Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 03-28 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 28, 2016 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2.Miscellaneous a. Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Update 3.Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4.Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center March 28, 2016 AGENDA Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m.—provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2.Invocation - 7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business Meeting—The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4.Roll Call 5.Pledge of Allegiance 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda—The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1.March 14, 2016— Study Session 2.March 14, 2016 - Regular Session b. Licenses C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Decks and Porches as an Allowable Encroachment into Certain Residential Yard Setback Areas and Adding New Definitions of Decks and Porches —Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for April 25, 2016. d. Resolution Relating to the Issuance of Revenue Bonds to Finance the Costs of a Multifamily Housing Development Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462c; Granting Preliminary Approval Thereto; Establishing Compliance with Certain CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 28, 2016 Reimbursement Regulations Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as Amended; and Taking Certain Other Actions with Respect Thereto (The Sanctuary of Brooklyn Center Project) Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of Contract, Improvement Project No. 2016-07, Contract 16-D, 2016 Street Seal Coating f. Resolution Approving the Labor Agreement for Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 86 (Police Commanders and Sergeants) and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year 2016 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Officer Keith Carlson Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 8.Public Hearings a.Continued Proposed Special Assessments for Weed Removal Costs —This item was first read on February 8, 2016; published in the official newspaper on February 18, 2016; offered Public Hearing on March 14, 2016; and is continued this evening. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: —Motion to reopen Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt resolution. b.Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor (Opportunity Site) —This item was first read on January 25, 2016; published in the official newspaper on March 17, 2016; and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. 1. Resolution Approving Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor (Opportunity Site Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Take public input. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 28, 2016 —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt resolution. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Limiting the Residency Location of Certain Predatory Offenders —This item was first read on February 22, 2016; published in the official newspaper on March 3, 2016, and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt ordinance. 9.Planning Commission Items —None. 10.Council Consideration Items a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City Requested Council Action: —Motion to remove from the table; approve first reading; and set second reading and Public Hearing for April 25, 2016. 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment Agenda Items Tabled or Continued An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City —This item was tabled at the March 14, 2016, City Council meeting. AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION March 28, 2016 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Update on the 2016 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Paperless Packets Report 2.Opportunities for Small and Diverse Businesses City Council Agenda Item N©0 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 14, 2016 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested a revision to the City Council Regular Session minutes of February 22, 2016, to delete the last sentence of the last paragraph on page four: "He stated that a Level III rating is based on the level of re-offense." and to substitute it with the following language: "He stated that a Level III designation is given for offenders based on the violent nature of their offense and the assessment of risk for them to repeat their offense." It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept the revision to the February 22, 2016 City Council minutes. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson will read a letter from a resident regarding the TH252 Corridor project during the public hearing. Councilmember Ryan stated that he had received a letter that is included in Councilmembers packets from Gary Brown, former Brooklyn Park City Engineer, 7012 Willow Lane, regarding the TH252 Corridor project. He stated that Mr. Brown had agreed that his letter could be read during the public hearing. Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel stated that City Manager Curt Boganey requested that he be able to present agenda item 10b, An Ordinance Amendment Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. Councilmember Ryan stated his only concern is the timing of events if the amendment is passed. 03/14/16 -1- DRAFT It was the majority consensus of the City Council to table agenda item 1 Ob when it comes up on the agenda until the March 28, 2016, meeting. Mayor Willson left the Council Chambers at 6:08 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Graves requested discussion on the Brooklyn Center Earth Fest Event and the possibility of having the City and Councilmembers involved. This issue will be added to the next available Work Session schedule. Mayor Pro Tern Ryan stated there is a proposed bill to require that all cities that charge franchise fees to private utility providers to mail notifications regarding the fees to City residents. If 15 percent of registered voters sign a petition, the City would be required to get approval from all registered voters to charge a franchise fee. He stated the City's franchise fee is nominal but generates significant revenue for the City. In 2015, it generated approximately $653,647. He stated that he is opposed to the bill, which would be contingent upon a tax bill being passed by the legislature. He stated if the City Council is in opposition to the bill, he would pass that information on. Councilmember Graves stated that she doesn't oppose the idea because it shows transparency and accountability. She realizes that it is irritating because the City's fees aren't that big and the money goes back into the City. Mayor Pro Tern Ryan stated that it is a philosophical argument. He thinks it stands in opposition to local control and contradicts the principal of representative government. He stated that most people would not look at this closely and it is the job of mayors and councilmembers to do their due diligence, communicate with citizens, and defend their decisions. If the public finds our leadership wanting, we will not be re-elected. He feels that it is how the system needs to work. He also stated that the franchise fees supplement special assessments on projects such as West Palmer Lake. Mayor Willson returned to the Council Chambers at 6:19 p.m. Councilmember Myszkowski stated there will be mailing and stand-alone election costs. She agreed that it would create transparency but could create a lot of extra work and expense. She asked who authored the bill. Councilmember Ryan answered that the author is Bob Vogel of Elko New Market. Councilmember Ryan stated that he opposes the bill and wanted to know how other Councilmembers felt about it. 03/14/16 -2- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated he agreed with Councilmember Ryan that the City uses those dollars for infrastructure in Brooklyn Center, it has a direct bearing on those in construction zones, and the fees lower the cost for all residents. Councilmember Ryan stated it is an issue of fairness as well because the street utility capital improvement plan has utilized the franchise fees for many years. Mayor Willson stated that he recalled the debate on the franchise fees and at that time it was a dedicated funding mechanism. Councilmember Ryan stated that special assessments have remained the same in real dollars. Mayor Willson asked when the bill is coming up for a hearing. Councilmember Ryan replied that he will check on this. Mayor Willson asked that the City Manager look into this issue. Mr. Eitel stated that the franchise fees are an ordinance so there is a public hearing, but no mailings. Councilmember Ryan stated that the mailed notice is explicit in the bill and it would require additional costs to the City. Mayor Willson asked if there was a mailing if a fee was renewed. Mr. Eitel replied that there is a mailing if it is expanded. Councilmember Graves stated she doesn't feel that she knows enough about what other cities are doing. Mayor Willson agreed that more information needs to be garnered. Councilmember Graves inquired about added taxes on calling cards. She stated that the tax had increased by approximately a dollar. She is wondering where the tax is coming from and what we can do for our business owners and residents. Mayor Willson stated that it would have to be determined which political body is taxing and then what we can do about it. He asked if staff should be directed to report back to the City Council on the issue. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to direct staff to come back with a report. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS DISCUSS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35— ZONING OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING DECKS AND PORCHES AS AN 03/14/16 -3- DRAFT ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL YARD SETBACK AREAS AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF DECKS AND PORCHES Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of the newly developed deck, porch, enclosed and unenclosed definitions; allowable encroachments; deck materials and architecture; setback changes; architecturally compatible language; and asked for the City Council's direction on policy questions posed in their packets. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked Mr. Benetti for his work on this ordinance. She stated that she thinks the changes are wonderful and what she had in mind when she previously brought it up. Councilmember Ryan also thanked Mr. Benetti for his work. He asked about larger decks being grandfathered in. Mr. Benetti replied that existing decks would be grandfathered in but would need to conform to existing standards when they are rebuilt. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to move forvard. ADJOURNMENT The Study Session adjourned to Informal Open Forum with the City Council at 6:45 p.m. 03/14/16 -4- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 14, 2016 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. PflTT CAIT. Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Harlan Daudt, 6700 York Avenue N, stated his concern about the proposed apartments on the old Brookdale Ford lot and asked if the project was going forward. Mayor Willson stated that the project is currently being studied. Mr. Daudt stated the City needs more apartments like they need more strip malls and the area would be better used for light industry. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a lot of apartments now and there are no vacancies. He understands the apartments would be high end and he doesn't think the City is suited for that. Mayor Willson encouraged Mr. Daudt to attend the public hearing for this project. Jane Sandberg, 3413 Woodbine Lane, stated she was advocating for student safety at Woodbine Lane and Palmer Lake Drive West. She believes that students would be unsafe and urged the City Council to reconsider their vote pertaining to constructing a new sidewalk along Palmer Lake Drive West. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, presented information on an AARP meeting on March 23, 2016 regarding volunteering in the community. She highlighted volunteering as an election judge. She also presented a flyer regarding the 38 Annual Brooklyn Center Community Prayer Breakfast on April 30, 2016. 03/14/16 -1- DRAFT Alice Wendt, 6400 Willow Lane, asked for clarification on deck railing heights and stated there are issues in other communities with railings that are 36 inches high. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2.INVOCATION Councilmember Graves read a passage from Modern Man in Search of a Soul by Carl Gustav Jung. 3.CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Willson at 7:00 p.m. 4.ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5.FLAG CEREMONY AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - BOY SCOUT TROOP 454 Boy Scout Troop 454 presented the colors and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mayor Willson expressed his thanks to the troop for their efforts. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the February 22, 2016, Regular Session minutes, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.February 22, 2016— Study Session 2.February 22, 2016 - Regular Session 3. February 22, 2016— Work Session 6b. LICENSES 03/14/16 -2- DRAFT MECHANICAL Air Conditioning Associate Cool Air Mechanical Holl-Tec Installations, LLC MN Plumbing and Appliances, Inc. RENTAL RENEWAL (TYPE III— one-year license) 6001 Admiral Place 5316 Colfax Avenue North 807 Woodbine Lane 6101 Xerxes Avenue North Passed w/weather deferral 55 W Ivy Avenue, St. Paul 1544 134th Avenue NE, Ham Lake 77213 1 Avenue, Foley 14105 Rutgers Street NE, Prior Lake Invitation Homes Main Street Renewal, LLC Jonathan Green (missing 2 ARM meetings) Govan Singh RENEWAL (TYPE II— two-year license) 6835 Colfax Avenue North Adeyinka Badewa 7136 Fremont Avenue North Phyllis Weisberg 4207 Lakeside Avenue #224 Marina Feldman 7207 Willow Lane North Ad Woods RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license) 515 621 d Avenue North Wendi Agness 5112 70th Avenue North Invitation Homes 7217 Camden Avenue North Invitation Homes 5619 Hillsview Road James Kaun 6930 Oliver Avenue North Robert E. Lindahi 6c.APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE CHURCH OF ST. ALPHONSUS, 7025 HALIFAX AVENUE NORTH, FOR A SOCIAL EVENT TO BE HELD APRIL 30, 2016 6d.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER; ADDING NEW SECTION 4.06 AND RENUMBERING CURRENT SECTIONS 4.06 AND 4.07 TO 4.07 AND 4.08, RESPECTIVELY 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-33 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2016-01, 02, 03 AND 04, PALMER LAKE WEST AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Motion passed unanimously. 03/14/16 -3- DRAFT 7.PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS None 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS AND WEED REMOVAL COSTS This item was first read on February 8, 2016; published in the official newspaper on February 18, 2016; and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. 8a1. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-34 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COST TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson provided an overview; special assessment background; pending special assessments; public nuisance notification procedures; and guidelines for appellants. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-34 Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Cost to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 8a2. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-35 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 03/14/16 -4- DRAFT Thomas Cramer, 6225 Lee Avenue N, stated that street improvements dug up half of his front lawn and during that time he was assessed $250 for long grass. This fine was retracted after he contacted the City. He was told not to mow the new grass immediately and was fined $100 after two weeks. He stated that the new grass has grown twice as fast and he is only able to mow every three weeks because he has to rent a lawn mower. He is asking for relief from the fine. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-35. Certifying Special Assessments for Weed Removal Costs to the .Hennepin County Tax Rolls with exclusion of the property at 6225 Lee Avenue North property. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-36 ADOPTING THE TH 252 CORRIDOR STUDY PLAN AS A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE FOR TH 252 FROM I- 94/694 TO TH 610 Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. He presented the purpose of the study; study goals and objectives; issues-existing conditions; questionnaire results; intersection alternatives and other solutions - evaluated; access options; Alternative A; Alternative B; Alternative D; Alternative F; alternatives evaluations; recommended access configuration with a combination of A and B that would include a 66th Avenue N full access interchange, 70th Avenue closed and a pedestrian bridge, and a 731(1 Avenue full access combination with Brookdale Drive; various images of the 66th Avenue interchange; and next steps. Councilmember Ryan and Mr. Lillehaug discussed the significant impact on traffic and traffic safety with Alternatives D and F; the fact that there has not been detailed studies done on those options on the local roadways deeper into Brooklyn Center; and the number of people that would be impacted by the options. Mayor Willson and Mr. Lillehaug discussed the actual construction taking place possibly as far out as twenty years; TH 252 no longer being included in Mn/DOT's transportation plan; and, the City Council petitioning the Met Council and Mn/DOT to include the TH 252 Corridor in its transportation plan. Mayor Willson stated that the 66th, 70th , and 73rd Avenue intersections fall into the top 20 worst intersections and asked if there was any rationale by Mn/DOT as to why they pulled it out of the plan. Mr. Lillehaug replied that it comes down to limited funding and a 2008 re-prioritization away from expansion projects. He stated that the City is working to get the Corridor into the transportation plan. He stated that a parallel path would be to go intersection-by-intersection because a Highway 694 to Highway 610 reconstruction project would be too difficult for the 03/14/16 -5- DRAFT City to fund. The alternative is for cities to pick away at the intersections and that is what is being recommended as a parallel path. If the City Council approves the resolution, the City could proceed with a federal funding application. The first project would most likely be the 66th Avenue interchange and closing 70 th . A freeway conversion study needs to be done to create a corridor that works for all interested parties. Hennepin County is waiting for the City of Brooklyn Center to finish their study and then will proceed with their freeway conversion study. Councilmember Ryan confirmed that the City was working with the City of Brooklyn Park because the 7311 Avenue full access combination with Brookdale Drive would depend on approval by the City of Brooklyn Park. Mr. Lillehaug replied the City would work with Mn/DOT on 66th and 701h but 73" Avenue is a joint jurisdiction intersection with the City of Brooklyn Park. He also stated that getting the corridor into the State's transportation plan would result in a project 7-10 years out at minimum, and the federal solicitation of projects will take place in July 2016 with a construction date of 2021. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Alice Wendt, 6400 Willow Lane, stated that she was concerned about sound, metro transit stops, taking out two intersections that only moves the traffic jams, elevation transition, and future light rail. Bill D'Amour, 7118 Willow Lane, talked about the low number of people filling out the questionnaire and stated that it indicates that there has been a serious lack in getting the community and key stakeholders involved in this project. He stated that in an earlier meeting, yellow warning lights were suggested and asked if the City has made a recommendation to install them in the interim to see if they reduce the danger. Stephen Cooper, 6632 West River Road, talked about the current problems at the Highway 694 to TH 252 entrance ramp and stated that the plan does not address the danger issues during rush hour. He stated that he has asked about this since the beginning. He suggested using the Regal Theater property to alleviate the problem. He stated that currently 17,000 cars a day would be coming through the 66th Avenue interchange. The plan ignores every suggestion made by the community in the past and Alternatives D and F could never be done. He is strongly against the 66k" Avenue full access exchange and feels the 73rd Avenue full access combination with Brookdale Drive would have lower costs. He asked why the City is rushing to hurt its residents if Mn/DOT and the Met Council are currently not on board. He stated that there will be more deaths at 73' Avenue because the cars are going too fast. He talked about the sound walls that affect townhomes on Willow Lane and asked what the proposed speed would be on the exit ramps. He has been told that it will be 30 mph. If the decision for a limited access highway is made, it should be coordinated with other communities. He stated that there is nothing in the plan that addresses safety and it is shocking to sell it as a safety plan. 03/14/16 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan asked Mr. Cooper about his background. Mr. Cooper stated he is an attorney and the City is inviting a lawsuit because the City is knowingly building a defective design. Dave Edquist, Holiday Station Representative, stated that they were stunned by this proposal. He stated their station is a successful and valuable business and this is unacceptable. They will go to whatever lengths needed to keep their business intact. He stated that there has been no past indication that the station would be a victim and the drawings are not that great. He wanted to make a statement that they are concerned and would work with the City but will defend their business. Janet Jordan, 6640 West River Road, talked about alternative ideas for interchanges including a divergent diamond interchange, a single point urban interchange, and a double teardrop roundabout. She stated that as a property owner she has already given up property to imminent domain and she would like that to have consideration. She stated that it is not prudent for the City Council to vote on this item at this meeting. Robert Davis, 6620 Willow Lane, stated that no one has asked for the project and people will stop putting money into their homes in anticipation of the project. Lois Holmes, 6813 Dupont Avenue N, talked about the safety issue that needs to be handled when people come off Highway 694, see stoplights, and feel they have to cut across traffic to make a left turn. She stated that three signs to direct people would help. Walt Wenholz, 501 69th Avenue N., commented that people living in St. Michael will use Highway 610 to TH 252 to get to Minneapolis once Highway 610 is finished. He stated he doesn't know if we can wait 10-20 years to do this because TH 252 is already a freeway, it is imperative to get this going, and Alternatives A and B are the only viable alternatives. David Mulla, 6732 Willow Lane, talked about solving the safety issues more cheaply than what is currently proposed by the use of rumble strips and enhanced police presence to address speed issues. He stated that the plans presented are not long-term plans and do not take into consideration Highway 694 to Highway 610 and Brooklyn Park's issues. He feels that in the interim, money should be spent more wisely by changing driver behavior and maybe things could be left as they are so that people can visit Brooklyn Center and not just speed through it. Mark Waggoner, 6918 West River Road, asked about the bridges on 66th and 70th Avenues and if they will be going under TH 252. John Klein, 1100 Woodbine Lane, asked about closing 65th altogether, making it residential and what it would cost. Mayor Willson stated that there had been a lot of discussion around that and one entrance and exit in a neighborhood was thought to be too great an obstacle. 03/14/16 -7- DRAFT Mr. Kline stated he would still like to see what the cost would be and hear more about that option. Bill Newman, 6712 West River Road, asked the purpose of TH 252 and who it serves. He thinks it best serves Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center as a limited highway to go north and south. He stated that it seems to be designed to give someone living 20 miles north of it a faster way to get to work. He talked about the impact on the Riverwood neighborhood. He stated that Mn/DOT may want a limited access highway in the future but that takes a comprehensive plan and it isn't on the radar now. While we are waiting for Mn/DOT to come up with plan, we need to look at reducing speed where people transition from Highway 694 to TH 252. He talked about timing of the lights and camera traps as short-term solutions. He stated that the plan sends fatalities further north. Carol McMahan, River Glen Apartments Manager, stated that she would lose rental traffic if Avenue was closed. Rick Jewett, 6552 Willow Lane, stated he doesn't understand how this would be an improvement and he doesn't think people should be told to sit down and shut up. He stated that there will be no protection from lights and noise and lower property values would be a by-product. Kelly Tomsche, 6733 Willow Lane, talked about the pollutants and noise affecting the river. She doesn't think it is a good plan and hopes they will reconsider. Gary Brown, 7012 Willow Lane, former Brooklyn Park City Engineer, stated that he supports the proposal and agrees with the comments that it should not be done without support of Brooklyn Park. He stated that 20-year plans can have things added to them and there will be people who are adversely impacted but we have to think of the people traveling the roadway. Mayor Willson stated he is looking forward to the environmental study that Mn/DOT will do. Matt Weinacht, 1331 67th Lane N., talked about the elementary school off 69th Avenue, the high school on 66th Avenue, the safety concerns and improvements needed to carry additional traffic. He stated the plan makes no mention of using natural sound barriers along with the sound walls. He asked if the traffic counts were for the straight-through traffic or turning traffic. Lisa McNaughton, 6632 West River Road, urged the City Council to be thoughtful about what they are doing because homes and livelihoods are at stake. She stated that Brooklyn Center tends to find new projects to jump on to. She wants to make sure the City is taking care of its community and not surrounding communities. Marilyn Knudsen, 6900 Willow Lane, asked what we are doing for Brooklyn Center. She stated that she loves having non-major freeways and easy access without getting on a freeway and TH 252 is a way for people to pass through our City. If something needs to be done, it needs to be done in a more conceptual way. It is not Brooklyn Center's job to connect Highway 610 and Minneapolis. 03/14/16 -8- DRAFT Kirk Johnson, 6900 Willow Lane, stated that it shocked him that the project is not being driven by Mn/DOT. It isn't helping Brooklyn Center residents getting on or off TH 252, taking out lights is going to speed up the traffic, and there will be more deaths than there is now. Ned Storla, 6536 Willow Lane, stated he feels sorry for the City Council and the neighborhood and that it is a difficult decision. He stated that there is a question that if we do this, will the problems be doubled. David Wagtskj old, 6854 West River Road, proposed lowering the speed limit from Highway 610 to Highway 694 to 45 mph and stated this could be done temporarily and quickly. Mary Olson, 7224 Camden Avenue N., talked about the proposal to stop bus service on TH 252 and stated she rides the bus. She stated that most of the accidents are because of people running red lights and going 10 mph over the speed limits. The proposed changes will not make people obey the law and will allow them to go faster. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson read a letter from Joy Anderson, 1201 73rd Avenue N., concerning noise and air pollution from the project being detrimental to her health and the cost to her as a homeowner. She questioned how the project will impact her property value and the environmental impact. She asked if there were healthier and greener options and if TH 252 could have a reduced speed limit to 45 mph now and in the future. She advocated for overall greener spaces and less concrete and suggested making a plan to communicate with the community regarding these issues. Ron Schmidt, 6518 Willow Lane, talked about crossing TH 252 as a pedestrian and how hard it is. He asked if cameras could be put in at 66 th Avenue to catch speeders and stated this would be cheaper and could possibly be done on 70th Avenue and 73d Avenue. Alice Wendt, 6400 Willow Lane, spoke about issues with semi-trailers unloading at Holiday and Super America and having to use the roundabout. She also stated she has contacted James Nobles, Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, for more information on the project. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves stated her understanding was that this is just a plan or guide but not a final decision by any means and that by implementing it as a City, it encourages Mn/DOT and the Met Council to participate. To her knowledge it was not a final say so on any specifics. She asked if this was correct. Mayor Willson confirmed that they are trying to spur the discussion with the Met Council, Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and Brooklyn Park and would like to see this portion of the plan all the way up to Highway 610 and all the jurisdictions working cooperatively. 03/14/16 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Graves clarified that when the project continues to move forward, there will be an opportunity to revisit the ideas in the future. Mayor Willson answered affirmatively and stated that there would be an environmental study. Mn/DOT will have to do more studies and the City's consultant has said that this is what is coming back as a study. By no means does the City have funding or the other jurisdictions on board. Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates all the comments and engagement by Brooklyn Center residents and hearing what can be done to make it safer. Councilmember Ryan echoed Councilmember Graves' sentiments- and appreciates the level of interest and comments that everyone made. He stated we are in the position of seeing recommendations from professional engineers and with more eyes on the design concept, more issues are being brought to our attention. The City Council is very concerned about all of these details and this was thrust upon us by the prospect of Highway 610 joining 194 that would increase the traffic on TH 252. The whole object is to try to address safety, connectivity, and to bring a better roadway that will address the traffic volume and make it possible for residents to access their properties. He stated he is sure there will be a lot of disagreement no matter what they decide. He doesn't want to take property or homes and that would give him great concern. He attended all of the TH 252 meetings and open houses and wanted to hear from as many people as he could. He talked about the low number of responses on the survey. He would also like to see additional safety measures for Riverwood residents and some of the interim safety measures looked into. He is concerned about the perception that the City Council is trying to ram something down someone's throat and is troubled about how this may affect residents. Councilmember Myszkowski stated this is difficult for the City Council and residents because there are so many questions to be answered. The study was done because they knew that something needed to be done and to engage other entities and they wanted input on the decision. She stated that TH 252 is a State road and talked about the number of entities that still need to study this and the many changes that could take place. She stated she is not minimizing the residents' input, but she is fully aware that their input may not be used. She asked the residents to bear with the City Council and stated they have given the City Council a lot of ideas. She commended the City Engineer on trying to communicate with residents and thanked residents for coming. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she appreciated all the comments and concerns given tonight and residents speaking passionately about their community. She enjoyed speaking with individuals about this subject. She asked Mayor Willson if she moved to adopt the resolution, was she moving to adopt the plan or to move forward with the process. She stated that she does not support the plan but does support moving forward and getting more information. Mayor Willson replied that the City Council is approving the Corridor Study and the recommendations of the City Engineer to move forward with the other jurisdictions to be able to build something. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson clarified that the City Council is voting for the proposal as submitted. Mayor Willson answered affirmatively. 03/14/16 -10- - DRAFT Mayor Willson stated he would like to see something from Highway 610 to 194 because traffic will increase significantly on TH 252, Humboldt Avenue, and Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated it is a difficult decision but we need to start to do some planning. He doesn't anticipate that this will be the final outcome because it is hard to say what the federal government and the State will come back with. He talked about Mn/DOT taking TH 252 off the 20-year plan and stated he is working hard to get it back on the plan to address traffic in the City. Councilmember Graves asked if there was a law about the number of intersections that would be allowed in a certain span. Councilmember Ryan stated that this is a question for the City Engineer. The design concept is driven by a set of criteria. He clarified with Mr. Eitel that the proposed concept of Alternatives A and B was vetted with Mn/DOT. Mr. Eitel confirmed this and stated it is his understanding there would be a maximum of three intersections. Councilmember Ryan stated the way the resolution is written, the City Council is being asked to accept the City Engineer's recommendation. He stated that Mr. Cooper had mentioned there weren't a lot of specific dimensional detail presented and that is because that has to be fleshed out by a highway designer. Councilmember Ryan asked Mr. Lillehaug if specific interchange dimensions would have to be provided by Mn/DOT engineers. Mr. Lillehaug replied that the resolution as presented would be to adopt the study as a planning and development guide and specifically a full access interchange designed by Mn/DOT. There has been a preliminary design done by Mn/DOT. The next steps would be to proceed for federal funding in July. He stated if the City Council is not comfortable with the resolution, they could wait to see the Hennepin County study from Highway 694 to Highway 610. Councilmember Ryan clarified that Mn/DOT would not have approved this configuration if their designers felt it did not meet standards. Mr. Lillehaug stated that the design was done by many entities at Mn/DOT and there is no other approval level within Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT is ready to be behind the City in supporting the project and they are ready to pony-up the majority of the money and find funding for the project, but Mn/DOT does need the City to spearhead the project. Mayor Willson clarified that the resolution is just for the 66th Avenue interchange. Mr. Lillehau stated that if aproved, the project would be the 66th Avenue interchange and closing 70 Avenue and 73r Avenue would be in the future. Councilmember Myszkowski clarified that in July when federal funding is applied for, the construction won't start until 2021 and in the meantime, other entities could make changes. Mr. Lillehaug replied there would be design changes, but to proceed the City would have to support a 66th Avenue interchange. Councilmember Myszkowski asked if the City had made any attempts to enforce traffic speed. Mr. Lillehaug replied that speed enforcement would require an extensive amount of time to be effective and that falsely lowering speed will create significant safety issues. 03/14/16 -11- DRAFT Mayor Willson asked if other jurisdictions will continue to look at the corridor and if the City will have the opportunity to work with other entities. Mr. Lillehaug replied that we could apply for funding with the general understanding that the City is committed to it, but if things change the City could give up the funding and it expects to participate in Hennepin County's study looking at the entire corridor. Mayor Willson spoke about being part of looking at the whole corridor. He asked if someone will be driving a corridor study if the City takes no action. Mr. Lillehaug stated that he believes Hennepin County will continue their study. Councilmember Ryan asked City Attorney Gilchrist for comments regarding cameras to enforce speeding. City Attorney Gilchrist stated that the City of Minneapolis' red light cameras were struck down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2007. The concern was that the City's ordinances conflicted with State Statute. He suspects that the City would be dealing with this challenge. Mayor Willson stated that this is a State-owned roadway. City Attorney Gilchrist stated there would still be the uniformity of Statute issue. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she would not support the resolution because she doesn't like the configuration. Councilmember Ryan stated that this has been very difficult. He looks at the anticipated increased volume on TH 252 and he doesn't take the action lightly. He deeply regrets that property owners are impacted and looks at the fact that fewer properties are impacted by the recommendation. He stated the 70th Avenue proposal would take more properties. He looks at the traffic impact on the feeder streets and the desire to access commercial properties on 66 1h Avenue. If it were a better proposal to just have an overpass, the City would still have to bear significant cost. He stated that all things considered, he will support the recommendation, but would offer a friendly amendment to the resolution that the City approach Mn/DOT to do some additional safety mitigation with flashing lights; ask staff to study additional speed enforcement along the corridor; and, ask staff to provide the City Council with further data on changing the speed limit in the interim. Mayor Willson moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-36. Adopting the TH 252 Corridor Study Plan as a Planning and Development Guide for TH 252 from 1-94/694 to TH 610. Couneilmember Ryan offered and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded a friendly amendment to instruct staff to study additional safety mitigation measures along the corridor such as flashing lights, speed enforcement, and a study of changing the speed limit through the City's portion of the corridor in the interest of enhanced safety. The friendly amendment carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson voting against. 03/14/16 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Graves asked about bus service and if there has been any discussion about how many people will be affected and what the alternatives would be. Mr. Lillehaug replied that it was evaluated as part of study and the bus service would have to get off TH 252. The buses would exit at the access points and create new bus stops off TH 252. New bus stops would be would be looked at as part of the next level of study. Mayor Willson asked if the bus stop would be on both sides of 66 1h Avenue, should the interchange be built. Mr. Lillehaug replied that that would be a possibility. Mayor Willson clarified that changes to bus stops would be made at 66th Avenue and 70th Avenue and that 73'' Avenue wouldn't change. Mr. Lillehaug replied that this issue will have to be addressed throughout the corridor. Councilmember Ryan stated that should the City of Brooklyn Center not come forward with its own plan, Mn/DOT will decide what they want to do and in failing to take the initiative he believes the City gives up its influence on trying to make the roadway work for Brooklyn Center residents. Mr. Lillehaug commented that under any plan there is a certain level of municipal consent, but with the City leading the way, it protects the City's interest. Mayor Willson stated if the plan were to change significantly, at least the City has grounds to say here is what we originally looked at and now it is being changed significantly. Mr. Lillehaug stated that Mn/DOT is a strong partner and it will be a mutual project. The main motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson voting against. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None 10.COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS lOa. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSES Mayor Willson explained the streamlined process used to consider Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental Licenses. Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on any of the rental licenses as listed on tonight's meeting agenda. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion on Agenda Items lOal through 10a7. lOal. 2006 BROOKVIEW DRIVE 03/14/16 -13- DRAFT 104. 5415 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH 100. 7025 DREW AVENUE NORTH 10a4. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-37 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 3701 69TH AVENUE NORTH 10a5. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-38 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5444 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH 10a6. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-39 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6400 NOBLE AVENUE NORTH 10a7. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-40 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5607 LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for the following: 2006 Brookview Drive; 5415 Emerson Avenue; 7025 Drew Avenue North; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-37 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 3701 69th Avenue North, RESOLUTION NO. 2016-38 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5444 Dupont Avenue North, RESOLUTION NO. 2016-39 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 6400 Noble Avenue North, and RESOLUTION NO. 2016-40 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5607 Lyndale Avenue North, with the requirement that the mitigation plans and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to before renewal licenses would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. lOb. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12-901, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES; LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY Mr. Eitel stated that the report was prepared by the City Manager and he had respectfully requested that this consideration be tabled until the March 28, 2016 meeting. City Attorney Gilchrist wanted the City Council to be aware that this would leave a seven-day gap. Mayor Willson moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to table the report until March 28, 2016. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • February 25, 2016: Forum on Housing Policy in New Brighton • March 4, 2016: Visit Minneapolis Northwest Meeting • March 16, 2016: American Cancer Society Meeting with Lawmakers at the State Capitol • March 17, 2016: Brooklyn Center Lions Club Business Meeting 03/14/16 -14- DRAFT Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • March 1, 2016: Caucus Involvement • March 2, 2016: Brooklyn Center University Meeting Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • February 24, 2016: Odyssey Academy Board Meeting • February 25, 2016: Brooklyn Center Business Association Meeting • FBI Seminar Regarding the Murders at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation • March 15, 2016: Earle Brown Days and Housing Commission Meeting Councilmember Graves reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • March 1, 2016: Caucus Involvement • March 2, 2016: Brooklyn Center University Meeting • March 3, 2016: Met with Coordinator of Youth Council • March 9, 2016: City-Wide Minneapolis Youth Worker Group Meeting • March 14, 2016: Youth Council Meeting • March 15, 2016: Park and Recreation Meeting Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • March 2, 2016: Brooklyn Center University Meeting • March 4, 2016: HUD Housing Policy Meeting • March 7, 2016: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth Meeting • March 9, 2016: Governor's State of the State 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 03/14/16 -15- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item N©0 6b EWJ[iJ I N I Dh'A U'A I k"4 [I) P1IJ I DATE: March 21, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Rozlyn Tousignant, Deputy City Clerk'c SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses on March 28, 2016. Background: The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. LIQUOR - ON-SALE WINE INTOXICATING AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR Rose Garden LLC dba Rose Garden MECHANICAL AAA-Andersons GTS HVAC, Inc Twin Cities Plumbing RENTAL See attached report. 6090 Shingle Creek Parkway 22022 Elston Ave, Forest Lake 4018 Joyce Lane, Brooklyn Center 13533 Partridge Circle NW, Andover Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for ailpeople and preserves the public trust [II1PJ[iJ I U I I ak'4 U I DI 'A (.1 UI WJi Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type l-3Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II - 2 Year 1-2 units Gre at e r than 1 but not more than 4 Type III - 1 Year 11-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 Type IV —6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 34umts 0-025 - - - 5 or more units 0-0.3 5 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but )t -more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves (lie public trust Vta)><CU4.1 >- a)0.a 0. sO CUU)a)4.) 4-, >-4-)L) C04-,Ca) I-)a)CU Vta) -ta)0.0 a- z co a)Ca) 09-a)U a)I-n 0IL Vt CUL) ELU m a)0. 0a) VtVt cia ca C ci) a)0. Ia)VtCWI-) ** 0 Vt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00000C :2 .2 0 0 00 0000 00 00 00 0 00000 U,* --0 * I U)1.) 0. -a)* (I) * Ca—C -—--—= EL..1 -.J 1> - - 0 00 0000 00 00 00 0 0000 ° - _cI)—---===a) 0.. -U,+-'E N N0 ttom mc NN mm N cO0cO1.0a) -CU-o Ct mm -9-0 bo 0..-41 .0 -..SE C I-Ca 4- 0 CLOCa) =C ''0 CI)U 41a).0I Ct cu—tti)tto U)C 0-CL bo m 0 >->b0 CabJ)C Ca)CI)u >.CO0)V)•(/)a) ( I- .U)CCI)U)Ca U, C a)—_L >C-5 >Cu a) >E C Ca Wo CU CU CU CU Ca CU U CU CU Ca Ca CU Ca Ca (U Ca CU CU Ca CU --E (I (1-i t)a)wC—C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Ca) i-c 0 CI)a)or Cl)Of a)Q a) a) a) a) a) a)CI)U)a)a)CI)a)a) a) a)a) --E E E E E E EE--I.E E CU Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca (U CU Ca CU (U Ca CU-U)Ca CU L.L -txo 2C U_Li-CI)OJa)CI)a)a)a)a)0)0)-W2 Q ca D 00 CCCCDb bUbCC bUbUCC bUbCC C bUbUObflbDCCCCC tD (1)1/)(Pt -U) U a) > C C C-i-i a) a).04.1 Z 0).041 a) 4-Ca a)0 CI) -<ta)Ca a)-zzzz >U) zZz)a)o a)>a)a)>CI)<Ca >>><a)>>>>I 1--3>.a.2c..0 E 4-< C -i .04- .-..0 a)<C-.Co C CC .t-.CI)Ca)..-o0 Gi >I-0 C->Lfl a)-C4-0-C4-..04-o >a)C C .-CI)C 0 =I 0 0 x -I-0—_ 0CLQ0 )C D " 4-N-1 U) 4- 00 -INO-I N1.1)00 (.0-1 -1 000000-1 4- NNi-m 4- U' 0 4- N0 01.000 I.!)0I..0..CU10 w 0r co a)..j .._. 0 0 U)c-n .._. 0 Nt (.0m CCt -Im 10-c o 0-Nin NLD Ln C1_Ln ... 0 mc.o m a)in .. 0 r-. CI) N ...._. 0 0c-n l-in NCt 10(.0 CUa)>- a)0. CL) 0. I- City Condi Agenda Item No. 6 iIS1PJIIJ I fl N V M'4 L'"4 I DI'4 ci) 1II ae i DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business & Development SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Decks and Porches as an Allowable Encroachinent into Certain Residential Yard Setback Areas and Adding New Definitions of Decks and Porches. