03-911Council File # �3 — ` � (
���oa�
Green Sheet # �89984
RESOLUTION
Presented By
Referred To
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Committee: Date
.►'!
1 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO DEMOLTiTON OF BUII,DINGS LOCATED
2 IN PROPOSED F`UT[7RE WESTD'iINSTER 3[JI3CTION BUSINESS CEi�TER
3 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT
5 WTIEREAS, the City of Saint Paul (the "City") has been advised tUat the Port Authority of the City of Saint
6 Paul (the `Port Authorit}�') intends to establish a redevelopment taY increment fmancing distact including the azea
7 generally bounded by Westuriuster S4eet to the west, Wlurall Street to the north, Payne Avenue to the east and the
8 proposed future Phalen Boulevazd to the south to be lmown as the Weshninster Junction Business Center outlined on the
9 site plan attached hereto as Exlubit A(the `DistricP'); and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1�
18
WHEREAS, prior to certification of the Distdct, the Ciry Council of the City of Saint Paul (the "City Councff")
is required to make the findings required by Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175, Subd. 3, including the reasons and
facu supporting the determination that ffie Disirict meets the statutory requirements for a redevelopment dishict; and
WIIEREAS, the City has been fiuther advised that, prior to certification of the Dishict, and for healffi and
safety reasons, the Port Authority intends to demolish the commercial buildings currenfly located on the parcels
identified on the attached aerial photograph as Pazcel Numbers 20-19, 22-14, and 26-12 (the "Structures") and
i 9 VI�IEREAS, as set forth in its Resolurion Number 4030 adopted by the Port Authority on August 26, 2003, and
2 o the Port Authority Boazd Report of which copies aze attached hereto as E�ibit B(the "Port Authority Resolution"), the
zl Port Authority has deteniriued that these three Structures aze "shucturally substandard" within the meaning of
2 2 Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10, all as described in greater detaIl in the Port Authority Resolurion;
2 3 and
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
WHEREAS, the City made its own independent investigation of the condition of the Shuctures and staff
reports dated August 29, 2003 sets forth of the investigation (the "City Report"); and
WIIEREAS, the City CouncIl, in reliance on the information provided to it by the Port Authority, including but
not lixnited to the reports prepazed by Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (collectively "SEH Report"), and on its own
investigation and the City Report, concurs with the Port Authority's deterniination that the buildings aze "sh'uchu'ally
substandazd" witbin the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10; and
WHEREAS, the putpose of this action is to set forth the factual findings of the City Commcff before the
Buildings aze demolished, wluch factual finding may then be relied on by ihe City Council at such time as the City
Councfl considers whether the proposed Dislrict, as a whole, meets the statutory requirements of a redevelopment
dish
3 8 NOW, Tf�REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saint Paul that, on the basis of
3 9 information provided to it by the Port Authority, including the SEH Report, and the City Report, City CouncIl finds that
4 0 the Substandard Buildings aze "struchirally substandard" witbin the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
41 subdivision 10, for the reasons set forth in the SEH Reports and the Port Authority Resolution.
28484.1.
03-9�1
.����� ...
:-.... e��
�0��
:. .. , S��
. -,,., S��
�5��
.,, S��
����
��e�
Adopted by Council: Date //�— � d�
Form Appxoved by City Attorney
�
Approve
�.'-�'
28484. 1.
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
03 �r� � �q�
GREEN SHEET No�
Gary Grabko, 651/266-6709
October 8, 2003
�
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES
oF..m�rowr�mrt
��,,.,,�,� =' `c ❑ �,�
/G-E-o3
�..�.�.�,�n� ��.�,.��
❑YYOR(ORYfifYR� ❑ .
(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR�
Resolution adopting findings of fact related to demolition of buildings located in proposed
future Westminster Junction Business Center tax increment financing district.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMITfEE
CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION
Has Uis P�� erer xwked under a mitract for Mie tlepaNnenl7
YES NO
Hes Nis p'-�soMrm e�er been a aty empbyee7 .
YES NO
Does Mis Pa���m G� a sldll not nomial�YPOSSesseE bY arry curteM city employee4
YES NO
Is thia pereonr�rm e tarpeted veMOYt
YES" NO
In order for the Port Authority to establish a redevelopment tax increment financing distriet
for the 4Yestminster Junction Business Center, the City Council is required by 9tate law to
make- findings that support that the TIF district meets the statutory requiremerats. City staff
has conducted its own analysis and has determined that the proposed TIF district does meet
the statutory requirements.
The Westminster Junetion Business Center will be developed:
None
The project will not move forward.
SOURCE
(IXPWN)
COST/REYRlUE BUIXiETED (GRCLE ONE) VEE NO
ACTNITY NUMBER
�n��..-+n? �n .nhf
�� ' ,� lk
03-91�
HOUSINGANDREDEVELOPMENTAUTfiOAITY �
Mariha G. Fuller, Executrve Dmector
ci� oF san�rT Paui,
R¢ndy C Ke[!y, Mayor
Aug. 29, 2003
To: Pete McCall
2� West Fourth Street Telephone� 6�1-?66-66�5
SamtPau{M1V55102 F¢csimile:651-2?8-3261
From: Gary Grabko �✓�
Re: Review of TIF District Eligibifity Report for Westminster Junction Business Center,
Parce1s20-19, 22-14, 26-12 prepazed by Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc.
I have reviewed this report and find that the procedures used to determine eligibility for a TIF
district at this site are correct and comply with the requirements established by State Law.
The condirions identified at these parcels by Short, Elliot, Hendrickson and described in their
7/31/03 report are building code related deficiencies and are necessary to bring the buildings up
to Code.
I agree with their assessment of the deficiencies identified at the site, the cost to repair them and
the cost to replace the existing structures.
cc: John Young, Port Authority
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
1900 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
55702-1661
p O R r
� 9
J G
Q s
a s
r �
y �
�b * Y
September 30, 2003
03-4i1
Tel: 657-224-5686
Fax: 651-223-5198
Toll Free:800-328-8477
www.sppa.com
- -2 .��-�'�—'
�r���r`s o�AcG
Ms. Martha Fulle�, Director '� � � ��`°
Planning & Economic Development Department
1300 City Hall Annex E�� Q�����
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Findings for Tax Increment Finance District for Westminster Junction Business Center
Dear Ms. Fuller:
—We submit for your-review and referral-to-the o�ce.of-the Mayor, Gity Council, and City Attomey's office,-- --- --
Findings for Tax Increment Finance District for Westminster Junction Business Center.
In addiiion to the staff memorandum, we are attacfiing a draft copy of the proposed City Council Resolution
and a copy of the t� increment findings that were approved by the Port Authority's Board on Augusi 26,
2003. City Council action is requested at its meeting on October 8, 2003.
Your expeditious handling of this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Mayor Kelly
Redevelopment
::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPPAl28477�1
�e�g
��s;
=�e�
ie��
3"
�s�
a�
€�e=�:°a�
asoo:�sEs
y�.�.�b.�e£
�g�ag`c_
' _ �d v�
g ¢"
€ xx a,
; -�
� e_
�$e$m
a��
} Gc�^y�s�
$ rt� Rm£b
eQ A �„�
€ �m ���
�;
L `�ASd`.
^� m �e�.�
�����
� tl=�=
Sa�A„4
$ , R �.a
R� ��z�
� i� a.�
� �z"
��so3�;�
soo:_o€o
y�
��m���'
� #z�Ah�
� �•"
��@�,xo"��
„Da�
gtoa���[
°
3 p' '�
x �
x qq ° S."
� �� §��
� �6�g'^ ° a�s�
m:�.
��.S
g ?d:?$M.
a �� ��
" R A za
��t
� R' Se°
� � f��ta :
� ; ���� � I§I' ,
J >ftF:iSOiGriT
i
` � � '� cLam<
r
��. ��
� � u
�
� n �'� fln�
J � � 'JI�'J
EXHIBIT A
'
i ; x,
�SE '.�.
r.
�Q
� '��:
> \ `.
�''. ,.i/
S i,. /. '6
�j�
`� '`zs=<' //
��� �
:-} �� � _
'\,\>>\� 1 _
\},
1 {
t t� 1 1
1'
b ';� 1 � 1 L.�C'
� I ;
� � �
� I� �II
i i�� N
1,. �
�;�''� i
��
;�;,
i 7i
I
1�1r'
�
�i .
� ��
i i . .
_
' I I
i
, ' I
>>��,
I
� � � I
� F _� .-^` L � ,.
>.,� ` �— �,
�c-_ J �u�.
�
t ` r
Ld�`1 �J i
F ,�pa���a _
�� t L� �,, r ,.
a .a�" '
' �s�� S$ : ' � ,.
9 �xar¢a� I —�F �
E I,r�V V �
€ j�! , � ,; 'u
�
'A. '�=?�%:STEA �
;i��� ����r
� i { �'�� a
� -�
i 41 �,� .
o�,
�
!�A, —
� : ��
l
��I II'����
i
� li ��
I i 4 N
,� � , �—
� � �,. —
� y -
I `'-µJ
�` \ 1 s
��
03- 9il
�' - _ _
c%` � � _' -�`_�::=;s. _�
' '= li �
�J _ _
P I ' _
_
�_ '.WftK`
F 1 ���
� L� �. I U vI..IJ `�—
`' —� _
�V
� n .� ` i �
�: L� L J ,� � F:
-�� ���� � —�
_� �E_or� �:
R -��— ` ;_
�`_ ��—
'� � � J � .
