1999-12-14AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUF_3DAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
2. APPROVE AGENDA.
3. *CONSF~NT AGENDA
Ao
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 1999, COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE MEETING ......................... 3912-3931
MINUTES OF THE OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1999,
REGULAR MEETING .......................... 3932-3939
o
CASE # 99-40: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO READJUST PROPERTY
LINE TO ADD I 0 FEET TO 1583 BLUEBIRD LANE FROM
1587 BLUEBIRD LANE; LOTS 15,16, 21, AND 22, BLOCK 6,
WOODLAND POINT; RUTH KILBY, BOB & CAROL LEIN,
62200; PID # 12-117-24 43 0047 ...................
3940-3951
APPROVAL OF 2 YEAR LIQUOR STORE LEASE ........ 3952-3953
PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 3954-3974
PUBLIC HEARING: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 1-2 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO .............. 3975-4030
PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SUBSIDIES CRITE~A ......... 4031-4038
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,084,750; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,975,330
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $502,790, RE, SULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY
OF $1,472,540; APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000. 4039-4041
3910
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE MOUND
COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR NEW APPLICANTS FOR
NONABUTYING USE ............................... 4042-4043
8. CANCEL LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN DECEMBER.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT REGARDING ITEMS NOT
ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT THIS TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON)
9. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Financial Report for November,. as prepared by Finance Director,
Gino Businaro .................................... 4044
B. DCAC Minutes from October 21, 1999 ................. 4045-4050
C. DCAC Minutes from November 18, 1999 ............... 4051-4056
D. Planning Commission Minutes from November 22, 1999 ...... 4057-4068
E. Panning Commission Minutes from December 6, 1999 ....... 4069-4075
F. POSC Minutes from November 10, 1999 ................ 4076-4078
G. Public Works schedule for December 31, 1999 ................ 4079
3911
MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -NOVEMBER 1, 1999
The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
special session on Monday, November 1, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at
5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark
Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Finance
Director Gino Businaro, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Others present: James D. Prosser,
Ehlers & Associates.
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
1.1 BUSINESS SUBSlDY CRITERIA.
Mayor Meisel introduced Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associates, TIF consultant. Mr. Prosser
reviewed his memorandum, dated October 6, 1999. Beginning August 1, 1999, state and
local governments face new requirements for granting business subsidies. These requirements
replace the current wage and job goal reporting. The new law will be codified as Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116J.993. The regulation of business subsidies adds new complexities to the
development process. It is important that the Council understand the statutory requirements
before providing direct or indirect assistance to any for-profit or non-profit entity. If in
doubt, ask questions. Many of these provisions are subject to interpretation. There appears
to be a recognition that the statute contains flaws that should be addressed in the Legislature
next year.
The new law applies to any state or local government agency or public entity (including
cities, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities, counties,
townships, and potentially school districts) with the power to grant business subsidy. It
requires that, in addftion to any requirements that may be attached to a particular form of
subsidy (e.g. requirements to create a TIF plan and hold a public hearing), the entity must do
the following:
(1)
Determine that the subsidy meets a public purpose -- other than increasing the tax
base. Job retention is a public purpose only if job loss is "imminent and
demonstrable;"
(2)
Establish business subsidy criteria. The entity must establish and hold a public
hearing to adopt the criteria. The only statutory requirement for contents of the
criteria is a policy for wages on jobs created by the subsidies. The statute does not
discuss a process for amending the criteria.
This provision seems to impose separate requirements for each potential grantor. If,
for example, a city, a county and a school district were all abating a business' taxes,
MOUND COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
all three (including the school distric0 would need to establish and approve separate
criteria.
(3)
Enter into a subsidy agreement. The statue requires that the subsidy agreement
define, among other things enumerated in the statute, wage and job goals, the nature
of, the amount of, the reasons for, and the goals for the subsidy. The agreement
must also describe what happens if the recipient falls to fulfill its obligations, and
must contain a commitment from the recipient "to continue operations at the site
where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. Failure to meet
goals requires partial or full repayment of the assistance with interest.
The subsidy agreement requirement seems to apply to each grantor, which in the case
of abatement could potentially mean the city, the county and the school district.
This law may even apply to development agreements that were approved before, but
executed (signed) after, August 1, 1999.
This agreement must be signed by the local elected goveming body.
(4)
Hold a public hearing on the subsidy if it exceeds $100,000. The statute contains
specific criteria for the notice of heating. The notice must be published at least 10
days prior to the heating.
Mr. Prosser then explained what a business subsidy is. The statute defines business subsidy
as "grant, contribution of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal
amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient, any reduction
or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or
other obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business".
The Statute specifically excludes certain items from the definition. The following are not
business subsidies:
* business subsidy of less than $25,000.
* asistance generally available to all business or to a similar class of business.
public improvements to buildings or land owned by state or local government that
serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or a defined
group of businesses at the time the improvements are made.
* polluted redevelopment property (M.S. 116J.552)
2
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
* renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code if not more than
50% of the total cost.
* Assistance to job training/readiness organizations to assist with those services.
* housing.
* pollution control or abatement.
* energy conservation.
* tax reduction from conformity with federal tax law.
* workers and unemployment compensation.
* benefits derived from regulations.
* funds from bonds allocated under Chapter 474A.
* collaboration between Minnesota higher education institution and a business.
* soils condition TIF district.
* redevelopment when recipient's investment in the purchase of the site is 70% or more
of the current assessor's estimated market value.
* general changes in TTF law and other general tax law for a principally technical
nature.
The statute establishes a set of subsidy reporting procedures. The recipient of the assistance
is required to provide information to the grantor for two years after the benefits date or until
the goals are met, whichever is later. The information shall be reported on forms developed
by DTED. The statute creates penalties for failure to provide the appropriate reports.
Mr. Prosser then presented the following Business Subsidy Criteria:
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA
1. PURPOSE
1.01
The purpose of this document is to establish the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority's (hereinafter refereed to as HRA) criteria for granting of business subsidies,
as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for private development.
This criteria shall be used as a guide in processing and reviewing applications
requesting business subsidies.
1.02
The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The HRA reserves the right
in its discretion to approve business subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if
the HRA determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose.
1.03
The HRA may amend this document at any time.
subject to public hearing requirements pursuant
116J.993 through I 1 6J. 994.
Amendments to these criteria are
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
2 . STATUTORY LAMATIONS
2.01
In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must
comply with applicable State Statutes. The HRA of Mound's ability to grant business
subsidies is governed by the limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993
through 116J.994.
3. PUBLIC POLICY REQUIREMENT
3.01
All business subsidies must meet a public purpose other than increasing the tax base.
Job retention may only be used as a public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent
and demonstrable
4. BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA
4.01
All new projects approved by the HRA of Mound should meet the following minimum
approval criteria. However, it should not be presumed that a project meeting these
criteria will automatically be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual
rights on the part of any potential developer.
4.02 The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state legislative restrictions,
debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements and policies.
4.03
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.10
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1. 1999
The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, or
required changes to the plan and Ordinances must be under active consideration by the
HRA at the time of approval.
Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the financial feasibility to
proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be
provided solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project. Prior to
consideration of a business subsidy request, the HRA may undertake an independent
underwriting of the project to help ensure that the request for assistance is valid.
Prior to approval of a business subsidies financing plan, the developer shall provide
any required market and financial feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring,
information provided to private lenders for the project, and other information or data
that the HRA or its financial consultants may require in order to proceed with an
independent underwriting.
Any developer requesting a business subsidy should able to demonstrate past successful
general development capability as well as specific capability in the type and size of
development proposed.
The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long enough to complete it,
to stabilize its occupancy, to establish the project management, and to initiate
repayment of the business subsidy, if applicable.
A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to continue operations at
the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date.
Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least amount of time
necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of private debt and equity financing
first.
Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage and job goals
determined by the HRA on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to the nature of
the development, the purpose of the subsidy, local economic conditions and similar
factors.
5.01
TAX INCREMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
All tax increment requests will be evaluated under the general criteria in Section I to 4
and the specific criteria in this Section.. Changes in local markets, costs of
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
construction, and interest rates may cause changes in the amounts of Tax Increment
subsidies that a given project may require at any given time.
Some criteria, by their very nature, must remain subjective. However, wherever
possible 'benchmark~ criteria have been established for review purposes. The fact that
a given proposal meets one or more "benchmark" criteria does not mean that it is
entitled to funding under this policy, but rather that the HRA is in a position to proceed
with evaluations of (and comparisons between) various business subsidy requests, using
uniform standards whenever possible.
5.03 Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the HRA of Mound
All business subsidy requests should optimize the private development potential
of a site.
Be
All business subsidy requests should obtain the highest possible private to
public financial investment railo. The HRA establishes a benchmark ratio of 3
parts private to I part public funding for manufacturing/warehouse projects.
Housing and retail/commercial projects shall be reviewed on an individual
basis.
Co
All business subsidy requests should create or retain the highest feasible
number of jobs on the site at the highest feasible wages.
Do
All business subsidy requests should create the highest possible ratio of
property taxes paid before and after redevelopment. Given the different
assessment circumstances in the City, this ratio will vary widely. However,
under normal circumstances, the HRA will expect at least a 1:2 ratio of taxes
paid before and after redevelopment.
Ee
Business subsidy requests should normally not be used to support speculative
industrial, commercial, and office projects. In general, speculative projects
are defmed as those projects which have letters of intent or pre-leasing for less
than 50 % of the available leasable space.
All business subsidy requests will be reviewed to determine the feasibility to
provide the HRA with equity participation in new developments (through a
share of the profits), or to treat the business subsidy as a second mortgage
with fixed payments.
Ge
All business subsidy requests involving displacement of low and moderate
income residents should give specific attention to the re-housing needs of those
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
residents. Normally, this should be done as a part of the business subsidy.
Adequate solutions to these re-housing needs will be required as a matter of
public policy.
Ho
All business subsidy requests will need to meet the "but for" test. Business
subsidies will not be granted unless the need for the HRA's economic
participation is sufficient that, without that assistance the project could not
proceed in the manner as proposed.
Business subsidies will not be used when the developer's credentials, in the
sole judgement of the HRA, are inadequate due to past track record relating
to: completion of projects, general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other
problems or issues considered relevant by the HRA
Business subsidies will not be used to support projects that place demands on
City services, or other capital or operating expenditures, that exceed the
average City expenditures for similar facilities. Consideration will be given to
the total public costs that are required to support the project, including offsite
facilities costs that are required.
Business subsidies will not normally be used for projects that would generate
significant environmental problems in the opinion of the local, state, or federal
governments.
Mr. Prosser stated the Policy should show and demonstrate a public purpose. The Policy
should help provide new jobs or new redevelopment improvements. The Policy would take
on the format of a development agreement.
Mr. Prosser stated it is important that all Councilmembers understand the Policy and are
comfortable with the written information within the Policy. Mr. Prosser stated the Policy
could be changed. He also stated the Policy should be generally acceptable to all
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Ahrens wanted to be certain if something unforeseen comes up that is not
currently mentioned in the Policy, that the Policy could then be amended to reflect this
unforeseen situation. Mr. Prosser stated this is a true statement.
Councilmember Hanus stated, and councilmember Brown agreed that the language was
"soft" and there appeared to be a lot of flexibility in the Policy which would be a benefit for
the City of Mound. Mr. Prosser agreed with councilmember Hanus' statement.
MOUND COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
Counci!member Weycker mentioned a footnote in the Policy that may affect Coast to Coast
agreements. Mr. Prosser stated the City Attorney is well aware of the Policy and that if
there is a need to formulize any agreements under this Policy, then the City Attorney will
accomplish these tasks.
Mayor Meisel stated she wanted all Councilmembers to be aware of this Policy so the
Council can act on it at the next City Council meeting.
1.2 STORM SEWER RATES STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP).
The City Engineer handed out a summary of storm sewer rates from other cities.
Mr. Prosser presented the storm sewer rates study information to the Councilmembers. He
stated he is aware the City of Mound has some storm sewer projects that need to be done and
the City of Mound would like to gain some revenue in order to provide funds for operating
as well as completing the projects.
Mr. Prosser stated he would like to define more specifically the range of operating costs
under this revenue and try to develop a short term and a long term plan in terms of capital
improvements for storm sewer and then bring back some funding options. Mr. Prosser
stated the Councilmembers need to determine where a comfortable rate exists for the City of
Mound. He stated typically the city identifies its short-term priorities for storm sewer work
and then looks at longer term priorities at a later date. Mr. Prosser stated the City could
issue some bonds and borrow monies and use revenues from this utility to repay those bonds.
Mr. Prosser stated the City could also wait to make improvements until the funds are raised
thorough the utility.
Councilmember Hanus asked if hardcover would would be a factor in establishing rates?
Mr. Prosser stated if hardcover is a factor, the City ordinance would need to be changed to
accommodate this. Mr. Prosser stated to refine the ordinance for hardcover would cause
more administrative work. He stated the trade-off would be more equity, but is it worth the
extra administrative costs involved? Mr. Prosser stated there could be ponding to help with
this issue also.
Mr. Prosser stated the City of Mound should keep the plan simple. If the citizen is a
commercial user, then the rate would be determined by area. If there are special exceptions
that the City wants to provide, then that is appropriate but there needs to be guidelines set.
Mr. Prosser stated in order to gain the support of all citizens, the council needs to
communicate to the citizens:
a. the purpose of the tax; and
b. where the money that gets collected will be spent.
MOUND COMM1TI'EE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
The Councilmembers then discussed the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. Prosser
stated in the past cities have put together key financial strategies for a capital improvement
plan. To accomplish this task, a city identifies all potential capital improvements for the next
five years. Then the resources are located and then a financial plan is put together to
accomplish this plan. Mr. Prosser stated once this capital improvement plan is put into place,
the City would then have a plan to follow for any capital improvements. Mr. Prosser stated
there should be a list of priorities to follow, which can be changed, but at least there is
something to follow for improvements. Mr. Prosser stated capital improvement plans work
great, but if is not followed through properly by Staff and City Councils, it is not a benefit.
Mr. Prosser recommends starting a plan that includes the key financial strategies, but this
will entail a lot of work for the Councilmembers and Staff. The Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) can change from year to year with Councilmembers changing, but if there is a strategy
in place, there will not be too much turmoil.
Mr. Prosser stated the key financial strategies involve about four, one hour workshops.
There is a lot of study time by the Councilmembers between each workshop, but this will
educate everyone. Mr. Prosser stated the capital improvement plan will benefit the City of
Mound when it xomes to budgeting.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to have a new City Manager on board before
the capital improvement plan is initiated directly.
Mayor Meisel asked that Staff go over infrastructures that would pertain a Capital
Improvement Plan.
Mr. Prosser stated the storm sewer rate study can be accomplished by itself. Mr. Prosser
suggested initiating the first phase of the key financial strategies, but to not include that first
session with the Councilmembers until a new City Manager has been hired. Mr. Prosser
recommendeds no decisions until a new City Manager has been hired. Mr. Prosser stated
the storm sewer rate study could be implemented separately and included in the first phase
of the key financial strategies. The Councilmembers agreed with Mr. Prosser's suggestion
above.
The consensus of the Council was that the storm sewer rate study and the capital
improvement plan are separate documents and can be accomplished as such. Mr. Prosser
agreed with this.
Mr. Prosser asked to have Staff, City Engineer and City Planner meet with him and identify
all storm sewer operating costs and capital improvements that will need to be made. The
format will probably include a menu for the Councilmembers to chose from which would
MOUND COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1. 1999
include a prioritized list of infrastructure items and the approximate dollar amount for the
improvements.
Mr. Prosser asked the Councilmembers what their expectation of a timeframe is for
accomplishing a capital improvement plan. Mr. Prosser suggested the first report to be
presented to the Councilmembers within 30 days of today's date and then the
Councilmembers could review it. After the review there would be another meeting within
two weeks and this process would continue through the months.
As a confirmation, the Acting City Manager requested that Mr. Prosser forward a letter of
understanding to the City regarding tonight's discussions concerning the sewer storm rate
study and the capital improvement plan.
1.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission will be going through the
Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 1999, so he would like to table this matter until the
Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan.
The City Planner stated essentially the Planning Commission has gone through the whole
document in sections over the past nine months so this review the Planning Commission will
be doing on the 8~ of November should be done within a reasonable timeframe. The City
Planner stated everything in the document has been looked at once, except for some updates
to the public facilities and implementation sections.
The City Planner stated the Surface Water Management Plan could be approved with the
Comprehensive Plan. If the Surface Water Management Plan does not get approved at the
same time, it can be reviewed and approved at a later time and date. The deadline for the
Comprehensive Plan is December 31, 1999.
Councilmember Hanus wanted to be assured that if the Plans got adopted and there needed to
be some more revisions, that this was totally acceptable to the Metropolitan Council. The
City Planner stated there should not be a problem with minor revisions that are made to the
Plans.
The City Council would like to see a redlining copy done by the Staff which could be
presented to them after the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting.
The City Planner stated there was a new section added entitled Public Communication and
Public Access. He stated this will emphasize greater and more thorough communications
with the public through the internet, mailers, etc. The City Planner also stated the Natural
Cultural Resources section has been updated to include all of Mound's indian mounds and
10
MOUND COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
their locations. This is public information and the public should be made aware that these
mounds are protected by Federal Law.
The City Planner stated the Demographics section stated the population of Mound was going
to stay about the same for the upcoming years. He stated there are comparison graphs
created by the Metropolitan Council and him for the Councilmembers to review when they
see the Plan.
Councilmember Hanus stated the maps showing rezoning, specifically at Maple Manors, that
needs to be corrected before the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. There was a suggestion
to have a key code to reflect the zoning changes.
The City Planner stated in the Housing section there is a notation that the City of Mound is
trying to promote multiple family units. There were no changes to the Transportation
Section of the Comprehensive Plan, except notations of the transit hub.
The City Planner stated the Parks Section has a few changes that the Councilmembers should
take note of.
The City Planner stated there is a section entitled Capital Improvement Plan which does need
to be implemented by December 31, 1999, into the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner
did state the Capital Improvement Plan could be very general identifying the water tower,
road improvements,etc, and this would probably be enough for the Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Hanus asked if there is a penalty for not approving the Comprehensive Plan
by the due date? The City Planner stated there are no penalties, although they may withhold
funding.
The City Planner stated he does not see any problems with the City of Mound's
Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Meisel wanted to make sure when the Capital Improvement Plan is changed, there
will not be a problem implementing it into the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated
he thought the Metropolitan Council would think highly of Mound for accomplishing a Plan
in more detail.
11
MOUND COMMIttEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
1.4
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE
COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LOTTERY
SYSTEM.
Mr. Fackler stated the demand for docks has increased over the years. Mr. Fackler stated
the proposed lottery system would be more organized and would only affect first-time
nonabutting people who wish to rent a dock.
Mr. Fackler stated the City Attorney has proposed the following amendment to Section
437:05 of the Dock Ordidnance:
Section 437:05 Applications for and Issuance of Dock Lic.
Subd. 5. First Time Application for a Non-Abutting Docking Site.
Application must be filed With the City on or before the last day of February of each
year. Applicants will be notified of whether they have been awarded a license by the
first day of May. Selection shall be by lottery in accordance with such process as the
City Council shall from time to time determine by resolution.
The following is the proposed resolution as recommended by the Dock & Commons
Commission:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE
MOUND COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR NEW
APPLICANTS FOR NON ABUTTING USE
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has, by ordinance, established a lottery for new
applicants for non abutting docking; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides that the lottery will be in accordance with the
process established from time to time by City Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now received the report and recommendation of
Staff and the Dock and Coommons Advisory Commission regarding such process.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound
that the following rules of procedure are adopted:
12
MOUND COMMIT'tEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1. 1999
The application must include the required fees, and must have the following
information: complete name, boat size (length and beam), boat license and
first and second docking area preference.
The application must be received by the City of Mound on or before the last
day of February of each year.
The lottery will be conducted by drawing at the regularly scheduled Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission Meeting in March of the current year. The
drawing will determine the Applicants' position on the docking wait list.
All applicants will be notified of their position on the docking wait list by the
first day of May.
Applicants will be separated into groups based on ntunbcr of consecutive years
they have applied as follows. Group 1, four years of more, Group 2, two or
three years and Group 3, one year.
The lottery drawing will begin with group I until all openings are filled or
there are no more applicants remaining in the group. Once all names have
been drawn from Group 1, then the drawing will move to Group 2 and finally
to Group 3.
All attemPts will be made to provide the applicant with his/her choice,
however, if one is not available, the closest available site will be assigned.
The applicant may decline the available docking locations however if it is not
an exceptable location for the applicant, they may reapply for the next boating
season and will gain credit towards the applicable Group.
Mr. Fackler stated the proposed Resolution will still require the applicants to fill out the
application, pay the fee in advance, list boat size, and license number. No applications would
be accepted after the last day of February of each year. There would be no exceptions for
late applications.
Mr. Fackler stated the lottery system as proposed would have three groups to pick names
from. The first group would be Group 1 which would consist of names that have applied for
a dock four or more years; the second group would be Group 2 which would consist of
names that have applied for a dock two or three years; and Group 3 would consist of names
that have applied for a dock their first year. Mr. Fackler stated names would get picked in a
seniority type way from Group 1 first, and then Group 2 and finally Group 31. The
applicants would not know until April if their name got picked. Mr. Fackler stated the City
13
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
would keep accepting applications with the appropriate fee after the lottery, and those names
would be listed first in the Groups the upcoming years.
Mayor Meisel was concerned that a lot of people would fall into Group 1, but according to
previous minutes of the Dock and Commons Advisory Commissioin, the Group 1 has
decreased over the years.
Councilmember Hanus asked Mr. Fackler approximately how many new docks open up each
year and Mr. Fackler stated about three to five docks may become available. This number
seemed lower than what Councilmember Hanus expected to hear.
Councilmember Brown proposed a lottery system that he felt would be appropriate. He
stated the City should have a lottery starting the year 2000 and have all persons interested
apply in January or February. When the individuals have all applied and paid the
appropriate fee, they would be assigned a number according to the lottery system. This
number that is assigned to the applicant is their number until they receive their dock or leave
and a list will be made to reflect the applicant's number. As the docks are given to first
numbers, the numbers after them get moved up on the list. Then, in the year 2001, there
would be a new lottery again for new people and they would be assigned a number, but their
numbers would be put at the back of the first list of the year 2000. This would then continue
throughout the years.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the City of Mound has never had a list and could really use
such a tool. She agreed with the lottery system Councilmember Brown is proposing.
Councilmember Hanus restated there does need to be a new lottery for newcomers each year
and the new applicants have to pay at the same time they apply or they cannot be put on the
list.
Councilmember Weycker stated the applicants should be made to reapply each year.
Mr. Fackler agreed that this lottery system presented by Councilmember Brown would be
functional as long as each applicant reapplies each year.
Mayor Meisel suggested if the applicant is presented with a dock and does not want it
because of its location, he or she should go to the end of the line and be reassigned a new
number.
Councilmember Ahrens stated, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, the people that do not
want a dock because of its location should turn down the dock and allow another individual
to receive it, but they should keep their number until another dock opens up that would be
14
MOUND COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
more suitable. The reason behind this theory is why have someone be forced to take a dock
where thy do not like the location and have it not being used by themselves, or anyone else.
Councilmember Hanus had a concern about how the lottery would affect individuals sharing
docks. Mr. Fackler stated there could be a shared dock language put into the ordinance for
individuals that share docks.
Councilmember Ahrens asked why a person who is sharing a dock gets precedence over
those who have not and have been waiting. There was a consensus that the City of Mound
wants to encourage sharing of docks, but for the right reasons and not to "beat the system".
Councilmember Brown stated the individuals that are sharing docks should also be put on the
lottery list, but they can continue sharing a dock. He stated that if a dock opens up and the
person who is sharing the dock does not have his/her name of the lottery list, then they
would not be offered the dock.
Mr. Fackler suggested that an individual that would be sharing a dock would have his/her
name in the lottery system, and if the dock they are sharing becomes available, they would
be offered first choice for that dock. The consensus agreed with Mr. Fackler's statement.
The consensus of the Councilmembers was agreement with Councilmember Brown's lottery
system. Mayor Meisel directed Mr. Fackler to organizes the lottery that Councilmember
Brown suggested above. It was also suggested to have the City Attorney review the city
ordinance and the proposed resolution so that they have the appropriate legal language for
the lottery system. There was discussion that the ordinance does have to include the keeping
of a "list" which can also be reviewed by the City Attorney.
There was discussion of having in the resolution and/or ordinance language which discussed
shared docks. The consensus stated there should be a clause that states the individual who is
sharing a dock has to have been sharing a dock for one complete year before he/she is
eligible for that shared dock.
It was also agreed that no late applications or fees would be accepted. If individuals who are
applying for a dock miss the deadline, their name would go on the next year's lottery list.
Also, if the applicant is offered a dock and does not pay for the dock at the time he is
offered, he will lose that dock as well.
15
MOUND COMMITFEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
There was also discussion what completes the application. The consensus tonight would
appreciate having the applicants fill the application out in its entirety, including boat size,
license number, with the appropriate fee attached; otherwise, the applicant would be charged
a fee for not disclosing this information at the time of applying. This item was presented
because the City has to pay fees according to boat sizes and, if an applicant does not have
ownership of a boat but does have a dock, the City will be charged a fee as if there is a boat
there. Consequently, this fee gets paid by the City and in actuality, this fee should be passed
on to the applicant as his/her expense.
It was agreed the above notations should be incorporated into the ordinance and/or resolution
according to what the City Attorney deems appropriate.
Mayor Meisel stated this ordinance will be put on the agenda at the next City Council
meeting.
1.4 DOCK FEES FOR MUNICIPAL DOCKS.
Mr. Fackler discussed a comparison of rates in other Lake Minnetonka communities. He
stated there is no one else with a system like the City of Mound. He stated there are various
charges for various cities.
Mr. Fackler stated there are currently 383 dock sites for renters, which does include the
Woodland Point area. He stated there are 59 city installed dock slips and 4 personal
watercraft sites on city installed docks. Mr. Fackler then presented the rates of fees for each
type of dock.
Mr. Fackler stated the DCAC has recommended no increases for the year 2000.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to discuss having an increase in the docks for the
upcoming year.
Councilmember Brown stated the City of Mound is undercharging on their docks program.
He suggested a rate of $300 per year for each dock renter. Councilmember Brown also
stated the docks should be set up to accommodate 24-foot slips, and if there are any 30-foot
slips than those should be left. Councilmember Brown would like to see consistency in rates
and lengths of docks. Mr. Fackler agreed the docks should be standardized.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the multiples docks should be identified appropriately and boat
owners should be charged the rate of the dock according to its size even though there may be
a smaller boat using a much longer dock slip.
16
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
There was discussions amongst the Councilmembers about how the size of a boat is identified
by the manufacturers. This labeling makes it hard for owners to know "exactly" the length
of their boat and what size dock they will need for their boat.
Councilmember Weycker was concerned the dock program was turning into a moneymaking
business.
Mayor Meisel stated she did not see any concern of having the dock program turned into a
moneymaking business as long as the monies that get collected are spent on the docks and
commons program.
Mayor Meisel suggested having a fee structure for three types of individuals that are renting
docks. They include abutters, nonabutters, and others. There was discussion regarding this
type of structure, but nothing was resolved.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the multiple dock owners should pay more because of the
services they are getting, the nonabutters should pay more because they are getting a dock
even though they are not on the lake and the abutters should pay less because they are
already paying more because of their taxes with living on the lake.
Councilmember Brown restated putting the docks in one category, showing no partiality to
anybody, and having a straight-across-the-board fee of $300.
The consensus of the Committee agreed the L, T, U and A system of the docks should be
eliminated.
Mr. Fackler agreed that if everyone would pay the same, it would even out over the years
because of some areas having to have riprapping, some needing tree work, etc. He also
stated that an increase of the docks could include a rate for the multiples only, and deal with
the abutters and nonabutters at a later date and time. This increase would include a step
increase for the multiples.
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to enforce a regular maintenance plan for the docks
program and have it maintained much better. She also stated an increase would allow the
City of Mound's rate to be more competitive with other cities that are currently much higher
and still have a great dock program.
Mayor Meisel suggested a second plan of having the dock rates stay the same for abutters,
but the multiples and the nonabutters rates would increase because of their conveniences
being received by the owner of having this type of dock.
17
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
Councilmember Brown stated instead of a $300 rate, have a $100 increase across the floor.
He restatexl the rates should be increased.
Councilmember Hanus stated he is against any increase in dock rates because, in his eyes,
there is no documentation to support the increase of docks at this time.
Mayor Meisel stated with no decision having been agreed upon by Councilmembers, this
matter would be tabled for the year 2000. She stated the dock rates will not increase for the
year 2000. She stated there will be another meeting in February, 2000, and at that time a
decision will be made regarding a dock fee increase for 2001.
1.5 POSC MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 1999.
Councilmember Hanus stated the Alwin property is priced at over $2.5 million dollars which
does not seem appropriate at this time.
Councilmember Brown stated he feels the Park Commission over-stepped its bounds by
inferring that the City of Mound is interested in buying this property.
Councilmember Hanus stated he does not like any type of land trust agreements.
There was the consensus tonight that the resolution put together by the Park Commission
amending the Comprehensive Plan is bypassing the City Council and this is looked upon as
procedurally incorrect.
1.6
LETTER FROM COUNCILMEMBER WEYCKER TO THE POSC AND PARK
DIRECTOR REGARDING THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY.
The consensus was that the above letter was prematurely disclosed before there was a group
decision by the Council regarding the above-mentioned property.
1.7
RESOLUTION FROM THE POSC REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN
BALLFIELDS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Brown stated this Resolution was looked at by the Planning Commission and
was unanimously rejected. Councilmember Brown stated there were incorrect statements
within the Resolution, i.e., the first, third, and fourth Whereas paragraphs on page 3675.
The information about eminent domain was not appreciated either by the Planning
Commission. It was agreed that this type of resolution does not belong in the
Comprehensive Plan.
18
MOUND COMMI'I'TEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
1.8
RESOLUTION FROM THE POSC REGARDING THE REX ALWIN
PROPERTY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Weycker was concerned why the first draft of the resolution concerning the
Rex Alwin property got rejected by the Planning Commission. See above comments in Items
1.5 and 1.6.
1.9 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
There was no discussion from the City Engineer regarding the Surface Water Management
Plan or the Councilmembers. See also Item 1.2 above.
1.10 ENCROACHMENT POLICY.
The Building Official stated the Encroachment Policy is appropriate and has minimal
additions and he would recommend it be presented at the next City Council meeting for
adoption.
Councilmember Weycker wanted to be assured all of Mr. Casey's questions were addressed
in the Policy and the Building Official stated they had been addressed.
Mayor Meisel stressed any new items that will come regarding land alterations will have to
come before the City Council for approval.
There was discussion regarding the subd. 1 section and instances where that would apply.
The Building Official stated instances of retaining walls, right-of-ways and public ways.
The Building Official stated he will present a report of all encroachments in June, and if
there is something that is not agreed upon, then the City Council can address it then. The
Building Official stressed this encroachment policy is an improvement from the past and it
does not give up anything in the code.
Councilmember Hanus stated this is trying to recognize encroachments in areas that will do
no harm to any citizen of the City of Mound.
Staff was directed to reword page 3862, subd. 7B to include an inspection of properties on a
rotating basis of every four years. This would havw Staff inspecting a quarter of the city
each year.
INFORMATION ITEMS
Information from Mercer was distributed to Councilmembers tonight.
19
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Brown~ seconded by Hanus~ to adjourn at 12:10 A.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
2O
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -NOVEMBER 9, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and I2ah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The
following interested citizens were also present: Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Martin
Carlsen, Jane Carlsen, Tom Casey, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Kim Gabby, Laurel Gabby, Barb
Johnson, Skip Johnson, Kevin Johansen, Peter C. Meyer, Pat Murphy, Sheila Murphy, Tom
Murphy, Sandy Moen, David Osmek, .
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:34 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Meisel stated she would like to move Comments and Suggestions of Concerned
Citizens to Item 6. Mayor Meisel stated the City Planner is delayed slightly tonight so she
would like to change Item 5, to Item 4; and Item 4, to Item 5.
Councilmember Brown would like to add an Item E to Information, which would include an
update from the Planning Commission regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Weycker would like to pull Item C from the Agenda.
Councilmember Hanus would like to pull Item A from the Agenda.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda with the removal of Items A and C, the addition of an Item E to
Information, and the rearrangement of the Agenda. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. NOVEMBER 12, 1999 IS THE SUGGESTED DATE.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1 PAYMENT OF BlLLS.
MOTION.
Weycker, Hanus, unanimously.
1.2 APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1999. REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Hanus stated on page 3717, paragraph 8 should read as follows:
"Councilmember Hanus, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Ahrens agreed on
removing the native species language and indicated they do not want to set a precedent by
restricting applicants when they are using their own money to improve city property."
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes as amended
above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.3
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE
COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM.
Councilmember Weycker recommends removing the words "first time" from the title of the
ordinance to include it within the ordinance in line 4, and have it read "Selection shall be
made by lottery for a first time applicant in accordance..."
Councilmember Ahrens stated the title alludes to the fact that an individual only has to apply
once when, in fact, they have to apply each year.
Councilmember Hanus stated the rest of code does clarify this misunderstanding of the
interpretation of the code.
The City Attorney suggested removing the language "first time" in the title of the code but
not replacing it anywhere else within the code. The Council agreed.
Councilmember Hanus suggested if the language is conflicting with the rest of the code, to
have it changed again at a later date.
Weycker moved and Brown seconded the following ordinance amendment as amended above:
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
ORDINANCE//104-1999
AN ORDINANCE AME~ING SECTION 437:05 OF
THE CITY CODE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE COMMONS
DOCK PROGRAM
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4 AGREEMENT WITH LMCC FOR LOCAL ACCESS.
The Acting City Manager stated the Agreement proposes the City dedicate not only the $.84
per subscriber per month which the City receives for support of PEG access from
Triax/Medicom, but also a portion of the City's franchise fees to help offset the costs
associated with the operation of the studio. The consensus of the City Council was they
would rather not give up any of the City's franchise fees, but they realize they need the
service of the studio.
The Council asked if use of the studio could be reviewed in 3 months to see if paying more
was justified. The Acting City Manager will check on this.
Councilmember Ahrens and Councilmember Brown agreed, there is the possibility to review
the proposed Agreement within three months. At that time, the Agreement can possibly be
amended.
Mayor Meisel stated, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, they are against having to give up
dollars, but stated the City needs to get back on tract with the taping of the meetings.
Councilmember Hanus suggested having an audit system set up to verify the amount of the
City's use at three-month and six-month review processes.
The Acting City Manager stated other cities are getting $.50/per subscriber in PEG fees and
contributing their entire franchise fee to the LMCC. The City of Mound is getting $.84/per
subscriber in PEG fees and was going to allocate all of that to LMCC for Mound's portion.
The Acting City Manager stated the LMCC has estimated their costs to be $1.40 per
stibscriber per city to run the studio.
The Council all agreed with the need to have the City Council meetings taped and aired on a
local access station.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to move the Agreement along, with a
provision stating there will be a three-month review and audit. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.5
REQUEST FROM RESIDENT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF A FOUNDATION AT 3018 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
Mayor Meisel announced we would begin this case even though the City Planner has not yet
arrived. The applicant will present the case.
Ferner (Skip) Johnson lives at 3018 Island View Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he is requesting
a building permit on Section 350:420. He stated the City's Building Official did not agree
that this section of the code applies and stated he should present his case to the City Council.
Mr. Johnson stated his house was built in 1914. The house was built with ground beams and
then a house was put on top. Later, an individual built almost a basement under the house.
Mr. Johnson stated the foundation is in need of attention. He stated at the north side of the
house the foundation is moving and there is about a four-inch space between the rim joist and
the floor joist. Even though the City's Building Official stated there is no current safety
issue, there eventually could be a safety issue. Mr. Johnson stated this would be a big
problem in the future if it does not get fixed now. Mr. Johnson would need to move the
basement out about 3 feet toward the street and 1 foot on the south side in order to have the
edges of the house on the basement walls.
Mr. Johnson stated he is proposing to replace the foundation. This contractor has been
successful with this type of replacement several times previous to this project.
Councilmember Brown agreed with Mr. Johnson because there will be a major problem
down the road if this basement does not get fixed now. Councilmember Brown stated this
would be good preventive maintenance and believes it falls under Section 350, subd. 2 and
subd. 3.
Mayor Meisel stated the purpose of this ordinance was to make life easier for residents who
are trying to maintain their properties. She stated the City of Mound has an area of older
homes that are in need of work.
Councilmember Brown stated the applicant's house is currently nonconforming and the
footprint of the house is not changing. Councilmember Weycker agreed with
Councilmember Brown and restated there is no expansion of the nonconformity in the plan.
Councilmember Hanus argued and stated the applicant is asking the City Council to replace a
nonconforming structural portion of the home. This action does not concur with Section
350:420 of the City code.