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council consider and approve the First Reading of the attached Ordinance, and establish the Second Reading and Public Hearing for April 25, 2016. Background: At the March 14, 2016 City Council Work Session, city planning staff presented this final draft ordinance for preliminary review and consideration, and requested Council direction in how to proceed with this item. The general consensus of the Council was supportive and acceptance of the ordinance in form and context; and whereupon brief discussion, provided direction to present this item for First Reading and setting of public hearing at the next regular council meeting. As noted at the March l4 " Work Session, this planning item [ordinance] was presented, analyzed and discussed multiple times by the Planning Commission throughout the 2015 and 2016 agenda meeting year. A separate public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission at the November 12, 2015 meeting, and the final draft version of this ordinance was given favorable recommendation at their February 25, 2016 meeting (PC Minutes attached). The Planning Commission and planning staff remain confident this proposed ordinance meets the spirit and intent of the City Council's direction and desire in providing certain allowances for decks and porches in the front-yard setback areas. The City Attorney has also reviewed this Draft Ordinance, and approved the initial form, context and language. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 2016, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding decks and porches as an allowable encroachment into certain residential yard setback areas, and adding new definitions of deck and porches. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at (763) 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING DECKS AND PORCHES AS AN ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL YARD SETBACK AREAS AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF DECKS AND PORCHES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35-400 is amended as follows: Section 35-400. TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. 8. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: a.In any yards: Off-street open parking spaces; ramps and landings providing handicap accessibility to a principal structumterraces; awnings; canopies; front entry steps and landings not cooding 1 00 ' f th aroa of th yard; roofed portico or enclosed vestibule not exceeding 36 sq. ft. in gM chimneys; flagpoles; air conditioner condensers; temporary seasonal swimming pools; opaque fences, hedges, or walls provided they shall not exceed four feet in height in front yards and provided they do not impede vision within the sight triangle described in Section 35-560, or a clear view of the address of the principal building. Fences, hedges, or walls may exceed four feet in height alongside interior property lines. No fence, hedge or wall shall be allowed which constitutes an unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators. b.In rear yards: Recreational and laundry drying equipment; arbors and trellises; balconies limited to 15% of the yard area; breezeways, open porches; detached outdoor living rooms (patios). 7) All new elements and features of the Dorch, including the roof. must be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35-900 is amended by adding definitions as follows: Section 35-900. DEFINITIONS. DECK - A horizontal, unenclosed, above-ground, level platform without a roof, which may be attached or unattached to a principal dwelling, including any attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features not more than 36 inches above the platform. and which platform is thnctionallv related to a principal use. An unattached deck is considered an accessory structure in any yard, wetland, floodplain, or river corridor critical area. PORCH. ENCLOSED - A horizontal roofed platform attached to an entrance of a dwelling, with an integrated wall system consisting of roof support members such as pillars, posts or columns, and which is fully enclosed by walls, screens, windows, or removable storm-windows that cannot be accessed from the outside except through a door that is capable of being locked. PORCH. UNENCLOSED - A horizontal roofed platform attached to an entrance of a dwelling, with a roof support system consisting of pillars, posts or columns, which may or may not have railings or knee-wall railings no higher than 36-inches from the platform level, and which does not include walls, screens, windows, or doors. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of ,2016. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication .2016 Effective Date , 2016 (trikcut toxt indicates matter to be deleted, while double underline text indicates new matter) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 25,2016 1.CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:06 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Chair Randy Christensen, Commissioners John MacMillan, Carlos Morgan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Susan Tade were present. Commissioner Alexander Morgan was absent and excused. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti and Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel. 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve the agenda of the February 25, 2016 meeting. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 2016 Chair Christensen requested the following change to Page 6, third paragraph from the bottom. Commissioner Morgan stated his feeling that it is important and should be marketed that the City is the first major majority minority City in the state. There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2016 meeting as amended above. The motion passed. 5.CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Christensen explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 6.PLANNING ITEMS 6a) RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING DECKS AND PORCHES AS AN ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT INTO CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL YARD SETBACK AREAS AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF DECKS AND PORCHES. PC Minutes 02-25-16 -1- Mr. Benetti provided Commissioners with a taped mock-up of a 6' x 16' and 8' x 12' (for a recommended total of 100 square feet) deck. He stated that staff felt that the six-foot deck was the most appropriate measurement for a deck because there is no requirement to make the deck architecturally compatible with the exterior of the home. Commissioner Sweeney commented that the six-foot deck is more in keeping with the style of ramblers in the City. She also stated that she didn't feel that a deck in the front yard would be used for guests. Commissioners agreed on the six-foot deck. Mr. Benetti provided Commissioners with a taped mock-up of an 8'x 20' and a 10' x 20' (for a recommended total of 200 square feet) porch. Discussion took place regarding the sizable investment in a porch; the size of the porch being considered an addition to the home; setbacks; the architectural flexibility given to porches as compared to the concrete standards of the deck; and the number of concrete stoops in the City that will need replacing. Commissioner Morgan stated that the Planning Commission is at the forefront and giving direction and guidelines to the second generation of decks and porches in the City. ACTION TO APPROVE NEW ORDINANCE LANGUAGE There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to allow a 6-foot deck and a 10-foot porch and to accept all other ordinance language presented to the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, Sweeney, and Tade. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen stated that the mock-ups were useful and thanked Planning Staff for providing them. PC Minutes 02-25-16 -2- City Ctindi Agenda Item No. 6d [iS1IJ[iJ I N I MYA U'A I M4 [I) 1I I1SJIYkI DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director SUBJECT: Call for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for the Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds (The Sanctuary of Brooklyn Center Project) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution calling for a public hearing on Monday, April 25 th , 2016 concerning issuance of conduit revenue debt. Background: The Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center, LP has approached the City of Brooklyn Center requesting authorization for issuance of conduit bonds to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 158-unit affordable multifamily senior assisted living rental housing facility to be located at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard and to cover the administrative costs of the issuance of bonds. On January 25, 2016 the City Council approved The Sanctuary of Brooklyn Center's site and building development plan. On February 19, 2016 the Sanctuary of Brooklyn Center, LP submitted an application for conduit revenue bond project financing along with the applicable fee. City staff, financial advisor and bond attorney have reviewed the application and concur that meets the criteria set forth in the City's conduit debt administrative guidelines. A brief presentation on the entire process will be prepared and presented as an introduction to the public hearing on April 25, 2016. Budget Issues: The Bonds will not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of Brooklyn Center. The issuance of the Bonds will not affect the City's credit rating. Strategic Priorities: Targeted Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive conmuinity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C; GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THERETO; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED; AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO (THE SANCTUARY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City is a Home Rule charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide finds to finance or refinance multifamily housing developments located within the City. WHEREAS, as a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must adopt a housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1 a, of the Act (the "Housing Program"). Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, a public hearing must be held on the Housing Program after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City, at least 15 days before the hearing. WHEREAS, the Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center, LP, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Borrower"), has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27,000,000, in one or more series at one time or from time to time (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be loaned by the City to the Borrower to be applied by the Borrower to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 158-unit affordable senior assisted living rental housing facility, to be located at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard in the City (the "Project"). The Borrower will apply the proceeds of the loan to: (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project; (ii) fund one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the Bonds; and (iii) pay certain costs of issuing the Bonds. WHEREAS, under Section 147(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), prior to the issuance of the Bonds a public hearing duly noticed must be held by the City Council. WHEREAS, under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the "Allocation Act"). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 4760100 JSB BR291-363 Section 1. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrower to the City to date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings, determinations, and declarations: (a)The Project consists of the acquisition, construction and equipping of a multifamily senior rental housing development designed and intended to be used for rental occupancy. (b)The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the proceeds of the loan will be applied to: (i) the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project; (ii) the funding of one or more reserve funds to secure the timely payment of the Bonds; and (iii) the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds. The City will enter into a loan agreement (or other revenue agreement) with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan when due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Project, including taxes thereon. (c)In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project and related costs, the City's purpose is to further the policies of the Act. (d)The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general or moral obligation of the City and will not be secured by or payable from revenues derived from any exercise of the taxing powers of the City. Section 2. Public Hearing. The City will conduct a public hearing on Monday, April 25, 2016, or such other date as determined by the City Manager in order to meet publication requirements in accordance with applicable law, on the Housing Program, the Project, and the issuance of revenue Bonds by the City, notice of which hearing in substantially attached as Exhibit A (the "Public Notice") will be published as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. City staff is hereby authorized to cause the publication of the Public Notice in accordance with applicable law. The Public Notice will provide a general, functional description of the Project, as well as the maximum aggregate face amount of the obligations to be issued for the purposes referenced above, the identity of the initial owner, operator, or manager of the Project, and the location of the Project. The Public Notice is authorized to be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the City on a date at least 15 days before the meeting of the City Council at which the public hearing will take place. At the public hearing reasonable opportunity will be provided for interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the Project and the proposed issuance of such revenue obligations. Section 3. Housing Program. Bond counsel, as described below, shall prepare and submit to the City a draft Housing Program to authorize the issuance by the City of up to $27,000,000 in revenue Bonds to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project by the Borrower. City staff is hereby authorized to review, approve and submit the Housing Program to the Metropolitan Council for its review on or before the date of publication of the Public Notice. Section 4. Preliminary Approval. The City Council hereby provides preliminary approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $27,000,000 to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project pursuant to the Housing Program of the City, subject to: (i) review of the Housing Program by the Metropolitan Council; (ii) receipt of an allocation of the bonding authority from the State of Minnesota; (iii) a public hearing as required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code; (iv) final approval following the preparation of bond documents; and (v) final determination by the City Council that the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds are in the best interests of the City. 476010v1 JSB BR291-363 2 Section 5. Submission of an Application for an Allocation of Bonding Authority. Under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made pursuant to the requirements of the Act. The City Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allocation of bonding authority pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Allocation Act in accordance with the requirements of the Allocation Act. The Mayor of the City, the City Clerk, and Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, acting as bond counsel with respect to the Project and the Bonds, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions, in cooperation with the Borrower, as are necessary to submit an application for an allocation of bonding authority to Minnesota Management & Budget. Section 6. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code. (a)The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated regulations governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used to reimburse the City or the Borrower for project expenditures paid prior to the date of issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the "Regulations") require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original expenditure not later than 60 days after payment of the original expenditure. The Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within 18 months after the later of: (i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than 3 years after the date the expenditure is paid. The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance of the bonds. (b)To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures under the Act. (c)Based on representations by the Borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or reimbursed from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.15 0-2(,j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within the meaning of Section 1.150- 2(f)(2) of the Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a "de minimus" amount (as defined in Section 1.150- 2(f)(1) of the Regulations), no expenditures with respect to the Project to be reimbursed with the proceeds of the Bonds have been made by the Borrower more than 60 days before the date of adoption of this resolution of the City. (d)Based on representations by the Borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no funds of the Borrower reserved, allocated on a long term-basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Project to be financed from proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the Borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof. Section 7. Costs. The Borrower will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay, or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued. 476010v1 JSB BR291-363 Section 8. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. If, as a result of information made available to or obtained by the City during its review of the Project, it appears that the Project or the issuance of Bonds to finance or refinance the costs thereof is not in the public interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, the City reserves the right to decline to give fmal approval to the issuance of the Bonds. The City also retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds should the City Council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof, determine that it is in the best interests of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents for the transaction. Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. March 28, 2016 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 476010v1 JSB BR291-363 4 EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A HOUSING PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT (THE SANCTUARY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROJECT) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City") will meet on Monday, April 25, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway in the City for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on (i) a proposal of The Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center, LP, a Minnesota limited partnership (or an affiliated entity, the "Borrower"), that the City finance a multifamily housing development hereinafter described, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, by the issuance of revenue bonds, in one or more series, and (ii) the adoption of a housing program for such bonds. The proceeds of such bonds will be used to (i) finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 158-unit affordable multifamily senior assisted living rental housing facility to be located at 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard in the City; (ii) pay costs of issuance and other costs related to the issuance of the bonds; and (iii) fund capitalized interest and certain reserves (collectively, the "Project"). The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower. The maximum aggregate estimated principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project is $27,000,000. The bonds or other obligations if and when issued will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City, and will be payable solely from revenues of the project, and will not be backed by the full faith and credit of the City but will be payable solely from sums paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. A copy of the housing program will be on file at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430, Monday through Friday until the date of the Public Hearing. At the time and place fixed for the Public Hearing, the City Council will give all persons who appear or submit comments in writing to the City Council prior to the hearing, an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. In addition, interested persons may file written comments respecting the proposal with the City to the attention of Nate Reinhardt, at (763) 569-3300 at or prior to said public hearing. Publish April 4, 2016. 476010v1 JSB BR291-363 A-1 City Council Agenda Item No. 6e COUNCIL I{TEM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer$ SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of Contract, Improvement No. 2016-07, Contract 16-D, 2016 Street Seal Coating Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the lowest bid and award a contract for the 2016 street seal coating activities. A map depicting the extent of the proposed work is also attached to this memorandum. Background: Construction bids for the 2016 Street Seal Coating Project were solicited as part of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for street maintenance activities with the cities of Coon Rapids, Andover, Anoka, Fridley, Ham Lake, Columbia Heights, Mahtomedi, East Bethel and Circle Pines. The intent of this JPA is to provide an opportunity for participating cities to obtain lower unit bid prices by combining animal maintenance work for several communities into one project bid in order to promote a more competitive bidding environment. The Joint Powers arrangement appears to be producing highly competitive bids for this work. Construction contract bids were collected and opened by the City of Coon Rapids on March 11, 2016. The bidding results are tabulated as follows: Bidder JPA Bid Amount Pearson Brothers, Inc. $1,562,617.20 Allied Blacktop $1,592,547.42 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $1,679,148.74 Budget Issues: Of the three (3) bids received, the lowest bid was submitted by Pearson Brothers, Inc. of Hanover, Minnesota, in the amount of $1,562,617.20. Brooklyn Center's portion of the bid is $126,016 and is within the designated 2016 operating budget. Strategic Priorities: Key Infrastructure Investments il'l/ssion: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sq/', inclusive coiwnunily that enhances the qua/li' of life fin , all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-07, CONTRACT 16-D, 2016 STREET SEAL COATING WHEREAS, bids for the 2016 street seal coating activities were solicited under the Joint Powers Agreement (SPA) dated February 1, 2005, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59 for the purpose of combining together bidding purposes for street maintenance and servics; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids, bids were received, opened and tabulated by the City of Coon Rapids on the I 11day of March, 2016, under the SPA. Said bids are as follows: Bidder JPA Bid Amount Pearson Brothers, Inc. $1,562,617.20 Allied Blacktop $1,592,547.42 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. $1,679,148.74 WHEREAS, the overall lowest responsible bidder in accordance with the JPA contract is Pearson Brothers, Inc., and Brooklyn Center's portion amounts to $126,016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn center, Minnesota, that: 1.The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to order 2016 seal coating activities, pursuant to the JPA for street maintenance activities, for Improvement Project No. 2016-07, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2.Project costs shall be allocated as follows: Public Works Street Maintenance (43220-6404) $88,211 Municipal State Aid Fund (40200-6404) $37,805 March _28,_2016 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ___—J --------J U -- Lj Lu- -Z LU 01 x M Z" z - ( 1 N. _ It UI Legend CRS-2P - 32,521 SY aON 2016 Seal Coating Area South Area i1 -1 VI Public Works Department January 20, 2016 o 125 250 500 Feet Page 1 of 2I I ii iii I ('1 '1- 0 1 ID 0 (Th U- I.8(Th 0= C('3 8- -Q C" 0• H JI -TF 3V00 LTJjJ-J 7 I ii H. inciro I f7 'id IWO _< pli LD AV LiTh MEsC 11'/I&L12 z .LU I / / /\ I! 31^J VEI ui - ( 1 I // III j /1-' - W2AVS2V1 'r'!J /ii// [( I At i// KTh)I1ti- Jj:( r7L/[ NM fl (1 / if LI I Itpz! LiCeFREEWMI till / XE City Council Agenda Item No. 6f kS1SJ[iJ I V N ahYA u'A I DIA (I) 1II I1iI I DATE: March 21, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Kelli Wick, Human Resources Director\(,kJ SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) LOCAL 86 (POLICE COMMANDERS AND SERGEANTS) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2016 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the labor agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 86 for the period January 1, 2016— December 31, 2016. Background: The current contract with LELS 86 (Police Commanders and Sergeants) expired on December 31, 2015. The City and the Union have met and negotiated in good faith to reach a settlement on all issues of concern. This labor agreement covers police commanders and police sergeants for a total of nine employees. The attached agreement has been approved by a vote of the members and upon adoption by the City Council will establish wages and working conditions for calendar year 2016. The Articles affected by these negotiations include the following: Article 10— Work Schedules Add language for sergeants to record .66 of compensatory time per pay period for the daily sharing of information. Article 14— Court Time Replace current language with the Court Time language from LELS 82 (police officers) for consistency and clarification. Article 28—Insurance Effective 1/1/2016, the City will contribute payment of one thousand one hundred and twenty- four dollars ($1,124) per month per employee for use in participating in the City's insurance benefits for those employees who elect to participate in a high deductible health plan. Effective 1/1/2016, the City will contribute payment of eight hundred fifty-two dollars ($852) per month per employee for use in participating in the City's insurance benefits for those employees who elect to participate in a non-high deductible health plan. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust IiIO1lJ[iJ I U N N DhTA I I k'A (1) iI I1BJk'1 Article 29 - Wage Rates Two and a quarter (2.25%) increase January 1, 2016 for Sergeants. Two (2%) increase January 1, 2016 plus $1.1 4/hour market adjustment for Commanders Article 36, Duration One year agreement for 2016 New Language Article 33 - Tuition Refund Add Tuition Refund language for bargaining unit members who have passed their initial probation period and who are eligible for reimbursement of tuition and required course fees for courses taken for credit through accredited educational institutions. Maximum reimbursement is $1,500 per employee per calendar year. The annual budget for the tuition refund program shall not exceed $6,000. Budget Issues: The increase in the City's insurance contribution equals $7,020. The cost of the 2.25% increase for Sergeants is approximately $14,796. The cost of the 2% increase plus the $1.1 4/hour market adjustments is approximately $15,984. The approved 2016 budget appropriates sufficient funds to cover this expense. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) LOCAL 86 AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2016 WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers and employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with LELS Local 86 (Commanders/Sergeants) for a contract for the year 2016 as attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached contract with LELS Local 86 (Commanders/Sergeants) for calendar year 2016 with such language changes as may be necessary to clarify any terms, provided such language changes do not change the substance or monetary compensation set forth in the attached contract. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage and benefit adjustments shall become effective according to the schedule of the agreement which commences January 1, 2016. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Master Labor Agreement Between City of Brooklyn Center And Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local Number 86 January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE 1 Purpose of Agreement 1 2 Recognition I 3 Definitions 1 4 Employer Security I 5 Employer Authority 2 6 Union Security 2 7 Savings Clause 2 8 Constitutional Protection 2 9 Seniority 2 10 Work Schedules 3 11 Discipline 4 12 Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure 4 13 Overtime (Sergeant Classification)6 14 Court Time 7 15 Call Back Time 8 16 Working Out of Classification 8 17 Standby Pay 8 18 Leaves of Absence 8 19 Severance 9 20 Injury on Duty 9 21 False Arrest Insurance 9 22 Training 9 23 Post License Fees 10 24 Uniforms 10 25 Holiday Leave 10 26 Vacation Leave 11 27 Sick Leave 11 28 Insurance 12 29 Wage Rates 13 30 Benefits for Retirees 13 31 Mileage and Expense Reimbursement 13 32 Light Duty 13 33 Tuition Refund 13 34 Retiree Health Savings Plan (RHSP)14 35 Agreement Implementation 15 36 Waiver 16 37 Duration 16 ARTICLE 1 - Purpose of Agreement This Agreement is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center, hereinafter called the Employer, and Law Enforcement Labor Services, "Local No. 86", hereinafter called the Union. It is the intent and purpose of this Agreement to: 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this Agreement's interpretation and/or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parties' Agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2- Recognition 2.1 The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statues, Section 179A.03, Subdivision 6, for all police personnel in the following job classifications: Sergeant; Commander 2.2 In the event the Employer and the Union are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services for determination. ARTICLE 3- Definitions 3.1 Union: Law Enforcement Labor Services, "Local No. 86." 3.2 Union Member: A member of Law Enforcement Labor Services, "Local No. 86." 3.3 Department: The City of Brooklyn Center Police Department. 3.4 Employee: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 3.5 Employer: The City of Brooklyn Center. 3.6 Chief: The Chief of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. 3.7 Union Officer: Officer elected or appointed by Law Enforcement Labor Services, "Local No. 86." 3.8 Overtime: Work performed at the express authorization of the Employer in excess of the employee's scheduled shift. 3.9 Scheduled Shift: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. 3.10 Rest Breaks: Period during the Scheduled Shift during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.11 Lunch Breaks: A period during the Scheduled Shift during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 Regular Base Pay Rate: The employee's hourly or monthly base pay rate. 3.13 Strike: Concerned action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slowdown, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful, and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of inducing, influencing, or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights, privileges, or obligations of employment. ARTICLE 4- Employer Security The Union agrees that during the life of this Agreement the Union will not cause, encourage, participate in, or support any strike, slowdown, or other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the Employer. -1- ARTICLE 5- Employer Authority 5.1 The Employer retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all personnel, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel, to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this Agreement. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this Agreement shall remain solely within the discretion of the Employer to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE 6- Union Security 6.1 The Employer shall deduct the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly Union dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by the Union. 6.2 The Union may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a steward and an alternate and shall inform the Employer in writing of such choice and changes in the position of steward and/or alternate. 6.3 The Employer shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting Union notice(s) and announcement(s). 6.4 The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken by the Employer under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 7- Savings Clause This Agreement is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota, and the City of Brooklyn Center. In the event any provision of the Agreement shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE 8 - Constitutional Protection Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens by the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. ARTICLE 9- Seniority 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by continuous length of service in the job classification covered by this Agreement. Employees promoted from the classification covered by this Agreement to a position outside the bargaining unit will continue to accrue seniority under this Agreement until the completion of their promotional probationary period or for no longer than twelve (12) months. The seniority roster shall be based on length of service in the job classification covered by this Agreement. Employees lose seniority under this Agreement under the following circumstances: resignation, discharge for cause, or transfer or promotion to a -2- classification not covered by this Agreement after completion of the promotional probationary period or for no longer than twelve (12) months after transfer or promotion. 9.2 There shall be an initial probationary period for new employees of twelve (12) months. During the probationary period, a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the Employer. During the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in their previous position at the sole discretion of the Employer. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. The Employer shall give the Union and the employees at least two (2) weeks written notice in advance of any layoff. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of seniority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two (2) years of the time of the layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after twelve (12) months of continuous full-time employment. Except as noted in the preceding sentence, shift assignments shall be bid on the basis of seniority at least annually in January and within 30 days of any permanent change in the work schedule. Employees will not be subject to shift rotation more often than every four (4) months. If a special assignment's position is created, assignment to such position shall be opened for bidding on the basis of seniority for up to a two-year assignment in such position. A person shall not be eligible to bid or be assigned to such special assignment position more often than two years out of any four continuous year periods. In the event that no one bids a special assignment position, an employee who is otherwise ineligible to bid it because they have already held it for two years within a four year continuous period, shall then be eligible to bid for the position. If an employee is assigned to a special assignment position, they shall be eligible to bid for any other position at the next bid. [A special assignment position is one out of the normal shift rotation with primary emphasis on patrol management.] 9.5 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until January 31 of each calendar year. 9.6 The Employer shall recognize seniority as the primary factor when authorizing holiday leave and compensatory time leave. 9.7 No time shall be deducted from an employee's seniority accumulation due to absences occasioned by an authorized leave with pay, any military draft or government call-up to Reserves or National Guard, or for layoffs of less than two (2) years in duration. ARTICLE 10- Work Schedules 10.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty (2,080) hours to be accounted for by each employee through: a.hours worked on assigned shifts, b.holidays, C. assigned training, and d. authorized leave time. SM 10.2 Authorized leave time (including holiday hours) is to be calculated on the basis of the actual hours used for such leave based on the time that the employee would otherwise have been scheduled to work. 10.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the Employer may assign employees. 10.4 Record .66 of compensatory time per pay period for each sergeant for the daily passing of information. ARTICLE 11 - Discipline 11.1 The Employer will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms: a.oral reprimand; b.written reprimand; C. suspension; d.demotion; or e.discharge. 11.2 Suspension, demotions, and discharges will be in written form. 11.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the Union will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 11.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under direct supervision of the Employer. 11.5 A single disciplinary action for failure to attend training, court or tardiness will be removed from the personnel file after 18 months if, during that time, the single incident of discipline for failure to attend training, court or tardiness, is the only occurrence of discipline during that 18 month period. 11.6 Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension without pay. 11.7 For purposes of discipline, a day will mean eight (8) hours. 11.8 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of proposed disciplinary action against the employee being questioned unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a Union representative present at such questioning. 11.9 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the Union in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under Article 12. ARTICLE 12- Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure 12.1 Definition of a Grievance - A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this Agreement. 12.2 Union Representatives - The Employer will recognize Representatives designated by the Union as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The Union shall notify the Employer in writing of the names of such Union Representatives and of their successors when so designated as provided by 6.2 of this Agreement. 12.3 Processing of a Grievance - It is recognized and accepted by the Union and the Employer that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the Employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such Employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved Employee and a Union Representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the Employer during normal working hours provided that the Employee and the Union Representative have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the Employer. 12.4 Procedure .. Grievances, as defined by Section 12. 1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. An Employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the Employee's supervisor as designated by the Employer. The Employer-designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the Agreement allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the Employer-designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the Employer-designated Step 2 representative. The Employer-designated representative shall give the Union the Employer's Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer-designated representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waive. Step 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the Employer-designated Step 3 representative. The Employer-designated representative shall give the Union the Employer's answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer-designated representative's final answer to Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. -5- Step 3a. If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3 of the grievance procedure, the parties, by mutual Agreement, may submit the matter to mediation with the Bureau of Mediation Services. Submitting the grievance to mediation preserves timeliness for Step 4 of the grievance procedure. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days of mediation shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 or Step 3a and appealed to Step 4 by the Union shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971 as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the 'Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Bureau of Mediation Services. 12.5 Arbitrator's Authority a, The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the Employer and the Union, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. b. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the Employer and the Union and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this Agreement and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally. 12.6 Waiver If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the Employer's last answer. If the Employer does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the Union may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written Agreement of the Employer and the Union in each step. ARTICLE 13 - Overtime (Sergeant Classification) 13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shift do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. S 13.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 13.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under Article 13.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 13.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded, or paid twice for the same hours worked. 13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest six (6) minutes. 13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the Employer unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. 13.7 When employees have less than twelve (12) hours of duty-free time between assigned shifts, they will be compensated at a rate of one and one-half (1 '/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate for the next shift. For purposes of this Article, shift extensions, elected overtime, voluntary changes of shifts, City-contracted work, training, and court time are considered as duty-free time. The twelve (12) hour requirement may be waived by mutual Agreement between the Employee and the Police Administration. 13.8 As an option to monetary compensation for overtime, an employee may annually elect compensatory time off at a rate of one and one-half (1 1/2) time. An employee's compensatory time bank shall not exceed forty (40) hours at any time during a calendar year. On or about December 1 of each year, the City will pay off by check the balance of compensatory time accumulated by each sergeant. No compensatory time will be accumulated or used during the month of December. Special overtime duty assignments made available to all employees by the Chief of Police at the employee's rate of compensation will not be eligible for compensatory time. Compensatory time off shall be granted only at the convenience of the Employer with prior approval of the Employer-designated supervisor. 13.9 Employees given less than sixteen (16) hours notice of a scheduled duty change other than their regularly scheduled work period shall be compensated at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the employee's regular pay rate for hours worked outside of the scheduled work period. 13.1 OPolice Commanders are only eligible for overtime pay for privately funded and grant funded projects (Safe and Sober, etc.) and are otherwise ineligible for overtime. ARTICLE 14- Court Time 14.1 Court Appearances: 14.1.1 An employee who is required to appear in court during their scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half (1 '/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for court appearance does not qualify the employee for the three (3) hour minimum. Employees shall not be required to work office or street duty to qualify for the court time minimum. we 14.1.2 An employee who is required to appear in court during their scheduled off-duty time shall be given 12 hours prior notification of cancellation of the court appearance. If the notification is not given 12 hours prior to the scheduled court time, the employee will receive the three (3) hour court time minimum. ARTICLE 15- Call Back Time An employee who is called to duty during their scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one-half (1 1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for duty does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hours minimum. ARTICLE 16 - Working Out of Classification Employees assigned by the Employer to assume the full responsibilities and authority of a higher job classification shall receive the salary schedule of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. ARTICLE 17- Standby Pay Employees required by the Employer to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the rate of one hour's pay for each hour on standby. ARTICLE 18 - Leaves of Absence 18.1 In cases of demonstrated need and where sick leave has not been abused, the Employer shall grant to employees a leave of absence without pay for extended personal illness after the accumulative sick leave has expired. Such leaves of absence shall not exceed ninety (90) calendar days. Upon granting such unpaid leave of absence, the Employer will not permanently fill the employee's position and the employee's benefits and rights shall be retained. 18.2 An employee called to serve on a jury shall be reimbursed the difference between the amount paid for such service (exclusive of travel and expense pay) and compensation for regularly scheduled working hours lost because of jury service. 18.3 Employees ordered by proper authority to National Guard or Reserve Military Service not exceeding fifteen (15) working days in any calendar year shall be entitled to leave of absence without loss of status. Such employees shall receive compensation from the Employer equal to the difference between his/her regular pay and the lesser military pay. 18.4 Employees called and ordered by proper authority to active military service in time of war or other properly declared emergency shall be entitled to leave of absence without pay during such service. Upon completion of such service, employees shall be entitled to the same or similar employment of like seniority, status, and pay as if such leave had not been taken, subject to the specific provisions of Chapter 192 of the MN Statutes. 18.5 Members of the bargaining unit will receive such additional leaves as provided for under State or Federal law, as the same laws may be amended from time to time. -8- 18.6 Additional leaves of absence may be granted in the City Manager's discretion upon the same terms and conditions as then applicable to non-Union employees pursuant to the City's Personnel policy applicable to non-Union employees at the time of application for a leave of absence. ARTICLE 19 - Severance 19.1 An employee shall give the Employer two (2) weeks notice in writing before terminating his employment. 19.2 Severance pay in the amount of one-third (1/3) the accumulated sick leave employees have to their credit at the time of resignation or retirement, times their respective regular pay rate, shall be paid to employees who have been employed for at least five (5) consecutive years. If discharged for just cause, severance pay shall not be allowed. 