The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-03-22PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. i ~ITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of MOUnd, through teamwork and cooperatiOn~ provides at a reasonable needs 9f all citi~s, foS!er~g a safe! attractive and fl°urishing e0mmu.ni!y. AGENDA *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 2. 3. 4. Call meeting to order Pledge of Allegiance Approve agenda, with any amendments Mary Hill Smith, representative to Metropolitan Council, with certificate of award for $1.15M Livable Communities Demonstration Grant for a parking structure in Auditor's Road District, with action on resolution executing the grant agreement, followed by an update of MC initiatives *Consent Agenda *A. Approve minutes: *B. *C. *D. *E. *F. March 8, 2005 regular meeting March 15, 2005 special meeting March 16, 2005 special meeting Approve payment of claims Approve change order for Well #8 Pumphouse Project Approve request by Hennepin County for review of tax forfeited properties Action on resolution accepting bid for 2005 Street Reconstruction Project Approve Planning Commission Cases 1. Case No. 05-03: Jim Hatchett 2138 Centerview Lane Variance - house remodel/addition Recommend approval with conditions 2. Case No. 05-04: Ron Eikanas 6338 Rambler Lane Variance - upper story remodel/addition Recommend approval with conditions 613-623 624-625 626 627 628-642 643-645 646-665 666-674 675-690 691-699 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to three minutes per speaker.) [7. (Concurrent City Council and HRA meetings.) o Public Hearing on Redevelopment Plan with Mound Harbor Renaissance A. Consideration/action on a Resolution Adopting a Redevelopment Plan 700-724 for the Mound Harbor Project Area. (Followed by HRA action on the same matter.) B. Consideration/action on a Resolution Modifying the Tax Increment 725-793 Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 by Eliminating Certain Parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2; and Establishing the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District within the Mound Harbor Project Area, and Adopting a Tax Increment Plan Therefore (Followed by HRA action on the same matter.) 9. (Adjourn HRA meeting.) 10. Consideration/action on internal loan resolution 794 11. Discussion on soils remediation for Lost Lake District 12. Planning Case Review A. Case No. 05-02: Martin Sarenpa 3061 Westedge Road Subdivision exemption - dock parcel subdivision 795-835 13. Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. Minutes: Park and Open Space Commission - March 22, 2005 Planning Commission - March 7, 2005 B. Correspondence: LMC Friday Fax LMCD Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative C. Newsletters: Gillespie Center 836-838 839-843 844-848 849-863 864-867 868 14. Adjourn This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cit~'ofmound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING March 22, 2005 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Mar 22 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Mar 22 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Mar 29 - 6:30 - Annual Reports Apr 7 - 6:00-9:30 - Harbor Wine & Spirits Wine Tasting ]~enefit - Burl Oaks Apr 12 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Apr 12 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Apr 19 - 6:30-8:30 - Workshop: Key Financial Strategies Apr 26 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Apr 26 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting May 14- 8:00-3:00 - Recycling Day- City of Minnetrista June 4 - 3:00-,12:00 - Fire Department Fish Fry and Dance Sept 16 - 6:30-12:00 - Taste of the Lakes - Bayside Event Center Upcoming Absences April 29 - May 3 May 11-13 Sept 24 - 28 Kandis Hanson Kandis Hanson Kandis Hanson Personal time off Conference Conference Ci,ty Hall and Public Safety Admin Offices Closed Feb 21 President's Day 3 0 Memorial Day July 4 Independence Day Photo ID's We are trying to arrange photos for photo id's prior to the April 12 meetings. More to come on that. Met Transit Service to Mound The bus service to Mound continues to be cut back. This doesn't make sense when we are currently making plans for a transit center designed to service Met Transit buses. Please bring this up during our visit with Mary Hill Smith, our Met Council rep. I will be writing a letter and sending it in time for the public hearing. Special Legislation City of Mound staff has engaged Senator Olson and Representative Smith in efforts to acquire funding through legislation for the soil remediation in the Lost Lake District. John Choi, attorney and lobbyist with Kennedy and Graven, will provide a memo in time for the meeting that will summarize that effort. Canine Program Some of you had questions about the inception and financing of the canine program and raised concerns about the decal on the squad car. We are getting a report ready and will send it out via email first, for your responses. If there is need for discussion following that, it will be added to an upcoming agenda. We could not be ready for that discussion in time for this agenda packet. Winetasting Event third wine tasting benefit will be held at Burl Oaks on April 7. The culmination of each event is a debriefing, during which we review all aspects and make adjustments, where needed. It is our hope that through that close scrutiny, we perfect it, resulting in growing our wine sales. HUMAN RESOURCES Parks Maintenance Position winter we advertised and interviewed for the 3¼-year position to assist Parks and Docks. We are currently the backgrounding on Mound resident Derek Ervin. We expect to start him on April 1. The position runs through December. Engineering/Planning Tech We are currently advertising for the Engineering/Planning Tech that will back up Sarah and Carlton, doing site visits, counter work and technical tasks. The position closes on April 4th. We hope to have someone in place in early June. csO/Dock Inspections We are expanding the responsibilities of our CSO job duties to include dock inspections. Starting in mid-May, dock inspections will occur four times per year, as was originally intended. It will be done by a CSO in full uniform, and by boat. The attempt is to eliminate the cheating that we know is currently taking place within our dock program, making the program more available to Mound tax-paying citizens. There will be investigations of fraud, with action to eliminate those who do not qualify for a Mound dock or slip. This stepped up enforcement is needed as we grow our dock system by way of the greenway pier and the MHR town homes. CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION GRANT FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND APPROVING GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program as determined by the Metropolitan Council and is therefore eligible to submit application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the submittal of a Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Application on June 8, 2004; and WHEREAS, an official copy of the 2004 Livable Communities Demonstration Grant Application is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound was awarded a $1.2M Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has prepared a grant agreement and requested execution by the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, hereby accepts the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant and approves the grant agreement with the Metropolitan Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Mound. Adopted by the City Council this 22® day of March. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -613- Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1626 March 11, 2005 City of Mound Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: SG2004-129 Enclosed are two copies of the above referenced grant agreement. Please have both copies signed by the authorized official and return them to me for execution. After execution, I will send you an original for your files. Sin~/rely, Pam Marks Accountant -614- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM GRANTEE: City of Mound GRANT NO. SG004-129 PROJECT: Mound Harbor Renaissance GRANT AMOUNT: $1,150,000.00 FUNDING CYCLE: Fall 2004 COUNCIL ACTION: February 9, 2005 END DATE: June 30, 2007 METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by the Metropolitan Council ("Council") and the Municipality, County or Development Authority identified above as "Grantee." WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.251 creates the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, the uses of which fund must be consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.251 and 473.253 establish within the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund a Livable Communities Demonstration Account and require the Council to use the funds in the account to make grants or loans to municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 or to Counties or Develop- ment Authorities to fund the initiatives specified in Minnesota Statutes section 473.25(b) in Participating Municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is a Municipality participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254, a County or a Development Authority; and WHEREAS, the Grantee seeks funding in connection with an application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant program funds submitted in response to the Council's notice of availability of grant funds for the "Funding Cycle" identified above and will use the grant funds made available under this Agreement to help fund the project identified in the application; and WHEREAS, the Council awarded Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant program funds to the Grantee, subject to any terms, conditions and clarifications stated in its Council Action, and with the understanding that the project identified in the application will proceed to completion in a timely manner and all grant funds will be expended prior to the "End Date" identified above. NOW THEREFORE, in reliance on the above statements and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Grantee and the Council agree as follows: Page 1 of 8 Pages -615- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 Defmition of Terms. The terms defined in this paragraph have the meanings given them in this paragraph unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context. (a) "Council Action" means the action or decision of the governing body of the Metropolitan Council, on the meeting date identified at Page 1 of this Agreement, by which the Grantee was awarded Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds. (b) "County" means Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties. (c) "Development Authority" means a statutory or home rule charter city, a housing and redevelop- ment authority, an economic development authority, or a port authority in the Metropolitan Area. (d) "Metropolitan Area" means the seven-county metropolitan area as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121, subdivision 2. (e) "Municipality" means a statutory or home rule charter city or town participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254. (f) "Participating Municipality" means a statutory or home rule charter city or town which has elected to participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account program and negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the Municipality pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.254. II. GRANT FUNDS 2.01 Total Grant Amount. The Council will grant to the Grantee the "Grant Amount" identified at Page 1 of this Agreement which shall be funds from the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Grantee understands and agrees that any reduction or termination of Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds made available to the Council may result in a like reduction in the Grant Amount made available to the Grantee. 2.02 Authorized Use of Grant Funds. The Grant Amount made available to the Grantee under this Agreement shall be used only for the purposes and activities described in the application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds. A project summary that describes eligible uses of the grant funds as approved by the Council is attached to and incorporated into this Agreement as Attachment A. Grant funds must be used to fund the initiatives specified in Minnesota Statutes section 473.25(b), in a Participating Municipality. Grant funds must be used for costs directly associated with the specific proposed activities and shall not be used for "soft costs" such as: administrative overhead; activities prior to the date of the grant award; travel expenses; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; planning costs, including comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. The Council shall bear no responsibility for cost overruns which may be incurred by the Grantee or others in the implementation or performance of the project activities. Page 2 of 8 Pages -6'16- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM 2.03 Loss of Grant Funds. The Grantee agrees to remit to the Council in a prompt manner: any unspent grant funds, including any grant funds that are not expended prior to the End Date identified at Page 1 of this Agreement; any grant funds that are not used for the authorized purposes; and any interest earnings described in Paragraph 2.05 that are not used for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. For the purposes of this Agreement, grant funds are "expended" prior to the End Date if the Grantee pays or is obligated to pay for expenses of eligible project activities that occurred prior to the End Date and the eligible expenses were incurred prior to the End Date. Unspent or unused grant funds and other funds remitted to the Council shall revert to the Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account for distribution through application processes in future Funding Cycles. The Grantee agrees to comply with any "business subsidy" requirements of Minnesota Statutes sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 that apply to the Grantee's expenditures or uses of the grant funds. 2.04 Payment Request Forms and Disbursements. The Council will disburse grant funds in response to written disbursement requests submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Council's authorized agent. Written disbursement requests shall be made using payment request forms, thc form and content of which will be determined by the Council. Disbursements prior to the performance of a project activity will be subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Council's authorized agent and the Grantee. Subject to verification of each payment request form and approval for consistency with this Agreement, the Council will disburse a requested amount to the Grantee within two (2) weeks after receipt of a properly completed payment request form. 2.05 Interest Earnings. If the Grantee earns any interest or other income from the grant funds received from the Council under this Agreement, the Grantee will use the interest earnings or income only for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. 2.06 Effect of Grant. Issuance of this grant neither implies any Council responsibility for contamination, if any, at the project site nor imposes any obligation on the Council to participate in any pollution cleanup of the project site if such cleanup is undertaken or required. III. ACCOUNTING, AUDIT AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS 3.01 Accounting and Records. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete accounts and records relating to the receipt and expenditure of all grant funds received from the Council. Notwithstanding the expiration and termination provisions of Paragraphs 4.01 and 4.02, such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained by the Grantee for a period of six (6) years following the completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or six (6) years following the expenditure of the grant funds, whichever occurs earlier. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 3.02 Audits. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee are audited and may be audited or inspected on the Grantee's premises or otherwise by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council at any time, following reasonable notification to the Grantee, for a period of six (6) years following the completion of the project activities or six (6) years following the expenditure of the grant funds, whichever occurs earlier. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 16C.05, subdivision 5, Page 3 of 8 Pages -617- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM the books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Grantee that are relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the Council and either the Legislative Auditor or the Sate Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six (6) years. 3.03 Report Requirements. The Grantee will report to the Council on the status of the project activities described in Attachment A and the expenditures of the grant funds. Submission of properly completed payment request forms required under Paragraph 2.04 will constitute periodic status reports. The Grantee also must complete and submit to the Council within sixty (60) days after the termination or expiration of this Agreement a final monitoring and evaluation report, the form and content of which report will be determined by the Council. This reporting requirement shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 3.04 Environmental Site Assessment. The Grantee represents that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or other environmental review has been or will be carried out, if such environmental assessment or review is appropriate for the scope and nature of the project activities funded by this grant, and that any environmental issues have been or will be adequately addressed. IV. AGREEMENT TERM 4.01 Term. This Agreement is effective upon execution of the Agreement by the Council. Unless terminated pursuant to Paragraph 4.02, this Agreement terminates on the "End Date" identified at Page 1 of this Agreement and ALL GRANT FUNDS NOT EXPENDED BY THE GRANTEE PRIOR TO THE END DATE SHALL REVERT TO THE COUNCIL. 4.02 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by the Council for cause at any time upon fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice to the Grantee. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any amendments of this Agreement. If this Agreement is terminated prior to the End Date, the Grantee shall receive payment on a pro rata basis for eligible project activities described in Attachment A that have been completed prior to the termination. Termination of this Agreement does not alter the Council's authority to recover grant funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Grantee's obligation to return any grant funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. If the Council determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the applicable provisions of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Council may take any action to protect the Council's interests and may refuse to disburse additional grant funds and may require the Grantee to return all or part of the grant funds already disbursed. 4.03 Amendments and Extensions; The Council and the Grantee may amend this Agreement by mutual agreement. Amendments or extensions of this Agreement shall be effective only on the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Grantee. The End Date may be extended beyond the original End Date identified at Page 1 of this Agreement if, AT LEAST THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE END DATE, the Grantee's authorized representative submits a written extension request that: (a) states the reason for the extension request; (b) identifies a new completion date, which shall not exceed one year beyond the original End Date; and (c) describes in reasonable detail any proposed changes to the project activities and budget. TIlE END DATE MAY BE EXTENDED ONLY ONCE. THE PERIOD OF Page 4 of 8 Pages -618- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM THE ONE-TIME EXTENSION SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE (1) YEAR BEYOND THE ORIGINAL END DATE IDENTIFIED AT PAGE 1 OF THIS AGREEMENT. Any additional extension requests from the Grantee must be approved by the ~overning body of the Metropolitan Council. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 Equal Opportunity. The Grantee agrees it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, disability, sexual orientation or age and will take affirmative action to insure applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training. 5.02 Conflict of Interest. The members, officers and employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable state statutory and regulatory conflict of interest laws and provisions. 5.03 Liability. Subject to the limitations provided in Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Council and its members, employees and agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the conduct or implementation of the project activities funded by this grant, except to the extent the claims, damages, losses and expenses arise from the Council's own negligence. Claims included in this indemnification include, without limitation, any claims asserted pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), Minnesota Statutes chapter l15B, the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, United States Code, title 42, sections 9601 et seq., and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended, United States Code, title 42, sections 6901 et seq. This obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which otherwise would exist between the Council and the Grantee. The provisionS of this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This indemnification shall not be construed as a waiver on the part of either the Grantee or the Council of any immunities or limits on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, or other applicable state or federal law. 5.04 Acknowledgments. The Grantee shall acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Council in promotional materials, press releases, reports and publications relating to the project activities described in Attachment A that are funded in whole or in part with the grant funds. The acknowledgment should contain the following language: Financing for this project was provided by the Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Until the project activities funded by this Agreement are completed, the Grantee shall ensure the above acknowledgment language, or alternative language approved by the Council's authorized agent, is included on all signs located at project or construction sites that identify project funding partners or entities providing financial support for the project. Page 5 of 8 Pages -619- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM 5.05 Permits, Bonds and Approvals. The Council assumes no responsibility for obtaining any applicable local, state or federal licenses, permits, bonds, authorizations or approvals necessary to perform or complete the project activities described in Attachment A. 5.06 Subgrantees, Contractors and Subcontractors. The Grantee shall include in any subgrant, contract or subcontract for project activities appropriate provisions to ensure subgrantee, contractor and subcontractor compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and this Agreement. Along with such provisions, thc Grantee shall require that contractors and subcontractors performing work covered by this grant comply With all applicable state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. 5.07 Stormwater Discharge Requirements. If any grant funds are used for urban site redevelop- ment, the Grantee shall at such redevelopment site meet or require to be met: (a) all requirements of federal and state law relating to stormwater discharges including, without limitation, any applicable requirements of Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, parts 122 and 123; and (b) any additional requirements of the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies (1992) including, without limitation: (1) the requirement to utilize the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's urban best management practices entitled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas; and (2) the requirement that all stormwater must be pretreated by facilities designed to provide pollutant removal efficiencies equal to or greater than those observed in wet-detention basin facilities designed in accordance with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria. 5.08 Authorized Agent. Payment request forms, written reports and correspondence submitted to the Council pursuant to this Agreement shall be directed to: Metropolitan Council Attn: LCA Grants Administration Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 or such other address as may be designated by the Council. 5.09 Warranty of Legal Capacity. The individuals signing this Agreement on behalf of the Grantee and on behalf of the Council represent and warrant on the Grantee's and the Council's behalf respectively that the individuals are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on the Grantee's and the Council's behalf respectively and that this Agreement constitutes the Grantee's and the Council's valid, binding and enforceable agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Council have caused 'this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This Agreement is effective on the date of final execution by the Council. Page 6 of 8 Pages -620- DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM GRANTEE By Title Date By Title Date METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By Date Director, Housing and Livable Communities SG004126 02/05 Page 7 of 8 Pages -621 - DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDS This attachment comprises this page and the succeeding page(s) which contain(s) a summary of the proposed project identified in the application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds submitted in response to the Council's notice of availability of Demonstration Account grant funds for the Funding Cycle identified at Page 1 of this Agreement. The summary reflects the proposed project for which the Grantee was awarded grant funds by the Council Action, and may reflect changes in project funding sources, changes in funding amounts, or minor changes in the proposed project that occurred subsequent to application submission. The application is incorporated into this Agreement by refereflce and is made a part of this Agreement as follows. If the application or any provision of the application conflicts with or is inconsistent with the Council Action,, other provisions of this Agreement, or the project summary contained in this Attachment and the project summary shall prevail. For the purposes of resolving conflicts or inconsistencies, the order of precedence is: (1) the Council Action; (2) this Agreement; (3) the project summary; and (4) the grant application. Page 8 of 8 Pages -622- Applicant: Mound Project Name: Mound Harbor Renaissance Recommended Funding Amount: $1,150,000 Project Description: This is a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly district implementation plan for downtown Mound, phased with: · Main street style multistory buildings with retail on street and offices or housing above, & angled parking · New housing choices, with mix of incomes including senior cooperative apartments, rowhouse townhomes and loft/apartment style condos · New greenway, trails, traditional streets with sidewalks · Central public parking and park/ride lot with custom shelter easily accessed from Hwy 110 & CSAH 15 · Reclamation of Lost Lake canal to Lake Minnetonka & adding public dock and boat slips · Stormwater management which uses rain gardens, filtration ponds, ere to filter runoff Funding Requested/Funding Recommended: Total Requested: $2,480,000 Total Recommended: $1,150,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 Construction of 2-level parking deck - Auditor's Road $1,250,000 -0- Construction of 2-1evel parking deck - T.V. District $80,000 , -0- Relocate Well House Development Timeline: Auditor s Road Structured Parking Deck Ma), 2006 - may begin in 2005 December 2006 -623- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 8, 2005 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Acting Mayor David Osmek; Councilmembers John Beise and Mike Specht. Member Absent: Mayor Pat Meisel and Councilmember Bob Brown Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which even the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open Meeting Acting Mayor Osmek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Aqenda MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent Ac~enda MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to approve the consent agenda. vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. *A. *B. *C. *D. *E. *F. Upon roll call Approve minutes of the February 22, 2005 and February 28, 2005 meetings Approve payment of claims in the amount of $178,556.73. RESOLUTION NO, 05-37: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS TO DESIGN, BID, AND CONSTRUCT NEW WATER TOWER AT WELL #3 ON CHEATEU LANE ORDINANCE #04-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 700.25 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 05-38: RESOLUTIONO AUTHORIZING MOUND BAY PARK TRAILER PARKING RESTRICTIONS Approve 2005 Dock Location Map changes 1 -624- Mound City Council Minutes - March 8, 2005 5. Comments and Su.qflestions from citizens present on any item not on the aqenda. None were offered. Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. Minutes: LMCD Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative B. Newsletters: Update on Northstar Commuter Rail LMCD C. Reports: Harbor Wine & Spirits - Feb. 2005: Osmek commented that February of 2005 showed $131,628 in sales, compared to February of 2004 sales of $114,914. This is evidence that the liquor store is making progress. LMC - Renew the Partnership Lost Lake (& Maxwell) Clean-up Timeline D. Correspondence: Mediacom Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Friday Fax Board of Hennepin County Commissioners 7. Adjourn MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to adjourn at 7:33 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 2 -625- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 15, 2005 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. in the Mound Public Safety Facility. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mike Specht, John Beise, and David Osmek. Others Present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Public Works Director Carlton Moore, Public Works Superintendent Greg Skinner, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Police Chief Jim Kurtz, Fire Chief Greg Pederson, Liquor Store Manager John Colotti, Finance Director Gino Businaro, John McKinley 1. Open Meetin_cl Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 6:0 p.m. 2. Staff Presentation Establishing Roles in Emergency Events Fire Chief Pederson, Police Chief Kurtz, and Lieutenant McKinley headed the presentation. A tornado scenario was given and staff, along with the Council, reviewed their roles and actions during this emergency. 3. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -626- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTE5 MARCH 16, 2005 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mike Specht, John Beise and David Osmek. Others Present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Attorney John Dean 1. Open MeetinR Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Discussion/Consideration of Policies Discussion took place around communications protocols as far as media contacts and letters to the editor, as well as meeting protocol as it has to do with adding items to the agenda, public forum, solicitation of comments from the audience, acknowledgement of persons that wish to speak when not in public hearing, handling of persons interjecting from the audience without acknowledgement, length of comments at a public hearing, and members of the council addressing from the podium (including during campaign season). 3. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -627- MARCH 22, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 030905S U E$676.48 MAR 031605SUE $13,459.41 MAR 031705SUE $256.50 MAR 032205SUE $161,168.60 MAR TOTAL $175,560.99 -628- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound o /16io5 2:2 PM Page 1 Payments Batch Name 032205SUE User Dollar Amt Payments Computer Dollar Amt Refer 32205 3M COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials Invoice SS34638 3/22/2005 PO 18393 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials Invoice SS34637 3/22/2005 PO 18393 Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials Invoice SS34639 3/22/2005 PO 18393 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 $161,168.60 $161,168.60 $0.00 In Balance FILM FOR SIGN MACHINE FILM FOR SIGN MACHINE FILM FOR SIGN MACHINE Wells Fargo 10100 $201.86 $415.35 $416.37 Total $1,033.58 Refer 32205 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY, IN Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REPAIR WATER PUMP #195 $3,098.t5 Invoice 0100746-1N 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,098.15 Refer 32205 ADVANCED GRAPHIX, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101-42110-500 Capital Outlay FA #848 STRIPE $404.32 Invoice 9351 3/22/2005 PO 18719 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $404.32 Cash ~ ~-~~Sup~y ' VEHICLE INSPECTION BOOKS $101.17 Invoice 504630 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $101.17 Refer 32205 ARCTIC GLACIER PR~Miu~iCE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $45.99 Invoice 463506806 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $45.99 Refer 32205 ASSURED SECURITY Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings PASSAGE SET OF LOCKSET $96.83 Invoice 35752 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $96.83 Refer 32205 BANYON DA TA SYSTEMS Cash Payment E 101-41500-434 Conference & Training SEMINAR $140.00 Invoice 12361 3/22/2005 PO 18879 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training SEMINAR $23.34 Invoice 12361 3/22/2005 PO 18879 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training SEMINAR $23.33 invoice 12361 3/22/2005 PO 18879 Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training SEMINAR $23.33 Invoice 12361 3/22/2005 PO 18879 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 32205 BELLBOY CORPORATION :ash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $817.30 32574700 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,081.25 Invoice 32591100 3/22/2005 -629- CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 39678500 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 32624800 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 32666100 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Refer 32205 BERDI, DOUGLAS Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Transaction Date City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 2 Payments E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE LIQUOR LIQUOR G 101-23030 5028 Enchanted #05-01 3/22/2005 3/15/2005 $77.30 $1,149.40 $1,028.30 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,153.55 REFUND ESCROW $420.