2001-05-22~ r
~.
A !'~ T lUil A
MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MAY 22, 2001
6:30 P.M.
6:30 1. OPEN MEETING
2. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS
3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHARON'S REPORT
6:40 4. PROJECT REPORTS
A. POST OFFICE
B. GREENWAY
C. LONGPRE BUILDING, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO
SECURE COMPETITIVE QUOTES FOR DEMOLITION
7:00 5. HEARING FOR MUELLER-LANSING PROPERTIES
6. GRAMERCY CORPORATION PRESENTATION FOR THE MOUND
VISION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING PROJECT TEAM
REMARKS
(To be held concurrently with City Council meeting. See City Council agenda.)
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POLSTON, ET AL, LAW SUIT
(To be held concurrently with City Council meeting. See City Council agenda.)
7:20 8. ADJOURN
y. ~.i„
n
CITY OF MOUND
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
;.....
APRIL 24, 2001
The Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
met in regular session on Tuesday, April 21, 2001, at 6:30 p. m. in the council chambers at
5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Members Present: Chairperson Pat Meisel, Commissioners Bob Brown, Mark hanus, Peter
Meyer, Kim Anderson and Tenant Representative Pauline Payne.
Others Present: HRA Director, Pinky Charon; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter, City Manager,
Kandis Hanson; City Attorney, John Dean; Dorothy and Bill Netka, Jim Prosser, David Hozza.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Meisel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the agenda and consent agenda as
presented. All ayes.
A. Monthly bills for April, 2001, in the amount of $16,251.40.
B. Minutes of March 2~~~~2001 and April 10, 2001.
3. DIRECTOR CHARON'S REPORT
A. Director Charon presented the following: 1) Account Report for 2/28/.01; 2) Marquette
Bank; 3) Wells Fargo; and 4) MBLA.
B. AGREEMENT BETWEEN HRA AND CITY
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the Agency Agreement Purchase
of Services between the City and the HRA. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
C. Tenant Representative, Pauline Payne did not have anything to report.
D. Information items -Director Charon reported that there will be a public hearing in June
for the PHA plan. The final figure for their ranking is 90.8%, with anything over 90%
being a high performer.
4. COUNTY ROAD 15 OPEN HOUSE
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to reschedule the open house for the realignment of
County Road 15, from April 26th to May 3, 2001, at 7:00 p. m. This change is necessary due to
a conflict with the earlier set date.
5. MODIFICATION TO TIF DISTRICT
Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates, explained that changes in rules relating to the
4'~ administration of TIF districts have occurred since the district was first established. These
changes impact how the City must document budget items relating to district expenses. A bill
currently under consideration would require certain changes in how TIF proceeds are reported
and used. The changes proposed would accommodate these changes if enacted. He
Y
ix
~.
Mound HRA -April 24, 2001
explained that the modification to the plan would; 1) expand the budget for TIF district 1-1 to
include interest earnings, inter fund loans and inter fund transfers as tax increment funds, 2)
clarify budgets for previous bond refunding amounts, 3) clarify duration, 4) clarify the amount of
inter fund loan transfers of tax increments to be authorized, and 5) explicitly authorize the use
of tax increments for Development District project expenditures.
Commissioner Anderson was concerned over the contents of page 2 of the memo received
from the County, where it stated that the amount is an unknown, but if TIF District No. 1-1 were
to be decertified when all of its own debt obligations have been met, the increased tax revenue
generated by the new development in the TIF district would be returned to the general tax rolls
sooner. If tax increment revenue generated by TIF District No. 1-1, but not needed for its own
debt obligations, is "pooled" with TIF District No. 1-2, there could be as much as a ten-year
delay before Mound, Hennepin County and School District 277 tax levies benefit from the tax
capacity increases within this TIF District. She expressed that she feels this money should be
used in the general fund and not transferred to another district.
Hanus stated that there is no deprivation of funds because either the funds come back to the
general fund or go to another TIF District. The city gets the money either way.
It was noted that the decision on how to spend these funds doesn't have to be made until April
of 2002.
~""` MOTION by Anderson, seconded by Meyer to adopt the resolution for the TIF District
modification only if the money goes back to the City's general fund, not into another District.
Ayes: Anderson, Meyer. Nayes: Brown, Hanus, Meisel. Motion defeated.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. Ayes: Brown,
Hanus, Meisel. Nayes: Anderson, Meyer. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION N0.01-04H: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1-1 THEREIN.
6. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Chairperson Pat Meisel
Attest: Kandis Hanson, Executive Director
- - '
ti.
t-
1
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
D
UN/TED ST,t7TE5
POSF/JL SERVICE .. .. ,
April 9, 2001
Honorable Jim Ramstad
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2303
Dear Congressman Ramstad:
This is in response to your March 29 letter regarding the status of the proposed postal retail facility
projects in Mound.
I appreciate your interest in this matter. As you know, the Postal Service Board of Governors
recently directed postal management to reduce the capital budget from $3.6 billion to $2.6 billion
this fiscal year, to undertake a thorough review of all projects, and to curtail or eliminate all non-
essential activities. As a result, all facility projects not yet awarded are on hold pending
management review.
Our limited funds will be allocated to resolving safety, health, legal, and emergency situations, and
on those facilities where expenditures will provide maximum improvement in customer services
and postal operations. Of course, priorities may be modified based on uneXpected critical needs,
changes in operational requirements or mail volumes, lease expirations or evictions, and a variety
of other economic factors. While !understand your concerns that the project in Mound continue as
soon as possible, given the size of our facility program, the review process may not be completed
until later this year. Any further changes to our facility plans will be in keeping with our financial and
cash positions as we progress from fiscal year 2001 into 2002.
Your office will be contacted directty with an updated status of the Mound facility project once a
determination has been made. If I can be of assistance with other postal issues, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
c
Sheila T. Meyers
Government Relations Representative
47L L'ENFnM PWASVv
WtisNIN(irprl DC 20260-3500
V~r US ®usvg-COM
~-
~.
To: Yelena Vaynberg
From: Jim Prosser
Subject: Mound Post Office
Date: April 16, 2001
I called Heather Renner to regarding setting a meeting with Brian Marshall of the Minneapolis
USPS office to discuss what could be done to move the Mound Post Office relocation issue
ahead. Heather suggested that I set up a meeting and that she would attend. I called Brian to set
up a meeting. Brian provided the following information:
• He would be pleased to meet with us but that the issue was entirely out of his hands at
this point. He stated that the Mound Post Office project is a high priority for Minnesota.
• A process has been initiated to review the status of all USPS construction projects. That
process includes recommendations from each state office. Minnesota has recommended
that this project proceed. The recommendation goes to Kansas City where additional
project information is added to the request. The request is then forwarded to the Regional
Office in St. Louis. The Midwest Regional office will make a recommendation and send
the request to Washington D.C.
• Appeals to the process or request to expedite are best made in Washington D.C.
• There is no time frame identified for processing these requests.
It seems that a meeting in Minneapolis will not be productive. The Mayor and City Council are
extremely concerned that the delays in this project by the USPS may cause a delay in the
scheduled road construction for their community. If this happens the City could lose grant funds.
In addition the delay may cause the developer for this area to withdraw their project.
To date the City has invested over $300,000 in the Post Office relocation project and almost $1
million for the overall project. This investment is clearly in jeopardy because of the decision of
the USPS to delay this project to a time uncertain.
Please advise us on what course of action to pursue to address this matter.
N:\Minnsota\Mound\l'ost Office\4.13.Ol.wpd
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364-1687
CITY O F MOUND PH: (952) 472-0600
FAX: (952) 472-0620
WEB: www.cityofmound.com
May 18, 2001
Ms. Gail Stollenwerk
Real Estate Specialist
United States Postal service
6201 College Blvd., Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66211-2443
Subject: Status of lease with the Mound Post Office
Dear Ms. Stollenwerk:
You recently requested information regarding the status of the lease of the building to
the United States Postal Service (USPS) in Mound. Here is a brief synopsis of relevant
issues:
• The City of Mound owns the building leased by the USPS for the Mound Post
Office.
• The current lease expires October 1, 2002.
• The City has received federal TEA21 funding for a transportation project that
encompasses the Mound Post Office property and will require the removal of the
post office building.
• The City is required to commit those funds by September of this year. Based on
the USPS freeze, we are seeking an extension of the grant.
• Completion of the transportation project is essential to other private
redevelopment projects in the downtown area.
• The City of Mound, in preliminary coordination with the USPS, as acquired a
proposed future post office site and is ready to transfer the site to the USPS for
development of a new post office. The required City reviews have been
completed to permit the construction of the Post Office on this site.
Based on these factors the City's position regarding the current lease with the USPS is
as follows:
1. The City will not be able to grant an extension to the current lease with the USPS
for the Mound Post Office building past October 2002. To do so would
essentially require the City to forfeit approximately $800,000 in federal grant
funds for a project that is essential to redevelopment of the downtown area.
® printed on recycled paper
LISPS Letter of 5!18!01
Page 2.