19.3 Employees electing to participate in a Health Care Savings Plan will receive 40% of sick leave severance paid into the Health Care Savings Plan. Employees not eligible to participate in the Health Care Savings Plan will receive one-third of sick leave severance. ARTICLE 20- Injury on Duty Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the Employer and thereby rendered unable to work for the Employer will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay and Workers' Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed 720 hours per injury, not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave, or other accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period per injury. The three (3) working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee's sick leave account less Workers' Compensation insurance payments. ARTICLE 21 - False Arrest Insurance The City of Brooklyn Center shall maintain liability insurance that includes a provision for unlawfully detaining an individual when an employee is acting within the scope of their duties on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. ARTICLE 22— Training 22.1 The Employer shall reimburse each employee who is required to maintain a license as a law enforcement officer under Minnesota Statutes, Section 626.84, et for actual expenses of tuition, meals, travel, and lodging incurred in meeting the continuing education requirements of the Minnesota Police Officers Standards and Training Board, not to exceed 48 hours of such training every three (3) years. The Employer need not make such reimbursement for attendance at a course located less than sixty (60) miles from the City of Brooklyn Center and such reimbursement shall not exceed similar allowances for state employees. If the Employer provides in-service training to its employees which meets the continuing education requirements of the Minnesota Police Officers Standards and Training Board, and if the Employer provides its employees with an opportunity to attend such in-service training courses, to the extent that such opportunity is provided to each employee, the obligation of the Employer to reimburse such employee for expenses incurred in attending continuing education courses shall be reduced. 222 The Employer shall pay each employee their regular salary while attending continuing education courses whether or not such courses attended are in-service training courses or courses given by instructors other than the Employer. The obligation of the Employer to pay such salaries shall not exceed a total of forty-eight (48) hours every three (3) years. ARTICLE 23 - Post License Fees The Employer shall pay up to $90 for the cost of POST license fees for all employees requiring such license during each licensing period. ARTICLE 24- Uniforms The Employer shall provide required uniform and equipment items. In addition, the Employer shall pay to the uniformed officers a maintenance allowance of $155 per year. Plainclothes officer(s) shall be paid a clothing allowance of $590 per year. ARTICLE 25 - Holiday Leave 25.1 Employees shall receive eight (8) hours of holiday leave per month. Ninety-six (96) hours of holiday leave shall be advanced to employees on January 1st of each calendar year beginning on January 1 " 2002. In the event an employee is not employed for the entire calendar year, the employee's holiday leave shall be reduced by eight (8) hours for each full month that the employee will not have worked in that calendar year. 25.2 Employees may use holiday leave with the approval of the Employer. 25.3 An employee who works on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, or Labor Day shall receive time and one-half (1 1/2) employee's regular pay rate for all hours actually worked during the named holiday. 25.4 An employee who works on New Year's Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day shall receive two times the employee's regular pay rate for all hours actually worked during the named holiday. 25.5 Except as provided in 25.3, overtime pay shall not be authorized for employees for hours worked on holidays when such work is part of the planned schedule. 25.6 An employee may request a holiday off, which he/she is required to work, prior to fourteen calendar days before the holiday. The Employer shall post the open holiday shift to be filled by another employee at the holiday rate of pay. The employee making the request for the holiday off is responsible for working the holiday if the posting is not filled five (5) days prior to the holiday. 25.7 Employees beginning employment after January 1t of a calendar year shall receive eight (8) hours of holiday leave per month beginning on the first month in which they are working as of the first day of that month. Such employees shall receive an advance of holiday leave hours equal to eight (8) hours multiplied by the number of whole months they will work through December of the year in which they were first employed. 25.8 Any holiday leave not used on or before December 31st of each year will be deemed forfeited and shall not carry over into the next calendar year. Lif ARTICLE 26— Vacation Leave 26.1 Permanent full-time employees shall earn vacation leave with pay as per the following schedule: 0 through 10 years of service - one hundred twenty (120) hours per year (accrued at 4.62 hours per pay period) Eight (8) additional hours per year of service to a maximum of one hundred sixty (160) hours after fifteen (15) years of service 11 years - 4.92 hours per pay period 12 years - 5.23 hours per pay period 13 years - 5.54 hours per pay period 14 years - 5.85 hours per pay period 15 years - 6.15 hours per pay period 26.2 Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered working for the purpose of accumulating additional vacation leave. 26.3 Vacation may be used as earned, except that the Employer shall approve the time at which the vacation leave may be taken. Employees shall not be permitted to waive vacation leave and receive double pay. 26.4 Employees may accrue a maximum of two hundred thirty (230) hours of vacation leave. Employees may not carry forward more than two hundred thirty (230) hours of vacation leave from year to year. 26.5 Employees leaving the service of the Employer in good standing, after having given the Employer fourteen (14) day notice of termination of employment, shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unused. ARTICLE 27- Sick Leave 27.1 Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent employees at the rate of eight (8) hours per month or 96 hours per year (computed at 3.69 hours per pay period) of full-time service or major fraction thereof, except that sick leave granted probationary employees shall not be available for use during the first six (6) months of service. 27.2 Sick leave shall be used normally for absence from duty because of personal illness or legal quarantine of the-employee, or because of serious illness in the immediate family. Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents, parents-in-law, spouse, or children of the employee. Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the funeral of immediate family members plus brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, grandparents, grandparents-in-law, and grandchildren of the employee. 27.3 Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of eight (8) hours per month or ninety-six (96) hours per year until nine hundred sixty (960) hours have been accumulated (shall be computed at 3.69 hours per pay period). Effective January 1, 1994, after nine hundred sixty (960) hours have -11- been accumulated, sick leave shall accrue at the rate of four (4) hours per month or forty- eight (48) hours per year (computed at 1.85 hours per pay period), and simultaneously vacation leave, in addition to regular vacation leave accrual, shall accrue at the rate of two (2) hours per month or twenty-four (24) hours per year (computed at .925 hours per pay period). Employees using earned vacation or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purpose of accumulating additional sick leave. Workers' Compensation benefits shall be credited against the compensation due employees utilizing sick leave. 27.4 In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay, an employee must: a.notify the Employer prior to the time set for the beginning of their normal scheduled shift; b.keep the Employer informed of their condition if the absence is of more than three (3) days duration; c. submit medical certificates for absences exceeding three (3) days, if required by the Employer. 27.5 Employees abusing sick leave shall be subject to disciplinary action. 27.6 An employee who accumulated 960 hours of sick leave and who uses not more than the equivalent of two regularly scheduled shift's worth of sick leave hours in a calendar year shall receive a wellness incentive equal to one of the employee's regularly scheduled shifts' compensation at the employee's regular rate of compensation. ARTICLE 28 - Insurance 28.1 2016 Full-time Employees Effective 1/1/16, the City will contribute payment of one thousand one hundred and twenty- four dollars ($1,124) per month per employee for use in participating in the City's insurance benefits for those employees who elect to participate in a high deductible health plan. Effective 1/1/16, the City will contribute payment of eight hundred fifty-two dollars ($852) per month per employee for use in participating in the City's insurance benefits for those employees who elect to participate in a non-high deductible health plan. 28.2 Life Insurance and Balance of Cafeteria Funds: The City of Brooklyn Center will provide payment for premium of basic life insurance in the amount of $10,000. The employee may use the remainder of the contribution (limits as stated above) for use as provided in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. The Employer will make a good faith effort to provide the following options for employee selection: group dental, supplemental life, long-term disability, deferred compensation or cash benefits. The Employer will be excused from the requirement of offering a particular option where such becomes unfeasible because of conditions imposed by an insurance carrier or because of other circumstances beyond the City's control. -12- ARTICLE 29 - 2016 Wage Rates Sergeant - Date Sergeant Rate 1/1/16 -2.25%$44.44/hour Commander - Date Commander Rate 1/1/16 - 2% plus $1.1 4/hour market $8,625 - $9,003/month New hires in the Commander classification will be paid at minimum starting wage, be on probation for one year and after successful completion of probation will receive a pay increase to the maximum pay. ARTICLE 30 - Benefits for Retirees Retirees at the time of retirement shall receive the same options and level of City contribution for insurance coverage upon retirement as are provided by the City's Personnel Policy covering non- Union employees as such options and contributions may be changed by the City from time to time. ARTICLE 31 - Mileage and Expense Reimbursement Employees shall receive the same mileage and expense reimbursement rates upon the same terms and conditions as generally provided in the City's Personnel Policy covering non-Union employees as such policy may be changed by the City from time to time. ARTICLE 32- Light Duty Members of the bargaining unit will be eligible for temporary light duty assignment upon approval of the City Manager upon such terms and conditions as would apply to non-Union employees of the City as set forth in the City's personnel policy, as the same may be amended from time to time by the City. ARTICLE 33— Tuition Refund Bargaining unit members who have passed their initial probation period may be eligible for reimbursement of tuition and required course fees for courses taken for credit through accredited educational institutions. Tuition reimbursement may be approved for courses with the following criteria: 1.a college level course available for credit; and 2.course is taken on personal time; and 3.course is "work related"; and 4.grade of "C" or better or "satisfactory" is received upon completion; and 5. the training request receives pre-approval and final approval by the Police Chief. Bargaining unit members are eligible for a 75 % reimbursement of books, tuition and required fees upon completion. Bargaining unit members interested in participating in this program must first -13- submit course work to the Police Chief for pre-approval. Pre-approval forms may be obtained from the Police Chief. Employees must obtain pre-approval to ensure they obtain reimbursement through participation in this program. Maximum reimbursement is $1,500 per employee per calendar year. The annual budget for the tuition refund program shall not exceed $6,000. ARTICLE 34— Retiree Health Savings Plan (RIISP) The Retiree Health Savings Plan (RHSP) is established to help defray the cost of medical expenses and health insurance premiums for employees, spouses and dependents after the employee leaves employment with the City of Brooklyn Center. 1.Participation Eligibility Regular full-time benefit earning employees may have contributions made on their behalf into the RHSP. Participants must be 21 years of age or older. Unless noted otherwise in this policy, the minimum period of service required to participate in the plan is 60 days. Every eligible employee in an employee group is required to participate in the RHSP for their group as outlined in this applicable labor agreement. 2.1111SF Contributions When appropriate, each employee will have an account established in his or her name. Unless specifically noted otherwise, contributions (and earnings) to an employee's RHSP account are not taxable income. 3. Accessing Funds a.Employees may access the funds in their RHSP account when they are eligible to retire under the Public Employees Retirement Association's (PERA) rules. b.Unless prohibited by the IRS, employees leaving employment with the City prior to being eligible for retirement through PERA, for the reasons noted below, may make withdrawals on a tax-free basis for eligible health-related expenses. • Upon termination of employment. • If employee is collecting a disability. • If employee is on a medical leave (six months or longer) • If employee is on a leave of absence (one year or longer) If the employee returns to work and is earning medical benefits, they are no longer eligible to make withdrawals from their RHSP account. The IRS does not allow these funds to be rolled into any other type of plan, including an IRA. C. Access following death. The surviving spouse and eligible dependents continue to access the account for eligible expense reimbursements until the RHSP account is exhausted. Such reimbursements are not taxable. Unless prohibited by the IRS, reimbursements may also be made to a beneficiary other than a surviving spouse or eligible dependent. However, such reimbursements would be taxable to the recipient. REAM 4. Eligible Expenses Reimbursed by Plan Funds in a R}ISP account may be used to reimburse: 1.Insurance premiums (health insurance premiums, Medicare supplemental insurance premiums, Medicare Part B insurance premiums, COBRA and Chapter 488 insurance premiums, long term care insurance premiums (not long term care expenses), and dental insurance premiums. 2.Most qualifying medical expenses as defined in Internal Revenue Code Section 213 (i.e. medical costs that would otherwise be deductible to the employee on his or her individual income tax return). A third-party claims administrator hired by ICMA-RC will handle claims administration. 5. No Opt-out Employees and retirees in groups covered by the RHSP program are not permitted to opt-out of the program. Participation is mandatory. 6.Program Administration Along with the Human Resources Division, the ICMA Retirement Corporation will administer the RHSP program. The employee controls how the money is invested similar to his or her Section 457 deferred compensation program. The employee receives an account statement each quarter from ICMA for his or her RHSP account. 7.Administrative Fees Please contact ICMA for current administrative and mutual fund fees. 8.Plan Modifications The details of ICMA-RC's administration of the RHSP as well as other features of the plan are set forth in the RHSP materials provided by ICMA-RC. These details and IRS regulations regarding the R}TSP may be revised, necessitating the revision to this policy or other agreements between employee groups and the City. The City reserves the right to modify its policy to comply with any other regulations regarding the plan and to add contribution requirements. 9.Contribution Formulas 1.Election for Pre-Tax Contributions from Compensation. Employees may elect to contribute up to 25% of their compensation. This is a one-time, irrevocable election. Employees must make this decision during the open enrollment period. 2.Severance Pay. Employees who qualify to receive severance pay and vacation pay upon retiring or leaving the city in good standing, as defined by the current Labor Agreement, will designate from 0% to 100% (in 10% increments) to be placed in their individual RHSP accounts at the time of retirement or resignation. This is an irrevocable election. Employees must make this decision during the open enrollment period prior to the beginning of the year in which they will retire, -15- ARTICLE 35 - Agreement Implementation Employer shall implement the terms of this Agreement in the form of a resolution. If the implementation of the terms of this Agreement require the adoption of a law, ordinance, or charter amendment, the Employer shall make every reasonable effort to propose and secure the enactment of such law, ordinance, resolution, or charter amendment. ARTICLE 36- Waiver 35.1 Any and all prior Agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules, and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, are hereby superseded. 35.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All Agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this Agreement for the stipulated duration of this Agreement. The Employer and the Union each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this Agreement or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this Agreement, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE 37- Duration This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2016 and shall remain in full force and effect until the thirty-first (31) day of December 2016, as noted in the contract. IN WITNESS THERETO, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed this day of ,2016. FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN LABOR SERVICES CENTER Business Agent Mayor Union Steward City Manager Union President City Coundli Agenda Item No. 7a iEI1IJ[iJ I U U N Dk'A U'A I M'4 [I) 1II PlIJk'A I DATE: March 7, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Gannon, Chief of Polic SUBJECT: Recognition for Retiring Officer Keith Carlson Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider recognizing Officer Keith Carlson for 28 years of his service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: Please find attached, a City Council resolution expressing appreciation to Officer Keith Carlson for his 28 years of service with the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Officer Carlson started his police career with the Brooklyn Center Police Department on July 11, 1988. Over the years of dedicated service, he has held the title of Patrol Officer. Officer Carlson served many roles while working at the police department, including: an Emergency Operations Unit (EOU) team member and team leader, Community Oriented Policing team member, and Field Training Officer (FTO). Officer Carlson was instrumental in training and serving as a role model to multiple police officers. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Not Applicable IWission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF OFFICER KEITH CARLSON WHEREAS, Keith Carlson was hired as a police officer by the City of Brooklyn Center on July 11, 1988; and WHEREAS, Officer Keith Carlson has served as a team member, later being selected as the team leader with the department's Emergency Operations Unit (EOU) from 1989 to 2006; and WHEREAS, Officer Keith Carlson has served as the department's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) member from 1993 to 1994; and WHEREAS, Officer Keith Carison's position held as Field Training Officer (FTO) from 1995 to 2003 was instrumental in training and serving as a role model to multiple police officers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that we recognize the honorable retirement of Officer Keith Carlson on April 30, 2016, and express sincere appreciation for his dedicated public service. We wish Keith and his family the very best in the future. March 28, 2016 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Coimdi Agenda Item No. 8a COUNC]IL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Building and Community_- Standards/HRA Specialist SUBJECT: Special Assessment Public Hearing Appeal for Weed Removal Costs Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the attached resolutions. Background: At the City Council Meeting on March 14, 2016 the City Council moved to continue the public hearing until March 28, 2016 for a property where an appeal was made. Additional information was requested regarding the proposed special assessment. A summary of the findings for 6225 Lee Ave N is attached. The appealed special assessment was for a property with a long grass/weed reinspection fee for 2015. As part of the process, the property owners were given two notices to correct violations, received notice to pay the bill, and all unpaid fees were processed as a pending special assessment. In review of all this appeal, the legal requirements were satisfied. Information specific to the special assessment appeal is provided in the attachment. Budget Issues: The fees for these special assessments help recover the City costs associated with providing a service. Attachments: Attachment I:Summary of Appealed Property Attachment II:Resolution for Tall Grass and Weed Removal Attachment IV:Amended Special Assessment Certified Roll Strategic Priorities: o Resident Economic Stability Mission: Ensiiii;ig (ii! attractive, clean, safe coii,iiuinitj that enhances the quell/i' of life and preserves the public trust Attachment I: Summary of Appealed Properties Address: 6225 Lee Ave N I Owner: Thomas W Cramer Appellant's Appeal: The owner stated that he works 4 part time jobs and is only able to afford to cut his grass every three weeks as a result of him having to rent a lawn mower. He also stated that due to the street reconstruction project the previous year his grass grows thicker. Findings: The property owner was sent proper notice for the grass violations. The property owner is responsible for maintaining the property in compliance with City Ordinances. Multiple inspections verified the property was in violation of the tall grass/weed ordinance, therefore a reinspection fee was applied for the second violation in one season. After the initial tall grass/weed violation is cited for a property during the growing season, a reinspection fee is charged for each additional tall grass/weed violation even if the owner cuts the grass after being notified by the City. Based on this information, it is recommended the full amount be specially assessed to the property. Violation Type Summary of Activity Fees Tall Grass &06/17/2015 - A complaint was received regarding long grass at Noxious Weeds the property. 06/22/2015 - An inspection was conducted and the property was determined to be in violation. A notice was sent. 06/26/2015 - A phone call was received from the owner of the property stating he works 12 hours a day 10 days in a row and finally had a day off to mow. 06/26/2015 - An inspection was conducted and the grass was no longer in violation. 07/24/2015 - A complaint was received regarding long grass at the property.$100.00 07/27/2015 - An inspection was conducted and the property was determined to be in violation. A notice was sent. 08/04/2015 - An inspection was conducted and the grass was no longer in violation. *There have been 18 Code Violation Cases at this property since 2000, of those 4 have been for long grass. I là::LJ - •1- Member introduced the following resolution and moves its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has caused noxious weeds and tall grass to be cut down on properties within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 18.78 and City Ordinance Section 19-1601 through 19-1604; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2016, certain weed destruction accounts for removal of said weeds and tall grass costs remained unpaid; and WHEREAS, an assessment roll for unpaid accounts from 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where unpaid weed destruction account costs are to be assessed to each property; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute authorizes the certification of delinquent weed destruction accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for weed destruction costs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1.The special assessment roll of unpaid weed destruction accounts incurred during the year 2015 is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 19307. 2.The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2017, in one annual installment with interest thereon at four (4) percent per annum and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from April 13, 2016 through December 31, 2017. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 13, 2016. After April 13, 2016, he or she may pay the total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from April 13, 2016 through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close of business November 23, 2016 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplication of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. March 28, 2016 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Amended Special Assessment Certified Roll (Grass/Weeds) 2015 Weed Destruction Printed March 18, 2016 Levy Property Address Owner Name Property ID Pending Capital Special Total No.Amount Interest Assessment Amount ($)Charge Charge ($)Certified ($) ($) 19307 6225 Lee Ave N THOMAS W 34-119-21-33-$100.00 $10.00 $30.00 $140.00 & ANNE K 0048 CRAMER BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 28, 2016 Presented By: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director BCS Special Assessment Public Hearings Continued Continued from March 14, 2016 Special Assessment Summary MN State Law allows cities to recover costs associated with certain types of services and activities. Special assessment process allows these unpaid costs to be applied to the property that received the benefit. This helps minimize the costs of these type of services to the general public. For certain public nuisances, City conducts abatements where owners do not comply or where owners agree to have abatement performed by City. City incurs costs associated with these abatements, and properties receive benefit from these services. Often health/life safety or public nuisances. Special Assessment Appeals Process A special assessment appeals process is prescribed by Minnesota State Law. On March 14, 2016, one property owners appealed their special assessment at the Public Hearing. Appellant was advised that Public Hearing was continued until March 28, 2016 Contact information gathered from appellants at Public Hearing Appellant advised that staff would research their situations Staff researched and contacted appellant Report containing information relating to the property assessment presented. Payment options include paying full assessment amount without interest by April 13, 2016; After April 13, through November 23, 2016 including interest; or as part of property taxes in 2017. General Considerations of Appeals & Recommendations The case has been reviewed thoroughly Uphold ordinance requirements Any benefit of doubt given to appellant Final disposition of case- is the case resolved? Brief summary of the case is provided with recommendations based on details of situation 6225 Lee Ave N Appeal Statement: The owner stated that he works 4 part time jobs and is only able to afford to cut his grass every three weeks as a result of him having to rent a lawn mower. He also stated that due to the street reconstruction project the previous year his grass grows faster. Activity Summary: Both cases at the property in 2015 were initiated by a citizen complaint. The property owner was sent proper notice for the grass violations. The property owner is responsible for maintaining the property in compliance with City Ordinances. Multiple inspections verified the property was in violation of the tall grass/weed ordinance, therefore a reinspection fee was applied for the second violation in one season. 6225 Lee Ave N Questions? City Con©il Agenda Item N©0 8b COUNCW I{TEM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business & Development SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Modification to the Redevelopment Plans for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor (Opportunity Site). Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take public input, close the Public Hearing, and consider adoption of Resolution Approving a Modification to the Redevelopment Plans for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor (Opportunity Site). Background: On March 9, 2015, the EDA adopted Resolution No. 2015-05 "Resolution Designating Buildings as Structurally Substandard (Opportunity Site) which provided for the following: 1.The finding that the 7 building owned by the EDA are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance based on the LHB, Inc. report dated March 3, 2015 2.Enables the EDA to proceed with the demolition of these 7 buildings. 3.Identifies that the FDA intends to include these designated properties in one or more redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district within 3 years after the date of building demolition on the designated property. 4.Establishes the process for determining base value of the tax increment district. 5. Authorized staff and consultants to take any necessary actions to carry out the intent of this resolution. Attached for your reference is a copy of Resolution 2015-05, the March 9, 2015 staff memorandum, and aerial photograph identifying the structural substandard buildings within the southern portion of the Opportunity Site. At the January 11, 2016 City Council/EDA Work Session an updated report by LHB, Inc. and their findings that the former Kohl's building was determined to meet the structurally substandard building condition test and eligible to be included in this proposed tax increment district was considered. The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to accept the updated LHB, Inc. report, dated November 10, 2015, and include the former Kohl's site as a parcel within the proposed Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive couiiinhiuiity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i[S1SJ[iJ I N N ah'A Li I h'4 (I) 11 ,IIJhYA I Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District planned for the southern portion of the Opportunity Site. On January 25, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-16 which authorized the setting of a public hearing for March 28, 2016 to consider a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor. A draft Tax Increment District No. 7 Plan was mailed to Hennepin County and the Brooklyn Center School District, as required by the TIF regulations. Additionally, public notice has been published in the City's official newspaper on March 10, 2016 On March 17, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-03, finding that the creation of a tax increment housing district associated with the planned residential development of the Opportunity Site was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. - As of the date of this memorandum, the City has not received any comments from either the County or School Districts on the proposed creation of this tax increment district. Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 The boundaries of Tax Increment District No. 7 include 9 parcels within the southern portion of the Opportunity Site (lying south of John Martin Drive): 5930 Shingle Creek Parkway Jani King (office building) 5939 John Martin Drive former Golden Value Market (acquired by FDA) 5927 John Martin Drive 5915 John Martin Drive 5901 John Martin Drive 5910 Shingle Creek Parkway 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway 2500 Co. Rd. 10 PID 02-118-21-13-0007 New King Buffet & Tires Plus - former Perkins Restaurant site (for sale by owner) Health Partners Dental Clinic Mn. School of Business (office building) former Brookdale Square Center (acquired by FDA) former Brookdale Ford (acquired by EDA) remnant parcel adjacent to Hwy 100 ramp and 3 adjacent parcels within the eastern portion of the Shingle Creek Crossing Development: PID 02-118-21-24-0021 renmant parcel adjacent to 2545 Co. Rd. 10 2545 Co. Rd. 10 former Boulevard Restaurant (acquired by EDA) 2501 Co. Rd. 10 former Kohl's building The base market value of these properties for 2015/2016 is $17,882,904. The district has been qualified as a 25 year Redevelopment District with redevelopment opportunities planned for the parcels within the Opportunity Site to include the phased development of 7 apartment buildings with 749 market rate apartments units and a 50,000 sf. performing arts center within the 32 acres formerly occupied by Brookdale Square and Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust iI[S1IMIJ I fl I I k'A S I 3 0) 11I I1BJ'A I Brookdale Ford. Approximately 60 owner occupied townhome units have conceptually been identified as a residential use for the parcels adjacent to John Martin Drive. The parcels within the Shingle Creek Crossing Development are proposed to remain commercial and include opportunities for an additional 10,000 sf. of commercial development and the renovation of the 75,000 sf. former Kohl's building or redevelopment of this 6.8 acre site. The estimated increase in market value of upon completion of the proposed redevelopment is projected to be $151,342,929. The Plan identifies the anticipated use of tax increment to finance public roadways, utilities, site improvements, structured parking, and other eligible costs associated with the redevelopment of the site, as well as related administrative expenses. The City's financial consultant has projected that this phased development could generate approximately $54,800,000 during the life of the district. The present net value of this tax increment is estimated to be $23,865,835. The creation of this tax increment district establishes a financing tool and mechanism to bridge funding gaps, undertake public improvements, and project enhancements. The future development approvals, including a PUD Amendment, Site Plan Approval, and Tax Increment Development Agreements, public/private partnerships with the development community are the actions to be taken by the City Council and EDA to implement the necessary public improvements and achieve the City's vision for redevelopment of this portion of the Opportunity Site. Tom Denaway, Springsted Financial will be present to provide PowerPoint Presentation on establishing this redevelopment tax increment financing district. Jenny Boulton, Kennedy and Graven, has prepared the attached resolution approving the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 and will also be available at the public hearing. Budget Issues: The City and all tax jurisdictions will retain the 2016 base value of the properties within the district (a tax capacity of $17,882,904) during the life of the district. Additionally, the City/EDA is authorized to retain 10% of the annual tax increment received to cover administrative costs. Upon decertification of the District the captured tax capacity will be added to the base valuations of the respective taxing jurisdictions and used in the calculations of future tax rates. Strategic Priorities: Targeted Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2016- RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 7 (REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THEREIN AND APPROVING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR (OPPORTUNITY SITE) WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "EDA") modify the Redevelopment Plan for its Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project"); and establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 ("TIF District No. 7") within the Redevelopment Project and adopt the related Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (collectively, the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as amended; all as reflected in that certain document entitled in part "Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District)," dated March 28, 2016, and presented for consideration by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City"); WHEREAS, the Council has investigated the facts relating to the Plans; WHEREAS, the City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the Plans, including but not limited notice to the County Commissioner representing the area of the County to be included in TIF District No. 7, delivery of the Plans to the County and School Board, a review of the Plans by the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing by the City thereon following notice thereof published in accordance with state law; WHEREAS, the Council has considered the documentation submitted in support of TIF District No. 7 and the Plans and has taken into account the information and knowledge gained in hearings upon and during consideration of other matters relating to the proposed development; WHEREAS, The TIF District is being established to facilitate the acquisition, construction and equipping of approximately 749 market rate apartment units, 60 owner- occupied townhome units, and approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail buildings (the "Development"); and WHEREAS, the initial phase of the Development will be constructed by Sand Development, LLC (or an affiliate, the "Initial Developer"). RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plans. 1.01. The Council finds that the boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded and the Redevelopment Plan is not being modified other than to incorporate the establishment of TIF District No. 7 therein and therefore the Council reaffirms the findings and determinations originally made in connection with the establishment of the Redevelopment Project area and the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan therefor. 1.02. The Council hereby finds that TIF District No. 7 is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, because TIF District No. 7 consists of a project or portions of a project within which the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout TIF District No. 7, exist: (1) parcels consisting of at least 70% of the area of TIF District No. 7 are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures; and (2) more than 50% of the buildings located within TIF District No. 7 are deemed "structurally substandard" (within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. TIF District No. 7 consists of 12 parcels and all of the parcels are "occupied" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) in that at least 15% of the area of the parcel is occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar structures. Based on the Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District, dated November 10, 2015, prepared by LHB, Inc. (the "Redevelopment Assessment"), 8 of the 14 buildings (not including outbuildings) in TIF District No. 7 (57.1%, which is more than 50% of the buildings within TIF District No. 7), are found to be structurally substandard, are not in compliance with applicable building codes, and could not be brought into such compliance at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing new structures of the same size and type on the subject sites, respectively. These findings are based in part upon on-site examination of those 8 substandard buildings and the written Redevelopment Assessment report substantiating the structurally substandard nature of the buildings. The reasons and supporting facts for the determination that TIF District No. 7 is a redevelopment district under the statute are set forth in the Redevelopment Assessment, which is incorporated herein by reference, and a copy of which is on file with the City Administrator. 1.03. The Council hereby makes the following additional findings in connection with TIF District No. 7: (a) The Council further finds that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. The specific basis for such finding being: RESOLUTION NO. The construction of the Development would not be undertaken in the reasonably foreseeable future. The property has remained underutilized for several years despite previous efforts to redevelop the property. The demolition, redevelopment and public infrastructure costs are higher than for new development. The Developer has represented that it could not proceed with the Development without tax increment assistance. (b)The Council further finds that the TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The specific basis for such finding being: The TIF Plan will generally complement and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan. The mixed-use commercial, retail and rental housing uses contemplated on the property are in accordance with the existing zoning for the property. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans, and approved the same as being in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. (c)The Council further finds that the TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of TIF District No. 7 by private enterprise. The specific basis for such finding being: The Development proposed to occur within the TIF District No. 7 to be completed, owned and operated by the Developer and will afford maximum opportunity for the development of the applicable parcels consistent with the needs of the City. The Development will increase the taxable market valuation of the City and the available housing and commercial facilities in the City. Without the construction of necessary public infrastructure, private enterprise would not undertake the Development. (d) For purposes of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3(b)(2)(ii), the Council hereby finds that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing ranges from $0 to some modest amount based on small scale development that could be possible without assistance, which is less than $127,477,094 which is the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development (approximately $151,342,929, assuming no annual inflation) after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District (approximately $23,865,835). RESOLUTION NO. Thus, the use of tax increment financing will be a positive net gain to the City, the School District, and the County, and the tax increment assistance does not exceed the benefit which will be derived therefrom. 1.04. The City elects to retain all of the captured tax capacity to finance the costs of the TIF District. The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3(a). 1.05. The City elects to delay the receipt of the first increment until tax payable year 2019. 1.06. The provisions of this Section 1 are hereby incorporated by reference into and made a part of the TIF Plan. 1.07. The Council further finds that the Plans are intended and in the judgment of the Council their effect will be to promote the public purposes and accomplish the objectives specified in the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 7 and the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. Section 2. Approval and Adoption of the Plans Policy on Interfund Loans and Advances. 2.01. 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 Finance Director. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a development agreement with any developer. The Business and Development Director is hereby directed to request, in writing, the Hennepin County Auditor to certify the new TIF District No. 7 and to file the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor. 2.02. The Council hereby approves a policy on interfund loans or advances ("Loans") for TIF District No. 7, as follows: (a)The authorized tax increment eligible costs (including without limitation out-of-pocket administrative expenses in an amount up to $5,463,715) payable from the TIF District, as its TIF Plan is originally adopted or may be amended, may need to be financed on a short-term and/or long-term basis via one or more Loans, as may be determined by the City Finance Director from time to time. (b)The Loans may be advanced if and as needed from available monies in the City's general fund or other City fund designated by the City Finance Director. Loans may be structured as draw-down or "line of credit" obligations of the lending fund(s). RESOLUTION NO. (c)Neither the maximum principal amount of any one Loan nor the aggregate principal amount of all Loans may exceed $54,637,164 outstanding at any time. (d)The maximum term of any Loan shall not exceed the lesser of 26 years or such earlier date as the City Finance Director may specify in writing. (e) The outstanding and unpaid principal amount of each Loan shall bear interest at the rate prescribed by the statute (Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 7), which is the greater of the rates specified under Sections 270C.40 or 549.09 at the time a Loan, or any part of it, is first made, subject to the right of the City Finance Director to specify a lower rate (but not less than the City's then-current average investment return for similar amount and term). Such Loans within the above guidelines are pre-approved. The Loans need not take any particular form and may be undocumented, except that the City Finance Director shall maintain all necessary or applicable data on the Loans. March 28, 2016 Date Mayor ATTEST:_________________ City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a duly called and regularly held meeting of the City Council of said City held on March 28, 2016, with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and I further certify that the same is a full, true, and correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to the tax increment and related actions referenced therein with respect to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) therein. WITNESS My hand this 28th day of March, 2016. City Clerk Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No, 01 and lax Increment Finsncing (TF) District No, 7 (Proposed) tt A B C - D E F 1. /1 N ((p ç L - / . ' F L.