; ,, , J ,� � J ti�>„ Il';
A _ �_ ti1� �
i -.��--� —
BVkR
f �Y
� � �'��,r;,�^� ���� ��i
G - ,
r r '
j �- n
r- n �
��� � � — :'
iii ,� � r-- �i
' i — K
i,i p �j � r,.
I i'
J I I G�., ' ��
!� I � r
ry ' ,1 r � � i -� _ _ _ u ,�
k�I� c�_ ,--- � - � — �
�= ��E _�
„ , �= _ ,,
_ _ �,;
�!', ; — —r
�.
pl ��, ` �, 'i -, �'E
F � . ��
�� ��� � � i i �ti .R �
�I�U � �.
Y I �
� [ u
� I I
+} ^G' i .� u r
II��.� `'""�'�J ,I-,+C:' '
.- _— .. �
— ti./ —
I L, _ — I! . -
�. i `'-� � , .
�
OS/06l03 JY REVISIONS
03 -911
. ��: �
1. Port Authority Board Report (including attachxnents)
2. Port Authoriry Boazd Resolurion Number 4030
3. City Report
SAINT PAUL
PORT AUTHORITY
u� u � :: ►►� .�ii
T�: BOARD OF COMNHSSfONERS DATE:
(RegularMeefing of August 26, 2003)
FROM: John W. Young .
Lome J. Loude � 3
Kenneth R.John �� �
03- 9�1
August 21, 2003
SUBJECT: Findings for Tax Increment Finance District for Westminster Junction Business Center
Resolution No. 4030 ,
Action Requested:
That the Port Authorify Board of Commissioners find the properties at 538, 516, and 506 Whitall meet the
requirements of Secfion 469.174, Subd.10 of Minnesota Statutes for inclusion in a Redevelopment Tax
Increment District based on the report of Short, Eiliot, Hendrickson and opinion of legal counsel.
Public Purpose:
--- — Phalen 8oulevard construction and redevelopmenYof the Westrninster Junction Business Center will create a
minimum of 300 permanent jobs using the Port Authority `s one job per 1,000 square feet of building space
criteria. Actual results at Wiiliams Hill, Crosby Lake, and Ariington Jackson Business Centers suggest that the
total number of jobs at this business center could reach 500. Construction jobs created by the boulevard and
business center construction are es#imated at 200. The new business center will generate privafe investment
and new plant and equipment and additional property taxes for the City of Saint Paul. The business center
will provide empioyment opportunities for Saint Paul and Eastside residents, and generally wilf eliminate blight
and the under utilization of industrial lantl.
Business Subsidv:
N/A
Backqround:
The Saint Paul Port Authority is acquiring land for Phalen Boulevard construction and redevelopment of the
Westminsfer Junction Business Center. We have acquired all of the land necessary for construction of
Phalen Boulevard. These parcels inclutle Twin City Auto and Military Supply, Waste Management, Lovering
Johnson (JBC Development), and FEO Properties.
In November 2002 and February 2003, the Port Authority Board of Gommissioners reviewed reports of Shorf,
Efliot, Hendrickson and opinion of legal counsel; regarding prope�ies we have acquired and found they meet
the requiremerts of Section 469.174, Subd.10 of Minnesota Sta;�,;tes for inclusion in a Redevelopmer.t Tax
Increment Distnct.
26657.1.
b3-9ll
Page2
#28168v1-BRDMemo:WestTIF/Whifall
We are now ready to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the first three of twelve residences also
meet the requirements of a Redevelopment Tax tncrement Disfricf.
Specifically, that the property is 70°/a improved and the buiidings are substandard as defined in State law.
Making these findings will qualify this property for a 25-year Redevetopment T� Increment District, which
yields the most funds to pay project costs. The Port Board by making findings desaibed above is not
approving a TIF District, but only making findings nowso this property.can be included in the TIF District
which we will ask the Board to set up in the future. We will ask the Board to make similar findings on
properties we acquire in the future.
The requirements as contained in Chapfer 469, subdivision 10, of a Redevelopment District are briefly:
Parcels consisting of 70% of the area of #he district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or
graveled parking lots, or other similar structures, a�d more than 50% of the buildings, not induding
outbuildings, are structuraily sub-standard requiring substantial renovation or clearance. To find that the
buildings are structuraliy substandard the buildings must contain "defects in structural elements or a
combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light antl ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layoui and conditio� of interior pertitions, or similar factors, which defects or
deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance " In addition,
- -
a building is not substandard if it can be modifietl to mee# the building code applicable to new buildings
at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of construcfing a new structure of the same square footage and
type on the site.
In order to make these findings, the Port Authority has retained Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, a reputabie
architectural and engineering firm who specializes in, among other things, the inspection of buiidings and
property in order to meet tax increment finance guidelines. The person doing the work is a registered
architect with significant experience in this regard. Several other munic�palities provided positi�+e references
for the consultant, as did the Briggs and Morgan law firm.
The consultant made a thorough interior inspec6on of the three residences. A significant amount of
notations and photographs were generafed during this inspection. The consultant inspected the residences
and determined where there were building code deficiencies. These building code deficiencies were then
assigned a dollarvalue. The buildings new construction cost was ther� estimated and the deficiency amount
was compared to the new constnictian cost of the building to determine if the deficiencies equal 75% or
more of the new construction costs.
With regard to these properties, specifically, the consultanYs findings are as follows:
All three residences meet the statutory definition of substandard by using the methodology described
above.
• A report on both of these findings is attached to this memo.
::�DMAIPCDOCSISPPAI28168\1
�3 - gi�
Page3.
#28966 vl -BRDMerta:WesL T1F f Whifall
• A letfer from our legal counsel of Leonard, Street, and Deinard supporting these findings is aiso
attached.
The acquisition of these parcels is camplete and the Port Authorify owns fee-simple interest in the property.
The demolition is being paid for with proceeds from the HUD 108 loan from the City of Saint Paul.
When combined, the reports for #he Twin City Auto and Military Supply parcel, Lovering Johnson (JBC
Development); Waste Management, FEO ProQerUes parcels and residences at538, 516 and 506 Whitall
demon'strate that these parcels meet the requirements ouUined in Chapter 469, Subd. 10 for a T� Increment
Redevelopment District. Parcels consisting of more than 70% of the area of the District are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravef parking lofs or other similar shuctures, and more than 50% of the
buildings (10 of 12, not including outbuiidings) are structurally substandard as it relates to Minnesota State
Statutes.
Recommendation
The Port Authority Board of Coromissioners finds that the residences at 538, 516, and 506 Whitall meet the
requirements of Section 469.174, Subd.10 of Minnesota Statutes for inclusion in a Redevelopment TaY
Increment District based on the report of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson and opinion of legal counsel.
Irrd
Attachmenfs
::ODM4IPCDOCSISPPAl2816811
03 -9 i 1
. ��:
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Tnc. Report
2383918v1 A-1
d3-�il
Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment
Proposed Westminster Junction
TIF District
St. Paul, MN
August 20, 2003
Prepared by:
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Ina (SEH)
Butler Squaze Building, Suite 710C
100 North 6` Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
SEH No. A-STPPA0301.00
�3 -9►1
City of St. Paul Port Authority
Westminster Junction TIF District
August 20, 2003
PURPOSE
Short Elliott Hefldrickson, Inc. (SEI� was hired by the St. Paul Port Authority, St. Pavl,
Minnesota; to survey and evaluate the properties within the pioposed Westminster
7unction Tas Increment Financing District. The proposed district is generally bounded
by Westminster Street to the west, Whitall Sireet to the north, Payne Avenue to the east,
and the groposed future Phalen Boulevard to the south. The purpose of our work �vas to
independently ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, as
required under Minnesota Statute, could be met. Note that the subject properties in this
report constitute a portion of the greater proposed Westrninster 7unction District — the
subject properties and findings wilf eventually be combined with prev_ious and future
findings to determine tax increment eligibility for the entire District.
The findings "and conclusions drawn herein are solely for the purpose of tax increment
eligibility and are not intended to be used outside the scope of this assessment.
SCOpF �F !►i�ORIC
The subject area in this repozt consists of 3 pazcels comprised of the foilowing types of
—� -- ------ - — — ------.- ----- ---
improvemenfs: 3 residential structures distribut� on 3 parcels.
EVALUATiONS
Of the 3 buildings in the proposed district, both interior and exterior areas were available
for evaluation.
FINDINGS
Coverage Test — 3 of the 3 properties met the coverage test with a 100°lo azea coverage.
This exceeds the 70% azea coverage requirement:
Condition of Buildings Test — 100 percent of the buildings were fovnd to be
"strucharally substandazd" when considering code deficiencies and other deficiencies of
sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance (see definition of
"structurally substandard" as follows). This exceeds the Condition of Buildings Test
whereby over 50% of buildings, not inciuding outbuiidings, must be found "stsucturally
substandard."
CONCLUSION
Our surveying and evaluatii�g of the propertie's within this proposed Redevelopment
District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eli� ble under
the statutory criYeria and formulas for Tas Increment Financing District Funding.
