The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEDA AGN 07-29-04 SpecialCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 (763) 706-3600 TDD (763) 706-3692 Visit Our Website at: www. ci. columbia-heights, mn.us EDA COMMISSIONERS Don Murzyn Jr. Patricia Jindra Julienne Wyckoff Bruce Nawrocki Bobby Williams Tarranera Ericson Bruce Kelzenberg SPE~IAL MEETING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM 1 590 40~'~I AVENUE, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5:30PM THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2004 AGENDA 1. Further Discussion on NEI Site 2. Adjournment THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS Of DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O Econormc Development Authority Meeting Minutes April 20, 2004 Page 7 of 9 Approve Contract for Demolition of NEI Building ~ Streetar stated staff sent out nine bids with four responses. ?34. ?rattalone was the lowest bidder at $286,500. Bids include demolition of the building, removal of all non-friable asbestos, removal and preservation of the front archway and balusters, with demolition to begin after July fit. Anoka Counn' indicated the City will receive $284,600 of CDBG g-ant funds to pay for the demolition, with the re,::,,ining $1.900 to come from reallocated CDBG fitnds from the sale of 4607 Tyler. Depending on the subsequent reuse of the NE~ site, a percentage of the CDBG funds may have to be repaid. In that event, the fimds would remain solely for use in other projects in Columbia Heights. MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Kelzenberg, to approve the Demolition Contract with F.M. Frattalone for the NEI building at 825 41st Avenue, in an amount not to exceed $286,500 and pending review and approval by the City Attorney; and furthermore to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. Upon Vote: Jindra- Aye, Nawrocki- Nay, Ericson- Aye, Kelzenberg- Aye, Mumyn- Aye, Williams- Nay, Wyckoff- Aye. Motion Carried. ~ Nawrocki asked why we are saving the Baluster's and archways. Wyckoff stated she requested they be saved and possibly reused as they have some architectural history of the City, as it was the original High School. 40th & University Predevelopment Agreement Schumacher stated at the EDA meeting on March 16ts Mr. Peterson asked the board if they were interested in a development from the partnership of Williams-Peterson using the same agreement to market the site as the Haugland Company had with the EDA. The board requested Peterson, to prepare a proposal for this meeting. The agreement attempts to formulate a definitive development contract, addresses the purchase price of the property, satisfactory mortgage, equity financing resolution of zoning, land use and site design issues, economic feasibility and soundness of the development. The EDA also set four parameters of priority to work with: 1) upscale development with single or multi-use tenants; 2) no fast food restaurants; 3) no auto related activities; and 4) uses that would provide vitality and needed services along University Avenue. If the Williams- Peterson, Partnership, met the requirements of the Predevelopment Agreement, staff will return to the board with a final development contract for consideration. Williams stated he would not be participating in the discussion as he is in the partnership. Ericson stated she did not agree with putting 'a larger building on the site without it beingpre- leased, as Haugland already tried marketing the site with no interested parties and asked what is it about their proposal that would make the board think it would work. Peterson stated he has pursued a business tenant for theproject site, but can't go any further with them until he has an agreement. He has been in the construction business for 40 years, has lived in Columbia Heights for 35 years, has built complexes like this before, has never leased out the units, but his partner, Mr. Williams has and felt it was time to invest in our City. Streetar stated Haugland's consc:::::y ~t'::s :o have 80?6 leased before a development agreement was s~ned COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Meeting of April 20, 2004 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration' ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE NO: 4-C Community Development DIRECTOR APPROVAL ITEM: Approve contract with F.M. Frattolone BY: Robert Streetar BY: for the demolition of the NEI Building. DATE: April 14, 2004 BACKGROUND: At the direction of the EDA, staff sent nine applications to prospective bidders, and received four bids for the demolition of the NEI building. Bids were. received from: Bidder F.M. Frattolone Carl Bolander & Sons Veit & Company RJK Construction Amount $286,500 $294,800 $360,444 $347,900 The bids include demolition of the building, the removal of all non-friable asbestos, and the removal and preservation of the front archway, and balusters, with demolition to begin after July 1. Anoka County indicates the City will receive $284,600 of CDBG grant funds to pay for the demolition, with the remaining $1,900 to come from reallocated CDBG funds from the sale of the four-plex at 4607 Tyler Street. Depending on the subsequent reuse of the NEI site, a percentage of the CDBG funds may have to be repaid. In that event, the funds repaid would remain solely for use in other projects in Columbia Heights. Please see attached bidding information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends awarding the demolition contract to F.M. Frattolone for the demolition of the NEI building in an amount not to exceed $286,500. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the demolition contract with F.M. Frattolone for the NEI building at 825 41st Avenue, in an amount not to exceed $286,500 and pending review and approval by the City Attorney; and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. Attachments EDA ACTION: h:\consent 2004\EDA NEI Demolition Contract2 Redevelopment Eligibility Assessment Proposed Redevelopment TIF District Columbia Heights, MN January 12, 2004 Prepared by: Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) Butler Square Building, Suite 710C 100 North 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 SEH No. A-COLHT0401.00 City of Columbia Heights Former Columbia Heights High School TIF District January 12, 2004 PURPOSE Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) was hired by the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, to survey and evaluate the properties within the proposed Former Columbia Heights High School Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District at 825 41st Avenue NE. The proposed district is generally located north of 41 st Avenue, south of 42nd Avenue, west of Central Avenue and Quincy Street. The purpose of our work was to independently ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility, as required under Minnesota Statute, could be met. 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. SCOPE OF WORK The proposed district consists of l parcel comprised of the following types of improvements: 1 institutional structure on 1 parcel with parking improvements. Within the district are also several accessory structures- for the purposes of thisassessment, these are considered 'outbuildings' and are not included in the Condition of Buildings Test. EVALUATIONS An interior and exterior inspection was completed for the building. FINDINGS Coverage Test - The property met the coverage test with a 100% area coverage. This exceeds the 70% area coverage requirement. Condition of Buildings Test - The building was found to be "structurally substandard" 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 Building Test whereby over 50% of buildings, not including outbuildings, must be found "structurally substandard." CONCLUSION Our surveying and evaluating of the properties within this proposed Redevelopment District render results that in our professional opinion qualify the district eligible under the statutory criteria and formulas for a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (State Statute 469.174 Subd. I0). SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED Site Occupied/Building Substandard Determination table TIF Assessment maps: Buildings Under Study, Occupied Surfaces, Percent Occupied Report on Building Condition (one per building) - Individual Building Summary Report (one per building) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS The properties were surveyed and evaluated in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statute Section 469.1'74, Subdivision 10, clause (c) which states: Interior Inspection - "The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." Exterior Inspection and Other Means - "An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property; and after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." Documentation - "Written documentation of the building findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3, clause (1)." An interior and exterior inspection was completed for this building, therefore documentation for these purposes is not required. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS The City of Columbia Heights sent a letter to the property owner located in the district requesting that an inspection and evaluation be made of their property. SEH conducted the assessment on December 10, 2003. Requests for evaluation appointments were made with the building owner or building tenant. An interior inspection and evaluation was completed and consented to by the owner. For the subject building, the City of Columbia Heights provided copies of all available building permits on record for review by SEH. These permits provide a basic description of type of work completed for each permit (Building, Electrical, or Plumbing, scope of work) and, in some cases, approximate value of work to be completed. Additional building data was collected from public taxpayer information available from Anoka County. Building data from these public records was combined with and reviewed against information gathered in the field. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The property was surveyed and evaluated to ascertain whether the qualification tests for tax increment eligibility for a redevelopment district, required under the following Minnesota Statutes, could be met. Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: 1. Coverage Test - "parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or similar structures..." Note: The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statute Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (e) which states:."For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15% of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures." 2. Condition of Buildings Test - "... and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;" The term 'structurally substandard', as used in the preceding paragraph, is defined by a two- step test: Conditions Test: Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (b), a building is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Code Test: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, clause (c) also provides that a building may not 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 of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site." Based on the above requirements, the substandard determination of a particular building 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 substandard. It is not sufficient to conclude that a building is structurally substandard solely because the Code Test is satisfied. It is theoretically PoSsible for a building to require extensive renovation in order to meet current building codes but still not meet the main test of the Conditions Test. Furthermore, deficiencies included in the Conditions Test may or may not include specific code deficiencies as listed in the Code Test. In many cases, specific building code deficiencies may well contribute to the data which supPorts satisfying the Conditions Test; conversely, it is certainly Possible that identified hazards or other deficiencies which could be included in the Conditions Test do not necessarily constitute current building code deficiencies. By definition, the nature of the two steps is slightly different. The Conditions Test is more subjective, whereas the Code Test is an objective test. Conditions Test deficiencies are less technical and not necessarily measurable to the same extent of the code deficiencies in the Code Test. To the end that technical, measurable building code deficiencies support the satisfaction of the less technical Conditions Test, 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..." International Building Code (IBC): The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards 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 hazards 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 facilities, light and ventilation, etc.". Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341: This chapter sets the requirements for accessibility all building occupancies. The Minnesota Accessibility Code closely follows 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 qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities (ADA Handbook). Essentially, a deficiency in the accessibility code (lack of handrail extension at stairs or ramp, lack of clearance at a toilet fixture, etc.) results in a discrimination 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 the Minnesota Department of Health and is similar to the IBC in that it provides minimum standards to safeguard public health in areas of public/commercial food preparation. A deficiency in the food code (lack of non-absorbent wall or ceiling finishes, lack of hand sink, etc.) causes a condition for potential contamination of food; therefore, a deficiency in the food code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities"2 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 are considered necessary for safety (NEC 90-1 (a) and Co)). A deficiency in the electric code (insufficient electrical service capacity, improper wiring, etc.) causes a hazard from the use of electricity; therefore, a deficiency in the electric code is considered a deficiency in "essential utilities and facilities". International Mechanical Code (I/VIC): The purpose of the IMC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, installation, quality of materials, location, operation, and maintenance or use of mechanical systems (IMC 101.3). The IMC sets specific requirements for building ventilation, exhaust, intake and relief. These requirements translate into a specified number of complete clean air 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 deficiency 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 included in the data used to satisfy the conditions test for a particular building. Refer to individual building reports for specific findings. Finally, the tax increment law provides that the municipality may find that a building is not · disqualified as structurally substandard under the Code Test on the basis of "reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cOst of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence. Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence." MEASUREMENTS AGAINST TECHNICAL TEST REQUIREMENTS Coverage Test SEH utilized a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) system database, available through Anoka County and the City of Columbia Heights, to obtain individual parcel information. The GIS system contains graphic information (parcel shapes) and numerical data based on county tax records. This information was used by SEH for the purposes of this assessment. The total square foot area of each property parcel was obtained from county records (GIS) and general site verification. The total extent of site improvements on each property parcel was digitized from recent aerial photography (Spring, 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 determine if the 15% requirement was met. Refer to attached maps: Occupied Surfaces map and Percent Occupied map. The total area of all qualifying property parcels was compared to the total area of all parcels to determine if the 70% requirement was met. Condition of Building Test Replacement Cost - the cost of constructing a new structure of the same size and type on site: R. S. Means Square Foot Costs (2004) was used as the industry standard for base cost calculations. R. S. Means is a nationally published 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. 6 Means were reviewed, and modified if applicable, against our professional judgment and experience. A base cost was calculated by first establishing building type, building construction type, and construction quality level (residential construction) to obtain the appropriate Means cost per square 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/local pricing, a cost factor was added to the total cost according to R.S. 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: Conditions Test (Condition Deficiencies) - determining the combination of defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. Deficiencies in structural elements, essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, were noted by the evaluator. Condition Deficiencies may or may not include Code Deficiencies as defined below. Energy code compliance was not considered for the purposes of determining Condition Deficiencies. Deficiencies were combined and summarized for each building in order to determine their total significance. Building Deficiencies: Code Test (Code Deficiencies) - determining technical conditions that are not in compliance with current building code applicable to new buildings and the cost to correct the deficiencies: On-Site evaluations - Evaluation of each building was made by reviewing available information from city records and making interior and/or exterior evaluations, as noted, sometimes limited to public spaces. On-site evaluations were completed using a standard checklist format. The standard 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 are followed by its applicable building code): · Building accessibility- Minnesota Accessibility Code · Building egress, building construction - International Building Code · Fire protection systems - International Building Code · Food service - Minnesota Food Code · HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) - International Mechanical Code · Electrical systems - National Electric Code and Minnesota Energy Code · Energy code compliance - Minnesota Energy Code For the purposes of determining the Code Test (Code Deficiencies), Energy code compliance is relevant because its criteria affect the design of integral parts of a majority of a building's systems. The intent of these criteria is to provide a means for assuring building durability, and permitting energy efficient operation (7676.0100). The energy code addresses general building 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 and therefore applies to the Code Test. Office evaluations - Following the on-site evaluation, each building was then reviewed, based on on-site data, age of construction, building usage and occupancy, square footage, and known improvements (from building permit data), and an assessment was made regarding compliance with current mechanical, electrical, and energy codes. A basic code review was also completed regarding the potential need for additional egress (basement stairways, for example), sprinkler systems, or elevators. Deficiency Cost - Costs to correct identified deficiencies were determined by using R. & Means Cost Data and our professional judgment and experience. In general, where several items of varying quality were available for selection to correct a deficiency, an item of 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, quantities, and qualities of materials were not possible to be known. Our approach to this matter was to determine a preliminary cost projection suitable to the level of detail that is known. This process was similar tO our typical approach 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 the Conditions Test and the Code Test in this manner was compared to the total number of buildings in the proposed district to determine if the 50% requirement was met. Reports on Building Conditions and Individual Building Summary Reports are available for review at the offices of SEH and the City of Columbia Heights. Technical Conditions Resources - the following list represents the current building codes applicable to new buildings used in the Building Deficiency review: 2003 Minnesota State Building Code 2000 International Building Code 2000 International Housing Code MN 1341 - Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341 (1999) 2000 Minnesota Energy Code, Chapters 7672, 7674, or 7676 1999 National Electric Code 2000 International Mechanical Code PROJECT TEAM: Leon A. Grothe, AIA, Project Architect Jason P. Zemke, AIA, Project Architect 9 ILl 0 ILl 0 r~ LU It T U. Id (.1 I- m m L~ Z - m Z I~m r~Z -.