- - - I - IJ, LOCAL STREET 4 ii (IINDEX 1 [, I If j\ TJI I / I 6 r. RASR I A VP LEGEND WE TIE Project Boundary Line LI U TIF District No. 7 N C/h' of BROOKLYN CENTER 0 0.225 0.45 0.9I . ''lMiIes Created by Brooklyn Center Business and Development DeptJGIS Dororoerpt Path: L:\Uueru\CorrDeo\TlFnreos\TIF DISTRICT No. 7.rnod EconomicFlDevelopment Aut iTi]i1!1 i and 1 for i City of ('Ii] I' iiCenter, Minnesota Modification li1RedevelopmentIPlan Ifor Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01 Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Within Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01 Draft: March 22, 2016 Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101-2887 (651) 223-3000 WWW.SPRINGS TED. COM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page(s) SectionI Definitions ............................................................................................................................ I Section II Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project......................................................1 Section ILA Statement and Finding of Public Purpose ............................................................................2 Section,11. B Statutory Authorization ....................................................................................................2 Section 11.0 Statement of Objectives...................................................................................................2 Section III Tax Increment Financing District Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 6................................2 Section lIl.A Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District..............................2 Section Ill,B Duration of the TIF District...............................................................................................4 Section 111.0 Property to be Included in the TIF District ...........................................................................4 Section IlI,D Property to be Acquired in the TIF District .............................................. .............................5 Section lIl.E Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District...............................................5 Section llI.F Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing ...................................................................5 Section III.G Estimated Public Costs...................................................................................................7 Section lll.H Estimated Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................7 Section 111.1 Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness .........................................................................8 Section llI.J Original Net Tax Capacity................................................................................................8 Section Ill.K Original Tax Capacity Rate..............................................................................................8 Section 1111 Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment .............................9 Section lIl.M Use of Tax Increment ....................................................................................................9 Section III.N Excess Tax Increment...................................................................................................10 Section 111.0 Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule ..................................................................10 Section lll.P Limitation on Administrative Expenses .............................................................................11 Section lIl.Q Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements - Four Year Rule.....................................11 Section IlI.R Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................................................................12 Section Ill,S Prior Planned Improvements..........................................................................................12 Section lll.T Development Agreements .............................................................................................12 Section III,U Assessment Agreements ..............................................................................................13 Section lll.V Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan..............................................................13 Section III.W Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan............................................................13 Section lll.X Filing TIF Plan, Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements..........................................14 Map of the Housing and Redevelopment Project Area ........................................................................... EXHIBIT I AssumptionsReport...............................................................................................................................EXHIBIT II Projected Tax Increment Report ............................................................................................... ............. EXHIBIT III Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report.......................................................................EXHIBIT IV Market Value Analysis Report ................................................................................................. .............. EXHIBIT V Executive Summary TIF District Qualification Report ......... .................................................................. EXHIBIT VI Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Section I Definitions The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are used indicates a different meaning: "Authority" means the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center. !y: means the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; also referred to as a"Municipality". "City Council" means the City Council of the City; also referred to as the "Governing Body". "County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota. "EDA Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Section 469,090 to 469.108, inclusive, as amended. "HRA Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. "Redevelopment Project" means Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01 in the City, which is described in the corresponding Redevelopment Plan. "Project Area" means the geographic area of the Redevelopment Project. "School District" means Brooklyn Center Independent School District No. 286, Minnesota. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, both inclusive. "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 7. "TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District (this document). Section II Modification to Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 01: This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 01. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 to assist the with the Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site redevelopment project. The land in TIF District No. 7 is shown in Exhibit I. The Estimated Public Costs is modified to include those set forth in Section III.G of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 01 is recommended and is available from the City of Brooklyn Center. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 located within Redevelopment Project No. 01. A map of Redevelopment Project No. 01 is attached as Exhibit I. Sprincjsteo Pagel Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Section ILA Statement and Finding of Public Purpose On April 25, 1994, the City Council and Authority expanded the geographic boundaries of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project to include Housing Development Project No, 01 and other properties and provided additional housing powers. The modified redevelopment project is renamed Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01. The Authority intends to use the powers allowed under the EDA Act and HRA Act to promote development and redevelopment through the City and to pool resources in order to reduce financial barriers to providing decent housing and employment opportunities. Section 11.13 Statutory Authorization On August 24, 1987, the City Council authorized the establishment of the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (Authority). Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 87-170, the Authority has and may exercise all of the powers conferred by law upon a Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The Authority has been authorized by the City to carry out all powers of and administer all projects initiated by the Brooklyn Center HRA, The Authority established Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01 pursuant to the EDA Act and the HRA Act. HRA Act authorizes the Authority to exercise all the powers relating to a housing and redevelopment authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, or other law. Within the City areas exist where public involvement is necessary to cause redevelopment to occur. The Authority has certain statutory powers pursuant to the TIF Act to assist in financing eligible activities related to these redevelopment needs. Section ILC Statement of Objectives The sampling of the general goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are listed below: To provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons of low and moderate income. To provide governmental assistance to eliminate slum and blight. To provide an ongoing benefit to the residents of the City and those who may frequent the area. To enhance the tax base of the City. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City, for development by private enterprise. To better utilize vacant or undeveloped land. Specific objectives for the Brooklyn Center Affordable Assisted Living Redevelopment includes removal and clearance of blighted properties and infrastructure improvements that result in opportunities for residential redevelopment and will otherwise benefit the health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the City. Section III Tax Increment Financing District Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 Section IlI.A Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District Redevelopment districts are a type of tax increment financing district in which one or more of the following conditions exists and is reasonably distributed throughout the district: (1) parcels comprising at least 70% 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% of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard requiring substantial renovation or clearance. A parcel is deemed Springsted Page 2 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center "occupied" if at least 15% of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots; or other similar structures. (2)the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad right-of-ways; or (3)tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in section 11 5C,02, subdivision 15, if the tank facilities: (i)have or had a capacity of more than 1,000,000 gallons; (ii)are located adjacent to rail facilities; and (iii)have been removed or are unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used. (iv)A qualifying disaster area, as defined in subdivision 1 Ob. For districts consisting of two more noncontiguous areas, each area must individually qualify under the provisions listed above, as well as the entire area must also qualify as a whole. The TIF District qualifies as a redevelopment district in that it meets all of the criteria listed in (1) above. An executive summary of a report prepared by LHB, Inc. that details the qualifications is included in Exhibit VI. A copy of the entire report with supporting facts and documentation for this determination is on file with the City and is available to the public upon request. The full report will be retained by the City for the life of the TIF District. "Structurally substandard" is defined as buildings 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. Generally, a building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to a new building, or could be modified to satisfy the existing code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type. A city may not find that a building is structurally substandard without an interior inspection, unless it cannot gain access to the property and there exists evidence which supports the structurally substandard finding. Such evidence includes recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence. Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained. A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building if the following conditions are met: (1)the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district; (2)the demolition or removal of the substandard building was performed or financed by the City, or was performed by a developer under a development agreement with the City, (3)the City found by resolution before such demolition or removal occurred that the building was structurally substandard and that the City intended to include the parcel in the TIF district, and (4)the City notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district. In the case of (4) above, the County Auditor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the parcel to be the greater of (a) the current tax capacity of the parcel, or (b) a computed tax capacity of the parcel using the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the demolition or removal occurred, and the appropriate classification rate(s) for the current year. At least 90 percent of the tax increment from a redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation as a redevelopment district. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or Sprinqsteo Page Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of land, removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary to develop the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City may be included in the qualifying costs, Section 111.13 Duration of the TIF District Redevelopment districts may remain in existence 25 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. Modifications of this plan (see Section V) shall not extend these limitations. The Authority reserves the right to allow the TIF District to remain in existence for the maximum duration allowed by law (projected to be through the year 2044), and anticipates the TIF District may be active for the maximum duration allowed (see Section IlIL). All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the Authority. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subd. 1(b), the Authority specifies 2019 as the first year in which it elects to receive tax increment from the TIF District, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the TIF District. Thus, the Authority may collect increment from the district through December 31, 2044 (see Section Section Ill,C Property to be Included in the TIF District The TIF District encompasses approximately 64.82 acres located within the Project Area. The TIF District includes the tax parcels identified in the table below and all adjacent and contiguous rights of way. A map of the TIF parcels is included in Exhibit I. Parcel ID:Address Legal Description TRACT A REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.21.0002 5930 Shingle Creek Parkway SURVEY NO. 1300 HENINEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACT A REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.21.0014 5939 John Martin Drive SURVEY NO. 1529 HENNIEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACT B REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.21.0015 5927 John Martin Drive SURVEY NO. 1529 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACT 0 REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.12.0011 5915 John Martin Drive SURVEY NO. 1325 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACT A REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.21.0001 5910 Shingle Creek Parkway SURVEY NO. 1276 HENNIEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA TRACT P REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.21.0005 5901 John Martin Drive SURVEY NO. 1325 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Lot 1, Block 1, BROOKDALE 02.118.21.24.0020 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway SQUARE 2ND ADDITION Hennepin County, MN princjsted Page Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Lot 2, Block 2, BROOKDALE 02.118.21.24.0019 2500 County Road 10 SQUARE Hennepin County, MN, EX HWY TRACT F REGISTERED LAND 02.118.21.13.0007 Address Unassigned SURVEY NO. 1300 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Lot 1, Block 2, SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Hennepin County, MN, 02.118.21.24.0021 Address Unassigned THAT PART OF LOT 1, EMBRACED WITHIN TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1614 Lot 1, Block 2, SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Hennepin County, MN, 02.118.21.24.0022 2545 County Road 10 LOT 1, EXCEPT THAT PART EMBRACED WITHIN TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1614 02.118.21.31.0062 2501 County Road 10 Lot 2, Block 2, SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Hennepin County, MN Section lll.D Property to be Acquired in the TIF District The Authority may acquire and sell any or all of the property located within the TIF District. The Authority does anticipate potentially acquiring parcels within the TIE District, Section IILE Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District The proposed development within the TIF District is expected to consist of approximately 749 market rate apartment units, approximately 60 owner-occupied townhome units, and approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail buildings. Additionally, the Authority anticipates the TIF District may include the development of an approximately 50,000 square foot performing arts center, and structured parking facilities necessary to accommodate the parking needs of the varying development proposals. The Authority anticipates using tax increment to finance a portion of the public roadway, utility, site improvement, structured parking, and other eligible costs associated with the redevelopment of the site, as well as related administrative expenses. The Authority anticipates that construction on various phases of the development will commence in 2016, with first occupancy in 2017. The construction of the varying facets of the development is anticipated to occur over a period of up to nine-years. The project is anticipated to be fully complete and 100% assessed and on the tax rolls as of January 2, 2025 for taxes payable in 2026. At the time this document was prepared there were no signed construction contracts with regards to the above described development. Section lll.F Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing In establishing the TIF District, the City makes the following findings: (1) The TIF District qualifies as a redevelopment district; See Section Ill.A of this document for the reasons and facts supporting this finding. Spr incjsteo Page Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (2) The proposed development, in the opinion of the Authority, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan; Factual Basis: Proposed development not expected to occur: The proposed development is expected to consist of approximately 749 market rate apartment units, 60 owner-occupied townhome units, and approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail buildings. The Authority's finding that the proposed development would be unlikely to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future is based on the significant investment in necessary public roadways, utilities, and other site work costs necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. An analysis of the project pro forma provided by the developer, illustrates that the considerable cost of redeveloping the site makes the proposed development infeasible without public financing assistance. Without the improvements the Authority has no reason to expect that significant development of this type would occur without assistance similar to that provided in this plan. Therefore the Authority has no reason to believe the development would occur but-for tax increment assistance. No higher market value expected: The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: Without the improvements the Authority has no reason to expect that significant redevelopment would occur without assistance similar to that provided in this plan. Therefore, the Authority concludes as follows: a.The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will increase without the use of tax increment financing is anywhere from $0 to some modest amount based on small scale development that could be possible without assistance; any estimated values would be too speculative to ascertain. b.If the proposed development to be assisted with tax increment occurs in the District, the total increase in market value would be approximately $151,342,929 (See Exhibit V). 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 $23,865,835 (See Exhibit V). 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 $127,477,094 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. (3) The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for redevelopment of the TIF District area by private enterprise. Factual basis: The anticipated redevelopment projected by the Developer includes residential and commercial uses and substantial site improvements consistent with the City's design goals. (4) The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. Spi inqstec! Page 6 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Factual basis: The City Planning Commission has determined that the development proposed in the TIF Plan conforms to the City comprehensive plan. (5) The Authority does not elect the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3(b); therefore subdivision 3(a) shall apply which indicates the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions (see method (a) in Section L). Section lll.G Estimated Public Costs The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax increments of the TIF District. Land/Building Acquisition, Demolition, Special $21,401,928 Assessments, Public Utilities, Site Improvements/Preparation Costs, and other Eligible Improvement Costs Interest Expenses $27,771,521 Administrative Costs $5,463,715 Total $54,637,164 The Authority reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost ($54,637,164) is not increased, The Authority also reserves the right to fund any of the identified costs with any other legally available revenues, but anticipates that such costs will be primarily financed with tax increments. Section lll.H Estimated Sources of Revenue Tax Increment revenue*$54,637,164 Interest on invested funds 0 Bond proceeds 0 Loan proceeds 0 Other Revenues Total $54,637,164 * Net of State Auditor Deduction The Authority anticipates using future tax increments for reimbursement of public costs incurred from Section K. As increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, all or a portion of these tax increments will be reserved by the City as reimbursement for public costs incurred (primarily for public infrastructure improvements), either through internal funding or general obligation or revenue debt. The City also reserves the ability to provide financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of pay-as-you-go financing. With pay-as-you-go financing, as tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these tax increments, if utilized, will be distributed to the developer as reimbursement for eligible costs incurred related to the redevelopment of the site. The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay-as-you-go assistance, internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income. Springs ted Page Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Section 111.1 Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness The Authority may consider issuing tax increment bonds to finance all or a portion of the estimated public costs, and reserves the right to issue such bonds in an amount not to exceed $60,100,880 (total estimated public costs plus 10% allowance for potential costs of issuance). Section IILJ Original Net Tax Capacity The County Auditor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. This value will be equal to the total net tax capacity of all property in the TIE District as certified by the State Commissioner of Revenue. For districts certified between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, this value is based on the previous assessment year. For districts certified between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, this value is based on the current assessment year. A portion of the property is currently owned by the Authority who will be transferring ownership of the property to the Developer at the initiation of the development. It is presumed the market value assigned to the property currently owned by the Authority will be $10,624,904, based on the Authority's original purchase price of the property. Therefore, the Estimated Market value of all the property within the TIE District as of January 2, 2015, for taxes payable in 2016 (for purposes of estimating TIF revenue, and accounting for the future transfer of the currently tax-exempt property), is $17,882,904. Upon establishment of the TIF District it is estimated that the original net tax capacity of the TIE District will be $243,603. Each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount that the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased as a result of: (1)changes in the tax-exempt status of property; (2)reductions or enlargements of the geographic area of the TIE District; (3)changes due to stipulation agreements or abatements; or (4)changes in property classification rates. Section Ill.K Original Tax Capacity Rate The County Auditor shall also certify the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. This rate shall be the sum of all local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District. This rate shall be for the same taxes payable year as the original net tax capacity. In future years, the amount of tax increment generated by the TIE District will be calculated using the lesser of (a) the sum of the current local tax rates at that time or (b) the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. At the time this document was prepared, the sum of all local tax rates that apply to the property in the TIE District, for taxes levied in 2015 and payable in 2016, was not yet available, When this total becomes available, the County Auditor shall certify this amount as the original tax capacity rate of the TIE District. For purposes of estimating tax increment generated by the TIF District, the oroposed local tax rates for taxes levied in 2015 and payable in 2016, is 182.571% as shown below. 2015/2016 Taxing Jurisdiction Local Tax Rate City of Brooklyn Center 73.150% Hennepin County 45.314% ISD #286 54.326% Springsted Page Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center Other 9.781% Total 182.571% Section 1111 Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the difference shall be known as the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The estimates shown in this TIF Plan assume that commercial class rates remain at 1.5% for the first $150,000 of estimated market value and 2.0% of the market value above $150,000; rental class rates will remain constant at 1.25%, and residential class rates will remain at 1.0% for the first $500,000 of estimated market value and 1.25% of the market value above $500,000. The projections also assume a 2% annual increase in market values. Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the difference shall be known as the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. For communities affected by the fiscal disparity provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F and Chapter 276A, the original net tax capacity of the TIF District shall be determined before the application of fiscal disparity. In subsequent years, the current net tax capacity shall either (a) be determined before the application of fiscal disparity or (b) exclude the product of any fiscal disparity increase in the TIF District (since the original net tax capacity was certified) times the appropriate fiscal disparity ratio. The method the Authority elects shall remain the same for the life of the TIF District, except that a single change may be made at any time from method (a) to method (b) above. ))The Authority elects method (a), or M.S. Section 469,177, Subdivision 3(a). The County Auditor shall certify to the Authority the amount of captured net tax capacity each year. The Authority may choose to retain any or all of this amount. It is the Authority's intention to retain 100% of the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Such amount shall be known as the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Exhibit II gives a listing of the various information and assumptions used in preparing a number of the exhibits contained in this TIF Plan, including Exhibit V which shows the projected tax increment generated over the anticipated life of the TIF District. Section III.M Use of Tax Increment Each year the County Treasurer shall deduct 0.36% of the annual tax increment generated by the TIF District and pay such amount to the State's General Fund. Such amounts will be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting and auditing of tax increment financing information throughout the state. Exhibit Ill shows the projected deduction for this purpose over the anticipated life of the TIE District. The Authority has determined that it will use 100% of the remaining tax increment generated by the TIE District for any of the following purposes: (1)pay for the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section lIl.G) and County administrative costs associated with the TIF District (see Section lll.P); (2)pay principal and interest on tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated public costs of the TIE District; Sp rinçsted Page 9 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (3)accumulate a reserve securing the payment of tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District; (4)pay all or a portion of the county road costs as may be required by the County Board under M.S. Section 469.175, Subdivision la; or (5) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School Districts. Tax increments from property located in one county must be expended for the direct and primary benefit of a project located within that county, unless both county boards involved waive this requirement. Tax increments shall not be used to circumvent levy limitations applicable to the City. Tax increment shall not be used to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the State or federal government, or for a commons area used as a public park, or a facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes. This prohibition does not apply to the construction or renovation of a parking structure or of a privately owned facility for conference purposes. If there exists any type of agreement or arrangement providing for the developer, or other beneficiary of assistance, to repay all or a portion of the assistance that was paid or financed with tax increments, such payments shall be subject to all of the restrictions imposed on the use of tax increments. Assistance includes sale of property at less than the cost of acquisition or fair market value, grants, ground or other leases at less than fair market rent, interest rate subsidies, utility service connections, roads, or other similar assistance that would otherwise be paid for by the developer or beneficiary. Section IILN Excess Tax Increment In any year in which the tax increments from the TIF District exceed the amount necessary to pay the estimated public costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the Authority shall use the excess tax increments to: (1)prepay any outstanding tax increment bonds; (2)discharge the pledge of tax increments thereof; (3)pay amounts into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of the tax increment bonds; or (4)return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School District. The County Auditor must report to the Commissioner of Education the amount of any excess tax increment redistributed to the School District within 30 days of such redistribution. Section 1110 Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule At least 75% of the tax increments from the TIF District must be expended on activities within the district or to pay for bonds used to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section E for additional restrictions). No more than 25% of the tax increments may be spent on costs outside of the TIF District but within the boundaries of the Project Area, except to pay debt service on credit enhanced bonds. All administrative expenses are considered to have been spent outside of the TIF District. Tax increments are considered to have been spent within the TIF District if such amounts are: (1) actually paid to a third party for activities performed within the TIF District within five years after certification of the district; Sprinqsteci Page 10 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (2)used to pay bonds that were issued and sold to a third party, the proceeds of which are reasonably expected on the date of issuance to be spent within the later of the five-year period or a reasonable temporary period or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund. (3)used to make payments or reimbursements to a third party under binding contracts for activities performed within the TIF District, which were entered into within five years after certification of the district; or (4) used to reimburse a party for payment of eligible costs (including interest) incurred within five years from certification of the district. Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the TIF District, at least 75% of the tax increments must be used to pay outstanding bonds or make contractual payments obligated within the first five years. When outstanding bonds have been defeased and sufficient money has been set aside to pay for such contractual obligations, the TIF District must be decertified. The Authority anticipates that tax increments may be spent outside of the TIF District (including a portion for allowable administrative expenses) for eligible redevelopment pooling expenditures. Section III.P Limitation on Administrative Expenses Administrative expenses are defined as all costs of the Authority other than: (1)amounts paid for the purchase of land; (2)amounts paid for materials and services, including architectural and engineering services directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; (3)relocation benefits paid to, or services provided for, persons residing or businesses located in the project; (4)amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178; or (5) amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clause (1) to (3). Administrative expenses include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or economic development consultants, and actual costs incurred by the County in administering the TIF District. No tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increments, as defined In section 469.174, subdivision 25, clause (1), from the district, whichever is less. Section IILQ Limitation on Property Not Subject to improvements - Four Year Rule If after four years from certification of the TIF District no demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, or qualified improvement of an adjacent street has commenced on a parcel located within the TIF District, then that parcel shall be excluded from the TIF District and the original net tax capacity shall be adjusted accordingly. Qualified improvements of a street are limited to construction or opening of a new street, relocation of a street, or substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The Authority must submit to the County Auditor, by February 1 of the fifth year, evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the TIF District. If a parcel is excluded from the TIF District and the Authority or owner of the parcel subseqUently commences any of the above activities, the Authority shall certify to the County Auditor that such activity has commenced and the parcel Spi ncjsted Page 11 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center shall once again be included in the TIF District. The County Auditor shall certify the net tax capacity of the parcel, as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue, and add such amount to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. Section lll.R Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Exhibit IV shows the estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions if the maximum projected retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to the other taxing jurisdictions. The Authority believes that there will be no adverse impact on other taxing jurisdictions during the life of the TIF District, since the proposed development would not have occurred without the establishment of the TIF District and the provision of public assistance. A positive impact on other taxing jurisdictions will occur when the TIF District is decertified and the development therein becomes part of the general tax base. The fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district, as pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 2, are listed below. 1.The total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the district is estimated to be $54,834,566. 2.To the extent the proposed project in TIF District No. 7 generates any public cost impacts on City provided services such as police and fire protection, public infrastructure, and borrowing costs attributable to the district, such costs will be levied upon the taxable net tax capacity of the City, excluding that portion captured by the District. The City does anticipate potentially issuing general obligation tax increment bonds attributable to the District, but reserves the right to also finance certain project by other eligible methods where necessary or applicable. 3. The amount of tax increments over the life of the district that would be attributable to the school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is estimated to be $16,316,626. 4, 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 estimated to be $13,609,903. 5. No additional information has been requested by the county or school districts that would enable it to determine additional costs that will accrue to it due to the development proposed for the district. Section IlLS Prior Planned Improvements The Authority shall accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor (or notice of district enlargement), with a listing of all properties within the TIF District for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the TIF District by the net tax capacity of each improvement for which a building permit was issued. At the time this document was prepared no building permits had been issued in the previous 18 months in conjunction with any of the properties within the TIF District. Section Ill.T Development Agreements If within a project containing a housing district, more than 10% of the acreage of the property to be acquired by the Authority is purchased with tax increment bonds proceeds (to which tax increment from the property is pledged), then prior to such acquisition, the Authority must enter into an agreement for the development of the property. Such agreement must provide recourse for the Authority should the development not be completed. Sprinqstecl Page 12 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center The Authority anticipates entering into an agreement for development, and reserves the right to potentially purchase additional property located within the TIF District, in addition to the property already owned by the Authority within the TIF District. Section IILU Assessment Agreements The Authority may, upon entering into a development agreement, also enter into an assessment agreement with the developer, which establishes a minimum market value of the land and improvements for each year during the life of the TIF District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County or City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land, and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears to be an accurate estimate, shall certify the assessment agreement as reasonable. The assessment agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of each county where the property is located. Any modification or premature termination of this agreement must first be approved by the City, County and School District, The Authority reserves the right to enter into assessment agreements for any portions of the TIF District. Section lll.V Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Any reduction or enlargement in the geographic area of the Project Area or the TIF District; increase in the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan; increase in that portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the Authority; increase in the total estimated public costs; or designation of additional property to be acquired by the Authority shall be approved only after satisfying all the necessary requirements for approval of the original TIF Plan. This paragraph does not apply if: (1)the only modification is elimination of parcels from the TIF District; and (2)the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcels in the TIF District's original net tax capacity, or the City agrees that the TIF District's original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated. The Authority must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the TIF District. The geographic area of the TIF District may be reduced but not enlarged after five years following the date of certification. Section 111W Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Upon adoption of the TIF Plan, the Authority shall submit a copy of such plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The Authority shall also request that the County Auditor certify the original net tax capacity and net tax capacity rate of the TIF District. To assist the County Auditor in this process, the Authority shall submit copies of the TIF Plan, the resolution establishing the TIF District and adopting the TIF Plan, and a listing of any prior planned improvements. The Authority shall also send the County Assessor any assessment agreement establishing the minimum market value of land and improvements in the TIF District, and shall request that the County Assessor review and certify this assessment agreement as reasonable. The County shall distribute to the Authority the amount of tax increment as it becomes available. The amount of tax increment in any year represents the applicable property taxes generated by the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The amount of tax increment may change due to development anticipated by the TIF Plan, other spr inçjsted Page 13 Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center development, inflation of property values, or changes in property classification rates or formulas. In administering and implementing the TIF Plan, the following actions should occur on an annual basis: (1)prior to July 1, the Authority shall notify the County Assessor of any new development that has occurred in the TIF District during the past year to insure that the new value will be recorded in a timely manner. (2)if the County Auditor receives the request for certification of a new TIF District, or for modification of an existing TIF District, before July 1, the request shall be recognized in determining local tax rates for the current and subsequent levy years. Requests received on or after July 1 shall be used to determine local tax rates in subsequent years. (3) each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount of the original net tax capacity of the TIE District. The amount certified shall reflect any changes that occur as a result of the following: (a)the value of property that changes from tax-exempt to taxable shall be added to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The reverse shall also apply; (b)the original net tax capacity may be modified by any approved enlargement or reduction of the TIF District; (c) if laws governing the classification of real property cause changes to the percentage of estimated market value to be applied for property tax purposes, then the resulting increase or decrease in net tax capacity shall be applied proportionately to the original net tax capacity and the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The County Auditor shall notify the Authority of all changes made to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. Section lIIl.X Filing TIF Plan, Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements The Authority will file the TIF Plan and any subsequent amendments thereto, with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 4A. The Authority will comply with all reporting requirements for the TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivisions 5 and Springsted Page 14 Exhibit I Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 01 and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 7 (Proposed) ii ii I I itif i it Ii Iii !Ill;. 11 "1 I I l A B C E F c Z.,ita -- - / 1.// i •/' I ).-.- •'- 1 1 LL.A.L STI4ELT 4 5 - 6 7 r / 2 1 LU It IA I i.c or LEGEND - TIFPc_Sounduy_Lpe TIF D,sIicINo 7 !iR()OAL}% (1111.11 2 CnlI, i-;.,. I.I.I1O Fl r,,l.,rI,. = Spinjsted Page 15 Exhibit II Assu m ptions ReporA j City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No.7 Brookdale Square Opportunity Site Redevelopment Type of Tax Increment Financing District Maximum Duration of TIF District Projected Certification Request Date Decertification Date Base Estimated Market Value Redevelopment 25 years from 1st increment 06/30/16 12/31/43 (26 Years of Increment) 2015/2016 $17,882,904 Original Net Tax Capacity $243,603 Assessment/Collection Year 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 Base Estimated Market Value $17,882,904 $17,882,904 $17,882,904 $17,882,904 Estimated Increase in Value - New Construction 0 0 5,217,596 18,648,096 Total Estimated Market Value 17,882,904 17,882,904 23,100,500 36,531,000 Total Net Tax Capacity City of Brooklyn Center Hennepin County ISD#286 Other Local Tax Capacity Rate Fiscal Disparities Contribution From TIF District Mministrative Retainage Percent (maximum = 10%) Pooling Percent $243,603 $243,603 $311,260 $494,235 73.150% 45.314% 54.326% 9.781% 182.571% 2015/2016 0.0000% 10.00% 0.00% Present Value Date & Rate 06/30/16 5.00% PV Amount $21,401,928 Notes Projections assume no future changes to classification rates and current tax rates remain constant. Rental projections are based on assumed post-development value of $1 00K/unit. Commerical projections are based on total post-development value of $5,750,000. Residential value based on assumed value of $200,000 per towntiome. Base value is a mix of existing amounts, and estimated values based on City purchase price of property Projections assumue construction begins in 2016-2017, but first increment is delayed until Pay2019. Projections are based on a 2% market value inflator. Sprinqsted Page 16 4-) 0 0 4-, E ci)3-(-I I- ci) (-) 0 C)C)C)OCOt OF) CNLU(D 0)1LULU-N-00O) 7-0 a) COLULUC)COCOCOCOLULULUt'ctCO00)0) 'ct CO:3 0) IC) LU N- (N (C) U) C) LU 0) '(C LU 'ci- C) IC) C) LU N- CO LU IC) N- (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N LUCOLUCOCOLULUC)C)C)(NCOCO'ctLULULULUN- CO C)C)C)LULUN-LUC)LUC)LULUN-DCO(7)cC)LU LUa) C) LU 0) C) LU - LU (N LU N- C) (N LU CO (N LU (N LU CO CO LU CO CO LU (NCOLUCOIUCOCON-COLUIULUN-LU(NN-(N0)LULULUN-LUCOCO'ct(N N- U) (NLULUCON-(NLU(NN-(NN-(NN-COCO'(CLULUN-COLULU(NLULU CO(NC) C) 'ci- It) LU (N LU CO C) C) c- (N CO CO 'ci- q LU LU LU N- N- CO LU LU C) LU(N(NC'JC'3C)JC)JC'J(N(NCO 'ci- CO I C)C)C)N-'ci-LULU(NcCOCOLULULULU CO'ci-0)LUCOC)CN'ctcIN- CO LU LU 'ci- LU c- C) LU LU 'ci- CO CO LU N- CO CO (N 0) C) LU CDcc) COLUCOLQCOCON-COLULULUN-LU(-4N-(NLULULULUN-LUCOCO'(C(NI N-(N LU LU CO N- (N LU (14 N- (N N- (N N- CO CO LU LU - N- CO LU LU (N LU LU CO a) 'ci- LU LU (NLUCO (Zi C)-c(N(NCOCO'ci-LULULUN-N-COLULUC)1 CO wz C4 (NT 'ci- C LU(ft C) C) C) LU N- c- CO CO CO (N C) (N N- LU 0) LU LU C) CO - CO LU It) LU -d C C)N-(NLU(NC)COLUCO(N(N(NCOCOLULUCO'(CCOLUINT LUC) CO LU CO N- CO LU LU CO C) (N 'ci- LU CO C. (N 'ci- LU CO CO Ll:)CO C)1 W<tC)j )N-N-N-N-c0OOLU0)LULU0C)0 N-LU CO C) C) C) (N c- C) LU LU LU 'IT LU LU c- (Nc- C) LU LU CO (N C) LU CO LU (N CO LU (0 x — (N CO LU LU CO C) LU 'ci- C) CO LU LU LU LU CO C) LU c- LU IT C) LU CO N- LU - (ci C U) LU LU It IC) C) LU LU C) 'ci- CO (N N- (N CO LU (N (N (N LU C) N- co CO 'ci- (N LU CCO)LUN-LUCOCOLUCOE i::- (N LU N CO CO N CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 4 LU LU C) LU (N CO 4 C) N- CO C) N- CO c- -ct IC) LU (N LU CO C) C) c- c- (N (N CO CO It LU LU LU LU N-00 CO 0) C) 0 CO eZ 2 c—(N(N(N(N(N (NCJC'4(NCJC'J(N(N(N (NCOCO 'ci- (D U) CLO) U) U) LU LU LU IC) IC) LU It) LU LU LU IL) LU IC) IC) IC) IC) LU IC) IC) IC) IL) IL) IL) IC) IL) IC) LU (33 (\3' (NCN(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(NCJ(N(N(N(N(N(NC')(N(N'.J(NC'Jt)J(N (NCO COCO CO 03 COCO CO CO 0000 CO CO 0000 COCOCO COCOCO COCOCOCOCO COCOCO C) C) C) N- (N c— C) LU LU N- CO c— c— It) CO CO C) CO N- LU (N CO N- CO C)LU Cl) c— CO CO LU CO CO N- LU N- 'ci- N- CO N- N- N- LU LU LU (N LU LU (N (0 COD0 x- LUCOLUC)C)(NCOLU'ci-LUc—COC)CO(NN-COLULULULULULUN-c—CO(33 N-' C) 'T IT CO (N c— 'ci- c— C coC (N (N (N CO LU N- C 'ci- CO CO 0) (0 C')H cci"LULUC)c—C)LU(Nc—'ctLULU(NLUCOc—'ci-N-C)CON-C)CON-C)"ci-CO LI) (33 Q) Cci (NCOLUN-COC)(N(N(NCOCOCO'ci-'ci-LULULULU(0(D o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO COZ .=. C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) - x ' CD (0 LU LU LU (C) (0 (0 LU LU CO LU (0 LU (0 LU (0 LU LU LU CD LU LU CD CD LU CO LU LU C,)LB CO COCOCO Cl) COC'CO Cl) Cl) COCOCOC')COCO Cl) Cl) CO ' E ,--H ci' -I-) <) c)- N (N (N (N (N Cl (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N CO COCO C) LI) LU CO It (N C) 'ci- C) LU 114-CO LU c-CO CD C) LU LU c-C) LU CO E W C)C)C)LUCOc-COLUCO'ci-COCOLUN-'ci-N-COCON-N-C)LULUC')N-LU(NCOCO X- CO(0CD(N(Nc—(DC000LULU0c—NLULULUCOt(NLULU(NIULUCON-0) o C) COCOCOc—'ci-CON-LUICOLU(NLUN(0LULULUN-LUc-'(CCO(NN-COLULUHçrj" LU'(CLU'ci-COLULUCOc-CO(DLU(NLUCOc— 'IT COc—'ctCOc—LUCO(N(Ij.- 0 -,- (N (N (N CO 'ci- LU N-LU - (N CO CO 'ci- (C 'ci- ';T LO LU LU LU CD LU N- N- N- CO 0000 LU Zn >HLBcciZ() 'ci- C) C) C) CO c-LU c-c—CO (N CO N- LU c- C) C) N-c-C) CO (N (Nc-N-LU C) C) C) C) C) CO (N LU LU N- (N c— (00) (0 LU LU LU c— (N 'ci- LU LU C) N- LU (0 (N0LULUC)0LULUCO(NLUC0'ctN-'ci-'ci-N-c—N-'ci-(N(NLULUN-C)LU LBLB (N(NCCc-c—COLUCCCCc— COIC)'ci-(NCOIOCOCOLUC000CD(N --2 COCOCOC)COLULUC)LUN-COCOLULUN-'ci-LU(NCOLULULULU(NCOC)(NC)r C)0 ci2j, COCOCOc-LU'ci-LUCOLULU'ctLULUCOC)CO(fC)'(CCOCOLUIC)(NLUN-LU'(CCO LB ' > N- N- N- CO CO 0) co (N CO CO (0 00 C (N IL) N- 0) (N Nr CD 0) c— 'ci- N- 0) N IC) CO c-(N CO CO LU N- CO LU C) C) -c-c-c-' (N (N (N (N CO CO CO CO 'ci- 'ci- LU LL (33 >)4-' o C0N-COLUC)c—(NCO'ci-LULUN-COLUC)c—(NCOLUCDN-CO0)C)c—(NCO'ci- o E LDCCDc- (N(N(N(N(N(N(NlC(N(N(N(N(NCC)CN(N(N(NCcJ(N 0 C) C<i-LW OF— N a)330(33 - - - - C!) tO L. 0 (I) C)..CC --LI')-(N COCoCo -N-e LI)-0)(NN-'U)CO I.R,I. 0)Co C'.)'-0)U)N-C C C,(C -C)(C -N- II')N-LU -.(C 11)0)>a) U,C0 -C.) a)...)U) CCux u IC) cp a) CCu - C.) o U)>.0CL QC (VU, t :0)a)0 Ii. 