03 -9�1
SUPi?ORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACNED
- Site Occupied/Building Substandard Determination table
-'TIF Assessment maps: Buildings Assessment, Occupied Surfaces, Percent
Occupied by Pazcel
- Report on Building Condition (one per building)
- Individual Building Summary Report (one per buiiding)
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following
requuements under Minnesota Statute Section 464.174, 3ubdivision 10, clause (c} which
states:
Interior Inspection —"The munieipality may not make such detemunation [that the
building is siructurally substandazd] without an interior inspection of the property..."
Exterior Inspection and Other Means —"An interior inspection of the property is not
regulred, if the munJcipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain
access to the groperty; and after using its best efforts to obtain pemussion from the party
that owns or controis the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable
conclusion that the building is structura]Iy substandard"
- ----- -- ------------ — - — — --- -- --- — ------ --------
Documentation —"Written documentation of the buiIding f ndings and reasons why an
interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, clause (1)." Because all building interiors were evaluated in this process,
documentation for these purposes is not necessary for this report.
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS
John Young, representing the St. Paul Port Authority, coordinated the timing of the
interior evaluations for ail buildings. SEH conducted assessments on 7uly 24 and 7uly 31,
2003. In all cases, both interior and exterior evaluations were completed.
For fhe subject parcels, SEH collected copies of all available building pernuts on record.
These permits provide a basic description of type of work completed for each permit and,
in some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Additional building data was
collected from public taxpayer information available from Ramsey Counry. Buiiding
data from these public records was combined with and reviewed against informaTion
gathered in the field.
The properties within the proposed district contained at least one outbuilding. According
to the applicable State statute, these buildings were not evaluated and are not addressed in-
these findings. For the puiposes of this test, we define the term `outbuilding' generaldy as
a strlcture that cor.Yains a use cleazly inciden±al ±o a main use such as, but n�! limitsd to,
domestic storage in a barn, garage, shed, tool room or similar accessory building.
03- 9/�
QUALiFiCATiON REQUIREMENTS
The properties were surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests
for ta� increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, requued under the following
Minnesota Statutes, could be met_
Minnesota_Statute Secfion 469.174, Subdivision 10, ciause (a) (1} requires two tests for
occupied parcels:
l. Coverage Test —"parcels consisting af 70 percent of the area of the district are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilifies, paved or gravel parking lots or similar
structures . . ."
Note: The coverage required by the pazcel to be considered occupied is defined under
Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, clause (e) which states: "For
purposes of this subdivision, a pazcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
paved oz gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15% of the azea of tlie
parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other
similaz structwes."
2. Condition of Buildings Test —"... and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not
in�luding outbuildings, are structurally substandazd to a dPg:Pe reqniring sLbsta.�tial
renovation or cleazance;"
The term `structurally substandazd', as used above, is defined by a two-step test:
Step One: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), a building is structurally snbstandard if it
contains "defects iri structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire grotection including
adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors,
which defects or deficiencies aze of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or cleuance."
Step Two: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically,
Minnesota Statutes, SecUOn 469174, Subdivision 1Q clause (c) also provides that
a building may noY be considered structurally substandard if it: ". .. is in
compliance with building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified
to satisfy the building code at a cost o� less than 15 percent of the cost of
constructing a new structure of the same squaze footage and type on the site."
Based on the above requirements, the substandard detemunation of a particular
buiiding is a two-step process; therefore, the findings of each step.are independent of
each other and both steps must be satisfied in order for a building to be found
structurally substandazd. It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally
substandard solely because Step 2 is satisfied. It is theoretically possible for a
building to require extensive renovatSon in order to meet current building codes but
still not meet the main test of Step 1.
o3-9i1
Furthermore, deficiencies included in Step 1 may or may not include spec�c code
deficiencies as listed in Step 2. In many cases, specific building code deficiencies
may well contribute to the data which supports satisfying Step l; conversely, it is
certainly gossible that identified hazards or other deficiencies which could be
included in Step i do not necessarily constitute current building code deficiencies. By
definition, the nature of the two steps is sl3ghtly different. Step 1 is more subjecrive,
whereas Step 2 is an objective test. Step. l deficiencies aze less technical and not
necessarily measurable to the same extent of tY�e code deficiencies in Step 2. To the
end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the satisfaction of
the less technical Step 1, the following code requirements are defined in terms that go
beyond the technical requirements of the code and demonstrate their relevance in
terms of "... deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, etc.
»
Intemational Buildin� Code (IBC): The purpose of the TBC is to provide
minimum standazds to safeguard public health, safety and general welfare through
structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light
and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and
other hazazds attributed to the built environment (IBC 101.3). A deficiency in the
building code (insufficient number of building exits, insufficient door landing
-
area, etc.) adversely affects_one or more of the above standards to safeguard
`public health ...and safety to life'; therefore, a deficiency in the building code is
considered a deficiency in one or more "essential utilities and faci]ities, light and
ventilation, etc.".
Minnesota Accessibilitv Code, Chapter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements
for accessibility all building occupancies. The Minnesota Accessibility Code
closely follaws the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
(ADAAG), which sets the guidelines for accessibility to places of public
accommodations and commercial facilities as required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is a federal anti-discrimination statute
designed to remove barriers that prevent gualified individuals with disabilities
from enjoying the same opporlunities that aze available to persons without
disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essential]y, a deficiency in the accessibility code
(lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of cleazance at a toilet fixture,
etc.) results in a discriminatian against disabled individuals; therefore, a_
deficiency in the accessibility code is considered a deficiency in "essential
utilities and facilities".
Minnesota Food Code, Chapter 4626: This chapter is enforced by ihe Minnesota
Department of Health and is similaz to the IBC in Ehat it provides minimum
st?ndards to safegu�rd p»b_i?c health in areas of public/com�??ercial food
preparation. A deficiency in the food code (lack of non-absorbent walI or ceiling
finishes, lack of hand sink, etc:) causes a condition for potential contamination of
o3-9�r
food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities"_
National Electric Code (NEC): The purpose of the NEC is the practical
safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of
electricity. The NEC contains provisions thaT aze considered necessary for safety
(NEC 90-1 {a) and (b)). A de5ciency in the electric code (insufficient electrical
service capacity, improper wiring, efc_) causes a hazazd from the nse of
electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in
"essential utilities and facilities".
International Mechanical Code (IMC): The purpose of the IMC is to provide
miflimum standards to safeguazd life or limb, health, property and public welfaze
by regulating and controlling the design, construetion, installation, quality of
materials, location, operation, and maintenance or use of inechanical systems
(IMC 1013). The IMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation,
exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number
of compiete clean aar exchanges for a building based on its occupancy type and
occupant load. A deficiency in the mechanical code adversely affects the `health .
.. and public welfare' of a building's occupants; therefore, a defic7ency in the
mechanical code is considered a deficiency in "light and ventilation".
------------------- -------- --- --- ---- _ -- - — - ------ -----
Note: The above list represents some of the more common potential code
deficiencies considered in the assessment of the buildings in the proposed district.
This list does not necessarily include every factor inciuded in the data used to
satisfy Step 1 for a particular building. Kefer to individual building reports for
specific fandings.
Finally, the ta7t increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building
is not disqualified as structurally sutastandard under Step 2 on the basis of "reasonably
available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of
plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similaz reliabie evidence. Items of
evidence that support such a conclusion [that the bnilding is structuraily substandazd]
include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing
inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence."
MEASUREMENTS AGAtNST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS
Cot!erage Test
SEH obtained information in a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) database format to
obtain individual parcel information. The GTS database contained graphic information
(parcei shapes) and other related pazcel information. This information was used by SEH
for the purposes of this assessment.
o3-9r)
The total squaze foot area of each property parcei.was calculated from the GIS parcel
information and general site ve�cation_
The-total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recenY
aerial photography LSpring, 2000)_ The total square footage of site improvements was
then digitally measured and confirmed by general site verification.
The total percentage of coverage of each property parcel was computed to defermine if
the IS% requirement was met_ Refer to attached maps: Occupied Starfaces map and
Percent Occupied by Parcel map.
"I'he total azea of all qualifying property parcels was compared to the total area of all
parcels to detemune if the 70% reqUirement was met.
Condition of Bui/ding Tesf
R�lacement Cost — the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on
site:
R. S_ Means Square Foot Costs (2003) was used as the industry standard for base
cost calculations. R. S. Means is a nationally pubiished reference tool for
construction cost data. The book is updated yearly and establishes a"national
average" for materials and labor prices for all types of building construction. The
base costs derived from R. S. Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable,
against our professionaI judgement and experience.
A base cost was calculated by first establistung l�uiiding type, building
construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to
obtain the appropriate Means cost per sqnare foot. This cost was multiplied times
the building square footage to obtain the total replacement cost for an individual
building. Additionally, to account for regional/locai pricing, a cost factor was
added to the totai cost according to R.5. Means tables. Using R. S. Means,
consideration is made for building occupancy, building size, and construction
type; therefore, the cost per square foot used to construct a new structure will vary
accordingly.
Building Deficiencies: Step 2(Systems Condition Deficiencies) — deternuning the
combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient totai significance to justify substantial
renovation or cleuance.
On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from city records and making interior andlor exterior
evaluations, as noted. Deficiencies in structural elements, essential ntilities and
facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adeguate egress, layout
and cor.dit:on of ::,Te:icr pzrtitions, r si:ri:ar factcrs, were r.oted by.the evaluator.