Councilmember Hanus stated allowing this applicant his permit is circumventing the variance
process.
Councilmember Brown stated Section 350:420, subd. 7 may possibly apply to the applicant's
case. This code refers to normal maintenance to a nonconforming structure that will improve
the structure and livability of the house. Councilmember Brown does not want to deny the
applicant's permit.
Councilmember Weycker suggested Section 350:420, subd. 9 would apply in this case.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
Councilmember Hanus gave a scenario if we pass this applicant's permit, what will the City
Council do if an applicant would like to take off the roof of his house to make his house a
three-story home. We certainly could not deny it if we approve this permit.
The applicant stated he would like his permit approved according to subd. 8 and not subd. 9.
Councilmember Ahrens stated the house is not going anywhere and it seems inappropriate to
give a variance. She agreed with the scenario Councilmember Hanus gave earlier regarding
a roof removal. Councilmember Ahrens stated this ordinance needs more "tweaking."
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the permit under Section
350:420, subds. 2 and 8.
Discussion:
The City Attorney stated subd. 2 does not seem appropriate because the house is not
considered unsafe yet and the applicant admitted to this also. The City Attorney stated subd.
8 does not apply either because he reads this code to refer to multiple units.
The City Attorney stated if he would permit any subdivision to apply, he would consider
subd. 7. Subd. 7 refers to normal maintenance of a nonconforming structure. The City
Attorney stated the scenario Councilmember Hanus referred to relating to subd. 7 concerning
a roof removal would not fall under subd. 7, therefore, allowing the applicant his permit
would not set a precedent in the future.
The City Attorney agreed the streamlining ordinance does need more "tweaking".
AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the permit
under Section 350:420, subd. 2 and 7.
Discussion:
Councilmember Brown stated to support his amended motion is the deterioration of the
present structure causing unsafe conditions.
Councilmember Weycker stated she would recommend the motion to exclude subd. 2. The
City Attorney stated the motion does not need to include subd. 2 to allow approval of the
permit.
Councilmember Ahrens recommends more "tweaking" of the ordinance before allowing a
permit of this type to be approved by the City Council.
AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the permit
under Section 350:420, subd. 7. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel, Brown, and
Weycker voting aye; Ahrens and Hanus voting nay.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
Councilmember Hanus stated he does not feel replacement of walls is normal maintenance
under the ordinance.
The City Attorney stated on a positive note the structure will remain nonconforming. He
also stated to the applicant that streamlining has potential down the road which he should be
kept apprised of.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. (PLEASE LIMIT
THIS TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON).
The following persons supported keeping the ballfields on the School District site:
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound.
Pat Murphy, 2044 Bellaire, Mound.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound.
Laurel Gabby, a young girl who presented pictures of the ballfields, Mound.
Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard, Mound.
Linda Skorseth, 5638 Alder Road, Mound.
Wayne Elhbracht, 4873 shoreline Drive, Mound.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey asked if the City Council could inform the
public tonight what the timeframe is for the legal process in terms of getting the referendum
on the ballot.
The Acting City Manager stated the legal time clock does not start running until the names
and addresses on the petition have all been reviewed and verified.
Mayor Meisel stated the City is considering having an outside individual help with the
verification of the names and addresses on the petition, but there is no discretionary monies
to assist with this endeavor.
The Acting City Manager stated, after all names have been verified, the legal process could
take anywhere from two to four months before the election would take place. The reason for
this timeframe is notice needs to be given, the voting machines need to be programmed and
ballots need to be printed and all other legal requirements need to b3 met.
Councilmember Brown stated to double check the names and addresses on a petition is a very
time-consuming process.
The City Attorney stated haVing an election in the "dead of winter" is not always a favorable
idea for the public either.
Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood Lane. Mr. Osmek asked the City Council if the ballfields
were currently on the tax roll and was told they are not. Mr. Osmek stated he is already
paying taxes for this property because the school has owned it for years, and now if the City
of Mound purchases the property, he will have to pay taxes again on this same property.
Mr. Osmek stated within six blocks there are other parks with ballfields, such as Shirley
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTEs - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
Hills and Grandview Middle School. Mr. Osmek also stated the new high school will have
much better facilities than the current ballfields have to offer.
Brian Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. Mr. Johnson is in support of keeping the
ballfields on the School District site. Mr. Johnson stated the ballfields in question are locked
on the weekends.
Councilmember Brown stated he was surprised to hear the ballfields were locked on the
weekends.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Anderson asked if the public could help
speed along the verification process of the petition. Mr. Anderson stated he can donate a
computer to assist in getting the names entered into a computer bank and have them sorted
appropriately and in a timely manner.
Councilmember Brown stated the City is very busy with items that the City is mandated by
the state to have completed. He mentioned the Comprehensive Plan as one example. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan did not get the Planning Commission approval the previous
night because of all the discussion regarding the School District site.
Councilmember Brown asked the public if anyone knew how many acres existed at the Babe
Ruth field. Mr. Anderson will investigate this question and report back to Councilmember
Brown.
Mr. Osmek stated he had a solution regarding ownership of the ballfields. Mr. Osmek stated
there should be a nonprofit organization that would purchase the property from the school
district or the developer. At that time, an alumni organization should then be organized and
funds should start being collected to pay for the ballfields. Doing this process, the City does
not have to spend tax dollars and the people get the ballfields.
Mayor Meisel stated to keep the public apprised of how the referendum process is
progressing, there can be an update at City Council meetings for the public.
INFORMATION/MIS C ELLANEOUS.
1. Financial Report of October 31, 1999, prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
2. Planning Commission minutes of October 25, 1999.
Information from the Suburban Area Authority (SRA) regarding Metricom
Agreement.
Letter from Leah Weycker, Coordinator of the Westonka Healthy Community
Collaborative.
Memo from Greg Nybeck dated November 5, 1999, attaching the LMCD Board
Attendance Record.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1999
e
Memo to the LMCD Board stating there will be only one meeting in November which
will be November 17, 1999.
e
Memo from Greg Nybeck dated November 4, 1999, notifying the EWM/Exotics Task
Force meeting has been cancelled.
Comprehensive Plan update from the Planning Commission presented by
Councilmember Brown.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission met last night for four hours with
hopes of getting through the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Brown stated the Surface
Water Management Plan was discussed by the Commissioners, but the Comprehensive Plan
was not. Councilmember Brown stated there will be no recommendation from the Planning
Commission tonight regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the public hearing was
continued until November 22, 1999. Councilmember Brown recommended a special meeting
but that was voted down.
Councilmember Brown stated the Surface Water Management Plan states a buffer
requirement of 20 feet along new development for the City of Mound. Mr. Parks who
presented the Plan stated this is a real "buzz" word for the Metropolitan Council and Mr.
Parks stated the Plan needs to keep this section in the Plan.
Councilmember Brown stated rather than having a buffer area considered for the City of
Mound, educate the people of Mound regarding non-phospherous fertilizers.
The citizens of Mound could be educated through the newsletter or notes posted at local
stores including the contamination that occurs from the run-off when using products that are
not non-phospherous.
There was other further discussion amongst councilmembers that concluded educating citizens
of Mound by saying to keep all chemicals completely off the lawn to prevent contamination
of the lakes.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission is completely against the buffer
zone.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest:
Council Secretary
December 14, 1999
RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ADJUST PROPERTY LINES
BETWEEN 2 EXISTING LOT OF RECORD AT 1583 AND 1587 BLUEBIRD LANE,
LOTS 14 AND 23 BLOCK 6 WOODLAND POINT AND LOTS 14, 22 AND THE
NORTHERLY HALF OF LOTS 16 AND 21 BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT,
PID #'S 12-117-24 43 0046 AND 12-117-24 43 0047
P & Z CASE # 99-40
WHEREAS, the applicant, Carol and Bob Lien, has applied for a minor
subdivision to adjust property lines between 2 existing lots of record at 1583 and 1587
Bluebird Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning Distdct which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the property line readjustment will move the shared side lot line
south approximately 10 feet resulting in more equally sized parcels. The lot size of 1583
Bluebird Lane (Tract A) will be enlarged to 8510 square feet with 50 feet of frontage.
Correspondingly, 1587 Bluebird Lane (Tract B) will decrease in area to 8044 square feet
and 50 feet of frontage; and, ~of t~hat~
WHEREAS, the properties have~wnership portion of Wawonassa
Common lying within the extended side yard hnes which allows the inclusion of this area
for hardcover purposes. The total lot area of each parcel exceeds what is indicated on
the survey. As proposed, Tract A would include approximately 13,100 square feet of lot
area with an estimated 25% hardcover surface. Tract B would include approximately
12,500 square feet of lot area with and estimated 33% hardcover surface; and,
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision process causes each property to lose its lot of
record status which impacts the sideyard setbacks and hardcover surface of the home at
1587 Bluebird Lane. The 7.6 feet sideyard conforms to lot of record setbacks, but would
be nonconforming to the required 10 feet non lot of record setback. Additionally
hardcover would exceed the 30% limit by 3%; and,
WHEREAS, The readjustment appears to be a good approach to upsize the
Tract A to create a more usable parcel. Although there are some downsides with each
property losing lot of record status, it could offer a better long-term solution for 1583
which is currently 40 feet wide; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the property line readjustment as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to ,~ ~-' , ~:~_~
Section 330:20, Subdivision 1.B. with the following conditions: ,~ i,{,,~ ,"~' ',' :-': ' "
a. Both parcels retain lot of record status. -"
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described
property:
1583 BLUEBIRD LANE (TRACT A), LOTS 14 AND 23 AND THE NORTHERLY 10.00
FEET OF LOTS 15 AND 22, BLOCK 6 WOODLAND POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA.
1587 BLUEBIRD LANE (TRACT B), LOTS 15 AND 22 EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY
10.00 FEET THEREOF. ALSO THE NORTHERLY ONE HALF OF LOTS 16 AND 21,
BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
Mound ~lannin(: Commission Minutes - November 8, ! 999
CASE¢.- 99-40: MINOR SUBDIVSION; TO READJUST PROPERTY LINE TO ADD 10
FEET TO 1583 BLUEBIRD LANE FROM 1587 BLUEBIRD LANE; LOTS 15, 16, 21,
AND 22, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT; RUTH KILBY, BOB AND CAROL LIEN,
62200; PID# 12-1'17-24 43 0047.
The applicant submiEed an application for a minor subdivision to adjust a prope~y line
be.,¢~n the two properties 1583 and 1587 Bluebird Iane. The subdMsion proposes to
move the common property line south 10 ,'~t :e~ of
,-.=. resulting in two tots with 50: '"'
frontage. Both properties exceed the 6,000 square feet minimum, 1583 Bluebird with
8,510 square feet, and 1587 Bluebird with 8,04-4 square ',=,"'
,_~t. Lot widths are curren,.,y
40 feet for 1583 and 60 feet for 1587. The lots would change from a lot of record to a
non-lot of record status. This impacts both hardcover, reducing from ~-O to 30 percent.
and side yard setbacks, increasing from 6 to 10 feet.
, ne reaojus;ec property line l.~.rea.'[es
each s. rocer:.v. Ir t=,m~ of hardcc'.,er. ' ~"~
~l,nou=~, nc hardcover ;s
The readjustment appears to be a .~:s.d approach, :: u:size the ~0 fee: !or :c :rea;e a
more ,~.~,~,~-k:~ parcel. Although there are acme dowr. sldes- '.Nith each pr:pe~y icsins to: :f
feet wide. Another item to consider :,s future owners mav not have the abiiity to readjust
th e .....~,
~,~,=;~;, lines. Both owners are ...... ~'~' ;'
, =~, ===~ ~e ,~ ,ow, so this is as good of
oppo~unity as any to get a larger parcel. The ares has a mix of 40, 60 and 80 feet iots,
with. zC feet being more common ~i:ng Bluebird L~ne. '
-' * *'-~' interests
add ~* e~ther pmpe~y woulc .... ;'- '.,'=':=-~=~ if the, =:ue=t is ~w
Staff,' .... m*'''~ , ,'""' " " '
, =~,~, ,,.=.,. s the Planning,..,.."' ~"- ~':--:; ,,, ,~- ~,un ...... ,=~..,, ,,,.~-"~,=., ,.. Co,., ,,..d a*...rov...., the minor
su~.c:,,~l,.,n as requ"st"d.
Mueller stated he was concerned about the hardcover once the minor subdivision
OCCURS.
Mueller asked how hardcover.is caicutated with privately held commons. Gordon stated
the owners have fee owners but not title ownership. This means that structures can be
built up to the end of the commons and the commons area for hardcover is not used as
pa~ of the property.
Muetler directed staff to acquire a letter from the City At'torney regarding zoning code
Mound Ptannino Commission Minut~.s - November 8. 1999
requirements with privately owned propeCj but having joint ownership of commons.
Mueller recommended to the applicant removal of hardcover on tract ~ to get it into the
40 percent conforming amount. The applicant agreed he would make this tract
hardcover conforming.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to approve the minor subdivision
according to staff recommendations and with the removal of hardcover to
make the property conforming.
Discussion:
Mue!ler s;atec, anc Vess agreed, .'.here should aisc be
AMENDED MOTION by Brown, seconded by Voss, to approve the minor
subdivision according to staff recommendations, including a lot line
rearrangement not changing the lot of record status for either prope~y and
with the removal of hardcover to make the prope~y conforming. MOTION
CARRIED. ?-0.
Chair Michae! stated to the a~t~.=nL his :ase ,vill be presented to City Council on
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mill
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: November 8 1999
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OWNER: Ruth Kilby / Carol and Bob Lien
CASE NUMBER: 99-40
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 1583 Bluebird Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-IA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: An application has been submitted for a minor subdivision to
adjust a property line between the two properties 1583 and 1587 Bluebird Lane. The subdivision
proposes to move the common property line south 10 feet resulting in two lots with 50 feet of
frontage. Both properties exceed the 6000 square feet minimum, 1583 Bluebird with 8510 square
feet, and 1587 Bluebird with 8044 square feet. Lot widths are currently 40 feet for 1583 and 60
feet for 1587. The lots would change from a lot of record to a non lot of record status. This
impacts both hardcover, reducing from 40 to 30 percent, and sideyard setbacks, increasing from 6
to 10 feet.
The readjusted property line creates some trade offs with nonconforming conditions on each
property. In terms ofhardcover, both properties would be over the 30 percent threshold, although
no hardcover is really being added. Tract B is currently conforming, Tract A is currently
nonconforming. The readjustment also impacts the sideyard setbacks of the home on 1587. The
7.6 feet sideyard conforms to lot of record setbacks, but would be nonconforming to the 10 feet
non lot of record setback.
The readjustment appears to be a good approach to upsize the 40 feet lot to create a more usable
parcel. Although there are some downsides with each property losing lot of record status, it could
offer a better long-term solution for 1583 which is currently 40 feet wide. Another item to
consider is future owners may not have the ability to readjust the property lines. Both owners are
agreeable to it now, so this is as good of opportunity as any to get a larger parcel. The area has a
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99 - 40 Kilby/Lien Minor Subdivision
November 8, 1999
mix of 40, 60 and 80 feet lots, with 40 feet being more common along Bluebird Lane.
There really doesn't appear to be a clear right or wrong answer in this case. The property owners
obviously feel it is in their best interests to move the property line. Outside of the issues
presented there is not compelling evidence that approval of the request would jeopardize either
property. Proposals which would add to either property would require variances if the request is
approved. In the situation with a teardown however, variances may be avoided.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the minor subdivision as requested.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Rev. 12-30-98
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN
Phone: 472-0600, Fax; 472-0620
55364
Commission Date:
City Council Date:' \
Distribution:
City Planner'/
City Engineer-/
Case No.
Application Fee:
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Charges?
Delinquent Taxes?
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
$75.00
$1,000 ~'
Please type or print the following information:
PROPERTY Subject Address
INFORMATION
EX,ST,NO Lot
DE S~15~ O N Subdivision
'ZONING
DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1
~APPLICANT The applicant is:~owner other:
Phone(H)"-~q~- q~:.~(~ (W)~C~-"~ [-~-'~L (M)
(if other than ·
applicant) Address ~ ~~ ~~ ,~'~ ~ ~ ~
SURVEYOR/
-
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?
no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This application must be signed by all owners of the sub, ct property.
Owner's Signature
Owner's Signature
or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Date
Date
z3.~"/
RH_CH_.IVH--L~
1999
~ - i ?z; l,,.., /.r ;:, ,,f: F_::ISTING LEGALS
Lots 14 and 23. Block ~'~. \Voodland Pmnt
and
Lots 14, 22 and the Northerly IlalfoFLots 1o and 21. Block O, Woodland Point.
PROPOSED LEGAL TRACT A
I_ots 14. 23 and the northerly 10.00 feet or'Lots 15 and 22, Block 6, Woodland Point.
PROPOSED LEGAL TRACT B
Lots 15 and 2'2 except the northerly 10.00 tibet thereoE Also the northerly one half of Lots
16 anti 21. Block 6, Woodland Point.
e.77 /4, l??q
SCHOBORG
I_~,N D SURVEYING
INC.
,'~g7 C,'y. ,r~. 13,~E [
De~ana. MN ~
I hereby :ertify that this plan. su~e¥, or report was.
;re~arecl ~y "ne or under my direct suDervisien ~ncl that I am
RECEIVED
OCT 1999
MOUND PLANNING &
OWNER'S NAME: ,~~ "~
LOT AREA
~o'r A~EA
SQ. FF. X 30% - (for ali lots) .............. J J
$~. FF. X '442% - (for Lore of FJecarc~*) ....... J ~.¢'47~z.~ J
LOT AREA $¢,. FT. X 15% = (far de~ached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of ~ecord may have ~tO percent coverage Proviciecl :nat :acP, niques are utilized, as
oudined in Z:ning Ordinance Section 35(2: ~ 225,$ubd. 6. El. 1. (see back). A I=lan mu~ be submi~ed
and aDl=rovect by l:t~e Suiiding Official.
sc. ~-,
":CTAL ~OUS~ .........................
TO~AL ~ETACH~'~ ~.L2G~ ................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC; ..................
TOTAL HARDCOVER t IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER
~F~EPARE~ BY
(in ciicat~ di f f..e r~ nc'. ~ ...............................
RECEIVED
OCT 1 ~ 1999
MOUND PLANNIN6 & }NSF',
C'I'FY OF MOUND
HAROC~VI=R CALCU! AllmN-~
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE}
LOT AREA
SO. F'l'. X 30% - (fora, Iotsl ..............
SQ. FF. X ~1~)% ,. (for Lots of Recorcl*) .......
LOT AREA
SC,. FI'. X 15% --' (f~r detached buildings ontv) . .
e Exisdng Lots of Record may have mO ~)ercant coverage provieed t~at tac~nicrues are u~iJizecJo as
outlined in Z~ning Ordinance Sec:ion ~50:! 2:~5.Subd. 6. ~. 1. (see beck). A ptan mus~ be submi~ed
and a00reved I~y the 5uiiding Cfficiat.
DET, AC',"iED 5L3G=-.
(GARAGE.,'~HE~I
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
× =
TCTAL ~.='T. AC:--!,E~. ~,L~.~ .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, -.'TO ..................
X =
X
TOTAL D E'-',~ ..........................
CTHE~
X =
TCTAL OTH E.=: .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UND 6.~ i ~indic-~t%diff/e;enc?~
~, '7/,,-~' '/' .-: .......... """ .......
SURVEY ON FILE.
LOT OF RECORD.'? YES /
YARD
IlOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY
NO
NO
DIRECTION
OF MOUND
ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 Bi 7,500/0
~-'"R~a ~.0oo/4o~ .2 20,000/80
KZ 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED ] EXISTING/PROPOSED
s E w 7_._0
SEW
s E w ,-'1.¢,7t_.
10' OR 30'
.FX'ISTINO LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACItED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
SIDE N $ E W 4' OR 6'
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF I0' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the tt'quirement$ outlined in the City of Mound Zooing Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Dcpartzrlen~ at 472-0600. ~
I'"?5'
SURVEY ON FILE? Y~S<? NO
~"'"A
LOT OF RECORD?~ NO
YARD I DIRECTION
HOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R 1 _,10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
lA 6,000/40~ B2 20,000/80
R2 b,O00/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/BO
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED I EXI,~rllNG~ROPOSED
I0' OR 30'
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
FRONT N 5 E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
HARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CON~O~,::N~: Y~, No, ~ I"~: r-.L- I~^TE~: I0-I~--q ~ I ~
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Department at 472-0600.
~ 'ore.
~£S ...........
OTEAM
PROPERTIES, INC,
ASSET ~
AMOND HiLL CENTER
ONE M Lt N D R E D
HIGHWAY SEVEN
)UIS PARK~ N~N 55416
920-8555
i612~ 920-8z174
November 26, 1999
Ms. Fran Clark
City Manager
City of :Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, NfN 55364
Dear Fran,
Enclosed is the lease extension you requested, with a few changes. I did a two (2) year lease
without options, as I don't believe in them unless we negotime a rent increase based on CPI or
some other index. I also raised your rent $0.25 each ),ear to keep up with inflation. Your rent
has not changed since 1992 and maybe before that. This increase is around $60.00 per month. If
you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely.
Partner
P.S.: I vote for you for City Manager since you have been doing this job, ever since I have
known you. (1984 FYI)
LEASE RENEWAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Mark A. Saliterman (Saliterman), as Landlord, and the City of Mound, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (City), as Tenant, entered into a Lease Agreement (Lease)
dated December 30, 1992 for the premises known as 2324 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound,
Minnesota (more fully described in the Lease), for the operation by city of the Mound Municipal
Liquor Store for the period January 1, 1993 to December 31. 1995, and extended through
December 31, 1999; and
WHEREAS. upon expiration of the Lease, City has remained in possession and occupied
the leased premises pursuant to the terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease; and
WHEREAS. Saliterman and City have agreed to renew the Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Saliterman. as Landlord. and City. as
Tenant, hereby agree that City's tenancy at 2324 Wilshire Boulevard. Mound. Minnesota (more
fully described in the Lease), shall be renewed for a period of two (2) years commencing January
1, 2000 and terminating December 31,2001, and that said tenancy shall be pursuant to all of the
terms, covenants and conditions as set forth in the Lease and prior extensions, except the base
rent will increase to $7.75 beginning January 1, 2000 and will increase to $8.00 beginning
January 1, 2001.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease Renewal Agreement has been executed by
Saliterman and City.
Dated:
Dated:
Mark A. Saliterman (Landlord)
CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, Tenant
By
Its: Mayor and
Dated:
By
Its: City Manager
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1999
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
#9113
AMOUNT
$177,726.33
TOTAL BILLS $177,726.33
PAGE 1
AP-C02-OZ
VENT, oR IN'VOICE DUE dOLD
NO. IqVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATdS
AOlil 991214
12/14/99
AIRT.JUCH CELLULAh/BELLEVOE VENDOR TOTAL
A0331 $17502
AY, STERDAN PRINTING
A0333 991122
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND
AMOUNT-' DESCRIPTION
2&.02 THRU 11-20-99 581-6405 INV£S'~I
12/14/99 ...... 2&-. 02 JRNL-:CD
28.02
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4140-3220
1010
39.97 MAILING LABELS 01-4020-2100
39.97 MAILING LABELS 01-4C40-2100
' 39.97 MAILING LABELS - 0I"419~'2100
13.3i MAILING LABELS 01-4280-2100
i3.3i MAILING LABELS 73-7300-2100
......... 13.31- HAILING-'LNBELS ................. 78;7800'21C0 -
39.97 MAILING LABELS 01-4340-2100
39.9~ MAILING LABELS 81-4350-2100
12/14/99 i2/I4/99 239.79 ' ~RNE-CD ~010
VENDOR TOTAL 239.79
242.75 NOv 99 SIATEMENT GAS CHARGES 73-7300-2210
i4.83 NOV 99 STATEMENT GAS CHANGES 7~-7800-2210
.................. 47.29 .... Nov-gg"STA-TEM~NT'GAS CH-ARGES 7~-7800'-2210
12/14/99 12/14/99 304.87 JRNL-CD 1010
AMOCC OI~ COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL ...... 30~.87 ..................................
A0339 6761 186.15 BATTERIES (3) 73-7300-231(
12/14/99 12/14/99 .... 1~6.15 J~NE-CD .......
A~;DERSO~; GARAGE V~NDOR TOTAL lg~.15
A040Z 457021 1,496.62 HYDRAULIC UNIT AND A$SESSOt, I~S
12114/99 12114/99 1,49~.02 JRNL-CD
73-7300-5090
lC'lO
VENDOR IOTAL ]496.02
A64C3 9g1204
12/14199 12/14/99
2~4.80 STW SCBA-~AG AND E~BRCIDER 22-,170-2200
204.80 JRNL-CD iL'lO
ASPEN
~0549 32910400
17791000
17755100
3100o200
17~23500
17874200
,~"::o'~iDERV,..,~ , g DESIGN VEI~DOR TOTAL 204.80
70.55 MISCELLANFOUS 7i-7100-9550
12/14/99 12/14799 .... 70.58- JPNE-CD .................... !010 -
1,669.65 LIvUUR 71-7100-9510
12/14/99 12/14/99 1,669.65 JPNL-CD- ' lOlo
417.50 LIQUOR 71-7100-9519
12/I4/~9 12/14/99 417.50 JRNL-CD !010
16~.~3 MIX AND M~SCELLANEOU$ 71-7100-9550
12/14/99-12/~4/99 i69.83 JF~L-CD' lOlO
367.65 LIQUOR 71-7100-o510
12/14/99 12/14/99 367.65 JRNL-CD iOlO
203.90 L]DUOR 71-7100-9510
12/14/99 12/14/99 203.90 JR~L-CD
PAGE 2 P U R C hi A S E J O U k N A L
AP-Cu2-01 C[TY OF HOUND
vENDOr. ]HVOiCE DUE hiOLD
NO. IXVOiCE NMBR DATE ;)ATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCR]PT]ON
ACCOUNT
17675600 1,5g?.ll
12/14/99 12/!4/99 1,5&?.ll
]1006100 301.41
12/14/99 12/14/99 301.41
B[LLSOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 4787.63
~05~7 1301~0 16.50
6.25
8.25
12/14/99 12/14/99 33.00
COFFEE COMPANY vENPOR TO?AL
bERqY
30572 9~1129
~EST BUY COMPANY
bO5?l 5441
m]G A AuTO PARTS
~0611 397
zFYL!,
12/14/99 12/14/99
VENDOR TOTAL
12/14/99 12/14/99
VENDOR TOTAL
12114/~9 12114/99
VENDOR TOTAL
12114/99 12/I~/V9
fi:LC!:. Pi O:LICT$ v~hDOk TO¥;L
1Z714799 12114/99
5CA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB VEtCDOR TOTAL
~0705 127o6c
12/14/99 12714/99
5U$1~E3S ~3, C~!kE3 SALE5 ~:;: V£NDO~ TUiAL
C~g30 23~1i2
12/14/99 12/14/~9
'i~'5n FESI$IE:~ 3LLE5 ViqbOfi TOIAL
C0~59 D!7630
12/14/9¥ 1~/14/99
~z797~
t I C~UOR
JRNL-CD
71-7100-0510
10!0
OPERATING SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200
JPNL-CD 1010
COFFEE 01-4020-4120
COFFEE 01-4190-4120
COFFEE 01-4340-4120
J~NL-CD lOlO
33.00
117.03 VIDEOTAPES
117.03 JPNL-CD
117.03 .............
16.36 AUIO SUPPLIES 01-4280-2310
- 16.36 JRN[-CO .................... I010
16.36
73-7300-2340
75-7800-2340
1GlO
256.14 BANKFILL 11-10-99 STOCKPILE
256.14 5ANKFILL 11-10-99 STOCKPILE
512.28 J~NL-CD .......
5!2.2~
154.4~ 3/4 ~INUS (Ct 2)
154.4~ J~NL-CD
154.47
2C$.00 IUTOX COURSE BEC'L, NOV 15-1P
~06.00 .....
PS.00 MAINIENANCE' Y~AR ~000 IYPEWRII
P5.00 JmNL-fD '
?5.UO
1C7.54 "mEW JI~ IN PARTS"
107.54 J~NL-{D
107.54
]4.gP FUEL FILTYK
!4.89
14.57 SEA FOAM
01-~140-2200
1010
73-7300-2340
!C:!o
01-4140-4110
1010
01-4140-3B00
10!0
71-710C'-2200
1~10
01-4340-3g10
1010
01-4340-2310
PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R r; A L
AP-C02-Oi CITY OF ~OUND
VENDuR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NS. I~,;VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS Ar~OUNT DESCRIPTION ' ACCOUNT NdMBE~
12/14199 12/14199 14.87 JR ~L-CD 1010
CHAMPION AuTO VENDOR TOTAL 29.76
C0920 991115 - 16.46 OCT 99 WATER AND SEWER .... 71-7100-3740
16.46 JRNL-CD 1010
CIIY OF ?iOOND
C096~ 991201
12/14/99 12/14/99
VENDOR IOTA[
...... 67.78-
40.24
36.bl
............................ 26.35'
15.89
12/14/99 12/14/99 599.81
COAST IL COAST VENDOR TOTAL 599.~1
C0970 64~24207 - 121.95
12/14/99 12/14/99 121.95
61321165 77.85
12114199 12114199 77.35
64~ 3]196. 77.15
12/14/99 12/14/9o 77.15
COC~ COLA 5CiTLi~;G-~:iDWYST VE~.;DDR TOTAL 276.95
CLOT'/ 12639 i,OOO.uO
12/14/99 12/]4/R9 !,000.00
16.46
~9.23 THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200
8.30 TH~U ~l'30'99'SUPPL]ES ..... 01-4340-2300
6.i6 THRU 1io30-99 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2330
58.49 THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 01-4280-~250
5~.49 TNRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES ' ' 73-7300-2250
58.48 IHRU 1i-30-99 SUPPLIES 7&-7g00-2250
7.01 THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 0i-4280-2200
39.34 THRU 1I'30-9'9 SUPPLIES ..... 01-2300-0500
I14.69 THRU ii-30-99 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
22.75 THRU i1-30-99 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2300
THRU-11~30-99 5UPP[I£S - 78-7800-2200
THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 22-4340-2200
THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2310
THRU-11~3'0:9~ SUPPLIE~ .......... 01-4280-2310 ....
THRU 11-30-99 SUPPLIES 01-4320-3830
JRNL-CD lOlO
PRE
A
~IX ............................ 7i:7100-95£0 .......
JRNL-CD lOlO
~.IX- .................
JFNL-CD
7.-,1U 0
i010
71-7100-9540 '
-"~ -r' 1010
J~, ,,, ~ .,j
m~GE ,,'OkK Ok[aG.'-' Ur, D:--N¢IE~n 01-,.290-426.0
JRNL-CD .... 1010
CONCEPI LANDSCAPING, INC. YENDOA IOTAL lO00.OO
CliO4 99±2~6 3,330.00
12/14/9¥ 12/14/99 3,330.00
KOEHLER vE~D~R IOTAL
NOV 9c~ PROSESCuTION CRIM1NAL 01-,+ii0-3120
J~NL-CD 1010
DAHLiiE ]'IE R
BEER ' 71-7100-o530
JPNL-CD 1010
ChAP~ICK, ~:EdTZ ~ 3330.00
DI154 56v49 192.~5
12/14/99 12/14/99 192.05
57295 393.b5 BEER
12/14/99 12/i4/99 393.b5 JRNL-CD
D!STrI~UTING CO VE~;DOR TOTAL - 586.30 -
71-7100-9530
1010
P~GF_ 4 P U ~ C tt A S E J 0 U R [,, A L
AP-Cb2-Ol CITY OF I~ObND
vENDUR ]NVO]CF DuE HOLD
NO. I':VJICE N,~'BR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT
DESCRIPTION ....... ACCOUNT
PRE-
HUHBER A?
Dllq5 2221 '' 221:00 ~ UqlFORM-COF;MERDATION EARS' 01:4140-2240
12/14/99 12/14/99 221.00 JRNL-CD 1010
2313 70.00- Ur~IFORH COMMENDATION-mARS
12/14/~9 12/1./99 70.00 JRNL-CD
5TAXTON VE~:DOR TOTAL 2~1.00
60.40 SEER
12/14/99 12/14/99 ~0.40 JRNL~CD
78154 b41.10 BEER
12/14/99 12/14/99' 8~1.10 JR\L-CD
DAVIS AND
~12'30 77582
01-4140-22~0
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
56.45 HISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
12/i4/99 12/14/99 56.45--JRI~L-CD .....................
