8A, Presbyterian Homes TIF - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2010-082 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax �ncrement Financing Plan (TIF Plan) %r Tax Increment Financing Districi No. 4(Disfrict), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended {Act), as required by Section 469.175, Subdiviszon 3 of the Act, are as follows: Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 is a renewal and renavation district as defined in Section 469.174, Subdivision 1 Da of the Act. The District consists of two parcels and three buildings, with plans to redevelop the area for senior housing purposes. At least 70 percent of t�e area of the parceis in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar struciures. One buildir�g (mare than 20 percent of the buildings in the District), is structurally substandard as de�ned in the Act, and one building {more than 30 percent of the buildings in the District} requires substantial renovatior� or clearance to remove existing conditions, such as those existing conditions defined in the Act. (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan.) 2. Finding that the proposed developinent, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through prrvate investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the inereased 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 rn the market value estimated to Nesult from the propased developrnent after subtracting the present value of the projected tcrx increments far ihe maximum duration of the District permrtted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private invest�nent within the reasonably fareseeable future: This �nding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in the TIF Plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. There are higher costs associated with redeveloping the site due to acconntnodating existing residents in their current units until the new facility is constrUcted; reiocating existing residents to the new facility; and sit� constraints related to topography, grading, demolition at�d utilities for constructing the new facility adjacent to the existfng facility. In addition, increased landscaping will he required to provide an adequate buffer and screening from tl�e adjacent singte-famiIy homes. Due to th�se higher costs of redevelapment on the parceis this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, fro;m tax increment �nancing. The develaper was asked for and provided a letter and a proforma as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance. (See attachment in Appendix G of the TIF Plan.) The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the inerease zn market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtractirag the present value of the projected tax increments foY the nzc�imum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan: The above finding explait�ed why the proposed redevelopment would not likely occur without tax increment assistance. It is possible that some redevelopment of the existing senior housing cornplex would go forward without assistance, but the unique costs of this effort (described above} mean �hat without assistance, any alternative redeveloprnent would necessarily be carried out at a smaller scale, and most likely over a longer period of time. I� is impossible to predict what an alternative market valtze would be if no tax increment assisiance were provided, but it is certain that the alternative redevelopment would produce significantly less value than the camprehensive, high quality development that is proposed under the TIF Plan. There is no reasonable likelihood that an alternate, unassisted developznent would add as much as $9,972,625 in market value (which is the alternate threshold