Systems Condition Deficiencies may or may not include Code Deficiencies as
defined below. Energy code compliance was not considered for the purposes of
b3 - g�l
determining Systems Condition Deficiencies_ Deficiencies were combined and
summa for each building in order to determine their total significance_
Buildin� Deficiencies: Step 2(Code Deficienciesl — determ;n;ng technical conditions that
aze not in complianee with current building code applicable to new buildings and the cost
to correctthe deficiencies:
On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing
available information from ciYy records and making interior andlor exterior
evaluations; as noted. On-siie evaluations were completed using a standard
checklist format. The standazd checklist was derived from several standard
building code plan review checklists and was intended to address the most
common, easily identifiable code deficiencies. Mechanical Engineers, Electrical
Engineers, and Building Code Officials were also consulted in the development of
the checklist.
Deficiencies were generally grouped into the following categories (category
names aze foilowed by its applicable building code):
• Bu3lding accessibility — Minnesota Accessibility Code
• Building egress, building construction — Intemational Building Code
• Fire protection systems — International Building Code
• Food service — Minnesota Food Code
-------- - ---- ---- --- ------- --------- ---- - ---- -
• HVAC (heaung, ventilating, and air conditioning) — Jnternational
Mechanical Code
• Electrical systems — National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy
Code
• Energy code compliance — Minnesota Energy Code
Energy code compliance is relevant in determining Step 2(Code Deficiencies)
because its criteria affect the design of integral parts of a majority of a building's
systems. The intent of these c�iteria is to provide a means for assuring building
durability, and permitting energy efficient operation (7676.0100). The energy
code addresses general buiIding construction (all forms of energy transmission in
an exterior building envelope — walls, roofs, doors and windows, etc.) and energy
usage by lighting and mechanical systems. A deficiency in the energy code
(inadequate insulation, non-insulated window systems, improper air infiltration
protection, etc.} reduces energy efficient operation and adversely affects building
system durability; therefore, a deficiency in the energy code is considered to
conuibute to a condition requiring substantial renovation or ciearance.
Office evaluations — Following the on-site evaluation, each building was then
reviewed, based on on-site data, age of consrruction, building usage and
o�c��p2_*�cy, square footage, �nd known i_Tnprovements (from b��ilding permit �at?
or physical observation), and an assessment was made regarding compliance with
current mechanical, electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also
03-9/1
completed regazding the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways,
for example), sprinkler systems, or elevators.
Deficiency Cost — Costs to correct identified deficiencies were deterr�ined by
using R. S Means Cost Data and our pmfessional judgement and experience_ In
general, where several items of varying guality were available for selection to
correct a deficiency, an item ot average cost was used, as appropriate for typical '
commercial or residential applications. Actual construction costs are affected by
many factors (bidding climate, size of project, etc.}. Due to the nature of this
assessment, we were only able to generalize the scope of work for each
correction; that is to say that detailed plans, qaantities, and gualities of materials
were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to deternune a
preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that as known. This
proeess was similar to our typical agproach for a cost projection that may be given
to an owner during a schematic design stage of a project.
Costs to correct deficiencies were computed for each building and compared to
the building replacement cost to determine if the 15% requirement was met.
The total number of buildings determined to be "structurally substandard" by satisfying
both Step 1 and Step 2 in this manner was compared to the total number of buildings in
. __ the_dishict to determine if the 50%.requirement was met, _ ___ _ . ______ __ _____ .____
Reports on Structurally Substandard Buildings and Individual Building Summary Reports
aze available for review at the offices of SEH, and th� St. Paul Port Authority.
Technical Condicions Resources — the following list represents the cunent building codes
applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency rebiew:
2003 Minnesota State Buiiding Code
2000 International Building Code
2000 International Housing Code
MN 1341— Minnesota Accessibiliry Code, Chapter 1341 (1999)
2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676
1999 National Blectric Code
2000 Intemaiional Mechanical Code
PROJECT TEAM:
Jason P. Zemke, AIA, Project Architect
Nancy G. Schultz, AIA, Principal
�
0
N
0
N
W
Z
0
r
a
�
J
Q
>
W
� Q r �
r
m
m
�
ar
�
x�
J Z
Y p r r
� 1
�'- �
7 �
N rn
Wy c�ov
F �cr rn
QF �nd
d Z
W Q
O�"
U
� N r
.r O c0
N h O
r �
W � r
� Q N r
� �
W
CS
Q
�
W
>
t' O
U V
LL'
F
N
O a
Z W
� 4 �
Q
F � W
Q Z 1-
Z ❑ N
F F
� U
W Z
F 7
w �
° � z
O W W
LL
� N � �
N
0 ? N a
Q F W F
��nm
m W Q
� 3 �
m �
� ,
Z � m
oa�
J = J
W
W
a
c�
�
rn
�
v
7
F
O
�
J
Il7
Q
�
�
(7
z
0
J
�
m
1- W c i- 'r F-=?'
� 7 Q (A tn (A��``�a
m Q� Z_I J J�£
�� W _! J J J:a�r
W J Q Q Q"s.--
F �7 I � F- �v:[
a❑ a u- x x x'r:;�
� a o ��3=F�< ;
U J J i
co �o m 4'"Y;
U] W o r m�;;�:.i
p Q � in � u�:� ,
w 0. p a � ,
� p o N co
F {- 41 W— NNNO .
N U) ¢ h- E-'
D.�-g/(
03-911
Report on Structuraity Substandard Buifding
Building IABvsiness Name/Address:
SOb Wlutall Sh 20-19
Structurally Substandazd Building (Y/N): Y
Step One
Under the [ae increment law, specifically, MinnesoEa Statutes, Section 464.174, Subdivision 10, a huilding
is structurally subsYandard if it contains "defects in strucmral elements or a combination of deficiencies
in essential utiliFies and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protec[ion including adequate ea ess, layout and
condi[ion of interior partitions, or similaz factors, which defeccs or deficienries are of sufficient total
significance to justify substantia] renovation or cleuance:'
The above buildin�, based upon actual interior inspection and review of building permit records, meets the
above-referenced definidon of structura]ly substandard for the followine reasons:
Structural Elements
• Two-story addi[ion on southwest comer appears to be `sliding' down-hill: severe vertical
_ setdement cracks present at northwest and sou[hwest corners of addition
• FVoor structure slopes toward center of house in kitchen
Essen6al Utilities & Facilities
• Head room in basement does not conform fo minimum hei�ht requirements for basement or
habitable area
• Second floor heating unit contains no ductwork to second floor spaces and dces not utilize
exterior, fresh air for combustion
Light & VenCilation
• Bathroom no[ provided wi[h means of natura3 or mechanical ventilation
• Lack of soffit ventiiation provided
Fire Ptotection/Eb ess
• Deficient exterior stairway: insufficient cleaz stair width; deficient rise/run; deficient handrail
heisht; deficient guardrail consWCtion
• Deficieni emereency eb ess: lack of bedroom emergency egress windows
• Deficient interior stairway: insufficient cleaz s[air width; deFicient rise/run; insufficient stair
landing uea; insufficsent stair cleaz headroom; deficient handrail heigh[; handrails aze no[
continuous
• Lack of smoke detector/detection system on an individual floor and ia each bedroom
LayoudCondition of Interior Partitions
• Toilet on first floor is not located wi[hin a toilet room, but is tocated in a common, open
haliway leading to the secoud floor
Similar Factors
• Deficiencies in exterior buildin� shell: majority of wood window frames and sills severely
damaged by water, some contain ro[; exterior siding is in poor condition: comer trim missing
a[ various locations
• Retaining waIl fai]ing on south side of si[e
Step Two
No[withstandins the forewin�, the tax increment law also provides that a buildin� may not be considered
structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the bnilding code apglicable to new buildings or cou]d
be modified to safisfy the cuaen[ bui]di�g code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructing a new
building of the same square foota�e and type on the same site. -
Estimated coct of new build�ne of same size and type (Total Replacement Cosil:
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost):
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Repiacement Cose
$iay,5gx.i5
$33,372.34
23.58%
Refer to Individual Buildin= Summary Report for documenta[ion of specific code deficiencies.
o� -��i
�I�� I�
I--
�
J
�p J
o �
O ��
m3 � N
� N �
� N if1
� } j Vl tn Vl z
}
E V �
a� o�i o v V v
� d N V C U C v
� � v� (L N G N�
Q O 0] O. N V N -6.
V V
o� a a � a m '
� � Q y � N - 6
i.t- J d' O � 6
O � }
N � � I ~ O
� O
W ? ' F- U v
� �
N �
� V �
Q � a
S � O
� Q L
N � }
3 0 °
�
i � }
0 O �
} d L
� � �
+ ,�-.
� u
U �
L Q
d
�
O�
�
v
N
F-
N
a
N
�
d
N
0
�
th p_' C[ � W L1J N T O� N th
� Q i1J �L' � p� .- ,0 .
