The URL can be used to link to this page

110315 Planning1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, November 3, 2015 7:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 PC 15-20, Industrial Equities Increment Financing District, City of New Hope, petitioner. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Design and Review Committee - next tentative meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 2015, 7:30 a.m. 5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 18,2015,5:30 p.m. b. NEW BUSINESS 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Approve September 1, 2015, Planning Commission Minutes 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: November 3, 2015 Report Date: October 27, 2015 Planning Case: PC 15-20 Petitioner: City of New Hope Address: 4300 Xylon Avenue North Project Name: Industrial Equities Increment Financing District Project Description: Establishment of the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District Planning Request: Review plans for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District I. Background At the October 12, 2015 City Council meeting, staff and representatives from the city's redevelopment consultants, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., identified the need to conduct a public hearing for the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for the Industrial Equities property located at 9449 Science Center Drive. The City Council called for a public hearing to consider this request for the November 23, 2015 City Council meeting. This action and the establishment of a TIF plan and district will, if approved, help the developer reimburse costs associated with the demolition and asbestos remediation in preparation for the construction of a new 48,000 square foot industrial building. The developer is seeking approximately $250,000 for the demolition and asbestos abatement. II. Proposal Minnesota State Statutes require that the Planning Commission review and make written comments on the TIF plans prior to the City Council establishing the TIF district. Attached, please find the draft resolution and the TIF plans for the creation of the Industrial Equities TIF District. III. Notification Legal notice for the public hearing was published in the SunPost newspaper. IV. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing Plan and approve the Resolution finding that the Industrial Equities TIF plan conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Attachments: • Resolution • Ehlers Memo • Kmart TIF Plan Planning Case Report 15-20 Page 1 11/3/15 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE INDUSTRIAL EQUITIES TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of New Hope (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: November 3, 2015 Steve Svendsen, Chair ATTEST: Emily Becker, Recording Secretary Memo To: Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director From: Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers Date: October 7, 2015 Subject: Analysis of Request for Assistance — Industrial Equities: 9449 Science Center Drive (former Broadband Site) The City received a proposal from Industrial Equities to redevelop the property at 9449 Science Center Drive. The project includes demolition of the existing structure, environmental remediation, soil corrections, and construction of a new, 48,000 square foot office/warehouse building. The project is expected to commence this fall and be completed in 2016. Because of the increased costs associated with redevelopment of the property, the developer is requesting $250,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance from the City. This memo is intended to review the need for TIF assistance based on our analysis of the developer's project budget and projections, generally known as a pro forma. Ehlers conducted a thorough review of the developer's budget and operating pro forma to ensure all development costs, anticipated revenues, and expenditures are represented appropriately. The table below depicts the proposed sources and uses for the project. SOURCES Developer Financing - 1st Mortgage 3,070,900 70.00% Developer Equity 1,316,100 30.00% TOTAL SOURCES 4,387,000 100.00% USES Acquisition Costs 683,000 15.57% 4.46 Construction Costs 3,164,000 72.12% 65.92 Professional Services 213,000 4.86% 4.44 Financing Costs 117,000 2.67% 2.44 Developer Fee 150,000 3.42% 3.13 TOTAL USES 4,387 000 91.40 Generally, this project meets the expectations of an officelwarehouse project with regards to the financing structure, projected revenues, on-going operational costs and developer fee. Following are our findings relating to the analysis completed for the development: EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE C, www, ehlers-inc, cam Minnesota phone 651-697-8500 3060 Centre Pointe Drive OfFioes also in Wisconsin and Illinois fax 651-697-8555 Roseville, MN 55113-1122 tall free 800-552-1171 Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Analysis of Request For Assistance — Industrial Equities October 7, 2015 Page 2 • The developer is proposing permanent financing for 70% of the project cots and will bring 30% in equity, or approximately $1.3 million. This financing structure is in line with typical industrial projects. • The total development costs for this project are approximately $4.39 million, or $91 per square foot. Based on our experience with similar projects, this is within the expected range. • The developer fee of $150,000 is 3.42 percent of total development costs. Fora project of this nature, we would expect to see a developer fee between 3% and 5%, so the fee is