75742 1,413.62 BEER 71-7100-9530
12/14/99 12/14/99 .......... 1,4~3.62- J~U-CD ............................................. 101'0
79019 78.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
- - 12/1'4/99 12/!4/99 ..... 7~:~0- JR';E-CD ............................... 1010
71-7100-Q530
1~10
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7!00-o530
lOlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
71-7100-9550
1~10
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-~530
10!0
FDISTRImuTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 2419.57
EZ~2u 552~24 ~,574.70 BEER
12/14/99 12/lq/~9 5,574.70 JRNL-C~
552325 45.25 MISCELLAEh:OUS
12/1q/99 12/~4/99 ~5.25 JR\L-CD
55293~ 60.00 BEER
12/14/~9 i2/14/99 5U.O0 J~NL-CD
55464~ i,~76.70 bEER
1211c/99 22/14199 1,~76.70
~5~,49 ~ 30.25 HISCELLANFOUS
12/1~/09 12/14/v9 30.25 JmNL-CO
55~052 73.00 BEER ~EG5
12/14/99 12/14/99 73.00 JRNL-CD
5577C3 730.05 BEER
12/14/99 12/14/99 730.35 JR'JL-CD
£A5I SID[ mEVER$GE VENDOR TOIAL I09E9.95
~1552 $71~ 4EC.O0 SERV 11-01-o9 IHRU 1i-15-99
12/14/99 f2/i~/~9 4~O.uO JR\L-CD
EVE~GREE;~ LAND SERVICES CO VENDOR TOTAL 4~0.00
[1515 991123 0,779.35 NOV 99 REEYfLING
]2/14/99 12/14/99 6,779.35
55-5~85-3!00
!010
70-4270-4200
1010'
PAGE 5 P u R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-Ct)Z-01 CITY OF MOUND
VEt,,DUR I N'VO! CE DUE MOLD
NO. I:',VOICE NNER DATE DATE' STATUS
AHOUNT - DESCRIPTID'N
ACCOUNT NUMBER
E-Z RECYCLING INC VENDOR TOTAL-
F1631 4202o3
12/14/99 12/14/99
FIRSTAR T2UST CCMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
Fi641 9528
12/14/99 12/14/99
6779.35
268.38 04-01-99 THRU 09-30-99 SERVICE 54-5600-6120
268~38- JRNL-CD ................ 10i0
26~.3S
219.60 NIX 71-7100-9540
219.60 JRNL-CD lglO
FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME
F1723 25500750
VENDOR TOTAL 219.60
FRANKLIN COVEY
F172~ 0744
FRONTLINE PLuS
G1750 229416
229417
23~
234026
G ~ Y. SERVICES
bl°90 lllgOb3145
GLEN,EOOD 114GL E~¢'OD
.61972 1350C5
12/14/99 12/I4/99
5.07 4X6 STORAGE CASE BURGUI~DY 01-4140-2100
5.07 JRNL-CD 1010
COHPA;,Y VENDOR TOTAL .... 5.07
95.00 BUNKER EOOTS 22-4170-2200
12/14/99 12/14/99 ....... 95;00" -3RiSE'CD ..................................... 10t0 '
F1RE & RESC VENDOR TOfAL 95.00
12/14/99 12/14/99
5.35 HATS 01-4280-2250
5.35 MATS 73-7300-2250
5.35 MATS ................... 73-7300-2250
41.36 UHIFORHS 01-4290-2200
41.36 UNIFORMS 73-7300-22~0
4'i'.35- UNIFORMS ................. 7&-THO0-2200
140.12 J~NL-CD lOlO
12/14/99 12/14/99
108.44 MA'TS 01-4320-4210
10~.44 JRWL-CD 1310
12114/99 12/14/99
19.68 M;TS ' 22-4170-2230
19.68 JPNL-CD 1010
i2/14/~9 i2/!4/99
19.62 HATS 71-7100-9556
19.m2 J;:NL-CD !010
12/14/99 12/14/V9
31.78
31.78
M&TS ................. 01-4340-2330
JRNL-CD lOlO
VENDOR TOTAL 319.84
12/14/99 12/14/99
16.60 WATER ~5158500 (50%) 01-4020-2200
16.60 WATER #5i59500 (5Or;) - 01-4140-4100
35.20 JRNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 33.20 ' '
12/14/99 12/14/99
2,493.01
.,- 71-7100-0520
2,493.61 JRNL-CD 1010
137954 1,287.19 LIWUOR 71-7100-9510
..... 12/14/99 I~/14/99 1,287.19 JRNL-CD .................... ]010
PA~E 6 P U it C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
vLNDoR INVOICE DUE MOLD
NO. IW¢OICE NHBR DATE DATE 'STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION .... ACCOUNT NU~;bER
139988 1,462.72 L]WUOR ...... 71-7100-O510
12/14/99 12/]4/99 1,4t2.72 JPNL-£D 1010
142669 524.04 '-]NE 71-7100-9520
12/14/99 12/14/99 52~.04 JRNL-CD t010
143599 74.40 wINE 71-7100-9520
12/i~799 12/14/99 74.40 J~NL-CD lolO
143600 ' - 1,001,07 L I '%"UOR ....... 71-7100-9510
12/14/99 12/14/99 1,001.07 JDNL-fD 1010
14.3601 44.08 z]SCELLANEUUS ' 71-7100-9550
12/14/99 12/14/9~ &4.08 JPNL-fD 1010
g COMPANY VENDOR IOTA[ 68~7.71
174.60 472-1155 THRU 11-19-99 01-4320-3220
17~,60 472~f155 THRd-I !'L19~99 .......... 01-4190-3220' ~
174.60 472-1155 T~RU 11-19-99 01-4340-3220
174.60 472-1155 ThRU 11-19-V9 01-4090-3220
174.61 472-1155 THRU 11~19-99 ' 01-4040'3220
9.00 LONG DISTANCE THRU 11-19-99 01-4095-3220
~.06 LONG DISIANCE THRU Ii-19-99 01-~040-3220
...... 6.9~ LONG DIDTAkCE-~HRU 1]-19-99 .... 01-~2-80-3220
~.65 LUNG DISTANCE TH~U 11-19-99 01-432C-3220
6.65 Lf)NG DiSTaNCE THRU 11-19-99 0i-~190-3220
6.65 LONG DISTANCE THRU 11-19-99 01-~340-3220
~.62 LONG 5ISIAKCE THRU 1i-i9-~9 01-4090-3220
2.67 LQN6 DISIANCE THRU 11-19-99 01-42~0-3220
2.07 LOWG PISTANCE THRU' 1i-i9-~9 75-7300~3220
2.67 LO,~G ~'ISTANCE THRU 11-19-99 78-7800-3220
~,3.27 472-1251 Td~d il-l~-v9 01-4260-322b
3{5.52 472-1251 THRU I1-I~-~ 73-73~-~20'
~!3.2~ 472-1251 TH~U 11-19-99 7~-7EOC-3220
75,.04 472-3771 TMRU ll-!~-~q 0i-4140-3220
~_,14/~9 12/14/v9. ~,77g.00 J=UL-CD ~0!0
vENDOR TOTAL 2775.00
710.ol dYD=OrLUSIL ~E16 AEID/2dLORINE 73-7309-2260
12/14/99 12/14/~9 710.61 gRNL-CD I010
IREATMENT VENDOR lOl~L 716.61
362.49 ~=T ~ F, OOKING FE~ PER DiE~t
~2/14/99 12/1~/99 3~2.49 J:~ NL-CD 10!0
VENDOF IOTAL
760.75 Of I 99 600~ AND ~OAPw 01-41i0-4250
12/14/99 t2/14/~9 76g.75 JqNL-~ 1ClO
GPIGGS CO :)PER
61977 991220
6 T E MINi,~iSOTA
H206! 2266~9
mA,[INS ,,' Al ER
Hi:';:, CO .*,J,L!,'~ r F.,
n2151 GUk465
HENNEPIN COUNIY TREASURER VENDOR TOIAL 76b.75
PAGE 7 P U R C it A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
VENDL)R INVOICE DuE HOLD
ND. I';VOICE K~BR DATE DAVE ~TATUS A'qOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ....... ACCOUNT NU~IbER
PRE
A
12309 23509805 90.72 10-24-99 THRU 11-22-99 COPIES 01-4140-2140
' 12/14/99 12/14/99 ' - 90.72- J'RNL'-CD ............. 1010
iKON OFFICE
12400 4105
4208
4113
ISLAND PARK SKELLY
'J2579 10477~5
' 1047787
' iC477~4
i~52732
105 ~7~,~
SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL 90.72
70.50 REPAIR PLOW WIRING 1994 FORD 01-4340-3610
12/14/99 12/14/99 70.50 JRNL-CD 1010
32.75 REPLACE FITTING/LUBE 1994 FOND 01-4340-3810
12/14/99 12/14/99 32.75 JRNL-CD 1010
2~.00 FLAT TIRE REPAIR 01-4040-3810
12/14/99 12/14/99 26.00 JRNL-CD 1010
i~5273~
VENDOR TOTAL 131.25
· 1,06~.45 ~IN'E .................. 71-7100-9520
12/14/99 12/1~/~9 1,064.45 JRNL-CD 1010
..... 1,436.70 ~INE ............................. 7i-710-0-9520 ........
12/14/99 12/14/99 1,436.70 JRNL-CD 1010
...... 373.~- LI~R ........................... 7t-71'00-9519 .... '
12/14/99 12/14/~9 373.44 JPNL-CD lOlO
12/14/99 12/1~/99
12114/99 12/1~/9o
12/i4/99 i21i~/~9
12114199
12/14/99 12114/99
JOHNbON gRUS 'LI(¢UOR CO ' VENDOR TOTAL
J261~
17~.90 LIOUOR ...................... 71'7100-0510
172.90 JRNL-CD 1010
2,697.56 ~I~UOR ...... ' ............... 71'7100-9510 -
2,607.56 JRNL-CD ]OlO
520.50 ~'lhE .... 71-7100-°520
526.50 JPNL-CD 1010
190.40
i90.40
kq~iE ........ 71-7t00-9520
JRNL-CD !010
561.93 JRNL-CD
71'7!0(!-0520
1010
7323.85 ..........
36.6& COUNCIL COOKIES
35.6B JPNL-CD
01-4020-4120
1010
12/14/99 12/14/99
JUBILEE FOODS
K26V9 522~
KEN,',L[;Y }, .3RAVhh
L2755 232345
LAGER~UIST
VE ~';OOR IOTAL
12/14/99 12/14/99
V ~. f,,~ 3~-, IOTAL
12/14/99 12/1~,/99
CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL
3&.68
4,5~5.34 IHRU OCl 99 PRO SERVICES
4,5~5.34 JR:~L-CD
~5k5.3~
147.92 DEC 99 ELEVATOR SERVICE
147.92 JRNL-CD
i47.92
55-5~50-3100
!Gl0
01-4320-4200
1~10
~
AP-C~;2-OL
VENDOR INVOtCE [UE HOLD
NO. I'VOICE ;4FBR DATE DATE STATUS
12809 99111g
12/14/99 12/1,;/99
LANE HA;;SEN VENDOR TOTAL
12~11 10217
12/14/99 12/1;/99
LARSON PAINTING g GnAFH]C$ VENDOR TOTAL
12~t9 991108
12/14/99 12/!;/99
LAW [NFORCE"ENT COURDINAI'I VENDOR TOTAL
12822 i19 8958
PRODUCTS,
991119
LEU',AHd fl Ai-:RE L L
12930 5-2S3740
5-2~.52c5
12114/99 12114/99
INC. VENOOR TOTAL
12/14/99 12/14/99
V£NDOR TOTAL
12114199 12/14/99
12114/09 '2/lc/V9
5-273901
5-29390
5-2?3972
12/i4t99 i2/14/99
12114/99 12114199
!2114199 12/14/99
12/14/99 12/14/99
LO.ELL'S AoTU~LIIVE/ZITCO~ VENDOR TOTAL
h3016 ~91!15
12/14/99 12/!4/9~
991~
12/14/99 t2714/99
P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
CITY OF HOUND
' A'IO LINT
DESCRIPTION
PRE -$
ACCOUNT NuHUER AM[
1,000.00
1,OOO.O0
1000.00
1,032.61
1,032.61
ESCROW ACCOUNT REFUND
JRNL-CD
01-2300-1079
1CiO
FALL 1999 ~UARTERLY NEWSLETTER 01-4020-3500
JR~tL-CD '- lOlO
1031.61
30§.00 SAFE FAMILY CONFERENCE 01-4140-4110
300.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
300.00
13.94 COMPUTER 'SAFE CIRCUIT -TESTER " 01-q280-2250
13.94 COMPdTER SAFE CIRCUIT TESTER 73-7300-2250
13.95 COMPUTER SAFE CIRCUIT TESTER 78-7~0~-2250
4!.b3 'JPQL-C'~ ................................. 1010'
41.83
4!9.~8
419.~B
4!9
23.42
23.42
11 .o3
!2 .~2
151 .d7
151.87
~5.09
ila.O9
151.84
REi~?DURSE~,ENT TRAVEL CONFERENC 01-4140-4110
JRNL-CD I010
POLY-V BEET .................... 0i-4340-2310
JPNL-CD 1010
P~LY-V ~ELT ......... 01-~34c,-231o
J~NL-CD lOlO
DISC ~AD SET ..... 01-4280-2310
DISK °AD SEI 73-7300-2310
DISK PAD SET 78-7806-2310
JRNL-CD -- 1010
5ALL JoINT/DISC PAD SET
JRNL-CD ............. lOlO
DISK mAD SET/BALL JOINT/~D TO0 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD ..........
ALTERHATD~ 01-4340-23~0
JmNL-CD 1010
510.5B
22'1.20
22!.Z0
242.90
2~2.90
11-01-99 TmPU i1-15-~9 TRUCK1N 71-7100-9500
JPNL-CD !GlO
1]-16-99 THPU 11-30-99 TRUCKIN 71-7100-9600
JRNL-CD lO10
PAGE 9 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR iNVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. Ih~VOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AeOUNT DESCRIPTION ..... ACCOUNT NUMSER
HARL1N'S TRUCKING VENDOR TOIAL 464.10
~3025 991206 1.012.35 REImBURSEmENT MILEAGE EXPENSE 01-4020-4110
12/14/99 12/14/99 1.012.3S JPNL-CD 1010
HARK HANJS VENDOR IOIAL 1012.35
M3030 971.B92 - 2,171.05 6[ER .... 71-7100-9530
12/14/99 12/14/99 2,171.05 JRNL-£D 1010
-' 974439 ....... 93,50 BEER .............................. 71"7~00-9530
12/14/99 12/14/99 93.50 JRNL-CD 1010
974438 ~ - ' 2,547.05 BEER ......... 71-7100-9530
12/14/9v 12/14/99 2,547.05 JRNL-CD 1DlO
' " 976~19 1,51~.90 BEER .......................... 71-7100-9530
12/14/99 12/I~/V9 1,516.90 JRNL-CD I010
-MAR~- VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTA~ ...... 632&-,50 ......................................
~30~0 31907 2.606.00 NOV 99 AUDITORS RD ALTA SURVEY ~0-5640-~t00
........ 12/14/9912/14799 ......... 2,606~00 .... JRN[~CD ........................................ !OiO- -
31906 599.00 NOV 99 COAST TO COAST SURVEY 55-5880-3100
- 12/14/99 12/]~/99'- ' 599.00 J~NL-CO ................................ lOlO
31905 904.00 NOV 99 DOWNTOWN TIF ENG SERVlC 55-58~0-3i00
12/14/99 12/14/99 "' 904.00 JRN[-CD ...................... !010
..~04 12~.00 N~V 99 CTY RD 15 RELOCATION 55-5880-3100
12/14/99 iP/i~/99' 129.00- JR~[-CD .................... 1010
31903 224.40 NOV 90 SIORM WATER UIILITY 0i-4280-31~0
12/14/99 12/14/99 224.40" JR~L-CD ........... lOlO
31V00 l,Og4.&O NOV 99 HALSTEAD/WESTEDGE SEWER 01-42b0-3100
12/1~/99 i2/14/99' i,OS4.gO Jqr;l.CD ......... 1010
31499 172.00 Ng'~ 99 LOST LAKE CANAL REHABIL 30-5616-3100
12/14/99 12/14/99-' 172.00 JP~['CD .......................... !010
31~98 3,663.00 NOV 99 SURFACE WATER HANAGEM£N 01-4190-3100
12/14/99 12/!~/99 - '3.603.00 JRNL-CD ............ 101o
31~97 347.00 NOV 99 LANGDON DIS ALTA SLIRVEY 55-5880-3100
12/14/99 12/14/99 347.00 J~'N['CD .......................... !01'0 --
31690 129.00 NOV 99 ENG SERVICES FOR STREET 0i-4280-3100
12/14/99 12/14199 129.00 J~IL-CD ...... 1010
~90b 4~.00 NOV 99 ~INOR SObDIVIStON ~9938 01-2300-10~1
12/14/99 12/14/99 a3.0O J~N['CD ....... 1010
51901 20.00 NOV 99 MAJOR SUB MAPLE MANORS 01-2300-104~
12/1~/99 12/14/99 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 10 P U R C H A S E J O U k N A L
AP-COZ-U1 CITY OF MOUND
VE:4ZOR Ih'VOICE DUE HOLD PRE
ND. I~iVOICE I,'~,BR DATE '3ATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTI3N ............. ACCOUNT NUHbER A
31909
12/14/99 12/14/v9 364.00 JPNL-CD 1010
31932 i29.00 NOV 99 CO ~O liOk3 TlS BLVD 01-4i90-3100
i2/i4/99 12/14/99 129.~0 J~L-CD lOlO
31595 559.00 ~OV 99 EhG SERVICES P/I 01-4190-3100
12/14/99 12/14/99 559.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
31~94 1,683.00 NOV 99 ENG SERV 'P/I ...... 01-4190-3100
31193 172.00 NOV 99 ERG SERVICES ~O~ILE PAR 01-4190-3100
12/!4/99 12/14/99 I72.00 J~,NL-CD 1010
~CCOM~S FRANK RODS ASSOCIe CE~DDR TOTAL - 12758.20
~3111 00086~2L 46.00 DRUG SCREENING/TESTING 73-7300-3140
12/14/99 ~2/14/99 46.00 JR~L-CD ............................ 1010
qEDTOX LA~ORATORIES VENDOR TOTAL 46.00
115 991129 26.40 REIMBURSE~ENI POSTAGE 22-4170-3210
12/14/99 12/14/99 26.~0 JR%L-CD 1010
~ELISSA JOHRbON VENDOR TOTAL 26.40
~'~'~ 300.~0 REi"~U~SE~ENT 6ULLE~PROOF VEST 01-~140-2200
12/1~/99 12/1~/9V 300.00 JRNL-CD 1010
riIC~!AEL ~qUC~t'<ER VE;;DOE TOTAL 300.0~
"g25~ ~ll3? 75.~6 5~vl 5A~TLETT DLVD. 0i-~340-3720
275.6~ 4~i~ CUFBERLAI~D ' 01-~3~-~720
~C.62 LI~DLIOR STORE 71-7!00-3720
37.2~. 2a15 WILS~IRE 22-4170-3720
5~C.70 5Z41 A .~ OD PGAD 01-4320-3720
70.13 PUBLIC i,'OP~5 ~;,JILDIN6 01-428C-3720
39.85 PU6LIC ~3R~;S ~,d]LD~'~5 73-7300-3720
49.41 PUBLIC WORK5 6~ILDT~G ....
12/14/09 22/14/99 2,1~0.~9 JRNL-CD ~OlO
tiIN~;~GASCU VENDOR TOTAL 11~0.49
~2~ /~1 70.00 RFP~IP POWER DOOR 71-7~0, -~820
!Z/14/9~ 12/14/99 70.00 JPqL-CD 1310
R£FRIGERA1]ON VENDOR TOTAL 76.00
46.~,5 SEARCH WARRAN1/FORFEIIuRE FO~ 01-41'~-2120
12/14/9V 12/14/¥0 40.85 JRNL-C~ lOlO
VERDOR TOiAL
:'iZP~ ~ 4~77
Hr,, COUNTY ATTORNEY ASSN
~3295 991202
40
350.00
07-01-99 THRu 06-30-00 MEMBERS 01-~320-4130
PAGE 11 P U R C H A S E J 0 U k N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MgUND
VE:~'5'OR INVG'IC£ L;uE
NO~ It~vOICE NMBR DATE bATE STATUS ' A~OUNT DESCRIPTION'
12/14/99 12/14/99 350.00 JRNL-CD
MN CPV P~OGRAM VENDOR TOTAL 350.00
ACCUUNT ,NUbilE R
12114/99 t2/14/99 8,004.17
MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOk TOTAL 8004.17
N3680 991202 .......... ll5~'O0-' 'MEIqB'ERSHIP 'RENEWAl ............. 22-4170-413~
12/14/99 i2/14/99 1!5.00 JRNL-CD ~010
NATL FIRE PRCTECTION ASSN' VENDO~ TOTAL ..... 115~00 ......................................................
~332~ 99U713 35.00 CERTIFICATION TEST T~ ~EYEKS 22'4170-4110
I2/14/99 12/14/99 35.00 JRNL-CD 1010
FIRE SERV CERTIFICATN ~ VENDOR TOTAL 35.00
~3470 24659 70.00 COLIFORM, MF-WATER 73-7300-4215
' 12/14/99 12/14/9'9- ' 70.00 JRNL;CD ................... 1010
V~LL£Y TESTING LAbORATO VENDOA TOTAL 70.~0
H3500 99i20i 8,004.17 DEC 99 FIRE RELIEF 95-9500-1400
JRNL-CD lO10
12/14/99 12/14/99
I.NDEPE~'~DENT BILLI VENDOR TOTAL
B2.66 ~-2 FOR.MS FOR 1999 02-4095-2200
303.65 UTILITY-BILLING POSTCARDS 73~730~-2200
343.6~ UTILITY BILLING POSTCARDS 76-7800-2200
770.02 JRNL-CD /OlD
77~.02
?0.39 THRU ti-l~-9~ ~&12 FACKLER 0S-~340-322~
70.39 T~RJ 11-i~-99 o&!3 TUF ~1-b450-3220
40.77 TH~U 11-1~-99 ~365 B~{AD 0!-~340-3220
23.46 THRU ii-l~-o9 6811 S~I~N£R 01-4280-3950
23.~6 TtRU !i-1E-99 6~I1 $~!,~N~R 73-7300-3950
23.47 THRU 1~-~8-99 65~ S~iNNER 70-700~-39)0
40.76 THRU I!-1~-99 6~i4 HEITZ, ~. 0i-42~0-395~
40.76 THRU t1-1~-99 ~15 Jo~SON 0i-4200-3950
40.76 THRU !2-1~-99 5~16 H£NKE 73-7300-3950
40'.75- THRU ]1-1~=99 6817 SHANEEY -' 73-7300-3950
40.76 THRU 11-~-99 o8~8 HARDINA 76-7500-3950
40.76 TNRU ~]-~-99 0819 KIvISTO 75-7~00-3950
&0.76 THRU 11-1S-99 5520 GRAVY 0~-~250-3950
40.76 THRU ~-1¥-99 552~ HEITZ. F. 0~-42B0-3950
~3.5~ THRU 11-1~-99 ~822 N~L~Oi~ J. 01-4250-3950
~3.59 THRU ~-~-~9 6822 NELSON J. 7~-7300-3950
~3.55 THRU ~1-1~-99 5822 NLLbON J. 75-7800-3950
01B.78 JRNL-CD 1010
515.78
220.00 2000 USER GROUP DUES 'AND ~EE£ 0~-4095-3800
220.00 JRNL-CD luiO
12114199 12/1~/99
NLXTcL Cu~!~O;,ICAI IONS, IRC VENDOR TOTAL
N373~ 991102
i2/14/99 12/I~/99
TOTAU ...... 220.
NISI USER GPUUP - 'VENDO'R
PRE -
PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J U U R N A L
^F-C02-Oi CITY OF HOUND
VENSOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
h'O. !',,VOICE I,,MBR DATE DATE STATUS A~'OUKT DESCRIPTIDN ...... ACCUUKT Nd,~bER
N3740 TI-0036!08 49.82 5I-GNS ....... 01-4280-2360
12/14/99 12/14/99 49.62 3qNL-CD 10]0
NEW",AN SISNS VENDOR TOTAL 49.32
N3~OO ~,91230 5,049.64 NOV 99 STREET LIGHTS 01-4280-3710
12/14/99 12/14/99 5,0~9.64 JP NL-C[~- 1010
99i130
12/14/99 12/14/99
989.16 NOV 99 ~2245-301-939 01-4320-3710
21.99 NOV 99-~046616072223 - 01-4150-3710
391.63 NOV 99 ~1~14-601-425 71-7100-3710
2,744.72 NOV 99 ~0217-606-329 73-7300-3710
463.06--NO~' 9g-~2164~407-147 22-4170-3710
18.~.11 NOV 99 ~0047-005-229 01-4340-3710
102.46 NOV 99 #0~04-508-832 01-4280-3710
1~2.46 NOV 99 ~Og~'SCg~832- 73-730013710
102.46 NOV 99 #0864-508-832 78-7800-37!0
1,175.17 NOV 99 #0018-802-634 78-7800-3710
302.76 NOV-99-~000'9~60-4'~g35 ........... 01~4280-3710
6,584.58 JPNL-CD 1010
3RTHERN STATES POWER CO- VENDOR TOTAL
11a34.22
991112
12/14/99 !T/141~9 -
375.00 AGENT FEES 54-5600-6120
375,00JR-'J'L-CD ................. i010
NORJtSI CSRSuqATE
3~-Fi CE L:L PuT
~"~ ' Yq" )5
TRUST S:~ VENDOR TOTAL
!2/1~/9¥ 12/14/9g
VENDOk IOTAL
12114199 12/I~/99
375.00
37.55 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22-4170-2100
37.55 JRi~L-CD
37.55
<~.06 MISCELLANEOUS ITEUS 01-4140-2200
5~.06 J~NL-CD
P£TTY C.:SH VE':DOE TCTAL
69
P395~ 0C4-~3~565Z
12114/99 12/14/99
164.77 11-01-¥9 ThRU 01-31-00 SERVICE 01-4140-3950
164.77 JqNL'[D ....... i~10
PAGENEI OF ~'INN£SOTA VENDOR TOTAL
P39~4 ii~757
I£/14/go 12/i*/99
PAUSi!S ~ 30:15 ,iN£ COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL
12/14/99 12/14/9~
164.77
255.00 ~INE
255.00 J~NL-CD
255.00
113.80 MIX
135.60 J~Nt-Cb
71-7100-0520
1010
71-7105-0540
1010
325~9596
PEPS1-CCLA CON?ANY
12114/99 12114/¥9
VENDOR TOTAL
R6.70 MIX
~6.70 J~NL-CD
220.50
7i-7100-g540
1010
PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AF:_C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR I~4VOICE DUE MOLD PRE
,NO. INVOICE k'-'BR DATE DATE STATUS AMGUkT DESCRIPTJDN ........... ACCOUNT NU~':~ER A
P4O21 553734 .... 911.75 'Ci~UOR ................... 7i-7i00-9510"
12/14/99 12/14/99 911.75 JRNL-CD 1010
553735 ...... 757.90 ~INE .................... 71-7100-9520
12/14/99 12/14/99 757.90 JRNL-CD 1010
557907 370,50 LIQUOR ........ 71-7100-9510
12/14/99 12/14/99 370.50 JRNL-C2 1010
557908 .... 669~00 LIQUOR ..................... 71z7100'9520
12/14/99 12/14/99 o69.00 J~NL-CD 1010
PHILLIPS giNI & SoI~ITS, · VENDOR TOTAL 2709.15
PaOSd 590604 813
12/14/99 12/14/99 - 813
590605
590795
590914
12/14/99 12/14/99
.14 CIGARETTES 71-710C-9550
.14 JRNLZCD .................... 10i0 '
365.25 CIGARS 71-7100-9550
1010
365%25' JRN[-C'D ...............................................
65~.99 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
12/14/99 1~/i-4/99
12/14/99 12/14/99
600.55 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550
6OO'.S~- JRNI-CD ................
PIt4k~CLE DISTPISOTiNG VENDOR TOTAL 2437.93
~04v 5S~309 36.90 ~,9'V DEC JAN PEST CONTROL 71-7100-4299
12/1~/g9 12/14/99 3~.90 JRNL-CD 1010
~Lo:~;LETT'S, i'~C VE',DOR IOlAL 3b.90
';.~172 775259-~0 2,956.29 L~&UOP ...... 71-7100-9510
12/1~/a9 12114/99 2,95a.29 JP~L-CD !bio
77~56Y-2' 47~.i? .)t~E -' 71-7100-9520
" 775g65-00 - 525.70- W'I!~Y ............... 71-7100-0520-
12/14/99 12/1~/99 525.70 JRNL-CD 1010
776621-20 1,341.71 LIQUOR ....... 71'7100-9510
770624-?0 1,395'149-'LI~lroR ........ 71-710-0z9510 .......
j 12/14/99 12/14/99 1,395.49 JRNL-CD 1010
77696~-30 165.95 WINE 71-7100-9520
7~0452-~C0 ~;0.19 wI!;E 71-7100-9520
j 12/14/99 12/14/99 gO.t9 JR~;L-CD !010
7~0431-~0 1,261.01 ~INE 71-7100-9520
r'AGE 24 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AF-Cu2-C:I CITY OF NOUND
vENDOR INVOICE DbE MOLD
NC.' IWVOICE ~;h'bR DATE DATE STATUS- ' AYOUNT DESCRIPTION- ACCOUNT NU~.BER
12/1&/~9 12/14/99 1,261.0i JRNL-CD lOlO
77~54-00 2,536.30 LIJUOR 71-710C-Q510
12/!C/99 12/14/99 2,536.30 JRNL-CD 1010
~UALITY :,INE g SPIKITS VENDOR TOTAL 10740.84
RC2,19 12~2 10i.26 NOV 99 TRASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750
12/14/99 12/14/99 lCl.2§ JRNL-CD 1010
RANDY'S SA;;ITAT!ON VEhDOR TOTAL 101.26 ....
R4242 991111
12/14/99 12/14/~9
KIDGiVIEw bUblNESS HEALTH VENDOR TOTAL
R4290 52335
52474
52C23
27.00 RANDOM BREATH TEST - P/W 73-7300-3140
27.00 JRNL'CD - 1010
27.00
51.93 ~ISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
12/14/99 12/14/99 51.93 JRNL-CD 1010
37.33 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550
12114/99 12114199 37.33 JNNL-CD t010
47.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
12/14/99 12/14/99 47.20 JRNL-CD i010
V~NDOR TOTAL 13~.45
9013565'_12 5.00 WASTE- OIL .-PICKUP 70-4270-4200
12/14/99 12/14/99 15.00 JONL-CD 1610
bAF[IY-CL[[~': Vi~DOF ~$7AL 15.00
5~3f, i ~1202 ~2.00 SECRETAPY FOR £DC MTG il-lc-W9 01-~020-3t00
12lla/9~ 12114/9~ F, 2.00 J~NL-CD 1010
S4~{; vc~12ol 2,586.25 DEC 99 nE~,"TAL SPACE
12/14/~9 12/14/99 2,5~6.25 J~NL-CD
3H,3:-ELILE PLAZA ' VENDO~ TO~ AL 25go .25
34~V0 79~2i 1,067.17 SPRING, H~GER, ETC.
12/14/99 12/]4/~ i,~7.17 J~NL-Cu
SIA~:b, ARD SPhlN6 CO ViNDOE TOTAL 10F, 7.i7
34o00 137~39.1 . 3~4.17 LIGWT mAR FILTERS
12/1&/99 12/~4/99 394.17 JRNL-CD
13362~.I 41.11 GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES
12/14/99 12/14/9~ 41.11 JPNL-CD
13~384.1 63.79 STROBE TUBE REPLACEMENT
12/14/99 12/~4/9~ ..... 63.79 '- JPNi-CD .........
7t-71uC-3~20
lO!O
01-~2&0-3810
1~10
01-4140-2270
1510
01-4140-2270
1010
73-7300-2310
lOiO
PAGE 15
AP-C02-OI
VENDOR I~VOICE JUE HOLD
NO. I'~VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATdS
P U R C H A S E J O U r~ N A L
CITY OF HOUND
A~OUNT DESCkIPTIDN
ACCOUNT NUMBER
PRE'
A
130056.2 ' ~,861.
12/14/99 12/14/99 4,861.
i36510.1 - 1,277.
12/14/99 12/14/99 1,277.
130D24.1 ..... 76~
12/14/99 i2/14/99 76.
.... 137939.2 ................ 186,
12/14/99 12/14/99 186.
135510.2 .... 207
12/14/99 12/14/99 207
$1REICHER'S VENDOR IOTA[ - 7109
S4605 996593 1,600
.... 12/14/99 12/14/99 .........
SIS CONSULIANTS LTD VENDOR TOTAL 1606
S4530 991224
72 -PISTOLS .............. 01-4140-2270
72 JP:~L-CD !010
57 HYDRA SHOK HP/PRACTICE ......... 01'-41~0-2270
57 JRNL-CD 1010
95 REPA'IR OF FIREAR~ .... 01-4140-2270
95 JRNL-CD 1010
11 DOAE:MX'-OPPER OUTBOARD CLEAR 0-1£4140-2270
11 JRNL-CD 1010
.0~ HYDmA SMOK-HP-'(50/~X) 01-~140-2270
.o$ JRNL-CD 1010
.00 PRO SERVICES 5377 SHOFiELiNE DR 55-5880-3100
.00 JRN[-CL~ ............................ 1010
.00
1,1P, i.86 THRU 11-24-99 GAS CHARGES 01-4280-2210
298.36 THRU ii-24-99 GAS CHARGES 73-7300-2210
................. 353.00" THRU 1i~2~-99 -GAS CHA-R~E~ ...... 78-750~-22!0
410.78 IHRU 11-24-99 GAS CHARGES 01-4340-2210
~.05 THRU ii-24-99 GAS CHAAGES 01-4090-2210
........... !7,i7' THRU-11~2~99'-6AS C~ARGES ...... 01-4190-221~0
12/14/99 12/24/99 2,269.22 J~NL-CD 1010
SP[EDWAY SUP~WA'IERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL"
S-oSl 991224
!~/14/99
SP[E~AY S~E~iR1CA LLC
i~7J$ 9~1122
I-CH£K SYSTEMS LLC
1~716 ~65B
12/~_-4/99
~ F ;,.DOi~ TOTAL
8735
T£MPURARIE$ TO GO
?269.22
2,140.25
2,140.25
214~J.25
THRU 1i-25-99 GASOLI~.~E CHARGES
JR!,IL-CD ....
2~ n I!~I~RNEI ~ ~ ;'~ V I
, .,~. c: , CE
12/14/99 i2/i4/99 25.00 J~NL-CD
V~NuOR TOTAL
12/i4/99 12114/99
12/14/g9 12/14/99
1~/14/99 12/!~/90
25.00
52~.00 WF END 11-07-99 RO~SUS 5RENDA
52~.00 JRi~L-CD
391.88 W~ ENDll-21-99 RO~SOS, BRENAD
39i.~8 JPNL-CD
264.00 W~ END 11-2~-o9 RO~'SOS,--~RENDA
2F, 4.00 JRNL-CD
272.25 WK END 12-05-9~ ROMSOS, ~RENCA
272.25 JRNL-CD
']456.13 ....
12/14/99 12/14/99
VENDOR TOTAL -
31-4146-2210
1010
01-~320-?~00~.
ISlO
01-4190-3100
1010
01-4!90-3100
1OlO
01-4190-3100
1010
01-4!90-31~0
1010
FAGE i6 P U R C H A S E J 0 d N N A L
AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND
cEN[,uR I'WVOI£E DUE HOLD
ND. INVOICE NNBR 'DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCR]PTI9}~ .............. ACCOUNT
PR
T4723 99Ztt6 ' ~ ' 325
12/14/99 12/14/99 325
I~STIT. FOR FORENSIC PSYC¢ VE~4DOR TOTAL 325
14730 662 162
12/14/99 12/14/99 1~2
.00- PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM-NEL~ONTmOUG Ol-~l&O-3110 '
· 00 JRi,L-CD lOlO
.00
.91 PUBLIC HEANING TAX INCREMENT 01-4020-3510
.91' J~NL-CD ....... I010
678 133.05 BUDGET g PROPERTY TAX NOTICE 01-4020-3510
12/14/9~ 12/14/99 i33.05 3RNLLCD .......... 1010
6,1 22.4? BUSINESS SUBSIbI£S CRITERIA 01-4020-3510
12/1~/99 12/1~/99 22.47 JRNL-CD 1010
THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 319.03
T4733 991127 1,4!9.~2 PRO SERVICES NEW CiTY ~ANAGER 01-4040-3100
12/14/99 12/14/~9 1,419.62 JRNL-CD 1010
INE HERCER GROUP YENDOR TOTAL 14!9.g2
T4770 175073 ..... 153.&5 MISCELLANEOUS .... 71-71U0-9550
12/14/99 12/14/99 i53.85 JRNL-CD 1010
094 3,957. ~5
12114/99~ 2/I~/9~ 3,957.85
~E~ ......................... 7i'7100-9550
JRNL-£D 1010
175603 4,445.42 ~EER- 71-7100-9530
12/1a/99 12/14/9~ 4,445.42 JPNL-CD 1010
17~602 24.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
Ifl1410~ 12/I~/90 2~.20 JPNL-CD lOlO
i75504 !6~.75 BEER 71-7!00-05~0
1Z/i4/~9 12/1,/99 i60.75 JR,~L-CD !010
1773~0 136.50 BEER ' 7i-7100-9539
12/14/99 12/1q/9~ 13o.50 JP:~L-Cb I0!0
12/14/09 12/14/99
306.00 BEER KEGS ............... 71-7100-'9530'
30~.00 JPNL-CD i010
17%101 2,957i05 m~,.~==R .......... 71-7100-Q5~0
i2/14/99 12/14/90 2,957.05 3~NL-CD 1010
17!]179 24.20 MISCELLANEOUS ...... 71-7100-9550
12114/99 12/1~/~9 24.20 JRNL-CD lOlO
l?+i~O ' 5,4~4.15 ~FE? 71-7100-9530
12714/9V 12/i4/~9 5,4~4.15 JPNL-CD 1010
17~i~4 4E1.20 BEEP 71-7100-~530
12/14/~9 12/14/99 4EI.20 JRNL-CD 1910
IHORPE DISTRIBUTING CO VEkDOR IOTAL 18131.17
PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE hOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE 5TATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION " ACCOUNT NUMBER
T4501 00019 - 7~'0.00 CITY'CO~iJT~ACT FAL'L"IS'~bE .... 01'4020-3100
12/14/99 12/14/99 700.uo JRNL-CD lOlO
TIM BUSSE' VENDOR TOTAL 700.00 .......
14808 12198
.... 12210
12222
- 12213
107.25
16o.25
12/14/99 12/14/99 273.50
..... 192.75
t2/i4/99 12/]4/99 192.75
299.25
12/14/99 12/14/99 299.25
125,25
12/14/99 12/14/99 125.25
TIME SAVER OFF SITE SECRT$ VENDOR TOTAL -
T4810 OIO0025-IN
............ !2/14/99 12/14/99 ' '
TIM~ERWALL LANDSCAPING VENDOR TOTAL
T4531 20~699
TOLL GAS
T4940 t~tll2
12/i4/99 12/14/99
t W'-
nLu.~NG SLI?PLY V'EUD.SR TOTAL
F~I-STATE PU:P
14935 2311~4-0
232426-0
TWIN CITY OFFICE
05030 5&05~3!~
JS FILTER
12/1~/99 12/14/99
~ CoHTROL I VENDOk TOTAL
i2/14/99 !Z/14/V9
12/14/99 12/14/99
SUPPLY CO V~NDL)K TOTAL
12/14/99 12/14/99
12/14/G9 i2/14/99
VENDOR TOTAL
PARK OPEN SPACE ADVISORY MTG 01-4340-4200
COW HTG 11-16-99 01-4020-3100
J~aL-CD 1010
P['ANNING-COMM'MTG- 11-22'99' ' 01-4190%4200 '
J~NL-CD 1010
HRA/CTY COUNCIL MTG 11-23-99
J~NL-CD
DC~C-MTG-l-i~lE~99 ......................
JRNL-CD
01-4020-3100
1010
81-4350-4200
1010
890L75 .................................................
269.85 6XSX8 EARTHTONE TIMBERS 01-4340-2350
269.~5 JRNL-CD ..................................................... 1'010 - -
269.85
12.71 wELDAID,NnZZLE,DIFFUSER GAS 01-4280-2250
12.71 W[LDAID,NOZZLE,DIFFUSER GAS 73-7300-2250
12.70 WELDAID,NOZZLE,DtFFUSER GAS - 7~-7800-2250
38.i2 JPNL-CD 10!0
3~.i2
4~1.03 REPAIR 4118 DAILER 7~-7~0C-4200
4gi.03 JP~L-CD lOlO
451.u3
9.il GOLF FOIL gLANK AWARD CERT1FIC 0i-~i40-2100
9 .i4 J~NL-CD 1010
110.55 INK JET 01-4140-2200
07.U9 CASSETTE VMS 01-4020-2200
177.04 J~NL-CD 1010
-rX ~
282.56 CURB 50 ,pUSHING,ETC. 73-7300-2300
2F2.56 JmNL-CD 1010
i,134.2~ g'O" wU67 DDP HYDT
1,134.29 JRNL-CD
]416.85
1,439.82 INITIAL U~:IFOR~S, ~RUCKNE~ ti.