� Q Q
� W �t�i�
�"'z ¢ao
\ � � �
� H
� i�
t O
m �
� N
�F- �
C H
� d
L
� L
� O
d
� O
d V
� i
m d
6 �
� U
a m
N 9
N �
� 6
V
O
0
U
O
d
i
2
0
U
�
�
0
J
�
#
0 z z
�
C �
� O O
6 O� V' U z�
ia � � d d t'� �� O� d
�+ O L O � U1 N N vI } y N Q ± L
� Z V U� V T O O L N= Q� [0 Y�
O F- V U o
d Q � 2 i]. L 61 6l — 4- '� d i Q� L� 6
�a a HH�'nmm3a �v�
oo�oao
.- o e n o
� n e f» °� °�
a v_ m n
U �E»e
V H}. i9
0
U
0
Q
O
v
3
N
0
U
�
a
__ � ____'._-_— —_ ____.______ _'
m
y U
N Q
W =
m y
C �
� �
� y
0] T
� �
il� O �
m i
m
� _ 0
'o a m U
- c y o a
0 N c � �
� �
O m =
m -i Q. y C
R
� X � O � � �
U W � U Q _ m
m�• O � U m T
Ca m C� ���
m �N O >, (n � V
_o m n. a� a ._
� ' � � ° m � .
�¢�w�=w
'a
m
0
�
N
�
�
J
�
N
N
a
- o 0 0 0
y o o O o
U � � � �
T f9
U
C
U
0
�
O O O O
O O ��[] O
O i� t� oJ
U (A f9 EA f9
C
�
m � N OJ �
a 0
� � 0
Z 'v p
m
m Q � Q O -
0
� x
" E
N.
�
� ^ �
N C O
3 0
c ¢a
m � m
II X �
� m �
� � 0
a
o m �
W N R 0
rn " i
c � .�
� � N
m � 3
m E �
>
O = 0
. _ ._ . . m -0 O
' `� n
m x i
vi m --
m m E m
c o � m
m S
a U � �-
� m � x
V � 0
a> ,� ` m
� n � o
- 3 - m E
m R ° m
m E m
t0 U O
(�' V �
O C p (7
� E c �i
� � � o
m m 3
U
C � r� m
� . R �
�p N �
N C
m o 2
!O ` iQ L C
q � O �
y N c E
� y
U w o R o 0
p� m 0 m
m � X '�' X N
� 9 W t� LL1 -
0 3
� m
n
C �
0
� m E
X 0 �
m 3
T m�
� �
�
� �v
m � 'm
R y p�
o � 3
m m
E �
^ _ m
" ' a
� N >
M O d
S � �
.� L N
m
m �
C �
U
m __ E .m -
N •
m � .,
C - L
m m °'
n mL
�6 3 0
�m
M C
0y
v 'Q m
" E n
id o c
0 p O
�y c m
O � m
C C �
m `o m
N ca
y m N
� O �
� L N
R' �=
` � N
� � m
m %n -m6 ..
O R O E
� _
x m x m �
w � w 5 _
0 0000000
o ����000
O ^ f9 � �
� �
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O- O O
p E9 fp fA fR b �[] O
O fA fA_ N
(V
43 �
c� �- N � r N N N
m
� y
O Q
a 3
0 0
a m
n N
m a
V �
m N
T w
� 3 �
m -
O,D R
m C T
m 3 ° o
o � E
R 0 �
m a
F°
R O N
o °' m
'� oi a
_o �_'_ 3
v m ;_
C 0 �
3 0
m m m
� �
a6 0
a a
c c r
0 3 m
c -° �
E c t
. 3 'a
y a. 3
C
� = `m
� � m
0 U
7
Q 0 C
� o E
E m m
O ._ G
O �
p.� i
� m
mm Y
� �
� • w
$ � o
- o` m `m
m m =
�
o � -
,- E m °
W �
r�q � � E 0
- m � � �
C L
E o � m E
" E
v `^ o a
^ m o x u
ri m _ ` U j
m
O O W O �
U � y C
m V o m c E
x m E `m a m
�p £ m � V
N
L N N C C
m`-° m � � t6 � o
m O1
m; � N vi � ��
m O t� � L p N
._. C
0 O � o C � �
�m 'o 0 o y m�
a o. o = m
_c m'_o -_ __U_-m_�_�_
� m
� c `m m � � a
'^ ' a m �
! @ j • m � !� C
m c ' E m E �
M _ .".. O .`.. - C
- �p o o m � mvi
w �
E a ° m > m o a
O y O Ih V
c vi � m � ° c �n
2� E ° m U $c
'a - c m -
m M (O ' W ° m �N
= � m m £ = � • a
y Y
C N G Q�. N �p �'O '-
� d m�' t0 V- O 3 m 6
nm m� ms R c o,E
� oi c��` °' � ° o m m
O M N N� C N
C � O m� C C m m
So°'a�3m mEo
'3 r m� 3 m`m ` > a
y `n fn O m
� m R m w m W �° E a,
` ' g c� o v- c
`o ` m� m o m m m m
Z O 2 ` L t � O
L . C � C r
W C N(> N� N �N t6 E
LLE inmm`om in m m
�o -o o �o
o � o 0
O N In O
� � � �
�
O O O
O O O
O IO �
O N N
� � �
+- r N
O
O
n
�
O
N
o E
m �
R � P Z O
m
_ � g `
�' O L p X
3 n 3 o m
m
x o � o @
� N � I�
m o � n m
m °� o Z c
U m n �
m m
a p ' m
a m � m m m
' E o r 3�;
c�i m U 'o � �
v m m v`o m
N 9 n C N
� � � � N �
p a o �� o
N C
m __
__V -..._. _ 3
m m ° o m V 3 3�
v o " v c m
O� U � U O "O
u � sm � c� 3>
� 01 C L m T �
c � a o � m p o.
� 9 C � m 0 L S_
7 L m O 6 C a
a m m �'o o b m m
��' � o n n o m O1
C % V
m O O � O O m ��
i c c c'u 3
`� c m m E E � -O o
m 0 mY _ 0 d � y C
h� L O p N V y O � p�
� � o m_ o
E°o�a�oao mE'x
N
� C'� � E 0 � 0 !p � 0
(3 4 0� � 9 y B � M O
a
E � n� T o� o o E m m
y i OYV1 mm 0V U O V
C O m
m o o� �� -6 -6 "a a 3 �
a U°° m s t s m o p o
s
m c m m° E_m E E�' �m
gmma�cv�,� o+3r
- m 9
� L
[0 LL W
03-9l1
� o
Q �
� m
v �
fA
m O
N t�
c7 O
� �
m N -
< �
v
m
N - O
Z -�` o
� 3 n
0 0
0 9 �
o_ o
V N
� o �
r t �O
Z ^
� m o �
� c �
o ° �
N �
� 3 N
N C �
�' c
b a
N �
¢
R � ¢
5 �
N =
N @
m �+ _
t c.^. m N
;� C
o � a�
m �° i � �
3 o R m d
O m m A
� 0 � y O
O E C O
�m` � �
o n m - x
� m 5 � o
n � C n
m3 =.rn x
O C N O m
O N �N O �
Qa x a�
c � o c n
O O.� O .
� d % `�.
m �
y ro 0 %q O
� x m � m
$ ° o�
O� -_ O� y
� o Q � �
� � c � 4
� �p 9
!i r � li �
03-9t1
ro 0
00
00
00
00
�
��
00
00
ao
00
00
� -
��
� r�000
o a
m
c —°
m o
E m
m R
� �
a �
R
`o U
N
C
0
�
m
�
V
0
t
m
0
L
O C
� O
O i �
C p �
p O N
V � C
� 0 f�]
� 3 r
m � o �
O O h N
a o , a �
. � d �
r a m d
�3 �
m 9
L 0 N
`ry N C
m R m
U �`-' O
m a �
� � n
� m o
t d
N �
j
m � a
`o
c m c
m m o
E E �
N N -
W m C
C � �
� 0 =
fp � R �
3 O 0 N
O O s
ca` °
'� � a c
U L J
W
�
h N N N O O O
T
C Q 9 m C
W y
O N C LL
�
0 L`3 � V LL Y
�O (6 �' > . > C
� m F� J'r J O
U � X � N ~ X
� W W W W W IU
U x z a a x z
o3-qll
Report on Structuraliy Substandard Buiiding
Building ID/Business Name/Address:
516 WhitaIl Street
22-14
Strucmrally Substandazd Building (Y/I�:
Step One
Y
Under the taz increment law, specifically, Minneso[a Stamtes, SecGon 469.174, Subdivision 10, a bvildin�
is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in sVUCtural elements or a combination of deficiencies
in essential utilities and facilities, li�ht and ven[ilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and
condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies aze of sufficien[ totai
significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance.'