commensurate with typical industry standards. • Proposed rents are $9.75 per square foot for office space and $4.75 per square foot for warehouse space. These rents are consistent with the surrounding market area. • The projected cash -on -cost return on investment in year three (3) is 5.5% without assistance and 6.28% with assistance. Industrial developers are typically seeking a cash -on -cost return of between 7% and 9%. Even with the requested assistance, this project still falls slightly below the typical industry threshold for desired return on investment. In addition to review of the project's pro forma, we also reviewed the proposed extraordinary costs associated with redevelopment of the property. This review is a way to further establish the need for assistance and ensure the developer will incur sufficient qualified costs eligible for TIF reimbursement. The total anticipated cost for demolition of the building, environmental remediation and site grading totals $252,923. These costs were confirmed based on a quote provided from a reputable contractor to ready the site for development. Recommendations Based on our review of the developer's pro forma and current market conditions, the proposed development may not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably near future. Due to the costs associated with redeveloping the property, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from City contributions. Furthermore, the requested amount of $250,000 is warranted by the actual anticipated qualified redevelopment costs that will be incurred and the fact that the anticipated return on investment is still below typical industry standards. The developer has indicated that they are accepting of this proposal and are willing to move forward based upon the TIF assistance. Please contact me at 651-697-8512 with any questions. As of October 27, 2015 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District (a renewal and renovation district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 New Hope Economic Development Authority City of New Hope Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: November 23, 2015 Adopted: EHLERS Prepared by: EHLERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. 4a 346D Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com I Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 s .. t ............... Foreword ........................................................... 1-1 Section 2 -Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District .......... . . . .......... 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword ............................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority .................... . .. . ................ 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ......... . . ... . . . . ............. , .. , 2-1 Subsection 24. Redevelopment Plan Overview ... _ . , , .... , . ............... 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ...............................2-2 Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ........... 2-3 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements , .... ..... 2-3 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued . ..... . . .............. 24 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ......... ............ 2-5 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election . ... . ....... . . . .. , . ...... .. 2-5 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies ..... . ...... . ... . . . . . . .. . . .... . .. . . 2-6 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....... . .......................... . . 2-7 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ... . .. . . ...... 2-7 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation .......... _ . . ... . . . . . . . . . ..... 2-9 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ... . . . . . .. . . . . . .... 2-9 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District .. , .... , , , 3 , 2-9 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .... , ............... . . .. . . . ....... 2-10 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment .. ........................ . .... . . 2-11 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .. . .... . ............ . .... . . . ... . .... 2-12 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ........ , ....... . . ........ . .. . . . . . . 2-12 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer . . . . . . .. . . ... 2-13 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................ . ............ . . 2-13 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ....... . ........... . . . . .... . ... 2-13 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements - ................. . ...... . . 2-13 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ...... , , . , , , , , , , , , , ,,, , , , , 2-13 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment , , , , .. , . 2-14 Subsection 2-28. Summary . ..... _ .. 2-14 Appendix A Project Description ........ ......................... A-1 Appendix B Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District , , , , , , , ,,, , , ,, B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ......... . . . . , ... C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ......... , .. . ....... . ... . ... D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form .. _ ..... . .. . . .... . ...... . . . . ........... E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District ... .. ......................... F-1 Appendix G Findings Including ButlFor Qualifications , .. ._....................... . .... .. , _ G-1 Section 9 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the City Manager at the City of New Hope. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Redevelopment Project No. 1. New Hope Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 9 t_t Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2-1. Foreword The New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City ofNew Hope (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, located in Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("MS.'), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate Redevelopment of a substandard property and construction of a new 48,000 square foot office warehouse project in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA will enter into an agreement with Industrial Equities for the project at the time the TIF Plan is approved. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan. do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired -Selected property located within the District maybe acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to MS., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some oral] necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a renewal and renovation district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10a. as defined below: (a) "Renewal and renovation district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of aproject, within which the Cityfinds by resolution that: (1) (1) parcels consistings of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures, (ii) 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard; and (iii) 30 percent of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions such as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards tot he health, safety, and general well-being of the community, and (2) the conditions described in clause (1) are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the district. (b) Forpurposes ofdetermining whether a building is structurally substandard, whetherparcels are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similarstructures, or whether noncontiguous areas qualify, the provisions of subdivision 10, paragraphs (b) through (fl apply. In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District is a renewal and renovation district consisting of one parcel. • An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. • An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 30 percent of the buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions such as defined in the TIF Act (See Appendix F). The existing building on the parcel is scheduled for demolition. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. Ib., the duration of the District will be 15 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The EDA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2018, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2033, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2015 for taxes payable 2016. Pursuant to MS, Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2017) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTO, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2016, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2016. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2018. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $73,614 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $7,250 Fiscal Disparities Contribution $22,579 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $43,785 Original Local Tax Rate 1.45643 Pay 2015 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $63,770 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 15. The tax capacity of the District in year one is estimated to be $47,250. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a bond issue/pay-as-you-go note/interfund loan/transfer. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $800,823 Interest $80,082 TOTAL $880,905 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $644,362. Such bonds maybe in the form of pay-as-you- go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interf nid loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate redevelopment of a substandard property and construction of a new 48,000 square foot office warehouse project in the City. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $250,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $250,000 Utilities $50,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $14,280 Administrative Costs fup to 10%) $80,082 PROJECT COST TOTAL $644,362 Interest 1126 543 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $880,905 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Redevelopment Project No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial -industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to orgreater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of -tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or Iocal government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (2 i) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1513 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116).993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 IMPACT ON TAX BASE The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2015 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIP Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Suhd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $800,823; (2) Probable impact of the District on ci jy provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or staffing. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 2014/Pay 2015 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,354,654,515 43,785 0.0032% City of New Hope 14,377,138 43,785 0.3045% Robbinsdale ISD No. 281 75,261,253 43,785 0.0582% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2015 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County 0.463980 31.86% 43,785 20,315 City of New Hope 0.559780 38.44% 43,785 24,510 Robbinsdale ISD No. 281 0.332260 22.81% 43,785 14,548 Other 0.100410 6.89% 43.785 4,396 Total 1.456430 100.00% 63,770 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2015 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2015 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2016 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIP Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Suhd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $800,823; (2) Probable impact of the District on ci jy provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or staffing. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $182,668; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $255,142; (5) Additional information reguested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. I (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: • A list of applicable studies will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed underM.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments-, 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate ofthe cost ofthe District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a renewal and renovation district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-1$. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax incrementfinancingdistrictpursuanttoM..S., Section 469.177, nodemolition, rehabilitation or renovation ofproperty or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax incrementf nancing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or othersite preparation on thatparcel including qualified improvement ofa street adjacent to thatparcel, in accordance with the tax incrementfinancingplan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity ofthetax incrementfanancingdistrict, The county auditor must enforce theprovisions ofthis subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth yearfollowing the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately November 2019 and report such actions to the County Auditor. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. i pursuant to MS., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 4620 M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS,, Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIIa Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. New Hope Eoonomic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2_12 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the City Manager. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to MB:, Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20 percent of said tax increments maybe expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 4. Renewal and Renovation District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a renewal and renovation district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. Summary The New Hope is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. New Hope Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Industrial Equities Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 Appendix A The project includes demolition of an existing two level structure, removal of hazardous materials, clearing and grading the site for redevelopment. The reuse of the property will included construction of a new 48,000 square foot office warehouse project. Appendix A_1 Appendix B Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District Appendix B_1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel listed below. I Parcel Numbers I Address I Owner 1 07-118-21-22-0013 I 9449 Science Center Dr. I Industrial Equities - New Hope Appendix C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D-1 toi 0 d m LLI = '� _ Jx w d z LLl , g6.° 4 S C t1 I ag F X aftggpI(�� g, ZR 20* *Xpg Lq O O N n N O N ck N O C r N N cc is m v9 in ¢i r 0000RRN N N N N LLaaLLLLa q OO ��(QyN �mCpp� OpW LL T N w E y N N m C r d C Y r h C • 'b L m I Q m C E z w E o � � • .__ = m O 3 e � LL V e A d y ffi $— s° c E m z m x °� m 2 E._ m� S.r wmc� Y� Mir 4a p._ O°—axmEw F $iiES �m U� mii ai `om omu E aa aao m BMW )2 7# F« c m m S m m c ep y w ° c e c r S F p A r'wO'W� -9 •id��iE °¢ �a�a�� m �ZPsEAlaf� E -52 � N �( �lElppEmU mU N ,• D C1 K C w m N p� VI tO W -51. m O �LL11! C Cd�4LL—lL m li �C) fq �2 m aj -121 O a 4h om z u°S A / 4 4 3 �§■ &-E LE W■= cr J| w �2 zit! § U) CL u� c ! a k � 2 \- � _ $ CL V ! / Igo no \ ; � � } �. 4] (O a. §BE��/ - /02 §) \/u$�k .....■ m N 4 �YaDm O 000 [� MM V �mmmmhhm mm01 pQ N N m M �F»±V N0 �N�N JV NNN� V NQ!R! N N£f N i-1 P_7»1 a2 ISI 12 r 0 0 0 4 Q g 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O o Q O o G p O 0 0 0 0 d d d o 0 o O p O O IL o 0 0 0 0 0 O C 0 0 0 0 c o 0 CID CIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 4 0 0 '002, m m O O d d i�t N m M a A O K 1 m m h h a o m m 0) Q Q N N CO M iV go oo NNNNNNNN iV NN NNNNmmM M m m m M H Or ro o p p p 0 0 0 0 0 o d O o p O p O 0 0 Q d p d d 0 O o O p Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rtnNtnmu]vuf�10 Wj 0tnh+ommow7o!.R wN�mm ZI N to m m LC air r� r Lul> r r r r r FL W N hN01h CF mm mnw m �m Or+Omll'lmhln 00 M m m i� N t�h hmNOQ NMm W �m M 0110 mIDN QCOhm 7 N d 3 w 07 mC! RR ap Nm malt NMhn oC rp Q act m lnm W h N cl CO w r C y to hNm 01LO0m m Nf< N n M fiZ� M W M h Nh NtO r m Cl Iri to h rpl�mn ON V IAhmd MA ON N O N MIdmm C. N 't m m m N N N N N m m €:ate `�a m� Q N NOIQ hhtnmSF� to to - - In In m m N NN N Q tb mmt- I �, m Qhh� a6mhhma0 mmM MM MSI M O Oh h m m w rny� K NN a0�� hh��rrmo�iO iD��NNOdGtw f� h m m M Lo r Fd ' _'� t`Q mtlD of Oi Did C�r� NNmM t�'f1m to t[i m m h I' a0 m p r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N i v i V N N N N N NN N N N m Z u tf1 tf1 m R1 m N1 Ip I!l w w tliui v a vl vi m m 'Q � M a7 V 7 a0 i0 IY! IC1 a v aptil In NNOD o,hn m )MM 00 W iA mnhn h h h '' W W QJ CilOOrrr rNNMMY�Y7 �immmmhnmmOt Q O O Z.N.. !