'S ca •.2 — 0 '4- o' '0.0 .0C.) a)a)a)(Va)CV a cEo o x (C>u'.0)4-CC tp -vEa)o a)a U.0) co -C C 4c (1)U) cu . —- C a) .0 C CCo ao C•0 a)—U)(Ca) L/) LL a) '0 0) CL WC.) U) law CL to o . 00)(OC — C.)0) C,II C (Ca) (CO) xCCC— 0 CCC11) - CCHH '-(N 0)-I-) (1) C OL co (C.-•1 a)(C10C- a 0) 0).— CD 0 c CLo Is-,-01). - Eca = U = I_J I..-_j coC)--CoC)0) 0)-oiIN-0 -r.0 C)CO —,1QZi •- JQ c\(..LO Co N- C) a) caH OR Li Co C00)CC.)x(CC.')I- coU.Cu 0 C•' - -(C co coc C'.) C r'-.c (J u cua LU LU 0 0)' Coco (C a) a) caH HZ oLI')C\J cooc' N-0N-LI)N C"o3 (0 (n (I')¶(C I •iI a) 1- - -•2 Cu103 Coco coCO Coco0I Z (C CC (D-C -69 I C)-.Co0)('IU)to•.>"ICo (C. (C -C)(CU)-N- IL()N-LIcC.(CIOi Cu - (C a) — ¶- — H u.. I- (CC.) Ln z cu(N I-a)Ca)o C .)0o co CCL (C(C A 0 H Exhibit VI Ii Market Value Analysis Report City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 7 Brookdale Square Opportunity Site Redevelopment Assumptions Present Value Date 06130116 P.V. Rate - Gross T.I. 5.00% Increase in EM\J With TIF District '$151,342,929 Less: P.V of Gross Tax Increment 23,865,835 Subtotal $127,477,094 Less: Increase in EMV Without TIF 0 Difference $127,477,094 Year Annual Gross Tax Increment Present Value@ 5.00% V 2018r 0 0 1 2019 r 123,522 106,703 2 2020 F 457,581 376,453 3 2021 555,950 435,601 4 2022 '938,469 700,300 5 2023 1,283,586 912,221 6 2024 '1,629,006 1,102,575 7 2025 1,864,664 1,201,979 8 2026 2,035,541 1,249,646 9 2027 2,084,005 1,216,475 10 2028 2133,439 1,187,979 11 2029 v 2,183,861 1,158,148 12 2030 r 2,235,292 1,128,974 13 2031 r 2,287,751 1,100,447 14 2032 2341,260 1,072,558 15 2033 2,395,839 1,045,297 16 2034 r 2,451,509 1,018,653 17 2035 r 2,508,293 992,617 18 2036 2,566,212 967,178 19 2037 2,625,290 942,328 20 2038 2,685,549 918,055 21 2039 r 2,747,014 894,349 22 2040 '2,809,708 871,200 23 2041 r 2873,655 848,598 24 2042 '2,938,882 826,533 25 2043 F 3,005,413 804,995 26 2044 '3,073,275 783,973 $54,834,566 $23,865,835 Spñncjsteci Page 19 Exhibit VI PART I —EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Brooklyn Center to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Ta Increment Finsncing Redevelopment District "TIF District') proposed to be established by the City. The proposed TIF Ditttict is bound by Shingle Creek Parkway, John Marun Drive. and Highway 100 (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHBs work is to determine whether the pro1)osed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether fourteen 14 buiklings on twelve 12' parcels and two (2) right of war parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualitcations required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 - Proposed TIF District L mWqFq Si1riqsted Page 20 Exhibit VI SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of twelve (12) parcels and two (2) right of way parcels with fourteen (14) builclins. Eight (8) buildings were inspected on January 5, 2013. February 11, 2015, October 12, 2015 and October 19, 2015: and were determined to be substandard. Six (6) buildings were determined to be not substandard during out field inspection or were inaccessible on the interior, so we did nor complete further analysis. Building Code and Condition Deficiency Reports for the buildings that were inspected and deteiniinecl substandard are located in Appendix B CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying current statutory criterin for a Redevelopment District under MinncoIa Sfai,/r.c. 46.i '4, Siihc/is'isio,i 10, it is our profess011a1 opinion that the proposed TIF District c1ualifies as a Redevelopment District because: The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 9835 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. • 57.1 percent of the buildings are strucrurdh - sul)standard which is above the 50 percent requirement • The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed The remainder of this report describes am process and findings in detail Sprinqsted Page 21 Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District Bvoohdake Square kiDll RcflevlloprneM AF Dthct li©kVyh kth e L-. .ki, hunIII11i March 21, 2016 Prepared For the Cfty of B rooNynCMm Prepared by: LHB, Inc. 701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 LI-lB Project No. 150010 - TABLE OF CO N TE VATS PART I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................2 Purpose of Evaluation ..................... ........................................................... 2 Scopeof 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 I. Building Inspection ....................................................................7 2.Replacement Cost.....................................................................8 3.Code Deficiencies .....................................................................8 4. System Condition Deficiencies..................................................9 C. Distribution of Substandard Structures.................................................9 PART 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 iu- ;zai.. -• PART I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Brooklyn Center 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 bound by Shingle Creek Parkway, John Martin Drive, and Highway 100 (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB's work is to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether fourteen (14) buildings on twelve (12) parcels and two (2) right of way parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1— Proposed TIF District liWif Wft SCOPE OF WORK The proposed TIF District consists of twelve (12) parcels and two (2) right of way parcels with fourteen (14) buildings. Eight (8) buildings were inspected on January 5, 2015, February 11, 2015, October 12, 2015 and October 19, 2015; and were determined to be substandard. Six (6) buildings were determined to be not substandard during our field inspection or were inaccessible on the interior, so we did not complete further analysis. Building Code and Condition Deficiency Reports for the buildings that were inspected and determined 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: o The proposed TIP District has a coverage calculation of 98.35 percent which is above the 70 Percent requirement. • 57.1 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement. o The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDWIS10H 10 REQURERflENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 174, Subdivision 10c), 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)." Ifroo - 1 5 ,0 e iLiOJ - QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires three tests for occupied parcels: A.COVERAGE TEST •.."parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots.. The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10('e), which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, 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 iVlinnesota 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 iValserAuto Sales, Inc. vs. 0_0 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." LLtI 0 0 U j;tl t2) ---- 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: <0 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. • The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota Energy Code as a "Required Enforcement" area compared to an additional list of "Optional Enforcement" chapters. 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. o 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 IVlinnesota 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 - eers-f 1)1 tr1immTi1W 1rti 0 - 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 WalserAnto Sales, Ii,a vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. PART 3-PROCEDURES FOLLOWED LHB inspected eight (8) of the fourteen (14) buildings on the interior and exterior during the day of January 5, 2015, February 11, 2015, October 12, 2015 and October 19, 2015. Six (6) buildings were determined to be not substandard during our field inspection or were inaccessible on the interior, so we did not complete further analysis. 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 siteimprovements 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 Miii nesota Statutes, Section 469. 174, Subdivision 10e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 98.35 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 lvliiinesota Statutes, Section 469. 174, Subdivision (a) (1). ytcilt1 WetLD - o - e 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 IL clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and photographs code and non- code deficiencies in the building. 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 2015. 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 Brooldyn Center, 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 ]\'linnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10('), 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 IVlinnesota 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. I\/leans Cost Works 2015; 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. hWsmg Wmankmw 1IIIIi [Lfi rtftt i]llhiJoiI@ i FINDING: Eight (8) out of fourteen (14) buildings (57.1 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 that were inspected and found substandard 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('), 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, eight (8) out of fourteen (14) buildings (57.1 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). ! BbIe SrerR1illDithct - - BTIiee o 9II1 11 FINDING: The parcels with substandard buildings are reasonably distributed compared to all parcels that contain buildings. In addition, the substandard buildings are reasonably distributed within the parcels that contain buildings. Diagram 3 - Substandard Buildings Shaded green area depicts parcels with buildings. Hatched area depicts parcels with substandard buildings. Shaded orange area depicts substandard buildings. IUi . o - IOIXÔJ iii PART 5 TEAR CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has 28 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 a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office. Michael completed a t\vo-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. 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. Jonathan Pettigrew, AIA Inspector Jonathan Pettigrew has worked in architecture and construction for the last twenty years in Minnesota, California and Washington. His experience includes a variety of commercial and residential project types and scales, from single-family homes to a 300,000 square foot multi-building office complex. He has significant experience in code reviews and building systems inspections and analysis. Jonathan received his Minnesota architect's license in 2004. He brings a strong interest in sustainability and an eye for detail to his work. He enjoys working with clients, consultants and contractors to bring projects together successfully. 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:\15Proj\150010\400 Design\406 Reports\Final Report\ 150010 20160321 Brookdale Square Mall Redevelopment TIF Final Report.docx iiLU):o-a 00 0 iiitl li1 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 DO Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet 0 EE 0 E 0 tLiS. LO 0IIIIflIIuIIIIuIIIII i2sI1- E iiiiiflhIIHIIuiIAa 'UijilliihIllllhIENgiOi iiigOiIIIIIllEgiiOi.k IURDIIIIUUIIII51UIIIJ z (I) U- I- = .too 1I- C 0 >a0 0I- c LL E > °t300) 00 0 —I C.) 0 ) C ;i-I 0 o Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03 RESOLUTION CONCERNING CERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROPOSALS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER (REF. TIF DISTRICT NO. 7) WHEREAS, the proposal by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to modify Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project"); adopt the modified Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project, establish within the Redevelopment Project, Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) and adopt the related Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (collectively, the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and 469.174 through 469.1794; has been submitted to the Brooklyn Center Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission"); and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine the consistency of the Plans with the comprehensive plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission that the Plans are consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. ---1J. Date Randall Christensen, Chair ATTEST: Tim Benetti, Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Sweeney; and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, Schonning, Sweeney; and Tade; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 476395v1 JSB BR291-354 DATE: March 9, 2015 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development jM SUBJECT: Resolution Designating Buildings as Structurally Substandard (Opportunity Site) Recommendation: It is recommended that the Economic Development Authority consider approval/adoption of a Resolution Designating Buildings as Structurally Substandard (Opportunity Site). Background: The Tax Increment Laws provides cities and development authorities that are pursing redevelopment projects the option of determining if a project area meets the criteria necessary to qualify it as a future Tax Increment District and reserves the potential creation of a tax increment district for a period of three years! To determine whether the EDA owned properties within the Opportunity Site meet the building and site conditions necessary to establish a future tax increment district, the EDA retained the services of LHB, Inc. an architectural flim with expertise in preparing reports on building and site conditions that comply with the statutory requirements of creating a tax increment financing district. Attached for your reference is a memorandum from the City's Financial Consultant, Springsted Inc. which summarizes the following: - requirements and fwdings necessary for the creation of a tax increment redevelopment district, - the flexibilities that the adoption of these findings provides the EDA with respect to proceeding with the demolition of buildings and developing a financial strategy to assist in the future redevelopment of this project area.. Report of Inspections Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District. The attached report describes the inspection and evaluations of 6 buildings within the Brookdale Square Commercial Center and the commercial building located at 5939 John Martin Drive and includes the following conclusions relative to the creation of a redevelopment district that includes the entire southern portion of the Opportunity Site: 1. The proposed project area (TIF District) has a coverage calcUlation of 99.97 percent which is above the 70 percent requirement. (Diagram 2, identifies the qualifying parcels) Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clew:, safe, inclusive community Eliot enhances the quality of life for ailpeople and preserves the public trust 2.53.8 percent of the buildings of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent requirement, (Diagram 3 identifies the substandard buildings) 3.The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed with the project area. (Diagram 1 identifies the project area and buildings lying south of John Martin Drive) Appendix A- Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet. Appendix B - Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports, and Appendix C- Building Replacement Cost Reports, Code Deficiency Cost Reports, and Photographs are available at City Hall. Resolution Designating Buildings as Structurally Substandard (Opportunity Site) Jenny Boulton, the EDA's TIP legal counsel with Kennedy & Graven, has prepared the attached resolution which provides for the following: 1.Finds that the 7 building owned by the EDA are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance based on the LHB, Inc. report dated March 3, 2015 2.Enables the EDA to proceed with the demolition of these 7 buildings. 3.Identifies that the EDA intends to include these designated properties in one or more redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district within 3 years after the date of building demolition on the designated property. 4.Establishes the process for determining base value of the tax increment district. Budget Issues: The costs associated with the building analysis and developing strategies for redevelopment options and opportunities of the Opportunity Site are funded by Tax Increment District 3. A complete tax increment report, which includes a financial analysis, will be prepared at such time as the City/EDA decides to proceed with the creation of a new tax increment district. Strategic Priorities: Focused Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Spriticjsted Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Tel: 651.223-3000 Fax: 651-223-3002 www.springsted.com MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Eitel, Business and Development Director FROM: Tom Denaway, Assistant Vice President/Consultant DATE: March 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Broolcdale Square - Resolution Designating a Building as Structurally Substandard The creation of a Redevelopment TIF District requires that specific statutory findings be made in regards to the current condition of the building(s) to be redeveloped. In order for a District to be eligible it has to be found that more than 50% of the existing buildings within the boundaries of the District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, Structurally substandard is defined by statute as a building requiring modifications to satisfy building code at a cost of 15% or more of than the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type. Once a building has been inspected and found to be substandard, the City is able to adopt by resolution a finding that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the City intends to include the parcel within a TIF District. Adopting a resolution finding the parcel occupied by a structurally substandard building, followed by either undertaking the demolition of the building by the City itself or entering into a development agreement for its removal by a developer, allows for the parcel to be eligible for inclusion in a Redevelopment TIE District for up to three years following the demolition. This allowance by statute allows for a quicker disposition blighted buildings, without jeopardizing the ability to create a redevelopment TIF district. The demolition of the blighted buildings, following designation as structurally substandard, creates a three year window in which a Redevelopment TIF District can be created. This allows the City the flexibility to create a TIF District either in response to a specific developer proposal, or in anticipation of future private development at the conclusion of the three year window. If a redevelopment TIF District is created the City would have an additional five- years from the creation of the TIF District to enter into obligations related to the redevelopment of the site. In total from the designation as structurally substandard, the City is able to maintain a full 8-years of maximum flexibility as it, relates to the potential use of TIF assistance for the redevelopment of the site. The ability to qualify parcels as structurally substandard in advance of the creation of a Redevelopment TIF District, allows for the City to maintain maximum TIF flexibility, while also realizing the immediate benefit of removing blighted property. . -/ •)'E ,,( ( '- - , f ••# ,ftW )r" 1 / . t \ \ç <:, c2J __ __ J\2N ;\çtKY t / t _ \ =H O\ ng __-_ Commissioner sewkski introduced the following resolution ( and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO.2015-05 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BUILDINGS AS STRUCTURALLY SUBSTANDARD (OPPORTUNITY SITE) WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469,174, subd. 10(d), the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ("Authority") is authorized to deem parcels as occupied by structurally substandard buildings despite prior demolition or removal of the buildings, subject to certain terms and conditions as described in this resolution and WHEREAS, the Authority previously acquired the property described in Exhibit A hereto (the "Designated Property") and intends to cause demolition of 7 buildings located on that property; and WHEREAS, the Authority may in the future include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, Subd. 10a, respebtively, and to that end has determined to designate 6 existing buildings on the Designated Property to be substandard prior to demolition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 'Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1.The Authority finds that 7 buildings located on the Designated Property as described in Exhibit A are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, based upon the analysis of such building set forth in the "Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a fax Increment Financing 'District as a Redevelopment District," dated Mareh'3, 2015, prepared by LHB, Inc. on file in City Hall. 2.After the date of approval of this resolution, 7 buildings on the Designated Property may be demolished or removed by the Authority, or such demolition or removal may be financed by the Authority, or may be undertaken by a developer under a development agreement with the Authority. 3. The Authority intends to include the Designated 'Property in one or more redevelopment or' renewal and renovation tax increment financing districts, and to file the request for certification of such district(s) with the Hennepin County auditor within 3 years after the date of building demolition on the Designated Property. " ' EDA RESOLUTION NO.2015-05 4.Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district(s), the Authority will notify the Hennepin County auditor that the original tax capacity of the Designated Property must be adjusted to reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel, or (b) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the buildings were demolished or removed, but applying class rates for the current year, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d). 5.Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any .actions. necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. March 9, 2015 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson . and upon vote being taken .thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: TimWillson, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Lin Myszkowski; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EDA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05 EXHIBIT A. Description of Designated Property The Designated Property is located within the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and consists of 2 parcels described below: Parcel Identification Number: 02-118-21-21-0014 . Legal Description: Tract A, RLS No. 1529 Parcel Identification Number: 02-118-21-24-0020 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Brookdale Square 2ns Addition . ., RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 7 (REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) THEREIN AND APPROVING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR (OPPORTUNITY SITE). BACKGROUND: On March 9, 2015, the EDA adopted Resolution No. 2015-05 “Resolution Designating Buildings as Structurally Substandard (Opportunity Site) which provided for the following: The finding that the 7 building owned by the EDA are structurally  substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance based on the LHB, Inc. report dated March 3, 2015 Enables the EDA to proceed with the demolition of these 7  buildings. Identifies that the EDA intends to include these designated  properties in one or more redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district within 3 years after the date of building demolition on the designated property. Establishes the process for determining base value of the tax  increment district. Authorized staff and consultants to take any necessary actions  to carry out the intent of this resolution. BACKGROUND CONTINUED: January 11, 2016, City Council/EDA Work accepted an updated  report by LHB, Inc. and their findings that the former Kohl’s building was determined to meet the structurally substandard building condition test and eligible to be included in this proposed tax increment district was considered. January 25, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-16  which authorized the setting of a public hearing for March 28, 2016 to consider a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor. March 17, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Planning  Commission Resolution No. 2016-03, finding that the creation of a tax increment housing district associated with the planned residential development of the Opportunity Site was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND CONTINUED: The future development approvals by the City Council and/or EDA to implement the necessary public improvements and achieve the City’s vision for redevelopment of this portion of the Opportunity Site include: Rezoning & PUD Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat  Approvals, and Site Plan Approvals. Tax Increment Development Agreements for the public/private  partnerships Tom Denaway, SpringstedFinancial is present to provide a PowerPoint Presentation on establishing this redevelopment tax increment financing district. Jenny Boulton, Kennedy and Graven, has prepared the attached resolution approving the creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 and is also available RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that following the presentation by the City’s Financial Consultant: the City Council open the Public Hearing,  take public input,  close the Public Hearing, and  consider adoption of Resolution Approving a Modification to  the Redevelopment Plans for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor (Opportunity Site). City of Brooklyn Center Public Hearing March 28, 2016 Proposed TIF (Redevelopment) District No. 7 Opportunity Site Redevelopment Project Presenter: Tom Denaway, Assistant Vice President Purpose of Presentation •To provide overview of the TIF (Redevelopment) District No. 7 –Overview of Tax Increment Financing –Outline of Development Scenario –Project Boundaries –Qualification as a Redevelopment TIF District –Development Assumptions & TIF Projections –Budget Authority –Next Steps 2 What is TIF? •A method of capturing tax base growth resulting from new development •Captures new local taxes (increment) to pay for public improvements related to development •Fixed term for capture, then new development added to tax base 3 Tax Increment Financing •Defined by State Statute 469.174 –469.1799 •Gap financing tool •Depending on year created, different compliance requirements apply •Used mainly by Cities and Counties •Provides incentive for development 4 Types of TIF Districts Types of DistrictsCriteriaTerm RedevelopmentHeavy blight and concentrated 25 years development—70% Renewal and renovationLighter blight and concentration15 years HousingLow and moderate income housing25 years Soils conditionContaminated soils20 years Economic developmentManufacturing8 years 5 Typical Eligible Costs •Public Improvements •Land Acquisition •Soil Correction •Site Preparation/Demolition •Relocation •Financing Fees/Capitalized Interest •Administrative Costs (10%) 6 Public Improvement Costs Allowed •Streets and Roads •Utilities •Bridges and Interchanges •Parking •Sidewalks and walkways •Soft costs related to any of the above 7 Public Improvement Costs Not Allowed •Public Buildings such as a City Center, Public Safety, Public Works buildings •Culture and Recreation such as parks, community centers, golf courses, etc. •Administration beyond 10% of TIF collections 8 Financing Project Costs •Pay as you go –Developer pays for public improvements –Reimbursed by tax increment –Reimbursement limited to amount of TIF collected •G.O. Tax Increment Bonds –Tax increment pays at least 20% of debt service costs –Obligation to levy for debt issue, if needed –Minimum assessment agreement •Taxable bonds may result 9 How is a TIF District Created? •Development District •TIF District –TIF Plan •Budget •Geographic boundaries •Purpose –Public Hearing –Certification 10 Process for Approving TIF District •Approximate 60 day approval process, which includes notifications to County and School Board, publication of hearing notice, Planning Commission review, and holding of public hearing 11 Opportunity Site Redevelopment Project •TIF Plan proposes the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Square and Brookdale Ford sites. •TIF District encompasses additional property to the north and south of these sites, allowing for potential future redevelopment of those areas as well. •Development scenario is based on a mix of future multi-family and commercial uses within the TIF District. •The City anticipates potentially undertaking costs associated with the redevelopment of the site, and the provision of necessary public improvements. •TIF Plan also provides for potential to reimburse Developer for eligible TIF reimbursable expenditures. 12 Project Boundary 13 Redevelopment TIF District Qualifications State Statute Dictates Qualification Standards for a Redevelopment District: •Over 70% of the parcels in the TIF District have to be occupied •More than 50% of the buildings in the TIF District are deemed to be structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance •Structurally substandard is defined as requiring improvements to meet current building codes, which would cost more than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure •The Opportunity Site was inspected and determined to qualify for the creation of a Redevelopment TIF District 14 Redevelopment TIF District Qualifications •Redevelopment TIF Districts allow for the use of 25% of the TIF funds to be spent on public improvements, or administrative costs, outside of the TIF District area. •90% of the TIF Revenue must be used to reimburse the cost of correcting conditions that allowed the TIF District to be qualified, these costs include; acquiring property, demolition, clearing of land, installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities. •The administrative expenses of the City are eligible expenditures under the 90% test. •Redevelopment TIF District term length is 25-years from the receipt of first increment 15 TIF District Assumptions •Preliminary Development Assumptions: –749 multi-family units valued at $100,000 per unit –60 owner-occupied townhome units; –10,000 square feet of commercial/retail buildings. •TIF Plan includes 2% Market Value Inflation •10% Administrative Retainage •TIF Eligible Tax Rate: 182.571% •First Receipt of increment received in 2019, based on 80% construction in 2017. •Final receipt in 2044 –26 total receipts 16 Budget Authority -Expenses Land/Building Acquisition, Demolition, Special $21,401,928 Assessments, Public Utilities, Site Improvements/Preparation Costs, and other Eligible Improvement Costs Interest Expenses $27,771,521 Administrative Costs $5,463,715 Total $54,637,164 17 Budget Authority -Revenues Tax Increment revenue* $54,637,164 Interest on invested funds 0 Bond proceeds 0 Loan proceeds 0 Other Revenues 0 Total $54,637,164 18 Next Steps 1)Approval of TIF District Plan provides the authority to enter into future Development agreements 2)Approve TIF Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 7 within Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 for the Opportunity Site Redevelopment Project 3)Adopt resolution approving Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District Therein and Approving a Tax Increment Financing Plane Therefor 4)At future date review Developer’s specific need for assistance and Development Agreement 19 Questions? Thomas J. Denaway, Assistant Vice President 651-223-3075 Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 20 City Condi Agenda Item N©0 8c [EI1IJ[S1 I R MA l I 0) 1II I1IJ1 DATE: March 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Gannon, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Limiting the Residency Location of Certain Predatory Offenders Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take public input, close the Public Hearing, and adopt An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Limiting the Residency Location of Certain Predatory Offenders (Option 1 or Option 2). Option 1 is a restriction of Level III predatory offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed child-care facility, or public playground within the City of Brooklyn Center. Option 2, based on input provided by Council during the first reading, includes all the restrictions listed in Option 1, with an additional restriction, that being a provision restricting Level 3 offenders from residing in close proximity to each other (close proximity defined as less than 2000 feet). Attached are City maps illustrating the impact both options would have on available housing options. Background: Risk Level III offenders by definition are considered the highest risk to re-offend. Offenders are assigned a Risk Level I, II, III prior to being released from prison. Offenses such as criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, false imprisonment, soliciting a minor to engage in prostitution, and first degree murder are examples of offenses that qualify as predatory offenses. These offenses are often committed against the communities most vulnerable, children. The residency movement of a Level III offender triggers a community-wide public notification meeting. The 1994 - Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act and the 1996 - Megan's Law are the two most important legislative acts related to Level III predatory offenders. These laws were enacted after children were victimized. Mitigating Factors Hennepin County Probation instituted a prohibited zip code practice for the City of Minneapolis. The zip codes currently prohibited for any Level III offender on probation to move into includes: 55403, 55405, 55411, 55412, and 55430 (south of 535. The impact of this practice had a direct and almost immediate impact on the number of Level III offenders moving to Brooklyn Center. A voluntary questionnaire completed by all six Level III offenders in Brooklyn Center showed Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe conuniuu/y that enhances the quality of life an(lpresen'es (he public trust Es1sJcsJ i v av' u u ii o that five of the six (83%) had residency options limited by the zip code prohibition and chose Brooklyn Center as the closest allowable option. Historically, Brooklyn Center has three or four Level III offenders residing within the City at any given time. In 2015, that number would have more than doubled if not for the emergency moratorium passed by council action in October of 2015. Current Level 3 POR Density (updated 3/21/2016) There are currently 154 Risk Level III offenders residing in Hennepin County; 138 live within Minneapolis and 16 offenders live in Hennepin County cities other than Minneapolis. If the moratorium had not been passed, Brooklyn Center would have had eight of the current 16 Level III offenders, or 50% of all offenders outside of Minneapolis. The general population of Brooklyn Center accounts for only 4% of all Hennepin County residents outside of Minneapolis. Based on an equal distribution model for Hennepin County cities other than Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center should never have more than one Level III offender residing within the City limits and we currently have six. Future Concerns The City of Brooklyn Center was the first inner-ring suburb to feel the impact of Hennepin County Probation's zip code restrictions and took direct action limiting the disproportionate number of Level III offenders in one community over another. Hennepin County Probation has not stopped their prohibited zip code practice. Other inner-ring suburbs such as Columbia Heights and Hilltop have enacted either their own moratoriums or ordinances establishing residency restrictions. Since the City Council took action, we have been contacted by other Hennepin County Chiefs of Police wanting to discuss this issue and seek out ways to protect their communities from the current Hennepin County prohibited zip code practice. The ability to regulate the residency of Level III offenders by a city has been established in Minnesota for years and has not yet been challenged. A current lawsuit against the State's commitment of Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP") - committing offenders to state institutions - may result in an unprecedented number of potential Level III offenders released back into the community. If current Hennepin County Probation practices are not changed, it's predicted that some of those offenders will end up in Brooklyn Center. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust EI]SJ[SJ fl I M *'4 U'A I M4 (I) 1lJi Attachments: The following documents were reviewed prior to this recommendation to Council. 1.Study-Documenting Predatory Offenders in Minneapolis (August 2015) 2.Wright State and Longwood University Studies 3.Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues - 2003 DOC Report to the Legislature 4.Sex Offenders in the Community - International Chiefs of Police ( September 2007) Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Option 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the 28th day of March 2016 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance limiting the residency location of certain predatory offenders. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO LIMITING THE RESIDENCY LOCATION OF CERTAIN PREDATORY OFFENDERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Finding and intent. 1.01 Repeat predatory offenders present a threat to the public safety of the community as a whole, especially children. Predatory offenders assigned a risk level III under the risk assessment scale established by the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections are more likely than other classifications of offenders to use physical violence, to repeat their offenses, to have committed multiple offenses, to have more victims than are ever reported, and, as a result, to be prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. The cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while not precisely calculable, is steep. 1.02 The City has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting and improving the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. By this ordinance, the City prohibits certain predatory offenders from establishing temporary or permanent residence in certain locations where children are known to regularly congregate in concentrated numbers. 1.03 The City has received a disproportionate number of Level III predatory offenders as compared with other cities within Hennepin County and the City Council is compelled to act to establish restrictions on where such offenders may reside in order to protect children within the community. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following definitions: 3a. Child - any person under the age of eighteen(18). ORDINANCE NO. 3b. Child care facility - a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children at one time. This term also includes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play groups. day care cent e rs , cooperative day care centers and Head Start programs. 4a1. Designated predatory offender - any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person's risk assessment indicates a high risk of re-offense. Jn Permanent residence - a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for hot more consecutive days. 23a. Public playground - an area designated primarily for children's play including school building playaround, a child care building playground. a play area of a public park. or an area that contains permanent play equipment 31a. School - any public or nonpublic elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.05 . 35a, Temporary residence - a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abi4 lodges, or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or non -consecutive days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence. Section 3. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 12 is amended to add new Sections 12- 1600 to 12-1603 as follows: Section 12-1600. LIMITATIONS ON PREDATORY OFFENDERS. It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2.000 feet of any school, child care facility, or public playground. Section 12-1601. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation required by Section 12-1600, the requirement shall be measured by following a strai ght line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the desi g nated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the protected school, child care facility, or public playground. Section 124602. PENALTIES. Any person who violates this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a person maintains a permanent or temporary residence in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate offensc ORDINANCE NO. Section 12-1603. EXCEPTIONS. A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited area as described in Section 12-1600 does not commit a violation of that Section if any of the followina appJy 1.The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to October 1, 201j 2.The person was a minor when they committed the offense and he or she was convicted as an adult- 3.The person is a minor; 4.The school, child care facility, or public playground within 2.000 feet of the person's permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167. or a successor statute; 5.The residence is also the primary residence of the person's, parents, grandparents, siblings, or spouse; p 6.The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and license4y the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to October 1. 2ffl5. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) Option 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the 28th day of March 2016 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance limiting the residency location of certain predatory offenders. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO LIMITING THE RESIDENCY LOCATION OF CERTAIN PREDATORY OFFENDERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Finding and intent. 1.01 Repeat predatory offenders present a threat to the public safety of the community as a whole, especially children. Predatory offenders assigned a risk level III under the risk assessment scale established by the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections are more likely than other classifications of offenders to use physical violence, to repeat their offenses, to have committed multiple offenses, to have more victims than are ever reported, and, as a result, to be prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. The cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while not precisely calculable, is steep. 1.02 The City has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting and improving the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. By this ordinance, the City prohibits certain predatory offenders from establishing temporary or permanent residence in certain locations where children are known to regularly congregate in concentrated numbers. * 1.03 The City has received a disproportionate number of Level III predatory offenders as compared with other cities within Hennepin County and the City Council is compelled to act to establish restrictions on where such offenders may reside in order to protect children within the community. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following definitions: 3a. Child - any person under the age of eighteen (18). ORDINANCE NO. 3b. Child care facility - a facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children at one time. This term also inc ludes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known a nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play groups, day care cent cooperative day care centers and Head Start proarams. 4a1. Designated predatory offender - any person who has been categorized as a L ev e l III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person's risk assessment indicates a high risk of re-offense. 18a. Permanent residence - a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive dy 23a. Public playground - an area designated primarily for children's play includi n g school building play g round, a child care building playground, a play area of public park, or an area that contains permanent play eguiprnent 31a. School - any public or nonpublic elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.05. 35a. Temporary residence - a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abid es, l o dges,- or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or non-consecuiiv! days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence. Section 3. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 12 is amended to add new Sections 12- 1600 to 12-1603 as follows: Section 12-1600. LIMITATIONS ON PREDATORY OFFENDERS. It is unlawful for a ny desi g nated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within any of the following locations: 1.Within 2.000 feet of any school, child care facility, or public playgroun d ; 2.Within 2.000 feet of the permanent residence of another designated predat ory offender, unless the designated predatory offenders are residing within a licens ed treatment facility . Section 12-1601. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. For purposes of determiningth minimum distance separation required by Section 12-1600, the requirement shall be measured k following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the protected school child, care facility, or public playground. INWOMIGI Section 12-1602. PENALTIES. Any person who violates this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a person maintains a permanent or temporary residence in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate offense. Section 12-1603. EXCEPTIONS. A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited area as described in Section 12-1600 does not commit a violation of that Section if any of the following apply: 1.The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to October 1, 2015: 2.The person was a minor when they committed the offense and he or she was convicted as an adult: 3.The person is a minor: 4.The school. child care facility, or public playround within 2,000 feet of the person's permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167. or a successor statute: 5.The residence is also the primary residence of the person's parents, grandparents, siblings, or spouse; or 6.The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to October 1, 2015. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: ORDINANCE NO. (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, d ouble underline indicates new matter.) U Schools, Park Paygrounds, and Ucensed Daycare Providers 2000ft Buffer 0 AM Do UZ Lj ., ( L2 . (AU I uaviii:ij 11= ° r Ill ____ Legend Lull HC Schools LlIlli HO Park Playgrounds LlllIl Daycare School 2000ft Park Playgrounds 2000ft Daycare2000tt City Border Dale. 1120/2016 This map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained in this map is accurate to the best of our knowledge. I I I I I I I I 0 2,100 4,200 8,400 Feet Schools, Park Playgrounds, Daycare's, and POR 2000ft Buffer c TI (1 /1 0 -- Li L j r.7 a u fl - I cLi U 00L00L 0 5 S V 40 C 5 - L = = 06- EPRLE ERO?.N Al H II\ 1 I g : Legend rf ---- - POR 2000ft Buffer Date: 3/3/2016 I ii I HC Schools This map is for illustrative purposes only I I IIIj HO Park Playgrounds Information contained in this map is I! I -- I accurate to the best of our knowledge. -- Daycare1 jj School 2000ft Lull Park Playgrounds 2000ft -- : Daycare 200011 City Border I I I I I I I I 0 2,100 4,200 8,400 Feet GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS for PORs LEVEL 3 PREDATORY OFFENDERS March 28, 2016 2014 ANNUAL REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND POR NOTIFICATIONS BY YEAR 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20082009201020112012201320142015 BACKGROUND Typically Brooklyn Center had 1-2 Level 3 POR’s living in the • City at any given time. Hennepin County Probation implemented a restrictive zip • code policy. A policy that precludes Level 3 offenders on probation from living in areas of Minneapolis. That policy impacted 5 of the 6 current Level 3’s living in the City. Potentially quadrupling the number of level 3 offenders in the • City at one time does have an impact on the safety and perceived safety for our citizens. In October of 2015, the City Council recommended city staff • review the issue and develop a plan of action. FINDING AND INTENT Repeat predatory offenders present a threat to the public safety of the community as a whole, especially children. The cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while not precisely calculated, is steep. Predatory offenders assigned a Risk Level III under the risk assessment scale established by the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections are more likely than other classifications of offenders to: use physical violence, – repeat their offenses, – have committed multiple offenses, – have more victims than ever reported, – and , as a result, to be prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. – FINDING AND INTENT Continued… The City has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting, and improving the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. By this ordinance, the City prohibits certain predatory offenders from establishing temporary or permanent residence in certain locations where children are known to regularly congregate in concentrated numbers. Several independent studies have found that where sexual offenders are registered to live there is direct negative impact on property values in the surrounding neighborhood. ( Columbia University 2006) FINDING AND INTENT Continued… One study (Longwood University) found that as the number of sex offenders increase (three or more) in a neighborhood a kind of “tipping point “ develops. It found that 4 or more sex offenders within a quarter mile radius of one another lead to a 16% drop in the price of nearby homes. The City has received a disproportionate number of Level III predatory offenders as compared with other cities within Hennepin County and the City Council is compelled to act to establish restrictions on where such offenders may reside in order to protect children and the value of homes within the community. DEFINITIONS Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following definitions: 3a. Child. Any person under the age of eighteen (18). 3b. Child Care Facility. Facility licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children at one time. This term also includes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known as nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play groups, day care centers, cooperative day care centers and Head Start programs. 4a1. Designated Predatory Offender. Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person’s risk assessment indicates a high risk of re-offense. 18a. Permanent Residence. A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. DEFINITIONS 23a. Public Playground.An area designated primarily for children’s play including a school building playground, a child care building playground, a play area of a public park, or an area that contains permanent play equipment. 31a. School.Any public or nonpublic elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.05. 35a. Temporary Residence.A place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person’s permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges, or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or non-consecutive days in any month and which is not the person’s permanent residence. OPTION #1 Section 12-1600. LIMITATIONS ON PREDATORY OFFENDERS. It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, child care facility, or public playground. Section 12-1601. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation required by Section 12-1600, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the protected school, child care facility, or public playground. PENALTIES Section 12-1602. PENALTIES. Any person who violates this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a person maintains a permanent or temporary residence in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate offense. EXCEPTIONS Section 12-1603. EXCEPTIONS. A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited area as described in Section 12-1600 does not commit a violation of that Section if any of the following apply: 1.The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to October 2015; 2.The person was a minor when they committed the offense and he or she was convicted as an adult; 3.The person is a minor; EXCEPTIONS Continued… 4.The school, child care facility, or public playground within 2,000 feet of the person’s permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 243.166 and 243.167, or a successor statute; 5.The residence is also the primary residence of the person’s parents, grandparents, siblings, or spouse; or 6.The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to October 1, 2015. SCHOOLS 2,000‘ SCHOOLS AND PARKS 2,000‘ SCHOOLS, PARKS AND DAYCARES 2,000‘ OPTION #2 Section 12-1600. LIMITATIONS ON PREDATORY OFFENDERS. It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within any of the following locations: 1.Within 2,000 feet of any school, child care facility, or public playground; or 2.Within 2,000 feet of the permanent residence of another designated predatory offender, unless the designated predatory offenders are residing within a licensed treatment facility. OPTION #2 Continued… Section 12-1601. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation required by Section 12-1600, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the protected school, child care facility, or public playground. SCHOOLS, PARKS, DAYCARES AND PORs 2,000‘ ACTION RESEARCH TEAM STUDY Documenting Predatory Offender Concentration in Minneapolis Completed in August 2015 Executive Summary The team did not find evidence to support the notion that the Minnesota Department of Corrections, specifically “places” offenders in concentrated communities or any other area. Rather this seems to be a by-product of current statute, MnDOCpolicy, and the housing market. Lack of intentionality does not lessen the potentially disparate impact of predatory offender concentration in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty and majority people of color. QUESTIONS? 2014 ANNUAL REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT City Council Agenda Item No,, lOa COUNCI{L I{ThM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: Adoption of an ordinance to restrict the number of single family rental properties in a neighborhood Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council remove the subject item from the table so that it may be considered at the March 28th meeting. It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of first reading and schedule a public hearing for an ordinance restricting the number of single family rental properties in a single family neighborhood. Background: On October 26, 2015 the City Council approved a moratorium on new single family and single family attached rental properties and Level 3 Predatory Offenders. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow for time to conduct a study to determine the effects the increase in single family rental licenses and Level 3 Predatory Offenders had on the neighborhoods and community. The following information is a summary of information collected relating to the moratorium and options related to single family and single family attached rental properties. According to the City Attorney, cities have the authority to restrict the number of single family rental properties. A copy of the memo from the City Attorney is attached. Summary of Conditions o The total number of single family and single family attached properties has increased from 287 in 2008 to 746 in 2015. o While single family rental properties are distributed throughout the city, some blocks have a higher density of rental properties. Approximately seven blocks exceed 30 percent rate of rental properties. Approximately thirty-five blocks exceed 20 percent. Please see the attached density map for the density in census blocks. %of Rentals within Census Block # of Census Blocks 0%107 1-4.9%36 5-9.9%113 10-14.9%70 15-19.9%30 20-24.9%18 25-29.9%10 30-34.9%4 35+%3 mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive coiiiiiiiiiiitj' t1I(It eilIi(!HCeS the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust [EO1SJ[J I U IV'4 I I (0) 1I I1IJi • The rate of police calls for service and property code violations are higher at rental properties compared to owner-occupied properties. Police calls for service (cfs) are 3.03 cfs at rental properties compared to 1.13 cfs at owner-occupied properties. For property code violations, the percentage of properties with property code violations is 34% for rental properties compared to 15% for owner-occupied properties. These statistics indicate that more city services are consumed at rental properties, which more likely have a negative impact to the neighborhoods and community. • A higher percentage of code enforcement complaints are received about rental properties than owner-occupied properties. The number of complaints received about rental properties is 21% (165), 9% at owner-occupied properties (583), and 45% (583) at vacant properties. Due to current information systems, we were unable to compare complaint percentages from previous years, but anecdotally feel the percentage of complaints at rental properties has decreased since implementation of the performance based rental program.We found no studies from' independent sources showing the impact of rental properties on neighborhoods. However, some cities stated anecdotal or possible specific community impacts, since enacting density requirements. Some potential impacts of a restriction on the number of rental properties are provided in a later section. City staff performed a review of similar neighborhoods, with high and low number of rental properties, to determine curb appeal influences. Because of the winter weather and limited time frame, correlations of rental properties on the neighborhood could not be determined with the limited number of properties in the study. o The ratio of rental properties in other cities varied and was not necessarily an indicator of neighborhood conditions. Many other community characteristics appear to affect the numbers such as student housing, higher number of multifamily, etc. Further, many cities did not have the number of single family rental properties accessible. Options to Consider 1.Do nothing related to density or quantity 2.Implement a density requirement (Information attached' for four cities that have density requirements) 3.Implement a proximity requirement 4.Implement overall cap Potential Impacts and Feedback The following information was provided as feedback through research of other cities and through the focus groups in relation to potential impacts to Brooklyn Center if a restriction on rental properties is enacted. Potential Benefits • Potential decrease in police calls for service within neighborhoods • Potential decrease in property code violations within neighborhoods. ,Pi'Iiss!on: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive coninninhty that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust [S[S1IJIJ I fl I I Dk'A Uh'A I Dk"A (I) 1(1I IlIIh'A I • Potential overall improvement in neighborhood appearance. • Potential increase in owner-occupied properties. • Potential improved property value stability in neighborhoods Potential Costs • Decrease in home sale prices due to the restriction on potential use of the property as an investment property. • Increased time on market for houses for sale. • Negative impact to property owners desiring to rent house due to sudden change in status such as job change or death of property owner. • Litigation from property owners or advocates. • Additional staff time and resources needed to manage, educate, communicate, and enforce this requirement. Budget Issues: At the 30% density maximum we believe no additional staff will be required in order to manage, educate, communicate, and enforce a density or proximity requirement. As the density maximum is decreased below 30% the staffing requirement increase significantly. Strategic Priorities: o Enhanced Community Image Attachments: • Ordinance • Attorney Memo • Statistical Information • Rental Density Information from Other Cities: • Report from Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors • Density Map 4'Iission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust Attachment: Ordinance CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of April, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; limiting the density of rental housing in the city. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12-901, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES; LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Findings 1.01 The City of Brooklyn Center ("City"), pursuant to Chapter 12 of the City Code, requires a license for any person to operate a rental dwelling within the City; 1.02 The purpose of the rental dwelling license requirement is to ensure rental housing in the City is decent, safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as to not become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community; 1.03 The City may amend ordinances enacted under its police powers as it sees fit; 1.04 The City has studied the effects of an unlimited number of rental licenses being allowed within the City through reviewing applicable studies and the current conditions of the City's rental housing; 1.05 City records show that police calls to rental housing are significantly greater than non-rental housing; 1.06 The City has reviewed various studies that suggest that rental housing can have a negative effect on surrounding properties; and ORDINANCE NO. 1 .07 As a result of these findings, the City has determined it is in its best interests to limit the amount of rental housing in order to protect the interests of non-rental owners. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-901 is amended by adding the following language: 10. Limitation of rental housing in low density neighborhoods. In RI and R2 districts of the city. not more than 30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental housing license. A block is defined as a groupf properties bounded entirely by streets, public land, railroad rights-of-way, zoning district lines, corporate limit lines or physical features such as rivers outcroppings ponds or lakes, provided that final delineation of a block shall be made by the city manager or designee. When determining the number of eligible properties on block the number shall be the lowest number that results in 30 percent or more the residential lots being rental. The following table indicates how many lots are able to be certified as rentals based on the number of lots that exist on a block: Lots Rental Lots I Rental Lots Rental Lots Rental Lots Rental 1-3 1 21-23 7 41-43 13 61-63 19 81-83 25 4-6 2 24-26 8 44-46 14 64-66 20 84-86 26 7-10 3 27-30 9 47-50 15 67-70 21 87-90 27 11-13 4 31-33 10 51-53 16 71-73 22 91-93 28 14-16 5 34-36 11 54-56 17 74-76 23 94-96 29 17-20 6 37-40 12 57-60 18 77-80 24 97-100 30 In cases in which one portion of the block is in an affected zone and another is in an exempt zone, only the affected portion is subject to this regulation. a. Exceptions. This limitation shall not app=ly to. 1.Dwelling units within a duplex- 2.State licensed residential facilities, but only to the extent, including the number of residents, the city is required by statute to allow them; or 3. Rental properties which are validly licensed as of the date of adoption of this regulation, but such rental properties shall b counted among the 30 percent of allowable rental houses for purposes of determining whether new licenses may be issued. b. Exempt Districts. Property located within the following zoning districts are exempt from this rule, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, Cl. CiA, C2. 1-1. 1-2, O 0-2. ORDINANCE NO. C. Temporary Rental. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a property-owner whose property is subject to the 30 percent limitation, may obtain a temporary rental license for a property for a period of time not exceeding 12 consecutive months under the following conditions: 1.The property is actively being offered for sale to the public by the owner, Or by any authorized agent of the owner, during the license term; 2.The property shall be temporarily licensed for rental purposes only if the property complies with all applicable City and State rental housing requirements; 3.The property shall be licensed only for one of the following: (a) one adult living alone: or (b) two unrelated adults living together with any dependents by birth, adoption, or law or (c) any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or law; 4.The temporary rental housing license shall terminate immediately upon the closing of a sale of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the license term, whichever event first occurs; and 5. A copy of the lease agreement shall be deposited with the City within one week from the date of the execution of the lease. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) Attachment: Attorney Memo Kennedy & Graven CHARTERED Troy J. Gilchrist 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9214 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax tgilchrist@kennedy-graven.com http://w\vw.ke tined v- g raven. coin Also: St. Cloud Office 501 W. Germain Street, Suite 320 St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 240-8200 telephone MEMORANDUM Date: December 21, 2015 To: Vickie Schleuning From: Troy Gilchrist Kyle Hartnett Re: Restrictions on Rental Licenses The City of Brooklyn Center ("City") is considering placing limits on the number of rental licenses it will issue. The leading case on this issue is Dean v. City of Winona, 843 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. App. 2014). In this case, the City of Winona ("Winona") adopted an ordinance limiting 30% to the number of lots per block in certain zoning districts that can obtain certification as a rental property. Three property owners sued, challenging Winona's ordinance, claiming it violates the Minnesota Constitution and exceeds Winona's statutory zoning authority. The District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in Winona's favor, holding that the ordinance was an authorized and constitutional exercise of Winona's police powers. The case was then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"). The Supreme Court ruled in Winona's favor by dismissing the lawsuit, but declined to address the validity of the ordinance. While the case was working its way through the appeals process, the circumstances of the owners who brought the suit changed in that they had either sold their property or had received a rental license under the 30% rule. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the appeal was moot because there was no longer ajusticiable controversy. The Supreme Court reasoned that the property owners no longer had a sufficient interest in the litigation's outcome because, due to their changed circumstances, they were no longer seeking rental certification. Dean V. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015). The case gives guidance on the factors a city should consider when placing restrictions on rental housing. The purpose of this memo is to provide the City some background as to the lessons learned from the City of Winona case. 471082v2 BR291-4 Analysis of Case In the case, Winona was concerned about the number of rental housing units near Winona State University. The issue was initiated by Winona' s Planning Commission noting that there had been an increase in residential properties being converted from single-family usage to rental usage, which resulted in increased parking demands. The Planning Commission held numerous public input meetings with interested parties. The Winona City Council then held a number of town hail meetings designed to address density, parking, and aesthetic issues within the area of the University. Winona also formed a study group to look at the issues. Winona also formed a parking advisory task force. The task force found that rental housing units comprised about 39% of Winona' s total housing units, but 52% of the complaints were received by the Community Development Department ("CDD"). In order to reduce this impact, the task force suggested that the number of rental units on any given block be limited to 30% of the total properties on that block. The task force recognized that the proposed limit on rental licenses would have an effect on property values and the ability to sell property. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendation and noted that the task force found that neighborhoods heavily populated with student rental housing tend to become run down and unattractive. The Planning Commission noted that the CDD found that 95 of the 99 addresses that had two or more calls for police service based on noise and party-related complaints were rental properties. The Planning Commission also noted that 53% of the zoning violations that resulted in written violation were from rental properties. The Planning Commission and City Council both approved the 30% limit on property rental license. Four years later, Winona again looked at the issue of limiting rental licenses and found the 30% rule was working and that the rule had preserved affordable housing and reduced conversions as intended. As stated above, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Winona was within its authority to limit the number of rental licenses it issued. The court ruled that the record established Winona determined the conversion of owner-occupied homes to rental properties and the concentration of such properties in some neighborhoods began to have a negative impact on the quality and livability of those neighborhoods. Therefore, the ability to deal with the negative impacts was a valid use of the Winona' s police powers. The court also ruled that the 30% rule did not violate the Minnesota Constitution. The court noted that because the 30% rule was put in place after a long, deliberate information-gathering process, it was not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious interference with private interests, and therefore allowable. It should be noted that the Court of Appeals did not address whether the 30% threshold was an appropriate threshold. The parties did not challenge where the limit was set, but instead only that a limit was in place. While the case did go to the Supreme Court on review, that court did not provide any additional guidance to this matter or a ruling on the questions raised in the case. At the time the issue got to the Supreme Court, the changed circumstances of the property owners rendered the case moot and so the Supreme Court refused to rule on the other issues. 2 471082v2 BR291-4 City Considerations The case affirms that the City has the authority to restrict the number of rental licenses it issues as long as those restrictions are not set in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Before setting a limit, it will be important for the City to study the issue and determine what, if any, negative effects rental housing is having on the City. Ideally the study would result in a statistical analysis showing the effects of rental housing in the City including the effects on crime, parking, zoning violations, etc. Likewise, the City will need to have solid reasoning to determine a limit on rental housing. If the City were to simply adopt a limit without valid reasons on how it set the limit, a court may determine the limit is arbitrary and capricious and overturn it. It is clear that Winona went through a detailed and thorough process before adopting its 30% rule. The City would need to proceed with a similar process before adopting any similar restrictions on rental housing. TJG: 471082v2 BR291-4 Attachment: Statistical Information, Density Requirements Other Cities, The following tables include general information relating to the increase in the number of rental properties, housing trends, and other city service impacts. jIII (si:4knx Number on:Single Pending Duplex Multifamily Total Percentage Family Difference January 1, 2008 287 N/A N/A 75 362 January 1, 2009 321 N/A N/A 75 396 9.39 January 1, 2010 489 27 47 75 638 61.11 January 1, 2011 478 35 47 (74 Units)74 634 -0.63 January 1, 2012 569 33 47 (74 Units)74 723 14.04 January 1, 2013 643 34 47(74 Units)74 751 3.87 January 1, 2014 701*52 47(74Units)74 827 10.12 January 1, 2015 698 29 46 (76 Units)74 847 2.42 November 1, 2015 746 15 46 (76 Units)74 881 4.01 *Included Humboldt Ct Condos 36 separate licenses prior to conversion to apartment The following chart shows the trends of mortgage foreclosures, registered vacant properties and licensed single family rental properties. Jfftidb : - = o3 ASH' 151 MSW 2013 AII &i-i TO --*—Single Family Rentals Active Jan. 1 -- i S[BiTitL}3iif{1 ITD11 AS, i ffcti(r1'l jiTenat'r (.40 Issued (thru Active Issued Issued Issued Active Issued Active Issued Active 11/03)(11/03 License 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 Category Type 79 (23%) 322 (41%)85(18%) 375 132(24%)282(33%)102(20%)301 72—3 Year 194 (45%)(36%) Type II 156 (45%) 359 (45%)230(48%) 356 218(40%)428(51%)192(38%)408(48%) 77 -2 Year 208 (43%) Type III 80 (23%) 77 (10%)86(18%) 24(3%)103(19%)91(11%)109(22%)105 27-lYear 48 (13%) Type IV 33 (9%) 30 (4%)75 (16%) 76(9%)90(17%)42(5%)103(20%)28 13-6 Months 20 (3%) *Active means the number of rental licenses active and valid at a given point of time regardless when it was issued. For example, a Type I —3 year rental license- may be issued in 2012; however it remains active through 2013 and 2014. Further, the active license number does not include licenses pending or in the licensing process. Rental-Type III- lYear 13% Rental-Type IV- 6 Months 3% Rental-Type 1-3 Year Rental-Typ 2 Year 47% Acthe nge Family Renta by Type License Type Rental-Type 1-3 Year Rental-Type 11-2 Year — Rental-Type 111-1 Year - Rental-Type IV-6 Months Single Family 271 345 100 25 2 or more Units 54 46 14 4 The rate of police calls for service and property code violations are higher at rental properties compared to owner-occupied properties. Police calls for service (cfs) are 3.03 cfs at rental properties compared to 1.13 cfs at owner-occupied properties. This is for the time period of 01101115 through 12/10/15. This is based on a total of 800 single family rental properties and 7,235 owner-occupied single family properties. Police Calls for Service Average Per Property 01/01/2015 -12/10/2015 4 3 2 1 0 Rental Owner Occupied Neighborhood Health Review: In reviewing the effect of a higher number of rental properties on neighborhoods, staff conducted physical surveys of homes in six neighborhoods. There were 3 groups of 2, in different areas of the city. Each group had a neighborhood with a higher percentage of rentals and a neighborhood with a lower percentage of rentals. Properties within each neighborhood were rated based on 18 different categories. The categories included; Siding material, siding condition, garage stalls, garage condition, lawn condition, trees, condition of plantings, landscape maintenance, appearance of front entry, driveway material, driveway condition, roof condition, exterior lighting, architectural elements, nuisance code violations, and overall appearance. In two of the three groups the neighborhood with lower density of rentals scored higher. The following chart provides a brief summary of the results. The group where the higher density of rentals scored slightly higher was a group that had overall lower scores. Average Nehborhood Score H TTrTEHT T H L... I Rental Density information at Other Cities: Part of the analysis included a review of other cities near Brooklyn Center, the number of rental properties, and impact on their city. Census data City # of rental units Total number of units Brooklyn Center 3,786 11,640 32.5% Brooklyn Park 7,293 27,841 26.2% Fridley 3,839 11,760 32.6% Golden Valley 1,959 9,349 20.9% Maple Grove 2,939 23,626 12.4% New Hope 3,576 9,051 39.5% Plymouth 7,907 29,982 26.4% Robbinsdale 1,817 6,416 28.3% Cities with density restrictions Mankato 6,885 15,784 43.6% Northfield 1,972 6,832 28.9% West St Paul 3,572 9,139 39.1% Winona 4,312 10,989 39.2% Staff contacted each city to get a further break down of the number of single family versus multi- family rental units. City # of single family rental units Total number of units Percentage Brooklyn Center 761 11,640 6.5% Brooklyn Park 2,300 27,841 8.3% Fridley 900 11,760 7.7% Golden Valley 406 9,349 4.3% Maple Grove 564 23,626 2.4% New Hope 545 9,051 6.0% Plymouth 1,551 29,982 5.2% Robbinsdale 775 6,416 12.1% Summary of rental density ordinances at other Minnesota Cities: There are four cities with rental density restrictions. Each city's ordinance was reviewed to understand the restrictions and a brief summary of each ordinance is provided below. City of West St. Paul: City of West St. Paul has the most restrictive rental density program of the four cities. West St. Paul adopted the rental density ordinance in 2006, however, in 2012 the rental density restriction was limited to RI zoning districts. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of each license is 12 months on a rolling calendar. According to City ordinance Section 435.05 subd. 12 Rental Density for Single Family Rental Dwellings, in RI zoning districts no more than 10% of the single family lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. # of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-14 1 15-24 2 25-34 3 35-44 4 45-54 5 55-64 6 65-74 7 75-84 8 85-94 9 The City may grant Temporary Licenses if the number of rental properties exceed the 10% rule (Section 435.05 subd. 12.c) and the owner would be required to hire a professional property management company to manage the property. However, the City Council would still have full discretion whether or not a temporary rental license would be issued. All temporary rental licenses would be required to renew on an annual basis. City of Northfield: City of Northfield adopted the rental density requirement in 2007. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is two years. City ordinance 14-97 states that in R- 1 and R-2 zoning districts no more than 20% of the houses on a single block shall be granted a rental housing license. The city does not have a chart indicating the number of rental licenses that it will grant based on the number of property on a single block. The City offers a temporary license (14-99) valid for 12 months and offers a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The owner must apply to receive a temporary license and the owner must meet or meeting one of four outlined conditions within the next 30 days. 1.The property owner is currently taking, or will be taking, an extended leave of Absence from the property owner's place of employment for a duration six months or more where the property owner or the property owner's family do not reside at the property; or 2.The property owner is involved in a bankruptcy or foreclosure proceeding directly involving the property and property owner; or 3.The property owner (i) is currently or will become unemployed, or (ii) has or will have a change in employment status resulting in a loss of income or in the relocation of the property owner more than 20 miles away from the city; or 4.The property is being or will be actively listed or offered for sale to the public by the property owner. City of Mankato: City of Mankato adopted the rental density ordinance in 2008. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is three years. City ordinance, Sec. 5.42. subd. 20, allows for no more than 25% of the lots per block to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. # of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-4 1 5-8 2 9-12 3 13-16 4 17-20 5 21-24 6 25-28 7 29-32 8 33-36 9 37-40 10 41-44 11 45-48 12 49-52 13 53-56 14 57-60 15 61-64 16 65-68 17 69-72 18 73-76 19 77-80 20 81-84 21 85-88 22 89-92 23 93-96 24 97-100 25 Mankato may grant a temporary rental license; however, the license is not to exceed 6 months and may be renewed at the City Council discretion if the property is actively marked for sale. To obtain a temporary rental license the property must fall into one of two categories. 1.The property is being sold and the owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property. 2.The owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property and the occupants are providing a caretaking function for the property. City of Winona: City of Winona adopted the rental density ordinance in 2008. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is five years. Ordinance 33A.03.i states that no more than 30% of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. T of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-3 1 4-6 2 7-10 3 11-13 4 14-16 5 17-20 6 21-23 7 24-26 8 27-30 9 31-33 10 34-36 11 37-40 12 41-43 13 44-46 14 47-50 15 51-53 16 54-56 17 57-60 18 61-63 19 64-66 20 67-70 21 71-73 22 74-76 23 77-80 I 24 81-83 25 84-86 26 87-90 27 91-93 28 94-96 29 97-100 30 The city offers a temporary rental license or properties that are on blocks that exceed the 30% rule, however, there are five criteria outlined in 33A.03 .iii that must be met. The temporary license may not exceed 12 consecutive months and must meet the criteria. 1.The property is actively being offered for sale to the public by the owner, or by and authorized agent of the owner, during her license term. 2.The property shall be temporarily licensed for rental purposed only if the property complies with all applicable city and state rental housing requirements. 3.The property shall be licensed only for one of the following: (a) on adult living alone; or (b) two unrelated adults living together with any dependents by birth, adoption, or law; or (3) any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or law. 4.The temporary rental housing license shall terminate immediately upon the closing of a sale of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the license term, which ever event first occurs. 5. A copy of the lease agreement shall be deposited with the City's Community Development Department within one week from the date of the execution of the lease. Defining a Block Each city differs in how it defines a block. None of the cities used the census block definition and created its own block definition. Further the interpretation of the block definition is relied upon staff City Density Restriction Block Definition Mankato 25%(5.42 subd.20.Bl) . . .land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, railroad right- of-way; public parks, municipally owned lands, and City boundaries, unless otherwise depicted on the attached map. Northfield 20%(14-97) . . .as houses on both sides of a street between successive intersecting streets or between other such boundaries, railroad rights of way, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds or lakes. Corner houses shall be included in the count of houses on a single block, regardless of which way they face or on what street they are addressed (corner houses may be counted as part of more than one single block). West St Paul 10%(435.05 subd.12.a.1) . . .an area of land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, public parks, municipally owned lots, and city boundaries. Winona 30%(33A.03.i) . . .a group of properties bounded entirely by streets, public land, railroad rights of way, zoning districts lines, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds, or lakes; provided that final delineation of a block shall be made by City staff. Sample Ordinance Language City of Mankato In cases in which one portion of the block is not subject to the application of this ordinance, only the affected portion of the block is subject to this regulation. B. The following shall apply to the determination of eligible lots: For the pUPO5S of this Subdivision, a block shall be defined as an area of land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, livatercOUrses, railroad right-of-way; public parks, municipally owned lands, and City boundaries, unless otherwise depicted on the attached map. The attached map depicts the boundary of blocks for the purpose of establishing the number of lots in a block. 2. This Subdivision shall apply to legally conforming lots of record and legally nonconforming lots of record, as defined in Chapter 10, in existence at that time of the effective date of this ordinance or approved by new subdivision of unplatted and undeveloped property after the effective date of this ordinance. For the purposes of this Subdivision, lots of record may also be referred to as "properties, 'property, or lots'. C, For the purposes of this Subdivision, the following shall apply: 1: The Council hereby adopts the attached map that depicts the area of application of this ordinance. and the boundary of blocks. The map may be amended by City Council resolution and without public hearing 2. Properties licensed for rental purposes on the effective date of this ordinance shall be included in the calculation of the number of permitted rental properties in a defined block. Subd. 20. Rental Density. Not more than twenty-five (25) percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license or to be licensed as a rental property. A. When determining the number of eligible lots on a block for rental license purposes, the number shall be the lowest number that results in twenty-five (25) percent or more of the residential lots being rental. The following table indicates how many lots are able to be licensed as a rental property based on the number of lots that exist in a block. Lots [ Rental [ Lots I Rental Lots Rental Lots Rental r Lots RentalIi [{ 25-28 7 49-52 1 13 73-76 1 19 97-100 25 [5-8 21129-32 8 53-56 1 3.4 II 9-12 F 3 1. [ 33-36 1 I I 57-60 15 I 81-84 r 21 13-16 4 37-40 10 r 6164 1 16 1 85-88 22 17-20 11 65-68 .17 89-92 23 6 45-48 18 93-96 24 r Subd. 21. Temporary Rental Licenses. A. Temporary rental license may be granted by the City for unlicensed properties to an owner of property for a period not to exceed six (6) months for the following circumstances; 1.The property is being sold and the owner and the owners family are not residing at the property. 2.The owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property and the occupants are providing a caretaking function for the property. Six (6) months from the date of issuance, the temporary rental license shall expire and is not subject to renewal. unless otherwise approved by the City Council. The Council may approval additional extensions provided the property is being actively marketed for sale. Temporary rental licenses are not transferable to new owners. (Ord. of 3-23-2009) The issuance of temporary rental licenses shall conform to all standards of Chapters 5, 10. and 13, except the Building Official may grant variances from Chapter 13 provided critical life safety requirements are met. 3 If the number of rental properties equals or exceeds the permitted number of rental properties per defined block on the effective date of this ordinance, no additional rental licenses shall be approved for the block. Existing rental licenses may be renewed and transferred per Section 5.423; however, should a rental license not be transferred or renewed, or if the rental license is revoked or lapses, the rental license shall not be reinstated unless in conformance with this Subdivision and other applicable Sections of the Mankato City Code. 4 Temporary rental license issued per Section 5.42, Subdivision 21, shall be exempt from this Subdivision. 5.Rental licenses for State Licensed residences shall be exempt from this Subdivision. If the property is no longer licensed by the State of Minnesota, a new rental license application shall be submitted and reviewed for compliance with this Subdivision and other applicable Sections of the Mankato City Code. 6.in the Office-Residential District located within the City Center Planning Area. as defined in the adopted City Center Renaissance Plan, a rental license may be issued to a lot within a block that exceeds the 25 percent permitted number of rental licenses, provided the ground floor(s) of all principal and accessory buildings on the lot, and any other floors below the ground floor, are occupied and used for a non-rental permitted and/or conditional use and the rental use of the property is confined to floor areas located above the ground floor(s). City of Winona LfrriitaiOi) of ingiri lo flsitLflei(1hhOIPOdS. In RR R-S, R-'l, R- 1 5 and R-2 distilcts of the c1ty, no moie than 30 percent (rounded tip) of the lots on any block shall he elgib!e toobtain -.erijcton as a rental property, ickthn homes fl whiCh rcomers ando boarders are taken in by a resUent faniy. A block is defined as a group of properties bounded ent1ely by streets, public land, railroad nghts of way. zonng district Ines, corporate limI lines, or physcal features such as rivers. outoroppIngS, ponds or lakes: provided that Inal delneabon of a hixk shall be made by City staff Mien determining the number of olgiblo propet ties on a block the number shall be the lowest number that results in 30 pe cent or more of the residential tots being rental. The following table indicates how niany lots are able to be ceitVied as rentals based on the number of lots that exist on a block. j,flt'. icutaI I'M i'ntai L&;c Rental1.ii t'iii,I iiiR Rt'ud 11-13 13 l si- :4 $. ''.i ') •;'• ,I .1 1' 'I 1'' ,i.tl3 In cases in which one portcr, c-f the block is ill 31 affected zone and another is in an exempt zone, cnly the at looted portion is subject to this regulation. (i) Exceptions This limitation shall not apply to state licensed residential facilities nor to rental properties A'hich are alidly licensed as of the date of adoption of this ordnance. The latter will be counted among the 30 percent of allowable rental houses for purposes of determining whether new licenses may be issued. eftrpt Dstrcs, rc:pertylastec wv the 'olk:wnç ZCnI, iil ms re cmç)t fron thS (ue:A-C R-i1HP C 1, -3, 3- 1 I]-2, 2 , fl-3 \' and /-2 - etal Lcene IThkvtstarvo g the fo -eg)lncJ a rropeiy novs, vMost; propel is uhjec: to It io 311 percent ii atcn flay Ot)ii oC131y rea license Mr hs er her property for a perioc of me notnt woUng 1 2 consecutive nnths uoer t fo Io,'iriç enoitiOflS I The property is acti,'y being offered for sale to the puhle by the owner, Dr by any 8uMcnized agent of the owner. durirq the tirnsI term, 'Tne prqwny shall be ternporarty Icerised for rental purposes Only i f the property couwles with t appFcabe City and State rental houshg requirements. 3 The property whaH hO I censed onj for one of the folowin one adult hying a;one, o o two unrelated adults ivng together b/th any dependents by birth, adoption or W, or (c) any number of persons related by blood, nrrriaqe, adoplon, or tw. 4 The temporary rental housing Icense shall terminate mmediately upon (he closing of a sate of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the iicen terni, whehever event first o;cors 5 A copy of the tease agreement shall be deposited wlh the City's Community Development Department within one week from :he date rf the exeouton of the lease Landlord and Realtor Feedback: In an effort to receive feedback city staff from Building and Community Standards and the Police Department met with a focus group of landlords and representatives from the Minneapolis Association of realtor. The landlords supported stronger enforcement of current codes. They also had strong opinions on how the strength of the neighborhood affected the overall likelihood for them to purchase a property and the price that they can rent out their properties. The Minneapolis Association of Realtors representative expressed that they would prefer the city to become more aggressive with enforcing city codes and not regulate the density of rentals. They expressed that the overall appearance of a home and neighborhood does not affect the purchase price of a property and that the main contributing factor in price is the overall structure of the home. A copy of their report is attached. ROOLV CE[TER MESOTLAI AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF 'EMERGENCY' RENTAL HOUSING RESTRICTIONS Prepared for the City of Brooklyn Center By the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® Department of Research and Economics Staff Contact: David Arbit, MCRP DavidA@MPLSrealtOr.Com (952)-988-3150 November 2015 "It's always better to have occupied homes than vacant homes." —Mayor Tyra-Lukens (Eden Prairie) Introduction The challenge of exactly how to deal with rental properties—particularly those in urbanized areas near large job centers, universities and other economic drivers —is one of the more complex issues facing today's policy-makers and city planners. Those who support rental restrictions or moratoria on rental conversions claim that neighborhoods change too much when too many homes are converted to rentals. Opponents of such ordinances cite the importance of respecting private property rights, the fact that this activity is market-driven and point out that restriction not only harms consumer choice but can lead to outcomes worse than the problem they set out to solve. There's also the reality that certain segments of the population are more apt to utilize rental housing: this is especially true amongst young adults and seniors. II. Housing Analysis Figure I shows a variety of housing metrics for Brooklyn Center as well as for other related geographies, including the percentage of units that are renter- versus owner-occupied, as well as occupancy and vacancy rates.' Hennepin Brooklyn E- -1 CIL-4— Rni"llnentm Cntv CenterLunuwu LdL 131,704,730 2,347,201 509,469 11,640_JTotal housing units Occupied housing units I 116,716,292 2,087,227 475,913 10,756] [ %88.6%88.9%93.4%92.] [Vacant housing units 14,988,438 11.4% 259,974 11.1% 33,556 6.6% 884 ]7.6%]% Lowner occupied units 75,986,074 I 65.1% 1,523,859 73.0% 306,121 64.3% 6,97Q_.._] 64.8%% Ren ter occupied units 40,730,218 I 34.9% 563,368 27.0% 169,792 35.7% 3,786 j35.] [Vacant units - for rent L % 4,137,567 I. 27.6% 48,091 18.5% 13,951 41.6% 441 49./] LVacantunits - forsale 1,896,796 30,726 6,571 182 J %J 12.7%11.8%19.6%20/2J (Source: US census iu Exactly 64.8 percent of Brooklyn Center housing units are owner-occupied. That is consistent with a 65.1 percent owner-occupancy rate in the U.S., but lower than the 73.0 percent rate in Minnesota. The data in Figure I also show that renter-occupied units make up the remaining 35.2 percent of all occupied units in Brooklyn Center. That figure climbs to 42.0 percent for zip code 55429, greater than the U.S. as a whole, Minnesota and Hennepin County. This demonstrates the prevalence of rental housing among residents and thus the importance of preserving and even expanding the number of rental units. 1 The area columns at the top reflect a nested geography methodology whereby each geography reflects smaller and more specific areas that are—for the most part—wholly contained within the preceding area. While Brooklyn Center's 7.6 percent vacancy rate is lower than the U.S. and Minnesota, it is higher than the immediately surrounding Hennepin County. Of those vacant units, approximately 50.0 percent (49.9 to be exact) of them are "for rent"—nearly twice the share than that of the U.S. and nearly three times the share for Minnesota. In other words, of Brooklyn Center's vacant properties, half of them would remain vacant in the face of a rental license moratorium—which could invite more and worse challenges for the city. Of the rest of the vacant units, about 20.0 percent are "for sale." If a homeowner is unable to sell, he or she may prefer to rent the home to obtain cash flow in the short term - which can fund needed maintenance and repairs. And by limiting a property owner's future right to rent, those considering buying a home in the city might think twice if this important option is not available to them. The overall makeup of renter- versus owner-occupied properties in the city indicate a strong need for and use of rental properties. Figure II below shows moderate recovery since the economic downturn in terms of unit sales, though traditional buyer demand is still well below 2005 levels. Figure III below shows the median sales price in Brooklyn Center compared to the metro area as a whole. Though there is a gap between Brooklyn Center sales prices and the Twin Cities metro as a whole, prices are rising in the metro as well as in the city. In fact, the rate of price increases in Brooklyn Center has far outpaced the metro region in almost every month of 2015. If home prices rise faster than household incomes, the need for plentiful rental housing becomes that much more important. Figure II Closed Sales Uo - ----------.---------____________ emmin 500 100 300 200 100 --'-- . - - 1.2000 1-2000 1-2007 1-2002 2-2200 1-2210 1-2211 1-2012 1-2213. 