The above buildinL, based upon actual interior inspec[ion and review of building permit records, meets the
above-referenced definition of swcmrally substandard for the following reasons:
SWC[ural Elements
• Evidence of water seepage throu�h fieldstone founda[ion walls and po[eatial de[erioration
• Severe watl and roof damage at second floor shower azea due to roof leakage and water
damage — framed wall and roof framing a[ dormer window is gone or severely deteriorated
Essential Utilities & Facilities
• Deficient in facilicies for disabled:
Light & Ventilation
• Bathroom not provided with means of na[ural or mechanical ventilation
Fire Protection/Egress
• Deficient exterior stairway: deficient rise/run; deficient handrail height
• Deficient emergency egress: lack of basement and bedroom emer�ency egress windows
• Insufficient cleaz width at second floor exi[ comdor
• Deficient interior stairway: insufficient clear stair width; deficient rise/run; insufficient siair
landing area; insufficient stair head room clearance; deficient handrail heigh[ and
[erminations; deficient a wardrail construction
• Lack of smoke detector/detection system on an individual floor and in each bedroom
Similar Fac[ors �
• Deficiencies in extedor buitding shell: gutters & downspouts in poor condition; roof shin�tes
badly worn on north half of building
• Headroom in garage/storage room addition on south side less than 6'-2" dear — insufficient
for standazd gazage use
• Evidence of cunent and past roof leaks — caused damage to interior finishes in several
locations
Step 1'wo
Notwithstanding the foregoins, the ta�c increment law also provides that a building may not be considered
sWCtural}y substandard if ii is in compliance with Ihe building code applicable to new buildin�s or could
be modified ta satisFy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of constructine a new
buildina of the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estima[ed cos[ of new building of same size and type (To[al Replacement Cost)_
Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost):
Percentaee of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cosr
$125,194.21
$24,60312 '
J9.65%
Refer to Lidividual Suildine Summary Repor[ for documentation of specific code deficiencies.
a3-9 �i
m n{V .�.� ° O O � O O O
P �; � pj � � O O M O Q Q'
�� p� p � � O O O fA uy i y
Y � I�
10 ti � ? >. r � O
q � � � � 0 i9 (9
O
0
a �
r
y
� J
o ¢
o
�i
��3
N N �O
N N �f1
}
a � o�i `o v
� d N � �
� � % � N
Q O [0 0 N
— - p U
� ' -d i- O
> v V N
O
o +. J a`
� �
L O1
d � o
� F
i-
w �
- O
¢
S
�
�
S
�
}
�
h H Z
U U �
v
V �
C N �
d £
= U a
� � m .
� d �
6 � O
+- o a
O F �
F U N
C �
d �
U N
� �
°' o
� t
N �
a *-
O V
__ _ V_.L___
}
O �
d L
p� O
a�
a- .-.
� v
N
U
L �
N
d �
n
�
�
7
h
i�
N
b
d
�
d
y
6
N
M Q' p_' � W L1J N T� O N
SO tv�� ��
� Q Q
�
�. ���
�z �oo
r�H �33
� �
S 6
N }
. �
C N
�F- �
L �h
� d
L
t L
� O
N
� 6
d U
h i
6 d
m
O �
} O
� v
a d
y n
N �
� 6
�
6
+
O
O
N
L
a
0
t
ti
c
0
�
�
� Z Z
m
C �
d O O
?
Ut � t 6 ?� T t y
a .- rn L °
# Z a ° - , 3� � Q� c d`�oi otli ¢ ..- oi
�# o� o c�i o O H v V o� T¢ � m 3 �°-
� �. z � v z rn rn— o� h o o= a
�2 d d H H� m m� d' � CO � LL�11 � T� W
O
U
3
y
c
0
U
LA
C
a
�
m
� v
m a
w 2
� y
C �
a 0
� N
CO T
.�-� ln
m o �
Q� '� G
.� m O
� � o
�- U
°- - c ° y c a
m m � � m
� p m _
a�m n '� o w
°Tctnom
U W� U Q� m
y ommc"'
m ?• � - o � m �.
o- m ° �> tn
cs--U
m W � T (n � t_�J
.� 0a �� �.
m U m m O R(J
o ° - � � m m
� Q LL W I1 2 W
�
�
m
0
�
�
�
�
� -
�
m
�
d
03-9t1
U
T
V
C
0
U
O
�
O
U
�
�
m �
a m
E . E
� v m
Z b >
m m o
� o
¢ `o �
V
J
N
0
ro 0 0
� � O
v3 v3 aj
�
O O O
O O O
n iO o
Hi EA '
�
E
n
� W
C O
O W
na
m m
U 0
m �
m
� m
m �
U N
m W
c m
� N
� 3
E �
r a
� '>
N �
6
X N
V N E w
� r rn
d �
a � "
0 2
U x
m m
� � m
G >
0
° m E
� .n m
m o °'
oi
O o m
W � m
C s O
m ';U
� � m
o =-°
p w r.
� � i
(I1 L
N O� -
m W �
W O O
� � H
C x
. w x
�
m
N OJ
m
rn �
c o
N
X �`
m U
� m
O �
� ¢
d �
x N
0
m T
_ m 3
r �a
� 0 �
�y E 3
O O C
0
0 0
U D
m �a
° o °
m � o,
m � c
O c
m a m
= � o
o m ar
m ' a ° `-°
C C
m m m
�? 0 3
m c ° o
N � �
a ` o�
m '� c
r�
U � X
a =, m
0
� � a
m '3
`° E m
N p __
� o .-
rn
� �o
'° a �
�
N y m
N _ � �
o m o 0
m C O m
x m m Tc
W L m 0
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
0 0
v
� �
O O
O O
O O
0 0
� O
vf in
0000000
� � � � �p b O
� � �
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
�a Fn �» vi �u � m
Vi
Z �- � N � N r PJ +-
O U
a
m � Q m
s 3 - m
0 3 m 3
?� C � C
V m A �
m 'O R
m O 3 N
o , `o a
m = o` c
V m y N
0 �i 0 6
�. 3 c c
m a a �
0 3 w ?
E `o �? o
m � x E
m m
o � m i
m � O N
� E m
m m c
o m
O � N D
a � cv 3
3 m M �
a p o ci
� o vi
3 rn m
a� m U a
G G !➢ O
O � � m
c � 3 c
� ; � a
m m 3
-_ c o
� m c m
vi m E �'
� m � �
� o' m E
= E � -
3 m y m
C �- �n �
m
E o m �
a U m o m
R m p @
U
a � 3 � `o
mm-o a` `
¢ m m m' 3 -
P
o � -
E m
'm '� a
N �
� rn m
X L L
R m
E u �
� y Q N
n m C m
t� m 0 T
vi �
o ° o ° o
a � E
� U o m
x E m
m . m �
i0 � j 0
� 'm y _
m N N � .-
a � �
. 3 o N �
O m m
` m `o o ° o
L R O ° CJ
� D U [L
= R � � .
^ � m , a
m ° c'm E m
y _ ,. o ..
N � � m
L
m �`. � N m
E o � Y o
�� m �° m
a ^�
� w � � c
m N [O m=
= m m m E c m
C R c R m m ry
m a m 3� � o
dm % C C U m
O � O N. p. p
oe� c— o
p[O N � Na
C m m 0 O
0 o m �
L p O p r Q 0
; mE 3 m m
H m d m t y 0
� ' � 0 Um m
y 3 _ � a
� � j � ? i S
" C 0 C i
m C t3 N H (6
LLE�n�'moin
m m
a �'m
� 'v m
m m �
s E
m �
L m
� - �
0 m m
a 3 m
o �
m
o a E
� � 0
oi Q m
�rj N - 6
C] C �
�
° o E �
V N �
m
`p 0
• _ o
= `� o
Q L n
m ._
m r
�
0 C N
c �.j
c E a
�
m a U
� - m
E "m ,
`m o:
m =
w
N �
s
� �-
3 mm
0 o m
� �
� v m
0 � ��
c
O L �
L d
� � N
a rnx
� m
a "a
c � �
0 N
C
�° ° a
� L N
Q �0
L C `�-�
R � � �
inm�n m
0 o r o r o o r
O O O N �
o �n Ey in �
it� �
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O b }q
O O O N N
� N � � �
� �
r � .- ,- m
a
o m
c R .3
� � = a a
� ° > `m
E � � 3 4 �
O � L O C
C O V 0 (6
ci m � � o a
vi ; E m � o
O � C 0 m d
o c E a o
a
m
m N 0 ` p . C �
- p 0 1�
� m := E m
W q C N m
O> E O � � m
a o y o � ,
m �� m c� c
o E m 3 p � o
E� s m °-� U c ai
��� a m p @ o m
m c- m o m
.c� °-'� a' � r �
`o m o `c V �
m a m ui V> � o m
n m o. �' � t� .a o �
E m E� o v'c � a a
� 3 c c m.� L m m
� m a o
o m o ° m� t o 0
._. o... S E C o`o. n
0� 0'�p m O O R O O
� a � i c c
-p m v a m m �
'O N"O C i N 0 E E
m p m O� i E� C N O N
o' E� E"'� �� 3 ° m m a
m m m � m o�3 0 o c m c
E 3 C V] � N m 9 N U m O V
m o� m E•- o w m Y m
E^ E. c m E'm ° m
mo mmm o o �'o ya
� m � m E � 'o- 3>. o $`o
a Y ¢` V � C Q N �' r�. 0
m
m m m m m o o"� �� a � a
� o� o o V°_ ° m�`a m
Y Y L y y
L°m 1 O mm c mm ° m EE
lp (n �p �] m d N � Vl w
._ �
(A u.
N
m
a�
m
Q.
O N O
O 0 N
O
O N m
� �
Oi
43 {A
O 0 O
O N 1�
O L7 O
O fA fR
n
�»
m v m
— m
v r
E E ro � � o 0 0
— m �
= � m o
o a
Z_ Z= � m
� m � � o R
`x 3 n
p m O O � U
N � O � O �
^ n j ?