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $420.00 Refer 32205 BERENT, BRIAN Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 04-02-05 DULUTH ON-SCENE FIRE $305.00 INVESTIGATION Invoice 032205 3/20/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $305.00 Refer 32205 BEST BUY COMPANY Cash Payment E 281-45210-307 Admin/Finance/Compute DATA BASE PRO SOFTWARE $74.54 Invoice 006902667 3/22/2004 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $74.54 Refer 32205 BFI OF MINNESOTA, INC. Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $37.52 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $37.52 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $38.53 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42110-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $91.56 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $91.56 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $19.42 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $22.15 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos $93.00 Invoice 03225 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $431.26 Casl~ Payment E 101-41910-220 RepaidMaint Supply COMPACT FLUORESCENT BULBS $120.35 Invoice 94268367 312212005 PO 18902 Transaction Date 3/15~2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $120.35 Refer 32205 BRYAN RQCK PRQDUCTS Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/4 MINUS (CL2) $1,356.77 Invoice 032205 312212005 Transaction Date 3~8~2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,356.77 Refer 32205 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREN T 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE STREET CANS 02-05 GARBAGE SERVICE -630- City of Mound 03/16/05 2:2{5 PM --~'"~- ........ " Page 3 Payments CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Transaction Date 3/14/2005 Wells Fargo Refer 32205 CARGIL SAL T DIVISION Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK SALT Invoice 1273167 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 3/22/2005 PO 18819 E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 3/22/2005 PO 18819 INTOXILYZER RECERTIFICATION.NICCU M INTOXILYZER RECERTIFICATiON, SWANSON 10100 Total $45.00 $45.OO $90.00 $1,271.43 10100 Total $1,271.43 Refer 32205 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials COUPLER PLUG $4.98 Invoice N50206 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials WHEEL NUTS $8.42 Invoice N50185 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply ANTI-FREEZE $13.11 Invoice N48463 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply BATTERY CLIP $I .44 Invoice N50114 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts COUPLER PLUG $4.80 Invoice N50207 3/22/2005 ;ash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts FUEL/WATER SEPARATOR $31.82 N50464 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $64.57 Refer 32205 CA T AND FIDDLE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $382,40 Invoice 40360 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $71.00 Invoice 40359 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $453.40 Refer 32205 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-000-053-000 $306.07 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities $802.96 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities $1,261.92 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities $528.01 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities $528.01 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities $528.02 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities $503.37 Invoice 032206 3/22/2005 r ansaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,458.36 ~Refer 322% CENTRAL MOGOWAN ,NcoRpOR Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 5 YR CYLINDER AGREEMENT $530.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18797 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-001-095-800 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-001-853-000 01-21-05 TH RU 02-21-05 #543-001-972-603 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-001-972-603 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-001-9725-603 01-21-05 THRU 02-21-05 #543-004-818-801 -631 - CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Transaction Date City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 4 Payments E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 5 YR CYLINDER AGREEMENT $530.00 3/22/2005 PO 18797 E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 5 YR CYLINDER AGREEMENT $530.00 3/22/2005 PO 18797 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,590.00 Refer 32205 CHADWICK AND MERTZ Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 02-05 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $5,273.20 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,273.20 Refer 32205 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $7.05 Invoice 01-31-05 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair FLAP,WIRE MOUNT BRACKET $12.77 Invoice D303057 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair 4-WIRE KIT $9.57 Invoice D303061 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TERM GM 56 SERIES MA $2.65 Invoice D303175 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair FUEL CART,OIL,ETC $236.36 Invoice D303590 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair SNOW BLADE,TAIL LAMP $61.73 Invoice D303685 3~8~2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair RETURN GTW-12" STRAIG -$33.00 Invoice D303709 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair HERCULINER KIT $94.76 Invoice D303879 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair UPHO CLEANER $4.25 Invoice D303980 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair COMMERCIAL BATTERY $110.71 Invoice D304706 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BOARD CHARGE $35.13 Invoice D304707 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 RepaidMaint Supply fitting assr $5.31 Invoice D306889 3/8/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts #190 POLY COG BELT $38.33 Invoice D306863 3/8/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $585.62 Refer 32205 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $273.60 Invoice 81380160 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $273.60 Refer 32205 COLLISION CORNER Cash Payment E 101-42110-500 Capital Outlay FA #847 EYEBROW TINT $67.00 Invoice 4421 3/22/2005 PO 18737 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $67.00 Refer 32205 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING Cash Payment E 101-45200-232 Landscape Material SAND BLANKET BLUFFS/CHESTER PARK $1,390.00 Invoice 2282 3/22/2005 -632- CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 3/15/2005 City of Mound 03/ 6/05 2:25 PM Page 5 Payments Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,390.00 Refer 32205 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN Cash Payment E 401-43103-300 Professional Srvs 03-04-05 LEGAL AD $135.34 Invoice 2846068 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 401-43103-300 Professional Srvs 02-25-05 LEGAL AD $135.34 Invoice 2831431 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $270.68 Refer 32205 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-05 COPIER MAINTENANCE $340.80 Invoice 57897-B 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $340 ~80 Refer 32205 CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING, INC. Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts VIBRATORS - CONCRETE $1,116.12 Invoice 36357 3/22/2005 PO 18799 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,116.12 Refer 32205 DAWES WATER EQUIPMENT Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply METER $201.05 Invoice 3276350 3/22/2005 PO 18788 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply BALANCE DUE $0.07 Invoice 3275364-B 3/22/2005 Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts METER $373.39 Invoice 3277565 3/22/2005 PO 18798 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $574.51 Refer 32205 DA Y DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $165.80 Invoice 304015 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $165.80 Refer 32205 E-Z RECYCLING Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 03-05 CURBSlDE RECYCLING $8,326,48 Invoice 7748 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,326.48 Refer 32205 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,354.95 Invoice 226673 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,554.05 Invoice 226762 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale CREDIT-BEER -$6,100.00 Invoice 225602-B 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,910.10 Invoice 226174 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,626.50 Invoice 226497 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,034.50 nvoice 226415 3/22/2005 Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $232.68 Invoice 48767 3/22/2005 -633- City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 6 Payments CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $148.67 Invoice 226586 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $84.00 Invoice 47306 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,919.30 Invoice 226338 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,764.75 Refer 32205 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Cash Payment G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 02-05 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $3,937.50 Invoice 23649 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 401-45200-300 Professional Srvs 02-05 MARINA PROJECT $262.50 Invoice 23650 3/22/2005 Project 00002 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,200.00 Refer 32205 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 02-16-05 THRU 02-28-05 WELL #8 $611.50 PUMPHOUSE Invoice 00-6967 3/22/2005 Project PW0506 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $611.50 Refer 32205 EXTREME BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $32.00 Invoice 285278 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32,00 Refer 32205 GARY'S DIESEL SERWCE Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery HEATER MOTOR,BLOWER MOTOR $200.16 Invoice 66474 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery ADAPTER $77.89 Invoice 66280 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $278.05 Refer 32205 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $4,314.25 Invoice 71075 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,314.25 Refer 32205 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $106.77 Invoice 202103 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $336.37 Invoice 201845 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $292.53 Invoice 198744 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,653.42 Invoice 198743 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,389.09 Refer 32205 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals CONTAINERS (4) $20.00 Invoice DM114869 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 -634- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 7 Payments Current Period: March 2005 Refer 32205 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO Cash Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals 02-05 RADIO LEASE $1,424.72 Invoice 25028027 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,424,72 Refer 32205 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Cash Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs 2005 PROCESSING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $589.25 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/1512005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $589.25 Refer 32205 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I Cash Payment E 401-46377-300 Professional Srvs 02-05 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE $330,00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 02-05 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE $1,275.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 02-05 MISC PLANNING $891.37 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 02-05 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $4,135.38 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 02-05 MOUND VISIONS $140.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/16/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,771.75 32205 HOME DEPOT/GECF Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA PAINT #1604 STERLING ACTERRA $56~83 Invoice 025164/1046579 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials RATCHETTIE $19.87 Invoice 3015293 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials RATCHETTIE $19.87 Invoice 3015293 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials RATCHET TIE $19.86 Invoice 3015293 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply TREATED LUMBER $180.73 Invoice 008748/9012246 3/22/2005 PO 18900 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $297.16 Refer 32206 INFRA TECH Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts YELLOW TRACTOR CABLE $104.64 Invoice 05011137 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply TRAX CLEAT DBL DRILLED $37.58 Invoice 0501209 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $142.22 Ref;r 32205 IN~°XIMETERS INcorPORATED Cash Payment E 101-42110-218 Clothing and Uniforms MOUTHPIECES $191.70 Invoice 163488 3/22/2005 PO 18818 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $191.70 Refer 32205 ISLAND PARK SKELL Y Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #6416 COMPUTER SCAN $103.86 nvoice 17871 3/22/2005 ;ash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #847 OIL CHANGE $26.66 Invoice 18079 3/22/2005 -635- City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM ~.-~ .......... ----*..~ Page 8 ,/ Payments CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 18040 Cash Payment Invoice 18114 Cash Payment Invoice 18042 Cash Payment Invoice 17962 Transaction Date E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #845 ROTOR DISK $143.00 3/22/2005 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #844 BRACKET,STRUT $217.12 3/22/2005 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #844 BATTERY,THERMOSTAT $370~86 3/22/2005 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #840 ROTOR DISK $165.86 3/22/2005 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,027.36 Refer 32205 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$4.82 Invoice 1738735-B 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$99.30 invoice 1823879-B 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $751.86 Invoice 1867257 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $709,54 Invoice 1867253 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $443.25 Invoice 29+8365 3~22~2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $26.25 Invoice 1867255 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $204.15 Invoice 1867256 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $181.35 Invoice 1864097 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $348.95 Invoice 1864098 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $285.00 Invoice 1864099 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,471.39 Invoice 1864100 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,317.62 Refer 32205 JUBILEE FOODS Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous 03-03-05 COUNCIL COOKIES $57.90 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3~7~2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $57.90 Refer 32205 KUEHN, JAMES Cash Payment R 281-00000-34725 Dock Permits REIMBURSE SHARE FEE $150.00 Invoice 032205 3~22~2005 Cash Payment R 281-00000-34725 Dock Permits REIMBURSE LATE FEE $25.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment R 281-00000-34705 LMCD Fees REIMBURSE LMCD FEE $7.50 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $182.50 Refer 32205 LAKER NEWSPAPER Cash Payment G 101-23027 3061 Westedge,Serempa Su 03-05-05 PUBLIC NOTICE $35.82 Invoice 3505 3/22/2005 -636- CITY OF I~OUND Transaction Date 3/14/2005 City of Mound 0 i 0/05 2:25 PM Page 9 Payments Current Period: March 2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35,82 Refer 32205 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising ADVERTISING $285.00 Invoice 00107825 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $285.00 Refer 32205 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 11-09-04 GREENWAY PROJECT $1,003.00 Invoice 17890 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 3/16/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,003.00 Refer 32205 LHB ENGINERS AND ARCHITECTS Cash Payment G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 02-05 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE $2,002.60 Invoice 000005 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 311612005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,002.60 Refer 32205 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,059.10 Invoice 772424 3~22~2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $17.60 Invoice 772425 3~22~2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $100.00 r~voice 770851 3~22~2005 action Date 311512005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,176.70 Refer 32205 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-17-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $158.00 Invoice 15414 312212005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-17-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $22.30 Invoice 15418 312212005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-21-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $29.00 Invoice 15428 312212005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-24-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $135.00 Invoice 15449 3~22~2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-28-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $16.00 Invoice 15458 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 311512005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $360.30 Refer 32205 MATHESON CABINETS Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA CABINETS,WHITE MELAMINE $1,900.00 Invoice 1066 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 31812005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,900.00 Refer 32205 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 04-05 WASTEWATER $42,762.78 Invoice 791950 312212005 Transaction Date 311412005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $42,762.78 Refer 32205 MINNESOTA LABOR AND INDUST ,Sash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 03-10-05 CERTIFY BOILER $6.67 qvoice B42351R0581851 312212005 Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 03-10-05 CERTIFY BOILER $6.67 Invoice B42351R0581851 312212005 -637- City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM -,-~-~ ..... '"- Page 10 /l Payments CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment E 602.49450-230 Shop Materials 03-10-05 CERTIFY BOILER $6.66 invoice B42351R0581851 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 Refer 32205 MINNESOTA PUBLISHING Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 03-05 ADVERTISING $90.00 invoice 2024 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 Refer 32205 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIA TIO Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 03-05 FIRE RELIEF $9,883.33 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,883.33 Refer 32025 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals 04-05 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE $850.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/16/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $850.00 Refer 32205 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 02-09-05 CONCRETE $528.35 Invoice 103460 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 02-10-05 CONCRETE $620.31 Invoice 103493 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 02-11-05 CONCRETE $265.11 Invoice 103523 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,413.77 Refer 32205 NAVARRE CITGO Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels THRU 03-07-05 GASOLINE CHARGES $39.30 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $39.30 Refer 32205 NEWMAN SIGNS Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials INTERNAL W/HOOD $283.17 Invoice TI-0136429 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101.43100-226 Sign Repair Materials BLANK SHEETS $62.41 Invoice TI-0137574 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $345.58 Refer 32205 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl Cash Payment E 101.42110-321 Telephone & Cells 01-27-05 THRU 02-26-05 $256.07 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $256.07 Refer 32205 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply STANDARD ASSEMBLY $23.42 Invoice 58757 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $23.42 Refer 32205 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $719.31 Invoice 8063203 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $719.31 -638- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 11 Payments Refer 32205 PHILLIPS WlNE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$13.46 Invoice 0820792-B 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $713.60 Invoice 2174482 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,183,60 Invoice 2174483 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$13.46 Invoice 3313817 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $102.00 Invoice 2172166 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $410.50 Invoice 32832+8 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,382.78 Refer 32205 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $98.90 Invoice 50851 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $98.90 Refer 32205 PROLA WNS ON THE LAKE Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2005 FERTILIZATION/VVEED CONTROL $99.00 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18568 Payment E 101-42110-460 Janitorial Services 2005 FERTILIZATIONANEED CONTROL $157.50 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18568 Cash Payment E 222-42260-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 2005 FERTILIZATION/WEED CONTROL $157.50 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18568 Cash Payment E 101-45250-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2005 FERTILIZATION/WEED CONTROL $936.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18568 Cash Payment E 101-45200-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2005 FERTILIZATIONANEED CONTROL $4,895.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 PO 18568 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,245.00 Reier '~2~0~ QUA~iT~wI~E:~ND SPiRiT~ Gash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $387.98 Invoice 525561-00 3~22~2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,538.35 Invoice 525042-00 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $741.21 Invoice 522636-00 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $324.94 Invoice 522148-00 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,992.48 Refer 32205 QUAM, BRUCE AND SALLY Cash Payment R 101-00000-34110 Depot Rental Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 ~efer 32205 Payment R 281-00000-34725 Dock Permits Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 REFUND DEPOT $75.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $75.00 REIMBURSE LIGHT FEE $10.50 -639- CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 3~8~2005 City of Mound Payments 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 12 Current Period: March 2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.50 Refer 32205 ROBERTS, COLLETTE Cash Payment E 101-41500-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE EXCEL SEMINAR $59.00 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/7/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $59,00 Refer 32205 ROLYAN BUOYS Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow BUOYS $500.00 Invoice 3516064 3/22/2005 PO 18569 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply BUOYS $41.55 Invoice 3516064 3/22/2005 PO 18569 Transaction Date 3~8~2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $541.55 Refer 32205 SCHARBER AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair LOCK NUTS,SCREWS,ETC $49.66 Invoice 02-2045935 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts OIL FILTER $38.38 Invoice 01 330578 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $88.04 Refer 32205 SCHWAAB, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-42400-210 Operating Supplies SELF-INK STAMPS $92.66 Invoice S22551 3~22~2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $92.66 Refer 32205 SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS, IN Cash Payment E 609-49750-430 Miscellaneous 02-28-05 PUBLICATION $12.50 Invoice 546411 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $12.50 Refer 32205 STREICHER'S Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply BATTERY PACK , $26.57 Invoice 1251873 3/22/2005 PO 18570 Cash Payment E 101-42115-210 Operating Supplies #849 BUILD UP $82.90 Invoice 1252390 3/22/2005 PO 18813 Cash Payment E 101-42115-210 Operating Supplies #849 BUILD UP $1,418.15 Invoice 1251333 3/22/2005 PO 18813 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,527.62 Refer 32205 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 RepaidMaint Supply MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $16.18 Invoice 469181 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $19.37 Invoice 466864 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.55 Refer 32205 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, INC. Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies PAPER,PRINTER RIBBONS $117.67 Invoice 18016 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $117.67 Refer 32205 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $61.92 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 -640- C~TY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Cash Payment Invoice 032205 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 13 Current Period: March 2005 Total 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply 3/22/2005 E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 3/22/2005 E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 3/22/2O05 E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply 3/22/2OO5 E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 3/22/2005 E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies 3/22/2O05 E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 02-05 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 3/22/20O5 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 32205 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves INITIAL ISSUE GRAHAM Invoice 254227 3/22/2005 PO 18695 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves INITIAL ISSUE GRAHAM Invoice 257911 3/22/2005 PO 18695 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves RADIO EAR PIECE,BADGE HOLDERS Invoice 260476 3/22/2005 PO 18809 Transaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,614.99 Refer 32205 VERiZoN WIRELESS (FiRE~FiN) Cash Payment E 101-41500-321 Telephone & Cells 03-03-05 612-269-9058 BUSINAR©,GINO $6.30 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 03-03-05 612-723-7560 MOUND FIRE $0.55 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 03-03-05 612-751-3572 ENGINE #18 $0.55 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 03-03-05 612-751-3573 MOUND FIRE $0.55 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells 03-03-05 612-240-5244 HANSON,KANDIS $50.61 Invoice 032205 3/22/2005 Transaction Date 3/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $60.56 Refer 32205 WA TERTOwN PARTs CENTER Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply WELDING GAS BOTTLE $25.77 Invoice 208992 3/22/2005 PO 18689 Transaction Date 3/8/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $25.77 Refer 32205 WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT--WINE -$16.00 Invoice 110819-00 3/22/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $425.75 Invoice 110822-00 3/22/2005 i~lTransaction Date 3/15/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $409.75 ~Refer 32205 WINE MERCHANTS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,334.85 Invoice 118603 3/22/2005 $76.24 $32.27 $72.47 $12.33 $40.28 $104.82 $101.22 $501.55 $3O9.34 $112.85 $1,192.80 -641 - CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 3/15/2005 City of Mound Payments 03/16/05 2:25 PM Page 14 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,334.85 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 455 TIF 1-2 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $44,633.45 $562.76 $267.54 $1,866.18 $140.00 $3,587.09 $49,510.54 $42,367.90 $8,349.81 $9,883.33 $161,168.60 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $161,168.60 $161,168.60 -642- March 17, 2005 City of Mound Carlton Moore, Public Works Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Well #8 Pumphouse Change Order #1 MFRA #13313 Carlton: Please see the attached change order #1 for the Well #8 Pumphouse. The change order deletes the natural gas generator and includes provisions to install a diesel generator later. The change order will result in a deduction of $104,805 of the contract price. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA Robert F. Dehler, P.E. Enclosures -643- CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 City of Mound Well #8 Pumphouse MF~ #13313 Delete the natural gas powered generator set, but keep all necessary equipment to allow the City to install a diesel powered generator set in the furore. Delete natural gas service to the building in its entirety. Replace the gas unit heater in the pump room with an electric unit heater. · Delete generator set and concrete slab. See electric site plan, sheet E2. · Delete power, control and signal wires from MCC to generator set, but retain the associated conduits. Extend the conduits out from building 50 feet in the same direction as shown on the plan and cap ends, for future use. See electric site plan, sheet E2 and MCC one line diagram, sheet E3. · The automatic transfer switch will remain as is. The control panel inputs from the generator set, as shown on the control panel schematic sheet E6, will remain as is. Add another digital input to the control panel for "generator fuel tank low level alarm." · Delete natural gas service and meter. Delete all natural gas pipes, fittings, valves, regulators, etc., including the aA" gas line to the unit heater in the pump room and the 1W' gas line to generator. See mechanical plan, sheet M 1. · Delete the gas-fired unit heater in the pump room, including the gas flue extending up through the roof. Delete the combustion air duct. See mechanical plan, sheet M1 and mechanical details and equipment schedules, sheet M2. · Furnish and install an electric unit heater and thermostat in the pump room. The unit heater shall be 5kW, 240VAC, single phase with 24VAC control transformer, power disconnect switch and mounting bracket, similar to the electric unit heater that will be provided for the future telecommunications room~ See electrical plan sheet E3, note 20. · Furnish and install an additional 30 amp, 2 pole in the lighting panel LP-A for the pump room electric unit heater. Make 240vac connections from the lighting panel to the electric unit heater. See the schedule for lighting panel LP-A on sheet E8. · The circuit breaker for the future telecommunications room unit heater is shown incorrectly in the schedule for lighting panel LP-A. Change its size from 50 amp, 2 pole to 30 amp, 2pole. See sheet E8. DEDUCT $ 104,805.00 There is no change to the contract completion date of August 15, 2005. TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER DEDUCT ($ 104,805.00) ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 728,500.00 ($ 104,805.00) $ 623,695.00 APPROVED: City of Mound BY: DATE: ACCEPTED: B~J~,~Mam~ev C°~strulti -644- Change Order No. 1 March 4, 2005 Page 2 RECOMMENDED: s:Xmain:hMou13313kspecs~chgorder#l 3-05 -645- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472~0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Council From: Denice Widmer, Administrative Assistant Date: March 15, 2005 Re: Request by Hennepin County for Review of Tax Forfeited Properties: 25-117-24-12-0164 25-117-24-12-0169 25-117-24-12-0170 This is a housekeeping request by the County. They are trying to clear their tax forfeited property listings, but with the current conservation classification of these properties, the DNR will not release the properties under any circumstances. The County is requesting a paperwork change of classification from Conservation to Non-Conservation in order to release these properties. City Staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the properties be retained by the City of Mound. CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05-__ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RELEASE OF TAX FORFEITED PROPERTIES: 2,5-117-24-12-0164 25-117-24-12-0169 25-117-24-12-0170 WHEREAS, Hennepin County is seeking a determination as to whether the above tax forfeited properties should be released for public auction, released for auction to adjacent property owners or retained for public use conveyance or nonpublic sale to the City of Mound, WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed this request and determined that the above tax forfeited properties should be retained by the City. WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of March 22, 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the retention of the above tax forfeited properties by the City of Mound, The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this and Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -647- DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: TaX Forfeited ,ProPerty,, Review FOrm 3/8/2005 25-117-24-12-0164 25-117-24-12-0169 25-117-24-12-0170 Hennepin County CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departxnents for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: Sarah Smith: Carlton Moore: John Cameron: Greg Skinner: Jim Fackier: These parcels should not be released. Concurs with Cameron. Concurs with Cameron. These parcels should not be released for sale. Parcels 164 & 169 are totally below the OHW of Lake Minnetonka. Parcel 170 is 50% below the OHW & 75% below the 100 yr flood elevation. (See drawing attached) No utilities on these properties. Do not release. Parcels used for shoreline count. SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. RECOMMENDATION City Staff has concluded that these properties should be retained by the City. 1 -648- Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department A-600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0060 January 12,2005 BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED BONNIE RI-FI'ER CITY CLERK CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 RE: Conservation/Non-Conservation Classification List # 1316 C/NC The lands as described on Conservation/Non-Conservation Classification List # 1316 C/NC, were classified as either conservation lands or non-conservation lands, as is appropriate, by the County Auditor's Administrative Review Board. Enclosed is a copy of County Auditor's Directive No. 2005-02 providing for the classification of the lands, under authority granted in accordance to Minnesota Statute 282.135 by the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners. As required under M.S. 282.01, the department requests that your city officials review Conservation/Non-Conservation List # 1316 C/NC. When municipal review has been completed, the department will require a certified copy of a municipal resolution that resolves and approves parcels for public auction, for auction to adjacent owners, or requests public use conveyance or nonpublic sale to your city. See enclosed Exhibit A, an outline for suggested points that should be covered in your municipal resolution. Please be advised that the sale of the lands shall be deemed to be approved pursuant to M.S. 282.01, Subd. 1, if the city council fails to respond to this classification notice within sixty (60) days of receipt of certified mail. The deadline for responding will be March ~4, 2005. Please contact Terry Schuhler, Property Tax Services unit leader, at (612)596-6527(voice mail), should you need further assistance or clarification. Sincerely, Patrick H. O'Connor, Director Taxpayer Services Department Jeffrey L. Strand, Supervisor Tax-Forfeit and Property Revenue Section PHO:JLS:tls Enclosures An Equal Opportunity Employer - 649- Recycled Paper Page 1 of 1 Denice Widmer From: To: Sent: Subject: "Denice Widmer" <DeniceWidmer@cityofmound.com> <Marilyn. Bell@co.hennepin.mn. us> Monday, March 07, 2005 4:10 PM PID's 25-117-24-12-0164/169/170 Just thought I would see if we can get an extension on these properties. Staff has reviewed them and determined that they should be retained by the City, but they need to go to the City Council for a final Resolution, which won't be until March 22nd. A response was due back on the 15th, so will this be okay? Thanks. - 650- 3/7/2005 -651 - EXHIBIT A , Outline of Suggested Points to Cover in a Governmental Subdivision Resolution for Tax-Forfeited Lands Municipal officials should approve the classification as Conservation and/or Non-Conservation land. II. The parcels should be formally recommended for pubhc auction approval, for adjacent owner auction approval if Minnesota Statutes, section 282.01, Subd. 7a for unbuildable vacant lots is applicable, or for requesting a conveyance for an authorized public use to your governmental subdivision, or for requesting a nonpublic sale to your governmental subdivision. Upon receipt of a written application from a city or a governmental subdivision within 60 days of the classification by the county, a parcel may be withheld from auction for a time period not to exceed six months, in accordance with Minnesota Statues, section 282.01, Subd. 1. A city or governmental subdivision must pay maintenance costs incurred by the county during the six-month period during which the land is withheld from auction, provided the property is not offered for pubhc sale after the end of the six-month period. The written application should be in the form of a municipal resolution requesting acquisition and the reason for the six- month hold. IV. Under the Minnesota Legislature's 2001 Tax Reform, procedures on targeted neighborhood lands were made uniform and consistent throughout the-state. Effective for deeds issued on or after August 1, 2001 the recommendation of the County Board is required for applications for conveyance of targeted neighborhood tax- forfeited lands to be acquired for redevelopment as productive taxable property. Further, deeds of conveyance issued under paragraph (a) of Mirmesota Statutes, section 282.01, Subd. lb. are not conditioned on continued use of the property as stated in the application. (Laws of 2001, H1 Article 3, Section 60) V Each parcel should be verified as to the amount and type of special assessments shown as certified to the county before forfeiture. These special assessments were canceled at forfeiture by operation of law. A percentage of the amount of the cancelled special assessments will be paid from any tax-forfeited land sales proceeds. Should any portion remain unpaid municipalities have the ability to reassess the unpaid balance against the property, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 429.071. However, please keep in mind that the tax-forfeiture process serves as a "cleansing" process to effectuate return of properties to productive taxpaying status. The amount and type of special assessments levied after the forfeiture should be certified to this office. These "new certified" special assessments are added to the minimum bid appraised value used in the auction. The "new certified" special assessments are to be paid from any tax-forfeited land sales proceeds. VII. Each parcel should be reviewed for special status, such as public waterfront, wetland, peat lands and marketable timber resource issues, or any potential pubhc nuisance or special zoning conditions or restrictions. The statutory citations are shown in County Auditor's Directive No. 2005-02, a copy of which is enclosed. Any information supplied by the municipalities may be helpful in the successful disposition of the lands. We ask your assistance in determining if any parcels on List # 1316 C/NC have wells. If any of the parcels on the list have wells, please request a Minnesota Department of Health Well Disclosure Certificate from this department. As noted above, please provide available information about parcels such as zoning, known soil conditions, known environmental contamination, or special municipal restrictions. Such information may assist the county in managing and marketing the properties in order to facilitate its return to a tax productive status. If you request conveyance to your governmental subdivision, please submit a properly completed and executed form PT962.RAR, titled, "Apphcation by a Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Lands for an Authorized Public Use" for each parcel requested. Minnesota Department of Revenue requires use of this forrrL Enclosed is form PT962.RAR. Please call Property Tax Services Unit at (612) 348-3734 if you need more blank forms, or it is located on the Department of Revenue website at the following address: http://www, taxes.state, mn.us/proptax/propinfo/stdeed/statedeed, htm. Conveyance to a governmental subdivision for a public pu~y~ose is subject to the recommendation of the County Board. The Hennepin County Board's Tax- Forfeited Land Policy, Resolution No. 82-8-612, requires that a specific pubhc purpose be identified in the request. A copy of the resolution is enclosed. In our experience, the Minnesota Department of Revenue discourages use of the generic phrase "public purposes" on the requests for state deeds. Rather, the specific public purpose that has been identified for the lands should be stated on the municipal api~lication. "Open Space" alone is not acceptable to the Deparanent of Revenue. -652- Office of the County AUditor No. 2005-02 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota COUNTY AUDITOR'S D~[RECTZVE (Tax-Forfeited Land) To all persons interested in the lands hereinafter described: Whereas, pursuant to legal authority as provided under Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.135, the Director of Taxpayer Services Department, acting in the capacity of County Auditor- Treasurer, has had the matter hereinafter described come before the County Auditor for administrative review; and Whereas, pursuant to the application or request for change of status of tax-forfeited land described more fully below, the undersigned Deputy County Auditor finds as follows: :t. That the Hennepin County Auditor hereby certifies the Conservation or Non- Conservation status and authorizes public sale of all Non-Conservation classified parcels of land on Conservation/Non-Conservation Classification List :L316 C/NC, on file with the Hennepin County Auditor, except where Conservation classification status is noted on said list, and further certifies that all parcels therein have been viewed and comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 85.0::[2, 92.46:[, 282.0:L, Subd. 8, 282.018, Subd. 1, and 282.018, Subd. 2, and other statutes that require the withholding of tax-forfeited land from sale; and that the Hennepin County Auditor hereby requests approval, where appropriate and necessary, from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the sale of tax-forfeited land listed on Conservation/Non-Conservation Classification List :~316 C/NC. .lanuary l:L, 2005 (OFF]:C~[AL SEAL) Patrick H. O'Connor, County Auditor Marie A. Kunze Deputy County Auditor -653- 008@0' RESOLUTION NO., B2-,B-612 · The folloWing resOlutio'n was offered bY' Commissioner Johnson,.seconded by Commissioner Kremer: WI-tEREAS, numerotfs'requests are received For sale or conveyance oF tax forfeited land to municipalities and other governmental subdivisions of the State, .. BE' IT R~soLVED that it is ttie general pol.icy of the Hennep~n CountY Board to encourage the return of tax forfeited lands within the county to private ownership and the tax rolls.,iprovided tl)at governmental subdivisions ~re not discouraged from acquiring lands to be used for conservation, recreation, or other purposes as detailed in this resolution. BE' IT.RESOLVED that tax forfeited l~nd will be conveyed to governmental subdtwisions Without monetary consideratt'on if: ]l~ ~he land.i~ .to be used for park~, wetlands, flood c.ontrol~ trailways, ope~ spmce'~ ~treet~, road~ rigt~t~ of way and public ~ccesS, or 2~ th~ land ~s valued at .the receipt of application at $1,000 or 'less per parcel at current values~ or an equivalent value as ..indexed at ten percent per annum hereafter, regardless of public use or purpose, and BE IT RESOLVED,' that except as otherwise provided in this resolution, tax forfeited land will not be conveyed to governmental subdivisions unless the current appraised value is paid,.and. BE IT RESOLVED that an applicaEion shall' be requ!red to request a conveyance' withou~t payment or ~ ~le. and the ~Ppl-.ica'tion shall be.~ccompanied by a resolution' or'thai §~vet~ni,g body ~pecifyii~g" the- publ'tc purpose or intended public use for ~hfCh ~the t~ forfeited land i~ be'~n~ acquired. An application wt.li not be considered unl.es~ rece~ed at least ten Hays prior-to the first publication-of the not~¢e o~f public sale of the Sub&ect property, and BE IT RE$OLV£D that the ;cquisi~ion of. tax forfeited land by a governmental subdivision (except Housing and Redevelopment Authorities and other goverr,nental subdivisions of the §tare. expressly authorized' by law to resell, lease or transfer property) for resal~i'shal~ not be approved by the Board BE IT RESOLVED'that the purchase price be paid over a three-year period. commencing on date .of sale if tl~e governmental subdivision has budget or levy limitations that do not permit casl~ purchase. Interest shall be payable at the rate prescribed by law for Sales to the public of similar p~operty, and , BE I'T RESOLVED 'that municipalities are urged to judiciously .exercise thefr legitimate rights of disapproval of sale and classification of tax forfei'ted. ]and in the context of this resolution', and -654- AUG 1 0 19.82 ~eso lug:ion ~:l'Io. 8'z.--;8-6Jz con~: [nue~ . BE IT' RESOLVED that pursuant to authorlty of Minnesota Statutes, Section ~B2.D3 this Board will Impose reasonable COnditions on sales to the public to limit the use of the parcels sold and to. limit amount l~f public e×pendt'.ture~ that may. be re'adc for't'he I:teneftt of the parcels when such action will encourage municipal approval of ~ale, and BE IT.RESOLVUD that if applications are concurrently filed by a governmental subdivision and a' repurchas~r to purchase and repurchase respectively the same tax forfeited land, the County B~ard will con:sider: ]. The public interest to be served by acq'ui~ition by the'go~ernm~n~cal Subdivision. 2.' The public interest to' be ~e'rved by repurchase. 3. The hardship t'o be SUffered by the repurchaser if the repurchase application is not approved. The circumstances relating to forfeiture. BE IT RESOLVED that on a showing of unusual circumstances or hardship the Bbafd ~f~Commis~ioners may, by specific resolution, approve a variance of these provis ocs. BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution NO. 81-3-125 is hereby rescinded Commissioner Kremer Offered'a friendly amendment' to the second resolving clause, the second paragrapti, to insert the WOrd'"nlarket" between "current" al~d "v2lues" and after t'he WOrds "at ten percent" to strike "per annum hereafter" and insert therefor "January 1st annually." Commissioner Johnson accepted the frien'dly amendment and no objections Were Voiced, CommiSsioner Kremer moved to add the ·following sentence to the fourth resolving clause: Each application and RBA involving a parcel with a market · 'value in excess of $1,000 Shall include the roi. lowing: the acreage of the property, current Zoning, current use ~nd waterfront, if any. The motion w,t~ seconded by Commissioner~ Robb and .apProved unanimously. Commissioner t~obb offered a friendly ametndment to the first line of the second resolving cla6se, after the word "conveyed" to add the words "for public use or purpose." Commissi'oner JohnSon accepted the friendly amendment'and no objecti.ons ~ere voiced. ' The question was On the adoptfon of the resolution, as amend.ed, and there were seven YEAS and 'no NAYS as follows: COUNTY OF H.ENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COHHISSIONERS Jeff spartz Randy Johnson Richard E, Kremer E. F. Robb~ Jr. Sam S. Sivanlch Nancy Oikon John E. Derus, Chairman RESOLUTION ADOPTED. YEA NAY OTItER X X' X × X X X AUg I 0 1982 .... ' DE ~rE ,~ L A 656- ~: -657- 0 0 ,1~ x -658- o x ('I) o :3 h~ h~0 h~ 0o 0 -659- -660- -661 - 0 ~ ~ ~ m -I m hJ hJ lUO 0 O0 0 O~ -662- -663- -664- h,t0 !~0 0o Oj~ 0 -665- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the improvement of: Hawthorne Road, Idlewood Road, Cherrywood Road, Dickens Lane, Hazelwood Lane, Oaklawn Lane, and Longfellow Lane - south of Bartlett Boulevard and north of Ridgewood Road Halstead Lane, Setter Court, Offer Road, Acorn Road, Deerwood Drive, Pine Road, and Pheasant Circle, south and west of Westedge Boulevard and north of Bartlett Boulevard Eagle Lane, Finch Lane, and Gull Lane - In Three Points area Avocet Lane, Bluebird Lane, Canary Lane, Dove Lane, and Woodland Road - In the Three Points area Heron Lane, Crestview Road, and Jennings Road - In the Three Points Area Bay Ridge Road, Bluffs Drive, Bluffs Lane, and Highview Lane - In between Bartlett Boulevard and Bay Ridge Road Rusticwood Road - In the Highlands Area west of Garden Lane Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Buffalo Bituminous GMH Asphalt Corp Midwest Asphalt Valley Paving Harddrives Inc Park Construction Co $1,511,006.05 $1,652,233.75 $1,679,937.55 $1,741,999.25 $1,818,634.10 $2,032,169.75 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Buffalo Bituminous of Buffalo, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mound, Minnesota: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract with Buffalo Bituminous of Buffalo, MN, in the name of the City of Mound for the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project, streets noted above, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of March, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -666- Engineering · Planning ° Surveying March 17, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2005 Street Reconstruction Project MFRA #15000 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a tabulation of the six (6) bids received on March 16, 2005 for the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. The bids ranged from a low of $1,511,006.05, submitted by Buffalo Bituminous, Inc., to a high of $2,032,169.75. The Engineer's estimate was $1,663,279.00. The bid for the street portion of the project that will be assessed was $1,096,177.25. The construction cost for the street portion was estimated at $1,199,594.00 and the estimated cost used in the Feasibility Report and presented at the Public Heating was $1,207,700.00. Buffalo's bid has been checked and everything is in order; therefore we are recommending that a contract in the amount of $1,511,006.05 be awarded to Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth s:h-nou 15000\corresLmayor-council3-17 -667- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 o fax 763/476-8532 e-marl: mfra@mfra, com 0 -668- I-- Z 0 1.1.1 (0 0 -669- D n" I-- Z 0 0 ILl r,' LU -670- zo§ Oo~ ri.- I- z o ILl [1.1 {2> -671 - Z 0 0 ~ ..'-88 .~.~-~ =o ='~'~ -672- -673- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -674- Executive Summary Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 17, 2005 SUBJECT: PC Case #05-03 -2128 Centerview Lane Variance This case was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their March 7th meeting where a motion for approval was recommended. The Commission did have some questions regarding the proposed conforming detached garage shown on the submitted plans. Drainage concerns were raised by the neighbors to the east. The Commission requested gutters be placed on the garage when built but cannot be part of the Resolution as the garage project is not connected to the requested variance. A Resolution for approval of the request is in order for City Council approval. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -675- RESOLUTION # 05- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2128 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK" MOUND, MINNESOTA PID #13-117-24-31-0074 P & Z CASE #05-03 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jim and Judy Hatchett, have submitted an application for a front yard variance to construct second story additions to existing house at 2128 Centerview Lane. The associated variances identified are as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front yard 14 feet 4 in. 30 feet 15 feet 8 in. ; and WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet of lot area, 60 feet of street frontage, a 30 feet front yard setback, 50 feet ordinary high water mark setback, 15 feet rear yard setback and 6 feet side yards for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, other property improvements include sheds, one of which is lakeside shed which has a nonconforming lakeside setback. The application indicates it would be removed with the project; and, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to update the home by removing the 2nd story and rebuilding it within the current setbacks. The Centerview Lane setback is a nonconforming setback at 14 feet 4 inches. The plans indicate a two level deck would be constructed with a 14 feet 7 inch front yard setback and a conforming 50 feet lakeside setback; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 2°d story improvements will not increase the current level of front yard nonconformity; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended that the Council approve the front yard variance as requested by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the front yard variance request with the following conditions: a. The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of -676- building permit. b. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. c. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. The City Council adopts the following findings in support of the front yard setback variance: a. The proposed improvements maintain the existing setbacks. b. The proposed improvements will not increase the amount of structure bulk already present. c. The proposed improvements are a reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, "ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK" This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to M.S.S. 462.36, Subd. 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd. 2 (E). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted March 22, 2005 -677- Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -678- ,MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 20O$ CASE NO. 05-03 VARIANCE - HOUSE REMODEL/ADDITION 2138 CENTERVlEW LANE APPLICANT: JIM HATCHET The applicant requests a front yard setback variance to reconstruct the 2nd story on the existing 2 story home within the current setbacks as outlined below: Proposed Required Variance Front Yard Setback 14 ft 4 in 30 feet 15 ft 8 in In addition, a lakeside deck is planned that encroaches into the 50 foot setback area. is recommended that the deck be scaled back to conform to setback requirements. Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance with the following conditions: 1.The City Engineer review grading and permit. 2.The applicant shall be re= variance request. 3.The applicant shall be Staff offers the following in sup t: .~ssues at the time of building of all costs associated with the all necessary building permits. 1.The proposed improvements maintain the existing setbacks. 2.The proposed improvements will not increase the amount of structure bulk already present. 3.The proposed improvements are a reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. Discussion Osmek questioned whether the modifications added height to the structure. Gordon was uncertain what the current height was but plans indicate conformance at about 30.5 feet. Jim Hatchet (2128 Centerview Lane) - Mueller asked if the applicant was willing to put gutters on the house to take care of excess runoff. He Jennifer Owens (2138 Centerview Lane) - Concerned about placement of the garage and its close proximity to the alley. A discussion followed regarding setback requirements for the lot. MOTION by Osmek, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the requested front yard setback variance. MOTION carried unanimously. -679- 'I I I I I I' I I , ~. I ~' ~.' CONCRETE CURd' --929.4 x 929~o7 RETAINING WALLS .~,XTSTING HOUSE UOUND, MN 6~ & 67 .:.. -680- I EXISNNG HOUSE 3137 ASHLANO [~A MOUNO, MN 55364 ~RETAI. NING WALLS CMU REINNING I~ROPOSED HARDCOVt ~HOUS~ PROPOSED GAR p~.o~osEv DEC~: CONCRETE PAVERS CMU RET. WALLS ' TIMBER RET. WALLS pAVER. RET. WALLS TOTAL PARCEL AREA LYHqG % OF PARCEL LYING 3,276 SQ. Fl'. / 11445 SQ EX/STING HARDCOV~ HOUSE PORCH SHEDS B1TU1VJ]NOUS CONC1AETE pAVERS CMU RET. WALLS PAVEK KET. WALLS TOTAL PARCEL AREA LYIN(~ % OF PARCEL LYING HARDCOVER; ,r OF SURV JUDY HATCHE'I -68i - ~TAINING WALLS ~ROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ..3lOUSE 823 SQ. ?ROeOSED G~LRAGE 780 SQ. PT. 'SHED 123 SQ. FT. PROPOSED DECK 358 SQ. PT. BI'ITIMINOUS 920 sq. PT. coNCRm'E 44 SQ. ~. PA~ 44 SQ. ~. C~ ~T. W~S ' 43 SQ. ~. ~~.W~ 111 SQ.~. PA~ ~T. W~ 30 SQ. ~. TOT~ 3~76 SQ. PARCEL AREA LYING ABOVE OHW = 11,445 SQ. Fr. % OF PARCEL LYING ABOVE OH~ 3,276 SQ. Fr./11445 SQ-~F. =28.62% 0 80 SCALE IN FEET TREE SYMBOL KEY -RP RED PINE WSP ROAK RED OAK BASS BASSWOOD MPL MAPLE LEGEND o DENOTES · DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE POWEK POLE xxx DENOTNS (xxx) DENOTES SURFACE FLOW EXISTING HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS HOUSE 823 SQ. FI'. PORCH 105 SQ. PT. SHEDS 171 SQ. Fr. B1TUM~OUS 1,400 SQ. Fr. CONCRETE 470 SQ. PT. PAVERS 44 SQ. FT. CMU RET. WALLS 43 SQ. PT. TIMBERKET. WALLS 111SQ. FT. PAVER KET. WALLS 26 SQ. Fr. TOTAL 3,193 SQ. Fr. PARCEL AREA LYnqG ABOVE OHW = 11,445 SQ. FT. % OF PARCEL LYING ABOVE OtlW BEING tlARDCO~ = 3,193 SQ. FT. /11445 SQ.Fr. = 27.89% rE OF SURVEY Y HATCHETT -682- Lots One Minnctonka", (Abstract Propm~y) SITE ADDRESS - 2128 p.I.N.= 13-11%24-31-0074 PARCEL AREA = 11,485 TOP OF TOI ELEV. = 945.92 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT OR REPORT WAS MY DIRECT sUPERVISION DULY LICENSED CAND SU OF THE STATE DATE Abraham Lincoln Addition' thomo£ Honnopin County, N rLAI~ ;5364 '. OR 026 ACRES SURVEY, PLAN, ME OR UNDER lAM a UNDER THE lEG. NO. 19.522 Jim and Judy Hatchett 2128 Centerview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Main Floor Plan ,23'-11' pantry half bath 48'14/ 13R x IO. O0'~T Living room 23~11· 13'-1 Kitchen Street Front 30' setback -683- Jim & Judy Hatchett 2128 Centerview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Alley side 6' setback 2nd floor plan 19'-0'- << closet under stair 2nd bedroom Full Bath Back Side 15' setback Master Ba th 13R x IO. O0'T Street Front 30' setback MasmrBedmom ,23'-1o'. -7'-11 Lake Side 50' setback -684- Jim & Judy Hatchett 2128 Centerview Lane Mound, MN 55364 rear Upper Level Alley side utility closet haif ba ~ walk-in closet upstairs bedroom 12' 6" x 10' lake side -685- Front -686- -688- -689- -690- L xecu Jve , ummary Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Cormnission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 17, 2005 SUBJECT: PC Case #05-04 - 6338 Rambler Lane Variance This case was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their March 7th meeting where a motion for approval was recommended. The proposed 2"d story remodeling will maintain the established first story footprint and setbacks as noted on the survey. No other issues of concern were raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Both Staff and Planning Commission are recommending approval of the request. The attached Resolution for approval is in order for City Council action. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -691 - RESOLUTION # 05- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR SECOND STORY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6338 RAMBLER LANE, LOTS 7, BLOCK 2, MOUND TERRACE PID # 14-117-24-32-0017 P & Z CASE #05-04 WHEREAS, the applicants, Ron and Jan Eikanas, have submitted an application for a side yard variance to construct second story additions to existing house at 6338 Rambler Lane. The associated variances identified are as follows: Proposed Required Variance Front yard 2.97 feet 6 feet 3.03 feet ; and WHEREAS, the property is located within an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet of lot area, 60 feet of street frontage, a 30 feet front yard setback, 50 feet ordinary high water mark setback, 15 feet rear yard setback and 6 feet side yards for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, other property improvements include a conforming detached garage located in the front yard; and, WHEREAS, the applicants propose to update the home by remodeling the 2nd story. Proposed improvements maintain the sideyard setback at the 2.97 feet shown on the survey; and, WHEREAS, the proposed 2'~ story improvements will not increase the current level of front yard nonconformity; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the side yard variance as requested by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the side yard variance request with the following conditions: a. The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of building permit. b. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. -692- o ° o c. The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. The City Council adopts the following findings in support of the front yard setback variance: a. The proposed improvements maintain the existing setbacks. b. The proposed improvements are a reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOTS 7, BLOCK 2, MOUND TERRACE This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to M.S.S. 462.36, Subd. 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350:530, Subd. 2 (E). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted March 22, 2005 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -693- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2005 CASE NO. 05-04 VARIANCE - UPPER STORY REMODEL/ADDITION 6338 RAMBLER LANE APPLICANT: RON EIKANSAS Applicant is requesting a side yard variance to reconstruct the 2nd story on the existing 2 story home as noted below: Proposed Required Variance Side Yard Setback 2.97ff 6ff 3.03ff MOTION by Mueller, second by Miller, to recommend approval of the requested variance and to require the addition of gutters to appropriately direct water. MOTION carried. Voting for: Miller, Ayaz, Osmek, Michael, Glister, Schwingler and Mueller. Voting against: Hasse. REVIEW OF THE REDEVELOPMENT FOR THE MOUND HARBOR PROJ · 'MENT FINANCING PLAN Smith introduced the tax in( statement as to the district an, process and explained the need for a conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. As clarification, Osmek stated that the adjustment in the size of the TIF district is not as important as the extension of the district timeline from 15 to 20 years. MOTION by Mueller, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the resolution adopting a finding that the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the resolution adopting a finding that the redevelopment plan for the Mound Harbor project area conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. MOTION carried unanimously. -694- ~770 L 696- ' X 7../g ', L ~L,o -697- I IT -- -699- CITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act") the Authority has proposed to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Mound Harbor Project Area (the "Project Area"), and WHEREAS, the Authority has caused to be prepared the Redevelopment Plan, and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission of the City, and WHEREAS, pursuant to such request, the Planning Commission did, on March 8, 2005, render its written opinion that the Redevelopment Plan conforms with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority did, on or about January 25, 2005, determined that a redevelopment project should be undertaken and directed that a request be made for the City Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, all in accordance with the HRA Act, and WHEREAS, by such request the Authority also requested that the Mound Planning Commission consider the proposed Redevelopment Plan and provide its written opinion as to conformity of the proposed Redevelopment Plan with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, following consideration of the request, the Planning Commission did, on March 7, 2005 adopt its resolution making such finding; and WHEREAS, the Authority has included in its application to the City Council the materials required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.028 subdivision 1, and WHEREAS, the City Council did on March 22, 2005 based on such reference and following notice as required by law, hold its hearing on the approval of the modifications to the Redevelopment Plan. ~ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City as follow~.. I. The City makes the following findings: the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; the redevelopment plan for the project area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of the area by private enterprise; and JBD-260229v 1 MU195-15 -700- II. o the redevelopmem plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole; and based on the information comained in Exhibit A and information presented at the heating and otherwise known to the council, the Project Area is blighted within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028. The City Council hereby approves the Redevelopment Plan, and'makes all of the findings stated therein. Adopted by The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota this 22ndth day of March, 2002. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk JBD-260229vl MU195-15 -701 - EXHIBIT A Analysis of Blight Conditions Mound Harbor Project Area [Incorporated from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Report] Statutory Definition of Blighted Area "Blighted area (contains) buildings or improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community." 1. Dilapidation The residential and commercial properties were constructed between 1905 and 2000. Even though these properties, as well as the existing commercial and residential improvements constructed on them, can be considered old, they are not considered to have any historical value nor architectural merit. Old properties, however, require relatively higher levels of maintenance and repair. Over half of these properties can be considered to be lacking in needed maintenance and repair. The criterion of "dilapidation" was observed to apply to forty-three (43) of the sixty (60) parcels within the project planning area. Twelve (12) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while another thirty-one (31) parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. Deferred maintenance of structures and site improvements. Buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair Deferred Maintenance: Specific evidence of deferred maintenance includes: · Poorly maintained exterior building surfaces including masonry, stucco, wood clapboard and metal siding. · Back yard areas overgrown with vegetation. · Cracked, rutted paved surfaces. · Roof system in a failing condition · Foundation cracks, settling or heaving · Windows & Doors: cracked, broken, ajar or boarded up. JBD-260229vl MU195-15 -702- Excluding eleven (11) parcels that have become part of the Auditors Road Street Right-of-Way or are "undevelopable" lake or wetlands, seventy-two 72% of these properties (43 of 60 parcels) exhibit a deferred maintenance pattern. In addition, individual owners would be reluctant to make the required level of investments to their individual properties, given the context of the deteriorating nature of adjacent and nearby properties. Building and paved surfaces in disrepair: Specific evidence of buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair includes: · Masonry surfaces broken and in need of tuck-pointing. · Broken windows · Windows and Doors ajar and inoperable. · Entry stairways and service/loading docks broken and failing. · Cracked, broken and crumbling paved surfaces. The twelve (12) properties exhibiting moderate to strong evidence of"dilapidation" include a wide variety of building surfaces and site improvements in a state of significant disrepair. The obvious dilapidation of each of commercial properties and residential properties represent a clear blighting influence on abutting properties. In addition, the problems with windows, doors, building surfaces and pavement negatively impact the current use and future prospects for these properties. 