73-73v'i-2300
1010
01-4140-2240
PAGE L8 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R h' A L
AF-C~;'~-r'~. ,,. CITY OF HOdND
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. I':VJlCE N~3R DATE DATE STATdS
4£c, 259
457600
4~7993
3{;0645
300759
393597
3042&Q
12114/99 12/14/99
12114/99 12114/99
12/14/99 12114/99
12114/99 12114/99
12114/99 12114/99
12/14/99 12/14/99
A~OUNT DE~CRIPTIDN
1,439.&2 JRNL-CD
15O.0g U~IFORH SHIRTS,
150.09 JRNL-CD
115.96 uNIFORM SH1RTS,
115.96 JR NL-CD
~,RU CK~E R H.
HAKRELL L.
108.67 T-NECK BLACK (7)
10~.o7 JRNL-CD
i43.72 DUTY HOLSTER, HARRELL L.
143.72 JR ~L-CD
143.72 MI~-R[DE HuLST£~, BECK K.
145.72 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
iOiO
01-4140-2240
1~0
01-4140-2240
lO10
01-4140-2240
lO10
01-4140-2240
1010
01-4140-2240
1010
'J5102
17.95 T-NECKS, HARRELL L. 01-4140-2240
i2/14/99 12/14/99 17.95 JRNL-CD 1010
540.11 INITIAL UNFOR~ ISSUE CARNES Il. 01-4140-2240
12/14/99 i2/14/V9 540.11 JRNL-CD 1UlO
VENDOR TOTAL 2660.04
30.00 DEC 1999 LEAS~ ...... 01-4280-4200
30.00 DEC 1999 LEASE 73-7300-4200
30.00 b~C 1999 LEASE 7j-780~-4200
PC.OO - JRNL-CD ....... !010
90.00
1,900.00 T£UCK TOPPER g BUG DEFLECTOR 22-4170-2200
i,900 .GO JFNL-CD 1Ol0
IPbS,.0O
1,126.00 DSC 99"'CLEANING- 71-4320-4210
;1.33 DEC 99 CLEANING 0i-4280-4200
9i.33 D~C 99 CLEANING 73-7300-4200
gl.3~-'DEC 99 CL~ANI'NG ...................... 78-7800~4200
12/14/99 12/14I~9
JLiTED ~OPERTIES viN~k IOTAL
12/i~/99 i2Ii~/~9
~CC JlA FDhD '~LRCURY VikDO~ TOIAL
W54?~ ?71214
Bi.O0 SOAP/URINAL SUPPLIES 01-4320-4210
12/I4/99 1~/!4/99 1,481.00 JRNL-CD lOiO
,,rEST '~T:.~O ~'JIL.SING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL 14~1.00
~'5571 27376 BE.55 METER WORK ON ALEXARD~R LANE 73-7300-4200
12/14/99 12/1~/Y9 58.55 JRNL-CD 1010
~'[~TdRr, t. M£CHAI~ICAL CONIE::: VE;~DOK TO]AL -qc5.55
Y5350 ~413 3,14&.52 NOV 9~ PROFE551OhAL 5EKV]CE5 55-5880-3100
IZ/14/99 12/14/~9 3,14'8.52' JE]~[~CD ................... 1010
YHk HA~TNE~5 V~NDOR TO]AL 3148.52
FAGE 19
AP-Ct2-¢i
- NO. I'<VOICE N~!BR
15~50 19456
ZACK'S INC
Z61~5 9¢1130
TOM BERENT
Z61g~ 99ii30
JESS HUSBY
Z&lg9 991130
SUE SCHEBLER
16359-~1130
~ICK
16497 9c1130
991203
JE35ICA IAZILLO
1~49a 991130
MIE£
ZC5~O 991129
P U R C H A S E J 0 U k N A L CITY OF MOUND
iNVOICE DUE HOLD PRi
DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACcOuNT N~M~ER
49.95 LI@ CAR WASH, EAR PLUGS, ETC 01-&2~0-2250
49.95 L]~ CAR WASH, EAR PLUGS, ETC 78-7~00-2250
12/t4/99 12/14/99 I49.~5 J~L-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 149.85
..... 65'00 i999 RESERVE~EXPEi~SE .... 01-~50-4110
12/14/99 12/~4/99 65.00 JRNL-CD iOlO
VEt~OOR'TOTAL ........ 65'00
91.00 i999 RESERVE EXPENSE 01-4150-4110
12/14/99 12/14/99 '- 91.00 JRNL-CD ........ !010'
VENDOR TOTAL 91.00
6.50 1999 RESERVE EXPENSE 01-4150-4110
12/14/99 12/1~/99 6.50 JRNL-CD 1010
VEkDOR TOTAL 6.50
....................... 13'.00-- 1-gP'9'-RES'ERg~ EXPENS~ ................... 0i~i5~:~i'i~
11/14/99 12/14/99 13.00 JRNL-CD 101n
YENDOR TOTAL 13.00
1P2.00 1099 RESERVE EXP~NSE 01-4150-4i10
I2/14/99 12/~4/99 182.00' JRNL-C-D ................................... 1010
100.00
12/14/99 12/14/99 10C.00
VShgOR TOTAL 272.00
0.50
12/14/99 12/14/~9 6.50
V£<DDR TOiAL ~.50
'- i05.00
12/14/99 12/14/99 105.60
VENDOR TOTAL
Z6595 9~i206
12z14/99 12/14/9°
Ar. RO~OOD ~A~!SSOq RESORT VENDOR TOTAL
ZcS?o 9gli30
PATRICK ,iA~l V~fJDOR IOTAL
Zc597 991i3Q
REIMBURSEMENT PEP ON UNIFORM 01-2300-2240
JmNL-C-D 1010
1999 RESERVE ~ ~ ~' = _
,X, E,S, 01-4153-4~10
JPNL-CD 1010
VIDEO TAPE' (SF MTGS
JRNL-CD
105.00
72.00 JUVENILE OFFICERS CONFERENCE
72.00 'JPNE-CD ...............
72.00
!30.50 1999 PESE~VE EXP£~$E
13o.50 J~NL-CD
i36.50
32.50 1999 RESERVE EXPENSE
. _ 0i_4050~3100 -
lOlO
01-4149-4110
1010
01-4150-4110
1010
~,_ 4150-4110
PAGE 2o P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF HOUND
vE;¢DUR INVOICE DdE HOLD p;~
~;0. I'!VDICE t¢~BR DATE DATE STATUS AKOUtcT DESCRIPTION - ACCUUNT~U~BER
12/1~/99 12/14/99 S2.50 JRNL-CD 1010
VE~DDR TOTAL 32.50
30.00 'WATER REIMUURSEMENl 79-3890-0000
30.00 JR;4L-CD 1010
P~dL HAARSTAD
Z~595 991208
12/14/99 12/14/99
GARY COGS4ELL VE~4DOR TOTAL 30.00
16599 9~1208
DOUGLAS LARSE~
12/14/99 12/14199
VEtCDOR IOTAL
TOTAL ALL CENDORS
2.50 wATER REI~BURSEMEkT
2.50 J=i4L-CD-
2.50
177,726.33
79-3895-0000
1CIO
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.)/heprinted Public Hearing
Tax Increment Financing District
Development District No. 1
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for 1 successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the 27th day of November 1999__,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
NO.
1-2
the day of
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
27th day of November ,1999
~ ....... Nota~ Public
¢ ~ KRIST' HOLM
~ ~%.~:j MY COMMISSION ~PIRES
(1) Lowest classified ate paid by commemial users
for comparable space: $13.45 per inch.
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above ma~er: $13.45.
(3) Rate aduaily charged for above ma~er: $7.49 per inch.
Each additional su~essive week: $5.44.
(665 ~ 'z~ '^ON ~e~e'l eqt u! peqs!lqnc[)
¥10S3NNI~N 'GN~3OtN dO A J JO BHI
dO qlONfKT3 AJJO ~HI :~0 ~BG~O Aa
*Su.a[~ u! 5u.~eeu~ e~ oi
~opd ~o ~lle~O s~e!^ J!eq~ luese~d pue 5u!Jeeq
e~ le ~eedde ~euJ suos~ed pa~seJe~U! IIV
· ~ 'ON ~3~s.K3 luemdole~e(] jo
sep~punoq eq~ u!~!~ sesn elq!6!le uo lueds
eq/,eu~ ~-t 'oN 33!as!a 5u!ou~u!:l lueu~e~3ul
Xe.L uJo~t [ueu~e~3u! xel 'suo!]el!Lu!l
o3 ~3e!qnS '~oleq q~Joj les $! 'u!eJeql z-~ 'oN
to!as!Q 5u!3ueu!d lueu~eJ3ul Xe.L pue '~ 'ON
~3!J~s!O ~ueuJdole^eo pa!j!Poifl ,to deu~ ¥
~'i. 'ON ~mlslO BUlOg~'Uld lueuJ~oUl Xel
eql epnlou! oi pe!l!pouJ 5u!aq e~e t *ON
~3!J|S.l~ lue,,,dola~eo jo seuepunoq
DEC 87 '9g 01:58PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.1/18
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
(651) 697-8500
Fax: (65'1) 697-8555
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Date:
To:
Fax:
December 7, 1999
Fran C/ark
(612) 472-0620
Sender: Sid Inman/Robin Caufman
YOU SHOULD RECEIVE /~.~ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER
SHEET.
IF
YOU
DO
NOT
RECEIVE ~LL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (651) 697-8531.
Attached are the following documents related to the establishment of TI F District No.
1-2:
HRA resolution approving the District
City Council resolution approving the District
TIF District Overview that summarizes the TIF District for use at the public
hearing.
Please review these documents. Let me know if you have any comments or
questions.
Also, when will or did the Planning Commission meet to review the Plan? Please let
me know, as the date of review is in the City council resolution. Thanks!!
December 10, 1999
TO: Mound City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Casey, Parks and Open Space Commissioner
telephone: 472-1099
RE: proposed Tax Increment Financing District - Request to
remove "Community Center" Property from TIF District
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain why the
community center property should not be included in the TIF
district at this time.
1. The community center property does not satisfy the
"But For" requirement of Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subd.
3(2).
Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subdivision 3 states in part,
"Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment
financing plan, the municipality shall make the following
findings, and shall set forth in writing the reasons and
supporting facts for each determination: ... (2) that the
proposed development or redevelopment ... would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private
investment within the foreseeable future ..." This is the
"But For" requirement - but for TIF, the property would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private
investment.
Obviously, the community center property can be
developed by a private investor without TIF. In June, 1999,
Trail Head Land Development Corporation signed a purchase
agreement to buy the community center property from the
Westonka School District. The purchase agreement contains no
provision that the transaction is contingent upon the receipt
of TIF benefits. By the terms of the purchase agreement, a
closing date is scheduled for December 15, 1999.
Therefore, development is reasonably expected to occur
on the community center property through private investment
and the property fails the "But For" legal standard for
inclusion in the TIF district. In other words, corporate
welfare will result if the developer receives TIF benefits.
2. Private development of the community center property
does not conform to the present and proposed comprehensive
plan, thereby failing the requirement of Minnesota Statute
469.175, Subd. 3(3).
Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subdivision 3 states in part,
"Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment
financing plan, the municipality shall make the following
findings, and shall set forth in writing the reasons and
-1-
City of Mound
12/10/99
supporting facts for each determination: (3) that the
tax increment financing plan conforms to ~ general plan for
development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole
In October, 1999, the City of Mound Park and Open Space
Commission passed a Resolution by unanimous vote that the
"community center" property remain as a park and be purchased
through a bond referendum process. (See attached Exhibit 1).
On December 9, 1999, the City of Mound Park and Open
Space Commission passed a Resolution by a 4-1-1 vote that the
open space portion of the community center property not be
included in the TIF plan. (See attached Exhibit 2)
On November 22, 1999, the City of Mound Planning
Commission recommended that the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
contain a "public/institutional" designation for the open
space portion "community center" property. (See attached
Exhibit 3.)
The Park and Recreation Section of Mound's 1990
Comprehensive Plan contains a language that includes the open
space "community center" property as part of the community's
park system. However, the entire parcel is listed as public
property in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan.
The Downtown Concept Plan for Mound Visions does not
include the community center open space.
The Mound City Council has not finally approved the 1999
Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, inclusion of the community center property in
the TIF plan for tax benefits for private development does
not conform to the current and proposed comprehensive plan
and, therefore, fails the legal standard contained in Minn.
Stat. 469.175, Subd. 3(3).
[CAUTION: It is important to remember that even though
the Park Commission and Planning Commission recommended that
only the open space portion of the community center be kept
as public open space, the entire community center property
fails the "But For" legal requirement.]
3. TIF benefits cannot be used for the community center
property if it remains as a park or public building.
The proposed TIF plan, Subsection 2-27 (on page 2-15),
misstates the law pertaining to using TIF revenues for
construction of public parks and facilities. The statute
cited was amended by the Minnesota legislature in 1999. (See
Chapter 243, Article 10, Sections 2 and 29, attached as
Exhibit 4.)
The current language of Minn. Stat. 469.176, Subd. 4g
states in part, "No revenues derived from tax increment in
any district ... shall be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a
building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting
the business of a municipality, county, school district, or
any other local unit of government, or for a commons area
-2-
City of Mound
12/10/99
used as a public park, or a facility used for social,
recreational, or conference purposes ..." (See certain
inapplicable exceptions.)
Please note also that the 1999 Session Laws, Article 10,
Section 29 contains exceptions if the expenditures were made
before January 1, 2000 or if contractual obligations were
entered into before January 1, 2000.
Of course, if the Mound City Council quickly decided
that it wished to keep the community center property in the
public domain, amended the comprehensive plan, and entered
into a binding contractual obligation in this regard before
January 1, 2000, then TIF benefits could occur.
4. The proposed TIF plan contains no explanation for
inclusion of the community center property in the TIF
district.
The proposed TIF plan, page 2-13, contains only
perfunctory justification for the TIF district as a whole and
contains no reason at all why the community center property
must be included at this time.
5. The TIF plan can include non-contiguous areas.
If the community center property is removed from the TIF
plan, the law allows noncontiguous areas to be included in
the plan. See Minn. Stat. 469.174, Subd. 10(f). Therefore,
the Pond Area could remain in the TIF plan.
6. The TIF plan can be amended later to include the
community center property, in the unlikely event that the
bond referendum fails.
In the unlikely event that the bond referendum fails,
the TIF plan can be modified to include the school district
property. (See Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subd. 4.)
Ordinarily, these requirements are not burdensome or
expensive. Moreover, expenses would be less than usual
because the homework has already been accomplished for the
community center property. In addition, the cost of
modification can be recaptured through TIF financing. (See
Minn. Stat. 469.174, Subd. 14 and 469.176, Subd.3.)
7. Inclusion of the community center property in the
TIF plan increases Trail Head Development Corporation's
incentive not to sell the property to the City of Mound an4
may increase the market value (purchase price).
When the bond referendum passes, the City of Mound will
begin negotiations to purchase the community center property.
The City of Mound would give away a bargaining chip by
including the community center property in the TIF district
at this time. Moreover, the market value of the property may
-3-
City of Mound
increase if the Droperty is included in the TIF district,
resulting in greater expense to the taxpayers. Finally, the
developer would have less incentive to sell the property,
knowing that he has a greater possibility of receiving TIF
benefits.
8. City of Mound voters have not yet decided what they
want to do with the community center property.
The voters must be given a chance to decide if they want
to buy the property. Therefore, it is premature to place the
community center property in a TIF district to encourage
private development.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the entire community center property
should not be included in the TIF district because it: (1)
fails two legal requirements; (2) would give away an
important "bargaining chip" to a private developer; and (3)
may increase the price the City of Mound would pay to
purchase the property.
In the event that the voters decide not to buy the
property and the property later conforms to the legal
requirements, the TIF plan can be easily and inexpensively
amended to include the community center property within the
TIF district.
Please note that the PID numbers for the community
center property are: 14-117-24-41-0052; 14-117-24-41-0011;
14-117-24-41-0058; 14-117-24-41-0010; and 14-117-24-44-0007.
It is requested that these numbers be removed from the list
in Appendix C-2 of the TIF plan.
Please include this memorandum with attachments in the public
record for the Planning Commission meeting on 12/13/99 and
the City Council meeting on 12/14/99.
TF~%NK YOU for you kind attention and consideration.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS:
1. October, 1999 POSC resolution
2. December 9, 1999 POSC resolution
3. Planning Commission minutes, November 10, 1999 (page
10)
4. 1999 Session Laws - Chapter 243, Article 10,
Sections 2 and 29
cc: John Dean, City Attorney
Haddorff Field of Dreams Association
Pete Meyer, Park and Open Space Commission Chair
-4-
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE
CITY OF MOUND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan describes the 15-acre
"community center" site as approximately 1/2 of the total
inventory of "community playfields" within the City of Mound;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Section of the
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan states in part, "The
goal of this plan is to provide recreational opportunities to
meet the needs of all Mound residents" (see page 71);
WHEREAS, the "community center" site is in the process
of being sold to a private developer;
WHEREAS, the citizens of Mound have adequately
demonstrated at several recent public meetings that the
"community center" site is an invaluable public asset; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is in the process of updating
the 1990 Comprehensive Plan to reflect the current needs of
our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the "community center" site and other
government-owned parcels have zoning classifications that are
inconsistent with their existing use;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation
Section of 1999 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan contain
the following language:
"The 15-acre "community center" site should be
retained as public land for park and recreational
purposes. If necessary to protect the property
from being developed by a private owner, the City
of Mound should use all available legal tools,
including the Power of eminent domain. In the
event that the City of Mound does not have adequate
funds to purchase this property, the City of Mound
should hold a bond referendum at the earliest
possible date."
"The Mound City Council should amend the
Zoning Code to establish a zoning classification
and land use controls for open space areas owned by
government entities."
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately
to City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission
for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
'1599 REG[TLAR SESSION Ch. 243, Art. 10, § 3
(ii) the improvements, equipment, or items that (i) pr/rnarily serve a decorative or aesthetic
purt~ose, or {,ii) se~we a functional purpose, but their cost is increased by more than
percent as a result of the selection of materials, desil~n, or type as compared with more
commonly used materials, designs, or types for similar improvements, equipment, or items.
(2) The provisions of this paragn'aph do not apply to expenditures related to the rehabilita-
%ion of histo~'ic structures that are:
(i) individually listed on the National Re,stet of Historic Places; or
(ii) a contHbutin~ element to a histotsc district listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Sec. 3. .~innesota Statutes 1998, section 469.1763, is amended by adding a subdivision
read:
Subd. 6. POOLING PERMITTED FOR DEFICITS. (a) This subdivision applies
~o districts for which the request for certification was made before June 2, 1997.
ih) The municipality for the district may transfer available increments from another tax
incren~ent financing dist~dct located in the municipality, if the t~ransfer is necessary
eliminate a deficit in the district to which the increments are transferred. A deficit in the
disu'/cr for purposes of this subdivision means the lesser of the following two amounts:
(1)(i) the amount due during the calendar year to pay preeydsting obligations of the dis[idct;
III[IILIS
(ii) the total increments to be collected from properties located ,~dthin the district that are
av~dlable for the calendar year, plus
(iii) total increments fi'om properties located in other districts in the municipality that are
available to be used to meet the district's obligations under this section, excluding this
subdivision, or other provisions of law (but excluding a special tax under section 469.1791 and
the re'ant prolm'am under Laws 1997, chapter 231, article l, section 19); or
(2) the reduction in increments collected from properties located in the district for the
calendar year as a result of the changes in class rates in Laws 1997, chapter 231, article
Laws 199S, chapter 389, article 2; and this act.
(c) A preex/sting obligation means bonds issued and sold before June 2, 1997, and bond:s
issued to refund such bonds or to reimburse expenditures made in conjunction ,~Sth a si ~g-ned
contractual a~-eement entered into before June 2, 1997, to the extent that the bonds are
secured by a pledge of increments fi'om the tax increment financing district. For pu~)oses ol'
this subdivision, bonds exclude an obligation to reimburse or pay a developer or owner of'
property located in the distr/ct for amounts incurred or paid by the developer or owner.
td) The municipality may require a development authority, other than a seaway port
authority, to transfer available increments for any of its 'tax increment financing' districts in
the municipality to make up an insufficiency in another district in the municipality, regardless
of whether the district was established by the development authority or another development
authority. This authmdty applies notwithstanding any law to the contrary., but applies only to
a development authority that:
(1) was established by the municipality; or
(2) the governing body of which is appointed, in whole or part, by the municipality or an
officer of the municipality or which consists, in whole or part, of members of the governin~
bodv of the municipality.
(e) The authm'ity under this subdivision to spend tax increments outside of the area oI' the
disu'ict from which the tax increments were collected:
(1) may only be exercised after obtaining approval of the use of the increments, in writing,
by the commissioner of revenue;
(2) is an exception to the rest~dctions under section 469.176, subdivision 4i, and the other
proxisions of this section, and the percentage restrictions under subdivision 2 must be
calculated after deductin~ increments spent under this subdivision from the total increments
for the disra'ict; and
1999 REGULAR SESSION
Ch. 243, Art. 11, § 1
t nanci2 dis 'icts and to a dis iqc designated in the future that contains the former federal
reserve bank building in the city of Minneapolis.
Subd. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective upon compliance by the city of
Minneapolis with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 645.021, subd. ivision 3.
Sec. 27. APPROPRIATION; TIF GRANTS.
$4,000.000 is appropriated to the commissioner of revenue for purposes of grants under
Laws 199T, ehaptor 231, a~icle 1, section 19, go municipalities to offset deficits in tax
increment financing districts.
Sec. 28. REPEALER.
Laws 1997, chapter 231, article 1, section 19, subdivision 2, is' repealed.
Sec. 29. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 1 is effective for requests for certification of a new district or fbr the addition
geo~'at3hie area to a district made after June 30, 1999.
iSecuon z]is effective for all tax increment financing districts, regardless of when the
request for certification was made, but does not apply to (-12 expenditures made before
Janua~'y 1, 2000; ~ expenditures made under ~ binding contract entered before Januat7
2000: or ¢~J expenditures made under a binding contract entered pursuant t.o a letter of
intent with the developer or contractor if the letter of intent was entered before Januaw
2000.
Section 3 is effective for all districts for which the request for certification was made before
June 2, 1997.
Section 4 is effective the day following final enactment and applies to districts for which the
request for certification was made after July 31, 1979, and before July 1, 1982.
Sections 5 and 6 apply to all districts for which the request for certification was made after
August 1, 1979, but is limited to final letters of noncompliance issued by the state auditor
· after December 31, 1999.
Sections 8 to 17, and 28 are effective the day following final enactment.
ARTICLE 11
STATE FUNDING OF DISTRICT COURTS
TRANSFER OF FINES, FEES, AND OTHER MONEY TO STATE
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 97A.065, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. FINES Aa\'D FORFEITED BAIL. (a) Fines and forfeited bail collected from
prosecutions of violations of: the game and fish laws; sections 84.091 to 84.15; sections 84.81
to 84.91; section 169.121, when the violation involved an off-road recreational vehicle as
defined in section 169.01, subdivision 86; chapter 348; and any other law relat, ing to x~41d
animals or aquatic vegetation, must be paid to the treasurer of the county where the violation
is prosecuted. The county treasurer shall submit one-half of the receipts to the commissioner
and credit the balance to the county general revenue fund except as provided in paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d)? In a county in a judicial district under section 480.181, subdivision 1,
paragraph (b), as added in 1999 S.F. No. 2221, article 7, section 26, the share that would
othm~dse go to the county under this paragraph must be submitted to the state treasurer fbt-
deposit in the state ta-easury and credited to the general fund.
(b) The commissioner must reimburse a county, from the game and fish fund, ibr the cost
of keeping prisoners prosecuted for violations under this section if the county board, by
resolution, directs: (1) the county treasurer to submit all fines and forfeited bail to the
commissioner; and (2) the county auditor to certify and submit monthly itemized statements
to the commissioner.
(c) The county treasurer shall submit one-half 5f the receipts collected under paragraph (a)
fi.om prosecutions of violations of sections 84.81 to 84.91, and 169.121, except receipts that a~-e
surcharges imposed under section 357.021, subdivision 6, to the state treasurer and credit the
11:12 F.~ 1 612 472 4771 THOMAS E, CASE¥
3.999
TO: Mound City Council (via fax 472-0620)
FROM: Tom Casey, Parks and Open Space Commissioner
telephone: 472-1099
RE: proposed Tax Increment Financing District - Request to
remove "Community Center" Property from TIF District
Unfortunately, due to a work obligation, I will not be able
to attend the city Council meeting on Tuesday, December 14,
1999, However, I would like the courtesy of your assurance
that my 12/10/99 memo and this memo be included in the public
record.
I submit this memo as a supplement to my 12/10/99 memo to
offer the following additional points:
1. The TIF district is larqe enouqh without includinq
the community center property. If re-development is ever
going to occur in Mound by giving TIP benefits, there is
plenty of property in the proposed TIF district without
including the community center property. Some parcels should
be left out of the TIF district to "stand on their own two
feet."
2. The community centez p~operty was nevez a tax
produc%ng parcel in the first place. Therefore, it is not
essential to include the community center property in the TIF
district at this time.
3. If the community center property was left out of the
TIF district now, the consultants have not shown that the
community center property could not later qualify as a "soils
oondition district." Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subd. 19 and
469.176, Subd. 4b provide for some TIF relief through the
creation of a "soils condition district."
~. ~f the community center property was left out of the
TIF district now, consultants have not shown that the
co.unity center property could not later qualify as a
~housing district." Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subd. 11 and
469.176, Subd. 4d provide for some TIF relief through the
creation of a "housing district" for low or moderate income
housing.
pS'nla ~nclusion of the community center propert~ in the
TIF
increases Trail Head Development Corporation's
incentive not to sell the property to the City of Mound and
will increase the market value (purchase price).
-1-
12/14/99
11:12 FAX 1 612 472 4771 THOMAS E. CASEY
[~02
December 10, 1999
TO: Mound City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Casey, Parks and Open Space Commissioner
telephone: 472-1099
RE: proposed Tax Increment Financing District - Request to
remove "Community Center" Property from TIF District
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explain why the
community center property should no__t be included in the TIP
district at this time.
1. The oommu~ity center property does not satisfy the
"Bu~ For" requi~emen~ of ~innesota Statute 469,175, 8%1]~%.
3 (2).
Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subdivision 3 states in part,
"Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment
financing plan, the municipality shall make the following
findings, and shall set forth in writing the reasons and
supporting facts for each determination: ... (2) that the
proposed development or redevelopment would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely'~Arough private
investment within the foreseeable future ..." This is the
"But For" requirement - but for TIF, the pruperty would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private
investment.
Obviously, the community center property can be
developed by a private investor without TIF. In June, 1999,
Trail Head Land Development Corporation signed a purchase
agreement to buy the community center property from the
Westonka School District. The ~urchase agreement contains no
provision that the transaction is contingent upon the receipt
of TIF benefits. By the terms of the purchase agreement, a
closing date is scheduled for Decen%ber 15, 1999.
Therefore, development is reasonably expected to occur
on the community center property through private investment
and the property fails the "But For" legal standard for
inclusion in the TIF district. In other words, ~orpora~e
welfare will result if the developer receives TIF benefits.
2. Private development of the community center property
does no~ conform to the present and proposed comprehensive
plan, thereby failing the requirement of Minnesota Statute
469,Z75, Subd.. 3(3).
Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subdivision 3 states in part,
"Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment
financing plan, the municipality shall make the following
findings, and shall set forth in writing the reasons and
-1-
~03
12/14/99 11:12 FAI 1 612 472 4771
THOMAS E. CASEY
City of Mound
12/10/99
supporting facts for each determination: ... (3) that the
tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for
development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole
,!
In October, 1999, the City of Mound Park and Open Space
Commission passed a Resolution by unanimous vote that the
"community center" property remain a~ a park and be purchased
through a bond referendum process. (See attached Exhibit 1).
On December 9, 1999, the City of Mound Park and Open
Space Commission passed a Resolution by a 4-1-1 vote that the
open space portion of the community center p~operty not be
included in the TIF plan. (See attached Exhibit 2)
On November 22, 1999, the city of Mound Planning
Commission recommended that the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
contain a "public/institutional" designation for the open
space portion "community center" property. (See attached
Exhibit 3. )
The Park and Recreation Section of Mound's 1990
Comprehensive Plan contains a language that includes the open
space "community center" property as part of the community's
park system. However, the entire parcel is listed as public
property in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan.
The Downtown Concept Plan for Mound Visions does not
include the community center open space.
The Mound city Council has not finally approved the 1999
Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, inclusion of the community center property in
the TIF plan for tax benefits for private development does
not conform to the current and proposed comprehensive plan
and, therefore, fails the legal standard contained in Minn.
Stat. 469.175, Subd. 3(3).
[CAUTION: It is important to remember that even though
the Park Commission and Planning Commission recommended that
only the open space portion of the community center be kept
as public open space, the entire community center property
fails the "But For" legal requirement.]
3. TIF benefits cannot be used fo~ the community center
proper~y if it renmins as a park or public building.
The proposed TIF plan, Subsection 2-27 (on page 2-15),
misstates the law pertaining to using TIF revenues for
construction of public parks and facilities. The statute
cited was a~ended by the Minnesota legislature in 1999. (See
Chapter 243, Article 10, Sections 2 and 29, attached as
Exhibit 4. )
The current language of Minn. Stat. 469.176, Subd. 4g
states in part, "No revenues derived from tax increment in
any district ... shall be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a
building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting
the business of a municipality, county, school district, or
any other local unit of government, or for a commons area
-2-
12/14/99 11:12 FA~ 1 612 472 4771
THOMAS E, CASE¥
City of Mound
;~ZllO19~
used as a public park, or a facility used for social,
recreational, or conference purposes ..." (See certain
inapplicable exceptions.)
Please note also that the 1999 Session Laws, Article 10,
Section 29 contains exceptions if the expenditures were made
before January 1, 2000 or if contractual obligations were
entered into before January 1, 2000.
Of course, if the Mound City council quickly decided
that it wished to keep the community center property in the
public domain, amended the comprehensive plan, and entered
into a binding contractual obligation in this regard before
January 1, 2000, then TIF benefits could occur.
4. The proposed TIF plan contains no explanation for
inclusion of the community centez property in t~e TIF
district.
The proposed TIF plan, page 2-13, contains only
perfunctory justification for the TIF district as a whole and
contains no reason at all why the community center property
must be included at this time.
The TIF plan can include non-conti~uous areas.
If the community center property is removed from the TIF
plan, the law allows noncontiguous areas to be included in
the plan. see Minn. Stat. 469.174, Subd. lC(f). Therefore,
the Pond Area could remain in the TIF plan.
6. The TIF plan can be amended later to include the
oommunity oenter p{~operty, in the unlikely event that the
~ond referendum fa3.1s.
In the unlikely event that the bond referendum fails,
the TIF plan can be modified to include the school district
property. (See Minnesota Statute 469.175, Subd. 4.)
Ordinarily, these requirements are not burdensome or
expensive. Moreover, expenses would be less than usual
because the homework has already been accomplished for the
community center property. In addition the cost of
modifxcation can be recaptured through ~IF financing. (See
Minn. Stat. 469.174, Subd. 14 and 469.176, Subd.3.)
7. Inclusion of the community center property in the
TIF plan increases Trail Head Development Corporation's
incentive not to Soil ~he property to tho City of Mound and
may increase the ~arket value (purchase price).
When the bond referendum passes, the City of Mound will
begin negotiations to purchase the commun%t¥ center property.
The City of Mou~d would give away a bargaining chip by
including the community center property in the TIF district
at this time. Moreover, the market value of the property may
-3-
' 12/14/99 11:12 FAX 1 612 472 4771 THOMAS E, GASEY ~05
City of Mound
~z/~o/9~
increase if the property is included in the TIF district,
resulting in greater expense to the taxpayers. Finally, the
developer would have less incentive to sell the property,
k~lowing that he has a greater possibility of receiving TIF
benefits.
8. City of Mound voters havo not yet decided what they
want ~o do with the oo~unity oenter property.
The voters must be given a chance to decide if they want
to buy the property. Therefore, it is premature to place the
community center property in a TIF district to encourage
private development.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the entire community center property
should not be included in the TIF district because it: (1)
fails two legal requirements; (2) would give away an
important "bargaining chip" to a private developer; and (3)
may increase the price the City of Mound would pay to
purchase the property.
In the event that the voters decide not to buy the
property and the property later conforms to the legal
requirements, the TIF plan can be easily and inexpensively
amended to include the community center property within the
TIF district.
Please note that the PID n,~hers for the community
center property are: 14-117-24-41-0052; 14-117-24-41-0011;
14-117-24-41-0058; 14-117-24-41-0010; and 14-117-24-44-0007.
It is requested that these numbers be removed from the list
in Appendix C-2 of the TIP plan.
Please include this memorandum with attackmen~s in the public
record for the Planning Co~mission meeting on 12/13/99 and
the City Council meeting on 12/14/99.
THANK YOU for you kind attention and consideration.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS:
1. October, 1999 POSC resolution
2. December 9, 1999 POSC resolution
3. Planning Commission minutes, November 10, 1999 (page
10)
4. 1999 Session Laws - Chapter 243, Article 10,
Sections 2 and 29
cc: John Dean, city Attorney
Haddorff Field of Dreams Association
Pete Meyer, Park and Open Space Commission Chair
-4-
DEC-i~-lg99 08:05 HENN CO TRXPRYER SERUICES 612 ~48 96?? P.Ol/O~
"' :': '"".". ..... ... Hennepin County z v,,
:!'.'. :', ' ,' ." 7~; .An £quul Oi~Ix~'gni~ gml~loym'
December 6, 1999
Sid Inman
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
3060 Centre Pointe Ddve
Roseville, MN 55113-1105
Mound Proposed Adoption of the Tax increment Financing Plan for tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-2
Dear Sid:
Enclosed is a report from Sandra Vargas, Hennepin County Administrator, to the Hennepin County
Board, concerning the proposed Mound adoption of the Tax increment Financing Plan for tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-2
Please arrange to have the report entered into the record of the public hearing of the Mound City
Council on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, to reflect the input of Hennepin County, as provided by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 2.
If you have any questions about this information, please call me at 348,5076.
Sincerely,
~Jea~ M. Bierbaum,~~
Senior Administrative Assistant
Financial Analysis and Support Division
Cc Francene C. Clark-Leisinger, City Clerk, City of Mound
JMB:jb RevuMound121499VTrensmittalLetter
Taxpayer Services Department
A.600 Hennepin C'k~un~y Government Center
Minne~potis, M[m~eso[,~ 55487-0060
DEC-13-1999 88:85 HENN CO TAXPAYER SERVICES 612 348 969?
DATE: December 6, 1999 ,
TO: ' Board of Commissione~
FROM: Sandra L. Verges, County Administrator~'
SUBJECT:
Proposed Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and
Redevelopment '['ax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 for the City of Mound
Hearing Scheduled: Tuesday, December 14, 1@9@ at 7:30 p.m., Mound City Hall.
History:
The City of Mound has one redevelopment tif district created in 1984. The Town Square TIF District has generated
$2,505,559.71 of tax increment through tax payable year 1998. Mound submitted a proposal for Redevelopment
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2, scheduled for a public hearing on September 14, 1999. However, the
District was not approved at that time, due to some proposed changes in the size of the district and the scope of the
project.
Nature of Current Proposal for Development District No, 1:
The boundaries of Development District No. 1 are being expanded to include the corporate limits of the City of
Mound.
Nature of Current Proposal for Tax Increment Financing District No, 1-2;
The proposed Redevelopment TIF District No. 1-2 is being created to facilitate construction of a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. The Redevelopment TIF Distdct will contain 112 parcels located either where
the address is unassigned or on Commerce Boulevard, Bartlett Boulevard, Bush Road, Shoreline Ddve, Cypress
Lane, VVilshire Boulevard, Maywood Road and Lynwood Boulevard.
Spreadsheets included in the Plan identify the ~ollowing development:
Complete by Current
Development Tax Payable Year Market Value
Coast-to-Coast 2002 $316,400
New
Market Value
$ 1,500,000
Retail/Office 2003 $ 3,850,000
Apartments 2003 $10,200.000
$970,000 $14,050,000
Retail/Office 2003 $ 1,500,000
Townhomes 2003 4,800,000
Condos 2003 9,000,000
Apartments 2003 2,520,000
$1,191,500 $17,820,000
The following information has been provided for clarification of the development planned:
"The Development Program for the City of Mound Development District No. 1 includes the removal of two rental
units with a rental range of $200 to $450 monthly and two units with a rental range or $500 to $600 monthly. The
following new units are planned:
HOUSING TYPE NUMBER
Attached Single Family Townhomes 42
Attached Single Family Townhomes 18
Attached Single Family Townhomes 21
Rental Apartments 53
Rental Apartments 112
Rental Apartments 7
Continued...