�Lt� v, CN...N" d v v a�.N...N. LS e!.". tQ� e� eN a v _ `oe m m o 00 oe a0' o X y m co cl) m cry I 's m m M M a m M a "1 M M p F m CR m In In In N In to K) ui m In IL) t0 In 0 In In r a � � :� Ir I a � a a ^ r "3 lh m N Q ap al of N T T, M O In In dlb h m �CCCCCCCmmma�`omVlwmw��ddoop Q N 67 wto v 'ole40 h Cl W C. Q v .4* Oo a. M N O M m Q W+� s W A s _ 3 m 3 m mmarn mMnhv MMhhavhhi0m m m m m tt]ti , mm Q NNm0 V) m m m m as NN mmNN��NN�i amoaoaD m m m mai ari�mm mMmoommmmev o0 m to M C F p W E m Oi ni OiCO NNNNI+i RiQeF Iil tij f0 (6hhl+Ih aO W of ai o p ��r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M cC N Z N N W + .Q LM3 nom= Lo mm m M It Ir a CL q ~ Itl I M � •• ¢ _ ,C N CO m u] cmD i- m CO N h 01 G1 ip. O 'w N m r 11 N N o L _ m E ahD 11 w IT m 0 N til A c0 6 N R tai Ih Oi m M C b qr v Q In l0 to In 0 m � m 0 C _ `oe m m o 00 oe a0' o X y m co cl) m cry I 's m m M M a m M a "1 M M p F m CR m In In In N In to K) ui m In IL) t0 In 0 In In r a � � :� Ir I a � a a ^ r "3 lh m N Q ap Q M O In In O It h m h O N 67 wto m V m h Cl O h w m M M N N M m Q m h m r M m to M h XV A 10 N N N N tQ11 M [N9 LM3 Lo mm m M It Ir a CL q ~ Itl 0 d ~ o1 m O O n N 4 h N In O aC of O m r fp wm .p V O u7 S n d C m m Q m rn m If! r m h iG M n m fh m a0 W h m O r m Ory N 4L 0 Ll O C N {? N U N O N d O O O Q O O O O O O p ip N N N N N N N N N N N N C C O m m o m W F m d h O N C05 m M In m i0 m h m rD m m m Q rp h m Q M a m m m M m h tll M Io Ili m m In m m m to m m m h h -60 a .It a ee 3e e 9 e Z9 'R a oe 0 9 e o O O O o o Q p O O d o o p O O O ZiR C o 0 o Q p o 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 o a o Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at httv://www.deed.state.nm.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix E-1 Appendix F Redevelopment Qualifications for the District To be added to prior to the public hearing Appendix F-9 Appendix G Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added to prior to the public hearing But -For Analysis Current Market Value 400,000 New Market Value - Estimate 2,400,000 Difference 2,000,000 Present Value of Tax Increment 539,942 Difference 1,460,058 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 1,460,058 Appendix G-1 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 1, 2015 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Christopher McKenzie, Greg Gehring, Wade English, Roger Landy, Bill Smith, Scott Clark, Jim Brinkman, Steve Svendsen Absent: Tom Schmidt Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist; Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney; Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant; Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant; Emily Becker, Recording Secretary PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 15-17 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.1, request for approved Conditional Use Item 4.1 Permit amendment to allow a rental truck/trailer staging area outside of the approved outdoor storage area, 9300 — 52nd Avenue North, Sheldon Badzin of Mayflower New Hope Properties, LLC, petitioner. Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, stated that Mayflower New Hope Properties would like to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit, approved in January of 2015 to allow conversion of the outdoor building to a self storage facility, to allow the storage of rental trucks and trailers outside of their approved outdoor storage area. The request will require a deferment of required parking in conjunction with an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. Chirpich explained that the City Building Official cited the property for storing rental trucks and trailers outside of the designated outdoor storage area. Staff met with property owners to discuss the issue and offer possible solutions. The applicants indicated that trucks and trailers are being parked outside of the storage area for the following reasons: some vehicles may be dropped off during non -business hours; the parking areas are being used as queuing areas for truck and trailer pickup. Chirpich presented a plan description. The parking requirements for a self storage facility were outlined, and it was indicated that the conversion of the current parking area to rental storage will create a shortage of 15 on- site parking spaces. The amendment to the conditional use permit would allow for a deferment in required parking. In order to obtain a parking deferment, the applicant must document the functional parking demand of the site and reserve enough space on the site that would meet the required parking. A covenant recorded against the property would prohibit construction in the parking area and require it be used for parking if it is deemed that more parking is needed. A wood privacy fence would screen the trucks and trailers from public rights of way. A one-way traffic flow system will control vehicle circulation. Signage would indicate that the area is restricted to rental parking. The parking lot will include directional flow arrows and will be striped to accommodate their new parking arrangement. A timeline