1-2014 1-2015 Crc1lr, T,305i0oI Figure III Median Sales Price $2406 $220K 0208K 51006 51806 01.106 5120K 5,000161 Center - Trio COier Region $1006 - 1-2000 0-2006 1-2007 1-2000 1-2000 1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2003 1-2014 1-2010 EroOl4n Center Twin COes Region: TradiOnnol Fhure IV Quickfacts Minnesota Hennepin County Brooklyn Center Population, 2014 5,457,173 1,212,064 30,729 Population, pot change - 2010 to 2014 290%5.20%2.00% Living in same house over 1 year 85.60%82.60%84.20% Foreign born persons, pot 7.30%12.90%23.20% Homeownership rate 72.50%63.70%63.80% Housing units in multi-unit structures 21.60%36.30%28.10% Persons per household, 2009-2013 2.47 2.38 2.65 Per capita income (2013 dollars)$30,913 $37,485 $21,275 Median household income $59,836 $64,403 $46,149 Persons below poverty level 11.50%12.80%19.00% Figure IV demonstrates a number of important considerations to take into account before implementing new housing restrictions. First, Brooklyn Center's population is not what some would call "transient." In fact, more people in the city have lived in their current home for over I year (84.2 percent) than in Hennepin County as a whole (82.6 percent). As further evidence, the homeownership rate is 63.8 percent in Brooklyn Center—slightly higher than the 63.7 percent homeownership rate in the surrounding county. Second, almost twice the share of the population in Brooklyn Center is foreign born (23.2 percent) than in Hennepin County (12.9 percent). Foreign-born families and individuals typically rent first before considering homeownership. This is well-documented by the Center for Immigration Studies, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies and others. This means having adequate access to safe, affordable rental options are especially important in Brooklyn Center. 4 Third, per capita and household incomes are lower in the city than in the surrounding county. Homeownership simply isn't achievable for everyone at any given time. But with access to adequate rental units, families can have stable housing situations while they work hard to save for a down payment. Additionally, it is important to note that the number of single family units that are renter-occupied via current license is 746, which accounts for less than 7% of the total occupied housing units in the city. Relatively, the number of single-family homes that are not owner-occupied are a minor cohort in Brooklyn Center's housing market - even with a 150% increase in rental licenses issued since 2008. Bear in mind also that the increase in rental license applications for single- family homes is trend that has been seen throughout the region, for legitimate economic and demographic reasons. The a real estate market has seen increased demand for single-family rentals across the metro, from a variety of sources - including families who are re-entering the housing market after enduring significant financial hardships during the economic downturn, and new residents who have been recruited to the Twin Cities for employment opportunities. With the documented worker shortage in the metro region, businesses are increasingly turning to talent pools in other parts of the country, or the world - and many of those new residents prefer to rent a home before buying one. Ill. Demographic Analysis With a median age of 33.2 versus 36, Brooklyn Center's population skews slightly younger than the surrounding county. Young adults tend to preserve their mobility, perhaps more so now than in previous generations. And with a younger population, it's plain to see how a city-wide rental restriction would disproportionately and adversely impact a significant number of Brooklyn Center residents.Figure Age Breakdown Brooklyn Center Hennepin County Minnesota <5 years 8.00%6.60%6.70% 5 to 9 years 7.90%6.20%6.70% 10 to 14 years 5.90%6.10%6.60% l5tol9years 6.60%6.20%6.90% 20 to 24 years 6.00%7.00%6.70% 25 to 29 years 8.70%8.80%7.00% 30 to 34 years 9.00%7.80%6.50% 35 to 39 years 6.60%6.50%6.20% 40 to 44 years 6.60%6.80%6.70% 45to49years 5.40%7.10%7.70% 50 to 54 years 6.10%7.40%7.60% 55 to 59 years 5.80%6.60%6.60% 60 to 64 years 4.50%5.30%5.30% 65 to 69 years 4.00%3.60%3.80% 70 to 74 years 2.60%2.50%2.90% 75 to 79 years 2.30%2.00%2.30% 8oto84years 1.80%1.60%1.90% 85years+2.20%1.90%2.00% Median age 33.2 36 37.4 Source: US Census Today's younger generations have been slow to enter into homeownership, and for a variety of reasons, many are electing to rent rather than buy. Brooklyn Center's youthful population indicates a higher likelihood that residents will prefer or need to rent, rather than buy, housing. Brooklyn Center has a higher share of 30-39 year olds than both the county and the state. This is a very common age for forging new households. Without adequate rental options available, the city risks losing this vibrant, innovative and productive group with high rates of labor force participation. Many in this group form small businesses that can be strong economic growth engines and meaningful contributors to the local tax base. Avg. Weekly Wage pin klyn County Center - 1.387 $943 $1,238 $1,318 $1,534 $1,188 $1,866 $3,005 $1,110 $837 $729 $1,848 IV. Economic Analysis Nothing occurs in a vacuum. When considering wide-reaching rental ordinances, its important to keep in mind the state and composition of the labor market and broader economy. Fiqure Industry Total, All Industries (000000) Natural Resources and Mining (1011) Construction (1012) Manufacturing (1013) Trade, Transportation and Utilities (1021) Information (1022) Financial Activities (1023) Professional and Business Services (1024)Education and Health Services (1025) Leisure and Hospitality (1026) Other Services (1027) Public Administration (1028) Percent of All Jobs Hennepin Brooklyn County Center 0 0.1%-- 2.8%-- 8.5%17.1% 18.1%23.8% 2.4%0.6% 10.4%3.7% $1,639 $1,280 20.7%14.0% $952 $795 22.2%23.2% $461 $295 8.9%8.4% $672 $741 I 3 1%3.3% $1,200 $1,340 2:8%3.3% Source: MN DEED 2015 Of all jobs in the city, 23.2 percent are in the Education and Health Services field, with an average weekly wage of $795—the fourth lowest paid industry. Another 23.8 percent of jobs are in Trade, Transportation and Utilities, with an average weekly wage of $837—the fifth lowest paid industry. Leisure and Hospitality and Other Services combined make up nearly 12.0 percent of city jobs and those industries have the lowest and third lowest typical wages. Higher- wage jobs in Professional and Business Services and Financial Activities together only comprise less than 18.0 percent of all employment. Figure IV shows Brooklyn Center's current (2014) median household income at $46,149. With wages lagging behind Minnesota as a whole and Hennepin County, it's evident that additional housing restrictions would not only adversely affect an already vulnerable population's ability to secure quality housing, it would also cause rental prices to rise by diminishing the supply of rental units while demand is increasing. The city's fragile stage of economic recovery indicates that a notable number of current and future residents will still require rental housing in the coming years. The importance of available rental as part of a stabilizing economy cannot be o verestimatedrent homes, and single- family rentals especially, are very often stepping stones for households on their paths to homeownership and to greater economic security. V. Policy Concerns Changing Housing Needs: Policymakers may not understand how quickly housing needs can change. Job relocation, active-duty military deployment, financial hardships, medical illness, and the changing housing needs of seniors can very quickly and unexpectedly change housing 7 needs. Enacting an overlay regulation that restricts rentals could exacerbate hardships on these would-be sellers, where housing demand may otherwise exist but for the rental restrictions. Workforce Housing: It is crucial for municipal policies to support and create housing that is accessible to people across a range of incomes, and to ensure those who work in fields such as education, health care, retail, service, and public defense can live within areas of their choosing. As we consider resident incomes and housing affordability, it is important to also evaluate the housing market of the region. Home sale price data in Figure III highlights how the City of Brooklyn Center has had a slower market recovery than the Twin Cities region. We see a clear and persistent gap in the trend lines between the two geographies. Limiting the ability of homeowners to rent their properties is unlikely to help close that gap. Figure VII Closed Sales - By Seller Type 50 ----- 500 400 200 100 1-205 02000 1.200? 0.2000 Additionally, when evaluating closed sales by seller type, the data from Figure VII indicates that the Brooklyn Center market was hard hit by foreclosures. In fact, less than three years ago, the majority of sales in the city were either foreclosures or short sales. Limitations on the ability of homeowners to rent their properties could cause an uptick in foreclosure activity, which could bring down surrounding prices and tax base. Marketability and Value Issues: Policy decisions, such as those that limit individual property rights, can have an impact on the marketability of homes in a city. If the rental license moratorium is continued, the city council can expect a negative effect on the value of properties. From a buyer's perspective, a home that can be used as a rental is generally more desirable than a comparable one that cannot be rented; this is true even if their intent is to reside in the home. Rental Density Issues: Implementing a city-wide rental license moratorium creates a de facto Density Ordinance. These types of ordinances tend to increase vacancy rates; rental density ordinances that restrict the ability of owners to rent may lead to the unintended consequence of increased vacancy rates. Owners left without an ability to sell or rent a property may find little choice left then to let the homes become abandoned or go into foreclosure. 8 VI. Conclusions The Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® understands the City's challenge in navigating the conflicts that sometimes arise between the renter and property owner communities. MAAR also supports the City's desire to encourage harmonious living environments in our neighborhoods. However, by enacting an outright moratorium on rental licenses, we believe that the policy action not address the root problem, and also that the prohibition on new rental licenses, however temporary, could do fundamental economic harm to the city's current and future residents. MAAR sees many areas of opportunity for the City to consider. Enforcement of Current Codes: While there does not appear to be a compelling basis for the rental license moratorium, it is clear that better enforcement of existing ordinances (i.e. public nuisance ordinances, occupancy and building codes) would be the preferable approach for protecting the character of existing neighborhoods. Better Coordination of Efforts: MAAR suggests continued cooperation and coordination between city officials, community stakeholders, tenants, landlords, police officers and neighbors is the most effective strategy and is preferable to the perpetuation of the rental license moratorium. Like many things, housing exists on a spectrum, and it is critical to preserve all options on that continuum, as they each play a key role in the housing economy and increase consumer choices and opportunities. It is both unfeasible and imprudent for all households to be owner- occupied. The consequences of underqualified individuals owning property without adequate financial support when an economic downturn strikes are well documented—the Great Recession being the most recent. At some point, many citizens either have to or choose to utilize rental housing. When large- scale, city-wide rental restrictions come into play, it not only limits what private property owners can and cannot do with their property, it also revokes the power of choice from so many consumers— from younger citizens attending school or early on in their careers to aging adults seeking supportive housing. These restrictions often force vulnerable populations into sub- standard housing, force them to move farther and farther away from school or work, or may even drive people out of the city or region entirely. MAAR strongly encourages the City of Brooklyn Center to consider the many positive opportunities to improve neighborhood livability and resident interaction - these options (in stark contrast to a rental license moratorium) will better support all the citizens of Brooklyn Center economically and socially. <PD March 14, 2016 MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association OfBrooklyn Center City Council REALTOR City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mayor Wilson and Members of the Council, On behalf of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® and the more than 7,500 REALTORS ® and work in Bmembers in the Minneapolis area, many of whom live rooklyn Center, we respectfully oppose the proposed amendments to Brooklyn Center City Code Chapter 12, Section 12-901 regarding 'Limiting the Density of Rental Housing.' Specifically, REALTORS® oppose the addition of Section 12-901.10 that reads: Limitation of rental housing in low density neighborhoods In RI and R2 districts of the city, not more than 30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental housing license. REALTORS® believe the 'ability to buy, d private property rights. REALTORS4) believe in homeownershi ansell, or let for rent' is a fundamental right of private property ownership. While the city retains general 'police powers' with respect to land use, zoning, and other ordinances that protect health, welfare, and general order in their co mmunity, the city should also uphold the rights of property owners. Cities should ilities to exercise their fundamental private property rights. not unfairly restrict homeowners' ab REALTORS ® are opposed to the Rental Density ordinance (a.k.a. "Rental Density Cap" because:homeowners while simultaneously denying those rights to others; o It confers rights to some ble to sell or rent the home; o It will create vacant property because an owner is una o It damages housing a ff o rdability by limiting the supply of a variety of housing options; and o REALTORS® seek to protect the private property rights of all Minnesota homeowners. Rental pro pe s a critCa art of the fe and housfl c cle for most eo le. REALTORS® seek to remind members of the public and the council about some important aspects of rental property. First, most current renters state that homeownership is among their future goals. However, those renters need to be able to obtain stable and affordable housing in the area of their choice in order to position themselves to be financially able to purchase a home. Rental density ordinances foster unaffordability by limiting the availability of housing within the city, and create an atmosphere that is unwelcoming to renters— many of whom are women and minorities. Second, the difference between owning and leasing a property is merely a difference in the financial instrument used to obtain one's home. The "use" of the property by a tenant is no different than that of an owner-resident. Heading off to work, living, sleeping, participating in local commerce, playing with and raising children _these are all aspects of e veryday life regardless whether you own or rent. The city can regulate the use of properties, but not the user. Renta' densi ordinances can cause s nficant individUa' harm. Rental density caps can often have unintended consequences. Three out of four plaintiffs in Dean eta! vs. City of Winona case were: 1) a forward-deployed (Afghanistan) U.S. Soldier who was a ttempting to not lose his home while 'in-country;' 2) a s ingle-mother of three children, who sought to rent portions of her home to avoid foreclosure; and 3) a widowed senior citizen whom had previously been aging in place with changing health care and housing needs who was not inclined to sell her 'nest egg' in a depressed housing market. In the end, each of these plaintiffs were denied the right to a rental license because their neighbors had already received them. Benefits of rental density caps that are deemed only "potential" should not outweigh specific harm to constituents. Strong demand for rental property can be seen as a positive signal for Brooklyn Center. The Twin Cities, and indeed the state overall, are witnessing a healthy recovery with improving economic conditions. The economy is growing. The unemployment rate in Minnesota continues to best the national average. Minnesotans are back to work. Rental property and strong demand, when considered in a national context, are positive signs of more prosperous days ahead. Many communities nationwide would welcome the return of strong rental demand in their community. They know that quite simply, strong single-family rental demand today will very likely translate into strong single-family purchase demand in the future. It's also worth ,noting that non-homesteaded properties pay a higher property tax payment and therefore contribute more to county and municipal resources. We urge the council to oppose any rental density caps in Brooklyn Center. Resist the temptation to try to solve problems on residential properties with untenable regulations. Instead, strengthen existing ordinances that solve specific issues such as deferred maintenance, unhealthy conditions, criminality, etc. Embrace those seeking the opportunity to join your community. Seek to provide them with options, incentives, and homeownership opportunities within your city. On behalf of the more than 7,500 REALTOR® members of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® and their clients who are current and future residents of Brooklyn Center, we stand ready to assist your community as you face housing challenges. We would welcome any opportunity to assist the city in finding equitable and effective solutions to property issues, especially regarding single-family rental trends. Sincerely, I P^^ Julia Parenteau Vice President of Public Affairs Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® p. (952) 988-3124 e. juliap@mplsrealtor.cOm Cc: Curt Boganey, City Manager Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager MAAR Executive & Government Affairs Committees Rental Regulations Policy Position Statement REALTOR® Associations of the Twin Cities Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® Saint Paul Area Association of REALTORS® REALTORS® understand that rental housing is a vital segment of the real estate and housing markets. A vast majority of people will rent housing at some point in their lives. Rental property often serves as transitional housing for those saving and preparing for homeownership. Property conversion to rental can help stabilize housing markets and communities during economic downturns. Rental properties are also an important component of the state's property tax base, paying at a slightly higher rate than homesteaded properties. For residents and communities, it is important to make sure rental properties are safe and adequately maintained. REALTORS® certainly know the value of well-kept property. It is important to remember that a property's status as rental does not automatically imply deferred maintenance or blight. Many rental properties are very well maintained, just as many owner-occupied homes have deferred maintenance. The reasons for deferred maintenance are varied and the property's status as owner-occupied or rental is not the sole determining factor. Furthermore, an individual's status as a renter does not automatically imply they are any better or worse citizens than those who own and occupy their properties. Rental regulations come in many forms; we have written statements on the most common types of ordinances that municipalities may enact. Rental Density Caps - The REALTORS® Associations oppose rental density caps implemented city-wide or neighborhood-by-neighborhood. These caps restrict private property rights by limiting what property owners can do with their residences. Such policies are inherently unfair because they confer private property rights to a limited few while simultaneously denying the same rights to others. Rental density caps often result in vacant buildings, due to the inability of an owner to sell or to rent the property to tenants. Density caps may even result in discriminatory feelings or actions toward certain populations, such as students or young families. Density caps can also have the undesired impact of damaging housing affordability by limiting the availability of housing units within a neighborhood or city. Rental Property Management - Accurate recording of residential occupancy types for the purposes of resident and general public safety is acceptable, as long as such requirements do not add financial burden to property owners or tenants. Rental Inspections - We oppose any type of city-mandated property inspections without due cause to believe problems exist on the property. Every effort should be made to enforce existing municipal property maintenance codes equally upon all properties, regardless of occupancy type. Tenant and Landlord Education - We support incentive programs that encourage good landlord and tenant behavior rather than punitive systems. We support programs to educate both tenants and landlords about proper property maintenance and code requirements, their rights and recourse in cases where maintenance is necessary or where other disagreements exist, and on positive landlord-tenant relationships. We seek compliance with all applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the duties of landlords and tenants. This education may come in such forms including but not limited to: classes, written information printed and/or online, counseling, or community outreach programs. The REALTORS® Associations of the Twin Cities believe that rental housing should be viewed through the lens of private property rights, similar to other types of housing. As cities see a rise in rental units, both built and converted, there may be some push to add rules and regulations to those properties. The REALTORS® Associations want to ensure that all property and occupancy agreements can be handled freely, while keeping in mind the safety and security of residents and the surrounding neighborhoods. City of Brooklyn Center City Council Meeting March 28, 2016 At the October 26, 2015, the City Council  approved a moratorium on new single family and single family attached rental properties The purpose was to review the effects of the  increase in the number of single family rental properties City has the right to restrict the number of  single family rental properties. The number of single and single family  attached has increased from 287 in 2008 to 746 in 2015. The rate of police calls for service and  property code violations are higher at rental properties. ◦3.03 Police CFS at Rental compared to 1.13 at owner occupied ◦Properties with Code Violations is 34% at rental and 15% at owner occupied properties. The following chart  provides a breakdown of % of Rentals within Census # of Census Blocks the number of census Block blocks that are within each 0 %107 percent category. ◦R1 and R2 properties 1 –4.9 %36 only 5 –9.9 %113 ◦2 or more units rentals are excluded 10 –14.9 %70 ◦( # of 1 unit licensed 15 –19.9 %30 rental properties / # of R1 or R2 properties 20 –24.9 %18 within the Census Block) 25 –29.9 %10 7 Census blocks exceed 30  percent 30 –34.9 %4 35 Census blocks exceed  35+ %3 20 percent Sets the density limit at 30%  Defines a neighborhood  Exceptions  ◦Duplexes ◦State licensed facilities ◦Currently licensed Rental properties Allows for a temporary 1year rental license in  areas that exceed density requirement CityDensity RestrictionBlock Definition (5.42 subd.20.B1) …land enclosed within the perimeter of Mankato25% streets, watercourses, railroad right-of-way; public parks, municipally owned lands, and City boundaries, unless otherwise depicted on the attached map. (14-97) …as houses on both sides of a street between Northfield20% successive intersecting streets or between other such boundaries, railroad rights of way, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds or lakes. Corner houses shall be included in the count of houses on a single block, regardless of which way they face or on what street they are addressed (corner houses may be counted as part of more than one single block). (435.05 subd.12.a.1) …an area of land enclosed within the West St Paul10% perimeter of streets, watercourses, public parks, municipally owned lots, and city boundaries. (33A.03.i) …a group of properties bounded entirely by Winona30% streets, public land, railroad rights of way, zoning districts lines, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds, or lakes; provided that final delineation of a block shall be made by City staff. Potential Benefits  ◦Decrease in police calls for service within neighborhoods. ◦Decrease in property code violations within neighborhoods. ◦Overall improvement in neighborhood appearance. ◦Potential increase in owner-occupied properties. ◦Potential improved property value stability in neighborhoods. Potential Costs  ◦Decrease in home sale prices due to the restriction on potential use of the property as an investment property. ◦Increased time on market for houses for sale. ◦Negative impact to property owners desiring to rent house due to sudden change in status such as job change or death of property owner. ◦Litigation from property owners or advocates. ◦Additional staff time and resources needed to manage, educate, communicate, and enforce this requirement. March 28, 2016 -1reading of Ordinance st  April 25-2reading and public hearing nd  May 22, 2016 Moratorium Expires  May 5, 2016 Publication of Ordinance  If approved, ordinance would be effect on  June 4, 2016 Work Session Agenda AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION March 28, 2016 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS Update on the 2016 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Paperless Packets Report 2.Opportunities for Small and Diverse Businesses Work Ses s ioii Agenda Item No. 1 MEMORANDUM COUNCIIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 28, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business & Development SUBJECT: Update on the 2016 Board of Appeals and Equalization Meeting. Recommendation: The purpose of this item is for information purposes and does not require Council action. Kelly Jacobsson, Appraiser with Hennepin County Assessing Department will provide the City Council with an update on the 2016 Assessment and the local board procedures in preparation for this year's Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting scheduled for April 18, 2016. Enclosed is packet of information which includes the following: - A map identifying the Quintile areas and the schedule for updating the Assessing records, - Information on How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value, - How to Appeal Your Value and Classification - 2015 Annual Housing Market Report for the Twin Cities Metro Area with 5 year history of Median Home values, - Sales Data of Ramblers, Split-Levels, Expansions +, Townhomes and Condo's used in this year's determination of market values. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive coninitinit;' that enhances the (p1(11113' of life for al/people and preserves the public trust Hennepin County Assessor Department A-2103 Government Center www.co.hennepin.mn.us 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487-0213 To: City of Brooklyn Center, Mayor and Council From: Kelly Jacobsson, Appraiser Date: March 8, 2016 Re: 2016 Assessment and Board of Appeal and Equalization The 2016 Brooklyn Center Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for Monday April 18th In preparation for the upcoming Board of Appeal and Equalization, please find the enclosed data to help you. There is market data, local board procedures, an alternate method of appeal and sales photos with characteristics from a sample of sales throughout the city. Annual Revaluation, Sales, and New Construction Reviews Each year, one fifth of the properties in the city are reviewed and the records are updated. A map of the 2016 revaluation area, as well as the areas to be reviewed over the next few years is included. The viewing, review, and statistical analysis of all sales that sold from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 in the City of Brooklyn Center were made. Adjustments to all commercial and industrial properties are based on market and income valuation procedures. Summary of the 2016 Assessment Each year the estimated market values are analyzed along with sales data from the market. A recalculation of land and building values were made to all property types. The results of the adjustments for the following property types are: Residential +4.5% Commercial/Industrial +2.1% Apartments +13.8% Townhouses +8.9% Duplex +1.3% Condos +7.1% There are 8,605 taxable parcels in the city with a total market value of approximately $1,865,330,100. This value includes $18,310,500 in new construction improvements. The overall gross value increase for all property types including improvements in the city of Brooklyn Center is +6.1%. Ar Equal Opportunity Employer ReCyCled Paper The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Process Value notices will be mailed at the beginning of March. Taxpayers with value or classification concerns should contact the assessor's office. During the initial conversation the property owner may discuss their concerns and review sales information with an appraiser. The majority of the callers are satisfied after a conversation with an appraiser. If additional attention is necessary the appraiser will review the property. The board has the authority to increase, decrease, or take no action on individual valuations. The total reduction must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent or none of the adjustments will be allowed. The board also, cannot increase or decrease by a percentage of all assessments in a district by class. If the board chooses to reconvene it must do so within 20 days. A majority of the board members are required to attend all local board meetings. Enclosed are additional duties and information for local boards as provided by the Minnesota Property Tax Administrators Manual, which is prepared by the Minnesota Department of Revenue Property Tax Division. In order for a taxpayer to appeal to the county board they must first appeal to the local board either in person or in writing. The County Board of Appeal and Equalization will begin meeting on June 13, 2016. All requests for appointments at the County Board must be received before May 18, 2016. To make an appointment, taxpayers should call 612-348-7050. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kelly Jacobsson at 612-803- 0845. An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper Market Conditions Adjustment for Sales Ratio Studies March 11, 2014 The purpose of this document is to review the reasons that the market conditions adjustments in sales ratio studies are considered, discuss calculating time trends [TCALC], apply the time trend to the sales in the study period [MCAP], and list additional resources. Market Conditions While the market conditions adjustment is sometimes referred to as a "time" adjustment, time is not the cause for the adjustment. Over time, changes in interest rates, supply and demand, employment rates, availability of financing, and other factors can create conditions in the market that must be adjusted. Purpose As stated in MS 272.03, subdivision 8, "Market value' means the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment ... and, As stated in MS 273.01, All real property subject to taxation shall be listed ... with reference to their value on January 2 Simply put, the assessor is to value all property on January 2' at the value it would sell considering all market conditions. Assessors value all properties using mass appraisal techniques and one of the measurements of mass appraisal are the numerous statistics derived from sales ratio studies. Sales ratio studies can be of any duration of time but the 12 month State Board ratio is considered the most important in setting and analyzing the annual assessment. In Hennepin County, all of our assessment measurements are set to reflect the State Board 12 month sales ratio. With sales occurring throughout the 12 month study period and the estimated market value being set according to the current market conditions as of January 2, by using a market conditions or "time" factor to adjust the sale price to the date of the assessment will reflect any changes in the market. Market conditions adjusted sales prices are also necessary to reduce the distortion that the market can have on ratios and other statistics. Using market conditions adjustments is not only using generally accepted appraisal principals, but the IAAO identifies a "time" adjustment as a necessary component of any sales ratio study and MS 270.12 subd 2 requires the DOR to follow the standards set by the IAAO. For the 2012 assessment the DOR instituted the market conditions adjusted sales ratio methodology for calculating State Board sales ratios for a number of reasons: o MS 278.05 (4) states that sales must be adjusted to reflect the difference in date of sale compared to the assessment date o Tax Court ratios already are adjusted for market conditions o 21 month state aid ratios already are adjusted for market conditions o Generally accepted appraisal principals indicate that in the sales comparison approach one of the first adjustments considered is for market conditions o IAAO standards indentify that time adjustments are necessary for accurate ratio studies o The DOR by statute, must follow IAAO guidelines whenever practical Market Conditions Adjustment for Sales Ratio Studies Page 1 TCALC The market conditions adjustment is determined through a time trend calculator or TCALC. The TCALC is determined by the sales from a 21 month time period that starts 24 months prior to the assessment year under study. For the 2014 assessment, sales from January 2012 through September 2013 are used in the analysis of market conditions. If the jurisdiction has an adequate sample of 30 or more sales and the confidence level of the data is greater than 90% then a time adjustment is applied to the sales in the 12 month State Board study period. These sales are adjusted to the assessment date under study, in this case January 2, 2014. MCAP After the sales are adjusted for market conditions with the appropriate TCALC to determine the market condition adjusted price or MCAP. The MCAP is the adjusted sales price that is used in all sales ratios. What happens if the TCALC is Zero? Several situations can occur to result in a TCALC of zero. The market could be flat with no market condition changes, the confidence level is less than 90.0%, not an adequate sample, and others. Hennepin County will continue to review assessments based on the preferred MCAP sales ratio analysis and the former method of measuring the direct ratio with growth. The Ideal Assessment The ideal assessment would be when the median and mean sales ratio by property type and residential umbrella for both the direct sales ratio analysis and the MCAP sales ratio analysis are at 95.0% All median sales ratios must be within the DOR specifications of 90.0% and 105.0%. An assessment with a MCAP median ratio less than 90.0% or greater than 105.0% would NOT meet standards and would be subject to State Board changes. In addition to median ratios, additional review of other statistical measures including COD and PRD must also be considered. In Conclusion Our assessment model has always been to consider the sales in the study period, these may now be adjusted for market conditions. We also consider sales that have closed after the study period, current pending sales, and active listings to arrive at our current assessed values. The larger the range between the TCALC and the property type growth, the larger the range between the median MCAP sales ratio and the median direct sales ratio. This will result in some properties having direct ratios higher than their recent sales price. This is nothing new! At the parcel level when you are question on a value it is still all about sales, sales, and sales. What data do you have to support the value of the property for 2014, it is not about the change in value from the year before, it is not about what value the CAMA system reported, it is only about what that property would sell for on January 2, 2014 and what is your support! Good customer service would include verifying that our physical attributes on file are correct, perform a sales comparison grid with appropriate time adjustment, follow generally accepted appraisal principals, and continue to educate that with constantly changing markets, assessed values can be higher or lower than past sales. Market Conditions Adjustment for Sales Ratio Studies Page 2 With the MCAP Sales Ratios - What has changed? • State Board ratios will be based on current assessment • Assessments will be current with no lag in market trends • All sales have equal weight in median ratio calculations • Sales are no longer lost in unique submarkets • All sales ratios will be in alignment - State Board and Tax Court and 21 month Schools Aids • Consistent with IAAO standards • Consistent with appraisal principals • Higher quality assessments • More equalized assessments. Resources DOR Fact Sheets Property Tax Administrators Manual PACE Course Module 6 —Time Adjustments for Sales Ratios IAAO - Standard on Ratio Studies -April 2013 Minnesota Statutes Market Conditions Adjustment for Sales Ratio Studies Page 3 - /(Q UeeIed ae peee S I LL Iin it1 I! CL1_Illrw II1fr, fit II (' Ill .çi L LLI LU E co vo -i-i -=-=--I-- .-, - F / - I '"II - C'4 - LII1I j •1 : ' fl - 0 '.0 (Q N- 00 o 1Ij © 2c > =CD c c c LI o ci OJ C\1 C1 C/) — L LD /\ T I 040 MINNESOTA- REVENUE www.revenue.state.mn.us ii1l(*['1I ni rrr Property Tax Fact Sheet 2 Estimated market value is one of the factors used to determine your property taxes. This fact sheet ex- plains how that value is calculated and used. How does the assessor estimate the market value of my property? Assessors value properties using a mass appraisal process to review sales of similar properties in the area over a set time period. This "estimated market value" represents what your property would sell for in an "arms-length" sale on the open market (where buyer and seller are not related and both are educated about the property). Assessors review sales from October 1 to Septem- ber 30. They adjust the prices for market trends to estimate the market value of your property on the next assessment date (January 2). An example of this timeline is: o To estimate a property's 2016 market value, the assessor reviews property sales from October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. Property owners may appeal their market value and classification. This process occurs from April 1, 2016, to June 30, 2016. o Property values and classifications become final on July 1, 2016. These values are used to determine taxes for 2017. Assessors also review other data such as supply and demand, marketing times, and vacancy rates. This helps them determine if the real estate market in your area is increasing, stable, or decreasing. What is the difference between 'Estimated Market Value' and 'Taxable Market Value'? While estimated market value (EMV) shows what your property would likely sell for on the open market, "taxable market value" (TMV) is used to determine your taxes. A property's TMV is its estimated market value minus any tax exemptions, deferrals, and value exclusions that apply. For example, many home- owners have a Homestead Market Value Exclu- sion, which reduces the amount of home value that is subject to tax. How does my property value affect my property taxes? Property value does not directly affect your prop- erty tax bill. It is used to calculate your share of the local property tax levy for the year. This levy is the total property tax revenue needed to fund the budgets set by your county, city or town, and school district. Your property's taxable market value is multiplied by its classification rate to determine its share of the levy. Increasing or decreasing your property's market value does not change the overall amount of prop- erty tax revenue that is collected. For more information, see Fact Sheet 1, Under- standing Property Taxes. Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, MN 55 146-3340 This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law, administrative rules, court decisions, or other revenue notices. Alternative for- mats available upon request. Revised October 2015 Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value I How do assessors verify their estimated values are in line with the market? The Department of Revenue and assessors do a "sales ratio study" each year to see how assessors' values compare to actual sales prices. A sales ratio is the assessor's EMV of property divided by its actual sales price: Assessor EMV Sales Ratio = Actual Sales Price For example, assume a home was valued at by the assessor at $200,000 and sold for $210,000. The sales ratio is calculated like this: $200,000 Sales Ratio = $210,000 = 0.952 = 95% The overall EMVs should be within 90 to 105 per- cent of actual sales prices. Otherwise the Depart- ment of Revenue may order the assessor to adjust property values. Where do assessors get sales information? This information comes from sales of real estate. A Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) is filed whenever real estate sells for more than $1,000. CRVs have important details about each transac- tion. Assessors use this information to help esti- mate market values and for the sales ratio study. Before using a CRV in the sales ratio study, the assessor must verify the sale was an open-market, arms-length sale. Otherwise it cannot be used in the study. How do I know if my assessor has the right information for my property? Assessors are required to inspect properties in per- son at least once every 5 years. They also inspect property if new construction or demolition takes place. You may contact the assessor to verify information about your property such as dimensions, age, and condition of any structures. If your property has new improvements or other changes the assessor may not know about, you can ask the assessor to review and adjust your property records. If you disagree with the assessor's value for your property, you may appeal. For more information, see Fact Sheet 3, How to Appeal Your Value and Classification. Can the values of some properties decrease while others increase? Yes. Sales prices for different types of property can vary widely depending on market conditions and other factors. In recent years, for example, sales of farmland were generally stronger than residential or com- mercial sales in most areas of the state. No two properties are exactly alike. A property's market value or sales price is also affected by its unique characteristics - such as location,, square footage, number of rooms, etc. Do property values in all areas increase or decline at the same rate? No. Local real estate markets can be affected by a wide range of factors, such as new construction, changing demand for property, or economic trends. Each area or neighborhood is different; its values can change at a faster (or slower) rate than others. Where can I get more information? If you have questions or need more information: Refer to: • Fact Sheet 1, Understanding Property Taxes; and • Fact Sheet 3, How to Appeal Your Value and Classification. o Go to www.revenue.state.mn.us and type property tax fact sheets into the Search box. o Contact your County Assessor. Minnesota Revenue, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value 2 MINNESOTA REVENUE www.revenue.state.mn.us How to AppealIT[S1UIValue 1andILClassification Pronertv Tax Fact Sheet 3 Each spring your county sends you a Notice of Valuation and Classification. Three factors that affect your tax bill are: 1.The amount your local governments (town, city, county, etc.) spend to provide services 2.The estimated market value of your property 3. The classification of your property (how it is used) The assessor determines the value and classification of your property; you may appeal if you disagree. What if I disagree with how my property was assessed? Most issues and concerns can be resolved by doing research and contacting the county assessor's office. You should: o Verify information about your property, such as its dimensions, age, and condition of its structures. • Review records to determine the market values of similar properties in your neighborhood. • Review sales data to see what similar properties in your area are selling for. • Ask the assessor to explain the criteria used to classify your property. You may review the classifications of other properties used in the same way as yours. If your property has not been inspected recently (both interior and exterior), ask the assessor to review your property. If you and the assessor are unable to agree on your property valuation or classification, you can make a formal appeal. How does my property's classification affect my taxes? Assessors classify all property according to its use on January 2. Each class of property (home, Property Tax Division - Mail Station 3340— St. Paul, MN 55146-3340 apartment, cabin, and farm business) is taxed at a different percentage of its value. This percentage, or "class rate," is determined by the Legislature. The class rate plays a significant role in how much property tax you pay. What can I appeal? You can appeal your property's market value estimate and/or classification if you feel your property is: Classified improperly Valued higher or lower than you could sell it for Valued differently from similar property in your area Your assessor is not responsible for the dollar amount of property taxes that you pay. Tax rates are determined by your local taxing authorities (city, county, school districts, etc.). You may not appeal your taxes. How do I appeal my assessment? You may appeal to your Local and/or County Board of Appeal and Equalization, or you may choose to go directly to Minnesota Tax Court. This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law, administrative rules, court decisions, or revenue notices, Alternative formats available upon request. Revised October 2015 Minnesota Revenue, How to Appeal Your Value and Classification 1 The date, times, and locations of the boards are on the Notice of Valuation and Classification. You should schedule your appearance with the board. You must appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization before appealing to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. For both boards you may make your appeal in person, by letter, or have someone else appear for you. The assessor will be present to answer questions. Note: By law, the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization cannot make a change favoring a taxpayer if the assessor is not allowed to inspect the property. What should I bring to my appeal? Bring evidence and supporting documentation about your property's value and classification such as: • A recent appraisal of your property • Real estate listings for similar properties in your area • Photos of your property that may help support your claim What is the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization? The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is usually the same people as your city council or town board. The board of appeal meets in April or May. Cities and towns may choose to transfer their board powers to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. If your city or town board has done this, your Notice of Valuation and Classification will direct you to begin your appeal at the county level. What is the County Board of Appeal and Equalization? The County Board of Appeal and Equalization is usually the same people as your county board of commissioners or their appointees. This board meets in June. You may appeal to the county board if you are not satisfied with the decision of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, or if your city or town has transferred its powers to the county. If you are not satisfied with the decision of the County Board of Appeal and Equalization, you may appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court How do I appeal to Minnesota Tax Court? To appeal your property's value or classification, you complete and file Minnesota Tax Court Form 7, Real Property Tax Petition. You must file your appeal by April 30 of the year the tax becomes payable. For example, you must appeal your 2015 assessment by April 30, 2016. You can get more information, forms, and in- structions at www.taxcouitstate.nin.us or by calling 651-296-2806. Where can I get