2. Obsolescence/Obsolete Layout The criteria of "obsolescence" and "obsolete layout" were observed to apply to seven (7) parcels within the project planning area, all of which five (5) exhibited "strong" evidence of these criteria and two (2) additional parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. ao Dysfunctional layout of buildings and parking. Substandard design of alley. Dated appearance of structures. Dysfunctional layout of building and parking: All seven commercial parcels are without adequate or convenient parking for customers or visitors based on the layout of the building at zero front lot line. Four of the seven had no available on-site parking. Three of the seven had limited parking which was below current standards. In addition, parking and loading/service areas are not segregated or clearly identified. Substandard design of alley: The alleys on Shoreline Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. commercial properties are long (generally over 100 feet) and narrow. This presents problems to easy and convenient site access and is a psychological barrier to access the front of the business if on-street parking stalls are full. Overall the alleys represent an inconvenient and potentially unsafe site access for the majority of parcels within the project planning area Outdated appearance of structures: There is very little evidence of regular maintenance, updating or major rehabilitation is evident on the exteriors of any of JBD-260229vl MU195-15 -703- theses structures. In the commercial core at Commerce and Shoreline Blvd. there has been only $360,000.00 of property investment over the past 15 years. Most of this investment, as indicated by building permit data, is for non-structural improvements. As stated in Paragraph 1 (Dilapidation), these buildings "are not considered to have any historical value nor architectural merit," and they in fact tend to serve as remnants from a past era that are not consistent with contemporary needs and preferences of retail and commercial service uses. 3. Faulty arrangement or design The criterion of "faulty arrangement or design" was observed to apply to twelve (12) parcels within the project planning area. Nine (9) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while another three (3) parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. Inadequate parking. Inconvenient pedestrian and vehicular access. Substandard alley. ao Inadequate Parking: Eight (8) commercial properties utilize narrow alleys for site access. This results in a poorly functioning, obsolete parking and loading service area. The lack of legal parking in front of the properties, due to the fact that these properties front onto a City-owned right-of-way which is not used for street purposes, compounds the parking and loading deficiencies. This situation produces a blighting influence to surrounding properties, as commercial tenants' employees, suppliers, and customers seek out nearby parking opportunities Inconvenient pedestrian and vehicular access: The awkward and confusing parking arrangement in the rear of buildings along Shoreline and Commerce Boulevards creates safety hazards for pedestrians trying to access the front doors. The ill-defined narrow alley offers no separation between cars and pedestrians seeking to access to the commercial uses. It is likely to present a particularly undesirable site condition in winter months during conditions of snow and ice. The substandard design of the alley that serves as the primary access for the majority of parcels in the project planning area (see paragraph 2. Dilapidation) also serves as a clear representation of this criterion. Co Substandard alley. See Paragraph 2 (Dilapidation) and Paragraph 5 (Other Factors). 4. Excessive Land Coverage The criterion of "faulty arrangement or design" was observed to apply to eighteen (18) parcels within the project planning area. Ten (10) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while one (1) additional parcel exhibited "moderate" evidence. a. Size and placement of commercial buildings. JBD-260229vl MU195-15 -704- ao Size and placement of commercial buildings: Twenty-four (24) of the sixty (60) parcels exhibit this criterion due to their nonconforming lot size. Twenty-eight (28) of the sixty (60) buildings exhibit this criterion due to their relative the amount of remaining site area available for parking, loading, and access. As referenced in Paragraph 3 (Faulty Design and Arrangements), the placement of the commercial buildings at a zero-front-setback exacerbates the problem of excessive land coverage because the principal access points to the buildings are opposite the parking areas, making for difficult pedestrian connections. 5. Other Factors In addition to the above, the following other blighting factors were evident: ao Negative conditions within public rights-of-way. Overgrown vegetation. Economics o f renewal/reinvestment. Negative conditions within the public rights-of-way: · The substandard design of the alley serving commercial and residential properties. · The obsolete design of the parking areas. The above referenced conditions within public right-of-way represent a blighting influence the impacts the entire project planning area. Vehicular and pedestrian access is compromised by the substandard and antiquated arrangement of driveway cuts, paved surfaces, parking and driveways serving the majority of parcels. Overgrown Vegetation: Overgrown vegetation present on many of the parcels representing a blighting influence consistent with the intent of the statutory definition for a blight area. Co Economics of renewal/reinvestment: In addition, the physical and economic difficulties associated with lot-by-lot, or building-by-building, renewal of these 60 properties lead to the conclusion that this type and form of reinvestment is unlikely to occur. A renewal/reinvestment scenario that would take the form of total redevelopment appears more likely, more desired, and more feasible in terms of producing property design/layout and land use mix that would be market-sensitive and would contribute to the near-term and future health and welfare of the Mound Harbor Project Area. Note: The full report and field data are on file in the office of Mound Community Development Director JBD-260229vl MU195-15 -705- Draft as of March 18, 2005 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Adopted: ,2005 JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -706- I. DEFINITIONS The terms defined below have, for purposes of this Redevelopment Plan, the memfings herein specified, unless the context specifically requires otherwise: "Authority" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota. "Bond" means any tax-exempt or taxable bonds issued by the City or Authority to finance the Public Redevelopment Costs, and any obligations issued to refund such bonds. "City" means the City of Mound, Minnesota. "City Council" means the City Council of the City. "County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota. "HRA Act" means Mim~esota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. "Project" means the Mound Harbor Redevelopment Project, the boundaries of which are generally described in Exlfibit A and generally illustrated in the map attached as Exkibit B. "Project Area" means the area within the boundaries of the Project as shown in Exhibits A and B. "Public Redevelopment Costs" means all legally permissible costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the Authority in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan, including bTM not limited to: (a) the costs of any redevelopment activities consistent with the Redevelopment Plan as originally adopted or subsequently amended; (b) costs of administering the Project; and (c) debt service payments on any obligations issued to finance Public Costs authorized by the Redevelopment Plan. "Redevelopment Plan" means this Redevelopment Plan for the Project as it may be amended or supplemented from time to time. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment Financing District" or "TIF District" means any tax increment financing district that may be established under the TI]F Act within the Project. "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, as an~ended and supplemented from time to time. "Tax Increment Financing Plan" means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for any Tax Increment Financing District. "Tax Increments" District. JBD-259593vl MU195-15 means the tax increments derived from any Tax Increment Financing -707- II. . STATEMENT OF NEED AND PUBLIC PURPOSE The Authority finds that there is a need for redevelopment within the City and the Project Area to remedy blight and blighting conditions, prevent the emergence of blight, promote the health, safety and welfare of City residents, encourage related development and redevelopment in order to protect, improve the tax base and general economic vitality of the City, and assure that the long term housing needs of the City are met. The Authority specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project Area would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum oppommity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. The Authority further finds that the Project is a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001, subd. 16 of the I-IRA Act. The factual basis for the above findings includes: The City has conducted several studies of the Project Area, including the Mound Visions Concept Plan (1991), the Mound Environmental and Appearance Model (1992), the Mound Comprehensive Plan (2000), the 2000 Mound Zoning Ordinance Amendment Project (2000) and the Mound Visions Areawide Alternative Review (2005). These studies, including the findings made therein, are incorporated here by reference. The Hoisington K0egler Group, Inc., together with city planning staff have conducted an inventory study of the current condition of properties within the Project Area. The study reports evidence of obsolescence, land use incompatibilities, poor parcel and building configuration, and hazardous traffic conditions for vehicles and pedestrians. A summary of the findings are found in the attached Exhibit C. Co In late 2004 and early 2005, LHB, Inc. ("LHB") conducted a study of building conditions in a portion of the Project Area. That study determined that a substantial percentage of the buildings in the area are structurally substandard as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10. Such findings contribute to the conclusion that the Project Area is a "blighted area" within the meaning of Section 469.002, subdivision 11 of the HRA Act. Data from the LHB Study are on file with the Authority. These study results will also be used when considering the establishment of future tax increment financing districts. The City's Comprehensive Plan, as adopted on April 11, 2000, identified the comprehensive downtown redevelopment project as the public's highest priority regarding commercial land use in the City. JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -708- Background of Mound Visions Redevelopment Program. The City committed itself to revitalizing its downtown efforts through an effort called "Mound l~isions." Mound Visions began in 1991 when the City began to explore ways to strengthen its downtown business community. For some time, the downtown struggled to realize its full potential, not because of the efforts of private businesses, but largely due to the lack of image, connectivity, and pedestrian appeal. Many of the elements so important to the area, such as natural amenities and pedestrian comfort had been forgotten. Early efforts focused on general beautification, fagade improvements and limited streetscape improvements. Through this exercise, the community learned it needed much more than aesthetics for a successful downtown. Mound Visions incorporates a comprehensive approach to planning, design and implementation projects that will involve both public and private entities. Mound Harbor Renaissance Plan. The proposed Mound Harbor Renaissance (MHR)project will be the heart of the Mound Visions Plan for downtown revitalization. The original plan established five new downtown mixed-use districts and since that time, two have essentially been completed. The Mound Harbor Renaissance (MHR) project will complete the three remaining districts including Lost Lake, Auditor's Road, and Lake Langdon and will rebuild downtown as a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment which is oriented towards Mound's greatest natural asset, Lost Lake, and its histgric channel which extends to Lake Minnetonka. Project goals include: · Establishing a traditional downtown by creating a distinctive community place for Mound. Creating a central core of traditional, multi-stow "main street" type buildings with retail along the street and office or housing uses located above. · Keeping the downtown vital by mixing retail, entertaimrtent and office uses with a wide range of lifecycle housing. Offering the community new housing choices including senior cooperative apartments, urban "rowhouse style townhomes" and loft or apartment- style condominiums. · Connecting the downtown area with new greenways, trails and traditionally designed streets and sidewalks. · Incorporating streetscape and landscaping elements along the new mainstreet and realigned CSAH 15 corridor. · Providing central, downtown parking areas including both structured and surface lots. JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -709- Enhancing community appreciation of and access to, the area's natural resources by reclaiming the historic Lost Lake channel and providing public dock and boat slip amenities for both residents and visitors. · Projecting and enhancing the City's natural resources through the incorporation of innovative and unique stormwater strategies. Planning for regional transportation connections including the existing rail corridor being planned for as a possible future LRT route and a new transit shelter to be incorporated into the Park and Ride facility currently proposed for the True Value District. Planning Strategies. Redevelopment of the City's downtown area is a recurrent theme in the approved comprehensive plan which was adopted by the City of Mound on April 11, 2000. In anticipation of the proposed downtown redevelopment project, a number of planning-related efforts have been undertaken by the City including the Mound Environmental and Appearance Model which was adopted in 1992. This document was based on the Mound Market Position which was adopted by the City of Mound on 1991. Additionally, the Mound Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2000 to incorporate new regulations and standards for the Pedestrian, Destination, and Linear Districts which were created to guide the City's "new" downtown. Mound Harbor Renaissance Plan Review Sketch Plan. The sketch plan for the Mound Harbor Renaissance proposal was formally reviewed the Mound Planning Commission and City Council in August and September 2004 respectively. While the sketch plan for the Mound Harbor Renaissance project does not include the South CSAH 110 corridor, it is important to mention that redevelopment of this corridor is anticipated and therefore has been included in the Project Area. A copy of the approved sketch plan of the Mound Harbor Renaissance proposal is included as Exhibit D. AUAR. Preparation of the Mound Visions Areawide Alternative Urban Review (AUAR) commenced in June 2004. The Mound Visions Final ,4 UAR and Mitigation Plan was approved by the Mound City Council on January 25, 2005. Related Proiects · The City was awarded a stormwater initiatives grant from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in October 2003 for the downtown project. JBD-259593vl MUl95-15 -710- Environmental investigation grants for the Lost Lake District, T'me Value District and Auditor's Road Districts were awarded to the City of Mound by Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnesota Pollution Control Authority (MPCA) in 2002 and 2004. A $1.5M levy was approved for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to undertake stormwater improvements associated with the downtown Mound redevelopment project. The levy will be funded over a 3 year period and includes unique and innovative strategies and programs as outlined in the MCWD report entitled "Supplementing Mound Downtown Redevelopment with Innovative Stormwater Management." According to the report, "The purpose of the MCWD participation in the redevelopment is to incorporate stormwater management practices that reach as far as possible and incorporate as many new ideas as needed to improve the quality ofrunoffreaching Lake Minnetonka via Lost Lake and Lake Langdon." The City of Mound was awarded a $1.2M Livable Communities development grant from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council to fund public parking in the Auditor's Road District in February 2005. At its March 9, 2005 meeting, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Managers approved the City of Mound multiple dock license and variance application(s) to allow (37) slips for the Lost Lake townhome project (subject to conditions.) The City of Mound submitted the dredge and aquatics permit applications for the Lost Lake townhome project to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Department of Natural Resources on February 3, 2005. It is anticipated that the City's dredge permit application will be reviewed by the MCWD Board of Managers on April 7m. III. STATUTORY AUTHORITY The Authority is authorized under the HRA Act to undertake and administer the Redevelopment Plan and the Project, and to finance Public Redevelopment Costs through issuance of bonds secUred by Project revenues. IV. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The Authority seeks to accomplish the following general objectives within the Redevelopment Project: JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -711- Do Promote the prompt development mad redevelopment of property within the Project Area in a manner consistent with the City comprehensive plan and the Mound Visions Plan and the Concept Plan, which property is currently less productive because of substandard conditions, lack of adequate community services, or general blight. Promote the development of adequate public facilities necessary to serve the Project Area and the City as whole. Promote the concentration of residential and appropriate commercial d'evelopment within the Project area in order to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its prominence in the City. Construct, acquire or finance any public facilities, including sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage and roads, deemed necessary and desirable for the development or redevelopment of the Project area. Assist in development or redevelopment through provision of public services, environmental remediation, soil and terrain corrections or site improvements, or land acquisition, all in cases deemed appropriate by the Authority. Employ any powers of the Authority under the HRA Act for the benefit of the Project in such cases and upon such terms as the Authority may deem appropriate. G. Promote the development and redevelopment of multifamily housing in the community. V. PROJECT AREA The Project boundaries are described in Exhibit A and are illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit B. VI. PROPERTY ACQUISITION The Authority may acquire any property within the Project Area as identified in Exhibit B, or interests therein, as the Authority may deem necessary or desirable to carry out the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Acquisition may be accomplished by negotiation or by the exercise of the Authority's powers of eminent domain. VII. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCING The 'Authority may establish one or more TIF Districts in the Project to finance Public Redevelopment Costs. The Authority may also use any other revenues available to the Authority to pay such costs, including without limitation grant funds, property tax abatements through the City under Mi~mesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 to 469.1815, and proceeds of a special tax, if any, levied under Section 469.033 of the HRA Act. JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -712- JBD-259593vl MU195-15 EXHIBIT A Description of Project Area MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA (AS REVISED MARCH, 2005) 13-117-24-33-0004 5567 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0005 5555 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0006 5545 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0009 5519 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0010 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0011 5501 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0012 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0013 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0014 5575 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0015 5581 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0016 2300 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0017 2306 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0019 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0020 2362 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0047 2316 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0048 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0049 5579 AUDITOR'S RD 13-117-24-33-0050 2334 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0051 2348 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0052 2360 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0055 2380 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0056 2388 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0057 2396 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0069 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-33-0076 5533 SHORELINE DR 13-117-24-33-0082 2372 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0083 2290 COMMERCE BLVD 13-117-24-33-0090 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 13-117-24-34-0063 5377 SHORLINE DR 13-117-24-34-0075 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0001 2321 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0002 2339 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0003 2365 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0004 2345 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0006 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0041 2301 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0042 2313 COMMERCE BLVD 14-117-24-44-0043 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED -713- 14-117-24-44-0044 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0045 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0046 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0047 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0048 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0049 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0051 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0057 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0060 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0061 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14-117-24-44-0062 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 23-117-24-11-0001 2434 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0002 2426 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0003 2444 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0004 2462 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0005 2480 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0006 2500 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0009 2544 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0010 2558 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0027 2510 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-11-0028 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 23-117-24-11-0033 2590 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0007 2630 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0008 2642 cOMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0043 2606 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0044 5668 BARTLETT BLVD 23-117-24-14-0050 2620 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0138 2590 COMMERCE BLVD 23-117-24-14-0139 5680 BARTLETT BLVD 24-117-24-22-0001 2420 COMMERCE BLVD 24-117-24-22-0013 2400 COMMERCE BLVD JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -714- EXHIBIT B Map of Project Area JBD-259593vl MUl95-15 -715- -716- EXHIBIT C HKGI Blight Assessment Summary Report for the Mound Harbor Project 2~rea JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -717- Analysis of Blight Conditions Mound Harbor Project Area [Incorporated from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Report] Statutory Definition of Blighted Area "Blighted area (contains) buildings or improvements which by reason of dilapidationl obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light, and sanitary facihties, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community." 1. Dilapidation The residential and commercial properties were constructed between 1905 and 2000. Even though these properties, as well as the existing commercial and residential improvements constructed on them, can be considered old, they are not considered to have any historical value nor architectural merit. Old properties, however, require relatively higher levels of maintenance mud repair. Over half of these properties can be considered to be lacking in needed maintenance and repair. The criterion of "dilapidation" was observed to apply to forty-three (43) of the sixty (60) parcels within the project planning area. Twelve (12) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while another thirty-one (31) parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. Deferred maintenance of structures and site improvements. Buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair Deferred Maintenance: Specific evidence of deferred maintenance h~cludes: · Poorly maintained exterior building surfaces including masonry, stucco, wood clapboard mad metal siding. · Back yard areas overgrown with vegetation. · Cracked, rutted paved surfaces. · Roof system in a failing condition · Foundation cracks, settling or heaving · Windows & Doors: cracked, broken, ajar or boarded up. Excluding eleven (11) parcels that have become part of the Auditors Road Street Right-of-Way or are "undevelopable" lake or wetlands, seventy-two 72% of these properties (43 of 60 parcels) exhibit a deferred maintenance pattern. In addition, individual owners would be reluctant to make the required level of investments to their individual properties, given the context of the deteriorating nature of adjacent and nearby properties. Building and paved surfaces in disrepair: Specific evidence of buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair includes: -718- Masonry surfaces broken and in need of tuck.pointing. Broken windows Windows and Doors ajar and inoperable. Entry stairways and service/loading docks broken and faihng. Cracked, broken and crumbling paved surfaces. The twelve (12) properties exhibiting moderate to strong evidence of"dilapidation" include a wide variety of building surfaces and site improvements in a state of significant disrepair. The obvious dilapidation of each of commercial properties and residential properties represent a clear blighting influence on abutting properties. In addition, the problems with windows, doors, building surfaces and pavement negatively impact the current use and future prospects for these properties. 2. Obsolescence/Obsolete Layout The criteria of "obsolescence" and "obsolete layout" were observed to apply to seven (7) parcels within the project plamxing area, all of wh/ch five (5) exhibited "strong" evidence of these criteria and two (2) additional parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. Dysfunctional layout of buildings and parking. Substandard design of alley. Dated appearance of structures. Dysfunctional layout of building and parking: All seven commercial parcels are without adequate or convenient parking for customers or visitors based on the layout of the building at zero front lot line. Four of the seven had no available on-site parking. Three of the seven had limited parking which was below current standards. In addition, parking and loading/service areas are not segregated or clearly identified. Substandard design of alley: The alleys on Shoreline Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. commercial properties are long (generally over 100 feet) and narrow. This presents problems to easy and convenient site access and is a psychological barrier to access the front of the business if on-street parking stalls are full. Overall the alleys represent an inconvenient and potentially unsafe site access for the majority of parcels within the project plamxing area Outdated appearance of structures: There is very little evidence of regular maintenance, updating or major rehabilitation is evident on the exteriors of any of theses structures. In the commercial core at Commerce and Shoreline Blvd. there has been only $360,000.00 of property investment over the past 15 years. Most of this investment, as indicated by building permit data, is for non-structural improvements. As stated in Paragraph 1 (Dilapidation), these buildings "are not considered to have any historical value nor architectural merit," and they in fact tend to serve as remnants from a past era that are not consistent with contemporary needs and preferences of retail and commercial service uses. -719- 3. Faulty arrangement or design The criterion of "faulty arrangement or design" was observed to apply to twelve (12) parcels within the project planning area. Nine (9) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while another three (3) parcels exhibited "moderate" evidence. Inadequate parking. Inconvenient pedestrian and vehicular access. Substandard alley. Inadequate Parking: Eight (8) commercial properties utilize narrow alleys for site access. This results in a poorly functioning, obsolete parking and loading service area. The lack of legal parking in fi-ont of the properties, due to the fact that these properties front onto a City-owned right-of-way which is not used for street purposes, compounds the parking and loading deficiencies. This situation produces a blighting influence to surrounding properties, as commercial tenants' employees, suppliers, and customers seek out nearby parking opportunities Inconvenient pedestrian and vehicular access: The awkward and confusing parking arrangement in the rear of buildings along Shoreline and Commerce Boulevards creates safety hazards for pedestrians trying to access the front doors. The ill-defined narrow alley offers no separation between cars and pedestrians seeking to access to the commercial uses. It is likely to present a particularly undesirable site condition in winter months during conditions of snow and ice. The substandard design of the alley that serves as the primary access for the majority of parcels in the project planning area (see paragraph 2. Dilapidation) also serves as a clear representation of this criterion. Co Substandard alley. Factors). See Paragraph 2 (Dilapidation) and Paragraph 5 (Other 4. Excessive Land Coverage The criterion of "faulty arrangement or design" was observed to apply to eighteen (18) parcels within the project planning area. Ten (10) of parcels exhibited "strong" evidence of this criterion while one (1) additional parcel exhibited "moderate" evidence. a. Size and placement of commercial buildings. ao Size and placement of commercial buildings: Twenty-four (24) of the sixty (60) parcels exhibit this criterion due to their nonconforming lot size. Twenty-eight (28) of the sixty (60) buildings exhibit this criterion due to their relative the amount of remaining site area available for parking, loading, and access. As referenced in Paragraph 3 (Faulty Design and Arrangements), the placement of the commercial buildings at a zero-front-setback exacerbates the problem of excessive land coverage -720- because the principal access points to the buildings are opposite the parking areas, making for difficult pedestrian connections. 5. Other Factors In addition to the above, the following other blighting factors were evident: Negative conditions within public fights-of-way. Overgrown vegetation. Economics of renewal/reinvestment. ao Negative conditions within the public rights-of-way: · The substandard design of the alley serving commercial and residential properties. · The obsolete design of the parking areas. The above referenced conditions within public right-of-way represent a blighting influence the impacts the entire project plain'ring area. Vehicular and pedestrian access is compromised by the substandard and antiquated arrangement of driveway cuts, paved surfaces, parking and driveways serving the majority of parcels. bo Overgrown Vegetation: Overgrown vegetation present on many of the parcels representing a blighting influence consistent with the intent of the statutory definition for a blight area. Co Economics of renewal/reinvestment: In addition, the physical and economic difficulties associated with lot-by-lot, or building-by-building, renewal of these 60 properties lead to the conclusion that this type and form of reinvestment is unlikely to occur. A renewal/reinvestment scenario that would take the form of total redevelopment appears more likely, more desired, and more feasible in terms of producing property design/layout and land use mix that would be market-sensitive and would contribute to the near-term and furore health and welfare of the Mound Harbor Project Area. -721 - EXHIBIT D Mound Harbor Renaissance Sketch Plan (July 2004) JBD-259593vl MU195-15 -722- -723- -724- DRAFT CITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN THE MOUND HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFORE AND MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINCNCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-2 BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN PARCELS THEREFROM. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. It has been proposed by the HRA that the City establish the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District (the "District") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor ( the "Plan"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, 469.174 to 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The HRA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plan and have caused the Plan to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plan, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 277 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plan, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports") relating to the Plan and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff or by consultants retained by the City or the HRA and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plan. Included among the Reports is a report prepared by LHB, Inc. ("LHB"), entitled "Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District" attached hereto as Exhibit A-l, which report was further supplemented by testimony at the public hearing by Michael A Fischer of LHB. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the bases for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. The Council also determines, for the reasons set out in Exhibit A-2 that the conditions giving rise to the creation of the District are reasonable distributed throughout the District. JBD-260507vl MU195-15 -725- 1.05. Tax Increment District No. 1-2 was established on December 14, 1999. As part of the creation of the Mound Harbor Tax Increment District, it will be necessary to eliminate 53 parcels from Tax Increment District No. 1-2 thereby reducing the size of that district, and to place such parcels into the Mound Harbor Tax Increment District. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plan. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plan, is intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for development, serve a public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plans, which are hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(i). 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through 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 tax increment financing would be less 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 the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City has 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 B. 3.04. The Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. ! 77, subdivision 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. 3.05. The Council finds that the Plan contains the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, § 469.175 subdivision 1. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The adoption of the Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to redevelop an area of the City that qualifies for treatment as a Redevelopment District under the Act, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plan. JBD-260507vl MU195-15 -726- 5.01. The 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 Community Development Director. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plan and to negotiate, draft, 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 the District, as described in the Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Community Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plan with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. Section 6. Approval of Modification to Tax Increment District Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 1-2. 6.01. It has been proposed that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment District No. 1-2 be modified by eliminating from said district the parcels listed in the attached Exhibit C. 6.02. The Council herewith finds that this modification has been treated as a formal modification of the Plan, and not subject to the exception contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175 Subd. 4 (e); and that all required notifications have been made. 6.03. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this Resolution to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify; and request that the County Auditor remove the subject parcels from Tax Increment District No. 1-2. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, this 22nd day of March, 2005. Mayor ATTEST: JBD-260507vl MU195-15 -727- City Clerk JBD-260507vl MU195-15 -728- EXHIBIT A-1 REPORT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS FOR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District 1-2 Mound, Minnesota LHB Project No. 04467.10 Prepared For The City of Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Mound, Minnesota March 22, 2005 Prepared by JBD-260507vl MU195-15 LHB, Inc. 250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 A-1 -729- TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 Page Executive Summary ........................................................... 3 Purpose of Evaluation ................................................ 3 Scope of Work ......................................................... 4 Conclusion ............................................................. 4 PART 2 Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subdivision 10 Requirements ............. 4 PART 3 Procedures Followed .......................................................... 6 PART 4 Findings .......................................................................... 7 A. Coverage Test ......................................................... 7 B. Condition of Building Test .......................................... 8 1. Replacement Cost ................................................ 8 2. Code Deficiencies ................................................ 8 3. System Condition Deficiencies ................................. 9 C. Distribution of Substandard Structures .......................... 10 PART 5 Team Credentials ............................................................. 11 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports Property Condition Assessment & Preliminary Costs) Photographs Cost Report (Replacement -730- PART 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF EVALUATION LHB was hired by the City of Mound, Housing and Redevelopment Authority to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment District ("T1F District") proposed to be established by the city. The proposed TIF District is located in the City of Mound, in a general area around the intersection of Commerce Boulevard, Shoreline Drive, and Auditors Road (Diagram 1). The purpose of LHB's work was to determine whether the proposed district meets the statutory requirements for coverage, and whether buildings on 45 different parcels, located within the proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District. Diagram 1 - Proposed TIF District SCOPE OF WORK -731 - The proposed district consists of forty-five (45) parcels, comprised of fourteen (14) commercial/industrial buildings and one (1) building with a commercial/residential mix. Thirty (30) of the parcels are parking lots, wetlands, or vacant and do not contain any buildings. Twelve (12) of the buildings in the proposed district received an on-site interior and exterior inspection. Two (2) buildings were not inspected because the owner denied interior access. One (1) building was not inspected at the discretion of the building inspector. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports for each building inspected by LHB are located in Appendix B. CONCLUSION After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed T~ District and applying current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as a Redevelopment District. The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail. PART 2 -MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174~ SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(c), which states: Interior Inspection "The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without an interior inspection of the property..." Exterior Inspection and Other Means "An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard." Documentation "Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1)." Qualification Requirements Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels: A. Coverage Test ..."parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots" The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(e), which states: "For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots unless 15 -732- percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots." B. Condition of Buildings Test ..."and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;" Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(b), which states: "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 sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Definition of Substantial Renovation Because "Substantial renovation" can mean different things to different people, LHB has attempted to clarify exactly what we consider to be "substantial renovation" as it relates to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. ! 74, Subdivision !O(a) (1). First we researched national standards as to how much building owners should budget for annual maintenance and repair on their buildings as a percentage of replacement cost of the building. According to the University of California "Facilities Renewal Budget Model" report of 1999, building owners should budget between two and three percent of current replacement value of their buildings for maintenance and repair work. This does not include routine janitorial work and routine items such as changing light bulbs and filters. According to the Building Research Board of the National Research Council, one and one-half to three percent of a building's replacement value should be budgeted for maintenance and repair. bo Based on this information, LHB utilized two and one-half percent as the desired amount of maintenance and repair that should be budgeted annually to keep a building in good working condition. We recognize through experience that only a small percentage of sophisticated building owners actually budget for and spend this amount of money every year on maintenance and repair. This is because most business owners are driven by other budgetary issues and tend to neglect the building maintenance and repair line items in their annual budgets. By establishing how much a building owner should be budgeting per year for maintenance and repairs, LHB is of the opinion that we could more easily establish an amount that would be considered "substantial" in comparison. If an owner is budgeting 2.5 percent of the building's replacement cost annually, most business owners or home owners would have to take out a loan to cover the cost of a -733- substantial building improvement. Assuming they had a fixed level of income to work with, they would have to keep the loan payment at a level very near the original 2.5 percent they should have been budgeting each year. In addition, they still would have to budget for the original 2.5 percent on top of the loan. In most cases, the mortgage terms would have to extend out to a point beyond the life expectancy of the building they were trying to improve, as most buildings built in the past fifty years are not designed to last beyond 40 years. Based on the calculations described above, we have defined substantial renovation for purposes of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(a)(1), as renovation with costs exceeding 20 % of the building's replacement value. Substantially substandard is further defined in the statutes under Subdivision 10(c), which states: "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 15 percent 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 of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable evidence." "Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is structurally substandard] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence." PART 3 - PROCEDURES FOLLOWED A. The City and LHB used letters and phone calls to request permission to conduct interior inspections of fourteen (14) buildings located in the proposed TIF District. Bo LHB was able to schedule interior and exterior inspections for twelve (12) of the fifteen (15) buildings in the proposed TIF District. We did not receive permission to inspect two of the buildings, and chose not to inspect another. Inspections were conducted between November 8, 2004 and February 10, 2005 with the exception of 2300 Commerce Avenue, which was inspected on July 3, 2003, prior to its demolition. PART 4 - FINDINGS A. Coverage Test 1. The total square foot area of each parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site verification. -734- The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the proposed TIF District was obtained tr0m City records, GIS mapping and site verification. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total square footage of parcels meeting the 15 percent requirement were divided into the total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement was met. Finding: The district met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.! 74, Subdivision lO(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 83.2 percent of the area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or paved drives or parking lots. This exceeds the 70 percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. ! 74, Subdivision (a) (I). Diagram 2 - Coverage Shaded area indicates land occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or paved drives or parking lots B. Condition of Building Test Replacement cost The first step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost. This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on site. Replacement costs were researched fi'om (2) different sources including, iR.S. iMean.s Cost Works - 2004 and R.S. Means website based Preliminary Cost Estimator. After a thorout~h review of these -735- sources it was determined that the average costs from all sources most closely matched, the Median Cost from R. S. Means Cost Works .... Square Foot Models for 2004. A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail, residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the costs of construction in Mound, Minnesota. Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor's overhead and profit. Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other "soft" costs not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is tabulated in Appendix A. Code Deficiencies The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(c), specifically provides that a building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the proposed TIF District. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such building contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilized the 2002 Minnesota State Building Code as the official, code for our eval'uations. We chose not to count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(b) and lO(c), due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001. After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost Works, unit prices to determine the cost of correcting the identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold. Finding: Ten (10) of the fifteen (15) buildings (66.7 percent) in the proposed TIF District contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(c). A complete Building Code and Condition Deficiency report for each building in the proposed TIF District can be found in Appendix B of this report. -736- System Condition Deficiencies System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical components, fire protection and emergency systems (only items not covered in the code deficiencies) interior partitions, ceilings, floors and doors. The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB only identified system condition deficiencies that were visible upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider the amount of "service life" used up for a particular component unless it was an obvious part of that component's deficiencies. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), provides for the minimum threshold of code deficiencies that must be met in order to consider a building substandard. If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. ! 74, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be "structurally substandard" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.!74, Subdivision lO(b), the building's defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance." Based on this definition, LHB re-evaluated each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision lO(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted "substantial renovation or clearance" based on the criteria we outlined above. Finding: In our professional opinion, ten (10) of the fifteen (15) buildings (66.7 percent) in the proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. C. Distribution of substandard structures Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision t0. It is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District. Finding: The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of the proposed TIF District (See Diagram 3). -737- Diagram 3 - Distribution of Substandard Buildings Shaded area indicates parcels containing substandard buildings PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS Michael A. Fischer, AIA - Project Principal/TIF Analyst Michael has nineteen years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He is a Vice President at LHB and currently leads the Community Design Group in LHB's Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as City Council President and Chair of the Duluth/Superior Metropolitan Planning organization. He is currently a Planning Commissioner in Edina, Minnesota. He was one of four architects in the country to receive the National "Young Architects Citation" from the American Institute of Architects in 1997. Jerry A. Putnam, AIA, FCSI, CCS - Pro ject Manager/Inspector -738- Jerry is a senior architect in LHB's Minneapolis office with twenty-five years of experience in all phases of the architectural process, from pre-design through construction administration, including specialty consulting in investigations for buildings, building condition surveys, TIF inspections, code reviews, estimating and specification writing. Jerry is an active member in the Construction Specification Institute (CSI). He has been recognized as a Fellow of CSI for his dedication and leadership in the construction industry. In addition to being past president of the largest CSI chapter in the United States, he serves on many local, regional and national committees, and has given presentations at many specification writing classes and workshops. Bruce Chalupsky, ASLA - G IS~Coverage Analysis Bruce has more than ten years of experience as a landscape architect/planner. During this time, he has specialized on site master planning for public and private clients. Brace has also pursued specialization in Geographic Information Services (GIS) and is proficient in the administration of community data and the production of maps for a variety of needs. He has spearheaded new methods for the delivery of GIS service as well as provided data management for smaller communities. M:\04Proj\04467\ADMN\F200\Final Report\0446710 final report.doc APPENDICES [Appendices are on file in the office of the Community Development Director and not included in this exhibit] Appendix A - Pr operty Condition Assessment Summary Sheet Appendix B - Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports Appendix C - Property Condition Assessment & Preliminary Cost Report (Replacement Costs) Appendix D - Photographs -739- EXHIBIT A-2 Reasonable Distribution of Parcels. o The district is comprised of areas containing buildings and areas containing relatively large tracts of vacant land. The structurally substandard buildings are intermixed in the areas containing buildings. The areas containing relatively large tracts of vacant land are not improved due to conditions that generally prevent their improvement absent significant public assistance. Those conditions include: environmental contamination, presence of city dump, poor soil conditions, and poor access. In light of such conditions it would be unreasonable to expect buildings to be present, whether structurally substandard or otherwise. The percentage of structurally substandard parcels significantly exceeds the percentage · required by the Act to qualify a district. The HRA intends to enter into a single redevelopment contract calling for the redevelopment of the entire district as a single project. Tax increment generated from portions of the district will be available to assist in the development of other portions of the district. Income generated from developer activities such as land sales from one portion of the development will be available to the developer and to other areas of the development. Consequently, the various portions of the development are connected and interdependent, and all are needed for the overall feasibility of the development. One of the important elements of the redevelopment project is the clean-up of a former city dump. This clean-up may require that all of the tax increment generated by the redevelopment of that area be devoted to the payment of clean-up costs; and that the developer enter into a security agreement relating to those payments. It is not anticipated that a developer would be interested in such an arrangement unless it also had the right to develop the other parcels in the district. The LHB Report (Exhibit A-I) has specifically found that the parcels are reasonably distributed throughout the district. JBD-260507vl MU195-15 A-2 -740- EXmBIT B The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District, as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. ! 75, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. lO(a)(1). The District consists of 53 parcels and adjacent and internal tights of way, with plans to redevelop the area for mixed-use housing and retail purposes. Parcels that make up at least 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures, and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiting substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix E of the TIF plan, and Exhibit B to this Resolution). Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would 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 could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less 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 the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District 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: The area to be included in the district has been the subject of concerted City efforts to revitalize and redevelop since 1991. The area to be included in the district has not been significantly upgraded or renovated for many years. The only significant new building construction in the vicinity of the District within the past twenty years or longer was accomplished only because public assistance was made available. The proposed development, which includes retail, commercial and housing and the construction of structured parking calls for the acquisition of all of the land in the District, the demolition of all improvements, the clean-up of a former City dump, the vacation and removal of a public street and the comprehensive redevelopment of the entire area. Site assembly costs, including the need to purchase buildings and other improvements only to demolish them before redevelopment can take place, and the cost involved in cleaning up the former city dump, would understandably seem to prevent the proposed development to take place through private investment. Because the parcels within the proposed district are in multiple ownerships, it is unlikely that assembly could take place without the ability to compel sale, unless a premium were paid for the land. Absent public assistance, private investors would likely not elect to participate in such a program. These conclusions are reinforced by the analysis prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. as justification that the developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance (see Appendix G). The increased market value of the site that could reasonably 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: If all development which is proposed to be assisted with tax increment were to occur in the District, the total increase in market value would be up to $95,326,795. The present value of tax increments from the District is estimated to by $34,880,425. It is the Council's finding that no development with a market value of greater than $60,446,370 would occur without tax increment assistance in this District within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past JBD~260507v 1 MU195-15 B-1 -741 - experience With the high cost of acquisition, contaminated site clean-up, and public improvements in the general area of the District. (See Cashflow in Appendix D of the TIF Plan) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plan and issued its written opinion that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Mound Harbor Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. No significant redevelopment has occurred within the area of the district for many years. Consequently, it is the determination of the City that absent the assistance authorized by the Plan, no development or redevelopment of the area by private enterprise can be reasonably anticipated. The Council, also finds that the implementation of the Plan through the construction of the proposed development will remove substandard properties, increase the availability of safe and decent housing in the City, will increase the tax base, will add a high quality mixed-use development to the City, will eliminate or prevent the spread of blight, and will remove and replace substandard structures and other conditions in furtherance of the objectives for which the District is being created. JBD-260507vl MU195-15 B-2 -742- EXHIBIT C ?AJ~.CELS ELIIvlINATED FROM TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-2 · ~Pavcel NUmbers Acldr~s Owner 13-117-24-33-0069 N/A City 1.t-11.,-~,,-34-006_ 53:77 Shoreline Drive B~Iboa Mim~esota Co 13- I t '7 -24- 34-0075 N/A B atbea Mmnes 14-117-24-44-0001 2321 Commerce Blvd PTS Holding','., I4-I 1 :-.24-~-000_' 2339: Commerce Blvd A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24=44%0003 23,65 Commerce Blvd A ? Meisel & P A Meisel 14- I 17-2444-0004 2345 Commie B~vd Koem~ & Schwert 14-I 17-24-44-0006 N/A A ? Meisel & PA Meisel I4-117-24-44-0040 ~/A I4-117-24-'~-0041 230t Commerce Blvd We~tmxka Profe,s~ionat Ctr I4-I 17-24-44-0042 2313 Commerce Bird W I4- ! 17-24-44-0043 N/A A ? Meisel & ? A Meisel I4-117-24-44-00~ N'/A A ? Meisel & ?'A Meisel t4-i 1%24-44-0045 %54, A ? Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-2:4-44-0046 N/A A ? Meisel & P A Meisel 14-I 17-24-44-0~7 N/A A ? Meisel & P A Meisel t4-117-24-44-00,48 N/A A ? Meisel & P A Meisel I4-117-24-44-0~9 N/A A ? Meisel & P A Meisel ! 4-I 17-24-44-0050 N/A A ? MeiseI & ? A Meisel 14-I 17-24-~-0051 N/A A ? Meisel & P A Meisel 14- I 17-24-44-0056 N/A Ci~' 14- I 17-2444-0057 N!A City 14-117-24-44-0060 NS'A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0061 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117- 24-44- 0062. N/A Hennepin ?offei,ted Land 13-! 17-24-33.-0004 55,67 Shoreline Drive Ro~er L ~ecke! I3-I 17-24-33-0005 5_'555 Shoreline Drive B S & F Y I3-I 17-24-03-0006 5545 Shoreline Drive Cur~i~ L 13-1 t7-24-33-0009 5519 Shoreline Drive Twin Ci~.; Metro Transit Area 13-117-24-33-0010 N/A City 13-117-24-~3-001 t 550i Shore~ne Drive City 1.~- 11 ¢--'4-_,3-001~ N/A City i3-I 17-24-~;3-00t3 N/A Cd,;, 13-117-24-3,3-0014 ~575 Shoreline Drive Kenneth Perbix 13,- I 17-24-33-0015 55181 Shoreline Drive P,_ & G Lauer ! 3- I 17-24-33-0016 23,00 Comme~ce B:ivd C 13-117-24-33-0017 2306 C~,mme~ce Bl'cd City Hi:LA 13-117-24-33-0019 N/A City 13-I 17-24-33-0047 2316 Cmm~erce B lvd J E & P M Lard,on 13-117-24-33-0048, N/A JBD-260507vl MU195-15 C-1 -743- 13- ~ 1 ~-~4-3~-00~0 ~3~4 C~ce Bird C~t?~ 13-I 17-24-33-0051 234~ C~,~m~ce Bl~'d City 13.- 117-24-33-0076 5533 Shoreline Drix'e 13- I 17-24-33-0090 N/A CiI¥ 13-117-24-.33-0052 2:360 Comerce Bl~'g William R N~ et al '13-117-24-33-0020 2362 C~erce Blvg Wil~m R Nelka et al 13-I 17-24-33-0082 2372 Cc~eme Blx*d Mo~d Lodge No 320 13-I 17-24-33-0055 2380 C~ce 13-117-24-33-0056 2388 Coquette: 13-117-24-33-0057 2396 C~erce 24-I 17-24-22-0013 2400 Comeree 13-. 117-2 4-33 -0083 2290 C~e Bird Crow Rive~' Bank JBD-260507vl MU195-15 C-2 -744- MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a redevelopment district) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: March 22, 2005 Adopted: EHLERS ASSOCIATES INC Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Rosevitle, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www. ehlers-inc.com -745- TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I- Foreword MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 ......... 1-1 1-1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ........... 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. 2-1 Foreword ............................................... 2-1 Statutory Authority ........................................ 2-1 Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1 Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1 Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 2-2 Classification of the District ................................. 2-2 Duration of the District ..................................... 2-4 Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .................................... 2-4 Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2-5 Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6 Fiscal Disparities Election .................................. 2-7 Business Subsidies ....................................... 2-7' County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8 Estimated Impact on Other. Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-8 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. Supporting Documentation ................................. 2-9 Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10 Modifications to the District ................................ 2-10 Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11 Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-11 Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12 Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13 Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13 Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14 Administration of the District ............................... 2-14 Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14 Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14 Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................. 2-14 Summary .............................................. 2-15 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B MAP(S) OF THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA AND THE DISTRICT ' B-1 APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ............. C-1 -746- APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT ............................... APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT .................... APPENDIX G BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. APPENDIX H PRIOR IMPROVEMENTS ................................................ D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1 -747- SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. Foreword (AS MODIFIED ON MARCH 22, 2005) Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 was established on December 14~ 1999. The District is being modified to eliminate 53 parcels, therefore reducing the size of TIF District No. 1-2. HRA in and for the City of Mound Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-2 I-1 -748- SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Subsection 2-1. Foreword The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound (the "HRA"), the City of Mound (the "City"), staff.and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in the Mound Harbor Project Area. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to 3,~innesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469. J74 to 469.1799, 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 "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Redevelopment Plan for the Mound Harbor Project Area. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of 53 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the redevelopment and construction of a mixed-use pedestrian friendly environment in the City. Please see Appendix A for further project information. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to occur beginning in the Spring of 2005. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Mound Harbor Project Area. The activities contemplated in the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter J.l 7 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 HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-1 -749- Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City 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. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469. ! 74 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a pt'oject, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: parcels consisting of 7O percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; are located adjacent to rail facilities; or have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. I Ob. (79) 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 sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-2 -750- to new buildings or could be modred to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonabO~ available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building the average cost of plumbing electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. 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 municipality 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. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met: (l) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor; the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearan ce the authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district, the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by 3g 469.177, subdivision I, paragraph 09. (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. O9 For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: · · The District is a redevelopment district consisting of 53 parcels. · · An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. · · An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part ora parcel that qualified under the provisions ofM. S., Sections 273.111 or 2 73.