B3020 Roof Openings 0.03 251.33 0.03 251.33 12.02% 10.97 83,369.56 C1010 Partitions 4.82 36,623.52 1.71 13,001.27 3.11 23,622.25 C1020 Interior Doors 0.41 3,082.48 0.41 3,082.48 C1030 Fittings 0.20 1,552.53 0.20 1,552.53 C3010 Wall Finishes 3.86 29,357.34 2.50 19,027.90 0.77 5,822.21 0.59 4,507.23 C3020 Floor Finishes 1.25 9,487.57 1.01 7,651.77 0.24 1,835.80 C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.43 3,266.12 0.43 3,266.12 37.83% 34.50 262,382.00 D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 3.26 24,797.24 1.11 8,414.28 0.23 1,734.89 0.58 4,383.98 0.63 4,759.11 0.40 3,059.51 0.32 2,445.47 D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.67 5,101.01 0.67 5,101.01 D2040 Rain Water Drainage 2.44 18,579.64 1.67 12,672.87 0.78 5,906.77 D3050 Terminal & Package Units 9.44 71,757.22 9.44 71,757.22 D3090 Other HVAC Systems/Equip 1.24 9,428.49 0.82 6,202.80 0.42 3,225.69 D4010 Sprinklers 4.52 34,346.38 4.52 34,346.38 D4020 Standpipes 0.97 7,408.64 0.89 6,791.11 0.08 617.53 Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8" Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick Skylight, plastic domes, insulated curbs, 10 SF to 20 SF, single glazing C Interiors Lightweight block 4" thick Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, hollow, 8" thick, no finish Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20" Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel 2 coats paint on masonry with block filler Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum Vinyl, composition tile, minimum Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended support D Services Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 19" x 17" Shower, stall, baked enamel, molded stone receptor, 30" square Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, 10' high Roof drain, steel galv sch 40 threaded, 4" diam piping, for each additional foot add Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, cars & light trucks, 1 bay Garage, single exhaust, 3" outlet, additional bays up to seven bays Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, additional floors Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 2 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Car Repair and Hair Salon D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 0.57 4,360.20 0.36 2,729.00 0.18 1,340.82 0.04 290.38 D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 7.85 59,694.35 2.00 15,211.25 0.27 2,048.35 0.55 4,168.75 5.04 38,266.00 D5030 Communications and Security 3.45 26,205.89 1.99 15,135.40 1.23 9,345.26 0.23 1,725.23 D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.09 702.94 0.09 702.94 0% 0 0 E1090 Other Equipment 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 100% $91.23 $693,503.52 10.00% $9.12 $69,350.35 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $100.35 $762,853.87 Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208 V, 3 phase, 400 A Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF Miscellaneous power, 1 watt Central air conditioning power, 3 watts Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F. Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW E Equipment & Furnishings Total Building Cost F Special Construction G Building Sitework SubTotal Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit) Architectural Fees User Fees Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 3 of 3 Replacement Cost Report Car Repair and Hair Salon Rosemount KenRose TIF District Code Deficiency Cost Report 14555 Robert Trail South, Rosemount, MN 55068 Parcels 340370049010, 340370050010 Car Repair and Hair Salon Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Accessibility Items Thresholds Modify thresholds to comply with code for maximum height 250.00$ EA 2 500.00$ Entrance Install code compliant accessible entrance into salon 3,500.00$ Lump 1 3,500.00$ Restroom Modify restroom to comply with ADA code 1.91$ SF 7600 14,516.00$ Drinking Fountain Install code required drinking fountain 0.32$ SF 7600 2,432.00$ Structural Elements -$ Exiting Glass Door Install code required 10-inch kick plate on glass door 100.00$ EA 2 200.00$ Emergency Exit Door Install code compliant door hardware on emergency exit door 450.00$ EA 1 450.00$ Fire Protection Emergency Lighting Install code compliant emergency lighting 250.00$ EA 4 1,000.00$ Smoke Detectors Install code required smoke detectors 1.99$ SF 7600 15,124.00$ Emergency Notification System Install code required emergency notification system 1.23$ SF 7600 9,348.00$ Building Sprinkler System Install code required building sprinkler system 5.49$ SF 7600 41,724.00$ Fire Rate Door Install code compliant fire rated door between businesses 1,000.00$ EA 1 1,000.00$ Exterior Construction Concrete Block Walls Repair/replace damaged concrete blocks and mortar to prevent water intrusion per code 0.89$ SF 7600 6,764.00$ Steel Lintels Protect steel lintels from rusting per code 250.00$ EA 2 500.00$ Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 1 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Car Repair and Hair Salon Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units Unit Quantity Total Windows Replace windows to prevent water intrusion per code 1.61$ SF 7600 12,236.00$ Roof Construction -$ Mechanical- Electrical Mechanical Replace HVAC system to comply with mechanical/building code 9.44$ SF 7600 71,744.00$ Electrical Provide code required 36 inches of clearance in front of electrical circuit panels 100.00$ Lump 1 100.00$ Total Code Improvements 181,138$ Rosemount KenRose TIF District LHB Project No. 170849 Page 2 of 2 Code Deficiency Cost Report Car Repair and Hair Salon Rosemount KenRose TIF District Car Repair and Hair Salon - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370049010, 340370050010 Page 1 of 4 P1170266.JPG P1170268.JPG P1170269.JPG P1170270.JPG P1170271.JPG P1170272.JPG P1170273.JPG P1170274.JPG P1170275.JPG P1170276.JPG P1170277.JPG P1170278.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Car Repair and Hair Salon - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370049010, 340370050010 Page 2 of 4 P1170279.JPG P1170280.JPG P1170281.JPG P1170282.JPG P1170283.JPG P1170284.JPG P1170285.JPG P1170286.JPG P1170287.JPG P1170368.JPG P1170369.JPG P1170371.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Car Repair and Hair Salon - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370049010, 340370050010 Page 3 of 4 P1170372.JPG P1170373.JPG P1170374.JPG P1170375.JPG P1170376.JPG P1170377.JPG P1170378.JPG P1170379.JPG P1170380.JPG P1170381.JPG P1170383.JPG P1170384.JPG Rosemount KenRose TIF District Car Repair and Hair Salon - 14555 Robert Trail South - PID: 340370049010, 340370050010 Page 4 of 4 P1170385.JPG P1170386.JPG P1170387.JPG P1170388.JPG P1170389.JPG P1170390.JPG P1170391.JPG P1170392.JPG P1170393.JPG P1170394.JPG