more information? If you have questions or need more information about the appeal process, contact your County Assessor's Office. For more information on how market value and classification are determined: • Refer to: • Fact Sheet 1, Understanding Property Taxes and • Fact Sheet 2, How the Assessor Estimates Your Market Value. Go to www.revenue.state.mn.us and type property tax fact sheets into the Search box. Minnesota Revenue, How to Appeal Your Value and Classification 2 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro Median Prices = Around the Metre MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association i REALTORS' Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Twin Cities Region $150,000 $167,900 $192,000 $205,600 $220,000 +7.0%+46.7% Afton $430,000 $275,000 $409,500 $412,375 $435,000 +5.5%+1.2% Albertville $142,500 $149,950 $178,900 $179,900 $210,000 +16.7%+47.4% Andover $182,000 $205,000 $227,491 $236,700 $248,200 +4.9%+36.4% Annandale $153,170 $169,500 $159,000 $172,221 $204,450 +18.7%+33.5% Anoka $114,000 $122,900 $146,950 $166,000 $179,900 +8.4%+57.8% Apple Valley $149,900 $175,000 $195,000 $213,000 $224,900 +5.6%+50.0% Arden Hills $157,500 $325,000 $300,300 $252,000 $282,000 +11.9%+79.0% Bayport $147,000 $184,500 $200,000 $237,450 $207,000 -12.8%+40.8% Becker $131,700 $149,375 $155,900 $169,900 $183,900 +8.2%+39.6% Belle Plaine $136,050 $144,500 $159,000 $187,700 $193,250 +3.0%+42.0% Bethel $100,000 $115,950 $135,000 $115,000 $158,185 +37.6%+58.2% Big Lake $117,500 $134,900 $154,500 $169,900 $178,000 +4.8%+51.5% Birchwood Village $240,500 $227,900 $287,375 $340,000 $260,000 -23.5%+8.1% Blame $154,900 $175,000 $199,200 $218,665 $220,000 +0.6%+42.0% Bloomington $157,000 $171,000 $193,100 $201,000 $218,000 +8.5%+38.9% Bloomington - East $140,000 $145,300 $169,000 $182,000 $198,000 +8.8%+41.4% Bloomington - West $181,725 $191,000 $215,000 $225,000 $235,000 +4.4%+29.3% Brainerd MSA $147,000 $155,000 $161,000 $165,000 $170,000 +3.0%+15.6% Brooklyn Center $82,300 $95,000 $122,250 $139,950 $154,950 + 10.7%+88.3% Brooklyn Park $127,000 $146,000 $167,000 $174,900 $194,000 +10.9%+52.8% Buffalo $131,500 $141,000 $171,810 $175,000 $200,000 + 14.3%+52.1% Burnsville $147,750 $165,300 $185,000 $209,500 $222,000 +6.0%+50.3% Cambridge $94,000 $101,300 $127,000 $148,250 $163,500 +10.3%+73.9% Cannon Falls $123,500 $145,000 $177,500 $166,100 $193,000 +16.2%+56.3% Carver $225,000 $245,000 $282,500 $270,000 $277,750 +2.9%+23.4% Centerville $154,600 $180,000 $189,950 $197,500 $223,000 +12.9%+44.2% Champlin $148,000 $159,400 $182,500 $193,950 $205,000 +5.7%+38.5% Chanhassen $297,500 $280,500 $305,000 $318,838 $325,000 +1.9%+9.2% Chaska $170,000 $207,500 $252,000 $235,000 $255,000 +8.5%+50.0% Chicago $155,700 $168,500 $199,850 $201,500 $235,150 +16.7%+51.0% Circle Pines $124,150 $139,450 $144,150 $154,000 $162,550 +5.6%+30.9% Clear Lake $146,800 $152,450 $160,375 $154,500 $184,750 +19.6%+25.9% Clearwater $127,750 $150,000 $160,000 $159,500 $157,500 -1.3%+23.3% Coates $0 $0 $0 $0 $161,625 -- -- Cokato $107,500 $105,000 $129,900 $123,200 $132,450 +7.5%+23.2% Cologne $189,900 $182,550 $181,500 $262,950 $250,000 -4.9%+31.6% Columbia Heights $101,500 $99,950 $132,000 $140,000 $158,125 +12.9%+55.8% Columbus $177,277 $208,500 $202,800 $227,500 $236,300 +3.9%+33.3% Coon Rapids $114,900 $125,105 $150,000 $160,300 $175,000 +9.2%+52.3% Corcoran $246,000 $230,000 $300,000 $312,500 $330,000 +5.6%+34.1% Cottage Grove $160,000 $174,400 $194,000 $209,900 $222,000 +5.8%+38.8% Crystal $105,000 $127,550 $149,250 $157,500 $172,000 +9.2%+63.8% Dayton $142,000 $191,500 $274,000 $218,250 $328,709 +50.6%+131.5% Current as of January 11, 2016. All data from NorthstarMLS. Forrured by Showing -Rime 10K 1 17 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro Prices Aotmd the Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association c' REALTORS' Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Deephaven $322,000 $493,250 $518,500 $585,000 $622,500 +6.4%1-93.3% Delano $173,150 $205,500 $232,870 $241,250 $275,600 +14.2%+59.2% Deliwood $499,000 $360,000 $507,500 $765,000 $594,215 -22.3%+19.1% Eagan $171,000 $193,990 $220,000 $234,700 $243,050 +3.6%+42.1% East Bethel $162,500 $165,000 $179,900 $198,000 $219,500 +10.9%+35.1% Eden Prairie $257,110 $257,000 $279,294 $300,000 $299,900 -0.0%+16.6% Edina $339,000 $344,000 $350,000 $380,000 $396,000 +4.2%+16.8% Elk River $132,000 $157,000 $172,000 $195,000 $215,700 +10.6%+63.4% Elko New Market $193,000 $215,000 $247,627 $257,520 $264,250 +2.6%+36.9% Excelsior $350,000 $291,500 $409,750 $452,500 $502,500 +11.0%+43.6% Falcon Heights $207,500 $228,706 $238,000 $257,450 $257,000 -0.2%+23.91/o Faribault $102,000 $115,000 $135,000 $135,250 $143,450 +6.1%+40.6% Farmington $140,500 $163,000 $192,500 $210,000 $220,000 +4.8%+56.6% Forest Lake $153,750 $185,000 $191,500 $219,900 $225,500 +2.5%+46.7% Fridley $120,000 $126,500 $154,250 $160,000 $175,000 +9.4%+45.8% Gem Lake $240,000 $352,261 $169,450 $563,864 $411,000 -27.1%+71.30/. Golden Valley $199,450 $218,500 $246,000 $247,500 $264,900 +7.0%+32.8% Grant $422,500 $367,500 $415,500 $445,000 $399,900 -10.1%-5.3% Greenfield $373,000 $350,000 $354,000 $486,500 $410,000 -15.7%+9.9% Greenwood $755,000 $675,000 $921,500 $747,500 $965,000 +29.1%+27.8% Ham Lake $211,500 $231,000 $271,600 $289,900 $297,500 +2.6%+40.7% Hamburg $75,200 $111,500 $95,500 $138,000 $119,900 -13.1%+59.4% Hammond $118,000 $121,900 $145,000 $163,000 $160,950 -1.3%+36.4% Hampton $172,000 $138,500 $204,000 $200,000 $233,000 +16.5%+35.5% Hanover $214,950 $211,000 $239,950 $254,313 $266,250 +4.7%+23.9% Hastings $128,500 $142,000 $169900 $182,250 $196,000 +7.5%+52.5% Hilltop $0 $24,500 $34,500 $47,500 $0 -100.0%-- Hopkins $125,000 $159,950 $180,500 $182,000 $214,250 +17.7%+71.4% Hudson $184,500 $195,000 $228,500 $233,500 $261,575 +12.0%+41.8% Hugo $137,000 $164,199 $195,000 $180,000 $204,500 +13.6%+49.3% Hutchinson $115,250 $111,750 $125,000 $142,900 $145,000 +1.5%+25.8% Independence $249,900 $387,500 $411,500 $424,950 $525,000 +23.5%+110.1% Inver Grove Heights $155,000 $160,000 $194,950 $180,000 $193,250 +7.4%+24.7% santi $91,500 $117,000 $125,000 $149,900 $158,500 +5.7%+73.2% Jordan $178,000 $177,000 $215,000 $209,000 $247,000 +18.2%+38.8% Lake Elmo $374,800 $367,500 $374,900 $428,500 $401,000 -6.4%+7.0% Lake Minnetonka Area $329,000 $340,000 $369,950 $380,000 $395,000 +3.9%+20.1% Lake St. Croix Beach $85,250 $180,000 $139,000 $176,250 $187,250 +6.2%+119.6% Lakeland $221,000 $195,500 $204,990 $223,000 $244,000 +9.4%+10.4% Lakeland Shores $178,139 $270,000 $265,000 $1,500,000 $247,423 -83.5%+38.9% Lakeville $205,000 $226,000 $258,000 $272,000 $298,745 +9.8%+45.7% Lauderdale $128,150 $171,450 $175,000 $117,750 $175,000 +48.6%+36.6% Lexington $108,563 $136,950 $149,900 $181,920 $172,862 -5.0%+59.2% Lilydale $177,500 $190,000 $200,250 $280,000 $240,000 -14.3%+35.2% Current as of January11, 2016. All data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by Showingflme 10K. 1 18 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro Median Armul the Wrm MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Lindstrom $143,900 $140,000 $160,025 $179,999 $190,000 + 5.6%+32.0% Lino Lakes $173,500 $208,375 $229,900 $243,000 $254,600 +4.8%+46.7% Little Canada $140,000 $175,000 $185,500 $192,593 $206,250 +7.1%+47.3% Long Lake $186,500 $227,500 $231,500 $212,250 $269,950 +27.2%+44.7% Lonsdale $137,000 $145,000 $171,900 $183,000 $211,300 +15.5%+54.2% Loretto $217,875 $130,000 $199,900 $156,900 $256,000 +63.2%+17.5% Mahtomedi $257,500 $249,900 $245,000 $301,450 $325,000 +7.8%+26.2% Maple Grove $214,000 $219,453 $233,000 $245,500 $245,000 -0.2%+14.5% Maple Lake $112,840 $134,950 $145,000 $167,000 $170,000 + 1.8%+50.7% Maple Plain $153,500 $187,450 $178,750 $212,500 $243,900 +14.8%+58.9% Maplewood $139,400 $145,000 $165,000 $182,000 $187,998 +3.3%+34.9% Marine on St. Croix $242,000 $274,450 $320,000 $322,450 $320,000 -0.8%+32.2% Mayer $169,900 $164,405 $189,900 $190,000 $212,000 +11.6%+24.8% Medicine Lake $315,000 $650,000 $542,000 $465,000 $836,250 +79.8%+165.5% Medina $485,000 $457,985 $521,623 $527,500 $555,047 +5.2%+ 14.4% Mendota i $80,000 $154,500 $287,000 $78,000 $0 100.0%-100.0% Mendota Heights $286,500 $272,000 $282,500 $330,000 $339,797 +3.0%+18.6% Miesville $0 $140,000 $231,671 $205,000 $0 -100.0%-- Minneapolis - (Citywide)$140,000 $165,000 $189,000 $205,000 $220,000 +7.3%+57.1% Minneapolis - Calhoun-Isle I $267,021 $300,000 $327,780 $318,500 $360,000 +13.0%+34.8% Minneapolis - Camden $45,052 $59,700 $77,000 $101,250 $122,000 +20.5% +170.8% Minneapolis - Central $214,250 $220,000 $247,250 $321,000 $260,000 -19.0%+21.4% Minneapolis - Longfellow $147,500 $169,000 $185,200 $196,250 $207,250 +5.6%+40.5% Minneapolis - Near North $43,000 $60,000 $80,500 $101,000 $125,200 +24.0%+191.2% Minneapolis - Nokomis $162,700 $176,500 $199,900 $222,375 $227,000 +2.1%t-39.5% Minneapolis - Northeast $125,000 $140,000 $168,755 $179,500 $199,825 +11.3%+59.9% Minneapolis - Phillips $72,500 $88,000 $90,225 $115,000 $141,500 +23.0%+95.2% Minneapolis - Powderhorn $110,000 $116,400 $157,250 $168,000 $185,050 +10.1%+68.2% Minneapolis - Southwest $264,450 $277,000 $306,000 $323,500 $340,000 +5.1%+28.6% Minneapolis - University $207,500 $221,000 $232,250 $226,000 $230,000 +1.8%+10.8% Minnetonka $232,500 $255,000 $279,000 $270,000 $300,000 + 11.1%+29.0% Minnetonka Beach $1,130,000 $675,000 $670,000 $1,096,450 $1,487,500 +35.7%+31.6% Minnetrista $349,950 $385,000 $435,000 $436,000 $445,500 +2.2%+27.3% Monticello $124,000 $137,095 $156,045 $172,000 $186,000 +8.1%+50.0% Montrose $115,000 $130,357 $149,000 $164,550 $164,450 -0.1%+43.0% Mora $84,400 $86,500 $98,000 $99,750 $122,000 +22.3%+44.5% Mound $150,000 $169,000 $191,000 $202,000 $215,950 +6.9%+44.0% Mounds View $134,950 $139,500 $163,000 $176,000 $187,673 +6.6%+39.1% New Brighton $157,500 $165,000 $171,000 $197,000 $219,900 +11.6%+39.6% New Germany $110,000 $100,000 $142,450 $165,708 $153,610 -7.3%+39.6% New Hope $126,125 $155,000 $173,000 $185,000 $199,000 +7.6%+57.8% New Prague $146,000 $174,000 $195,000 $189,900 $215,000 +13.2%+47.3% New Richmond I $110,000 $124,900 $137,850 $155,850 $178,000 +14.2%+61.8% New Trier $0 $75,000 $63,700 $0 $137,000 ---- Cuoet os of January in 2016. Al data from NorthstarMLS. Powered by Slios'ririgTimo 10K. 1 19 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro Median [r1c = Meiva MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association ci REALTORS' Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Newport $72,175 $98,500 $140,500 $167,000 $157,261 -5.8%+117.9% North Branch $115,000 $123,650 $150,000 $164,900 $175,778 +6.6%+52.9% North Oaks $480,000 $510,000 $625,000 $632,997 $692,844 +9.5%+44.3% North Saint Paul $120,000 $139,900 $150,500 $168,000 $174,000 +3.6%+45.0% Northfield $145,000 $157,500 $183,000 $183,000 $199,000 +8.7%+37.2% Norwood Young America $122,500 $128,912 $144,000 $158,500 $166,400 +5.0%+35.8% Nowthen $180,000 $209,500 $234,500 $241,000 $305,000 +26.6%+69.4% Oak Grove $175,000 $200,825 $228,920 $243,495 $265,000 +8.8%+51.4% Oak Park Heights $130,000 $134,799 $176,200 $177,000 $202,000 +14.1%+55.4% Oakdale $133,000 $134,950 $164,000 $167,500 $188,400 +12.5%+41.7% Orono 1 $532,500 $377,223 $501,000 $572,000 $542,500 -5.2%+ 1.9% Osseo $115,000 $153,950 $141,950 $175,000 $174,900 -0.1%+52.1% Otsego $159,900 $163,450 $194,525 $214,950 $218,500 +1.7%+36.6% Pine City $82,250 $105,260 $111,275 $120,000 $126,375 +5.3%+53.6% Pine Springs $300,000 $271,500 $320,000 $377,500 $395,000 +4.6%+31.7% Plymouth $245,000 $275,500 $304,450 $305,000 $320,000 +4.9%+30.6% Princeton $111,000 $105,000 $138,900 $149,000 $163,500 +9.7%+47.3% Prior Lake $212,000 $227,500 $270,100 $281,250 $300,000 +6.7% +41.5% Ramsey $137,000 $153,000 $182,000 $199,900 $216,000 +8.1%+57.7% Randolph $168,937 $139,950 $190,000 $262,500 $208,250 -20.7%+23.3% Red Wing $130,000 $130,000 $133,875 $145,000 $147,950 +2.0%+13.8% Richfield $140,250 $155,000 $174,950 $183500 $205,000 +11.7%+46.2% River Falls $143,600 $151,000 $168,500 $179,900 $195,000 +8.4%+35.8% Robbinsdale $104,750 $123,499 $140,000 $158,875 $175,000 +10.1%+67.1% Rockford $130,000 $154,000 $197,400 $184,535 $195,299 +5.8%+50.2% Rogers $210,000 $236,000 $265,000 $278,950 $293,978 +5.4%+40.0% Rosemount $170,388 $181,000 $215,000 $228,500 $239,950 +5.0%+40.8% Roseville 1 $158,500 $187,450 $197,535 $205,000 $215,000 +4.9%+35.6% Rush City $113,000 $92,000 $122,750 $149,000 $129,500 -13.1%+14.6% Saint Anthony $178,200 $154,950 $179,950 $211,700 $248,435 +17.4%+39.4% Saint Bonifacius $145,000 $189,500 $185,500 $179,000 $220,000 +22.9%+51.7% Saint Cloud MSA I $128,000 $135,000 $145,000 $150,000 $155,900 +3.9%+21.8% Saint Francis $122,550 $130,000 $149,900 $159,450 $180,500 +13.2%+47.3% Saint Louis Park $185,000 $198,450 $218,900 $230,000 $239,000 +3.9%+29.2% Saint Mary's Point $1,100,000 $170,500 $258,800 $347,400 $235,000 -32.4%-78.6% Saint Michael $165,000 $183,000 $198,900 $220,000 $231,000 +5.0%+40.0% Saint Paul $100,000 $120,000 $143,450 $157,250 $168,000 +6.8%+68.0% Saint Paul - Battle Creek! Highwood $89,250 $112,000 $135,050 $146,251 $157,900 +8.0%+76.9% Saint Paul - Como Park 1 $134,900 $155,000 $177,500 $187,080 $195,000 +4.2%+ 44.6 0/a Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff $49,500 $59,000 $93,950 $110,463 $130,000 +17.7% +162.6% Saint Paul - Downtown $126,500 $136,000 $160,000 $172,000 $164,900 -4.1%+30.4% Saint Paul - Greater East Side $85,000 $88,900 $115,500 $129,900 $141,600 +9.0%+66.6% Saint Paul - Hemline-Midway $104,500 $126,350 $149,125 $155,950 $168,299 +7.9%+61.1% Saint Paul - Highland Park -$235,000 $229,900 $249,500 $264,000 $270,350 +2.4%-I- 15.0% Currant as of January 11 2016. An data froni NorthatarMLS. Powered by ShowingIlme 106. 1 20 2015 Annual Housing Market Report - Twin Cities Metro idiari Mien Arco1 he Metro MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association .i REALTORS Change Change 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From 2014 From 2011 Saint Paul - Merriam Park / Lexington-Hamline $210,000 $240,000 $228,950 $249,950 $256,000 +2.4%+21.9% Saint Paul - Macalester-l3roveland $228,750 $235,000 $263,500 $277,750 $292,000 +5.1%+27.7% Saint Paul - North End $55,000 $68,550 $89,900 $107,750 $128,500 +19.3%+133.6 1/o Saint Paul - Payne-Phalen $65,000 $80,500 $100,000 $124,900 $133,500 +6.9%+105.4% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park $180,000 $192,500 $259,500 $239,000 $227,900 -4.61/o +26.6% Saint Paul - Summit Hill $325,000 $288,000 $340,000 $344,500 $369,000 +7.11/o +13.5% Saint Paul - Summit-University $130,000 $159,900 $170,000 $194,280 $210,000 +8.1%+ 61.5% Saint Paul - Thomas-Dale (Frogtown)$45,000 $55,000 $80,900 $106,500 $130,000 +22.1%+188.9% Saint Paul -West Seventh $103,626 $121,000 $145,000 $148,250 $169,900 +14.6%+64.0% Saint Paul - West Side $82,000 $90,000 $122,000 $137,000 $150,000 +9.5%+82.9% Saint Paul Park $117,000 $127,750 $145,200 $160,000 $172,200 +7.6%+47.2% Savage $187,000 $208,000 $235,000 $255,000 $254,950 -0.0%+36.3% Scandia $240,000 $247,870 $283,367 $286,250 $298,950 +4.4%+ 24.6 1/o Shakopee $154,900 $166,750 $194,700 $205,000 $209,000 +2.0%+34.9% Shoreview $180,000 $191,000 $222,750 $223,000 $237,000 +6.3%+31.7% Shorewood $349,950 $414,900 $425,000 $382,500 $417,500 +9.2%+ 19.3% Somerset $127,000 $119,900 $144,500 $175,000 $179,550 +2.6%+41.4% South Haven $187,500 $153,500 $179,900 $190,750 $217,000 +13.8%+ 15.7% South Saint Paul $115,000 $112,000 $139,450 $148,000 $165,000 +11.5%+ 43.5% Spring Lake Park $92,250 $118,000 $141,000 $164,900 $169,950 +3.1%+84.21/o Spring Park $199,900 $352,500 $272,500 $446,050 $310,000 -30.5%+55.1% Stacy $139,000 $108,750 $181,750 $201,950 $200,000 -1.0%+ 43.9% Stillwater $208,000 $216,000 $233,000 $265,000 $256,500 -3.2%+23.3% Sunfish Lake $550,320 $685,000 $819,000 $1,110,000 $900,000 -18.9%+63.5% Tonka Bay $550,000 $797,500 $477,500 $570,000 $444,012 -22.1%- 19.3% Vadnais Heights $165,000 $149,900 $167,250 $194,650 $191,000 -1.9%+15.8% Vermillion $153,500 $187,500 $157,500 $220,000 $0 -100.0%-100.0% Victoria $351,250 $344,123 $371,500 $369,990 $403,250 +9.0%+ 14.8% Waconia $187,500 $205,000 $229,000 $237,000 $250,000 +5.5%+33.3% Watertown $118,000 $153,000 $175,000 $170,450 $204,900 +20.2%+73.6% Wayzata $426,000 $427,500 $359,000 $627,500 $528,000 -15.9%+23.9% West Saint Paul $120,000 $125,700 $143,500 $156,200 $171,000 +9.5%+42.5% White Bear Lake $148,500 $161,950 $178,500 $192,900 $198,500 +2.9%+33.7% Willernie $77,000 $141,500 $128,900 $160,000 $145,767 -8.9%+89.3% Woodbury $219,900 $240,000 $267,500 $284,000 $289,000 +1.8%+31.4% Woodland $1,782,500 $700,000 $370,000 $3,275,000 $850,000 -74.0%-52.31/o Wyoming $150,000 $163,750 $190,000 $209,000 $213,250 +2.0%+42.2% Zimmerman $118,000 $130,000 $150,500 $161,900 $185,000 +14.3%+56.8% Zumbrota $120,750 $168,000 $126,250 $161,950 $167,000 +3.1%+38.3% Current as of January11, 2016. AIJ data from NarthstarML5. Paerad by ShnwiugYime 10K. 1 21 ADDRESS: 6230 QUAIL AVE N PID# (22) 33119-21-440012 Sale Date:Direct SalePrice:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $127,0001012014$124,500 $132,413 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: Ground Floor Area: Basement Area: I Story 960 Sq.Ft. 100% Age: 1959 Above Grade Area 960 Sq.Ft, Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Deluxe: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Full: 1 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: Open: 0.00 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #20 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating:0000-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5925 YORK AVE N PID# (22) 03-118-21-11-0097 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $130,0006/2015 $134,000 4.94%$137,909 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 976 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1955 Above Grade Area 976 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 286 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6836 TOLEDO AVE N PID# (22) 33-119-21-12-0003 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $134,0004/2015 $135,000 $140,085 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1030 SqFt. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1959 Above Grade Area 1030 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 30% Fireplaces: 0 Baths- Deluxe:0 Full:1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:0 1/2:0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 128.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 104.00 Garage #1: 462 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5112 HOWE LA PID# (22) 33-119-21-13-0058 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuaI): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $138,0004/2015 $141,523 $146,854 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1087 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1959 Above Grade Area 1087 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 Yes 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 80.00 Screened: Deck: 0.00 210.00 Garage #1: 252 Garage #2 0 Type: Type: Attached Lot Size: 9,796 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: - ___ ADDRESS: 4912 ABBOTT AVE N PID# (22) 10.11821140040 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $139,0007/2015 $142,700 4.94%$146,261 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 824 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1951 Above Grade Area 824 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 77.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 352 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:14,927 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.34 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5933 RRYANT AVE N PID# (22) O111821-2I-01O7 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $143,0001212014$135,800 4.94%$143,250 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1152 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 80% Age: 1953 Above Grade Area 1152 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4: 1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 220.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 516 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-0000 0.01 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5012 ABBOTT AVE N PID# (22) 10-118-21440084 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $146,0005/2015 $149,186 4.94%$154,171 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1020 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1955 Above Grade Area 1020 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 192.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 11,218 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.26 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: L ADDRESS: 6501 BEARD AVE N PID# (22) 341121-130067 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $152,00012/2014 $150,250 4.94%$158,493 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 968 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1958 Above Grade Area 968 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 546 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-0000 023 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 7025 EWING AVE N PID# (22) 27-119-21-43-0041 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuafl:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $154,0002/2015 $155,200 4.94%$162,374 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1154 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1957 Above Grade Area 1154 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: Open: 266.00 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 280 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 9,523 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating:000000 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6806 ORCHARD AVE N PID# (22) 33-119-21-11-0014__ Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuah:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $155,0007/2015 $159,565 4.94%$163,547 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1248 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1248 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 70% Fireplaces: I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2:1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 352 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 9,775 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5607 JUDY LA PID# (22) 02-118-21-42-0077 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $162,00010/2014 $159,953 $170,120 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1128 SqFt. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1955 Above Grade Area 1128 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: I Baths Deluxe: 2 Full: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 72.00 Screened: 280.00 Deck: 320.00 Garage #1: 280 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 8,400 SqFt Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.19 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6818 ORCHARD AVE N PID# (22) 33-1l92l=ilOOl2 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuafl:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $163,0007/2015 $166,250 4.94%$170,399 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: '1 Story Ground Floor Area: 1248 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1248 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 70% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4: 0 1/2: 1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 224.00 Garage #1: 352 Garage #20 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:9,661 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: • - .-. - - ADDRESS: 7007 KNOX AVE N PID# (22) 26-119-21-44002 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $163,0005/2015 $164,888 $170,397 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1200 SqFt. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1965 Above Grade Area 1200 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: 2 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 10,235 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5928 ADMIRAL LA PID# (22) 03-118-21120051 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAPnnual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $170,0006/2015 $171,900 $176,915 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1000 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1000 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: o Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 252.00 Garage #1: 374 Garage #2 o Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 10,477 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.24 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6812 ABBOTT AVE N PID# (22) 34ll92l.l1.O119 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuafl: 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $171,0005/2015 $174,005 $179,819 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1216 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1960 Above Grade Area 1216 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: 0 Full: 2 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 192.00 Garage #1: 264 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:9,375 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00.00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 3800 56TH AVE N PIfl# (22) 03-1182131-0053 Sale Date:r Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $176,0008/2015 $174,600 4.94%$178,224 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1232 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 110% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1232 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 176.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 81.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:13,764 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 000000 0.32 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6936 HALIFAX AVE N PID# (22) 27-1192134-0040 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $178,00010/2014 $174,930 4.94%$186,049 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1363 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 80% Age: 1964 Above Grade Area 1363 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 225.00 Garage #1: 396 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 2613 65TH AVE N PID# (22) 35-11921-320021 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $178,0007/2015 $174,000 4.94%$178,342 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1067 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1959 Above Grade Area 1067 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 84.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 252 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 9,525 SqFt Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 2313 BROOKVIEW DR PID# (22) 02-1182131'0028 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $194,0008/2015 $190,000 4.94%$193,943 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1424 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1424 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: I Full: 0 3/4: 1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 868 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 12,094 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.28 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: !34 PLIT-LEVELS - ADDRESS: 6823 BRYANT AVE N PID# (22) 36-119-21210032 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAPnnuafl: 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $147,0002/2015 $150,000 $156,934 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 1002 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1973 Above Grade Area 1002 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: I Full: 0 314: 1 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 288.00 Garage #1: 480 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:10,076 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6437 JUNE AVE N PID# (22) 34-119.21-32-0093 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuaI):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $148,0002/2015 $148,441 4.94%$155,303 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Level Ground Floor Area: 1056 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 50% Age: 1957 Above Grade Area 1056 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: No 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #20 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 10,050 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: L - ADDRESS: 6731 BRYANT AVE N PID# (22) 36-1192121-0070 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $168,0003/2015 $171,000 4.94%$178,171 I Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 976 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1976 Above Grade Area 976 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: I Full: 1 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 288.00 Garage #1: 484 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 10,236 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 0000-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5707 HALIFAX AVE N PID# (22) 03-118..21-240006 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $173,0001012014$182,600 4.94%$194,206 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 1092 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1968 Above Grade Area 1092 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: I Full: 1 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 225.00 Garage #1: 968 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 9,744 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ______ ________ • LJ __ aF73 EA al 0 ADDRESS: 6437 ORCHARD AVE N PID# (22) 33-119-21-41-0032 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $173,0007/2015 $174,600 4.94%$178,957 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Level Ground Floor Area: 1584 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1958 Above Grade Area 1584 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 288 Garage #20 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size:10,125 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: - ADDRESS: 6601 BRYANT AVE N PID# (22) 36-119-21-24-0009 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $199,0009/2015 $203,700 4.94%$207,075 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Level Ground Floor Area: 970 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1995 Above Grade Area 970 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 152.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 400.00 Garage #1: 640 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 17,540 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-0000 0.40 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5025 EWING AVE N PID# (22) 10-118-21-13-0039 Sale Date:I Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $103,0001012014$100,000 4.94%$106,356 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 11/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 768 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1955 Above Grade Area 1088 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: No 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #20 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 9,975 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5509 KNOX AVE N PID# (22) 02-118-21-41-0090 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $114,000512015$114,998 $118,840 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 11/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 796 SqFt. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1948 Above Grade Area 1156 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 30% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 140.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 364 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 10,012 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6706 GRIMES AVE N PID# (22) 34-11921-210016 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual'):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $149,000912015$154,900 4.94%$157,466 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 1 1/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 936 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1948 Above Grade Area 1400 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 210.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 528 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:10,050 Sq. Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6231 KYLE AVE N PID# (22) 34-119-21-33-002 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annuall:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $151,0007/2015 $150,350 4.94%$154,102 I Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 1 1/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 768 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1956 Above Grade Area 1152 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 60% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 1 Porches - Glazed: Open: 0.00 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 280.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 9,728 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating:00-00-00 0.22 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5405 GIRARD AVE N PID# (22) 01-118-21-33-0062 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $152,00011/2014 $154,900 4.94%$164,070 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 11/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 800 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1947 Above Grade Area 1120 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 308.00 Garage #1: 280 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 10,118 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 3800 52ND AVE N PID# (22) 10-118-21-210014 Sale Date:Direct SalePrice:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $153,0007/2015 $154,168 4.94%$158,015 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 1 114 Story Ground Floor Area: 1092 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1947 Above Grade Area 1392 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 200.00 Garage #1: 352 Garage #2 0 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 11,697 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.27 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5535 COLFAX AVE N PID# (22) O1-118-2131-OO71 Sale Date;Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnuaI):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $173,000912015$177,510 4.94%$180,451 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 1 1/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 876 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1950 Above Grade Area 1436 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: I Full: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches-Glazed: 112.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 280 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:10,156 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.23 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5043 DREW AVE N PID# (22) 10-118-21-13-0045 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $176,0005/2015 $178,250 $184,206 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 11/2 Story Ground Floor Area: 1032 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1955 Above Grade Area 1480 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 60% Fireplaces: 3 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 308.00 Garage #1: 576 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 10,791 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.25 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5421 FREMONT AVE N PID# (22) 01-118-21-330165 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $207,0007/2015 $223,100 $228,668 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 822 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 2005 Above Grade Area 1644 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Deluxe: I Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 228.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 250.00 Garage #1: 484 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size:0 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.00 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: AN a I ADDRESS: 5348 70TH CIR PID# (22) 28-119-21-43-0103 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $70,5008/2015 $70,000 $75,064 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 588 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1979 Above Grade Area 1154 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths- Deluxe:O Full:1 3/4:0 1/2:0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 322 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 4,329 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.10 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 877 70TH AVE N PID# (22) 25-119-21-34-0014 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $82,5006/2015 $85,000 4.94%$91,901 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 785 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 785 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 40% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 84.00 Garage #1: 460 Garage #2 0 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 1,406 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.03 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5318 70TH CIR PID# (22) 28-11921.43-0098 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $86,5005/2015 $85,490 $92,811 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 588 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1979 Above Grade Area 1154 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Central Air Conditioning: No Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4: 0 112: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 322 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:4,066 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.09 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6669 XERXES PL N PID# (22) 35-119-21-23-0054 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $89,5009/2015 $92,150 4.94%$98,411 Previous Sale:Sale Date: 412015 Sale Price: 55,650 Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 600 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 1080 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 264 Garage #2 o Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:1,219 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.03 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: IM ADDRESS: 1409 63RD LA N PID# (22) 36-119-2133-0087 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $89,5006/2015 $95,000 4.94%$102,712 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 561 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 80% Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 1089 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: 0 Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 275 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 1,214 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-0000 0.03 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: •:T\2Lc -------- _______ ADDRESS: 5827 LAKE CURVE LA PID# (22) 03-118-21-23-0055 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $96,5007/2015 $104,500 4.94%$112,520 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1040 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1996 Above Grade Area 1040 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes Baths- Deluxe:0 Full:2 3/4:0 1/2:0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 400 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 2,088 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.05 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: E" I rk ADDRESS: 6844 FREMONT PL N PID# (22) 36-119-21220068 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $96,5005/2015 $102,900 4.94%$111,712 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 960 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1982 Above Grade Area 960 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: I Baths Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 80.00 Garage #1: 480 Garage #2 0 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 2,016 Sq Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-0000 0.05 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: MWW ADDRESS: 1231 63RD LA N PIN (22) 36119-2133-0070 Sale Date:TDi rect Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $97,500412015$99,898 $108,899 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 561 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 80°h Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 1089 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 2 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 275 Garage #2 0 Type: Detached Type: Lot Size: 1,214 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.03 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6839 YORK PL PID# (22) 34-119-21-11-0013 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $98,500412015$99,425 4.94%$108,384 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1065 Sq.Ft, Basement Area: 100% Age: 1972 Above Grade Area 1065 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 90% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 112: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 500 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:2,002 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.05 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 5421 71ST CIR PID# (22) 28-119-21-43-0154 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $100,5007/2015 $106,836 4.94%$115,036 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 924 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 110% Age: 1979 Above Grade Area 924 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: I Central Air Conditioning: Yes Full: 0 3/4: 0 1/2: 1 Porches - Glazed: Open: 0.00 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 80.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 2,912 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating:00-00-00 0.07 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6824 FREMONT PL N PID# (22) 36-11921-220073 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $101,5004/2015 $94,900 4.94%$103,451 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 960 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 960 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 192.00 Garage #1: 480 Garage #20 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size:1,740 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.04 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 1321 68TH LA N PID# (22) 36-119-21-22-0066 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(nnual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $104,5007/2015 $104,900 4.94%$112,951 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 704 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1983 Above Grade Area 1344Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: i Baths - Deluxe: I Full: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 1,862 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.04 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 7120 UNITY AVE N PID# (22) 28-119-21-42-0019 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $108,5004/2015 $110,095 $120,015 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 1 Story Split Entry Ground Floor Area: 1082 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 100% Age: 1979 Above Grade Area 1082 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 50% Fireplaces: I Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2:1 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 192.00 Garage #1: 480 Garage #2 o Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 4,704 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.11 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: a ADDRESS: 4910 WINGARD PL PID# (22) 28-119-21-410185 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annuaD:MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $120,5008/2015 $124,402 4.94%$133,401 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: 2 Story Ground Floor Area: 672 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 90% Age: 1977 Above Grade Area 1314 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 80% Fireplaces: Baths - I Deluxe: I Full: 0 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 1 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 132.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #20 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size:2,160 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.05 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: -: •i AT'I _ I NP-6-04-i ADDRESS: 4801 WINGARD PL PID# (22) 28-119-21-41-0019 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAPnnual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:I 2016 EMV: $124,500312015$131,500 $143,939 Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Split Level Ground Floor Area: 1150 Sq. Ft. Basement Area: 110% Age: 1972 Above Grade Area 1150 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 60% Fireplaces: Baths - 2 Deluxe: I Full: 1 Central Air Conditioning: Yes 3/4: 0 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 100.00 Garage #1: 506 Garage #2 o Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size:2,511 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.06 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 6519 RIVERWOOD LA PID# (22) 36-119-21-13-0124 Sale Date: Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $154,5008/2015 $167,000 $179,080 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1557 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: Above Grade Area 1557 Sq. Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0°Io Fireplaces: I Central Air Conditioning: No Baths Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 0.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 440 Garage #2 0 Type: Attached Type: Lot Size: 0 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.00 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: [tSitiIITi.! Li ADDRESS: 4207 LAKESIDE AVE N #223 Sale Date:Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual): 4.94% 201 7/2015 PI D# (22) 10-118-21-32-01E EMV:MCAP Sale Price: $7$74,223 $76,075 Previous Sale: Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1030 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1971 Above Grade Area 1030 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: 0 Central Air Conditioning: No Baths - Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches - Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 72.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 200 Garage #2 0 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size: 0 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.00 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: ADDRESS: 4207 LAKESIDE AVE N #125 PID# (22) 10-118-2132-0096 Sale Date: Direct Sale Price:MCAP(annual):MCAP Sale Price:2016 EMV: $75,5005/2015 $75,000 494%$77,506 I Previous Sale:Sale Date:Sale Price: Style and Story Height: I Story Ground Floor Area: 1080 Sq.Ft. Basement Area: 0% Age: 1971 Above Grade Area 1080 Sq.Ft. Finished Bsmt Area: 0% Fireplaces: Baths - 0 Central Air Conditioning: No Deluxe: 0 Full: 1 3/4:1 1/2: 0 Porches -Glazed: 0.00 Open: 0.00 Screened: 72.00 Deck: 0.00 Garage #1: 200 Garage #20 Type: Tuck Under Type: Lot Size:0 Sq.Ft Lake/Bay/Rating: 00-00-00 0.00 Acres Effective Frontage: 0 Comments: Each year, one  fifth of the properties in the city are reviews and the records are updated. The viewing,  review, and statistical analysis of all sales that sold from October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015 in the City of Brooklyn Center were made. Adjustments  to all commercial and industrial properties are based on market and income valuation procedures. Each year the estimated market values are analyzed along with sales data from the market. A recalculation of land and building values were made to all property types. The results of the adjustments for the following property types are:  Residential + 4.5%  Commercial/Industrial + 2.1%  Apartments + 13.8%  Townhouses + 8.9%  Duplex + 1.3%  Condos + 7.1%  There are 8,605 taxable parcels in the city with a total market value of approximately $1,865,330,100. This value includes $18,310,500 in new construction improvements. The overall gross value increase for all property types including improvements in the City of Brooklyn Center is +6.1%.