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-3 -751 - Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2032, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2006, the term of the District will be 2031. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2004 for taxes payable 2005. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2007) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2005, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2005. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table on the following page. 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 the District, within the Mound Harbor Project Area, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table on the following page. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2007. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. HRA in and for the City o£Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-4 -752- Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Original Local Tax Rate Estimated Annual Tax Increment(CTC x Local Tax Rate) Percent Retained by the HRA 1,149,407 61,059 1,088,348 1.05738 1,150,797 100% Pay 2004 *PTC is based on the 2009 tax capacity, and does not include inflation. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ] 75, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found that some building permits have been issued in the past 18 months, but none that should increase the original tax capacity. Please see Appendix H for the building permits that were issued. Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap- plicable to the HRA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contribu- tions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by bond issues and pay-as-you-go notes. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bonds, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $35,000,000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $35,000,000 in bonded indebtedness will be financed with tax increment revenues. This funding may include up to a $5 million General Obligation Tax Increment Bond, for the restoration of a land fill and up to a $5 million General Obligation Tax Increment Bond for the installation of various public improvements. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The HKA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-5 -753- The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. SOURCES OF FUNDS Tax Increment TOTAL $35,000,000 PROJECT REVENUES $35?000?000 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment and construction of a mixed-use pedestrian friendly environment. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF 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 the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF FUNDS Land/Building Acquisition Site Improvements/Preparation Public Utilities Parking Facilities Streets and Sidewalks Other Public Improvements Interest Administrative Costs (up to 10%) PROJECT COSTS TOTAL TOTAL $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $5OO,OOO $500,000 $4,000,000 $13,385,405 $1,614,595 $35?000?000 The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms. It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $35,000,000 as is presented in the budget above. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not 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 the District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of the Mound Harbor Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-6 -754- Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ! 77, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ! 77, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276,4 or 473F. Where the origirzal net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured r~et 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 cttrrent 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 shall 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. The HRA 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 (b) shah remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election fi'om the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J. 993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section I16J. 552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-7 -755- (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469. ! 74, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. The HRA will comply with M.S., Section J16J. 993 to 116J. 994 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment Will, in 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 within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-8 -756- Hennepin County City of Mound ISD No. 277 IMPACT ON TAX BASE Estimated Estimated Captured 2004/2005 Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of C~rC Total Net Upon Completion to Entity Total Tax Capacity_ 1,094,113,489 1,088,348 0.0995% 9,210,011 1,088,348 11.8170% 25,663,191 1,088,348 4.2409% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Estimated Percent 2004/2005 of Total CTC Extension Rates Potential Taxes Hennepin County 0.441140 41.72% 1,088,348 480,114 City of Mound 0.393530 37.22% 1,088,348 428,298 ISD No. 277 0.135130 12.78% 1,088,348 14%068 Other 0.087580 8.28% 1,088,348 ~ Total 1.057380 100.00% 1,150,797 The estimates listed above display the CTC when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 2004/Pay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2004/Pay 2005 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469. ] 75 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA's findings: · Mound Harbor Renaissance Informal Sketch Plan Review, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. - June 12, 2003 · Mound Harbor Renaissance Sketch Plan Review, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. August -'19, 2004 · Mound Harbor Renaissance Sketch Plan Review, Hennepin County - August 30, 2004 · Mound Harbor Renaissance Sketch Plan Review, City of Mound - September 9, 2004 · Major Subdivision Application · Building Code Comments HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-9 -757- Subsection 2-16. 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: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the HRA with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the HRA with tax increments; and 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Mound Harbor Project Area or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements ofM. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469. ! 75 Subd. 409, the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of.the ONTC 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. ! 74, Subd. ! O, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Mound Harbor Project Area or the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA 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 the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the Mound Harbor Project Area or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-10 -758- Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. 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 project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (l) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ] 76, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any tax increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. i 76, Subd. Ia, no tax increment shall be paid to the HRA or City for the District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the ONTC value of the taxable property in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ! 78, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469. to 469.165, or (2) The HRA or City has acquired property within the District, or (3) The HRA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the District. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-11 -759- The bonds must be issued, or the HRA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately March, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District 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, afier 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 of a 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 of a 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 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. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February I of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening ora new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately March, 2009 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the CNTC of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs ofthe Mound Harbor Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469. 001 to 469. 047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469. ! 76, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Mound Harbor Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-12 -760- the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, MS., Sectiona 469.152 through 469. i65, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. 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 the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an mnount 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 HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.] 76, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proPortion to their local tax rates. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Mound Harbor Project Area or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan 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 HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. ! 76, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City 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, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-13 -761 - Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market' value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be 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 County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the City Clerk. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469. ! 75, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would 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 could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less 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 the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such.analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. 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 TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Mound Harbor Project Area pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469. 001 to 469. 047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may 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 HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-14 -762- federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. o Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District 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 development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469. ] 763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. 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 renovation districts underM. S., Section 469.176Subd. 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, clearing of the 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 HKA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2-28. Summary The HRA is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Rosevilte, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697-8500. HRA in and for the City of Mound Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor TIF District 2-15 -763- APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project History The City committed itself to revitalizing its downtown efforts through an effort called "Mound Visions." Mound Visions began in 1991 when the City began to explore ways to strengthen its downtown business community. For some time, the downtown struggled to realize its full potential, not because of the efforts of private businesses, but largely due to the lack of image, connectivity, and pedestrian appeal. Many of the elements so important to the area, such as natural amenities and pedestrian comfort had been forgotten. Early efforts focused on general beautification, facade improvements and limited streetscape improvements. Through this exercise, the community learned it needed much more than aesthetics for a successful downtown. Mound Visions incorporates a comprehensive approach to planning, design and implexnentation projects that will involve both public and private entities. The proposed Mound Harbor Renaissance project will be the heart of the Mound Visions Plan for downtown revitalization. The original plan established five new downtown mixed-use districts and since that time, two have essentially been completed. The Mound Harbor Renaissance (MHR) project will complete the three remaining districts including Lost Lake, Auditor's Road, and Lake Langdon and will rebuild downtown as a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment which is orientedtowards Mound's greatest natural asset, Lost Lake, and its historic channel which extends to Lake Minnetonka. Project goals include: Establishing a traditional downtown by creating a distinctive community place for Mound. Creating a central core of traditional, multi-story "main street" type buildings with retail along the street and office or housing uses located above. Keeping the downtown vital by mixing retail, entertainment and office uses with a wide range oflire- cycle housing. Offering the community new housing choices including senior cooperative apartments, urban "rowhouse style townhomes" and loft or apartment-style condominiums. Connecting the downtown area with new greenways, trails and traditionally designed streets and sidewalks. Incorporating streetscape and landscaping elements along the new mainstreet and realigned CSAH 15 corridor. Providing central, downtown parking areas including both structured and surface lots. Enhancing community appreciation of and access to, the area's natural resources by reclaiming the historic Lost Lake channel and providing public dock and boat slip amenities for both residents and visitors. Projecting and enhancing the City's natural resources through the incorporation of innovative and unique stormwater strategies. Planning for regional transportation connections including the existing rail corridor being planned for as a possible future LRT route and a new transit shelter to be incorporated into the Park and Ride facility currently proposed for the True Value District. A-1 -764- Planning Strategies Redevelopment of the City's downtown area is a recurrent theme in the approved comprehensive plan which was adopted by the City of Mound on April 11, 2000. In anticipation of the proposed downtown redevelopment project, a number of planning-related efforts have been undertaken by the City including the preparation of the Mound Environmental and Appearance Model which was adopted in 1992. This document was based on the Mound Market Position which was adopted by the City of Mound on 1991. Additionally, the Mound Zoning Ordinance was amended in 2000 to incorporate new regulations and standards for the Pedestrian, Destination, and Linear Districts which were created to guide the City's "new" downtown. Mound Harbor Renaissance Plan Review Sketch Plan. The sketch plan for the Mound Harbor Renaissance proposal was formally reviewed by the Mound Planning Commission and City Council in August and September 2004 respectively. While the approved sketch plan for the Mound Harbor Renaissance project does not include the South CSAH 110 corridor, it is important to mention that redevelopment of this corridor is anticipated. AUAR. Preparation of the Mound Visions Areawide Alternative Urban Review (AUAR) commenced in June 2004. The Mound Visions Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan was approved by the Mound City Council on January 25, 2005. Related Proiects The City was awarded a stormwater initiatives grant from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council in October 2003. Environmental investigation grants for the Lost Lake District, True Value District and Auditor's Road Districts were awarded to the City of Mound by Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Minnesota Pollution Control Authority (MPCA) in 2002 and 2004. A $1.5M levy was approved for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to undertake stormwater improvements associated with the downtown Mound redevelopment project. The levy will be funded over a 3 year period and includes unique and innovative strategies and programs as outlined in the MCWD report entitled "Supplementing Mound Downtown Redevelopment with Innovative Stormwater Management." According to the report, "The purpose of the MCWD participation in the redevelopment is to incorporate stormwater management practices that reach as far as possible and incorporate as many new ideas as needed to improve the quality of runoff reaching Lake Minnetonka via Lost Lake and Lake Langdon." The City of Mound was awarded a $1.2M Livable Communities development grant from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council to fund public parking in the Auditor's Road District in February 2005. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Managers directed LMCD staff to prepare findings of fact and order approving the City of Mound multiple dock license and variance application to allow (37) slips for the Lost Lake townhome project (subject to conditions) on February 23, 2005. Final approval is anticipated on March 9~'. The City of Mound submitted the dredge and aquatics permit applications for the Lost Lake townhome project to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Department of Natural Resources on February 3, 2005. It is anticipated that the dredge application will be reviewed by the MCWD Board of Managers on March 24th. A-2 -765- APPENDIX B MAP(S) OF THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA AND THE DISTR1CT B-1 -766- -767- -768- -769- APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel(s) listed below. *Parcel Numbers Address Owner 13-117-24-33-0069 N/A City 13-117-24-34-0063 5377 Shoreline Balboa Minnesota Co Drive 13-117-24-34-0075 N/A Balboa Minnesota Co 14-117-24-44-0001 2321 Commerce PTS Holdings Inc Blvd 14-117-24-44-0002 2339 Commerce A P Meisel & P A Meisel Blvd 14-117-24-44-0003 2365 Commerce A P Meisel & P A Meisel Blvd 14- I 17-24-44-0004 2345 Commerce Koenig & Schwert II Blvd 14-117-24-44-0006 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0040 N/A City 14-117-24-44-0041 2301 Commerce Westonka Professional Ctr Blvd 14-117-24-44-0042 2313 Commerce W R Netka & D E Netka et al Blvd 14-117-24-44-0043 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0044 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0045 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0046 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0047 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0048 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0049 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0050 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0051 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0056 N/A City 14-117-24-44-0057 N/A City 14-117-24-44-0060 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0061 N/A A P Meisel & P A Meisel 14-117-24-44-0062 N/A Hennepin Forfeited Land 13-117-24-33-0004 5567 Shoreline Roger L Beckel Drive 13-117-24-33-0005 5555 Shoreline B S & F Y Moy Drive 13-117-24-33-0006 5545 Shoreline Curtis L Johnson Drive C-1 -770- 13-117-24-33-0009 5519 Shoreline Twin City Metro Trans it Area Drive 13-117-24-33-0010 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0011 5501 Shoreline City Drive 13-117-24-33-0012 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0013 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0014 5575 Shoreline Kenneth Perbix Drive 13-117-24-33-0015 5581 Shoreline R & G Lauer Drive 13-117-24-33-0016 2300 Commerce City HRA Blvd 13-117-24-33-0017 2306 Commerce City HRA Blvd 13-117-24-33-0019 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0047 2316 Commerce J E & P M Larson Blvd 13-117-24-33-0048 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0049 5579 Auditors Rd City 13-117-24-33-0050 2334 Commerce City Blvd 13-117-24-33-0051 2348 Commerce City Blvd 13-117-24-33-0076 5533 Shoreline City HRA Drive 13-117-24-33-0090 N/A City 13-117-24-33-0052 2360 Commerce William R Netka et al Blvd 13-117-24-33-0020 2362 Commerce William R Netka et al Blvd 13-117-24-33-0082 2372 Commerce Mound Lodge No 320 Blvd 13-117-24-33-0055 2380 Commerce Michael Joseph Ryan Blvd 13-117-24-33-0056 2388 Commerce T & S Whalen Blvd 13-117-24-33-0057 2396 Commerce A Williams Trustee Blvd 24-117-24-22-0013 2400 Commerce R Falness & R T Falness Blvd 13-117-24-33-0083 2290 Commerce Crow River Bank Blvd * Please note that these parcels are currently being eliminated from TIF District No. 1-2 C-2 -771 - APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT D-1 -772- Page 1 of 6 O EHLERS CITY OF MOUND . HARBOR RENAISSANCE, LLC ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL AREAS District New Redevelopment Dis~ict County District # inflation Rate - Every - Years 2.50% Pay-As-You-Go interest Rate: 700% Bond Intreat Rate: 6.75% Note Issued Date {Present Value Date): 01.AugA36 Local Tax Rate - Frozen 1057380% Pay 2005 Est Fiscal Disparities Elecaon (A - outside or B inside) A Year District was cel~fled 2005 Assumes First Tax I~c~ement For Dist~t 2007 Year District was Modified NIA Development located in modified area N/A Assumes First Tax In~ement For Day 2008 Yearn of Tax increment 26 Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2032 Fiscal D~spafitles Re,JO 31.7378% Pay 2005 Est Fiscal O[spar[~ea Metro V~de Tax Rate 129.8630% Pay 2005 Local Tax Rate - Current 1057380% Pay 2005 Eat State V~de Property Tax Rate {Used for total taxes) 51.1210% Pay 2005 Eat Market Value Tax Rate (used for tetsl taxes) NIA Pay 2005 Est Commerc[a~ Industrial Class Rate 1.5%-2.0% First 150,000 t.50% Over 150,000 2.00% Rental Class Rate 1.25% Residential Class Ra - Under $500,000 1.00% Over $500,000 1.25% AREA Use Current Assigned New New Total Market Value Market Value Class Rate Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Lost Lake C ommei'cial 223,000 2.00% 4,460 For Sale 153,006 1.00% 1,530 5,990 : : 376006: q376,006 ; : 5:990 Auditom Road Commercial 478,279 2.00% ~;~ 9,566 For Sale 1,015,720 1.00% 10,157 lg,723 For Sale 1,550,800 1.00% 15,508 18,400 TO?AL : t~695;700 1,698~?00 :;:; ; ,:: ~8i406 GRAND TOTA~ i , ::: : :5 t~5?O5 i :'61i059 Total Market VatueTaxes Per Total Market Class New Year Date AREA Use Sq. FtJUnitaSq. FtJUnita Sq, FtJUnitsTlaXas Value Rate Tax Capacity Constructed Payable Lost Lake Commercial 12,500.00 100.00 $3.29 41,129 1~50,000 2.00% 25,000 2006 2006 Lost Lake For Sale 17.00 670,000.00 $7,084.45 120,436 11,390,0001.00% 113,900 2006 2006 Lost Lake For Sale 20.00 350,000.00 $3,700.83 74,017 7,000,000 1.00% 70,000 2006 2008 TOTAL 235~581 19,640,000 206,600 Auditors Road Commercial 60,800.00 100.00 $3.29 200,051 6,080,000 2.00% 121,600 2007 2009 Auditors Road For Sale 94.00 240,000.00 $2,537.71 238,545 22,560,0001.00% 225,600 2007 2009 TOTAL 438,596 28,640,000 347,200 Langdon Lake Commercial 18,375.00 $100.00 $329 60,460 1,837,500 2.00% 36,750 2006 2010 Langdon Lake For Sa~e 127.00 335,000.00 $3,54222 449,862 42,545,0001.00% 425,450 2006 2010 Langdon Lake For Sa~e 5.00 330,0ti0.00 $3,489.35 17,447 1=650,000 1.00% 16,500 2008 2010 TOTAL 527,769 46,032,500 478,700 110 South Commercial 7,500.00 100.00 $3.29 24,677 750,000 2.00% 15,000 2009 2011 110 South For Sale 18.00 300,00000 $3,172.14 57,099 5,400,000 1.00% 84,000 2009 2011 TOTAL 81,776 6,150,000 69,000 GRAND TOTAL 1,283,722 100,462,ti00 1,103,800 Note: 1, Tax estimates are based upon mart(et vatue, CmlStruction =oats and taxes per aq/ft. From developer. Total Local Fiscal Lacs Fiscal State-wide Local Fiscal State-wide Market , r AREA Tax Tax Disparities Tax Disparities Ptopen'y Taxes Di~ pa rilles Property Value Total Capacity Capacity Tax Capacity Rate Tax Rate Tax Rata Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Lost Lake 28,000 17,066 7,934 105736 129fi63 0,51121 18,046 10,304 12,750 NIA 41,12ti Lost Lake 113,900 113,900 0 1.05736 1,29863 0.51121 120,438 0 0 NIA 120,436 Lost Lake 70,000 70,000 0 1.05736 1 29563 0.51121 74,017 0 0 NIA 74,017 Audlfora Road 121,600 83,007 38,593 1.05735 1.29563 0.51121 87,770 ~0,11fi 62,163 N/A 200,061 Auditors Road 228,600 225,600 0 1.0573ti 1.29663 0.51121 238,546 0 0 NIA 238,649 Langdon Lake 36,750 25,086 11,664 1.05738 1.29863 0.51121 26,626 16,147 18,767 NIA 60,460 Langdon Lake 425,450 425,450 0 1.05738 1.29863 0.51121 449,862 0 0 N/A ~46,662 Langdon Lake 16,500 16,500 0 1.05738 1.29863 0.51121 17,447 0 0 NIA 17,447 110 Sou~h 15,000 10,239 4,761 1.05738 1.29863 0.51121 10,827 6,162 7,668 NIA 24~677 110 South 54,000 54,000 0 1.05738 1 29863 0.51121 87~099 0 0 NIA 67,099 TOTAL 1,034,800 676,609 58,191 1~32,647 75,569 93,730 0 1,201,ti46 Note: 1. Apartme~t~l~sidanfial 60 not pay State-wide pn3perty tax or Fiscal Disparities 2. Assumes Fiscal Disparities is paid outside 6m district -773- 311512005 Page 2 of $ Lost Lake Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capaott7 RIducOon Capacity increment 0.36% 5.00% Increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02-01 2006 5,890 5,990 present Value Data-6-01-08 0.0 08-01 2006 1.0 02-01 2008 5,990 208,900 0 202,910 107,276 (386) (5,345) 101,546 68,920 1,5 08-01 2008 1,5 0S-01 2008 5,990 208,900 0 202,910 107,276 (386) (5,345) 101,546 174,937 2.0 02-01 2009 2.0 02-01 2009 5,990 214,123 0 208,132 110,038 (396) (5,482) 104,159 260,267 2.5 08-01 2009 3.0 02-01 2010 5,990 219,476 0 213,488 112,868 (406) (5,623) 106,838 424,773 3.5 08-01 2010 3.5 08-0t 2010 5,990 219,476 0 213,486 112,868 (406) (5,823) 106,838 504,021 4.0 02-01 2011 4.0 02-01 2011 5,990 224,962 0 218,872 115,769 (417) (5,768) 109,584 582,652 4.5 08-01 2011 4.5 08-01 2011 5,990 224,~62 0 218,972 115,769 (4'17) (5,768) 109,584 658,716 5.0 02-01 2012 5.0 02-0t 2012 5,990 230,587 0 224,596 118,742 (427) (5,916) 112,399 734,186 ! 5.8 08-01 2012 5.5 08-01 2012 5,990 230,587 0 224,596 118,742 (427) (5,916) 112,399 807,102 6.0 02-01 2013 6.0 02-01 2013 5,890 236,351 0 230,361 121,790 (438) (6,068) 115,284 879,627 6.5 08-01 2013 8.5 08-01 2013 5,690 236,351 0 230,361 121,790 (436) (6,068) 115,284 949,698 7.0 02-01 2014 7.0 02-01 2014 5,990 242,280 0 236,270 124,914 (450) (6,223) 118,241 1,019,219 7.5 08-01 2014 7.5 08-01 2014 5,090 242,260 0 236,270 124,914 (450) (6,223) 118,241 1,086,471 8.0 02-01 2015 8.0 '02-01 2015 5,990 248,316 O 242,326 128,116 (461) (6,383) 121,272 1,153,194 8.5 08-01 2015 8.5 08-01 2015 5,980 248,316 0 242,326 128,116 (461) (6,383) 121.272 1,217,740 9.0 02-01 2016 9.0 02-01 2016 5,990 254,524 0 248,534 131,398 (473) (6,548) 124,378 1,281,777 9.5 08-01 2016 9.5 08-01 2016 5,990 254,524 0 248,534 131,398 (473) (8,545) 124,378 1,343,724 10,0 02-01 2017 10.0 02-01 2017 5,990 260,887 0 254,597 134,762 (485) (6,714) 127,563 1,405,182 10.5 06-01 2017 10.5 08-01 2017 5,990 260,887 0 254,897 134,762 (485) (6,714) 127,563 1~464,634 11.0 02-01 2018 11.0' 02-01 2018 5,990 267,410 0 261,420 138,210 (498) (6,886) 130,827 1,523,617 11.5 08-01 2018 11.5 08-01 2018 5,990 267,410 0 261,420 138,210 (488) (6,886) 130,827 1,580,874 12.0 02-01 2019 12.0 02-01 2019 5,990 274,095 0 268,105 141,744 (510) (7,062) 134,172 1,637.280 12,5 08-01 2019 12.8 08-01 2019 8,990 274,095 0 268,105 141,744 (510) (7,062) 134,172 1,892,037 13.0 02-01 2020 13.0 02-01 2020 5,990 280,947 0 274,957 145,367 (523) (7,242) 137,602 1,746,361 13.5 08-01 2020 14.0 02-01 2021 5,990 287,971 0 281,981 149,080 (537) (7,427) 141,117 1,851,044 14.5 08-01 2021 14.5 08-01 2021 5,990 287,971 0 281,981 149,080 (537) (7,427) 141,117 1,901,475 15.0 02-0t 2022 18.0 02-0t 2022 5,990 295,170 0 289,180 152,887 (550) (7,6t7) 144,719 1,951,505 15.5 08-01 2022 15.5 08-01 2022 5,990 295,170 0 289,180 152,887 (550) (7,617) 144,718 1,999,901 16,0 02-01 2023 16.0 02-01 2023 5,990 302,549 0 296,559 156,788 (564) (7,811) 148,412 2,047,913 16.5 08-01 2023 18.5 08-01 2025 5,990 317,866 0 311,876 164,886 (594) (8.215) 156,078 2,271,981 19.0 02-01 2026 18.0 02-01 2026 5,990 325,813 D 319,823 169,087 (609) (8,424) 160,054 2,314,409 19.5 08-01 2026 19.5 08-01 2026 5,990 325,813 0 319,823 169,087 (609) (8,424) 160,054 2,355,451 20.0 02-01 2027 20.0 02-01 2027 5,990 333,958 0 327,968 173,393 (624) (8,638) 164,131 2,396,164 20,5 08-01 2027 20.5 08-01 2027 5,990 333,958 0 327,968 173,393 (624) (8,638) 164,131 2,435,549 21.0 02-01 2028 21.0 02-01 2028 5,990 342,307 0 336,317 177,807 (640) (8,858) 168,309 2,474,617 21.5 06-01 2028 21.5 08-01 2028 5,990 342,307 0 336,317 177,807 (640) (8,858) 168,309 2,512,410 , 22.0 02-01 2029 22,0 02-01 2029 5,990 350,865 0 344,878 182,332 (656) (9,084) 172,592 2,549,899 22.5 06-01 2029 22.5 08-01 2029 5,990 350,865 0 344,875 182,332 (656) (9,084) 172,592 2,586,164 23.0 02-01 2030 23.0 02-01 2030 5,990 359,636 0 353,646 186,969 (673) (9,315) 176,981 2,622,137 23.5 08-01 2030 23.5 08-01 2030 5,990 359,636 D 353,646 186,969 (673) (9,315) 176,081 2,656,936 24.0 02-01 2031 24.0 02-01 203t 5,990 368,627 0 362,537 191,723 (690) (9,552) 181,481 2,691,455 24.5 08-01 2031 NOTES: 1, State Auditor payment ia based upon tat half, pay 200S actual and may increase over term of district 2. TIF run does not reflect potential reduction in Market Value Homestead credit 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class rates, construction schedule and inflation on Market Value, 4, inflation on t~x rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture etate wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prepared by ~:h!erl -774- 311512005 P6ge 3 of 6 Auditors Road Base Project Face Captured Sam~-Annua State Admin, Semi-Annual Sam-Annua PAYMENT DA3~ Tax Tax Disparities Tax Gross Tax Aud(tor at Net 'rex Present PERIOD ENDING Yin. Mth, Yr. Capacity Capacity Reduction Capacity increment 0,38% 5.00% increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02-01 2006 19,723 19,723 Present Value Date - 8-01-86 0.0 08-01 2006 0.0 08-01 2006 19,723 18,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007 O0 02-01 2007 19,723 19,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,5 08-01 2007 0.5 08-01 2007 19,723 19,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02-0I 2008 1.0 02-01 2008 19,723 19,723 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1.5 08-01 2008 1.5 08-01 2008 19,723 19,723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02-01 2009 2.0 02-01 2009 19,723 347,200 0 327,477 173,134 (623) (5,626) 163,885 134,291 2,5 08-01 2009 2.5 08-01 2009 19,723 347,205 0 327,477 173,134 (623) (8,626) 163,865 264,197 3.6 02-01 2010 3.0 02-01 2010 19,723 355,880 0 336,157 177,723 (640) (8,854) 168,229 393,193 3.5 08-01 2010 3.5 08-01 2010 19,723 355,880 9 336,157 177,723 (640) (8,854) 168,229 517,978 4.0 02-01 2011 4.0 02-01 2011 19,723 364,777 0 345,054 182,427 (657) (9,088) 172,681 641,884 4.5 08-01 2011 4.5 08-01 2011 19,723 364,777 0 345,054 182,427 (657) (9,088) 172,681 761,744 5.0 02-01 2012 5,0 02-01 2012 19,723 373,896 0 354,174 187,248 (674) (9,329) 177,245 880,755 5.5 08-01 2012 5.5 08-01 2012 19,723 373,896 0 354,174 157,248 (674) (9,329) 177,245 995,881 6.0 02-01 2013 6,0 02-01 2013 19,723 383,244 0 363,521 192,190 (692) (9,575) 181,923 1.110,187 8.5 08-01 2013 6.5 08-01 2013 19,723 383,244 0 363,521 192,190 (692) (9,575) 181,923 1,220,762 7.0 02-01 2014 7.0 02-01 2014 19,723 392,825 0 373,102 197,255 (710) (9,827) 186,718 1,330,546 7.5 08-01 2014 7.5 08-01 2014 19,723 392~825 0 373,102 197,255 (710) (9,827) 186,718 1,436,745 8.0 02-01 2015 8.0 02-01 2015 19,723 402,646 0 382,923 202,447 (729) [10,086) 191,633 1,542,181 8.5 08-01 2015 5,5 08-01 2015 19,723 402,646 0 382,923 202,447 (729) (10,086) 191,633 1,644,175 9,0 02-01 2016 8.0 02-01 2016 19,723 412,712 0 392,989 267,769 (748) (10,351) 196,670 1,745,433 95 08-01 2016 9.5 08-01 2016 19,723 412,712 0 392,989 207,769 (748) (10,351) 196,870 1,843,385 10.0 02-01 20t7 100 02-01 2017 19,723 423,028 0 403,307 213,224 (766) (10,623) 201,834 1,946,627 16.5 08-01 2017 10.5 08-01 2017 19,723 423,029 0 403,307 213,224 (768) (10,623) 201,834 2,034,694 11.0 02-01 2018 11.0 02-01 2018 19,723 433.605 0 413,882 218,816 (788) (10,901) 207,126 2,128,076 11.5 08-01 2018 11.5 08-01 2018 19,723 433,605 0 413,882 218,816 (788) (10,901) 207,126 2,218,409 12.0 02-01 2019 12.0 92-01 2019 19,723 444,445 0 424,723 224,547 (808) (11,187) 212,551 2,308,081 12,5 08-01 2019 12.5 08-01 2019 19,723 444,445 0 424,723 224,547 (808) (11,187) 212,551 2,394,826 13.0 02-01 2020 13.0 02-01 2020 19,723 455,556 0 435,834 230,421 [830) (11,480) 218,112 2,480,935 13.5 08-01 2620 13,6 08-01 2020 19,723 455,556 0 435~834 230,421 (830) (11,480) 218,112 2,564,232 14.0 02-01 2021 14.0 02-01 2021 19,723 466,945 0 447,223 236,442 (851) (11,780) 223,811 2,646,915 14.5 08-01 2021 14.5 08-01 2021 19,723 466,945 0 447,223 236,442 (851) (11,780) 223,811 2,726,898 15.0 02-01 2022 15.0 02-01 2022 19,723 478,619 0 458,896 242,614 (873) (12,087) 229,653 2,806,290 15.5 08-01 2022 15.5 08-01 2022 19,723 478,619 0 458,896 242,614 (873) (12,087) 229,653 2,883,090 16.0 02-01 2023 16.0 02-01 2023 19,723 499,585 0 470~882 248,940 (896) (12,402) 235,642 2,959,320 16.5 08-01 2023 116.5 08-01 2023 19,723 490,585 9 470,862 248,940 (896) (12,402) 235,642 · 3,033,061 17.0 02-01 2024 17.0 02-01 2024 19,723 502,849 0 483,126 255,424 (920) (12,725) 241,779 3,105,252 17,5 08-01 2024 17.5 08-01 2024 19,723 502,849 0 483,126 255,424 (920) (12,725) 241,779 3,177,054 18,0 02-01 2025 18.0 02-01 2025 19,723 515,420 0 496,698 262,070 (943) (13,056) 248,071 3,247,327 i 18.5 06-01 2025 18.5 08-01 2025 19,723 515,420 0 495,698 262,070 (943) (13,056) 248,071 3,315,305 19.0 02-01 2026 19.0 02-01 2026 19,723 528,306 0 506,583 268,883 (965) (13,396) 254,519 3,382,773 19.5 08-01 2026 19.5 08-01 2026 19,723 528,306 0 568,683 268,883 (968) (13,396) 254,519 3,448,039 20.0 02-01 2027 20.0 02-01 2027 19,723 541,514 0 521,791 275,866 (993) (13,744) 261,129 3,512,813 20.5 08-01 2027 20.5 08-01 2027 19,723 541,514 0 521,791 275,866 (993) (13,744) 261,129 3,575,472: 21.0 02-01 2028 21.0 02-01 2028 19,723 555,051 0 535,329 283,023 (1,019) (14,t00) 267,904 3,637,659 21,5 08-01 2028 21.5 08-01 2026 19,723 555,051 0 535,329 283~023 (1,019) (14,100) 267,904 3,697,815 22.0 02-01 2029 22.0 02-01 2029 19,723 568,928 0 549,205 290.359 (1,045) (14,466) 274,846 3,757,516 ~ 22.5 06-01 2029 22.5 08-01 2029 19,723 568~928 0 549,205 289,359 (1,045) (14,466) 274,848 3,815,267 ' 23,0 02-01 2030 23.0 02-01 2030 19,723 583,151 0 563,428 297,879 (1,072) (14,840) 281,966 3,872,580 235 08-01 2030 23.5 08-01 2030 19,723 563,151 0 563,428 297,879 {1,072) (14,840) 281,986 3,928,022 24.0 02-01 2031 24.0 02-01 2031 19,723 597,730 0 578,007 305,586 (1,100) (15,224) 289,262 3,983,041 24.5 08-01 2031 24.5 08-01 2031 19,723 597,730 0 578,007 305,586 (1,100) (15,224) 289,262 4,036,264 25.0 02-01 2032 25.0 02-01 2032 19,723 612,673 0 592,950 313,487 (1,129) (15,618) 296,740 4,089,080 25.5 08-01 2032 25.5 08-01 2032 191723 612,673 0 592~950 313~487 (1,129} (15~618) 296~740 4~140,173 260 02-01 2033 Totals 11,375,547 {401952) (566,730) 10;767,886 Present Value Data - 8-01-06 4~373,822 (15,746) (217~904} 4,140~173 4~140,173 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st half, pay 2005 actual and may increase over term of distdct 9. TIF run does not reflect potential reduction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class r~te$, construction schedule and inflation on Market Value. 