2. Also, based on the redevelopment uncertainty of the LISPS, the City cannot
commit to reserving the site acquired for post office relocation much beyond a
30-day time frame. Given this uncertainty, the City would consider reasonable
offers from other parties for development of that site. This would permit the City
to recover its investment currently tied up in the property.
The City of Mound greatly appreciates the extraordinary efforts of LISPS officials to
cooperatively address the relocation of the Mound Post Office. We hope that you
understand that a variety of circumstances seriously limit our options regarding both the
lease extension and reserving the proposed Post Office relocation site.
Sincerely,
Kandis Hanson
City Manager
1 1
~ LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST
Loss Control Services Administration:
c/o Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC
222 South 9+~ Street, Suite 1300, Miruleapolis, Minnesota 55402-3332
League of Minnesota Cities Phone: (612) 766-3172 Fax: (612) 766-3199
Cities promoting excel/ence Web Site: www.lmnc.org
04/23/2001
Ms. Kandis M. Hanson
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Kandis:
A loss control survey was recently conducted concerning certain premises and operations for the
city. This was in conjunction with the City's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT) property, liability and workers' compensation program. The purpose of
my visit was to assist the city in the reduction of potential loss through loss control and risk
management activities.
As a result of that loss control survey, I have developed the following recommendations. We have
found that compliance with loss control recommendations can assist in minimizing the potential for
loss.
2300 Commerce Blvd
2-OS/O1 -This city has a purchase agreement on this building. Once the building is owned by the
city, the following items need to be addressed:
1. Security on all exterior entrances needs to be enhanced to prevent unauthorized entrance.
This security should not impede access by the fire or police department.
2. The 2°d level of this building is accessible by the deck stairs. This presents a very real
"attractive nuisance" hazard. These stairs need to be secured in a manner that will prevent
access to the second level and at the same time provide the secondary exit as required by
NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code).
3 . All of the "electrical components in the building .need review. There are ..extension cords that
are being used as permanent wiring and much of the fusing protection and wiring is
outdated. The electrical components of this building need to be evaluated by a competent
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACrION EMPLOYER
~ Page 2
r
licensed electrical contractor and all electrical components need to be revised to meet the
standards of the National Electrical Code.
4. All ceilings are showing damage because of roof leakage. This leaking may have caused
some structural damage to the roof joists. A structural engineer should assess the roof
structure. If there is damage, the roof structure will need to be replaced and a new roof will
need to be applied to prevent further leakage.
5. The basement has inadequate secondary exits. Exits should be installed meeting the
standards of NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code).
6. There are several "latticed over" entrances to the lower level and accessible windows on
the second level that would easily allow access to vandals. These items must be secured in a
stronger fashion to prevent unauthorized entry.
7. There is an overhang on the roof on the frontage facing the street. This overhang has
shingles that are broken and dropping, presenting a hazard to pedestrian traffic and a
potential liability to the city. This overhang must be removed or repaired.
This building will require significant interior renovation, as all the interior structural
components should be checked for soundness prior to allowing further occupancy in this
building. I also noted significant deterioration of the exterior walls on the South Side (bricks
falling out). It was indicated that the city, once the building is owned, might consider
demolition of the building. If that is the course of action taken, that demolition should take
place as soon as practicable to prevent further liability to the city. Extreme care should be taken
when doing demolition to prevent any damage to the adjacent building to the west. Demolition
of the building would eliminate the need to address the 7 recommendations listed above.
The long-term benefits and successes that can be enjoyed by a cooperative, self-insurance
organization depend upon serious and careful consideration of loss control recommendations. In
that context, we ask that you keep us informed of the steps you take to address these loss control
recommendations. Therefore, pleaserespond wrthiu 6O days of your receipt of this letter regarding
the status of how you intend to respond to these loss control recommendations.
I appreciate the time and courtesy extended to me at the time of my loss control visits. If I can be of
any assistance before my next visit, please do not hesitate to contact me.
~ ,.
Page 3
~ r
Sincerely,
Bernard E. Szczesniak, ALCM
Loss Control Consultant
Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC
cc: Geno Businaro
Finance Director
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Arthur J Gallagher & Co./ Youngdahl
7825 Washington Ave S.
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55439
(w
Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only in
conjunction with the insurance program referenced above. They are not made for the purpose of complying with
~"" the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these
recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards were noted. The final
responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management programs must rest with the insured.