~C~o L1 U / L1 b. Id m u n' CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT Buildings Under Study 1 ~O~eet Legend ~ Project Area Parcels Coordinate System (m) UTM, Zone 15. NAD83 Source: Cily of Columbia Heights, MetroGIS. and SEH. II CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT Occupied Sudaces Legend ~ Project Area Parcels Occupied Surfaces ! Yes I No Coordinate System (m) UTM, Zone 15, NAD 83 Source: City of Columbia Heights, MetroGl$. and SEH. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT Percent Occupied 10~eet Legend Project Area Parcels Pcnt_Occp 0 % Occupied 1 - 15 % Occupied > 15 % Occupied Coordinate System (m) UTM, Zone 15, NAD 83 Soume: City of Columbia Heights, MetroGIS, and SEH. Report on Building Condition Building ID/Business Name/Address: Former Columbia Heights High School Satisfies Conditions Test for Structurally Substandard Building: Satisfies Code Test for Structurally Substandard Building: Structurally Substandard Building (Y/N): Conditions Test Under the tax increment law, specifically, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, a building is structurally substandard if it contains "defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." The above building, based upon actual interior and exterior inspection and review of building permit records, exhibits the following deficiencies that contribute to justifying substantial renovation or clearance: Structural Elements · Defects in exterior building shell: settlement cracks in exterior masonry wall in many areas; moisture stains on ceilings and exterior walls, with mold in several areas; section of concrete slab missing on lower level, along south wall, revealing top of footing. · Holes in floors, walls and ceilings in several areas, possibly from previous structural or plumbing repairs. Essential Utilities & Facilities · Deficient in facilities for disabled: lack of van accessible parking; deficient exterior accessible route and curb cut; deficient ramp landings, slope and handrails; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in toilet rooms; lack of maneuvering clearance and accessible features in showers and common/public use room. · Installation of additional drinking fountains required. Light & Ventilation · Deficient in meeting Mechanical code: for building construction prior to 1989, mechanical systems do not provide sufficient number of air exchanges Fire Protection/Egress · Deficient exterior stairway: deficient in guardrails, handrail heights, terminations and extensions, rise/mn dimensions and landings. · Deficient exterior door: deficient in threshold height and door landing. · Deficient interior stairway: deficient in width, guardrails, handrails, handrail heights, terminations and extensions, rise/run dimensions and landings. · Deficient interior door: main door to library opens opposite from the direction of egress travel. · Installation of sprinkler system required. Layout/Condition of Interior Partitions · The plaster on interior partitions is cracked, broken, peeling and "bubbling", with holes in many areas; there are large, rough openings in partitions, revealing plumbing and wiring in several areas, mainly in service areas; there are moisture damage and water stains in several areas, with the plaster deteriorating and/or stained with mold; many hairline cracks in masonry walls in the gym and stairways. Similar Factors · General building condition is poor: cracked or broken plaster on ceilings; missing or loose ceiling tiles in many areas with moisture stains; broken glass in interior skylight in east gym with water stains on remaining glass; many hairline cracks in the concrete and terrazzo floors and stairs; missing or broken floor tiles in several areas; many damaged lockers, with trim that is either damaged or missing altogether; bathroom stall dividers are deteriorating in several areas; deteriorating cast iron urinal in men's toilet, with corroding fragments falling on the floor; corroding plumbing in several public and service areas; exterior stair/fire escape is deteriorating and leaving rust stains on exterior of building. Code Test Notwithstanding the foregoing, the tax increment law also provides that a building may not be considered structurally 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 constructing a new building of the same square footage and type on the same site. Estimated cost of new building of same size and type (Total Replacement Cost): $12,647,131.14 Estimated cost of correction of code deficiencies (Total Deficiency Cost): $1,951,374.20 Percentage of Code Deficiency to Replacement Cost: 15.43 % Refer to Individual Building Summary Report for documentation of specific code deficiencies. 0 0 :K o°8 oo d d d o o d o d o d d d d ,~ o oo oo o o ~ 8 °o 88 ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~ 0 ~o 0 ~'~0~\ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 0 ~ 0 0 O. 0 o o o ~ oo g o=' o~ o o o o o o° ~ o° o° o o. o o° o° o° o ~ d ~ c~ II = o x '82 '~ E~ ~ c c ~ o~ 0~ o o ~ ~ a '0 e ~ .~ .e ~ o ~-~ e ~'~ .~ .~ o z~ 2~ ~e c- ~ ~ ~ 0 x ~ ~ EE o_ ~ o~ ~ ~e~ '~o .~= e ~ o o~ o= ~ ~'~ o ~ o_ o~ ~ =~.~ 8 ~s~ ~ ~-- o~.- ~ x x x x x LU UJ LU LU UJ o