4. Infl~tiol~ on tax r~tes cannot be captured, 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Pmpare~ by Eh}er= Calhflows 3-10-0S -775- 311512005 Page 4 of 6 O EHLERS, Langdon Lake Base Project Fiscal Captured Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi.Annual Semi-Annual ,AYMENT Tex Tax Olap~Htle~ Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present PERIOD ENDING yrs. Mth. Yr. Cspscity Cepacity =,~,,,~n Capacity Increment 0.36% 5.00% Increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02-01 2006 18,406 18,406 Present Value Date - 8-0t-08 0.0 08-01 2006 0.0 08-01 2006 18,406 18,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007 0.0 02-01 2007 15,406 18,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 O5.01 2007 0.5 08-01 2007 18,406 18,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 O2-01 2008 1.0 02-01 2008 18,406 18,405 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 O8-01 2005 1.5 08-01 2008 18,406 18,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02-01 2009 2.0 02-01 2009 18,406 18,406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 O8-01 2009 2.5 08-01 2009 18,406 18,409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 02-01 2010 3.0 02-01 2010 18,406 478,700 0 460,294 243,353 (876) (12,124) 230,353 176,632 3.5 O8-01 2010 3.5 0~-01 2010 15,406 478,700 0 460,294 243,353 (876) (12,124) 230,353 347,497 4.0 02-01 2011 4.0 02-01 2011 18,406 490,660 0 472,2§2 249,680 (899) (12,439) 236,342 517,082 4.5 O8-01 2011 4.5 08-01 2011 18,406 490,668 0 472,262 249,680 (899) (12,439) 236,342 681,129 5.0 O2-01 2012 5.0 02-01 2012 18,406 502,934 0 484~528 256,165 (922) (t2,762) 242,481 843,943 5.5 08-01 2012 5.5 0~-01 2012 18,406 502,934 0 484,528 256,165 (922) (12,762) 242,451 1,O01,442 6.0 O2-01 2013 6.0 02.01 2013 18,406 515,508 0 497,102 262,513 (946) (13,093) 245,773 1,157,751 6,5 O8-01 2013 6.5 08-01 2013 18,406 515,508 0 497,102 262,813 (945) (13,093) 246,773 1,308,958 7,0 02-01 2014 7.0 02-01 2014 18,406 525,395 0 509,989 269,626 (971) (13,433) 255,223 1,459,020 7,5 08-01 2014 7,5 08-01 2014 18,406 528,395 0 509,989 269,626 (971) (13,433) 255,223 1,604,183 8.0 02-01 2015 8.0 02-01 2015 18,406 541,605 0 523,199 276,610 (9~6) (13,781) 281,834 1,748,244 8.5 08-01 2015 8.5 08-01 2015 19,406 541,605 0 523,199 276,610 (996) (13,7§1} 261,834 1,587,601 9.0 02-01 2016 9.0 02-01 2016 18,406 555,145 0 536,739 283,769 (1,022) (14,137) 268,610 2,025,898 9.5 08-01 2016 9.5 00-O1 2016 18,406 555,145 0 536,739 283,769 (1,022) (14,137) 268,610 2,159,679 10.0 02-01 2017 10.0 02-0t 2017 18,406 569,024 0 550,618 291,106 (1,048) (14,503) 275,555 2,292,439 IO.5 O8-01 2017 10,5 08-01 2017 18,406 569,024 0 550,618 291,106 (1,046) (14,503) 275,555 2,420,865 11.0 02-01 2018 11.0 02-O1 2018 18,406 583,249 0 564,843 298,627 (1,075) (14,878) 282,674 2,548,307 ' 11.5 08-01 2018 11.5 08-01 2018 15,406 583,249 0 564,643 298,627 (1,075) (14,078) 202,674 2,671,589 12.0 02-01 2019 12.0 02-01 20t9 18,406 597,831 0 579,425 306,336 (1,103) (15,262) 280,972 2,793,924 12.5 08-01 2019 12.5 O8-01 2019 18,406 597,831 0 579,425 306,336 (1,103) (15,262) 289,972 2,912,266 13.0 O2-01 2020 13.0 02-01 2020 18,406 612,776 0 594,370 314,235 (1.131) (15,655) 297,451 3,029,696 13.5 08-01 2020 13.5 08-01 2020 16,406 612,776 0 594,370 314,236 (1,131) (15,655) 297,451 3,143,293 14,0 02-01 2021 14.0 02-01 2021 18,406 628,09~ 0 609,690 322,337 (1,160) (16,059) 305,118 3,256,013 14.6 05-01 2021 14.5 08-O1 2021 18,406 628,096 0 609,690 322,337 (1,180) (16,059) 305,1t8 3,365,053 15.0 02-0t 2022 15.0 02-01 2022 t8,406 643,798 0 625,392 330,639 (1,190) (16,472) 312,976 3,473,250 15.5 08-01 2022 15.5 08-01 2022 18,406 643,798 O 625,392 330,639 (1,190) (16,472) 312,976 3,577,914 16.0 02-01 2023 16.0 02-01 2023 18,406 659,893 0 641,487 339,148 (1,221) (16,896) 321,031 3,681,767 16.5 08-01 2023 16,5 08-01 2023 18,406 659,893 0 641,487 339,148 (1,221) (16,896} 321,031 3,762,229 17.0 02-01 2024 17.0 02-01 2024 16,406 676,391 D 657,985 347,870 (1,252) (17,331) 329,287 3,881,911 17.5 08.01 2024 17.5 05-01 2024 18,406 676,391 0 657,985 347,870 (1,252) (17,331) 329,287 3,978,338 18,0 02-01 2025 18.0 02-01 2025 18,406 693,300 0 674,894 356,810 (1,285) (17,776) 337,749 4,074,015 t8.5 08-01 2025 18.5 0~01 2025 18,406 603,300 O 674,894 356,810 (1,285) (17,776) 337,749 4,t66,567 19.0 02-01 2026 19.0 02-O1 2026 18,406 710,633 0 692,227 365,973 (1,316) (18,233) 346,423 4,258,397 19.5 08-01 2026 19.5 08-O1 2026 18,406 710,633 0 692,227 365,973 (1,318) (19,233) 346,423 4,347,230 20.0 02-01 2027 20.0 02-01 2027 18,406 728,399 0 709,993 375,366 (1,351) (18,701) 355,314 4,436,367 ! 20.5 O8-01 2027 20.5 O8-01 2027 18,406 728,399 0 709,993 375,366 (~,351) (16,701) 355,314 4,520,627 21.0 02-01 2026 21.0 02-O1 2025 18,406 746,609 0 720,203 884,993 (1,356) (19,100) 364,427 4,605,219 21.5 O0-01 2028 21.5 08-01 2028 18,406 746,609 0 728,203 384,993 (1,386) (19,180) 364,427 4,687,049 22.0 O2-01 2029 22.0 02-01 2029 18,406 765,274 0 746,065 394,862 (1,422) (18,872) 373,768 4,765,236 22.5 08-01 2029 22.5 08-01 2029 18,406 765,274 0 746,568 394,862 (1,422) (19,672) 373,76a. 4,846,773 23.0 02.01 2030 23.0 02-01 2030 18,406 784,406 0 766,000 404,976 (1,458) (20,176) 353,343 4,924,691 23.5 08-01 2030 23,5 08-01 2030 18,406 784,40~ 0 766,000 404,976 (1,458) (20,176) 383,343 5,000,066 24,0 02-01 2031 24.0 02-01 203t 18,406 804,016 0 785,610 415,344 (1,495) (20,692) 393,156 5,074,847 24.5 08-01 2031 24.5 08-01 2031 18,406 804,016 0 785,610 415,344 (1,495) (20,692) 393,156 5,147,186 25.0 02-01 2032 18,406 824,116 0 805,710 425,971 (1,533) (21,222) 403,216 5,218,954 25.5 08-01 2032 25.0 02-01 2032 25.5 08-01 2032 18~406 52411t6 0 8051710 425,971 (11533) (21,222) 403,216 51288~379 26.0 02-0t 2033 Totals 16~0331223 (54~120) (748~955) 141230~149 iPresent Value Dets. 8-01-06 5~586~827 (20~113) (278~336) 512881379 5~2881378 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st hslf, pay 2005 actual and may increase over term of district 2. TIF run does not reflect potmltlal reduction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market v~lue, tp.x rates, class rotes, construction schedule and inflation on Niarket Value. 4. Inflation on tax rates cennot be captured. 5, TIF doel not capture state wide properS/taxes or market value property texss Prepared by Ehlers Ca,hnows -776- 110 South Bass Projsct Fi,cai Captursd Semi-Annual Stats Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PAYMENT DATE Tax Tix Oilplrlflel Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tjx Present PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Reduction Capacity Incrsment 0.36% 5.00% Increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr, 0.0 02-01 2006 16,941 16,941 Prssant Value Date - 8-01-66 0.0 08-01 2006 0.0 08-01 2006 16,941 16,041 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007 0.0 02.01 2007 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 2007 0,5 06-01 2007 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02-01 2008 1.0 02-01 2008 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1.5 06-01 2008 1,5 08-01 2008 16,941 16r941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 02'01 2009 2.0 02-01 2009 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 08--01 2009 2.5 08-01 2009 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 02'01 2010 3,0 02-01 2010 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 08-01 2010 3.5 08-01 2010 16,941 16,941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 02-01 2011 4.0 02-01 2011 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 18,694 4.5 08-01 2011 4.5 08-01 2011 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,071) 26,053 36,778 5.0 02-01 2012 5.0 02-01 2012 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 54,271 5.5 08-01 2012 5.5 08-01 2012 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 71,193 6.0 02-01 2013 6.0 02-01 2013 16,941 69,000 0 52~060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 87,563 6.5 08-01 2013 6.5 08'01 2013 16,941 69,000 0 52,060__ 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 103,398 7,0 02-01 2014 7,0 02'01 2014 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 118,717 7.5 0~-01 2014 7.5 08'01 2014 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 133,535, 8,0 02'01 2015 B.O 02--01 2015 16,941 69,000 0 52,080 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 147,669 8.5 00-01 2015 8.5 08--01 2015 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 161,735 9.0 02-01 2016 9.0 02-01 2016 16,941 69r000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 175,149 9.5 08--01 2016 9.5 08-01 2016 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 188,125 10.0 02'01 2017 10,0 02-01 2017 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (I,371) 26,053 200,677 10.5 08-01 2017 10.5 08-01 2017 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 212,819 11.0 02-01 2019 11.0 02-01 2018 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 224,565 11.5 08-01 2018 11.5 08-01 2018 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 235,928 12,0 02-01 2019 12.0 02-01 2019 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 246,919 12.5 08-01 2019 12.5 08-01 2019 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 257,552 13.0 02-01 2020 13.0 02-01 2020 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 267,837 13.5 08-01 2020 13.5 08-01 2020 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 277,787 14.0 02-01 2021 14.0 02-01 2021 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 287,412 14.5 08-01 2021 14.5 08-01 2021 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 296,722 15.0 02-01 2022 15.0 02-01 2022 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 25,053 305,729 15.5 08-01 2022 15.5 00-01 2022 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 314,441 16.0 02-01 2023 16.0 02-01 2023 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 322,870 16.5 06-01 2023 16.5 06-01 2023 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 331,022 17.0 02-01 2024 17.0 02-0t 2024 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (I,371) 26,053 338,909 17.5 08-01 2024 17.5 08-01 2024 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 346,539 18.0 02-01 2025 18.0 02-01 2025 16,841 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 353,919 18.5 08-01 2025 18.5 08-01 2025 16,941 6g,O00 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 361,058 19.0 02-01 2026 19,0 02-01 2026 16,941 09,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 367,964 19.5 08-01 2026 19.5 08-01 2026 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 374,645 20.0 02-01 2027 20.0 02-01 2027 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 361,107 20.5 08-01 2027 20.5 08-0t 2027 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 387,359 21.0 02-01 2028 21.0 02-01 2028 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (09) (1,371) 26,053 393,407 21.5 08-01 2028 21.5 08-01 2028 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 399,257 22.0 02-01 2029 22.0 02-01 2029 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 404,916 22.5 08-01 2029 22.5 08-01 2029 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 410,390 23.0 02-01 2030 23.0 02-01 2030 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 415,686 23.5 08-01 2030 23.5 08-01 2030 16,941 68,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,37t) 26,053 420,806 24.0 02-01 2031 24.0 02-01 2031 16,941 68,000 0 52~060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 425,764 24.5 08-01 2031 24.5 08-01 2031 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 430,557 25.0 02-01 2032 25.0 02-01 2032 16,941 69,000 0 52,060 27,523 (99) (1,371) 26,053 435,194 25.5 08-01 2032 25.5 08-01 2032 16,941 69,000 0 52~060 27,523 (991 (1,371) 26,053 439,680 26.0 02-01 2033 Totals 1,211,027 {4~360) (60~333) 1,148,334 Present Value Date - 8-01-~6 464,493 {lr672) (23,141) 439~680 439~680 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payment is b=sed upon 1at half, pay 2005 actual a[nd may increase over term of district 2, TIF run does not reflect potential r~duction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amount of increment will vary depsnding upon markst value, tax rates, class rstas, construction schedule and inflation on Market Value. 4, Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prspared by Eh~er! Calhflows 3-10-05 -777- 311512005 Psge 6 of 6 EHLERS ALL AR.r~S Base Project FIical Capturod Semi-,~.nnual 8tats Adman. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PAYMENT DATE Tax Tax Dlaparffiel Tax Gross Tax Auditor st Net Tax Present PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity cspsci~ Reciuctlon Capacity Increment 6.38% 8.00% Increment Value Yrs. Mth, Yr. 0.0 02-01 2006 61,059 61,059 Present Value Date - 8-01-06 0.0 08-01 2006 0.0 08-01 2006 61,059 61,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 02-01 2007 0.0 02-01 2007 61,059 61,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 08-01 2007 0.5 08-01 2007 61,059 61,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 02-01 2008 1.0 02-01 2008 61,059 263,969 0 202,910 107,276 (386) (5~345) 101,548 88,920 1.5 08-01 2008 1.5 08-01 2008 61,059 263,969 0 202,910 107,276 (386) (5,345) 101,546 174,937 2.0 02-01 2009 2.0 02-01 2009 61,059 586,669 0 505,610 283,171 (1,019) (14,108) 268,044 394,578 2.5 08-01 2009 2.5 08-01 2009 61,059 596,669 0 535,610 283,171 (1,019) (14,108) 268,044 607,048 3.0 02-01 2010 3.0 02-01 2010 61,059 1,070,996 0 1,009,987 533,943 (1,922) (26,601) 505,420 994,599 3.5 08-01 2010 3,5 05-01 20t0 61,059 1,070,996 0 1,009,937 533,943 (1,922) (26,601) 505,420 1,369,497 4.0 02-01 2011 4,0 02-01 2011 61,059 1,149,407 0 1,058,348 575,398 (2,071) (28,666) 544,661 1,760,311 4.5 06-01 2011 4.5 08-01 2011 61,059 1,149,407 0 1,088,348 575,398 (2,071) (28,666) 544,661 2,138,367 5.0 02-01 2012 5,0 02-01 2012 61,059 1,176,417 0 1,115,358 589,679 (2,123) (29,378) 555,175 2,513,155 5.5 08-01 2012 5.5 08-01 2012 61,059 1,176,417 0 1,115,855 589,679 (2,123) (29,378) 558,178 2,875,708 6.0 02-01 2013 6.0 02.01 2013 61,059 1,204,103 0 1,143,043 604,316 (2,176) (30,107) 572,033 3,235,129 6.5 08-01 2013 6.5 08-01 2013 61,059 1,204,103 0 1,143,043 604,316 (2,176) (30,107) 572,033 3,582,816 7.0 02-01 2014 7.0 02-01 2014 61,059 1,232,480 0 1,171,421 619,318 (2,230) (30,654) 586,234 3,927,501 7.5 08-01 2014 7,5 08-01 2014 61,059 1,232,480 0 1,171,421 519,318 (2,230) (30,854) 586,234 4,260,933 8.0 02.01 2015 8.0 02-01 2015 61,059 1,261,567 0 1,200,508 834,696 (2,285) (31,621) 600,79t 4,591,489 8.5 08-0t 2015 8,5 08-01 2015 61,059 1,261,567 0 1,200,508 634,696 (2,285) (31,621) 500,791 4,911,252 9.O 02-01 2016 9,0 02-01 2016 61,059 1,291,381 0 1,230,322 650,459 (2,342) (32,406) 615,71t 5,228,257 9.5 08-01 2016 9.5 08-01 2016 61,059 1,291,381 0 1,230,322 650,459 (2,342) (32,406) 615,711 5,534,913 10.0 02-01 2017 10.0 02-01 2017 61,059 1,321,941 0 1,260,881 666,615 (2,400) (33,211) 631,005 5,835,925 10.5 06-01 2017 10,5 08-01 2017 61,059 1,321,941 0 1,260,881 666,615 (2,400) (33,211) 631,005 6,133,012 11.0 02-01 2018 11.0 02-01 2018 6t,059 1,353,264 0 1,292,205 683,176 (2,459) (34,036) 646,661 6,424,565 11.5 08-01 2018 11.5 08-01 2018 61,059 1,353~64 0 1,292,205 683,176 (2,459) (34,036) 646,681 5,706,599 12.0 02-01 2019 12.0 02-01 2019 61,059 1,385,371 6 1,324,312 700,150 (2~521) (~4,881) 662,748 6,986,204 12.5 08-01 2019 12,5 08-01 2019 61,059 1,385,371 0 1,324,312 700,150 (2,521) (34,881) 662,740 7,256,681 13.0 02-01 2020 13.0 02-01 2020 51,059 1,418,280 0 1,357,221 717,549 (2,583) (35,748) 679,218 7,524,829 13.5 08-01 2020 13.5 08-01 2020 61,059 1,418,280 0 1,357,221 717,549 (2,583) (35,748) 679,218 7,734,222 14.0 02-01 2021 14.0 02.01 2021 61,059 1,452,012 0 1,390,953 735,383 (2,647) (36,637) 696,099 8,041,383 14.5 02-01 2021 14.5 08-01 2021 61,059 1,452,012 0 1,390,953 735,383 (2,647) (36,637) 696,099 8,290,148 15.0 02-01 2022 15,0 02-01 2022 61,059 1,486,588 0 1,425,528 753,663 (2,713) (37,547) 713,402 8,536,774 15.5 02-01 2022 15.5 08-01 2022 61,059 1,486,588 0 1,425,528 753,663 (2,713) (37,547) 713,402 8,775,347 t6.0 02-01 2023 16.0 02-01 2023 61,059 1,522,027 0 1,460,968 772,399 (2,781) (38,481) 731,138 9,011,869 16.5 02.01 2023 16.5 08-01 2023 61,059 1,522,027 0 1,460,968 772,399 (2,781) (38,481) 731,138 9,240,669 17.0 02-01 2024 17.0 02-01 2024 61,059 1,558,353 0 1,497,294 791,604 (2,850) (39,438) 749,317 9,467,502 17.5 02-01 2024 17.5 08-01 2024 61,059 1,558,353 0 1,497,294 791,604 (2,850) (39,438) 749,317 9,686,929 18.0 02-0t 2025 18.0 02-0t 2025 61,059 1,595,587 0 1,534,527 611,289 (2,921) (40,418) 767,950 9,904,471 18.5 02-01 2025 18.5 06.01 2025 61,059 1,595,587 0 1,534,527 811,289 (2,921) (40,418) 767,950 10,114,911 19.0 02-01 2026 19.0 02-01 2026 61,059 1,633,751 0 1,572,692 831,467 (2,993) (41,424) 787,050 10,323,543 19.5 02-OI 2026 19.5 08-01 2026 61,059 1,633,751 6 1,572~692 831,467 (2,993) (4t,424) 787,050 10,525,364 ' 20,0 02-01 2027 20.0 02-01 2027 61,059 1,672,870 0 1,611,811 852,148 (3,068) (42,454) 806,627 10,725,452 20.5 02-01 2027 20.5 08-01 2027 61,059 1,672,870 0 1,6tl,811 852,148 (3,068) (42,454) 806,627 10,919,007 ' 21.0 02-01 2028 21.0 02-01 2028 61,059 1,712,967 0 1,651,908 873,347 (3,144} (43,510) 826,693 11,110,901 21.5 02-01 2028 21.5 0~-01 2028 61,059 1,712,967 0 1,651,908 873,347 (3,144) (43,510) 826,693 11,296,530 22.0 02-01 2029 22.0 02-01 2029 81,059 1,754,066 0 1,693,907 895,076 (3,222) (44,593) 847,281 11,480,566 22.5 02-01 2029 22.5 05-01 2029 61,059 1,754,066 0 1,693,007 895,076 (3,222) (44,593) 847,261 11,858,594 23.9 02-01 2030 23.0 02-01 2030 61,059 1,796,193 0 1,735,133 917,348 (3,302} (45,702) 868,343 11,835,094 23,5 02.01 2030 23.5 08-01 2030 61,059 1,796,193 0 1,735,133 917,348 (3,302) (45,702) 868,343 12,005,832 24.0 02-01 2031 24.0 02-01 2031 61,059 1,639,373 0 1,778,313 940,176 (3,385) (46,640) 889,952 12,175,107 24.5 02.01 2031 24.5 08-01 2031 61,059 1,839,373 0 1,778,313 940,176 (3,385) (46,840) 889,952 12,338,854 25.0 02-01 2032 25.0 02-01 2032 61,059 1,883,632 0 1,622,573 963,576 (3,469) (45,005) 912,102 12,501,198 25.5 02-01 2032 25.5 08-01 2032 61,059 1,883~632 0 1,822,873 963,576 (3~469) (48,005} 912,102 12,658,242 26.0 02-01 2033 Totals 35rO06r448 {126~023) (1~744~021} 33~136,484 ,,, present Value Data - 8-Ol-06 1313721607 [48~141) {666~223) 12~658~242 12~658~242 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payr~tent is based upon let half, pay 2005 actual end may increase over term of district 2. TIF run does not reflect potential reduction in Market Value Homestead Credit 3. Amouf~t of increment wi(I vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class rates, construction schedule and inflation on Market Value. 4. Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does r~t capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes Prepare~by Ehlers -778- APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMETNT) E-1 -779- Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21) Minnesota Business Assistance Form · The Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) is used to report each business subsidy (including Job Opportunity Zone (JOBZ) tax exemptions/credit) and financial assistance agreement signed from August I, 1999 through December 31, 2004 unless goals have been achieved and reported on a MBAF per Minn. Stat § 116J.993 to § 116J.995. · Businesses receiving JOBZone Benefits must report through 2015 even if goals have been achieved. · The following govemment agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business subsidy agreement since January 1, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government agencies authorized to provide business subsidies. · DEED will contact any local or state government agency that is required to report but has not done so by Aprt 1. Business assistance may not be awarded after June 1 of each year until a report has been submitted. · Questions? Call (6~1) 296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 5. An online version of this form is available at www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm, htm Section 1: (Grantor Information) 1. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing ~his form 3. Street address 4. City 5. Zip Code 6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address 10. Please indicate who in your organization should rece/ve the MBAF if different from the person m Question 2. Name/Title Phone number Street address City Zip Code 1 I. Classification of grantor (Mark one. If grantor is entity created 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and adopted by gov 't agency, please indicate affiliation. For example, a city criteria for awarding business subsidies in compliance with EDA would check "City government. ") Minn. Stat. § 116J.9947 (Mark one.) [] City government [] Yes, in 2005 (attach criteria) [] Yes, in 2005 but have not yet adopted criteria [] County government [21 Yes, prior to 2005 [] Regional government If Yes: Hearing Date: __ Year Criteria Submitted: [] State government [] No [] Other (Please specifif) ~ Other (Please attach explanation,) 13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004 unless goals have beau achieved and reported in a previously filed MBAF? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and [Zl No(Stop here, go to section 5 on page 4.) reported in a previously filed MBAF per Minn. Stat. ,~116J. 993 and ~116J. 994.) Section 2: Recipient Information 14. Name of business or organization receiving subsidy or financial assistance 15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance will be used Street address City State ZIP Code 16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.) ~1 No Name of parent corporation Street address City State ZIP Code Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 1 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development -780- 17, Industry of recipient's facility (Mark one,): [21 Manufacturing ~1 Services Izl Retail Trade IZl Wholesale Trade Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Construction Other (please s?ecif~) 18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.) IZl Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient didnot complete this project at that address.) City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at p~evious address [] No (Go to Question 19.) 19. What would recipient have done without business subsidy or financial assistance? (Mark one): rn Remain at previous location, but not expand [] Remain at previous location but expand [] Relocate to different Minnesota location [] Relocated outside Minnesota [] Other ;ection 3: Agreement Informa~on 20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or fmancial assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24 and 25.) (Enter zero for JOBZ, Biozone and Agzone projects.) 21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement date. indicate any dates the agreement was amended. ) 22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient receives the business subsidy or improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the properO), whichever is earlier.) 23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to be reported? (Mark one) [] business subsidy 24. If the agreement provided a busk~ess subsidy, please indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type. [21 not applicable, agreement provided financial ass/stance rn loan (only principal) $ vi grant (i.e., forgivable loan) $ [] tax abatement $ [] TIF or other tax reduction or deferral $ [] guarantee or payment $ [] ctntfibution of property or infrastructure $ [] preferential use of governmental facihties $ [] land contribution $ [] Biozone $ [] JOBZ (state tax exemptions/credits and sales tax) $ [] JOBZ - Agzone $ VI other (Specify subsidy type.) $ Note: no dollar value for zone projects) 26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please indicate [] fmancial assistance the type of TIF district? (Mark one.) [] not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF [] redevelopment [] renewal and renovation [] soils condition [] economic development [] mined underground space I21 hazardous substance subdistrict 25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financial assistance, please indicate the type(s). [] not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy [] assistance for property by contaminants [] assistance for renovating building stock or bringing it up to code, and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, when 50 percent or less of total cost [] assistance for pollution control or abatement [] assistance for a TIF soils condition district 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Specify each grantor and the valueof their assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary. Grantor Value ($) Grantor Value ($) [] No Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 2 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development -781 - Section JZ: JOZ Information Complete Questions 28-31 if the financial assistance was awarded to a JOBZ qualified business recipient receiving JOBZ benefits. (If not, go directly to Question 32.) JZ1. What was the amount of private capital investment of the business in the JOBZ zone prior to December 31, 2004? Real (land and buildings) $ Personal (equipment) $ JZ2. What was the property tax assessment which was not collected for ~e property where the JOBZ qualified business was operating during the period of January 1,2004 and December 31, 2004? (Please specify each additionalparcel identification number and the value of the property tax assessment that was not collected during the period of January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004; attach an additional sheet if necessary - obtain inforrnation from county tax assessor's office.) for Parcel Identification Number: JZ3. What was the value of Wind Energy Production Tax, if any, for the JOBZ qualified business that was operating during the period of January 1, 2004 and December 31,2004? Section 4: Goals and Public Purpose Identified in the Agreement 28. Minn. Stat. § 116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Mark all that apply.) [] Enhancing economic diversity F! Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose) Fl Creating high-qual~y job growth ~1 Job retention FI Other (please specify) [] Stabilizing the community 29. Indicate whetber the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals at the I/me of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.) A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals C) Other wage goals D) Goals other than wage and job goals Goals Target attainment All goals established? dates (month & year) attained? []No []Yes []No tn Yes Fl No FI Yes I21No []Yes Fl No []Yes []No rnYes []No Please attach descrption of goals and progress toward attainment y not documented in Questions 30 and 3 I. ) 30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention goals stated in the agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by.full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if unable to Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Job Retention no hourly wage-level goal less than $7.00 $7.00 to $8.99 $9.00 to $10.99 $11.00 to $12.99 $13.00 to $14.99 $15.00 and higher Hourly Value of Health Insurance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 3 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development -782- 31. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the nt~nber of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit date and the actual hourly value of any emplo)er-provided health insurance for those jobs. (On!¥ indicate job creation in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if unable to Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Job Retention Health Insurance less than $7.00 $ $7.00 to $8.99 $ $9.00 to $10.99 $ $11.00 to $12.99 $ $13.00 to $14.99 $ $15.00 and higher $ 32. Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Question 33, 34 and 35) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the agreeanent (Mark one.) [] Yes [] No Section 5: Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations (Do not complete this section if )~ou completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED.) 33. During the period January 1, 2004 through December 31,2004, did your organization have any recipients who failed to report as required by Minn. Stat. §116J.993 and §116J.9947 (Mark one.) Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that recipient. Attach additional pages if necesswy.) Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 & 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance I-I No 34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an agreement signed on or after January I, 2004, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.) [] Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) ~ No (Stop here and submit form to DEED.) For questions 35-39: Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additional pages ifnecesswy.) 35. Information on recipient and agreement: Name of recipient in default Street address of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance City/Zip code of recipient Initial value of subsidy or assistance Outstanding value of subsidy or assistance 36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply.): [] recipient ceased operation rn recipient was unable to fill vacant positions [] recipient relocated to a different community [21 other (Specify reason.) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 4 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development -783- 37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one) rn Yes [] No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance, rn No, recipient has not begu~ to repay the assistance. 38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient's deadline for futfilling its obligations? (Mark one.) [] Yes [] No 39. Describe the steps being laken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy: Return your completed MBAF(s) by April 1v 2005 EITHER Mail To: Minnesota Business Assistance Report Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development - Analysis and Evaluation 1st National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1351 OR Fax To: (651) 215-3841 (Next year, please use the online version of this form. It can be found at www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm.) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 5 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development -784- APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT F-1 -785- I-- ~ E -786- -787- APPENDIX G BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS Current Market Value New Market Value - Estimate Difference Present Value of Tax Increment Difference $5,135,705 $100,462,500 $95,326,795 $34,880,425 $60,446,37O Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less $60,446,370 Than: The proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would 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 to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less 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 the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District as permitted by the TIF 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: The site is occupied by a former city dump. The proposed development will require remediation of the dump site, demolition of structures (phases 2 and 3) and clearance of the site. Further, based on analysis of the developer's pro forma (see But For Proforma Exhibit G) the City has determined that a gap of $17,000,000 needs to be filled through tax increment in order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The increased market value of the site that couM reasonably 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 TIFPlan: The property could not be sold to another developer for some other use, in that the dump site has to have remediation prior to any use. This cost ofremediation when added to the cost of redevelopment makes any option not feasible. The City has required the developer to abide by a "look back" provision which, measures the actual sales price of the land and costs of land preparation versus the project revenues and costs. If the develoPer achieves a higher than market rate return, the amount of TIF assistance will be reduced. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $95,326,795 (see table above). -788- The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum durati on of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $34,880,425. (see table abo-~e) Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $60,446,370 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. G-2 -789- Mound Harbor Renaissance Sources and Uses SOURCES Tax Increment GO Bonds (Dump Clean Up) TIF Revenue Bonds TIF Revenue Notes Grants Land Payment 3,40O,000 10,210,000 3,425,000 830,000 14,600,000 Total Sources USES Land Acquisition Relocation Design and Development Site Preparation Environmental and Wetlands Public Improvements Streets and Sidewalks Parking Ramps/Decks Other Improvement costs Capitalized Interest Mgmt Fee Lost Lake Dump Remediation Total Sources Profit 12.03% 32,465,000 9,400,000 1,120,000 1,400,000 3,400,000 730,000 1,040,000 1,008,000 2,830,000 2,250,000 1,400,000 1,000,000 3,400,000 28,978,000 3,487,000 -790- APPENDIX H PRIOR IMPROVEMENTS H-1 -791 - 02/16/2005 12:27 FAX_95~4720620 CITY OF MOUND ~007 BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF MOUND PAID 181 T0 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5536~C-~ Phone: 952.472-0600 Fax: 952.472.062~T~OF~OUND · Site Tenant/Building Name The applicant is: /'/o/owner ..... contractor Contractor Address Phone (Office). (Other) ' ': Block ' "Description Addidon ~ .... CONDITIONS . ,, .' :iESTIMATED VALUE $ (~, (~O __ · ~.ZONIN'G. DISTRICT: R1 R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 I]3 '~NOTlQE.;~Separate permits are required for J~plumbing, being, ventilation or air conditioning. . [~permlx'~e~om~s null and vold if. work or con~¥~ :~ ~u~or~ed is not commenoed width 180 days, ct II ?ii =onMmoflon or work is suspended or abandoned far s · .:K period of'180 days at ~y tlme after wink is commenced. "~'~ 'a~erim work mu~ be ~ompleted wl~ one tH year ; ' ' ~te of ermlt Issuance sooording ~o CRy Coda from P . ' ;~ Sa~on~O0:lO, Subd. B. hereby',ce~fy that I have mad and examined this ppiioafion and know the same xo be ~ue and oo~ot, All ' ,rovisione of laws and city ordinances govern~g this ~e "~f work will be ¢omp~ed with whaler specked herein ",wlolate ~r' canal the provisions of any o~er stye or local ~]aw regul~ng consuu~ion or the pedorman~ of constru~on. .