will be set forth to limit the number of days the applicant has to complete the striping. It was explicated how zoning criteria is being met, as the proposed use: is improved in appearance by screening outdoor storage areas; is allowed in the industrial district; will not decrease property value; complies with all other zoning district criteria; will not generate nuisance characteristics; will provide an economic return; is primarily storage, limiting parking demand and customer and vehicle traffic; would provide over one half of the required parking spaces. Chirpich said that the Design and Review Committee met on August 13, 2015 with the applicant and was generally supportive of the request for a deferment of parking. Property owners within 350 feet of the parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the SunPost. Staff has not received any questions or concerns regarding the proposal. It was stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment for a deferment of required parking with outlined conditions. Commissioner Smith asked if there were plans to widen the gates from eight to twelve feet in order to accommodate snow storage. Chirpich was confident that the applicant's snow storage plan would suffice. Commissioner Brinkman inquired the height of the fence and if there would be sufficient parking on site. Chirpich answered the fence height is six feet and parking has been addressed on the site plan. Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, added that the allowance for parking is not restricted to the U -Haul brand, but is for any rental truck company. Chair Svendsen motioned the applicant to come forward. Marinda Can, Corporate Administrator of Mayflower Properties New Hope LLC, of 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 100 in Edina, MNI, approached the podium. She first addressed snow storage and informed that this was the company's tenth storage area; she was confident there wouldn't be an issue. Chair Svendsen asked if 45 days would be enough time to complete the parking lot striping and inquired about parking along the intermediate wall going east and west. Ms. Carr felt the striping could possibly be completed within 30 days and also added that there would be "No Parking" signs along the existing cedar fence. Chair Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Being that no one spoke, he asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 1, 2015 close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 15-17, request for approved Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a rental truck/trailer staging area outside of the approved outdoor storage area, 9300 — 52nd Avenue North, Sheldon Badzin of Mayflower New Hope Properties, LLC, petitioner, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement agreement with the City to ensure completion of all required improvements as illustrated in the site plan dated August 12, 2015. This agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney. 2. The designated staging/ storage area for the trucks and trailers shall be physically delineated on the site with paint and or/ signs. 3. All staged vehicles shall be screened from view of the public rights of way as indicated on the site plan dated August 12, 2015. 4. The parking lot shall be striped and directional arrows shall be provided within 30 days of approval. 5. Rental trucks and trailers that are kept outside of the fenced outdoor storage areas shall be limited to only the approved designated staging/storage area. The number of vehicles shall be limited such that no trucks and/or trailers shall exceed the boundaries of the designated staging/storage area or fenced outdoor storage area. 6. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against the subject property to preserve the proof of parking area from any other type of construction. This covenant will also mandate that the owner revert the truck and trailer staging and storage area back to on-site parking if the City finds that the demand for on-site parking exceeds the available supply. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Clark, Brinkman, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Schmidt Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its September 28th meeting. Planning Case 15-18 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.2, PC 15-18, request to consider text Item 4.2 amendment to Section 3-50(f) of New Hope City Code regarding temporary sign suspensions and temporary sign permit requirements, City Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 1, 2015 of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger, Community Development Assistant, stated that the Codes and Standards Committee discussed possible changes to the city's temporary sign policies at its August 12, 2015 meeting after multiple businesses located along 42❑d Avenue North expressed concern regarding the restrictiveness of the cit/,s Sign Code. Concerns centered on temporary sign suspensions and temporary sign permit requirements. Currently, there is a 12 -month forfeiture of sign permits if a property has multiple violations and has received multiple warnings. The Committee determined that that a three month suspension would be more appropriate and that a written warning prior would be required prior to suspension. Additionally, a proposal was made to change the current temporary sign allowance from five ten-day temporary sign permits costing $50 each to ten seven-day permits costing $40 each. New businesses would be allowed a temporary sign for up to 30 days after opening, fee waived, and businesses that are hiring or under construction would be allowed to display "now hiring" or "open during constriction" temporary signs. Mr. Alger stated that the Committee was in favor of adopting a text amendment to the City Code regarding temporary signage suspensions and regulations. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Clark stated that normally 50 square feet was a normal size limit for temporary signs and that the 64 square feet size limit set forth in subsections 9 and 10 was a bit excessive. It was agreed that this restriction would be amended as requested. Commissioner English asked how many 12 month suspensions there had been and if there was a particular industry that was in constant violation. Mr. Alger replied that there have been two or three 12 month suspensions and that temporary signs are often displayed by restaurants and retail industries to advertise special events and promotions. Chair Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Item 4.2 approve Planning Case 15-18, request to consider text amendment to Section 3-50(f) of New Hope City Code regarding temporary sign suspensions and temporary sign permit requirements, City of New Hope, petitioner, citing a change in size limit from 64 to 50 square feet in subsections 9 and 10. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Clark, Brinkman, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Schmidt Motion approved 8-0 Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 1, 2015 Planning Case 15-19 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.3, request to consider text amendment to Item 4.3 Sections 10-130) and 10-18(f) of New Hope City Code related to liquor license restrictions near churches. Mr. Jeff Alger stated that the Codes and Standards Committee discussed possible changes to the city's Liquor Code in regards to restrictions of licenses near churches at its August 12, 2015 meeting. Section 10-18(f) of the City Code and prohibits liquor licenses from being granted for premises located within 500 feet of any church. It was found through legal consultation that the two uses may have not been considered compatible at the time of original adoption and that there is no state statute prohibiting liquor establishments within 500 feet of churches. The committee felt that this restriction was outdated and that it may limit future businesses from locating within 500 feet of a church that potentially could locate in a commercial district. They did feel the restriction should continue to apply to properties located within 500 feet of schools. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Chair Svendsen inquired the definition of public schools in subsection 10. Mr. Alan Brixius, City Planner replied that there was not currently a clear definition. He went on that public schools are allowed only in residential districts, so normally their proximity to properties with liquor licenses would not be close. It was decided staff would investigate the definition of public schools further. Being that there was no further discussion, Chair Svendsen opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to Item 4.3 approve Planning Case 15-19, request to consider text amendment to Sections 10-13(1) and 10-18(f) of New Hope City Code related to liquor license restrictions near churches; staff is to investigate definition of public schools. Voting in favor: McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Clark, Brinkman, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Schmidt Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its September 28, 2015 meeting. Planning Case 15-12 Chair Svendsen introduced Item 4.4, request to consider text amendment to Item 4.4 Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jeff Alger proclaimed that after tabling discussion of a draft Tree Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 1, 2015 Replacement Policy at the July 7, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, staff met with the City Forester to discuss proposed changes and establish an unapproved tree list. The draft ordinance requires replacement for the loss of any significant, preferred trees due to building construction, site grading, construction of parking lots, loading areas, outdoor storage areas, or storm water management features. It defines significant trees as healthy trees "measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve feet in height for coniferous trees," and preferred trees as "any tree not appearing on the citys Prohibited Tree list, as may be amended." The replacement standard of 1:0.5 requires the replacement of one-half caliper inch of tree for each one caliper inch of tree that was removed. It also requires replacement of unhealthy trees or trees that die within two years after project closure date. The draft ordinance would require identification of preferred, significant trees by the City Forester along with a Tree Preservation Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit that would need to be implemented and adhered to until all grading and construction activity has been completed. City street construction projects would be exempt, as the city implemented a new practice for such projects in 2015. When city construction removes trees in residential areas, the City Forester contacts those who lose trees and offers replacements for no cost. Tree value was then elaborated. It was stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission continue and close the public hearing from the July 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and approve the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Smith asked if a tree that had begun to mature but had died within the two year time frame would need to be replaced with a tree of a similar size. Mr. Brixius replied that such trees would be replaced with nursery stock. Chair Svendsen inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Being that no one spoke, he asked for a motion to dose the Public Hearing. Motion by Commissioner L,andy seconded by Commissioner Brinkman to dose the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Svendsen inquired what occurs when a developer bulldozes a number of trees in a residential area to build a subdivision. Mr. Brixius replied because of the high density design subdivisions normally have, the front and side yards rarely have room for a number of trees. Mr. Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director, added that such developments would need to go through the planning process, and therefore the site plan would be reviewed to ensure adequate landscaping. Mr. Jeff Alger also added that requiring tree replacement for residential areas may also discourage development. Planning Commission Meeting 0 September 1, 2015 Chair Svendsen opened the case up to further discussion. Being that there was no further discussion, he opened for a motion. Motion Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner McKenzie, to Item 4.4 approve Planning Case 15-12, request to consider text amendment to Sections 4-2 and 4-3 of New Hope City Code establishing tree preservation policy, City of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor. McKenzie, Gehring, English, Landy, Smith, Clark, Brinkman, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Schmidt Motion approved 8-0 Chair Svendsen stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its September 28, 2015 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Chair Svendsen stated the last Design and Review Committee meeting was Committee held on August 13, 2015 and that the next potential meeting was scheduled Item 5.1 for September 17, 2015, though there were no potential cases at the time. Codes and Standards Chair Svendsen stated that the Codes and Standards Committee was held Committee August 12, 2015. The next meeting date is to be determined. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS No new business. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Clark, to Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 7, 2015. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Svendsen announced that the Space Needs Task Force is proceeding to meet, and Commissioner Landy is Chair. Commissioner Landy proclaimed that the committee will be attending the Council Work Session on September 21, 2015 with a recommendation that a new City Hall and police station are needed. Further updates included the opening of the Hy -Vee gas station; the grand opening of Hy -Vee grocery store to occur September 22,2015; change in plans for the future tenant of the former Gas `n' Splash from sandwich shop to coffee shop; the possibility of Liberty Tax to occupy another former gas station in town; the city's entrance into a preliminary six month development agreement with Alatus for the potential development of the property west of the golf course to build a 150 -or -more -unit apartment complex, and the progression of the construction of the Winnetka Quiet Zone. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 1, 2015 , Emily Becker, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 1, 2015 0 4 Q N C a U ` Q. J CL ca per', Dcom LU C O U) C 'E3 Z N � N +_+ O N � m cm U 0 E V .n 0 U) Z N c Z L CUQZ E J N o 0. to T a) N 0 N N .O U � N � O o H v -0r + ' N o U N CCIJ r :3C7l A CL '� a vcu U') N �' N C71 -a M N (D O O N L - ItL N 0 L 0 C) �, a N 0) Ln N N r- N N a� as 0. O N O 2 a 7 r U E V ca c N 3CD QI N U LL Q Q CD O z 0 C Q Cn vl mN +-,N O ._ 3 CQ r L C4 i a 16 LL C y _ L C �' d _ U O a. -n LLQ 0 o z N ❑ LO T- N L- m a C E N cl M y -Q Q. N M N E y w 0 • QOC3 N r 0 LO co N QI N 7 " N N A N E N Z N N N N m Q m v U -0 0 N N O y N r C44 a) O Z CO d (6 NN r O Cl) r .0L E N 0)� •� N 7 E U CV N Q N 3 Q 0 N Jco CL ❑ LL 2¢ Q co O Z as U LO L L O N L Z C .Q L Z co E L Q T rV r r 3 w E J C ❑ LL Q 4 Q 0 O Z LO r LO r rr E N r M r c CD to CD L CL co r ❑ �'' CL fg 3 2 � r � W � N a C) m ai Q A ICL o ❑ LL Q Q w O z u7 et N O M i N Q..- m r LOT L �oCM"oCO 2 CV) m M 3 ani ❑ ❑ LL Q �-5 Q 0 O z R C CL NLOL °� T- 0 O 2>.r Q Q d D T ca •� r co to tm a)Z O 4n�i a C a c T ❑ LL 2 Q rG ¢ cn O La r ++ c E N CL o M �.5 r N M CA N 0 N d u � IL a CO C = ani w E C C rn a C ] ❑ � 1 2 Q - Q fn (n Z H O w0000000u�oo ❑LL�LA00000N00 Ur rrOQ)OrQ]MNN Z 64 64 64 6R} irs 6c} 6*} 6e 6i 64 z O w Cr w LL LOC)00000C) m0 (D w r- w CO P- CD � Lo m r, Z O 0 N000LOLO00moo w ULfjl!')ONNOONOO_ Qrr MMCO MNN� Efi 69 6f# 64 6% � 619-6t} 69 � m d N N T Z M Z Z WLU 2 o2 acs �F- W,-,ZC_O? zW W N W W V) W 0 a��a C. —2 cnw BUJ <LU�W �WCO W CO r H w O❑ d W-,¢ a��W Jv>W LL V5 WOWU' ZW=OZMZ LL-UZ-U❑0 WO w❑¢p❑¢Z>5 CL CLZ- N Z M W M � o¢u,o¢!5❑toU ¢ 0>w0>dCOU)0> ¢aiddU1LL(72 1 � Z a V LUa u LLQ V J LL J J a ' o U m N O .O O N i C71 -a M N (D O O C O U O_ U C = N C N CL a N 0) CL x CD 0 cc CL s e rnrn� N a� as 0. O ds QJ L 4K r U E x CD W C _0 a� * O N CO CL H O w0000000u�oo ❑LL�LA00000N00 Ur rrOQ)OrQ]MNN Z 64 64 64 6R} irs 6c} 6*} 6e 6i 64 z O w Cr w LL LOC)00000C) m0 (D w r- w CO P- CD � Lo m r, Z O 0 N000LOLO00moo w ULfjl!')ONNOONOO_ Qrr MMCO MNN� Efi 69 6f# 64 6% � 619-6t} 69 � m d N N T Z M Z Z WLU 2 o2 acs �F- W,-,ZC_O? zW W N W W V) W 0 a��a C. —2 cnw BUJ <LU�W �WCO W CO r H w O❑ d W-,¢ a��W Jv>W LL V5 WOWU' ZW=OZMZ LL-UZ-U❑0 WO w❑¢p❑¢Z>5 CL CLZ- N Z M W M � o¢u,o¢!5❑toU ¢ 0>w0>dCOU)0> ¢aiddU1LL(72 1 � Z a V LUa u LLQ V J LL J J a