PURCHASE OR RENTAL RANGE
tgo,000- t130,000
$13o, ooo. $180,000
$180,0OO +
$650-$750
$850-$1,200
$950-$1,4OO
DEC-13-1999 08:06 HENN CO TAXPAYER SERUICES 612 348 9699 P.03/03
December 6, 1999
Board of Commissioners
Redevefopment Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 for the City of Mound
Page 2
Fiscal Impact:
The projected captured tax capacity by completion of development in tax payable year 2003 will be $660,993. This
captured tax capacity wiil generate approximately $901,621 of tax increment per year or a total tax increment of
$21,418,103 over the 26-year tax increment generating life of the Redevelopment TIF District. The annual captured
tax capacity represents .0714% of Hennepin County's total tax capacity. Hennepin County's share/contribution* to
the annual tax increment of $901,621 will be $270,967 or 30.05% of the annual tax increment for this TIF District.
*Note: The term "share/contribution" assumes that the development would occur without the use of tax increment.
However, the Plan states in Subsection 2-25 in its reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the
TIF Plan: "The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through prfvate investment within the reasonably foreseeable future.., due to the high cost of redevelopment on the
parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of commercial and residential property for
expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximi~', and the cost of financing
the proposed improvements .... "
The estimate of public costs and sources of funds is as follows:
PUBLIC COSTS:
Land Acquisition
Relocation & Demolition
Public Improvements
Site Improvements
Interest
Administrative Costs
Total
5,500,000
1,700,000
6,000.000
2,000,000
5,415,000
2,170,000
$22,785,000
SOURCES OF FUNDS:
Tax Increment
Local Contribution
Total
$21,700,000
1.085,000
$22,785,000
As presently ~r..0f~.osed, the project will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. However, if bonds are issued, they will
not exceed $5,([~000 without a modification to the Plan.
SUMMARY
The Plan does not identify the targeted audience of the housing component. However, the townhome and
apartment sale and rental ranges appear to be beyond the reach of Iow income residents. Since development of
Iow to moderate income housing is a compelling use of tax increment financing, the Plan's silence on this issue
suggests that the targeted audience for this development will be mid to upper-mid income residents, As such, this
plan, albeit for development of 253 housing units, does not appear to satisfy the preference of the Hennepin County
Board of Commissioners for use of tax increment financing, as identified in Resolution 92-10-017R1, adopted
10/27192..
A copy of this report wile be sent to the City of Mound with a request that it be entered into the public record of the
December 14, 1999, public hearing to reflect the county's position on this proposal.
(w:RevuMound121499V)
TOTRL P.03
Park and Open Space Commission
12/09/99
RESOLUTION
REQUESTING T~LAT THE "COMe,UNITY CENTER" PROPERTY NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ("TIF") DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on November 11, 1999, the City of Mound Park
and Open Space Commission passed a resolution by unanimous
vote which states in part:
"... the Parks and Recreation Section of 1999
City of Mound Comprehensive Plan contain the
following language:
The 15-acre 'community center' site should be
retained as public land for park and recreational
purposes. If necessary to protect the property
from being developed by a private owner, the City
of Mound should use all available legal tools,
including the power of eminent dcmaln. In the
event that the City of Mound does nc5 have adequa5e
funds to purchase this property, the Cicy cf Mound
should hold a bcnd referendum a~ the earliest
possible date."
WHEREAS, a Tax Increment Financing ("TIF") Plan has been
proposed that would include the "co~unity center" property
(PID Nos. 14-117-24-41-0052; 14-117-24-41-0011; 14-117-24-41-
0058; 14-117-24-41-0010; and 14-117-24-44-0007) within the
TIF district;
WHEREAS, inclusion of the "community center" property
within the TIF district is premature, would not conform to
the proposed 1999 Comprehensive Plan, and would tend to
discourage a private property owner from negotiating with the
City of Mound for the sale of the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission requests:
That the "community center" property not be
included within the proposed Tax Increment
Financing District at this time; and
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded
immediately to the Mound Planning
Commission and City Council and included
in their deliberations.
Draft #2
.7.0123/99
WHZRF_%S, the Parks and Recreation Section of t_he
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan describes t_he 15-acre
"community center" site as approximately 1/2 of the total
inventory of "community playfields" within the City of Mound;
~S, the Parks and Recreation Section of the
1990 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan states in part, "The
goal of this plan is to provide recreational opportunities to
meet the needs of all Mound residents" (see page 71);
WHY/tEAS, the "community center" site is in the process
of being sold to a private developer;
WH~RLXS, the citizens of Mound have adequately
demonstrated at several rmcent public meetings that the
"community center" sits is an invaluable public asset; and
N'.,-ii".i2~-~, the City of Mound is in the process of updating
the 1990 Compr=._hensive P!~n ~c r~_fiect the ~arr~nt needs of
our citizens; mud
WH~--_R~AS, the "community center" site mud o~her
government-owned parc~_!s have zoning classifications that are
inconsistent wi.~h t_heir existing use;
That the City cf Mound Park and Open Space Advisory
Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation
Section of 1999 City of Mound Comprehensive Plan contain
the following language:
"The 15-acrs "community canter" site should be
retained as public land for park and recreational
purposes. If necessary to protect the proper~y
from being developed by a private o%~er, the City
of Mound ~hould use all available legal tools,
including the po~er of ~inant domain. In the
event that the City of Mound doe~ not have adequate
funds to purchase this property, the City of Mound
should hold a bond referend~ at the earliest
possible ~ate."
"The Mound city Council should amend the
Zoning Code to establish a zoning classification
and land use controls for open space areas owned by
government entities."
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded immediately
to City Planner and the City of Mound Planning Commission
for inclusion in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan
recommendations.
LOTS 14 AND 23 BLOCK 6 WOODLAND POIN~'AND LOTS 14, 22 AND THE
NORTHERLY HALF OF LOTS 16 AND 21 BL(~CK 6, WOODLAND POINT,
PID #'S 12-117-24 43 0046 AND 1~,117-24 43 0047
P & Z CASE # 99
WHEREAS, the applicant, Carol and Bo~Lien,~as applied for a minor
subdivision to adjust property lines between 2 ex'istin~ lots of record at 1583 and 1587
Bluebird Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the property line readjustment will move the shared side lot line
south approximately 10 feet resulting in more equally sized parcels. The lot size of 1583
Bluebird Lane (Tract A) will be enlarged to 8510 square feet with 50 feet of frontage.
Correspondingly, 1587 Bluebird Lane (Tract B) will decrease in area to 8044 square feet
and 50 feet of frontage; and,
WHEREAS, the properties have ~ ownership of that portion of Wawonassa
Common lying within the extended side yard lines which allows the inclusion of this area
for hardcover purposes. The total lot area of each parcel exceeds what is indicated on
the survey. As proposed, Tract A would include approximately 13,100 square feet of lot
area with an estimated 25% hardcover surface. Tract B would include approximately
12,500 square feet of lot area with and estimated 33% hardcover surface; and,
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision process causes each property to lose its lot of
record status which impacts the sideyard setbacks and hardcover surface of the home at
1587 Bluebird Lane. The 7.6 feet sideyard conforms to lot of record setbacks, but would
be nonconforming to the required 10 feet non lot of record setback. Additionally
hardcover would exceed the 30% limit by 3%; and,
WHEREAS, The readjustment appears to be a good approach to upsize the
Tract A to create a more usable parcel. Although there are some downsides with each
property losing lot of record status, it could offer a better long-term solution for 1583
which is currently 40 feet wide; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the property line readjustment as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to
Section 330:20, Subdivision 1 .B. with the following conditions:
a. Both parcels retain lot of record status. .2 ~ /-0 zn//v°''t /
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described
property:
1583 BLUEBIRD LANE (tract A), LOTS 14 AND 23 AND THE NORTHERLY 10.00
FEET OF LOTS 15 AND 22, BLOCK 6 WOODLAND POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA.
1587 BLUEBIRD LANE (TRACT B), LOTS 15 AND 22 EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY
10.00 FEET THEREOF. ALSO THE NORTHERLY ONE HALF OF LOTS 16 AND 21,
BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
MOUND MOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MOUND
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTIONMODIFYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ADOPTING
THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THEREFOR; AND
ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN
AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA)" for the City of Mound (the "City") modify Development District
No. 1 and adopt the Modification to the Development Program therefor and establish Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-2 therein and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, (collectively, the
"Program and Plan"), all pursuant to and in conformity with existing law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, as amended, all as reflected
in the Program and Plan and presented for the Board's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has investigated the facts relating to the Program and Plan and has caused the
Program and Plan to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed developments as described in the Program and Plan, in the opinion of the
HRA, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
adoption of the Program and Plan, including but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School
District No. 277 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-2, notice of a proposed redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a request for
review of and written comment on the Program and Plan by the City Planning Commission, and a request
that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Program and Plan upon published notice as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The HRA hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 is in the public interest
and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1), and finds that
the adoption of the proposed Program and Plan will advance the HRA's and City's objectives of encouraging
redevelopment within Development District No. 1.
2. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing
thereon, the Program and Plan, as presented to the HRA on this date, are hereby approved, established and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
N:\Minnsota2Vlound\T1F 2\hra res.wpd
3. Upon approval of the Program and Plan by the City Council, the staff, the HRA's advisors
and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Program and Plan
and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further
plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Program and Plan
does not constitute approval of any project or a Development Agreement with any developer.
4. Upon approval of the Program and Plan by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized
to forward a copy of the Program and Plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 469.175, subdivision 2.
5. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Program and Plan to the
Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax capacity of District No. 1-2
as described in the Program and Plan, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177.
Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority this
__ day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Chair
Secretary
N:~linnsota\Mound\TlF 2~hra res.wpd
DEC 07 '99 01:59PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.4/18
CITY OF MOUND
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Council member,:.:::!'.'!~,, '"-.'.'.::."
~"' ~" ' "-.,:::
,":~. .' ...... :",::;:"' RESOLUTION NO.
','.;~. :,.:'.'~., '":....i ;'~:,,
..... R~SOLUTION MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTNO. 1 AND ADOPTING
'i.:}~i!}:i'.::':.:';:'THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THEREFOR; AND
ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN
AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN TItEREFOR.
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Mound, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Ciw has heretofore established Development District No. I and adopted the
Development program therefor. I~ has been proposed that the City modify Development District No. 1 and
adopt the Modification to the Development Program therefor and establish Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-2 ("District No. 1-2") therein and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (collectively, the
"Program and Plan"); all pursuant to and in conformiW with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 througt~ 469.047 and ~,69. ] 74 through ~,69.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all
as reflected in thc Program and Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The Council has investigated rite facts relating to the Program and Plan and has caused the
Program and Plan to bc prepared..
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and
approval of the proposed Program and Plan, including., but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County
and School District No. 277 having r~xing jurisdiction over the property to be included in District No. 1-2,
notice of a potential redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written
comment on the Program and Plan by the City Planning Commission, and the holding ora public hearing
upon published notice as required by law.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Ao~)roval of the Program and Plan.
2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Program and Plan, are intended and, in thc judgment of
th is Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public purpose
and accomplish certain objectivesas specified in the Program and Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein.
N:\MiansocaXMound\TIle ~\¢it¥ res.wix/
DEC 8? 'gg 02:00PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.$xl@
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2.
3.01. The C0uricil',herebv finds that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 is in the public
n :'. ~'~'" ';'~.::~i;', ~. '?-" · . · .
interest and is a rcdovelopme~t.d:str]ct under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(l).
,. '/' ~:i
3
.02. ~h~i~oii~] ~rther finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through
.... · .{t,~d. % .:,"
private mvestment~itFiin the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the
that could rea~'6nt/bly..be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the
mcre~e ia:ilie rriarg~et value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present
value..'.o,~.6"tb,~jected tax increments for the maximum duration of District No. 1-2 permitted by the Tax
In~"~'~e~i~;~inan¢ing Plan, that the Program and Plan conform to the general plan for the development or
redeve!~ment of the City as a whole; and that the Program and Plan will afford maximum opportunity,
c~6~..s, isti~gt with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopmentofDistrict No.
1-2 by private enterprise.
3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify DistrietNo. !-2 for exemption from state aid losses
set forth in Section 273.1399.
3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings
stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing,
attached hereto as Exhibit A,
3.05. The City. of Mound elects to calculate fiscal disparities for District No. 1-2 in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause a, which means the .fiscal disparities
contribution would not be taken from within District No, 1.2..
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Program and Plan conforms in all respects to the r~uirements of the
Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and
thereby serves a public purpose.
Section 5. Ao~)roval and Adoption of the Program and Plan.
$.01. The Program and Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation
the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and
adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
5.02. The staffoftbe City, the City's adviso~ and legal counsel are authorized and directed to
proceed with the implementation of the Program and Plan and to negotiate, draPq prepare and present to this
Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this
purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of
District No. 1-2, as described in the Program and Plan, and to certify Jn each year thereaRer the amount by
N :xMinnsotaXM o~=~I\TIF 2\city
DEC 8? '99 08:00PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES
which the original net tax capacity, has increased or decreased; and the City of Mound is authorized and
directed to forthwith transrgil;.~is request to thc County Auditor in such form and content as The Auditor ma),
sp~c~fy, together with;.~ li~.~fall prol~rttes w~th~n D~smct No. I-2, for which budding permits have been
i.qsued during the 18 horilh~'~!~'~diately preceding the adoption of thi~ resolution.
~.04. Tl~e'~.|~lerk is further authorized and directed ~o ~le a copy ofth~ Program and Plan wi~h
~he Corem
...,": .... ~::motion for the adoption of the foregoing r, mlution w~ duly s~conded by Council member
~.;,: ..:: , ~d upon a vote being token thereon, ~e following voted in favor thereofi
":.::~:~.;.~: :~ ......
and the following voted against the same:
Dated: December 14, 1999
ATTEST:
Mayor, City Clerk
(Seal)
N ;~tiflr~.ota~.M oundXTlF 2~clty
DEC 87 '99 08:01PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P,7/18
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION #
The reasons and f/ct,'~h~Porting the findings for the adopt/on of,he Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing Di~tri¢~'~?:]:~ ("District No. 14") as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section
469.175, Subdivision 3 ~i~e"ias follows:
.,'D~i~{'~°,~:,':"'~,,;~.~. ,, 1-2 consists' of l 12 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for a mixed use commereml and
,/"res~Tde~tial purposes. At least 70 ~reent of,be ~ea in the parcels in District No. 1-2 are occupied by
,5" build:i~'gs, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in District No.
?~?~"'.:~...~,2, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation
or clearance (See Appendix F).
Finding that the proposed development, in lhe opinion of the City Council. would not reasonably be
expected to occur solely' Ihrough private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the
increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of lax
increment.financing would be less' than the increase in lhe market value estimated to result front the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum
duration of District No. l-2 permitted by the Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, wouM not reasonably be expected to occur solely
throughpri~ate investment within the reaso,ablyforeseeablefulure: This finding is supported by ,ha fact
that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment. Due to the
high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount
ofcommercial and residential property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land
uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only
through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing.
The increased market value of the site that could rea.,onable be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing wouM be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the' cost of
land acquisition and site improvements add to the total redevelopment cost. Historically, acquisition and
site improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance.
Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this
site without substantially similar assistance being provided ,o the development. Accordingly, the increased
market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0,
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-2 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. If all
development wh ich is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in District No. 1-2, fl~e total
increase in market value would be up to $16,8a2,100. The present value of tax increments from District
No. I-2 is estimated to be $7,730,691. [t is the Council's finding that no development with a market value
of greater than $9,111,409 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district within 25 years.
This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with the high cum of acquisition and site
DEC 07 'g9 O~:O1PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.Sx18
improvements in the general area of District No. 1-2 (see Cashfl0w in Appond/x D),
3. ~nding that the Tax I,,.n.c.,.[ement Financing Plan for District Bro. 1-2 conforrrt~ to the general plan.for the
develo, p ment or ,:,,r,t&'v¢lo;,.,.:,p, ment, of the municirp ality as a whole.
').....:':
The Plan was r.e.~i~d by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999. The Planning Commission
tbund that th.,>'l~.lan' i:onforms to the general development plan of thc City,
4. Finding;!~'hct~h¢!:;- '- ~ Increment Yi~a,cing Plan for District No. 1-2 will afford maximum opportunity,
.,cons, i~t~nt .~i~' lhe ~ow~d need~ of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
'".::,:'!~5~, *'~,'~:.",. .
?~:~l...:.O./p..r~.' nt Dtstrtct No. I by private, enterprise.
.~5' The}:p~oject to b~ assisted by District No. 1-2 will result in increas~ employment in the City and the State
':(:"...gl'Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high
........ quality development to the City.
N: ~M inn.,,ota~M ound\Tl F 2xcit),
DEC 8? '99 08:0~PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.Bx18
Ehlers and Associates
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Hound- Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
Proposed action:
1. Expand the boundaries of DevelopmentDistrict No. I to be the
corporate city limits and adoption of the Modificatio,~ '~o the
Dcelopment Program
2 Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 a,~d
the adoption of'the TIF plan.
Type of TIF District:
Parcel Number:
A Redevelopment District
See the anached list
Location:
Proposed development:
See the attached map
To facilitate redevelopment and constructio,a ora mixed use residential
and commercial project in the City of'Mou,~d
Est. annual tax increment:
Proposed uses:
$901,621
The TIF Plan contains the following budget (maximums only).
Land Acquisition ........................... $5,500,000
Relocation and Demolition .................... 1,700,000
Public Improvements ........................ 6,000,000
Site Improvements .......................... 2,000,000
Interest .................................... 5,415,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ............... 2.170.000
TOTAL ................................... $610,000
Form of financing:
Maximum duration:
Pay-as-you-go Note
The duration of Dis~ct No. 1-2 will be 25 years from the date of
receipt of the first increment. The date of receipt of the first tax
increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that
DistrictNo. 1-2. including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2025, or when the Plan
is satisfied. If increment is received in 2000 due to inflation, the term
of the Distrlet will be 2024.
Administrative fee:
LGA/HACA penalty;
Fiscal Disparities Electiom
Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to
exempt itself from the LGA-HACA penalty. Contribution for a
redevelopment district is 5% ofa~mual tax increment. The contribution
can be made annually or in larger contribution throughout the life of the
district.
The City chooses to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a.(outside
District No. 1-2)
DEC 07 '99 OE:BEPM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.10x18
TIF District Overview
3 Year Activity Rule
(§469.176 Subd. la)
At least one of thc following activities must take place in the
District within 3 years from the date of certification:
D bonds have been issued
o the authority has acquired property within the district
[] thc authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within the district
The estimated date ,*'hereby this activity must take place is
December, 2002.
4 Year Activity Rule
(.~ 469. ! 76 Subd 6)
5 Year Rule
(.lc 469.1763 Subd 3)
If after four years from thc date of certification of the District one
of the following activities must have been commetlced on each
parcel in the District:
demolition
o rehabilitation
o renovation
[] other site preparation (not including utility services such as
sewer and water)
If the activity has not been started by the approximately
December, 2003, no additional tax increment may be taken from
that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity.
Within $ years of certification revenues derived from tax
increments must be expended or obligated to'be expended. Tax
increments are considered to have been expended on an activity
within the District if one of the following occurs:
[] the revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to
the activity
bonds, tile proceeds of which must be used to finance the
activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are
spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either
are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later
of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary
period within the meaning of the use of that term under §.
148(c)(!) of the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in
a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund
[] binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under
the coqtractual obligation
[] costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are
spent to reimburse a pay for payment of the costs, including
interest on unreimbursed costs.
made after
eligible for
Any obligations in the Tax. Increment District
approximately December, 2004, will ,lot be
repayment from tax increments.
The previous summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the proposed Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No.l-2. More detailed information on each of these
topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan.
Page 2
DEC 87 'gg 02:08PM EHLERS.& ASSOCIATES P.11/18
TIF District Overview
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for thc adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
District No. I-2 as required pursuant to M.$., Section 469.775, Subd. $ are as follows:
1. Finding that District No. 1-2 is a redevelopment district ay defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
District No. 1-2 consists of 112 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for a mixed use commercial
and residential purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in District No. 1-2 are occupied
by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more tha,~ 50 percent of the buildings in
District No. I-2, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring
substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix Fi.
2.
Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, wouM not reasonably be
expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that
the increased market value of the site that couM reasonably be expected lO occur without the use of
tax incrementjqnancing would be les~' than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the
maximum duration of Dt~trict No. I-2 permitted by the Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported
by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for redevelopment.
Due to the high cost ofredeve!opment on the parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the
limited amount of commercial and residential property for expansion adjacent to the existing project,
the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed improvements,
this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment financing.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonable he expected to occur without the use of
tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the
proposed development after subtracting the present value of lhe projected tax increments for the
maximum duration qf the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on the
grounds that the cost of land acquisition and site improvements add to the total redevelopment cost.
l-listorically, acquisition and site improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment infeasi
without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other
redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being
provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax
increment assistance is $0.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-2 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described
above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in District
No. 1.2, the total increase in market value would be up to $16,842,100. The present value of tax
increments from District No. 1-2 is estimated to be $7,730,691. It is the Council's finding that no
development with a market value of greater than $9,111,409 would occur without tax increment
assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidenc, e from general past
experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District No.
1-2 (see Cashflow in Appendix D).
Pa~e 3
DEC 07 '99 02:03PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.18x18
TIF District Overview
o
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-2 conforms to the general plan for
the development or redevelopment of the municipality as' a whole,
The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999. The Planning
Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-2 will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
Development District No. 1 by private enterprise.
The project to bc assisted by District No. I-2 will result in increased employment in the City and the
State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add
a high quality development to the City.
Page 4.
DEC 07 '99 08:03PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.l~xl8
TIF Dim'ic~ Overview
PROPERTY TO BE INCI.UDED IN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. ! -2
PID Addres~
23-117-24 14 0008 2642 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0007 2630 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0004 5661 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0044 5668 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0051 5680 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0050 2620 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0043 2606 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0042 2600 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0047 5667 BUSII RD
23-II 7-24 I I0011 2574 COMMERCE BLVD
23-I 1%24 11 0010 2558 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 I !0009 2544 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 I 10028 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
23-117-24 11 0027 2510 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0006 2500 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0005 2480 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 t I0004 2462 COMMERCE BLVD
23-l 17-24 11 0003 2444 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 1 t0001 2434 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 1I 0002 2426 COMMERCE Bt. VD
24- I !7-24 22 0001
24-117-24 22 0013
13-11%24 33 0057
13-117-24 33 0056
13-117-24 33 0055
13-117-24 33 0082
13-I 17-24 33 0052
13-117-24 33 0020
13-117-24 33 0051
13-117-24 33 0050
13-117-24 33 00~9
13-117-24 33 00t8
13-117-24 33 0047
13-117-24 33 0017
13-117-24 33 0016
13-117-24 33 0015
13-117-24 33 0014
13-117.24 33 0004
13-117-24 33 0005
13-117-24 33 0006
2420 COMMERCE BLVD
2400 COMMERCE BLVD
2396 COMMERCE BLVD
2388 COMMERCE BLVD
2380 COMMERCE BLVD
2372 COMMERCE BLVD
2360 COMMI2RCE BLVD
2362 COMMERCE BLVD
2348 COMMERCE BLVD
2334 COMMERCE BLVD
5579 AUDITORS RD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2316 COMMERCE BLVD
2306 COMMERCE BLVD
2300 COMMERCE BLVD
5581 SHOP-d~LINE DR
5575 SHORELINE DR
5567 SHORELINE DR
5555 SHORELINE DR
5545 SHORELINE DR
DEC 07 'gg 02:04PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES P.14/18
TIF District Overview
PID
13-117-24 33 0076
13-117-24 33 0009
13-117-24 33 0010
13-117-24 33 0011
13-1 I7-24 33 0019
13-117-24 33 0013
13-117-24 33 0012
13-117-24 33 0069
Address
5533 SHORELINE DR
5519 SHORELINE DR
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
5501 SHORELINE DR
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
13-117-24 34 0063
13-117-24 34 0075
13-117-24 34 0062
{3-] 17-24 34 0042
i3-117-24 34 0043
13-117-24 34 0044 2346
13-117-24 34 0045 5322
13-117-24 34 0071 2385
13-117-24 34 0050 2373
13-117-24 34 0097 2361
13-117-24 34 0059 2337
13-1 [7-24 34 0060 2333
13-117-24 34 0092 5309
13-11%24 34 0021 5293
13-117-24 34 0072 5229
13- I 17-24 34 0022 2354
I3-117-24340100 5300
13-I 1%24 33 0083
13-I 17-24 33 0003
13- I 1%24 33 0077
13-117-24 33 0024
t 3- I 1%24 33 0075
13-117-24 33 0038
13-117-24 33 0039
13-117-24 33 0041
13-I 17-24 33 0073
13-I 17-24 33 0084
13-117-24 33 0085
14-117-24 41 0052
14-I 17-24 41 00l l
14-1 i%24 41 0058
14-117-2441 0010
14-117-24 41 0057
i 4-117-24 44 0007
5377 SHORELINE DR
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2345 CYPRESS LA
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2333 WILSH'IRE BI.VD
CYPRESS LA
MAYWOOD RD
WILSHIKE BLVD
WILSHIRE BLVD
WILSHIRE BLVD
WILSFIIR. E BLVD
WII.SHIRE BLVD
SHORELINE DR
SHOKELINE DR
SHORELINE DR
WILSHIKE BLVD
SHORELINE DRIVE
2290 COMMERCE BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2250 COMMERCE BLVD
5448 SHORELINE DR
5424 SHORELINE DR
5473 I..YNWOOD BLVD
5501 LY'NWOOD BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2240 COMMERCE BLVD
85 ADDRESS PENDING
85 ADDRESS PENDING
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2201 COMMERCE BLVD
2121 COMMERCE BLVD
5700 LYNWOOD BLVD
Page 6
DEC 07 'gg 0~:04PM £NLERS & ~SSOCI~TES
P. 1~/18
TIF District Overview
PID
14-117-24 44 0032
14-11%24 44 0035
14-1 I7-24 44 0034
14-I 17-24 44 0033
14-117-24 44 0038
14-117-24 44 0037
14-117-24 44 0039
14-117-24-44-0036
14-117-24 44 0064
14-117-24 44 0041
14-11%24 44 0042
14-117-24 44 0001
14-117-24 44 0002
14-117-24 44 0004
14-117-24 44 0003
14- I, 17-24 44 0006
14-117-24 44 0056
14- I 17-24 44 006 I
14-117-24 44 0060
t 4-117-24 44 0043
14-117-24 44 0044
14-117-24 44 0045
14-117-24 44 0046
14-117-24 44 0047
14- I 17-24 44 0048
14-117-24 44 0049
14-I 17-24 44 0050
14-117-24 44'0051
14-117-24 44 0062
14-117-24 44 0057
Address
5709 LYNWOOD BLVD
5701 LYNWOOD BLVD
5665 LYNWOOD BLVD
5631 LYNWOOD BLVD
2251 COMMERCE BLVD
2261 COMMERCE BLVD
2271 COMMERCE BLVD
2281 COMMERCE BLVD
2281 COMMERCE BLVD
2301 COMMERCE BLVD
2313 COMMERCE BLVD
2321 COMMERCE BLVD
2339 COMMERCE BLVD
234:~ COMMERCE BLVD
2.~65 COMMERCE BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDI:CESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDKESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS LrNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
Page 7
DEC 07 '99 0~:04PM EHLERS & ~SSOCI~TES P.16x18
TIF Dlstric~ Overview
BOUNDARY MAPS OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO, 1 AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
Page 8
DEC 87 '9g 08:OSPM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES
P.17/18
DEc 87 ,gg 02:05PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES
P.18/18
Tax Increment Financing District No.
Development District No. 1
City of Mound
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Ill t~
N~
m
Draft as of December 1, 1999
Draft for City Council Review
MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
for the Modification of
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
(a redevelopment district)
MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MOUND
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: December 14, 1999
Adopted:
Prepared by:
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
Phone: (651) 697-8500
Fax: (651) 697-8555
E-mail: info~ehlers-inc.com
Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-~, ,,/~(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I- MODIF!¢;tTtON TO THE DE['ELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEI/ELOPMENT
DISTraCT . . .-: ........................................................
Foreword ... ;...,:,; ............................................................. 1-I
Boundarie~'0fDev;lopment District No. 1 .......................................... 1-1
Statement 0f Qbjectives ........................................................ I- 1
~:~ DeyeJ, opment'Activities and/or Projects to be Financed ............................... 1-1
SEG~ONH2 T~ INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR T~ INC~MENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO.
...... SUbsection 2-1.
' ~;;~'~'~Subsection 2-2.
Subsection 2-3.
Subsection 2-4.
Subsection 2-5.
Subsection 2-6.
Subsection 2-7.
Subsection 2-8.
Subsection 2-9.
Subsection 2-10.
Subsection 2-11.
Subsection 2-12.
Subsection 2-13.
Subsection 2-14.
Subsection 2-15.
Subsection 2-16.
Subsection 2-17.
Subsection 2-18.
Subsection 2-19.
Subsection 2-20.
Subsection 2-21.
Subsection 2-22.
Subsection 2-23.
Subsection 2-24.
Subsection 2-25.
Subsection 2-26.
Subsection 2-27.
Subsection 2-28.
Subsection 2-29.
Subsection 2-30.
Subsection 2-31.
Foreword .................................................... 2-1
Statutory Authority ............................................ 2-1
Statement of' Objectives ......................................... 2-1
Development Program Overview .................................. 2-1
Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 2-2
Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 ............. 2-2
Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ............................... 2-3
Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value,qncrement ................ 2-3
Property To Be Acquired ........................................ 2-4
Uses of Funds ................................................. 2-4
Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .......................... 2-5
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ............................. 2-5
Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 ................. 2-6
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ...................... 2-6
Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 ............. 2-7
Administrative Expenses ........................................ 2-7
Limitation of Increment ......................................... 2-8
Use of Tax Increment ........................................... 2-9
Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ........................ 2-9
Excess Tax Increments ......................................... 2-10
Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ................... 2-10
Assessment Agreements ....................................... 2-10
Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 ........... 2-11
Financial Reporting Requirements ............................... 2-11
Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ........................... 2-12
Fiscal Disparities Election ...................................... 2-14
Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ..................... 2-15
State Tax Increment Financing Aid ............................... 2-16
County Road Costs ............................................ 2-17
Economic Development and Job Creation .......................... 2-17
Summary ................................................... 2-17
APPENDIX A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. A-1
-BOUND~Y~MAPS OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. I AND
APPENDIX
B
TAX INCREi~--~" ~--~ ; ~' ~, J~ A~CING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 . ............................... B-I
APPENDIX C- LE~,,"~D, ESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCRE~ :FINANCING'" '"~' DISTRICT NO. 1-2 ............................... C-I
APPENDIX!iD ~ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-2 ................... D-1
APPE~bI~..,.,,.... ~-MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(~ESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) ......
E-
l
A~PENDIX F - REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-2 ............................................................ F-I
SECTION I
MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
Fo rewo rd :
The following text ¢~PreSents a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1.
This modificati6n (eP~:~'~nts a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Development Program
for Development District No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include modifying the boundaries of
Development.District No. I as specified below.
For: further information, a review of the Development Program for Development District No. 1, is
recommended.. It is available from the City Clerk at the City of Mound. Other relevant information is
c'0h~ined in the lax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within
Development District No. 1.
Boundaries of Development District No. 1
The boundaries of Development District No. 1 are being expanded to include the corporate limits of the City.
of Mound.
Statement of Objectives
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 is created to facilitate construction of a mixed use residential and
commercial project in the City of Mound.
Development Activities and/or Projects to be Financed
Tax increment will be used to finance the land acquisition and site preparation activities and are outlined in
subsection 2.10 Uses of Funds in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-2.
City of Mound Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. I I-1
SECTION H
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
Subsection 2-1. voreworad, ,.~
The City of Mound'("Ei~d~.'.), the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and
consultants havo prepar~ the following information to expedite the estabhshment of Tax Increment
Financing District.i~o:~ ~2 ("District No. 1-2"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in
Developmeni' Di~iriet No. 1.
Subse~|0n ~ Statutory Autho ity
?ithin ~.the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
r~$~i~i~pment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S. '9, Sections d6P. O01 through d69.0d7, inclusive, as amended, and ,~.S., Sections d69.17d
through d6~,17P, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in
financing public costs related to this project.
This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for District No. 1-2. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
District No. 1-2 currently consists of 112 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. District
No. 1-2 is created to facilitate construction ora mixed use residential and commercial project in the City of
Mound. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Modification to the
Development Program for Development District No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the present Modification to the Development Program and the Tax Increment
Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities.
These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District No. 1-2 and Development District No. 1.
Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview
Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District No. 1-2 may
be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan.
Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter
117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the Ci~ or HRA may sell to a developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 1-2 or may lease land or
facilities to a developer.
The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work
within District No. 1-2.
City of Mound
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2
2-1
Subsection 2-5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
District No. 1-2 encomp~seg~ ali property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed in
Appendix C. Please see tlie:Inap tn Appendix B for further information on the location of District No. 1-2.
Subsection 2-6. ClaSSification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
The City and:~;' in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S. Section~ 469-j 74 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that District No. I-2, to be established, is a
redev, elgprnent dtstrlct pursuant to M.S., Sectton 469.174, Subd. lO(a)(1) as defined belo :
: ~ (a):i::'"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax incrementfinancing district consisting of
~: ~ aproject, orportions of aproject, within which the authorityfinds by resolution that one
m~ of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by
buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50percent of the
buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or
The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or
infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad
rights-of-way.
For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard"shall mean containing 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 sufficien! total significance
to justify' substantial renovation or clearance.
A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code
applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less
than 15percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type
on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally
substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such
as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural
repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a
determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent,
expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior
inspection of the property is not required, if the municipali~, finds that (1~ the municipality or
authority is unable to gain access to the property 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...
Forpurposes of this subdivision, aparcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utililies or other
improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements.
In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings:
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No, 1-2 2-2
· District No. 1-2 is a redevelopment district consisting of 112 parcels.
· An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in District No. 1-2 are
occupied as definedi~in~*~he TIF Act. An inspection of the buildings located within District No. 1-2
.~ ,~_~.
finds that more!~an~.0~erCyht of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act.
(See Appendii~' '~: :::;'
Subsection 2-7.,~:~:~ Original Tax CapaciW and T~ Rate
Purscant . SeCtion 469.174, Subd 7 and ~S., Section 469.17L Subd 1, the Original Net Tax
Ca as ce~ified for District No. 1-2 is based on the market values placed on the prope~ by
the for t~es payable 2001.
Pursuant~io M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
iff ~ii~yment year 2000) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
change in tax exempt status of property;
reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
change in the use of the property and classification;
change in state law governing class rates; or
change in connection with previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District No. 1-2 declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA.
The original local tax rate for District No. 1-2 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2000.
The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District No. 1-2 appear in the table below.
Original Tax Capacity Value
Percent Retained by City
Original Local Tax Rate
$375,873
100%
1.36404
Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M..S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1-2, within Development District No. 1, upon completion
of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table [~,!ow. The City and
HRA request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current
expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2001. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values
when the project is completed.
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2 2-3
Project Esti.mated Tax Capacity
upon Completion of Project (PTC) 1,036,866
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) 375,873
~' Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) 660,993
· '~ i:~-Estimated Annual Tax Increment
'~.(CTC x Local Tax Rate) $901,621
Subsection 2~9. Property To Be Acquired
The~i~ or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1-2 including interior and adjacent street rights
of way.
l~ii~;i::~ny properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public
streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or
development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired:
The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from
willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such
acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and
related costs.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for District No. 1-2 is a proposal to facilitate construction of a a mixed use
residential and commercial project. The CiD' and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide
assistance to the project for certain costs. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and around District No. 1-2. To facilitate the establishment and development
or redevelopment of District No. I-2, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the
cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with District No.
1-2 is outlined in the following table.
Uses of Funds Total
Land Acquisition
Relocation and Demolition
Public Improvements
Site Improvements
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
$5,500,000
1,700,000
6,000,000
2,000,000
5,415,000
2,170,000
TOTAL $22,785,000
Estimated costs associated with District No. 1-2 are subject to change among categories without a
modification to this Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 2-4
exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property
within District No. 1-2 will~o~-~pent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of District
No. 1-2 but within thff~o¢~[~i~s,of Development District No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are
considered to be s e~t~tsid~:~District No. 1-2) subject to the limitations as described in this Plan.
Subsection 2-11..,::~'~0~es of Revenuemonded Indebtedness
Site i~pr6~¢ment Costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses
of Fu e financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The Ci~ or H~
res~'~es ~6;~ight to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modification to the Development
Pr~r~:~nd the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general prope~ taxes, state aid for
r~intenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer
and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the Plan.
As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Additional indebtedness may
be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or other
indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $5,000,000 without a modification
to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or I-IRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City
or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the
developer.
The estimated sources of funds for District No. 1-2 are contained in the table below.
