HF 3743

as introduced - 81st Legislature (1999 - 2000) Posted on 12/15/2009 12:00am

  1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to taxation; expanding the definition of 
  1.3             "redevelopment district" for purposes of tax increment 
  1.4             financing; amending Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 
  1.5             469.174, subdivision 10. 
  1.6   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.7      Section 1.  Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 469.174, 
  1.8   subdivision 10, is amended to read: 
  1.9      Subd. 10.  [REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.] (a) "Redevelopment 
  1.10  district" means a type of tax increment financing district 
  1.11  consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which 
  1.12  the authority finds by resolution that one of the following 
  1.13  conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, 
  1.14  exists: 
  1.15     (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the 
  1.16  district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other 
  1.17  improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not 
  1.18  including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree 
  1.19  requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or 
  1.20     (2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, 
  1.21  inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail 
  1.22  storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad 
  1.23  rights-of-way, or tank facilities adjacent to rail facilities. 
  1.24     (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally 
  1.25  substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural 
  2.1   elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities 
  2.2   and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including 
  2.3   adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or 
  2.4   similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient 
  2.5   total significance to justify substantial renovation or 
  2.6   clearance.  
  2.7      (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in 
  2.8   compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or 
  2.9   could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less 
  2.10  than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of 
  2.11  the same square footage and type on the site.  The municipality 
  2.12  may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally 
  2.13  substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of 
  2.14  reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age 
  2.15  of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or 
  2.16  structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence.  The 
  2.17  municipality may not make such a determination without an 
  2.18  interior inspection of the property, but need not have an 
  2.19  independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and 
  2.20  rehabilitation of the building.  An interior inspection of the 
  2.21  property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the 
  2.22  municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the 
  2.23  property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from 
  2.24  the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the 
  2.25  evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the 
  2.26  building is structurally substandard.  Items of evidence that 
  2.27  support such a conclusion include recent fire or police 
  2.28  inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing 
  2.29  inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other 
  2.30  similar reliable evidence.  Written documentation of the 
  2.31  findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not 
  2.32  conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, 
  2.33  subdivision 3, clause (1). 
  2.34     (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally 
  2.35  substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph 
  2.36  (a) if all of the following conditions are met: 
  3.1      (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building 
  3.2   within three years of the filing of the request for 
  3.3   certification of the parcel as part of the district with the 
  3.4   county auditor; 
  3.5      (2) the substandard building was demolished or removed by 
  3.6   the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the 
  3.7   authority or was done by a developer under a development 
  3.8   agreement with the authority; 
  3.9      (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition 
  3.10  or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally 
  3.11  substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the 
  3.12  authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and 
  3.13     (4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax 
  3.14  capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority 
  3.15  notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of 
  3.16  the parcel must be adjusted as provided by section 469.177, 
  3.17  subdivision 1, paragraph (h). 
  3.18     (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not 
  3.19  occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements 
  3.20  unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains 
  3.21  improvements. 
  3.22     (f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous 
  3.23  areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under 
  3.24  paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire 
  3.25  area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). 
  3.26     Sec. 2.  [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 
  3.27     Section 1 is effective for districts or additions to the 
  3.28  geographic area of a district for which request for 
  3.29  certification is made after June 30, 2000.