� � � � f
Z C n i n
� m Z m Z
• � � 9 �
N �
m m � � `o
a — � —
y �` > N j
� 9 W C y
_ � C O C
O m � 9 O
� H Q � r
O� � ` � N
C
N G N N L
� 3 0 [0 . _�
. . .. _ __ _ __
3 � � w � m
� � 3 � 0 t
C � R � R 3
3 0 3 D � �
0
aa o`mm �
� �. �p m } N O
c'n - o E� o�'
N m 3 � O ��
N � 4 R X
C N (O b N � �
� O ��-- �i v •�- X
�E ° o c-� o `m
m� 'o �o� `o_E
_ � a� x'a
R N C 3 O C 6
E j� O O O
m � �
S 0 i� X ��
N O �u p m N O
m � V '� � V �
0 0 - 3
X� ��m�
3 0 - o ^ °. a..
0 0 9
O � v 3
a� a n o a 3
3 `r u n _° � c
N N N � p O O
U � %
R ¢ m N L
4 ' N C LL
U r � � �
O L`L � LL LL y
O N �- > . > S
m m 1- J F J �
N .
J N y X y y X
m W W W W W W
U x ax a x a a
03- 911
�
m
N
a
�3-9! 1
Report on S#ructurally Substandard Building
Bvilding TDBusiness Name/Address:
Structurally Substandard Buildina (YlI�:
538 Whitall Street
26-12
Y
Step One
Under [he tax increment faw, specifically, Minnesota S[atu[es, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a buildin�
is structurally snbstandard if it contains "defects in strucmral elements or a combination of deficiencies
in essentia] utilities and facilities, li�h[ and ventilation, fire protection including adequate e�ess, layout and
condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies aze of sufficient total
si�nificance to justify substantial renovation or cleazance."
The above building, based apon acmal interior inspection and review of building permit records, meets the
above-referenced defmition of swcturally substandard for the fol]owing reasons:
Structural Elements
. Deficiencies in exterior building shell: stone foundation missing mortar join[s and limestone
is deterioratio� �at southeas[ corner; various selQement cracks (through-wall} present in
basement foundation wall
Light & Ventila[ion .
. Iack of inechanical oven exhaust ventilation in kitchen area
Fire Protection/Sgress
. Deficient ex[erior stairway: deficient rise/run measurements; additional handrails required
. Deficient emergency eoress: lack of bedroom emergency egress windows
. Deficient exterior door: i�sufficient door landina area
. Deficient interior stairway: insufficient c3ear stair widih; deficient risehun measurements;
deficient clear headroom height; addi[ional handrails required; deficient handrail grip;
deficient �uardrail construction
LayoutlCondition of Interior Partitions
• Insufficient cleaz floor area pmvided a[ toi3et fixtures
. Interior finishes in poor condition: all flooring, majority"ofwalls and second floor ceilings
damaged by abuse, lack of maintenanee, or moismre
• Evidence of continuous wet basement moisture `wicking' up into foundation walls (and
interior pax[itions); interior cementitious coating spaDing off of foundation walls
Similar Factors
. Deficiencies in exterior building shell: moisture damage present at majoriry of wood window
frames (major wood rot at second floor windows)
Step Two
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment ]aw also provides that a building may not be considered
strucmrally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could
be modified to satisfy the current building code at a cost of less than 15% of the cost of consVuctin� a new
building of the same square footage and type on the same site.
Estimated cost of new buildin� of same size and type (Total Rep3acement Cost):
Estimated cost of correc[ion o€ code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost):
Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost:
$127,182.28
$21,628.24
17.01 %a
Refer to Indi�•idual Buildino Summary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies.
e O O N O O O
O O p> O O O
iti o� vs r ws °� °
m w
U q �p
a *- c»
V (R
C
O
U
0
? �
� r } Y. H
a � o�i o U
lL y � V �-
- 6 �'N � N
G L Q £
G O �] O O /
�-� a—O
v V N
O
� + J 0-'
� 6
L � }
d � O
t �
�
W �
�
2
rn
�
S
L
}
�
F
�
J
�
O F
o Fy
�3 N N
� N �
N N �1
U
N
V
d
�
�
�
� �
O
V �
T
t �
�
N �
N �
U =
O m
� �
d L
� 6
� �
Q
� "-
� �
d �
U �
� T
p a
d �
v '-
o �
U L
� i'
O �
d L
p� O
O `�-
t .-�
� v
d
V
L �
a
�
O�
b
v
h
N
N
a
N
�
d
H
6
�
� ^
01 6
t �
N �
C N
�F- �
� y
� L
} L
� Q
d
� p
� V
6 i-
m d
6 �
� o
d �
V N
- n
m �
� o
O
�
6
i-
U
0
L
O
0
V
CS
LL
t
a
�
i
*
a O � LY vj W W N T pi �� � Z Z
h O H CC < Q I� ..(`'). O�
�
� h g � �
I� H lL � �
�33
� C
O O
+ -O V �+- +- - z
6 O � V V .� �
N �� 6 L L v S pOj .D
�' Q Ol
C �1 } } i
� Z }}� U T O O L N= L 61 � d O
V V T G L
�$k d d d y O F V U}� T L °� = O
rn rn o - >
¢ � a � � ? - o 'v a o N o � o � � � d
� 2 p_ H H ln m[O � Q' ��1 UJ lL �1 T� W
�
�
�
N
c
0
U
�
c
'v
.�
m
n U
m Q
W S
� y
C £
v �
p] T
�
m O �
m 'C
m
.� � O
m— U
� c y c�i a
� � � N f6
� N T E � O tq
� X (n O i� �� E
c� �UQ— �
y "o � m c `�'
p T �. � U pl >.
��� �U'�� �
m �N � >.(n �:
�maa>�.
� U � C O � �
�Q LL W LL S W
�
m
O
�
N
�
�
3
�
�3-9�1
m
�
N
a
U
V
C
0
U
0
❑
O
U
�
�
s m
�a m
Z Q o
m
m ¢ a
a`o�
T
c
U
�
_o 0 0 0
O O O O
O b O O
� � � �
�
O O O O
O b O o
h N O b
Fn �st ta
�
�
n
r �
c o
O
no
X m
m m
R m
'c E
m �
� N
m �
� y
C W
2 'w
� 3
� c
= m
� a
m o
� n
X N
U m �
m E m
c � �
m t y
O � --
U N m
o+ � m
L o
a �° m
7 Q L
m � ("J
C O �
0 o cn
C �
� t O
°y .3 �
c w m
O N-
O N
N �
o �
y L �
N 01.�
d
w o 0
� m 0
C y
a w �
�
m
- m
a
m m
� a
o m
� R
U m
m 0
. �
� 3
� m p
� �a
s m '�
^ `p 0
n �
� m m
O � a
O R O
m g a
V
m E �
'? o c
m � o
a 3 m
'� m m
m �
R
� a m
v o 3
m m c v
.c o � c
3 .3
N � �
C m N w
N
L � X
m m
N m O 0
0 E L �
O
t N �i �
3 m E m
N_ $�
� � ��
`0�
3-°
L m
m m ip m
-- C � r
o a $ n
m`-
w n � m
N
n
c m
= �
�
m
m �
m
w�
o �m�
� o
m O
��U
� m O
- O
m � N
m
N O m
� o 0
a CJ o
m a
m
m � p
> �
� � h
.. 'a w
a y c
h
O ¢ K
m
U= 0
0
a LL O
c a m
� rnm
C =
� N �
C �
.s a o
N b y�
m m o
X —
� m 0
m
� a m
`-° N `
p U C
a � m
R E
O C V
m C ro
¢
W O �
aooaoo
i9 iA +9 � �V �V
vi vf
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
� � � � O O
� �
N CT N �- � �
3
c
0
a
a
m
a
�
�
m
�
3
m
° o
U
m
3
U
£
�
'
N
�
0
c
o � m �
� E C C
m `� m 3
b 'O O �
z � � � o
x _
� V n R �
a `o
n � c vi y o
n C? p m � �
O Q V � m 0
° m E
m U o U a�
m V N E m w V
� m
ip N � � 0
C . y � � q
0� y y E C C
6 lp � � O N
i 3 o N � ��
C V O � r V m
n' m c
` m o m c � m
V fl O 0 N q
C N O d � O
E - O U d S
_ � m m x o °
n _
mcA E !� O1 0
c N p � 0 � N
x ° a a �s
� O
N 0 0 ^ CI
£ O C� L
v � �Vi
E ro 0 � V ,
� = c ° ° m
T� c >
N m N� C �1 0
- 3 �
C N G R �i m m �
� d m 3�(� 0 a �
O m m U L R L O�(7
g � a� o
c� m` m m==° o�_
�° a � L �U
3 � c E 3 m m E a m
� U a m r m . � m�
.� m 0 � 0 N N'� Q
� � � D
O C N w t U �— � Ln
�� C C i N �'� N
Oi C N� N q p�C �N E
LL�Ein mm`oLLSinN
0 o ro
O O " O
O O O
rn � rn
� r v
� �
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
� b �
�
m
m m
- o m
0 LL
E �
� m
c �
m
3 �
m
m E
n
� N
� m
R Sp
�a
c �
E �
�
N t
O m
a
`� o
L O
�N
m
s N
C �
E o
� V
- m
A •
a - �
� S
� �
rn m
L
C-
N aJ
E �
o v
V l7
o ��
C C
�o
3 °
0
� X
c m
a
C Q
N'
C
O m
O
O� 0
m =
ti �
n
E
C
E _ � `
� `m
� E ° o 0
0 0 o c
� U N @
m � � m
— E Z �
y c �
mE �R
a
�m ao m m
N 0 �` ry
a '�
D � � �
� C � � E
O
� � � y
n a
�p C
� N i� t� R
� 3 0 m ` t�- ° c' v
L 0 ^ N C
` U N '-
m r m 3
m R V 3 m
g a ti ° o °
y c m
� m o 3 v
R ' U �
� c = rn a n
O C p 0 � �.