Sources of Funds Total
Tax Increment
Local Contribution
$21,700,000
1,085,000
TOTAL $22,785,000
Subsection 2-12. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under
M.S., Section 469.177;
the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the
authority with tax increments;
repayments of loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and
interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
City of Mound
Tax Incrcmcnt Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2
2-5
Subsection 2-13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
Pursuant to A/L.S.,
must be indicated
No. 1-2 will be 25
receipt by the
District No. 1-2
of the
the
Subsectiofi~-14.
Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District No. 1-2
to M.S., Section 469.176. Subd l(b), the duration of District
date of receipt of the first increment by the City or HRA. The date of
of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that
any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would
the Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2000 due to inflation, the term
b~ 2024. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No. 1-2 prior to
date.
Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
Theestlmated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without
the creation of District No. 1-2. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0
to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due
to the fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the
following estimated impact of District No. 1-2 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Hennepin County
I.S.D. No. 277
City of Mound
Est. 1998/1999 Estimated Captured
Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion to Entitw Total
925,993,876 660,993 0.0714%
17,871,585 660,993 3.6986%
6,450,815 660,993 10.2467%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
1998/1999 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
Hennepin County 0.409940 30.05% 660,993 270,967
I.S.D. No. 277 0.672860 49.33% 660,993 444,756
City of Mound 0.185430 13.59% 660,993 122,568
Metro Special Taxing Rates 0.060350 4.42% 660,993 39,891
Others 0.035460 2.60% 660,993 23.439
Total 1.364040 100.00% 901,621
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the 1998/Pay 1999 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on Pay 1999 figures. District No. I-2 will be certified under the actual 1999/2000 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. i-2 2-6
Subsection 2-15. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
In accordance with M.~.,.,~ ~,_&cti~on 469.175, Subd.
4,
any:
reductioff~bre~!gg~ra'ent of the geographic area of Development District No I or District No
1.
2. increase zn~;~ount of bonded indebtedness to be ]ncu~ed, including a dete~ination to
cap~t~e interest on debt ffthat deter]nation was not a pan of the original plan, or to Increase
or d~rease the amount of ~nterest on the debt to be cap]tahzed;
3 ..... /mc~ease In the pomon of the captured net tax capac]W to be retained bv the CiW or H~;
4. "~ancrease In total estimated t~ increment expenditures; or
· 5~,~des]gnat]on of additional prope~ to be acquired by the CiW or H~,
s~ll bea~proved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
6~e~6~iginal plan.
The geographic area of District No. 1-2 may be reduced, but shalI not be enlarged after five years folIowing
the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is
enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the
criteria ofM. S., Section 469.174, Subd. I0, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing
and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if(l) the only modification is elimination of
parcel(s) from Development District No. 1 or District No. 1-2 and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the
parcel(s) eliminated from District No. 1-2 equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in District
No. 1-2's original net tax capacity or (B) the City agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd.
1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s)
eliminated from District No. 1-2.
The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of District No. 1-2 or Development District No. 1. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District
No.'l-2 in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
Subsection 2-16. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative
expenses means all expenditures of the City or I-IRA, other than:
amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing
materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with
the physical development of the real property in the district;
relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
district; or
amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant
to M..S., Section 469.178.
Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and
documented administrative expenses for District No. 1-2 up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorizedby the tax increment financing plan orthe total tax increment expenditures
for Development District No. 1, whichever is less.
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2 2-7
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with District No. 1-2. The county may require payment of
those expenses by Februa,~,15 of the year following the year the' expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., se~tio~n 460~':177, Subd 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0.25
percent of any incre~:~[~distributed to the City or HRA and the count3' treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the st~trea§~er for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for
the cost of fin~c~....al reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing
authorities,~ U§e of tax increment financing.
Limitation of Increment
pUrsuant:toM. S, Section 469.176, Subd l(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for District
N6i:~:1,2 after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the
taxable property in District No. 1-2 by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(a)
bonds have been issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or in aid of a project
pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections
469.152 to 469.165, or
(b) the City or HRA has acquired property within District No. 1-2, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements
within District No. 1-2.
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately December, 2002.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be
terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement ora street
adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has
been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority
or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment .financing plan, no
additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that
parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing
district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition,
rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified
improvement ora street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the
county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the
City of Mound
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
2-8
commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision... For
purposes of this~.:sf~d~y~sion, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction
or opemng of a ne.~et,~:~(2) relocatton of a street, and (3) substanaal reconstrucaon or
rebuilding of ~ist~.~S~eet.
The City or H ~KA~ bra p~t0Perty owner must improve parcels within District No. I-2 by approximately
December, 2q9~.,,,/' :'C::~:'
of Tax Increment
The City 6fHRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity o£taxable
prop~4ocated:~:: ~ in District No. 1-2 for the following purposes:
1. to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Development District No. 1
pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469. 001 to 469. 047;
3. to pay for project costs as identified in the budget;
4. to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd.
4;
5. to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or
HRA or for the benefit of Development District No. 1 by the developer;
6. to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or
other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment
bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and M.S.,
Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both; and
7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and
interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C and
M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, subd 4.
Tax increments generated in District No. 1-2 will be paid by Hennepin County to the City of Mound for the
Tax Increment Fund of said District No. 1-2. The City or HRA will pay to the developer(s) annually an
amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land
acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration.
Remaining increment funds will be used for City or HRA administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of
public improvement activities outside District No. 1-2.
Subsection 2-19. Notification ot~Prior Planned Improvements
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County
Auditor or its notice of District No. 1-2 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District No. 1-2
or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months
immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd.
3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District No. 1-2 by the value of improvements
for which a building permit was issued.
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2 2-9
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City is reviewing the area to be included in District No.
1-2 to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding
approval of the Plan bY ~ity and HRA.
Subsection 2-20. Excess ~'~:Increments
Pursuant to M.S.~ SeCtion469.176 Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount
necessary to paY the d6§is authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as
provided in M.S.;Se~tion 475.61, Subd. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the
fo llo~ng: i ~ '
prepay any outstanding bonds;
discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or
return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing
jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates.
In addition, the City or HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in
order to finance additional public costs in District No. 1-2 or Development District No. 1.
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Development Program and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in District No. 1-2 as set forth in the Plan shall at any time be owned by the City or HRA as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25
percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property
acquired and which provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be
completed.
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable form
with the developer of property within District No. 1-2 which establishes a minimum market value of the land
and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1-2. The assessment agreement shall be
presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed,
review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed
and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment
of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement.
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. i-2 2-10
Subsection 2-23. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
Adm~mstrat~on of D~strlct~o'. 1-2 will be handled by the City Clerk of the City of Mound.
Subsection 2-24. l~nfinci~i~;porting Requirements
· . . ~:~ ~;~;,;~ .
A. Fflmg w~th Stal{;~ud~tor, Coun~ Auditor, Coun~ Board and School Board: Pursuit to M~,
Secuon 469.1~, gub~5, the C~ or H~ must file an ~nual d~sclosure repo~ for all tax increment
. .:~' . ~ f . ....
financing dmtr~c~,mcludmg D~stnct No. 1-2. The repo~ shah be filed wtth the Coun~ Board, County
Aud~ ~fi~l~oard, and the State Auditor on or before August I of each year. The report to be filed by
the C~ ~r~ shall include the following ~nfomat~on:
3.
o
5.
6.
7.
8.
the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account;
the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding
bond indebtedness;
the original net tax capacity of District No. 1-2;
the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA;
the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
the tax increment received; and
any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment
financing plan.
B. Newspaper Statement: M.S., Section 469.175, Subd 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City showing:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
the tax increment received and expended in that year,
the original net tax capacity,
captured net tax capacity,
amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness,
the amount of District No. 1-2's increment paid to other governmental bodies,
the amount paid for administrative costs,
the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located
outside of District No. 1-2, and
any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary.
C. State Auditor filing for District No. 1-2: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 6, the City or HRA
must annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before August 1, a financial report which shall:
provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in District No. 1-2;
permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial
reports;
permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of District No. 1-2 or that is funded in part
or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other
tax increment districts or with public money; and
be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
City of Mound
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
2-11
the original net tax capacity of District No. 1-2;
the captured net tax capacity of District No. 1-2, including the amount of any captured net
tax capac:~,Shared with other taxing districts;
the..: ~°ufi"t!~ibudgeted under the Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the
follO'~g ca~'~b'ries (for the reporting period and for the duration of District No. 1-2):
~'~':~'acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase;
~ ~"ib, ~ ~..Site improvements or preparation costs;
ci':~ installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other
similar public improvements;
d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city;
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements; and
the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for
properties sold to developers);
the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3),
that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1-2.
D. State Auditor filing for all Tax Increment Financing Districts: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ] 75.
Subd. 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report to the State Auditor before or on August 1 of each year
the following amounts for the entire City:
the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year; and
the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current
calendar year on:
(i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and
(ii) other tax increment financing bonds; and
for each tax increment financing district within the City:
the type of tax increment financing district;
the date on which the district is required to be decertified;
the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical
improvements and the uses of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from
increments and are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality)
during the preceding calendar year;
the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year;
whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment
revenues to be expended outside of each district; and
any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards. If the City fails to
make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by Section 469.175 sudb. 5, 6 and
6a, the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to hold the distribution of tax increment from District
No. 1-2.
Subsection 2-25. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose
City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 2-12
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
District No. 1-2 as required.pfirsuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd 3 are as follows:
I. Finding tha[Dij~trict'~*:"l-2 is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
Distric(N6;.' 125 ~°nsists of 112 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for a mixed use commercial
and:~Sid~ntihl pu¢oses. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in District No. 1-2 are
~k. o6eO~iefl by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the
:~bu!~mgs ~n District No. 1-2, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
reqU~nng substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F).
22e~;,~.:~:~ Fmdmg that the propOsed development, in the opinion of the Ci~ Council would not reasonab&
be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeab le ~ture and
that the incre~ed market value of the site that could re~onably be expected to occur without the
use of t~ increment financing wouM be less than the incre~e in the market value estimated to result
flora the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected t~ increments
for the m~imum duration of District No. 1-2 permitted by the Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely throughprivate investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This finding is supported
by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the City's objectives for
redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the parcels currently occupied by
substandard buildings, the limited amount of commercial and residential property for expansion
adjacent to the existing project, the incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of
financing the proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from
tax increment financing.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use
of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The City supported this finding on
the grounds that the cost of land acquisition and site improvements add to the total redevelopment
cost. Historically, acquisition and site improvements costs in this area have made redevelopment
infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other
redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being
provided to the development. Accordingly, the increased market value anticipated without tax
increment assistance is $0.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-2 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described
above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in
District No. 1-2, the total increase in market value would be up to $16,842,100. The present value
of tax increments from District No. 1-2 is estimated to be $7,730,691. It is the Council's finding that
no development with a market value of greater than $9,111,409 would occur without tax increment
assistance in this district within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past
experience with the high cost of acquisition and site improvements in the general area of District No.
City of Mound
Tax incrcmcnt Financing Plan for Tax Incrcmcnt Financing District No. 1-2
2-13
1-2 (see Cashflow in Appendix D).
3. Finding that the ~a~..~,~increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-2 conforms to the general plan
for the deve~mehLor, redevelopment~:.. . ' ~.~ :,~ of the municipality as a whole.
The Plan w~:i;eViewed by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1999. The Planning
Commiss~01fflfoun~l that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City.
4. Findi~g~th~ the T~ Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-2 will afford maximum
~.~o~rtu~¥ consistent with the sound needs of the Ci~ as a whole for the development or
.... ~r~bde~7opment of Development Datrict No. 1 by private enterprise.
~)~ ,~e project to be assisted by District No. 1-2 will result in increased employment in the Ci~ and the
State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard propeaies, increased tax base of the State and add
a high quali~ development to the Ci~.
Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
Subsection 2-26. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M..S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City or HRA may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd 3, clause a, (outside District No. 1-2)
are followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shah be determined before
the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Where the
original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no
captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax
capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax
capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less
any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan,
to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the
authority.
The county auditor shah exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from
the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates.
The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax
capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax
generated by the extension of the lesser of(A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the
original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax
increment of the authority.
If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within District No. 1-2) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(O
The original net tax capacity shah be determined before the application of the .fiscal
disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude
any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original
City of Mound
Tax Incremcnt Financing Plan for Tax Incrcmcnt Financing District No. 1-2
2-14
year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to
M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7or M.S., Section 473F. 08, subdivision 6. Where the
original ne~.t~lx capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no
capt~d}~?~,:~aeityandnotax increment determination. Where the original taxcapacity
. -.~ ~,~ ~.~ .....
ts less than theresa rent tax capactty, the difference between the original net tax capacity and
the c~tr~nt~net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion
!hk~of Ch:}ch the authority has designated, in its tax increment financingplan, to share with
7 the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
v~e county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from
the net tax capacity of the local taxtng distr~cts tn determmtng local taxing distrwt tax rates.
The local tax rates so determmed are to be extended agamst the retamed captured net tax
capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax
generated by the extension of the less of(A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the
original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax
increment of the authority.
The City or HRA shall submit to the County Auditor at the time of the request for certification which method
of computation of fiscal disparities the City or HRA elected.
The City of Mound will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a.
According to M..S., Section 469.177, Subd 3:
The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a)
or fo} shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body
may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the
method in paragraph (b9.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the
Development District No. 1 pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469. 001 to 469. 047;
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from
tax increment shall be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation or maintenance
of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality,
county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government.
This provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction
or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for
social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the
municipality.
Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from District No. 1-2 must be expended
on activities in District No. 1-2 or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were
used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit
enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a
City of Mound
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
2-15
development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of District No. 1-2 except to pay, or secure
payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all
administrative ex~nses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of District No.
1-2. -~ i..'~ !~ii.::~ ....
3. Five Year Li~i~tion on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from District No.
1-2 shall be deem:~d to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the
five year rule'se{ forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with
the· sixth, year following certification of District No. 1-2, 75 percent of said tax increments that
'. :;~;;:rem~!n after expen&tures permitted under smd fiv~ year rule must be used only to pay previously
· ~:~;~cOmmltted expenditures or cre&t enhanced bondsas more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763,
ff~d. 5.
4!:; i.,:~' ;:'"Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow
designation of redevelopment and renewal and rmovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176
Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally
substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants,
acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development,
demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearingofthe land, the removal of hazardous substances
or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks,
and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the City or HRA,
including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the
qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. State Tax Increment Financing Aid
Pursuant to M.S., Section 2 73.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was requested
after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RI STIFA) applied
to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and, Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA)
second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax capacity (QCTC)
of the tax incremen: financing district.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 273.1399, Subd. 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA
penalty. District No. 1-2 is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City or HRA elects to make a
qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To qualify for the
exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of a certain
percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum local
contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity,
after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25
percent of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as
the general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grant-in-aid which may be spent for general
government purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments
or developer payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for
general government purposes.
City of Mound Tax lncrcmcnt Financing Plan for Tax Incrmacnt Financing District No. 1-2 2-16
The City elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-
HACA penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal
to 5 percent of annual tax inclement for District No. 1-2, subject to the limitations described above, in any
year in which such afi/~$u~kceedg 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in
~, ~ ~,~.~ - . .....
form of either lump sam:or annaal payments 0n ad&t~on to tax increment payments) towards costs ~dentffied
in this Plan or other c~i'elated to that development or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made
in the form of publiC, improvements financed by the City or HRA or other unit of government with
unrestricted funds.. ~!!;~
Sub~6~eti6h~2.291 County Road Costs
Pursuant ~6 MS., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all
or part ofthe cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
wfil~iiri the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will
have little or no impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads,
it must notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan.
Subsection 2-30. Economic Development and Job Creation
To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agrees to comply with M.S., Section 1161.991, which states that
a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes,
including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota
within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix E).
Subsection 2-31. Summary
The City of Mound is establishing District No. 1-2 to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop
substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan
for District No. 1-2 was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville,
Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (651) 697-8500.
City of Mound
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I-2
2-17
APPENDIX A
~ ~i~,~~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To be added prior t° ~i;'~:~ublic hearing.
·
APPENDIX
A-I
APPENDIX B
BOUNDAI~Y MAPS OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND
:~'~:~!N.~REMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
APPENDIX
B-I
.i
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2
Development District No. 1
City of Mound
Hennepin County, Minnesota
f-- .o
SEC.24,T '
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
~. -' PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
T~ IN(~REMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
PID Address
23-117-24 14 0008 2642 COMMERCEBLVD
23-117-24 14 0007 2630 COMMERCE BLVD
23-I 17-24 14 0004 5661 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0044 5668 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0051 5680 BARTLETT BLVD
23-117-24 14 0050 2620 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0043 2606 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0042 2600 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 14 0047 5667 BUSH RD
23-117-24 11 0011 2574 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0010 2558 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0009 2544 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0028 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
23-117-24 11 0027 2510 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0006 2500 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0005 2480 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0004 2462 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0003 2444 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0001 2434 COMMERCE BLVD
23-117-24 11 0002 2426 COMMERCE BLVD
24-117-24 22 0001
24-117-24 22 0013
13-117-24 33 0057
13-117-24 33 0056
13-I 17-24 33 0055
13-117-24 33 0082
13-117-24 33 0052
13-117-24 33 0020
13-I 17-24 33 0051
13-117-24 33 0050
13-117-24 33 0049
13-117-24 33 0048
13-117-24 33 0047
13-117-24 33 0017
13-117-24 33 0016
13-I 17-24 33 0015
13-117-24 33 0014
13-117-24 33 0004
13-117-24 33 0005
13-117-24 33 0006
13-117-24 33 0076
13-117-24 33 0009
2420 COMMERCE BLVD
2400 COMMERCE BLVD
2396 COMMERCE BLVD
2388 COMMERCE BLVD
2380 COMMERCE BLVD
2372 COMMERCE BLVD
2360 COMMERCE BLVD
2362 COMMERCE BLVD
2348 COMMERCE BLVD
2334 COMMERCE BLVD
5579 AUDITORS RD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2316 COMMERCE BLVD
2306 COMMERCE BLVD
2300 COMMERCE BLVD
5581 SHORELINE DR
5575 SHORELINE DR
5567 SHORELINE DR
5555 SHORELINE DR
5545 SHORELINE DR
5533 SHORELINE DR
5519 SHORELINE DR
C-I
APPENDIX
PID
13-117-24 33 0010
13-117-24 33 0011
13-117-24 33 0019
13-117-24 33 0013
13-117-24 33 0012
13-117-24 33 0069
13-117-24 34 0063
13-117-24 34 0075
13-117-24 34 0062
13-117-24 34 0042
13-117-24 34 0043
13-117-24 34 0044
13-I 17-24 34 0045
13-117-24 34 0071
13-I 17-24 34 0050
13-117-24 34 0097
13-117-24 34 0059
13-117-24 34 0060
13-117-24 34 0092
13-117-24 34 0021
13-117-24 34 0072
13-117-24 34 0022
13-117-24 34 0100
13-117-24 33 0083
13-I 17-24 33 0003
13-117-24 33 0077
13-117-24 33 0024
13-117-24 33 0075
13-117-24 33 0038
13-117-24 33 0039
13-117-24 33 0041
13-I 17-24 33 0073
13-117-24 33 0084
13-I 17-24 33 0085
14-117-24 41 0052
14-117-2441 0011
14-117-24 41 0058
14-117-24 41 0010
14-117-24 41 0057
14-117-24 44 0007
14-117-24 44 0032
14-117-24 44 0035
14-117-24 44 0034
14-117-24 44 0033
14-117-24 44 0038
Address
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
5501 SHORELINE DR
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
5377 SHORELINE DR
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2345 CYPRESS LA
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2333 WILSHIRE BLVD
2346 CYPRESS LA
5322 MAYWOOD RD
2385 WILSHIRE BLVD
2373 WILSHIRE BLVD
2361 WILSHIRE BLVD
2337 WILSHIRE BLVD
2333 WILSHIKE BLVD
5309 SHORELINE DR
5293 SHORELINE DR
5229 SHORELINE DR
2354 WILSHIRE BLVD
5300 SHORELINE DRIVE
2290 COMMERCE BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2250 COMMERCE BLVD
5448 SHORELINE DR
5424 SHORELINE DR
5473 LYNWOOD BLVD
5501 LYNWOOD BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2240 COMMERCE BLVD
85 ADDRESS PENDING
85 ADDRESS PENDING
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
2201 COMMERCE BI. VD
2121 COMMERCE BLVD
5700 LYNWOOD BLVD
5709 LYNWOOD BLVD
5701 LYNWOOD BLVD
5665 LYNWOOD BLVD
5631 LYNWOOD BLVD
2251 COMMERCE BLVD
PID
14-117-24 44 0037
14-117-24 44 0039
14-117-24-44-0036
14-117-24 44 0064
14-117-24 44 0041
14-117-24 44 0042
14-117-24 44 0001
14-117-24 44 0002
14-117-24 44 0004
14-117-24 44 0003
14-117-24 44 0006
14-117-24 44 0056
14-117-24 44 0061
14-117-24 44 0060
14-117-24 44 0043
14-117-24 44 0044
14-117-24 44 0045
14-117-24 44 0046
14-117-24 44 0047
14-117-24 44 0048
14-117-24 44 0049
14-117-24 44 0050
14-I 17-24 44 0051
14-117-24 44 0062
14-117-24 44 0057
Address
2261 COMMERCE BLVD
2271 COMMERCE BLVD
2281 COMMERCE BLVD
2281 COMMERCE BLVD
2301 COMMERCE BLVD
2313 COMMERCE BLVD
2321 COMMERCE BLVD
2339 COMMERCE BLVD
2345 COMMERCE BLVD
2365 COMMERCE BLVD
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
APPENDIX
C-3
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
APPENDIX
D-I
...........................
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Market Value Taxes TIx Capacay
T__y~ ...................... _u_nes _ _ .U_~Rs Sq Ft/'.JneTaxes Fis. Dis
...~. o~.~ a.~m,,. Ro~ $11000 33.0~0 ~27 18'.395 129.400
· =.~me~_ ...... A__~R_O~e. __ $~75.~.___O0 136 $2.430 00 330.480 244.a00
a~,~,. Of~c~ ~,~==~ $10000 IS.000 $4 70 70.338 49.500
_A=*~nn~__ ! .... ~ S70.000 __0~) .... 36 S2.268 00 81.64a 60.480
T0(ll Tax
Clpac~y Tax Market
Rale Value Payable
311.054 2.4%/34% 11.159.900
49.S~02.4~,(~34%1.500.000 2002
49500 1.500
129.40~ 2.4~3 4% 3.850,0<~ 2003
244.~002.40% .
374 200
49.~30 2.4%/34%
73.272 1 00%-1 65%4.800.0002003
118.~60 1 00%-1 65%9.000.0002003
~0.4aO 2.40% 2.520.0002003
........................
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Taxable
00 02-012000 373,873 373.873 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 08-012(300 375,873 375.873 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 02-012001 375.873 375.673 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0~-012001 375.873 375.873 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 02-012002 375.873 417.0~0 41.206 27,814 C/0) 27.745 0 27.745
0.S 0~-012002 375.873 417.0~0 41.206 27.814 (70) 27.745 0 27.745
1.0 02-012003 375.873 1.036.~6 ~&0.gg2 446.170 (1.115) 445.054 0 445.054
1.5 08-012003 375.873 1.03&.~ 6~0.992 446.170 (1.115) 445.054 0 445.054
20 02.012004 375.873 1.03&.86~ 6643.992 446.170 (1.115) 4./,5.054 0 4.45.054
2.5 08-012004 375.873 1.036.~ ~60.9<J2 446.170 (1.115) 445.054 0 445.054
3.0 02-012~35 375.a73 1.03~.8~6 ~6~.~32 44~.170 (1.115) ~45,054 0 445.054
3 5 0~-0', 2O(35 375.873 1.03~.~66 660.992 44~.170 (1.115) ~45.054 0 445.054
4.0 02-012006 375.873 1.03~.B66 ~.992 446.170 (1.115) 445+054 0 445.054
4.5 0~*0120(~ 375,873 1,036.~66 ~30,992 a,4~,170 (1,115) 445,054 0 445,034
5.0 02.012007 375,873 1.03~.866 ~60.992 446,170 (1.113) 445,054 0 a,45,054
5.5 O&-012~07 375.873 1.036.~6~ 660.992 446.170 (1.118) 445.054 0 445.0~4
6.0 02-01200~ 375.873 1,036.866 660,9<J2 44~1170 (1.115) 448.054 0 445.034
TOTALS 21.471.782
Payment Date
(53.679) 21418.103 . ._ 0~ _ _. 21.41~B_:1.0~3 ................ 1_:07_3:589
(19.327) 7.711.364 ...... 0 __ ~ ~1.41~._103 ................
o o o o8-ol20OO '
O 0.0 02-0!2001
0 0 0 0~01 2001
0 oo 02-0120432
1.391 0 5 0S-012002
1.391 1 0 02-012003
22.308 24 S 08.01 202~
22,308 250~
BUT / FOR ANALYSIS
Current Ma~t- Value - Est
New Mar~el Value - Est.
Difference 16.842.100
Present Value of Tax Inc~'ement 7.730.691
Difference 9.111.409
Value L~ely Io Occur W'_~t ~out TIF ~s Less Tflan .... 9~I 11.409
Develof:~nt PID
......................................
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
· inflation Rate Every 4 year~
Pay AS You Go Rate
F~.Cal Disp. Co~tdbution Ratio EST
Tax Capecity (~¢[em~ion) Rate . AREA W1DE RATE - Est
BASE TAX CAPACITY
Base
Lan~
0.0000%
0.000%
1.~00000
Base B~se
Base
220.000 $.~0
17.0GQ a7,~ 1~.~ 2.4~
4~ 43.~ ~.~ 2.~
~.~ 10.~ ~.~
~ ~.~ 374.~ 11.216
27.~ ~,~ ~,~ 2.1~
~.~ 75.~ 1~.~ 3.240
0 0
~.~ 1~.~ 17e.~ 4.552
3S.~ 1~.~ 1~.~
55.~ K,~ 135,~ 3.2~
43.~ 157.~ 2~.~ 5.3~
S~ 0 5.~ 125
~ 0 2,~ 67
2.~ 0 ~
~ 0 2~ 53
0 0 0 0
APPENDIX E
~i~NNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNES0~~,~.,~TMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
To be replaced with:the ~;;iness subsidy reporting forms when prepared by DTED.
APPENDIX
E-I
.Trade &
Economic
Development
February 12, 1999
To all Minnesota state and local government agencies:
With unemployment rates at record low levels for many regions in the state, the need for state
and local economic development agencies to use taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively is
greater than ever. The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) created the
Minnesota Business Assistance Form to assist state and local agencies in reporting their use of
taxpayer dollars for business assistance and to meet the accountability measures of M.S.
116J.991.
M.S. 116J.991 requires a business receiving state or local government assistance to create a net
increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of receiving the assistance. This two-year period
begins when the recipient begins to receive benefits of the assistance, i.e. when project is placed
in service. The law also requires the business to meet wage level and job creation goals
established by the funding agency. Until the wage and job goals are achieved, each government
agency that works with these businesses is mandated to annually report the goals and any
progress toward these'goals to DTED. I_t'the goals are not achieved, the business must repay the
assistance to the governmental agency at the terms negotiated in the assistance agreement.
"Business assistance" refers to any business grant or loan using state or local dollars in excess of
$25,000 or any.new business activity within a tax increment ..district. While not defined in
statute, our interpretation ii that this would include grants, loans, interest subsidies; tax increment
financing (T[F) or any other public monies directly benefitting a business and given for
economic development or job growth purposes.
Please use the enclosed Minnesota Business Assistance Form to comply with M.S. 116J.991.
This statute requires that all financial assistance agreements signed since July 1, 1995 should be
reported, regardless when the assistance was awarded, unless a form has previously been
submitted indicating that the business has met the established wage and job creation goals.
Moreover, a new form should be submitted each year tmill DTED receives a form documenting
that the business has achieved the goals.
Please mail or fax your completed form(s) to DTED before April 1, 1999. The legislative report
will not include any forms not postmarked or faxed by that date. The form does not need to be
submitted if assistance has not been provided to a business.
Commissioner
500 Metro Square, 121 7th Place East, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146 USA
651-297-1291 · 800-657-3858 · Fax 651-296-4772 · TTY/TDD 800-627-3529
www.dted.state.mn.us
1999 Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Please return by April I, 1999)
Please complete lines 1 through 16 for ali agr~m~ntm
1. Funding government agency name 2. Contact name
EconomTrade &.
]C
Development
3. Agency street address
4. City
5. Zip code 6. Phone number (area code)
7. Fax number (area code)
9. Name of business receiving assistance
8. Type of government agency
__ City _~County Regional
__ Other (Please indic, ale)
10. Industry of recipient (SIC code)
__State
1 I. Type of a~kstance (e.g. loan, TIF, grant, infra, stmcmre, tlc.) 12. Name of TIF disuict (if applicable)
13. Date of business
as~tance agreement
14. Date a.ssistance f~t
provided
15. Date project (building/
maehineast/etc.) was
placed in service
16. Doll~ value of business
a~sistance
For aq~Lqance agreements signed between July 1, 1.995 and December 31, 1997, complete lines 17 through 20. For
agreements signed during 1998 and future years, please complete lines 21 through 24.
17. Job creation goals for business receiviag assistance 18. Average hourly wage level goals for business receiviag
19. Actual jobs created since business received assistance
20. Actual average hourly wage paid to employees hired since
business received assistance
Goals of business receiving assistance: (Please indicate
number of employees at each wage level and indicate the
corresponding benefit leveL)
21. Job Creation Hourly Wage
Level
Full-time Part-time (excLbenefits)
less than $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9.99
$I0.00 to $11.99
$12.00 and higher
If necessary, ple. ase attach additional documentation.
Please complete lines 25 through 27 for all agreements.
25. Last date actual wage and job creation levels documented
Actual performance since project placed in service: (Please
indicate number of employees at each wage level and indicate
the convapon~g benefit level.)
22. Hourly Value 23. Job Creation Hourly Wage 24. Hourly Value
of Voluntary Level of Voluntary
Benefits ($) Full-time Part-time (excL benefits) Benefits ($)
less ti'ma $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9.99
$10.00 to $11.99
$12.00 aad higher
If necessary, please aRaeh additional documentation.
26. Date this Minnesota Business Assistance Form completed
27. Have all wage and job goals been achieved? II Yes-- do not submit future forms for this project.
['3 No -- please submit the 2000 Minnesota Business ~ee Form.
This form replaces all previous fortm. Pleaxe complete one form for each business ussirtance agreement your
agency signed between July 1, 1995 and December 31,1998 which provided $25,000 or more in public funds
or used tax increment financing. A form should be submitted annmdly for each assistance agreement until a
submitted form indicates that all wage andjob creation goals have been achieved. Do not submit this form ~f
your agency has not agreed to provide assistance to a business since July 1, 1995.
(ovex)
Trade &
Economic
Development
Please send completed form annually by April 1, 1999 to:
Minnesota Business Assistanc~ Form ~ AEO
Minnesota Dcparimcnt of Trade and Economic D~v¢lopment
Analysis and Evaluation Office
500 Metro Square
121 East 7th Place
St. Paul, M~nnesota 55101
or fax report to:
(65 I) 215-3841
For information, call:
(651) 297-2335 or 1-800-657-3858
Minnesota Statutes 116J.991:
A business that receives state or local government assistance for economic development
or job growth purposes must create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of
receiving the assistance.
The government agency providing the assistance must establish wage level and job creation
goals to be met by the business receiving the assistance. A business that fails to meet the goals
must repay the assistance to the government agency.
Each government agency must report the wage and job goals and the results for each
project in achieving those goals to the department of trade and economic development. The
department shall compile and publish the results of the reports for the previous calendar year
by June 1 of each year. The reports of the agencies to the department and the compilation
report of the department shall be made available to the public.
For the purposes of this section, "assistance" means a grant or loan in excess of $25,000,
or tax increment financing.