05-18-01 11:41 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-060 P. 02/03 F-785
JOItN B. llF.9!v
A[i0[1Uy i41,Sw
Ditect Dwl (61:) 337-92U?
fims11• )acm~~icnnedy-g+.~ca.co,a
May 18, 2001
Kandis M. Hanson, City A'ianager
City ~r Mound
5341 Maywood Ruacl
Mound, Iv~N 55364
Re: Request from Michael Mueller on behalf of Muel]er-Lansing Properties
Dean K~in~li~:
By letter clateti May l7, 2()01, Mr. Mueller has renewed the request that the LIRA give
consideration to the redevelopment of the Ivlueller i.ansing Property, either alone ar in combination
(~ with other property c~wnzci by the city or HRA. I understand that Mr. Mueller will be making a
presentation of this matter on May 22.
Amon; the points rai~eci in Mr. Muellzr's letter is tltz suggz~tiun that ilia city lirnit the extent
of the t:.tiking of the Mueller-Lansing Properly roe the CSAH I S and l lt) Projzct.
] have reviewed thz Mueller letter with Sub Lindall, an attorney in this office representing
the city on that project, and both he and 1 believe that it is important for the Ciry and the HRA to
un~icrstarid that an agreement to limit the taking cou]ii have a sorious impart un finalizing thz
agreement with the county for the road project, and ruuld further delay our ability to get the ru~sei
unaetway.
Any such delay would further impact on those dc;velopmen[ activates in the downtown that
must await completion of the road, or nezd to know when they will need to rind other lucauans.
There is also always the possibility that land beyond the area actually required for road will
be needed for city utilities or other public improvements.
Several other pc~inu should be s[ressed ~ well:
1 The city will be obligated to pay'/z the cus'C of a~:quisition_ it is likzly that in a
number of uses the cost ot• a partial taking will be very close to the cost cif a total taking. But u~~ier
~^ a total taking, the city will have a remnant paruel that it can sell and recoup some of its ittiual
acyuiSition costs.
,. ~ r
05-18-01 11:41 From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-06D P. 03/03 F-7B5
i
{client natnc)
,r^~ [d:~teJ
V Pagc 2 of 2
2_ Nothing precludes the city from reselling the remnant to Mueller-Lansing if a
redevelopment plan can ultimately be worked out, and once it is determined how much of the parcel
is needed for usher puhlie uses.
3. The city is in a hotter position to detenninz the ultimate development of the parcel if
It uWAS it.
Because our office has had very littlz time w fully evaluate the full impact of this reuuest on
the project and un the city's posts, w~ would ask that the HRA and the council recaive the Mueller
letter and presentation, and thou refer the matter to us for further review as to the ttnpact of a partial
taking. I also assume that mare time will also be needed w respond to the development proposal
itself.
I;espectluily yours,
John B. Dean
JBD:aak
~B~>~7~1sY,
Ns~~~o-i
17 May 2001
T0: Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Mound City Council
FROM: Mueller-Lansing Properties
Members of the HRA and City Council,
We were told that it is the City's desire to not have Mueller-Lansing Properties rebuild
on our current property to allow Scotty B's and other tenants to have a continuous
presence in this town as the City would be pursuing the purchase of the total property
which we currently own. We then requested of Ms. Hanson the desire to meet with
the Council as we had come to an impasse with Mr. Chamberlain. We were told by
him that we could request to meet with the HRA if we submitted a plan by May 17`h
It is our desire to have an open discussion with you about the redevelopment of the
area which is sited north of the railroad ROW, south and west of the newly proposed
Co Rd 15 realignment and east of Commerce Blvd. Since the redevelopment of the area
currently called Commerce Place, Mueller-Lansing Properties has owned
approximately 1 acre of land in this area.
We recently met with Visions Coordinator, Bruce Chamberlain and City Manager,
Kandis Hanson, when we were informed that we would be negotiating with the City
of Mound HRA and not a combination of the City and the County for the purchase of
this property.
It is the desire of Mueller-Lansing Properties to continue to serve this community by
providing space to retail establishments in downtown Mound as they have done so for
most of their adult life, over 45 years each. In the mid-90's, knowing that a realignment
of Co Rd 15 was in the works, we requested and obtained a subdivision of the land
dividing the western half from the eastern half in order to have a sufficient amount of
property on which to build a new building to replace the space currently held by the
tenants. The expected new zoning requirements were reviewed and we felt we could
accommodate the Pedestrian District zoning criteria with amulti-story building in the
northwest corner of the subdivided property (the intersection of Commerce and
Lynwood), knowing that all of the tenants would not be able to participate.