� m � � n
- w �
� o,o � "
o c E n o N
- m m
� � L N 3
O ), � C � O
a - C E C
3 E °- ° o R W
0 ` m ( O y ` �
m'm£ �
C N � U � m
0
E c z R '= >
m am' o
Om £. mm
Q � � Q m
E w � U m o
� �'O - O O 0
o o U c n
m E E �. m
`m m m rn 3 n
L
W
03-9�1
� o o r
P < P
m fU O
�n n. m
v_ �» �
�
m O 0
(V F <O
(n O O
� � �
m N O
o .- n
m
� �
L m �
9 0
g = ° a 3
n
0 0 o Q 3
° ma m `oa
0
n V N � P
m n c.
r � � a �
� O �L � 'O
� m
� o O � Q
N � N 0
J �
� C � C O
Ip � � m 0
Q � Q �
�E ¢- t o
i c
� N N v 0
m ,� 5 E
y =
m a+ m m
t L ^ 0 �
D C L
� � R 3 3 0
m
3 O � 0 �i �p
O m m � � W
� m + � O O ^
t ^
j N � �43 V �
o nm c x iqa
� � N � � � m
�-- c n �o
m N'=. m K W N
O C N O m O��
�M m n 0
O�p fR O r O Z
n.� K 2m O.�f9
o�° o
.= 0 % � v .= V O
�. R r C � m `
c o � � � c � �
V m E V j U p�
C O d C� C C" m tl!
O C p
- -°n.` �-°'"°-o 0 0
"°`°�a� 9 � � m
O� O O m O'� C
LL 1� � LL C LL� t6 �
�
N
N
�
a
63-9t�
0
0
0
0
0
�
0
0
0
0
b
�
R
b .- r O O O
0 V
O N
O O
m �
0
O �
C U
E m
m Q
m
E
N
0
n
O
�
Q
U
m
?
Q
0
�
3
�
C
E �
- m
N �
m �
� a
a
a
�
O y
C
� O
a '
m �
9 4
Q
C
2 V
m N
ti �
R m
N �
m p
V O
C �
0 �'
U 0
7
v� P
G m
(O N CV CV O O O
'� E m
@
� m y c
6 ' N C �
�'. � j ? o�
o s � � LL �%'
m R � j . � c
� m F F � �
V m .. ' '
�"� w w w w w
U x s u x ac x
�3-9�1
��:j��:�
Zsonard, Street and Deinazd Qpurion
2383918v1 B_ I
03-9�f
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
PBOFESSZOAAL ASSOCIATION
August 21, 2003
Port Authority of the City of Saint Pau1
1900 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street .
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1661
Re: Proposed Weshninster Junction Redevelopment District
The Po=-t P.uthaa*.;� of tue �iry �f �ai;�t Pa�:i (�ue "Fart Auuioriy' j is �ro�iosing �o create
a Redevelopment Tax Increment District pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 10 of Minnesota
Statutes. The proposed district is to be generally bounded by Wesfminster 5treet to the wesY,
Whitall Street to the north, Payne Avenue Yo the east and the proposed future Phalen Boulevard
to the south (the "DistricY').
With the help of Short Elliot Hendrickson, Ina ("SEH"), which has prepared its August
20, 2003 Redevelopment Eligibility Asseasment (the "Assessment"), the Port Authority has
recently exaulined the buildings located at 506, 516 and 538 Whitall Street in the District to
determine whether the buildings are "structurally substandard" for purposes of ineeting the
requirements for establishing the District. The buildings �amined are described in detail in the
Assessment and are referred to herein as the "Current Parcels."
To be strucYurally substandard a building mnst contain "defects in structural elements or a
combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and faciliries, ligYkt and ventilation, fire
protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial
renovation or clearance." Minn. Staz � 469.174, Subd. 10(b). In addition, no building can be
considered struchxrally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable_ to
new buildings or can be moclified to satisfy such building code at a cost of less than 15% of the
ccsi-oi co;.s� a r.ew sYn:cture oi tne same se�uaze iootage and iype on rhe site. h[inn. ,Stat.
�' 469.174, Subd. 1 D(c).
In its Assessment, SEH concludes that all three of the buildings are structurally
substandazd in that all of them contain structural deficiencies and other deficiencies of the Idnd
outlined in the statute which, in total, justify substanrial renovation or clearance of each building.
In addition, SEH determined that none of the buildings containing such deficiencies comply with
the building code apnlicable to new buildings and that in the case of each building, the cost of
modifying the building to comply with code requirements would exceed 15% of the cost of
constructing a new building. In reaching these conclusions SEH has conectly stated the
statutory requirements as interpreted by recent case law.
$00 LAWSON COMMONS jS0 ST. P£TEA STREET SAINT PAUL� MINNESOZq55102 TEL CSI-222"74S$ FAX A$I-222-7C>¢¢
2383921v1
LAW OFFICES IN MZNNEAPOLIS� SAZNT PAUL AND MAN%ATO
03-9►1
Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul
August 21, 2003
Page 2
We believe the Assessment unambiguously supports the conclusion that the three
buildings described (506, 516 and 538 Whitall Street) are slructuraliy substandard. We therefore
believe that, based on the Assessment, the Port Authority has a soimd basis for finding that those
buildings aze struciurally substandazd to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance._
Piease let us laiow if we can be of any fiuther assistance.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Professional Association
2383921v1
03-9�1
Resolution No. 4030
PORT AUTHORTTY OF THE CTTY OF SAIlVT PAUL
[Westminster Junction Business Center]
WHEREAS, the Port Authority of the Cily of Saint Paul (the "Port Authorit}�') is
proposing to create a Redevelopment Tas Increment District pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd.
10 of Minnesota Statutes, to be comprised of 31 separate contiguous tax parcels generally
bounded by Westminster Street to the west, Whitall Sbreet to the north, Payne Avenue to the east
and the proposed future Phalen Boulevazd to the south (the "DistricY'); and
WHEREAS, for safety reasons, the Port Authority intends to, prior to final certification of
the District, demolish certain of the struciures located on land to be included in the District; and
'vVFIEREAS, it has been proposed ihai, prior to demolition of the buiidings, ihe Port
Authority make certain factual findings supporting inclusion of the land in the District; and
WF�REAS, Section 469.174, Subd. 10 states that, when establishing a Redevelopment
Dishict, a parcel of land may be treated as though it is improved with a structurally substandard
building if (among other things) (a) the parcei was occupied by a structurally substandard
building wiUvn 3 years of the request for certification of the Redevelopment District, (b) the
substandazd building was demolished or removed by the Port Authority or the demolition or
removal was financed by the Port Authority or was done by a developer under a development
agreement with the Port Authority, and (c) the Port Authority finds by resolution before the
demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a shucturally substandard building and
that a8er demolition and clearance the Port Authority intendeds to include the parcel within a
Redevelopment District;
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment prepazed
by Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. ("SEH") and attached as Exhibit A(the "AssessmenY') related
to the residential buildings located at 506, 516 and 538 4Vhitall Street in the District (the
"Buildings"); and
WHEREAS, the Board has also reviewed the opinion of L,eonazd, Street and Deinazd
attached hereto as Exhibit B to the effect that the findings made in the Assessment are based on a
correct interpretation of applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Credit Committee has reviewed and approved this resolurion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Port
Authority of the City of Saint Paul as foliows:
1. The Port Authority hereby fmds:
2383918v1
D3 -9►1
(a) on the basis of the aerial photo attached hereto as Eachibit C reviewed at
this meeting, visual inspections by Port Authority personnel, and the Assessment, that all
three of the ta7c parcels on which the Buildings aze located are "occupied" by such
buildings and other improvements within the meaning of Minxiesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subd. 10 which requires that at least 15% of each tax pazcel be occupied by
buildings or other improvements; and
(b) on the basis of the SEH Assessment attached hereto as Exhibit A, that all
of the Buildings Pazcels are shucturally substandard as defined by Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10 of Minuesota Statutes.
2. T`he Port Authority hereby finds that all of the Buildings constitute a public
nuisance and danger and should be demolished.
3. The Port Authority hereby declazes its intention to include the taac parcel on which
the Baildings are located in the District after demolition of the Buildings.
4. Port Authority management, together with its advisors and legal counsel, are
hereby authorized to proceed with the preparation of the proposed District, and to negotiate,
draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all fiuther plans, resolutions,
documents and contracts necessary for this purpose.
5. Port Authority management together with its advisors and legal counsel, are
authorized to make arrangements for and proceed with the demolition of the Buildings.
Adopted: August 26, 2003
PORT AU'I`HORTI'Y OF THE CTTY
OF SAINT PAUL
B�S�� 6�tiv,,s�,.a'_' J ��,� "°�" �
Its Chair
ATTEST:
��� �
Se�
2383918v1 2