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT,QU~i'FICATIONS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
APPENDIX
F-I
TIF Property Eveluatione for Mound, MN
Conducted by YHR Partners, 3989 Central Ave NE, Mlnneapolii, MN 55421, (6t2)788-5319
Proposed "rlF District 1-2' District
24-Nov-99
Current percentage of properties meeting site coverage requirements (Minimum of 70% required
Current percentage of qualifying 'structurally substandard" structures (based on TIF requlremen
73%
83%
Site Coverage Coverage Code Total # of # Sub- Cond
PID_Code Site Area (s.f.) Coverage (s.f.) (%) Quantity FCI' Buildings standard FCI" Sun~ey Method Used
9943001-0001 10,000 10,000 100~ 10,000 13% 1 0 49% Inte~ evaluaton
9943.001-0002 I0,000 8821 ~ 10.000 46% 1 1 50% Inten~ evalua~on
9943.001-0003 23,440 10295 4.t% 23,440 23% 1 I ~ Extu~' eva~ua~on
9943.001-0004 7,500 2591 35% 7,500 27% 1 1 42% Exten(x evauaaon
9943.001-0005 16.2~0 4199 25% 16,260 2B% 2 2 42% Exte~o' evaua~on
9943001-0006 75,000 11250 15% 75,000 52% 1 1 .~% Inter,or eva[ua~on
9943.001-0007 3,750 3,750 100% 3,750 0 0 Vacant lan(] I Pawng improvement~ only
9943.001-0005 3.750 1,959 52% 3,750 25% 1 I 42% Exter~ ev~ua%n
9943.00%0009 15.000 2,710 19% 15.000 11% 1 0 36% Exter~ evalua13on
9943.001-0011 17,344 1995 12% 0 90% 1 1 42% Exte~x evaiua~On
9943.001-0012 62,249 10384 17% 62.249 0 0 Vacant land I pa~ng improvements onty
9943.001-0013 14,760 11832 ~ 14,760 0 0 Vacant rand / Pa"~ng ~nprovements only
9943.001-0014 16,575 16109 97% 16,575 7% 1 0 36% Intef~x evalua~on
9943.001-0015 15,650 1636 10% 0 67% 1 1 41% Inte~4~' evalua'oon
9943.001-0016 11,887 1795 15% 11,887 32% 1 1 43% Exte~x evaiua~on
~43.001-0017 15,000 7521 50% 15.000 0 0 Vacant land I Pa~ng irr~0rovements only
9943.001-0018 30,000 25212 87% 30,000 0% 1 0 31% E.,m~ evaiua~on
9943.001-0019 13,656 3702 27% 13,656 24% I 1 41% Exterior evalL~on
9943.001-0020 61,962 17355 ~ 61,9~2 9% 1 0 35% Exlefior evalua~on
9943.001-0021 13,650 3489 26% 13,650 26% 1 1 37% Extm~ evaluaaon
9943.001-0022 328,563 2329 1% 0 43%
9943.001-0~23 19,850 4~29 24% 19.850 26%
9943.001-0024 7,500 4600 61% 7,500 17%
9943.001-0025 7,500 1375 18% 7.500 30%
9943.001-0026 7,500 2720 36% 7,500 29%
9943.001-0027 11,250 9274 8~/. 11,250 0%
9943.001-0028 20,500 20,500 100% 20,500 19%
9943.001-0029 33,575 756 2% 0
9943.00t-0030 6,580 1750 27% 6,5~0
9943.001-0031 10,200 7817 77% 10.200
9943.001-0032 4,000 692 17% 4,000
9943.001-0033 7,500 6584 88% 7,500
9943.001-0034 4,395 3535 ~ 4,395 2~%
9943.001-0035 3,000 2500 83'/. 3,000 38%
9943.001-0036 2,440 2,440 100% Z440 43%
9943.00143037 10,469 7973 76% 10,469 90%
9943.001-0038 1,562 1381 88% 1.562 40%
9943.00143039 7,200 7.200 100% 7,2~0 27%
9943.001-0040 13,680 13880 100% 13.680 16%
9943.001.0041 7,500 5064 68% 7,500 30%
9943.001-0042 15,825 11760 75% 15,625 32%
9943.001.0043 4,125 240 6% 0
9943.001.0044 10,150 8555 65% 10,150
9943.001-0045 15,000 14383 96% 15,0~ 10%
9943.001.0046 18,820 816 5% 0
9943.001-0047 22,500 4650 21% 22.500
9943,001.0048 48,182 14755 31% 48,162
9943.001-0049 240,000 3625 2% 0
9943.001.0050 18,375 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0051 51.225 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0052 151,950 97133 64% 151,950 0
9943.001-0053 13,860 13860 100% 13.880 0
9943.001-0054 7.200 7,200 100% 7,200 O
9943.001-0066 24,000 173~8 72% 24.000 16% 1
9943.001-0056 18.000 14217 79% 1~.000 2~% 1
9943.001-0057 IZ~ ~924 &:1% 12,000 7% 1
~3.~1~ [~ ~ 1~ 3,~ 61% 1
~3.~1~59 24.~ 18,828 ~ 24.~ 7% 1
~3.~1~ 3,~ 3,~ 1~ [~ 112% 1
TIF_Dis'o"ictl-2_Summat7
42% Exte~ evadua~on
42% .Exte~ evaluation
45% Extedor evaluabon
4~ E~ evau~n
4~ ~ ev~u~n
31% ~ evau~n
35% ~ ev~u~n
~ eva~n
V~ ~d I P~ng ~ro~ omy
v~lP~~
V~ ~d I P~ng ~ only
V~ I~d / P~ng ~ro~n~ on~
~% ~ eva~
4~ I~ ev~u~
41% I~ ~au~n
4~ ~ eva~n
51% I~ eva~n
3~ I~ evau~n
V~t land / Pa~ng ~m~n~ only
~% In~ evau~n
V~ I~a / P~ng ~m~ only
V~t I~d / P~ng ~n~ only
V~t I~a I Pa~n9 ~ro~n~ only
V~ t~d / P~ng ~ro~n~ only
0 Vacant ~ I Pavan9 mprovements only
0 Vacant la~d ! Paving improvements only
0 Vacant ~ / Pa~ng impmvemcmts only
0 Vacant ta~d I PaWng impmvements o~kf
0 Vacant la~d / PaVing improve~nents o~Y
~% ~
0
41%
0 ~ levi~
43% I~ evau~o
Page I
9943.001,.0061 7,200 4351 60'% 7.200 30%
9943.001,.0062 16.600 13.130 78% 16,800
9943001-0063 17,420 17,420 10(~ 17.420
9943.001,.0064 134,035 134,035 100% 134,035 17'%
9~3.~,1,.~065 G.~(~, 1360 Z~% 6,000 15%
9943.001,.0114 41.650 41650 100% 41,650
9943.0o1,-0~ 13.125 9181 70% 13,125
9943.001-0067 184,120 73600 40% 184,120 0
9943.001-0068 43,354 16171 37% 43.354 21% 1
9943.001-~069 8,703 4090 47% 8,703 55'% 2
9943.001-0070 35,720 18137 51% 35.720 9%
9943001-0071 13,000 1276 10% 0 36% 1
9943.001-0072 13.650 10500 77% 13.650 34% 1
9943001-0073 3,438 3,438 100% 3,438 0
~943 001-0074 43,354 43142 100% 43,354 25% 1
9943.001-0075 28,500 420 1% 0 0
9~43.001-0078 24,700 0 0% 0 0
9943.001.-0077 170,4.06 91751 54% 170,406 0
9943.001.-0078 317,000 207178 65% 317,000 0
~43.001.0079 124,800 101~7 81% 124,800 0
gCJ43,001.0080 175.500 1~421 11% 0 20% 2
g943.001.0081 57,670 43603 78% 57.070 4%
9943.001-0082 12,500 1904 15% 12,500
1 26% Inlaa' evalua~oa
0 Vac~l la~ I pawng "~erovements only
1 38% Irfen~ e~alua~oo
0 1g% Ii ~u~
47% ~ Even
41% Exleaa' Evalua~on
0 Vaca~ ~ / Pa~ng m'~Pro~ements only
32% I~en~x Evaua~on
0 Vacant land / Pa~ng iml~oeements only
0 Vacant ta~ I PaWn9 .~np~rovemen~ ont'f
0 Vaca~ land I Pawng imp~o~ement~ only
0 Vaca~ land I P~ng ~m~n~ only
0 V~I ~ I P~ng ~o~ only
2 45% I~ Even
0 ~% I~ Ev~u~
9943.001-0083 12,684 1503 12% 0 25'/, 1
9943.001-0084 17,100 12634 74% 17,100 23% I
9943.001,0085 15.010 10331 69% 15.010 24% 1
9943.001-0086 13.875 2562 18% 13,875 0
9943.001-0087 5,355 4776 89% 5,355 37% 1
9943.001-0088 3,570 34~5 9~% 3,570 24%
9943.001-0089 4,960 4,960 100% 4,960 45% 1
9943.001-0090 7,735 7242 94% 7,735 12% 1
9943.0<H -0091 7,200 6200 86"/, 7,200 0
9943.001-0092 9,420 9,420 100% 9,420 0% 1
6643.001-0(~3 4,350 4,350 100% 4,350 19% 1
9943.001-0094 10,000 10000 100% 10,000 25% 1
9943.001-0095 19,376 19,376 100"/, 19,376 81% 1
9943.001-0096 10,624 10,524 100% 10,524 60%
9943.001-0097 10000 9950 100% 10,000 19% 1
9943.001-0098 10,000 10000 100% 10,000 0
9943.001-0099 4,500 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0100 9,961 0 0% 0 0
9943001-0101 12,800 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0102 2810 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0103 25.205 0 0% 0 0
9943.0~1-~104 9,555 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0105 15,121 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0100 8,700 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0107 9,000 0 0% 0
9943.001-0108 7,851 0 0% 0 0
9943.0~1-01~ 6,125 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0110 5,225 0 0% 0 0
9943.001-0111 10,176 0 0% 0 0
ou~,3 001-0112 55,300 0 0% 0 0
43% Etl~or Evau~on
38% Exte~i0r Evalua~on
37% Extm~ Evaua~n
V~ ~d I P~ng ~r~nm only
~ I Evau~n
~% ~ Even
16% I~E~
~ ~ ~n
33% ~ Ev~
4~
33% i~ E~u~n
35% I~
V~ I~a I p~ng i~ro~n~ only
V~ ~ I ~ ~n~ ~ly
V~ ~ I ~ng ~ only
V~ ~d I P~ng i~n~ only
V~
V~ ~ I P~ng ~ ~y
V~l~ng ~ o~
V~ ~ I P~og ~n~ o~y
V~ ~ / P~ng ~n~ o~y
V~IP~~Y
V~ ~ I P~ ~ ~Y
V~ ~ / P~ng ~ only
V~ ~d I P~ i~ro~n~ o~y
9943.001-0113 832,765 832.765 100% 832,765 0 0
Totals 4~319,987 3,157,797 70 58
Vaca~ land I Pa~ng irrc~mvement~ only
Percentages
73% 83%
* Code FCI is a percentage refering to the total code def~encies of a property I estimated replacement value
**Condition (Cond) FCl is a percentage referring to the total building condition deficiencies of a property / estimated replacement value
report prepared by:
YHR Partners Facilities Group
3989 Central Ave NE Ste 520
Minneapolis, MN 55421
ph: (612) 788-5319 fx: (612) 788-5324
email jkrebsbach~yhr.com
TIF_Distnct 1-2._Su~a~/
P~e 2
Affidavit of Publication
. * NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
' ~ CITY OF MOUND
.... 'COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Mound, County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, December 14,
1999, at approximately 7.30 pm at the Mound
City Council Chambers in the Mound City
Haft, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound,
Minnesota, relating to the eslaldishment of
business subsidies criteria, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993
through 116J.995. Copies of the business
subsidies criteria are on file and available for
public inspection at the office of the City Clerk
at City Hall.
· All interested persons may appear at the
hearing and present their views orally, or prior
to the meeting in writing.
BY oRDeR OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
(Published in The Laker Nov. 27, 1999)
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound,
Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts
which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.)The printed ?ubl±c Hear-lng'
Business Subsidies Criteria
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once
each week for 1 successive weeks:
It was first published Saturday
the 27t-hdayof November 19 99 ,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Saturday, to and including Saturday,
the__ day of
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
27th day of November ,19 99
By: ~, '~'~/;i~J Notary Public
KR,ST HOLM t
~ ~,~ MY COMMISSION ~"IRES )
(1) L~=~~ ~i~ ~r~Jal users
for comparable space: $13.45 per inch.
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above ma~er: $13.45.
(3) Rate actually charged for above ma~er: $7.49 per inch.
Each additional successive week: $5.44.
To: City of Mound
From: Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates
Subj@ Business Subsidies Date: October 6, 1999
Beginning August 1, 1999, state and local governments face new
requirements for granting business subsidies.' These requirements
replace the current wage and job goal reporting. The new law
will be codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993.
The regulation of business subsidies adds new compleidties to the
development process. Make sure that you understand the statutory
requirements before providing direct or indirect assistance to
any for-profit or non-profit entity. If in doubt, ask questions.
Many of these provisions are subject to interpretation. There
appears to be a recognition that the statute contains flaws that
should be addressed next year.
What does the new business subsidy law mean for your community?
The new law applies to any state or local government agency or
public entity (including cities, housing and redevelopment
authorities, economic development authorities, counties,
townships, and potentially school districts) with the power to
grant business subsidy. It requires that, in addf~ion ~o any
requirements that may be attached to a particular form of subsidy
(e.g. requirements to create a TIF plan and hold a public
hearing), the entity must:
(1) Determine that the subsidy meets a public purpose -- other
than increasing the tax base.
Job retention is a public purpose only if job loss is "imminent
and demonstrable;"
(2) Establish business subsidy criteria. The entity must
establish and hold a public hearing to
adopt the criteria. The only statutory requirement for contents
of the criteria is a policy for wages on jobs created by the
subsidies. The statute does not discuss a process for amending
the criteria.
This provision seems to impose separate requirements for each
potential grantor. If, for example, a city, a county and a
school district were all abating a business' taxes, all three
(including the school district) would need to establish and
approve separate criteria.
(3) Enter into a subsidy agreement. The statue requires that
the subsidy agreement define, among other things enumerated in
the statute, wage and job goals, the nature of, the amount of,
the reasons for, and the goals for the subsidy. The agreement
must also describe what happens if the recipient fails to fulfill
its obligations, and must contain a commitment from the recipient
"to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for
at least five years after the benefit date".
Failure to meet goals requires partial or full repayment of the
assistance with interest.
Again, the subsidy agreement requirement seems to apply to each
grantor, which in the case of abatement could potentially mean
the city, the county and the school district.
Please be aware that we believe this law may even apply to
development agreements that were approved before, but executed
(signed) after, August 1, 1999.
This agreement must be signed by the local elected governing
body.
(4) Hold a public hearing on %he subsidy if it exceeds $100,000
(or, if the grantor is the state government, $500,000). The
statutes contains specific criteria for the notice of hearing.
The notice must be published at least 10 days prior to the
hearing.
What is a business subsidy?
The statute is important for both the definition and the specific
exclusions. Business subsidy are defined as "grant, contribution
of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the
principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially
available to the recipient, any reduction or deferral of any tax
or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease,
or other obligation, or any preferential use of government
facilities given to a business".
The-statute specifically excludes certain items from
definition. The following are not business subsidies:
the
;usiness subsidy of less than $25,000.
Lsistance generally available to all business or to a similar
class of business.
public improvements to buildings or land owned by state or local
government that serve a public purpose and do not principally
benefit a single business or a defined group of businesses at the
time the improvements are made.
@lluted redevelopment property (M.S. 116J.552)
0
renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to
code if not more than 50% of the total cost.
Lsistance to job training/readiness organizations to assist with
those services.
;ousing.
Dilution control or abatement.
energy conservation.
tax reduction from conformity with federal tax law.
workers and unemployment compensation.
@nefits derived from regulations.
Lnds from bonds allocated under Chapter 474A.
Collaboration between Minnesota higher education institution and
a business.
soils condition TIF district.
redevelopment when recipient's investment in the purchase of the site is
70% or more of the current assessor's estimated market value.
;neral changes in TTF law and other general tax law for a principally
technical nature.
Reporting
The statute establishes a set of subsidy reporting 'procedures.. The
recipient of the assistance is required to provide info~-mation to the
grantor for two years after the benefits date or until the goals are
met, whichever is later. The information shall be reported on forms
developed by DTED. The statute creates penalties for failure to provide
the appropriate reports.
MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR MINUTES - NOVEMBER 1, 1999
BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA
1. PURPOSE
1.01 The purpose of this document is to establish the Housing and
Authority's (hereinafter refereed to as HRA) criteria for granting of
as in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision 3, for
shall be used as a guide in processing and
business subsidies.
subsidies,
development.
applications
1.02
The
in its
the HRA
forth in this document are guidelines only.
to approve business subsidies that vary
that the subsidy nevertheless serves
reserves the right
criteria stated herein if
1.03
The HRA may
subject to public
116J.993 through I 1
this document at any time.
requirements
994.
to these criteria are
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
2. STATUTORY
2.01
In accordance with the
comply with applicable State
subsidies is governed by the
through 116J.994.
Criteria, Business Subsidy requests must
The HRA of Mound's ability to grant business
established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993
3. PUBLIC POLICY
3.01
All business subsidies
Job retention may
and demonstrable
meet a public
be used as a public
other than increasing the tax base.
in cases where job loss is imminent
4. BUSINESS
APPROVAL CRITERIA
4.01
All new approved by the HRA of Mound
approval HoWever, it should not be
criteria ,. automatically be approved. Meeting these
rights/n the part of any potential developer.
meet the following minimum
a project meeting these
creates no contractual
4.02 The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state
debt limit guidelines, and other appropriate financial requirements
restrictions,
policies.
1.01
1.02
1.03
2.01
3.01
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUND
Business Subsidy Criteria
PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to establish the City Council's
(hereinafter refereed to as CC) criteria for granting of business
subsidies, as defined in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993, Subdivision
3, for private development. This criteria shall be used as a
guide in processing and reviewing applications requesting business
subsidies.
The criteria set forth in this document are guidelines only. The
CC reserves the right in its discretion to approve business
subsidies that vary from the criteria stated herein if the CC
determines that the subsidy nevertheless serves a public purpose.
The CC may amend this document at any time. Amendments to these
criteria are subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through I 1 6J. 994.
STATUTORY LAMATIONS
In accordance with the Business Subsidy Criteria, Business Subsidy
requests must comply with applicable State Statutes. The CC of
Mound's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the
limitations established in Minnesota Statutes 116J.993 through
116J.994.
PUBLIC POLICY RE%UIREMENT
Ail business subsidies must meet a public purpose other than
increasing the tax base. Job retention may only be used as a
public purpose in cases where job loss is imminent and
demonstrable
4.01
4.02
4.03
4.04
BUSINESS SUBSIDY APPROVAL CRITERIA
Ail new projects approved by the CC of Mound should meet the
following minimum approval criteria. However, it should not be
presumed that a project meeting these criteria will automatically
be approved. Meeting these criteria creates no contractual rights
on the part of any potential developer.
The business subsidy shall be provided within applicable state
legislative restrictions, debt limit guidelines, and other
appropriate financial requirements and policies.
The project must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinances, or required changes to the plan and Ordinances
must be under active consideration by the CC at the time of
approval.
Business subsidies will not be provided to projects that have the
financial feasibility to proceed without the benefit of the
subsidy. In effect, business subsidies will not be provided
solely to broaden a developer's profit margins on a project.
Prior to consideration of a business subsidy request, the CC may
undertake an independent underwriting of the project to help
ensure that the request for assistance is valid.
4.05
4.06
4.07
4.08
4.09
4.10
Prior to approval of a business subsidies financing plan, the
developer shall provide any required market and financial
feasibility studies, appraisals, soil boring, information provided
to private lenders for the project, and other information or data
that the CC or its financial consultants may require in order to
proceed with an independent underwriting.
Any developer requesting a business subsidy should able to
demonstrate past successful general development capability as well
as specific capability in the type and size of development
proposed.
The developer must retain ownership of the project at least long
enough to complete it, to stabilize its occupancy, to establish
the project management, and to initiate repayment of the business
subsidy, if applicable.
A recipient of a business subsidy must make a commitment to
continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at
least five years after the benefit date.
Any business subsidy will be the lowest possible level and least
amount of time necessary, after the recipient maximizes the use of
private debt and equity financing first.
Recipients of any business subsidy will be required to meet wage
and job goals determined by the CC on a case-by-case basis, giving
consideration to the nature of the development, the purpose of the
subsidy, local economic conditions and similar factors.
5.01
5.02
5.03
TAX INCREMENT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
Ail tax increment requests will be evaluated under the general
criteria in Section I to 4 and the specific criteria in this
Section.. Changes in local markets, costs of construction, and
interest rates may cause changes in the amounts of Tax Increment
subsidies that a given project may require at any given time.
Some criteria, by their very nature, must remain subjective.
However, wherever possible "benchmark" criteria have been
established for review purposes. The fact that a given proposal
meets one or more "benchmark" criteria does not mean that it is
entitled to funding under this policy, but rather that the CC is
in a position to proceed with evaluations of (and comparisons
between) various business subsidy requests, using uniform
standards whenever possible.
Following are the evaluation criteria that will be used by the CC
of Mound
Ail business subsidy requests should optimize the private
development potential of a site.
B. Ail business subsidy requests should obtain the highest
possible private to public financial investment ratio. The CC
establishes a benchmark ratio of 3 parts private to I part
public funding for manufacturing/warehouse projects. Housing
and retail/commercial projects shall be reviewed on an
individual basis.
Ail business subsidy requests should create or retain the
highest feasible number of jobs on the site at the highest
feasible wages.
Ail business subsidy requests should create the highest
possible ratio of property taxes paid before and after
redevelopment. Given the different assessment circumstances
in the City, this ratio will vary widely. However, under
normal circumstances, the CC will expect at least a 1:2 ratio
of taxes paid before and after redevelopment.
E. Business subsidy requests should normally not be used to
support speculative industrial, commercial, and office
projects. In general, speculative projects are defmed as
those projects which have letters of intent or pre-leasing for
less than 50% of the available leasable space.
Ail business subsidy requests will be reviewed to determine
the feasibility to provide the CC with equity participation
in new developments (through a share of the profits), or to
treat the business subsidy as a second mortgage with fixed
payments.
Ail business subsidy requests involving displacement of low
and moderate income residents should give specific attention
to the re-housing needs of those residents. Normally, this
should be done as a part of the business subsidy. Adequate
solutions to these re-housing needs will be required as a
matter of public policy.
Ail business subsidy requests will need to meet the "but for"
test. Business subsidies will not be granted unless the need
for the CC's economic participation is sufficient that,
without that assistance the project could not proceed in the
manner as proposed.
I. Business subsidies will not be used when the developer's
credentials, in the sole judgement of the CC, are inadequate
due to past track record relating to: completion of projects,
general reputation and/or bankruptcy, or other problems or
issues considered relevant by the CC.
J. Business subsidies will not be used to support projects that
place demands on City services, or other capital or operating
expenditures, that exceed the average City expenditures for
similar facilities. Consideration will be given to the total
public costs that are required to support the project,
including offsite facilities costs that are required.
K. Business subsidies will not normally be used for projects that
would generate significant environmental problems in the
opinion of the local, state, or federal governments.
December 14, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 2000 GENERAL FUND
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,084,750;
SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,975,330
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $502,790, RESULTING IN A FINAL
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,472,540;
APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby adopt the following 2000 General Fund Budget appropriations:
City Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections/Registration
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Emergency Preparedness
Planning/Inspections
Street
City Property/Buildings
Parks
Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
77,620
4,000
26,000
198.750
12,450
68 000
175 400
22 100
146.980
1,049,650
12,150
208,250
485,990
76,890
208,050
39,570
106,780
166.120
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 3,084,750
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in
2000:
December 14, 1999
SPECIAL LEVIES
Bonded Indebtedness
82,770
Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds
33,350
Total Special Levies
116,120
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE LEVY
1.859.210
TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 2000
1,975,330
Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)
-502.790
FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY
1,472,540
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby adopt the final overall budget for 2000 as follows:
GENERAL FUND
As per above
3,084,750
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Area Fire Service Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
Cemetery Fund
Dock Fund
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
411,520
869,340
8,190
80,640
1,369,690
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
124,980
318,420
458,360
956.410
1,858,170
December 14, 1999
SUMMARY
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Enterprise Funds
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
3,084,750
1,369,690
1.858.170
6.312.610
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, held the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing on Monday, December 6, 1999, for
consideration of the 2000 Proposed Budget and determined that the Monday, December 13,
1999, meeting was not necessary.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
seconded by Councilmember
, and
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
REVIEW: PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR NEW
DOCKING APPLICATIONS FOR 2000
Park Director Fackler summarized the resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound
commons dock application for new applicants for non abutting use.
Councilmember Hanus expressed concern that the lottery method is not addressed.
Park Director Fackler stated that names on labels, in a box, drawn at an open meeting,
would be the most simPle, direct method.
Councilmember Hanus also expressed concern about the grouping, as almost everyone
will be in the high priority group right away.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that upon examination, there were not as many duplicate
people as were originally thought, and the groups as defined will likely work well.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the
resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound commons dock
application for new applicants for non abutting use, and to recommend
approval of the ordinance change. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
a. Multiple slip dock objectives and transition
To be discussed at November meeting.
b. Boat size limitations on multiple slip docks
To be discussed at November meeting.
c. Personal Water Craft on multiple slip docks
Mr. Mike Savage, 3125 Highland Boulevard, questioned ifa Sea-Doo is allowed at multiple
dock sites. Specifically, Highland End site.
Commissioner Burma summarized how the personal water craft issue was accepted at
Avalon Park, the pilot program. Abutters have not indicated a problem with the single craft
which is on this dock. Burma's assessment is that the pilot program was a success, and
each area should be looked at individually to determine specific needs.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated no complaints have been received about the personal
water craft, and Mr. Savage has requested the ability to keep this craft on the Highland End
dock throughout the last year.
RESOLUTIONMOUND ESTABLISHING COMMONS DOCK LOTTERY APPLICATION SYSTEM FOR FOR THE
NEW APPLIC.~NTS FOR NON ABUTTING USE
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has, by ordinance, established a lottery for new applicants for non
abutting docking.
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides that the lottery will be in accordance with the process
established from time to time by the City Council resolution.
WHEREAS, the City, Council has now received the report and recommendation of staff and the
advisory Dock and Commons Commission regarding such process.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bv the Cit~' Council of the Cit' of Mound that the
following rules of procedure are adopted:
1. The application must include the required fees, and must have the following information complete
Name, boat size (len,m.h and beam), boat license and first and second doc'king area preference.
2. The application must be received by the City of Mound on or before the last da,v of February of
each year.
3. The lottery will be conducted by drawing at the regularly schedule Dock and Commons Advisory
Commission meeting in March of the current year. The drawing will determine the Applicants' positions on
the docking wait list.
3. All applicants will be notified of their position on the docking wait list by the first day of May.
' Zeo 0
:~-:~-~(t~ 4. _Applicants will be'seParated into.groups based on number of consecutive years the>' have applied
as follows. Group 1, four years of more, Group 2, two or three years and Group 3, one year.
/
/~~he lottery drawing will begin with group 1 until all openings are filled or there are no more
applic.an~ remaining in the group. Once all names have been dravm from Group 1, then the drawing will
move to,._Grqup 2 and finally to Group 3.
6. All att~lt/oe made to'provide the applicant with his/her choice, however, if one is not
available the closest availat~le site will be assigned. The applicant my decline the available docking locations
however if it is not a except able location for the applicant they may re apply for the next boatlng season and
will gain credit towards the applicable Group.
Attest: City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Balance: November 1, 1999 $3,756,113
Bouaht:
Money Market 4M Plus 3,353
Money Market USBank 30,160
Money Market Salomon Smith Barney 145
CP Salomon Smith Barney 327,855
CP Salomon Smith Barney 328,022
CP USBank 435,547
Matured:
Money Market 4M Plus (425,000)
Money Market USBank (38,569)
CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.458% (324,122)
CP USBank 5.376% (430,686)
CP Salomon Smith Barney 5.375% (327,855)
Balance:
November 30, 1999.
$3,334,963
Cities 2000 Le~lislative Policies
On November 19th I attended the League of Minnesota Cities Policy Adoption Conference.
The Speaker of the House, Steve Sviggum, gave the opening speech on Tort Reform Fairness.
A number of discussions followed on liability insurance issues, electric deregulation,
the future of property tax reform under the Ventura administration by Commissioner Smith,
and a discussion on the changing political climate for cities in Minnesota.
Many mayors, city council members, and city administrators were in attendance.
At the end of the conference the 2000 legislative policies were approved
with some minor changes. If you have an interest in getting a copy of the cities'
platform for the 2000 legislative session, please let me know.
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 1999
Present were: Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma and Greg
Eurich (7:36 p.m.), and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Chair Jim Funk
Acting Chair Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes
of the September 16, 1999 DCAC meeting as amended. Motion carried 410
(Commissioner Eurich had not yet arrived).
Page 1, Item 3, Paragraph 4, sentence 2: "...enough room to add anothor
boat to this dock, providing an additional dock sitc. more boats, providing
additional dock sites."
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as presented.
DISCUSS: PROPOSED MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION AT WATERBURY
AND TWIN PARK
Park Director Fackler presented a proposed configuration for Waterbury Access, allowing
four boats, and Twin Park Access, allowing six boats. Both of these proposals meet LMCD
setbacks.
Councilmember Hanus questioned the setbacks, as they are not consistent with previous
setbacks stated by the LMCD.
Park Director Fackler stated the information is directly from the LMCD for every
configuration, to avoid misinterpretation on the part of staff. The next step would be to
invite citizens affected to a meeting, for their input.
Commissioner Burma suggested proceeding with notification for Waterbury and Twin Park.
Park Director Fackler addressed the issue of one site holder who has two boats,
suggesting allowing two sites for this person, making an additional temporary site which
would be dropped when this site holder does not renew his application.
Consensus was reached to proceed with notification for Waterbury and Twin Park. Also,
when a person does have two boats, the guidelines to follow will be: Option #1, hold a hard
line, allowing one boat per person. Option #2: Find another site for the second boat.
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
Option #3, add an additional site temporarily, to accommodate the second boat for a
predetermined period of time.
4. REVIEW: EXISTING MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS
Park Director Fackler presented his memo giving suggestions for each site. Consensus
was to address each site individually, beginning with sites where concerns have been
brought to the attention of the Commission.
DEVON LANE ACCESS - Staff suggestion: Three slips (27.5' x 10' - 1,6,8); Four slips (24'
x 10'- 2,3,4,5); Two slips (10'x 8'- 7,9). Site 8 should be 10'x 8' and sites 8 & 9 were
listed as temporary sites.
Commissioner Ahrens stated the issue here is where this dock is positioned, as there is
a single dock next to the multiple, and the multiple is too far in front of an abutters house.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey added that he had mistakenly issued locations 8 and 9, since
they were supposed to be temporary, which is why there are still 9 boats there.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested staff pull together all the minutes on this site, and have
a separate agenda item on this issue.
Park Director Fackler agreed this issue is unique and may need some additional attention.
Fackler cautioned that renewal applications go out in January, so a decision should be
reached by then.
FAIRVIEWACCESS - Staff suggestion: Two slips (27.5' x 10'- 1,4); Two slips (24'x 10'-
2,3); Two slips (18' x 8' - 5,6). Slip 6 is considered a temporary site.
Commissioner Ahrens stated setbacks are in question here, as they are not consistent with
Waterbury, discussed earlier tonight.
Park Director Fackler stated this site should probably be revisited, and the LMCD should
be approached again on the subject of the setbacks.
AMHURST ACCESS - Staff suggestion: Two slips (27.5' x 10' - 1,4); Two slips (24' x 10' -
2,3); One slip (18'x 8'- 5).
Acting Chair Goldberg stated that site 5 is now empty, and if it was designated temporary
it can now be deleted.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he would check on this, and change the map accordingly.
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
5. REVIEW: PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR NEW
DOCKING APPLICATIONS FOR 2000
Park Director Fackler summarized the resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound
commons dock application for new applicants for non abutting use.
Councilmember Hanus expressed concern that the lottery method is not addressed.
Park Director Fackler stated that names on labels, in a box, drawn at an open meeting,
would be the most simple, direct method.
Councilmember Hanus also expressed concern about the grouping, as almost everyone
will be in the high priority group right away.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that upon examination, there were not as many duplicate
people as were originally thought, and the groups as defined will likely work well.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to recommend approval of the
resolution establishing lottery system for the Mound commons dock
application for new applicants for non abutting use, and to recommend
approval of the ordinance change. Motion carried unanimously.
6. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
a. Multiple slip dock objectives and transition
To be discussed at November meeting.
b. Boat size limitations on multiple slip docks
To be discussed at November meeting.
c. Personal Water Craft on multiple slip docks
Mr. Mike Savage, 3125 Highland Boulevard, questioned ifa Sea-Doo is allowed at multiple
dock sites. Specifically, Highland End site.
Commissioner Burma summarized how the personal water craft issue was accepted at
Avalon Park, the pilot program. Abutters have not indicated a problem with the single craft
which is on this dock. Burma's assessment is that the pilot program was a success, and
each area should be looked at individually to determine specific needs.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated no complaints have been received about the personal
water craft, and Mr. Savage has requested the ability to keep this craft on the Highland End
dock throughout the last year.
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
Acting Chair Goldberg stated his concern is that over use of these craft may become a
problem.
Councilmember Hanus agreed that heavy use may create problems in a given area.
Granting the right is easy, taking it away after the fact is near impossible, so caution is
advisable.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested having rules in place to stop abusing the right to keep
these water craft on the docks, if need should arise.
Councilmember Hanus stated enforcement would be unlikely on any rules made.
Park Director Fackler stated that no complaints have been received as yet regarding
personal water craft. If it becomes an issue, and application for dock site does not have
to be renewed. Also, Fackler suggested not addressing the issue on any site until there
is a request for a specific site.
Commissioner Eurich agreed that a request by request basis for sites would be a logical
way to proceed, rather than over regulating right off the bat.
Acting Chair Goldberg suggested determining the maximum number of personal watercraft
which could work at Highland End site, and add them on a trial basis for the next season.
Park Director Fackler stated that the priority would be first come, first served on these
secondary sites so someone already using a site would not lose it until they do not renew
their dock site.
Councilmember Hanus stressed his concern to take it very slowly, giving out these
privileges with extreme caution since they nearly cannot be reversed.
Park Director Fackler stated the next step needs to be to change the ordinance to cover
the addition of these secondary sites.
Consensus was reached that Avalon has worked out well and will be permanent, and
Highland End will begin on a trial basis next year.
Councilmember Hanus stressed that any change to any dock should be noticed to any and
all citizens who are affected at each site.
Commissioner Burma pointed out that in the original motion, this privilege is extended only
to primary dock holders. This needs to be stated in writing in any ordinance amendment.
Acting Chair Goldberg reiterated that the LMCD rules would cover behavior. Also, site by
site upon request is the agreed upon method for proceeding. No additional cost should be
incurred on any dock, and when the 2000 Dock Location Map changes are discussed,
Avalon will have permanent secondary craft sites, and Highland End will be started on a
trial basis.
4
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Eurich, to expand the May 20, 1999
motion, which reads: "to allow for second crafts with a maximum size of 75
square foot, including any protrusions such as motors, or any lift devices
used in this space, with Council dock revisions, approve of a fee of $50.00
along with the applicable LMCD fees, and that staff direct applicants through
the lottery system." Additionally, personal water craft sites are to be held only
by primary dock holders at a designated site; lifts are not allowed for boats,
but are mandatory for personal water craft. Canopies, however, are not
allowed. Motion carried unanimously.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg to extend the
meeting for an additional 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
To be discussed at November meeting.
7. REVIEW: YEAR 2000 DOCK FORMS
To be discussed at November meeting.
8. DISCUSS: 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES
To be discussed at November meeting.
9. DISCUSS: DCAC REPRESENTATIVE FOR PEMBROKE DOCK
CONFIGURATION
Commissioner Burma stated he was the other representative for Pembroke Dock.
10:05 p.m. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Ahrens to extend the
meeting to 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
10. DISCUSS: NOVEMBER DCAC AGENDA
Some
items to be included on the November agenda are:
1. Review: Existing Multiple Slip Dock Locations
2. Discuss: Multiple Slip Docks
a. Multiple slip dock objectives and transition
b. Boat size
c. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
3. Review: Year 2000 Dock Forms
4. Discuss: 2000 Dock Location Map Changes
5. Discuss: Fairview and Devon Lane Access Multiple Docks
6. Public Meeting: Personal Water Craft at Avalon and Highland End
7. New multiple slip dock locations
Mound Dock and Commons Advisory Commission October 21, 1999
Public Land permits
Review 2000 Capital Outlay status/budget
For December DCAC Meeting:
1. Public Meeting: Waterbury and Twin Park Multiple Docks
11.
FYI
A)
B)
c)
D)
E)
F)
G)
LMCD INFORMATION
POSC MINUTES
MONTHLY EVENTS CALENDAR
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APPLICATION OF RICHARD LILLEHEI FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION
DEDICATED COMMONS BREAKDOWN INFORMATION
12. REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
10. ADJOURN
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg, to adjourn the meeting at
10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
November 18, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma
and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
The following public were present: Pat Salden, Tom Eikenberry, Pat Meisel, Paul Glynn,
Carol Burma, Carolyn Schmidt and Andrea Ahrens.
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Burma, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes of
the October 21, 1999 DCAC meeting as amended: Page 2, 2nd to last
paragraph: "...designated temporary it can not now be deleted." Motion
carried 5~0.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as amended: Move item 11D to 3A.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: YEAR 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP
Dock Inspector McCaffrey summarized his recommended changes, which are to remove
dock site 61130 at Ridgewood Park, and to remove dock sites 41407, 41790 and 41956,
leaving dock site 42043 as the only non-abutting dock site on the Roanoke subdivision.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Ridgewood Park site could be saved if a
multiple was there.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey described the situation and it was agreed that a multiple may
not be a good opti'on at this location due to the density of docks and boats.
Chair Funk opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Hearing no public input, Chair Funk closed the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Motion made by Goldberg, seconded by Funk, to approve the Year 2000 Dock
Location map, contingent upon researching and approving the recommended
changes. Motion carried unanimously.
3A. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO DOCKING AREAS
Mayor Pat Meisel was in attendance and addressed the Commission summarizing her
letter in favor of raising the dock fees over the next 3 to 5 years to cover the cost of better
maintenance for all City docks.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 18, 1999
Commissioner Eurich raised some concerns about the tone of the memo being fairly anti-
non-abutter.
Mayor Meisel stated abutters are paying higher taxes, as if they lived directly on lakeshore,
rather than abutting commons land, which is why she suggested raising fees for non-
abutters but not abutters.
Commissioner Burma stated there are certain advantages the abutters have which may
offset the tax difference. Dock fees probably should not reflect anything but the dock
program issues.
Chair Funk stated that he is in agreement that abutters are not treated fairly by the tax
assessments. However, the City should not try to equalize this issue using the Dock
Program.
Commissioner Burma stated he is in agreement on the improvements and maintenance
that is needed, and the dock fees going up is a logical place to get the funds. Details on
whose to raise and how much needs more discussion however.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he is not comfortable with the fees of Mound being so much
lower than surrounding communities, as this seems to aid many abuses of the system.
Commissioner Goldberg suggested putting together a plan of the maintenance and
improvement needed, and set up a plan on how much and how fast the dock fees need
to go up to cover all costs.
Mayor Meisel stated the abutter/non-abutter argument will likely never go away, and the
Commissioners can only try to do what they think will best serve the community as a whole.
Commissioner Burma suggested making the improvement plan an agenda item for the next
meeting. Once this is done, quotes can be obtained and funding options or raising dock
fees can be addressed.
Tom Eikenberry, 4445 Manchester Road, stated he has no problems with a raise in fees,
but would like to see it distributed fairly.
Carolyn Schmidt, 3001 Island View Drive, stated she is in favor of a rate increase, as there
has not been one for many years. The cost, though, should be equal. If some of the taxes
go into the dock program, then it should have an impact. If not, the dock program is it's
own entity.
Carol Burma, 3011 Island View Drive, also stated she would like the fees to be shared
equally.
Consensus was reached to add "Review of an Improvement Plan" to a future agenda,
when staff is able to complete the work involved. This time frame cannot be determined
right now, as it is very weather dependent.
2
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 18, 1999
Commissioner Eurich asked if areas that are high priority and could be worked on this
winter could be brought to the Commission sooner.
Park Director Fackler stated this could be done.
Mr. Eikenberry suggested input from the people who use the slips may also be valuable.
For instance, his site is very shallow and would benefit from some dredging.
Chair Funk asked that different quality options be included in the information from staff
regarding the repair and maintenance.
4. DISCUSS: PERSONAL WATER CRAFT AT AVALON AND HIGHLAND PARK
Commissioner Ahrens summarized the discussion from the last meeting.
Mr. Eikenberry stated he is in favor of the program and believes it is a nice option for
Mound residents.
Councilmember Hanus advised caution in granting 4 permanent spots, noting that
temporary spots can be taken away, if need be, in the future.
Consensus was reached that docksites 405501 and 40550J will be changed to "Secondary
Small Craft" sites. Docksites 40550K and 40550L will be changed to "Temporary
Secondary Small Craft" sites.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Goldberg, to reconsider the motion of
approval of the dock location map. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Funk, to amend the dock location map
by making 2 permanent secondary small craft sites at Avalon, and 2 temporary
secondary small craft sites at Highland. Motion carried unanimously.