Realizing that redevelopment is difficult and always changing, it has become apparent
that the City's desires may now be in conflict with our own and therefore this
discussion needs to take place. By allowing a structure which has frontage both on
Commerce and to the rear on a parking lot, this area can no longer be considered a
~^'^ Pedestrian District per the City requirements, but has been effectively redeveloped as a
Destination District which has different standards than the Pedestrian District. Bruce
Chamberlain agreed that a hardware store with no frontage on Commerce constituted
Destination District zoning. Due to this change, we continue to struggle to obtain an
answer as to what amount of property might be left available for Mueller-Lansing
Properties to build a new building for our tenants.
Other factors that have been discussed and reviewed by the City and by us include
parking ideas, traffic flow and patterns, access issues and the type of building that we
should be proposing in order to meet the criteria as set forth in many discussions by
Mr. Chamberlain. The northwest corner area on which we expected to build a multi-
story building has been reduced from approximately 15,000 square feet to less than
5,000 square feet. Without knowing where the actual realignment would be located, it
seemed premature to make a proposal that would be shot down by Mr. Chamberlain
who has stated emphatically that a building on this corner would have to be small
enough to allow for parking and a walkway to Commerce between the new structure
and the new hardware store. We have had that discussion in the past and are not here
to rehash what is in our opinion a hardship toward proper siting of the new structure
and a burden to any building on this corner.
At our recent meeting with Mr. Chamberlain & Ms. Hanson, we were also told in no
uncertain terms that it is the desire of the City to not have any building on this corner
until such time as the parking requirements and needs of the retailers on the west side
of Commerce has come to fruition. Once again the plan for parallel parking along
Commerce has been negotiated away with the exception of 3-4 spaces in front of the
newly constructed hardware store.
Mueller-Lansing is prepared to build a building of sufficient size in a timely manner on
this corner piece if the building could cover approximately 8,000-10,000 square feet
which would meet the design criteria requested by the Visions program. Should the
size of the structure have to be substantially less or the time frame extended out, it is
our desire to request a change of venue for a buildable site of sufficient size in a
different location.
We have reviewed a possible location for this site with Mr. Chamberlain. We were
flatly denied the opportunity to present a plan on property that is currently owned by
the City and were told that the City did not want to give up or exchange property
which it has earmarked for other plans. We were somewhat shocked by this response.
We felt that not only had the City already done an exchange of property with
someone, but also the Visions Plan has been modified and changed in countless ways
and therefore why not treat everyone with the same fairness.
We are requesting the opportunity to build a structure of a Destination District type to
the east of the current hardware store building allowing adequate access between the
two structures for future north-south traffic and pedestrian flow. We feel that this
location meets with the needs of the City to provide parking for the businesses on the
west side of Commerce by keeping the northwest corner piece open until such time as
those needs are filled elsewhere. The structure could be placed on approximately
10,000 square feet of land with the remaining property being available for the future
parking needs of the area to the south of the railroad tracks, the hardware store, the
relocated businesses in our building and the relocated post office. The building could
be sited all the way to the south abutting the railroad ROW.
A possible problem with this plan may be that this would preclude the opportunity for
the transient Park & Ride facility in this location, however you are all aware that the
Park & Ride has been changed once already in the continuing saga of our downtown
redevelopment. It was also the suggestion of the Planning Commission and many of
the business owners in this immediate vicinity that utilizing the limited space for
parking within the core of the downtown area for people who spend the majority of
their day in a different location is somewhat absurd. There does not seem to be any
Park & Ride facilities immediately attached to retail space elsewhere in the western
metro. In fact many parking lots have signs stating no Park & Ride parking allowed.
These are retailers who run the businesses. The City may want to take a hard look at
this location and take the heeding of the Planning Commission as was done for the
Post Office and find a better locale for the Park & Ride.
Should the location immediately east of the hardware store not suit the City's needs,
we are flexible and would also look at a location abutting the railroad ROW to the
south and abutting the relocated Co Rd 15 to the east. If this location meets the needs
and desires of the City better, exploration of the siting and topography of the roadway
would be examined and some sort of solution could be resolved. This location may be
better for the City if the desire is to keep the space above the parking lot on the north
half of the property open for a possible future parking ramp.
Before you decide this evening to move forward with the purchase of over an acre of
property in the downtown area, please give some thought to those business owners
who have served this community for nearly ahalf-century. Mueller-Lansing are a
proven commodity for this town and know the needs and desires of businesses which
have thrived in our town over this time frame. We have the tenants available to occupy
the space and we have the desire to continue our relationship with the City of Mound.
What more can we say, allow us to stay.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Mueller
Agent for Mueller-Lansing Properties