5. REVIEW: DOCKING APPLICATIONS FOR THE YEAR 2000
Dock Inspector McCaffrey summarized the new applications and a new cut off date of the
last day of February, which has not been strictly enforced in the past, but now must be for
the lottery system to work. McCaffrey also presented the various letters which will go to
affected people, which were all well received by the Commission.
Commissioner Ahrens questioned if boat registrations consistently come in with the
application.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated if it does not, the application is sent back as incomplete.
Park Director Fackler stated the $7.50 LMCD boat fee could be charged on all applications,
as the LMCD charges the City for all docks, boat or not.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 18, 1999
Consensus was reached that this should be looked at in 2000 and would need to be
presented as an ordinance change on the next agenda.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the dock application
process, with the noted changes regarding cut off date, additional letters, and
the addition of the LMCD boat fee. Motion carried unanimously.
6. REVIEW: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK FAIRVIEW ACCESS
Commissioner Ahrens stated that after reading the LMCD response to reviewing this
setback, he has even less understanding of their regulations. It seems it would be better
to just leave it alone.
Councilmember Ahrens_ was present and provided information to the Commissioners
regarding a conversation she had discussing LMCD regulations. She concurred that there
are too many exceptions to make any rules apply, but a starting point may be:
The first 50' out requires a 10' setback.
After 50', a 15' setback is required.
Multiple docks need to double these requirements.
Other rules were discussed, but even more confusion was the result as the rules almost
always seem to counter each other.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he'd like to leave the Fairview issue alone.
Chair Funk agreed, and consensus was reached to simply continue the process as it is at
present, approaching the LMCD with each individual project.
Commissioner Goldberg stated concern that Mound may soon begin to near or exceed the
BSU amount.
10:00 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the discussion.
Motion made by Burma, seconded by Ahrens to continue the meeting for 10
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Park Director Fackler replied with the actual numbers indicated approximately 30 more
boat/spaces available.
Commissioner Goldberg asked if the number of boats is increasing each year.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated it did increase this year, and this is something to keep an
eye on.
7. REVIEW: EXISTING MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 18, 1999
To be moved to December.
REVIEW: EXISTING MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION AT DEVON LANE
ACCESS
To be moved to December.
DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
a. Multiple slip dock objective and transition.
b. Boat size limitations on multiple slip docks.
c. Personal water craft on multiple slip docks.
d. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
To be moved to December.
10. DISCUSS: DECEMBER DCAC AGENDA
To be
included on the December agenda are:
1. Discuss: Ordinance change regarding LMCD boat fee
2. Item #7 above.
3. Item #8 above.
4. Item #9 above.
5. Review: 2000 Approved Budget
6. Discuss: Priority maintenance and repair projects within the dock program
To be included on the January agenda:
1. Discuss: New multiple slip docks at Waterbury and Twin Park.
11.
FYI
A) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
B) PARK & OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
C) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
D) DRAFT OF POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS TO DOCKING AREAS
E) MUNICIPAL DOCK RENTAL COSTS ON LAKE MINNETONKA
12.
REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission November 18, 1999
10.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Eurich, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Orv Burma; Absent and unexcused: Council
Liaison Bob Brown and Commissioner Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner
Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Klm Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Lora
Bloomquist, Tom Casey, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Klm Gabby, Peter C. Meyer, Linda
Skorseth.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 1999, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mueller stated the following changes to the November 8, 1999, minutes:
Page 5, paragraph 9. "Mueller requested staff to acquire a letter from the City Attorney
regarding zoning code as it deals with joint ownership of commons property which is
privately held."
Page 6, paragraph 4. "Mueller stated, and Voss agreed, there should also be a lot line
rearrangement with the minor subdivision similar to the Jack Cook property which
allowed the lot of record status to be retained by the parties."
Page 9, paragraph 5. "He stated these pipes lack baffles that prevent siltation. Mr.
Parks stated these pipes could be repaired and have baffles on them, but the most
effective way to prevent bad siltation going into Lake Minnetonka is by ponding."
Page 9, paragraph 9. "Brown stated the ballfields referred to by Mr. Meyer have been
sold by the school district and this does not involve the park at this time."
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to accept the November 8,
1999, Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. MOTION
CARRIED: 7-0.
Off the record during break, Mr. Parks suggested throughout the document the words
"prosperous-free" should be changed to "phosphorus-free." He also suggested page
8, paragraph 11 should be changed to state: "Mr. Parks said that a phosphorus-free
ordinance may or may not be more beneficial to lake water quality than buffer zones.
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes-November 22. 1999
Fertilizer and phosphorus will generally not cause water quality problems when
properly applied at proper rates."
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Chair Michael welcomed the public to the hearing.
Mueller stated it is on record from the November 8, 1999, meeting the Planning
Commission has agreed to some concerns the citizens of Mound presented. He stated
the Comprehensive Plan should add wording approved by staff stating the possibility of
a loss asset with respect to the community center school district property and have it
noted to encourage purchase of parkland which could specify the Alwin property.
Mueller stated Mr. Casey brought up the following important facts that should be added
to the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Having the Comprehensive Plan state the deed
restrictions and plat dedications appropriately and (2) having the Plan state the green
area and the Lost Lake as different categories and not park acreage.
Clapsaddle stated, and Mueller agreed, he strongly acknowledges the potential loss of
the park and recreation land and he strongly encourages the City of Mound to make
every effort possible to replace what has been potentially lost.
Gordon stated he has reviewed Mr. Casey's recommendations to the Comprehensive
Plan and is comfortable deciding what shows merit and how to reword the
Comprehensive Plan to include the appropriate suggestions.
Gordon presented his written suggested changes to Mr. Casey's letter to the Planning
Commission.
Mueller suggested Mr. Casey's concern regarding the resolution to purchase particular
property to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mueller understands the
importance of this loss asset to the City of Mound, but he strongly stated the City of
Mound should not adopt a resolution this specific in its Comprehensive Plan.
Clapsaddle stated the resolution at hand should be presented to the City Council and
not the Planning Commission, and he does not disagree with the intent Mr. Casey has
presented.
Gordon stated the Planning Commission does recognize the school district's ownership
of the parcel in question. Gordon stated the parcel of property is shown as medium
density residential.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. She stated she appreciated the Planning
Commission being receptive of the citizens of Mound's concerns. She stated she
would appreciate having the Lost Lake green area on the map to have it reflect a blue
or rust color.
Lora Bloomquist, 5748 Lynwood Boulevard. She stated she appreciates the city
planner putting the parcel in question as medium density with residential. She was
concerned, although, where the access road would be.
Gordon stated the purpose of this plan is to show land use and at this point the plan
does not show access. This is a more detailed observation to address in the future.
Ms. Bloomquist stated a buffer is encouraged between the red retail space and the
surrounding neighborhood at the time of development. Mueller stated the city codes
exist stating a 50-foot buffer must exist in this type of scenario and the City of Mound
will adhere to the codes.
Ms. Bloomquist also questioned the house located on the community center site and
whether this area would be sold off as residential or commercial property. Gordon
stated this issue will be addressed in the future, although, currently the property is
zoned as commercial. Mueller stated this is an issue for the developer to address also.
Ms. Bloomquist questioned the tower location for the lights and whether US West
would deem the location appropriate.
Gary Pettus, works for a competitor of US West. He stated he has dealt with this
situation before and stated this is a school board issue, not a city issue. Evidently, the
developer agreed to the lights and this will remain because of the revenues that are
being generated from the tower and also the restrictions that exist of how many
wireless companies can be on the tower.
Ms. Bloomquist addressed the ownership of the ice arena and it was mentioned the
Pond Association has ownership. She was concerned because her church uses the
parking lot right next to the arena.
Ms. Bloomquist would also recommend keeping the new development area a two-way
street to avoid high traffic speeds.
Ms. Bloomquist asked what the new development is proposed to look like and which
organizations have a say in how it is developed. Councilmember Hanus stated this will
be discussed at the November 23, 1999, meeting from 6:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. and the
Economic Commission and the Planning Commission will express their thoughts in how
development will take place, but a final decision will come from the City Council.
3
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
Mueller stated the proposed rezoning of the downtown visions project will have a
minimum of two stories, but nothing has been approved at this point.
Gary Pettus, 6200, Minnetrista. Mr. Pettus stated he has attended one park
commission meeting, one city council meeting and now one planning commission
meeting and, as an outsider, believes the property that was sold by the school district
to a developer, was inappropriate by a majority of citizens and committee members and
stated the City of Mound should try and regain its ownership in this property. He
thanked the Planning Commission for its time.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Ms. Anderson stated the green space in
question is a much-needed asset for the City of Mound and should be acquired in some
fashion if at all possible.
Chair Michael redirected the public to stay focused on the Comprehensive Plan and
make their recommendations as they seem appropriate.
Ms. Anderson stated she would like to see the Rex Alwin property listed in the
Comprehensive Plan as stated in the noted resolution.
Ms. Anderson also is concerned if residential property is required to be a certain
distance from the tower. Councilmember Hanus stated there is City ordinance
indicates a drop zone and also this is an area of discussion that is regulated mostly by
the Federal government.
Ms. Anderson stated she was concerned the vision project was a minimum of a two-
story development. Gordon stated there would be a range of two and three-story
buildings.
Ms. Anderson would also like the park property on the map to be presented in a blue
color.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer strongly supports Mr. Casey's comments
in his letter presented to the Planning Commission and stated there is statute that
supports listing specific land in a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Meyer thanked the
commissioners for their support with the ideas presented by Mr. Casey in the Surface
Water Management Plan.
Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge. Mr. Casey asked if the Planning Commission had
adequate time to read what he presented in the agenda packet tonight. This would
include pages 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, along with the attachments dealing with statutes
and buffer zones. It was agreed most commissioners had read the mentioned pages.
Mr. Casey stated it is proper to have specific properties mentioned in a land use
section of the Comprehensive Plan according to statutes.
4
Mound Plannincl Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Chair Michael stated he would like to have the resolution go directly to the City Council
and have it reviewed there and then directed back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Casey stated the language was given to the City of Mound and Gordon directed it
to the Planning Commission for review. Gordon stated he forwarded it on to the
Planning Commission first because the Planning Commission is the body that makes
the Comprehensive Plan recommendations to the Council.
Chair Michael questioned the 15-acre site directed as the park site on page 32,
paragraph 8 of the agenda packet. Mr. Casey stated the 15-acre site includes the
entire site.
Mueller disapproved of this section also and stated the words "if necessary" should be
reworded to refer to a statement which does not present a negative attitude in having
the 15-acre property developed.
Mueller stated the corner house near the 15-acre property should be stated as
commercial and should be changed on the map from orange to blue.
Chair Michael suggested Mr. Casey attend the City Council meeting scheduled for
November 23, 1999, to discuss his recommendations of the park space to the
councilmembers at that time. There will also be counsel present which Mr. Casey
should appreciate when asking questions of this nature.
Clapsaddle stated it is not the position of the Planning Commission to have the exact
wording in the Comprehensive Plan. There should be an intent noted and then the
language will be put together by the appropriate staff members.
Mr. Casey continued on to the Surface Water Management Plan. He agreed to have
stricter water restrictions than what the DNR is imposing on the City of Mound.
Mueller stated he will oppose approval of the Surface Water Management Plan at the
meeting tonight because of the lack of information concerning buffers. He stated the
document that currently exists does not read appropriately for the City of Mound and
would appreciate more time to review it before approving the document. Mueller stated
he would consider Mr. Casey's recommendations when the time was appropriate.
Chair Michael asked Gordon if he was comfortable having the Planning Commission
approve some recommendations in Mr. Casey's letter without a document drafted up
tonight for the Planning Commission to approve. Gordon stated Mr. Casey's letter has
some real issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Commission before he
could draft revisions. These issues include: addressing the Rex Alwin property, the
school district property and the Lost Lake area as submitted by the Park and Open
Space Commission. Gordon is comfortable writing up a document knowing the intent is
5
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
to take the document to the City Council for possible adoption but the exact wording
would have to follow later. He restated this is a policy document.
There was discussion amongst commissioners to go through the Comprehensive Plan
page by page tonight and to review Mr. Casey's letter point by point.
Chair Michael stated there is a comfort zone with staff and members to have an intent
to have some notations of future parkland being suggested from the Rex AIwin
property, to put some language to balance the community center to show commercial
up front and the rest as public, and to have notations showing the Lost Lake area
something other than park property.
Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. Mr. Anderson stated the City should
have planned for parks and green space in the City of Mound these past 10 years. He
also stated more time to review the Comprehensive Plan by all citizens and appropriate
committees would have been appreciated by all.
Chair Michael closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Mueller recommended the Comprehensive Plan state the City recognizes the park and
open space commission's recommendations and would strongly encourage the City to
use its power to acquire the 15-acre community site owned by the school district but
that it deem not be "necessary" the full 15-acre be included in this request.
Voss disagreed with Mueller. Voss stated specific property should not be included in
the Comprehensive Plan and what is stated currently in the Comprehensive Plan about
obtaining parks is suitable. He stated the public should approach the school board
about the property they sold to the developer and see if the school board can get it
back.
Mueller stated the Comprehensive Plan does not address acquire park space
appropriately. He stated there should be a section that states if park space is lost than
how will it be obtained back.
Voss stated he does not support the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. He stated with
his experience in this area this document gives too much control to a larger
governmental body and takes away from the City its rights. Voss is concerned the City
of Mound cannot support this Plan financially or economically. He stated he will vote
against the approval of the Comprehensive Plan tonight.
Chair Michael dismissed Mr. Parks and stated the Surface Water Management Plan will
be addressed in the future.
Gordon stated the Metropolitan Council probably may not hold anything against the
City of Mound if the Surface Water Management Plan is not presented with the
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes-.November 22, 1999
Comprehensive Plan. He is not aware of any monies by the Metropolitan Council that
will assist in following through with this Plan when completed.
Gordon stated at a previous Committee of the Whole meeting a capital improvements
plan' is being discussed which will assist in determining what the needs are and their
priorities.
Clapsaddle agreed mostly with Mueller's statement. He would like it stated in the
Comprehensive Plan the potential the school board has of losing the parkland, the
potential problem and serious loss of losing this parkland, and a serious thought of how
the City of Mound can replace this potential loss.
Voss stated the goal section of the Comprehensive Plan already addresses
Clapsaddle's concerns. Voss also stated there were a lot of specifics listed that should
be mentioned in other areas as well besides the parks. Voss is concerned again about
the economic effects of this Plan for the City of Mound.
Chair Michael and Glister are in agreement to not include specifics in the
Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to not include the Surface
Water Management Plan as part of the recommendation for the
Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion.
Gordon stated he anticipated this motion by the Planning Commission. He stated the
Metropolitan Council could hold off approving the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan
until the Surface Water Management Plan is approved and presented, but doesn't
know what the penalties are for the lack of a SWMP.
Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan is a document which affects
everybody individually and the Comprehensive Plan is a more policy-based Plan.
Mueller stated there has not been enough time to review the Surface Water
Management Plan in detail. Mueller does commend the Planning Commission for a job
well done to date.
Gordon recommended if the Planning Commission does not approve the Surface Water
Management Plan solely because of the buffer, then he recommended taking that
section of the Plan out for now and amend it later it the need arises.
Mueller stated besides the buffers there is the phosphorus-free information that needs
to be reviewed and presented more thoroughly to the commissioners. He stated two
months is not enough time to put together an appropriate Surface Water Management
Plan. Mueller will not recommend approval of this Plan tonight.
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
There was agreement that further discussions will include only information referred to
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller recommended the following changes to the Goals and Polices section of the
ComPrehensive Plan.
Mueller stated under Land Use on page 8, number 9 at the top of page should read:
"City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission shall
review and analyze publicly owned land to ensure that it is needed for public
purposes."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to approve the amendment to the
Land Use section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Recreation on page 10, number 6 should read: "Promote a
balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature
conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Recreation section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communication/Information Access section the words
"continue to" where noted in two locations should be removed.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Public Communication/Information Access section noted above. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communications/Information Access number 3 should read
as follows: "Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and
accurate information to assist with decision making through adequate staff and
resources."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to approve the amendment to the
Public Communications/Information Access section amended above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Voss noted that concludes the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Goals and
Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan with the amended changes
above. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes- November 22, 1999
ross reiterated the reason for him voting nay is he does not believe there is sufficient
information of the financial impact on the city this Plan will have, it does not show how
this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local
government.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Natural and
Cultural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Socio-
Economic Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions or
plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific subdivisions."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the amendment to the
Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows:
is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail, office and attached residential
housing."
"It
Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family
residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in
the Land Use section.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended
above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay.
Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the
green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent
of it be white and the top portion be green.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above.
Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the
Land Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered
for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which
should be green.
AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mound Plannincl Commission Minutes-.November 22, 1999
Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the corner of
Lynwood and Commerce which is a public institution to have the corner two pieces
remain red and the remainder change to blue.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Land Use Map involving the property located at Lynwood and
Commerce as stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the Land Use
Section of the Comprehensive Plan as amended. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1,
Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Use.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the Housing Section of
the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated to make no changes to the Park and Recreation Section, but allow the
park and open space commission to make recommended changes to the Park and
Recreation Section at the City Council meeting on November 23, 1999.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the Park and
Recreation Section with comments as noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-
0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the Public Facilities and
Services Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to approve the Transportation
Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Mueller
voting nay.
Voss made the motion to pass the Transportation Section because he was not
concerned about the impact the comments suggested in the Goals and Policies Section
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller opposed this motion because neighborhood roadways should not be
considered "municipal state aid streets." He stated this would increase traffic flow at a
higher speed and a requirement by another governmental body.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the Implementation
Section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
10
Mound Plannin(~ Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Mueller stated the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the
Parks and Recreation portion of the Comprehensive Plan should include input from the
Park and Open Space Committee regarding an immediate potential loss of activity
type-park areas and the immediate potential acquisition of property to replace the loss.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Park and Recreation section as noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 6-
1, Voss voting nay.
Discussion.
Voss asked to elaborate how each Commissioner portrays the Comprehensive Plan.
ross has already stated his position.
Mueller stated does not appreciate the jurisdiction the Metropolitan Council has over
the City of Mound. Mueller stated the Planning Commission has done an adequate job
at reviewing the Plan and commends the Planning Commission for all of their hard
work.
Burma stated the Comprehensive Plan is a Plan the City now has with the potential of
amending or possibly making exceptions to the Plan as the future may permit it.
Glister stated the Comprehensive Plan is now an itinerary and the City will now move
forward.
Hasse passed on stating any thoughts regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Voss stated in favor of having a Comprehensive Plan for the City. He understands the
need for it, but also understands the danger that takes away local government and their
rights. Voss stated he voted against the goals and policies because he did not have
enough information to understand the financial impact to the City of Mound and the
rights of property regarding taxes.
Clapsaddle passed on stating any thoughts regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Casey thanked the Planning Commission for listening to public needs. Mr. Casey
stated the public may not have had adequate review and information regarding the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Michael is discouraged to realize the reason the people are here tonight
discussing the Comprehensive Plan is because of the school board problem. He
recommends the people attend all meetings and it is upsetting when the public does
not follow the meetings. He stated he would like a solution on how to get the public to
attend the meetings.
11
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes - November 22, 1999
Mueller stated the review of the Surface Water Management Plan will still happen and
would like input from Mr. Casey and others. Gordon stated the Surface Water
Management Plan may not move forward until after the new year because there is only
one meeting in December.
INFORMATION:
1. City Council Minutes dated October 26, 1999.
2. Park and Open Space Advisory Minutes dated November 10, 1999.
3. Information received from Tom Casey regarding Comprehensive Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: 7-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.
12
MINUTES?
SPECIAL MOUND ADVISORY P NING COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBE 6, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff M~chael;:Comm~ss~oners: Orv Burma, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, CklamHasse;.M~chael Mueller, Bill Voss (arrived 7:31
p.m.), Frank Weiland. Absent a~d Uhexcused: Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff
present: City Planner Loren ~rd~i,~ Building Official Jon Sutherland, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch.
The following public were present: Marshall Anderson, Tom Casey, Wayne E.
Ehlebracht, Peter C. Meyer, James D. Prosser, Bruce Chamberlain.
Chair Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION
TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. REPORT
PRESENTED BY JAMES PROSSER OF EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jim Prosser stated he is the Financial Advisor retained by the City of Mound to
assist with the project coordination of the redevelopment of Mound. Mr. Prosser
stated his previous experience as the City Manager of Richfield would assist him
greatly with this project. Mr. Prosser stated the City Council and the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority have proposed adoption of a plan for the
redevelopment of downtown Mound. He stated in order to finance a portion of
the cost to redevelop, the City would benefit by using tax increment financing.
He stated the use of tax increment would require the adoption of a development
program and a tax increment financing plan. Mr. Prosser informed those present
the program describes what is going to be redeveloped and the plan describes
how the redevelopment will occur. He stated the Planning Commission is
responsible to review the program and plan to determine it conforms to the
current City of Mound's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Mr. Prosser stated this is just one of several actions that will be presented to the
Planning Commission. He stated a major responsibility by the Planning
Commission would include making decisions regarding the request of
development within each area of the redevelopment, i.e., condition use permits.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes- December 6, 1999
The City Planner stated he prepared a compariscn report using the 1990 version
and the 1999 revised version of the ComprehehsiCe' Plan and showed essentially
the goals and policies section of both documents Were very similar. The City
Planner recommends the Planning Commi,.s. sl%% m~ye for approval to the City
Council stating the Tax Increme~ Finan,¢~';'~] P!~n !~fesented by, Mr. Prosser does
comply with the goals and policieS:§ se~ii~?~f ¢'e City of Mound s Comprehensive
Plan. E ,'? ~ ~.:,~
Mueller asked Mr. Prosser what if~sant to have "an assurance of funding" when
referring to acquisitions in th~SPl~'~';;" Mr. Prosser clarified this statement means
to make sure there is enough f~nds available, either from proceeds from the
development or from other public funds.
Mueller asked Mr. Prosser if interest is considered outside of the district cost
included in the 10 percent. Mr. Prosser stated if there is interest accruing to
expenses outside of the district than "no", interest would not be considered
outside. Mueller confirmed that any interest on funds borrowed by the city for the
project, then the interest on the money would be included as administrative of
the 10 percent and not included in the 90 percent. Mr. Prosser stated only
monies that had been borrowed initially for expenses within the district would this
statement apply. Mueller stated any monies through bonding and interest paid
on the bonds by the City may not be considered an outside fund but would come
out of the 90 percent. Mr. Prosser agreed with Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Prosser stated this situation is used mostly in cases when tax increment
funding is being utilized to write down the land cost of the market value. He
stated you have to fund develop before redevelop. In use of funds, the interest
portion is not considered an outside cost for the district.
Mueller asked if relocation cost is considered outside of the district. Mr. Prosser
stated it is not considered an administrative cost but it is considered a district
cost.
Mueller asked how the financing was going to be issued for substandard
housing. The Building Official stated the City of Richfield was involved with this
same type of scenario, so he felt confident in Mr. Prosser's ability to handle this
question. Mr. Prosser stated it is possible to finance but it also is complicated.
He stated the City of Mound will probably require some upfront funding just like
the City of Richfield.
Mueller asked if $5 million dollars would be enough funds for the project. Mr.
Prosser stated this statement means they will not bond in excess of $5 million
dollars and maybe the City of Mound will not need to bond at all.
Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes -D¢ccrnbcr 6. ] 999
Mueller wanted an example of a tangible proce.ed.;,.by Mr. Prosser and at that
moment one did not come to mind but Mr. Pro~se.r,~ill examine this further.
Chair Michael asked if the ocal cont ibut'o_n is~ pprtion of each one of the items
listed under the use of funds. Mr.. Pross~r ~taf~d ~s an aggregate local
contribution. '~-,, ~ ¢~'~, ~ ;,,,~
Mueller was concerned about hoW~ ,:ffind§~°uld be invested if they were not used
immediately. Mr. Prosser sta{~d th!$~section of a plan is hardly
utilized
but
if
there is no mention of this in a Plan, it cannot be instilled. He stated the City of
Mound has an investment pohcy that is clearly identified and would need City
Council and HRA direction before activated.
Mueller was concerned about a statement concerning estimated impact on other
taxing jurisdictions. Mueller referred to a statement that seems to imply there
could be no construction in a certain district for the next 25 years if there was no
establishment of tax increment funding. Mr. Prosser stated this is a false
statement. Mr. Prosser stated each time there is a proposal, a review will occur
to examine the development and the economics in that area.
Mueller asked why this Plan would have to be modified to capitalize interest on
debt. Mr. Prosser stated if the City would be in a position to issue bon~is and
there was interest occurring on the bonds prior to the actual proceeds being
available to repay the debt. This will just provide for the situation, but not
necessarily go through with it.
Mueller asked if the administrative expenses, such as the City Planner, could be
paid out of the 10 percent of the tax increment funding, as well as funds
expended by staff for upcoming meetings, etc. Mr. Prosser stated this was a
true statement.
There was discussion regarding a statute. It was explained the county may
require the 1999 expenses to be paid by 2/15/00 to qualify under the tax
increment financing program.
Mueller noted the Plan states the bonds must be issued by the City and the City
must acquire the property by December 2002. Mueller would like to know if this
limits the City in any way. He would like it to possibly have the year 2003 rather.
Mr. Prosser stated this does not limit the City but this may need to be modified in
the future. He stated the State does not want this to be left wide open.
Mueller asked how many bonds are we going to need, how long will the process
take, and do we have an adequate timeframe for bonds to be issued. Mr.
Prosser stated he does not know for sure. He stated once the Plan is approved
they will work on different sections of redevelopment. After 2002 if the
Mound Planning Commission Minutes - December 6, I999
redevelopment of the entire area is still not done';{:then the City of Mound may
have to issue bonds and the plan will have to b~e ~ddified. Right now, this is the
maximum the State will issue. Mueller would I~'k(~o know if the City of Mound
should bond early because of the above s~tuat~on~: Mr. Presser recommends not
to bond early for redevelopment.~ l'~ ~ ~ '
Mr. Presser wanted to remind the d6mmis§iofiers that the regulations are from
..... ,~-~'~ ~,~ ~,. !;~
State Legislature which ~s trying to ~tcromanage the whole process. He stated if
this Plan makes sense to the~o~,~Ssioners they are doing well because most
financial advisors find it challenging.
There was discussion regarding the "knock down" provision. Mueller asked if the
City knows of partials that are not going to be involved in the plan, should they
be removed. Mr. Presser stated removing partials at this point would not be a
wise decision. That can be modified at a later date and time.
Mueller asked about use of tax increment funding regarding paying principle and
interest on any loans or advances made to the city by the developer. Mr.
Presser stated this is an example where the developer may provide funds to
acquire property. He stated the HRA would acquire the property at that time.
Mueller asked a question about requirements for a developer. He stated the
Plan says no more than 25 percent of property shall be owned by the City or
HRA without the City having concluded an agreement for the property which is
acquired. Mr. Presser stated this would be a case to use bond proceeds to
acquire property more than 25 percent of the property in the district and without
the agreement, this would not be possible.
Mueller asked what would be considered incompatible land use stated in the
Plan. Mr. Prosser stated a residential use next to a commercial area or a lower
intensity commercial use. The incompatibility would be determined by the
Planning Commission guidelines and practical use guidelines.
Mueller mentioned a clerical error that the plan was not reviewed on the 22nd.
Mueller asked the City Planner what portion of the land use map got adopted by
the City Council on November 23, 1999. The City Planner stated there was no
action taken and the hearing was continued to February 9, 2000. He stated the
plan will come back to the City Council on that date.
Mueller was frustrated to hear there was a special meeting planned tonight to
discuss information pertaining to the tax increment funding plan and how it
relates to the Comprehensive Plan which did not get adopted on November 23,
1999, by the City Council.
Mound Plannin~ Commission Minutes - December 6. )999
The City Planner stated the Planning Commissioo',s changes were largely in
agreement with the City Council, although the ~i!~-,6ouncil would like to see the
Surface Water Management Plan and the iss~§~garding parks completely
reviewed before the Comprehensive Plan js ~i~op['ed. The City Planner stated
the goals and poi'des portions o,f..~,the Comp."~rel~ens~e Plan wi l not change and
this is the portion that is being c~m~e~t~!by~ti:he Tax Increment Financing Plan
ton,ght. /~ ~
Chair Michael asked the City?la~nCrwhy did the Planning Commission need to
meet tonight if everything will~ot'~ done by the end of the year as presumed
earlier. The City Planner did a~sure the Commissioners the final decision
regarding the Comprehensive Plan will occur in February.
Mr. Prosser stated the findings in the Plan and that of the Planning Commission
can be made simultaneously with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He
stated the actions are not dependent on whether or not the city approved the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Prosser stated the plan could state to have the
Comprehensive Plan changed in some fashion which would be consistent to
what the Planning Commission would desire.
Chair Michael asked when the deadline of this Tax Increment Plan was and Mr.
Prosser stated next Tuesday. Chair Michael asked why the deadline was then
and Mr. Prosser stated the Tax Increment Plan will permit us to negotiate
development agreements with a developer and also allow for qualified costs
incurred as part of this redevelopment to be included in part of this plan. Mr.
Prosser stated the Plan would allow expenses to be recaptured as part of this
development.
Mueller asked how can the Planning Commission adopt a Tax Increment
Financing Plan which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan where there is
no approved Comprehensive Plan at this time. Mr. Prosser stated the City
Attorney would say as long as this was approved and consistent with plans
forwarded on to the City Council, this will meet the requirements. Mr. Prosser
stated he would ask the City Attorney to answer this concern by next Tuesday.
Mueller stated any funding that is coming from the tax increment funding can be
used for purchase of a park. Mr. Prosser agreed with this statement.
Mueller asked to have the statement which says the allocated expenses of the
City may be included in the qualifying costs to be located elsewhere in the Plan.
Mr. Prosser thought this was doable.
There was discussions regarding administrative costs of whether they are
considered inside or outside of the district. Mr. Prosser stated the expenses and
can be considered either way. Mueller then asked when administrative
Mound Planning Commission Minutes- December 6. 1999
expenses would not be considered within the district. Mr. Prosser stated
expenses related to the housing program woul~l b~-:bonsidered outside
expenses. ~-'~i
· '
Mueller would hke a statement w!~in t_he'p'[{tn ~haf;S~tates only a portion of the
administrative expenses could go o~ts~de the 8~stnct.
Mueller asked how much of the adminis{~tive costs are spent inside the district.
Mr. Prosser stated the enbre ~10 percent could be spent ~ns~de the district. Mr.
Prosser will consult with the C}t:y:A~orney regarding spending up to 25 percent
outside the district regarding administrative expenses.
Mueller asked how much does the City have to spend out of other funds. Mr.
Prosser stated it is five percent of the actual project costs, and that could be
donated land or terms of improvements made through utility funds. Mueller
stated if improvements were made that would be considered a contribution.
Chair Michael stated the City Council has a meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. so the
Planning Commission meeting would have to adjourn shortly.
Mueller asked since we modified what was sent to include the land use portion to
the City Council including that of the school district property to be in the park
color, should that be included in the tax increment financing district. Secondly,
Mueller questioned the whole area considered for tax increment funding.
The City Planner stated if we evaluate the tax increment plan on the 1990
Comprehensive Plan rather than the revised 1999 Comprehensive Plan, the
goals and policies are largely the same and have not changed. He stated there
are now six goals rather than five. He stated the recreation goals do not address
redevelopment. He stated there is great consistency between the two plans.
Mueller stated in order to better understand the tax increment financing, if the
Planning Commission decides to pass this portion as parks, this should not be
included with the plan.
Bruce Chamberlain commented regarding the district boundary analysis. Mr.
Chamberlain stated there is a great deal to qualify this overall space as a district.
He stated in order to maintain flexibility and provide the greatest return on tax
increment district, he would move forward with the boundaries suggested today.
He stated this does not mean a certain area will qualify or not, but it does provide
flexibility for redevelopment.
Mueller asked what the impact would if the boundaries to the district were
changed and Mr. Chamberlain stated there is no impact. He stated right now the
City does not know if this is going to be redeveloped or not. He stated there
6
Mound Planning Commission Minutes-December 6. 1999
could be a district that does qualify hOWl but it ??.[_s the flexibility if
redevelopment arises. He stated we can spen~l ,~'ffre dollars within the district.
Clapsaddle stated if the development project ~m~ in for the area, it is quite
feasible that it would be park grounds an~ou"'~d b~ied into infrastructures.
Mr. Prosser stated the Planning~.C:.0~mi~si6h ~s not approving all of the plans,
just the appropriate land use s~c[~o~ rvlu~iier stated the Planning Commiss on
· ~. ~
already decided a specific pq~t~oa sl'iould be considered park, therefore, it should
· , ~. ~i~¢?
be removed as d~stnct boundaries-.
Sutherland stated the Planning Commission is not being cut short and was
presented a good introduction of the tax increment funding tonight. He stated if
the Commissioners wish to continue the meeting, they can do so in another room
or table this discussion until December 13th for further discussions.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Clapsaddle to table consideration
to the meeting of December 13, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-1, Glister voting nay.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED. 8-0.
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
November 10, 1999
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Christina Cooper and City
Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and
Secretary Nancy Czajkowski.
Absent were: Commissioners Norman Domholt and John Beise.
1. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 14, 1999 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Casey, seconded by Cooper, to approve the minutes of the
October 14, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously (Abstain -Weycker).
2. APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL OCTOBER 28. 1999 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Cooper, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes of the
Special October 28, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting,
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved with the following amendments:
1. Add item 7A: DISCUSS: REX ALWIN PROPERTY
2. Add item 7B: DISCUSS: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE
4. DISCUSS: PROPOSED PLAY STRUCTURE AT SWENSON PARK
Park Director Fa~-' ~=r
,.K,~, presented the proposed play ~' ' ~"
~,ru,.~ure for Swenson Park, noting the
final decisions regarding color, style, and size would be made at a tater time. He indicated
the estimated cost of the project would be from S30.000 to $35,000. Discussion followed
on possible colors and "'
s~yles.
Commissioner Casey expressed his concern that the public be able to be part of the
process' in making decisions.
Commissioner Cooper stated her concerns regarding safety. Mr. Fackler responded that
any structure to be purchased would meet the existing safety requirements and meet ADA
requirements for access.
City Council Representative Weycker stated her concern regarding the ability to obtain the
funds for this project in this year's budget process.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission November 10, 1999
5. REVIEW: REVIEW 1999 SUMMER PLAYGROUND AND BEACH PROGRAM
Mr. Tim Piepkorn reviewed the 1999 Summer Playground and Beach Program and advised
that he is concerned with retaining staff. Mr. Piepkorn stated organization of the staff and
staff salaries need to be reviewed prior to next season. In addition, Mr. Piepkorn stated
his concerns regarding the storm drain located in the middle of Highland Park. Discussion
followed on how the Commission could be of assistance.
6. REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM
Agenda item tabled until December POSC meeting.
7. REVIEW: DRAFT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Park Director Fackter presented the most recent draft of the Comprehensive Plan for
informational purposes. Discussion followed on the response by the Planning
Commission to the Resolution to Amend the City of Mound Comprehensive Plan
suggested by the Commission.
Commissioner Casey expressed his concern that no specific comments were provided by
the Planning Commission as to their reasons for rejecting the amendment. He further
stated the concern that the Commission delayed the public hearing and was reluctant to
take public comment on this issue.
Discussion followed on what would be the best way to proceed. Consensus was reached
that each person would consider alternative ',anguage to the amendment.
7A. DISCUSS' REX ALWIN PROPERTY
Commissioner Casey presented material on Minnesota Land Trusts. Discussion followed
on how best to proceed. Consensus was reached that although the Commission would
continue to discuss the status of the issue, no further action would be taken at this time.
Individual Commissioners interested in this issue will continue to seek information that may
be helpful to the Commission.
7B. UPDATE: COMMUNITY CENTER GREENSPACE
Agenda item was discussed in conjunction with agenda item 7A.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey to continue the meeting for ten
more minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open ,Space Commission November 10, 1999
8. POSC DECEMBER AGENDA
Some items for the December POSC agenda are:
2.
3.
4.
Update on Budget
Review: Registry Program
Update on Rex Alvin's Property
Review: Final Draft of Comp Plan
FOR YOUR INFORMATION'
City Council Minutes
DCAC Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes
Encroachment Policy Recommendation
Update of the 1999 Capital Outlay Purchases
City of Shorewood Eueka Open Space Preserve
10. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
City Council Representative Weycker stated the City Council is working to obtain prices for
storm water management. She added the Council is working diligently on a flier to be
used in the search for a city manager. She noted the Council will also review the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Park Director
No repoE at this time.
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 10:12
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-166;
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472~0620
December 10,1999
TO: "- Fran
Subject: Y2K
Fran,
pUblic Works will be on Stand-by from 10:O0pm December 31, 1999 to
2:00 am. 1-1-00o Public Works staff will check-in with the Public Works Superintendent
at 10:00 pm. 12-31-99 by telephone or city radio to verify their location.
Greg Skinner
PW Superintendent
cc. Gino
! prinled on recycled paper