~pprovec PERMIT FEE (BASE) .............. 3LAN CHECK FEE ................. SURCHARGE ........................ 5. DRAINTILE ....... ' .................... $ S.A.C. (99%) ......................... 5. s.~c. (1%) ........................... CITY SEWER CONNECTION ,.,5__ CITY WATER CONNECTION .,.$. WATER METER ..................... WATER TRUNK CHARGE ....... $__ $ . 101 .,.32210' 101-~.104" 101-32230 602-21825 602-37250 '602-.3~259 601-37190 60¥37144 601-37195, TOTAL ...... ~,-'~ ..................... $' "" By; ~"')' .~.,"y t~2_.___ j". Date /0"/d.'"~:i ' .' ",: i:61:70. ~' ~ ~"'~"'~-- ~- ' ~ o Gold-Appl~-ant's Receil3t Whi~e-Flnanoe Copy Canan/-lnepector $ CoPI~ Pink-File C pY -792- 02/16/2005 12:27 FAX ADDRF.~S LEGAL DI~.SC PERMIT TYPE PROPERTY TYPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE VALUATION 9524720620 CITY OF ~IOUNI) CITY OF MOUND 5341 1W_AYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN g~;~4- (95.~) 472-0607 FAX: (952) 472-0679 R.EPRIbIIZD ON 2/11/2005 : 5533 SHORELINE DR. 13117'/433007{; AUDITOR.'S SUBD. NO. I70 : LOT.0 BLOCK 0 : BIJILDIN'G COMMERCIAL : DOORS $ 0.00 [~008 I'IiP. MII NO,; 2004..00732 Bt~E ISSUE1}: 10/27/2004 APPLICANT CITY OF MOUND 534I MAY'WOOD RD MOUND. MN 55354 OWNER 5341 MAYWOOD KD MOUND, MN 55364 AGI~E£1VlENT ~ SWORN STATEMENT This pm-mit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if constmctioa or work is suspended or abandoned for a period ell 80 days at any time after work is commenced. I hereby certify tha~ I have read and ex~m;,~ed this application aud know the same to b, *a~ and correct. All provhiom of laws aud city orai--~c~,s governing this type of work will be compiled with whethor specified herein, violated or can¢ol tho provisiom of any other stau~ or lo~al law xegulating construction or the performance of construction. Applicant *' Dam BUILDING PERMIT FEE 101-32210 TOTAL 0.00 0,00 SEPARATE PERMITS KEQUI1LED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE. -793- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director March 18, 2005 City Council Item No. 10- Internal Loan The City Attomey has asked that an item be added to the City CounCil agenda for the March 22 meeting dealing with consideration of a resolution on an intemal loan for the proposed dump clean-up. As has been explained to the Council in past matters, for situations in which it is possible that internal borrowing may be necessary to pay, on an intedm basis, an obligation which will ultimately is intended to be covered with tax increment, the state laws require that the transaction be memorialized by an intemal fund loan resolution. Therefore, the City Attorney will be bringing a proposed resolution to the meeting for consideration by the council. -794- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director March 18, 2005 Report from John Choi of Kennedy & Graven - Proposed Special Legislation for Lost Lake Dump Site Summary Report - Kennedy & Graven Attorney John Choi Potential language has been drafted that would allow the City of Mound to take dump material to an MPCA permitted landfill that is in the process of closing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115B.39. As the City of Mound cannot meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. 115.403, we are unable send the dump material from the Lost Lake site to an MPCA permitted landfill that is in the process of closure. By allowing the City of Mound to take such material to an MPCA permitted landfill that is in the process of closing, the City will avoid paying tipping fees, which I am told by City staff and consultants results in over $1M in savings of the total cleanup cost. The City, however, would still be responsible for transporting the dump material and other costs articulated in Minn. Stat. § 115B.403 (a) (3). This approach will avoid any fiscal impact to the state and will be much more politically feasible. We are also operating under the assumption that their is an MPCA permitted landfill that is in the process of closing that can accommodate the size and type of our dumpsite material. According to the MPCA, East Bethel is proposed to be closed with the $14M bonding appropriation from the Minnesota Legislature (assuming a bonding bill passes this year). According to the City's consultant, Barr Engineering, East Bethel landfill has about 500,000 cubic yards of capacity with about 300,000 cubic yards already committed from an adjacent facility, which would still leave the MPCA with as much as 200,000 cubic yards of capacity that could still be accepted. It is understood that the Lost Lake dumpsite has about 20,000 cubic yards of material that cannot be reused or recycled and therefore must be transported elsewhere. This is a relatively small volume for East Bethel or any other MPCA landfill that is proposed to be closed (e.g. Woodlake). ¢' Status The City, in conjunction with Senator Gen Olson and Rep. Steve Smith, have focused on finding potential support to insert the City's language into a larger bill that is highly likely to pass. A direct appropriation to the City of Mound or any legislative attempt to take away an appropriation to the MPCA to fund the City's cleanup efforts will not be politically feasible given the the current state budget crisis and is simply not a good idea because it will only alienate the MPCA (an important partner in the City's cleanup efforts). The current language developed by House and Senate staff and the City of Mound may be able to be inserted as an amendment into another bill that is highly likely to pass. At this time, however, we have foregone any thought of putting the language in the Bonding Bill because of the fact that the Bonding Bill has already passed the House and Senate and is currently in conference committee. We have met with conferees and were highly discouraged from taking this route in the bonding bill. Instead, we will attempt to put the language into an MPCA budget bill or larger policy bill that is likely to pass. We have begun working on developing support for that effort in the House and Senate. We expect some type of hearing and legislative action on our amendment in April when the budget bills are put together or as suitable policy bills (if any) move through House and Senate committees before the committee policy deadlines on April 5 and April 12. At some point, it will be appropriate and necessary for the City to meet with the MPCA about this amendment. At this point, no direct lobbying activity has taken place to eliminate the financing gap (about $2.5M) beyond what is discussed above. The possibilities of other legislative efforts have been considered but no appropriate (and realistic) legislative options exist at this time other than for the City to continue working with the Metropolitan Council, DEED and other potential state agencies to secure available grants. The City's efforts in this regard will be furthered with the active participation of our legislators. Additional Staff Comments: A meeting has been scheduled MPCA Staff for April 4th to discuss the City's acceptance in the Closed Dump Program and details associated with the remediation project. So as to avoid delay the possibility of delays at the legislature, a teleconference with MPCA Staff has also been tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, March 23rd. · Page 2 Staff anticipates the submittal of a Metropolitan Council and/or DEED grant application to request funding for the dump remediation project. As the Council may be aware, a multi-agency meeting including representatives from the Metropolitan Council, DEED, Hennepin County, and the MPCA was held in February regarding this option. While Staff anticipates that the grant application process will be highly competitive, preliminary discussion with agency staff has generally appeared favorable. · Page 3 The commissioner shall accept dump materials, including, but not limited to, storm damage and construction debris, for disposal at a qualified facility, preferably in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, which is enrolled in the Closed Landfill Program if removal of the debris from an existing site is part of a proposed residential development project that has been approved by a local unit of government, has an adopted Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan and includes stormwater management controls and techniques which protects and improves water bodies of regional significance. For prqiects which qualify for acceptance based on the at'.'orementioned criteria, the provisions of Minnesota Rules 115.403 (b) shall not apply. 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55264 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: March 17, 2005 SUBJECT: Subdivision Exemption - Dock Parcel Subdivision OWNER/APPLICANT: Martin Sarenpa PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 05-02 LOCATION: 3061 Westedge Road PID: 23-117-24-33-0012 ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicant, Martin Sarenpa, is requesting approval of a dock parcel subdivision associated with the property located at 3061 Westedge Road to create (3) dock parcels to be combined with three (3) residential lots located at 3140 / 3130 / 3116 Westedge Road. The dock parcel request is summarized below: Dock Parcel A Dock Parcel B Dock Parcel C 3140 Westedge Road 3130 Westedge Road 3116 Westedge Road PID No. 23-117-24-34-0063 PID No. 23-117-24-34-0064 PID No. 23-117-24-34-0065 BACKGROUND The dock parcel subdivision provisions were added to the City Code on July 27, 2004. A minor amendment to the dock parcel regulations was adopted on December 14, 2004 to clarify that the approval of a Dock Parcel Subdivision does not trigger loss of "lot of record status." Copies of the ordinance(s) have been included. -795- REVIEW PROCEDURE According to Chapter 330.10 of the City Code, dock parcel subdivisions are reviewed using the Subdivision Exemption procedures and subject to the review criteria outlined in City Code Chapter 330.10. A copy of the ordinance has been included. Specifically, the process requires formal publication and notification of all property owners within (350) feet no less than 10 days prior to formal review of the application. Members of the Council are advised that these requirements have been satisfied. Members of the Council are advised that the Subdivision Exemption process does not require review by the Planning Commission. However, the City Council, at its discretion, may refer such questions to the Planning Commission for recommendation before action. '120-DAY PROCESS State statute requires approval and/or denial of subdivision applications within 120-days unless an extension is granted. The Subdivision Exemption application was received and deemed to be complete on December 15, 2004 and the City's deadline for action is on or around April 13, 2005. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. been summarized below: Public Works Supt. Skinner Parks Supt. Jim Fackler Police Chief Kurtz City Engineer Cameron All written comments received to date have No comments. No comments. No comments or objections. No comments. AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all involved agencies for review and comment. All written comments received have been included and are summarized below: -796- Hennepin County. In general, Hennepin County Transportation has no objections to the request. Refer to letter dated January 18, 2005 DNR. The original submittal by the applicant included a proposal to create (3) dock parcels which had less than 60 feet of lake frontage which was issue raised by the DNR. The applicant subsequently revised the proposal to increase the frontage on the (3) dock parcels. Based on review by the Area Hydrologist, the DNR has no additional concerns regarding the proposal. A copy of the letter dated 12/28 from the DNR has been included. · LMCD. Please refer to the letter dated January 4, 2005 from the LMCD. STAFF COMMENTS The proposed 3 Dock Parcels are to be combined with the adjacent Residential Parcels which are located on the east side of the road. 2. Currently, there are (3) duplexes located on the Residential Parcel(s). The proposed Dock Parcels are located within (200) feet of the Residential Parcel. .. The proposed Dock Parcels are for the benefit of the existing tenants of the (3) duplex structures and are not to be rented to outside parties. Evidence of recording of Dock Parcel Subdivision and combination with the Residential Parcels at Hennepin County must be provided by the applicant within the designated timeframe as set forth in the City Code. Members of the Council are advised that an issue was raised by a concerned neighbor that docks are being rented out on the subject property. Dock usage on the site is subject to LMCD regulations as the property is designated as private lakeshore. 7. Exterior storage issues would be subject to the provisions of the City Code. According to LMCD rules, one (1) watercraft is allowed for each of the three (3) dock parcels. -797- No improvements are referenced on the proposal as submitted. The applicant should confirm whether any improvements are proposed to be constructed on the Dock Parcel(s). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council approval of the Subdivision Exemption application for the property located at 3061 Westedge Boulevard as requested to create (3) Dock Parcels subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all involved fees associated with the request. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the application is approved. 3. The Dock Parcel Subdivision shall meet all conditions as set forth in City Code Chapter 330.10. The resolution approving the Subdivision Exemption shall not be released until such time as the City is assured that the Dock Parcel cannot be separated from the Residential Parcel and sold separately without the consent of the City. The form and documentation to ensure satisfaction of this provision which shall include a development agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and must be submitted in a proper form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County. Evidence of recording of the dock parcel subdivision and combination of the Dock Parcel with the Residential Parcel shall be provided by the applicant within the 90-day timeframe as established in the Dock Parcel Subdivision Ordinance or the dock parcel subdivision will be automatically be cancelled and rescinded. A draft resolution has been prepared for review and consideration by the City Council. -798- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 05- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR DOCK PARCEL SUBDIVISION ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3061 WESTEDGE BOULEVARD PID No. 23-117-24-33-0012 WHEREAS, the applicant, Martin Sarenpa, has submitted a subdivision exemption application to allow a dock parcel subdivision of the property located at 3061 Westedge Boulevard and proposes to create (3) dock parcels to be combined with three (3) residential lots located at 3140 Westedge Boulevard, 3130 Westedge Boulevard and 3116 Westedge Boulevard respectively; and WHEREAS, the dock parcel request is described as follows: Dock Parcel A Dock Parcel B Dock Parcel C 3140 Westedge Road 3130 Westedge Road 3116 Westedge Road PID No. 23-117-24-34~0063 PID No. 23-117-24-34-0064 PID No. 23-117-24-34-0065 and; WHEREAS, the dock parcel subdivision regulations were added to the City Code on July 27, 2004 and a minor amendment to the dock parcel regulations was adopted on December 14, 2004 to clarify that the approval of a Dock Parcel Subdivision does not trigger loss of "lot of record status"; and WHEREAS, according to Chapter 330.10 of the City Code, dock parcel subdivisions are reviewed using the Subdivision Exemption procedures and subject to the review criteria set forth in City Code Chapter 330.10; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 330.10 requires that a meeting notice regarding the request is published in the paper and mailed to all property owners within (350) feet no less than (10) days prior to the City Council's review; and WHEREAS, the publication and mailed notice requirements as set forth in the ordinance have been satisfied; and -799- WHEREAS, the subdivision exemption application was recommended for approval by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the Subdivision Exemption application for the dock parcel subdivision subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all involved fees associated with the subdivision exemption request. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the application is approved. The resolution approving the Subdivision Exemption shall not be released until such time as the City is assured that the Dock Parcel cannot be separated from the Residential Parcel and sold separately without the consent of the City. The form and documentation to ensure satisfaction of this provision which shall include a development agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and must be submitted in a proper form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County. Evidence of recording of the dock parcel subdivision and combination of the Dock Parcel with the Residential Parcel shall be provided by the applicant within the 90-day timeframe as established in the Dock Parcel Subdivision Ordinance or the dock parcel subdivision will automatically be cancelled and rescinded. The subdivision exemption application is hereby approved for the following described property: Refer to Exhibit A The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: -800- Adopted March 22, 2005 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -801 - Dec 09 0~ 12:00p CIT~ OF MOUNO 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5364 Phone .95._2-47,~--(~00 FAX 952-472-0620 Plannin~ and Inspections 9524?206?9 p.? SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPLICATION ,,, , ~ity Council Date: Case No. Application Fee and Escrow Depc ~t required at time of application. PROPERTY L~GA~ PRO~SED A. Lot(s) LEGAL B Lot(s) BI~ DESC~PTION ZONING Circle: ' R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 DISTR~T PROPER~ Are t~m existing stru~es on the pro~ yes I no Do the existi~ stratums ~mp~ ~th the ~ning o~inance ~ ~a~s. ha~ver, ~c.? yes / no APP~CANT ~e appli~nt is: ,,~ner.,_, o~er: OWNER Name (if o~e~ ~n Address appli~) Phone H~e Work F~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, { ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resok..~n number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. .Al~plicatJon must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that all o.f the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are t~ue and accurate. I acknowledge that I haVe read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for all costs irmun~,d ~by the City related tO t~e processing of this application consent to. the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of th~ City of M, et~d for the purpose of insi~ecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~ ' Applicant Signature ~ // ~ _ Date _ -,,,..~ Owner's Signature Date R~ d'~llvi~i~n I::Y~mnfi~n Annlim3finn -802- SUBDIVISION OF 3061 WESTEDGE BLVD,MOUND,MN 55364,PlB~23-117-24-gg- 0012 WOULD LIKE TO COMBiNE PARCEL A OF 3061 WITH 3140 PID #23-117-24-34- 0063 WOULD LIKE TO COMBiNE PARCEL B OF 3061 WITH 3130 PID#23-117-24-34- 0064 WOULD LIKE TO COMBiNE PARCEL C OF 3061 WITH 3116 PID#23-117-24-34- 0065 -803- 040285 23/117/24 SARENPA, MARTY AD VANCE S UR VE I ING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 5.5345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267 SU V ¥FO : MAR TY SARENPA SURVEYED: April, 2004 REVISED: January 18, 2005 to change lots to 60 feet. REVISED: March 11, 2005 to show adjoining lots. DRAFTED: April 30, 2004 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL: Lot 1, Block 1, Hoisted Acres Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "A": The South 60.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoisted Acres Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "B": The North 60.00 feet of the South I20.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoisted Acres Second AdditiOn, Hennepin County, MinneSota. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "C": The North 60.00 feet of the South 180.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Hoisted Acres Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "D": Lot 1, except the South 180.00 feet thereof, Block 1, Hoisted Acres Second Addition, Heunepin County, Minnesota. -804- O0 '06 -805- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 07-2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF DOCK PARCELS FOR PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LAKE ACCESS FOR NEARBY PROPERTIES The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 330.05 (Definitions) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended and re-numbered to add the following definitions: Dock Parcel. A parcel or tract of land located on the shore of a lake which is combined with a nearby but non-contiguous residential parcel which shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Mound to ensure compliance with City Code Chapter 330.05. Dock Parcel Subdivision. The process of: (i) creating the Dock Parcel, if necessary, by division of a larger parcel; and (ii) combining the Dock Parcel with a non-contiguous residential parcel. Residential Parcel. The non-contiguous nearby residential parcel with which the Dock Parcel is combined. Subsection 330.10 (Procedural Requirements) is hereby amended to add a new Subsection D as follows: Dock Parcel Subdivision Dock Parcel Subdivision will be processed as a Subdivision Exemption under City Code Chapter 330.10(C), and shall be subject to the following additional provisions: Publi{ a City C°uncil. Exemption of the The approval of a Dock Parcel Subdivision will include an aPproved site plan showing the nature and location of all structures and improvements that are being proposed to_be constructed on the Dock Parcel. No accessory structures with the exception of those allowed in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (Shoreland Regulations) shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. No structure or improvement other than those shown on the approved site plan may be constructed on the Dock Parcel unless the site plan is amended. 1 -806- 3. The Dock Parcel shall be located within (200) feet of the Residential Parcel at the closest point. The Dock Parcel must be separated from the Residential Parcel by a public street. Both the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel must include frontage on the same public street. The approval of the Dock Parcel Subdivision will not be given until the City is assured that the Dock Parcel cannot be separated from the Residential Parcel and sold separately without the consent of the City. The form and documentation to ensure satisfaction of this provision, which shall include a development agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and must be submitted in a form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County The approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision will be automatically cancelled and rescinded if the applicant has not furnished the City with evidence that the Dock Parcel and the Residential Parcel have been tax combined within 90 days following approval of the Dock Lot Subdivision. The Dock Parcel will not be subject to any of the lot area and dimension restrictions applicable to Lots under the City Zoning Code; but must be of sufficient width to qualify for a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock license, where applicable. 8. The Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not create any new nonconforming conditions. 9. Square footage of the Dock Parcel shall not be included in hardcover, lot area or lot coverage calculations for the Residential Parcel. Subdivision shall not trigger loss of n~-Iot of record status 1 0. Dock Parcel for the Residential Parcel. "/· .--- ~:,1~,~1o~' ~..,,~.,~,.~ 11. No exterior storage shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel with the exception of water-oriented structures as outlined in City Code Chapter 350.1200 (shoreland ordinance) including, but not limited to, boat lifts and docks. Boat vehicles and trailers shall not be allowed to be stored on Dock Lots during the non-boating season. 12. Hardcover on Dock Parcel shall be no more than five (5) percent. 13. No motor vehicles shall be parked on the Dock Parcel. 2 -807- 14. Dock Parcel shall be used solely by the owners of the Residential Parcel and their guests and/or invitees and shall not be used for rental purposes. 15. No alteration of the existing public road or curb line, if applicable, shall be allowed on the Dock Parcel. 16. Placement of any dock shall be subject to the provisions of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, where applicable. 17. Dock Parcel shall have the minimum frontage as required by the LMCD, where applicable, at the public street and along the lake as measured at the OHWM. If applicant is seeking a variance from required frontage from the LMCD, granting of such variance shall be a pre-condition to subdivision. 18. In addition to the penalties provided in Subsection 100.60 of the City Code, the City may pursue any remedy available in law or equity for a violation of this section. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of July, 2004 Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Published in The Laker the 7th day of August, 2004. Effective the 8th day of August, 2004. 3 -808- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -200 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) TO CLARIFY "LOT OF RECORD" STATUS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL WHICH IS PART OF DOCK PARCEL SUBDIVISION The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 330.10 (Procedural Requirements)is hereby amended to revise Subsection D (10) as follows: 10. Dock Parcel Subdivision shall not trigger loss of non "lot of record" status for the Residential Parcel. Passed by the City Council this day of Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,200 . 200 . ,200 . Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel JBD-248623v2 MU220-5 -809- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE TO CONSIDER A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM MARTIN SARENPA FOR A DOCK PARCEL SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3061 WESTEDGE ROAD, MOUND, MN PLANNING CASE # 05-02 PID NO. 23-117-24-33-0012 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 7:30 PM to consider a subdivision exemption request from Martin Sarenpa for a dock parcel subdivision for the property located at 3061 Westedge Road, Mound, MN. Copies of the application materials, legal descriptions and project plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in The Laker on March 5, 2005 Mailed to property owners with (350) feet on March 10, 2005 Jill Norlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary -810- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING NOTICE Case No. ~-~'~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Jill Norlander, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am a United States Citizen, over twenty-one (21) years of age, and the Secretary_ for Planning and Inspections Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. On ~ /(~ ,20 (~-, acting on behalf of the City I deposited in the United States Post Office at Mound, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of a hearing on proposed improvement, enclosed in'sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names. NAME *See attached list. There is delivery service by the United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. J~ Norlander Subscribed and sworn to before me this /O day of'~~20 rOG;"-. ~ ~ NOTARYPUBLIC-M1NNESOTA ~ ~ My Cemn'L~on Expires Jan. 31, 2010 -811 - 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL ' PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE TO CONSIDER A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FROM MARTIN SARENPA FOR A DOCK PARCEL SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3061 WESTEDGE ROAD, MOUND, MN PLANNING CASE # 05-02 PID NO. 23-117-24-33-0012 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 7:30 PM to consider a subdivision exemption request from Martin Sarenpa for a dock parcel subdivision for the property located at 3061 Westedge Road, Mound, MN. Copies of the application materials, legal descriptions and project plans are- available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in The Laker on March 5, 2005 Inspections Secretary ,printed on recycled paper -812- 10.99 23-117-24-32 (~ (22) 120.84 145 7 145 9 ~ 1~ 145~ ~ ~45 12 145 7(40)¢~ 8 145 9 lO 145 145~ ' 23-117-24-31 I 14 15 145 31 145 30 145 (49; 29 27 145 26 25 24 145 23 9 ' ' 30~' '27± 22+ 23-117-24-33 J 22± RIDGEWOOD RD 23-117-24-34 6O N88°lS~3"W 5O (103) 11.34- (~o~) 92. 07 5 SINCLAIR RD 473.28 ~ N88o52,W 18.46 PARK LAGOON 40~ ~V86°OS'E ~ 140 ± .... '82.4+ -813- ~ [- Z Z 0 .<go ~<<~ ~<~o -815~o~ AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE Case'No. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Jill Norlander, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am a United States Citizen, over twenty-one (21) years of age, and the Administrative Assistant for the Planning and Inspection Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. On ~/~,~.~_- / 0 ., 20~', acting on behalf of the City I personally posted the attached notice on the bulletin board at City'Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ~C~ day of ~1~, 20 0 ~ Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota -816- Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 763-745-7500, Phone 763-478-4000, FAX 763 -478-4030, TD D www. co.hennepin.mn.us January 18, 2005 Ms. Sarah Smith, Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Preliminary Plat - Sarenpa Subdivision Exemption (Dock Lots) CSAH 44, Southwest of Bayridge Road Section 23, Township 117, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 2869 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Smith: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. The Plat Review Committee reviewed the above plat at its regular meeting on January 4, 2005. The following comments are provided for your consideration. ' · The City is strongly encouraged to provide a mechanism whereby all present and future property owners will clearly understand that there will be no direct county roadway access to these dock lots. We strongly encourage the City Council pass a resolution establishing a "No Parking" zone on this segment of CSAH 44. Upon receipt of the resolution, Hennepin County will post appropriate signage and anticipate City enforcement. This action will help maintain motorists' and pedestrians' safety since visibility would be maximized and parked vehicles would not encroach into the traveled roadway. · We also support the City's ordinance regarding no roadway revisions or on-site structures along or within the right-of-way. Please inform the developer that all proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Appropriate forms can be obtained by contacting our Permits Section at 763-745-7600. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 763-745-7643. Sincerely, James N. Grube, Director Transportation Department and County Engineer JNG:DKZ:dw cc: Plat Review Committee - Abene / Byers / Holtz / Johnson / Lindgren / Smrcka / Wiebe / Zetterstrom Rob Wied, HenneDin County Surveyor's Office An Equdl Opporturfity Employer - 81 7 - Recycled Paper FROH : LHCD FAX NO. : 7459885 San. 84 2085 05:13PM P2 BOARD MEMBERS Tom Skram~tad Ch~dr. Shorew°°d Katy Van Hercke ' Vice Chair, Minnet0r~ka Jose VaJdesuso Secretary~ Excelsior Paul Knudsen Treasurer, Mir~netrist~ Bob Ambrose Wayzata Doug B~bcock -~onka Bay Orr Burma Mound Miles Canning Greenwood , Bert Foster Deephaven' Debbie Hatvorson Orono Pete Nelson ViCtoria .' Tom Scanlon · Spring Park Tom Seuntjens . Minnetonka Bead" ~-Ierb Suenh Woodland 50% Rccycled Content 20% Po~ C~0n~Jmar Wast= LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINN~TONKA BI. VD, - D{~EPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · T~LEPHONE 952/745-07§9 · FAX 952/7~,5-90§5 Grego~ S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE[ DIRECTOR January 4, 2005 r Ms. Samh Smith Ci~ofMound 5341Ma:ywoodRoad Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sarah: ." The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the proposed Subdivision Exception Application for 3061 Westedge Blvd. submitted to the City of Mound by Martin Sarempa. The information that You. provided indicates .that the applicant .proposes to divide· the current.lot at 3061 We..stedge Blvd. into four Parcel's. Three of the riparian 'dock parcels' would be tied to three non-riparian 'residential parcels' which have a duplex on each . parcel. The property oWners would have to comply with all LMCD rules and regulations espec[al~ Chapter two pertaining to wate.'rcr~ft stOrage and structures within the lake. LMCD Code .Section 2.02 allows boat StOrage Of one restricted watercraft per 50 feet of continuou.s shoreli.n'e. LMCD COd& Section !-02, subd, 41 defines a 'restricted watercraft as any boat or vessel for use on Or stored on the public Waters °nthe Lakeexcept for'unrestricted watercraft as 'defined in this.section. Code SectiOn 1:02, subd.55c defines an unrestricted watercraft as "any boat or vessel for use on or stored On th~ P~iblic waters of the Lake which is: !.. 16' or.less in' length 'and'unmotorized; or 2. 16'..or less in 'length and which uses a motor of 10 horsepower or less; or 3.'. 20' or !ess. in length and unm.~torized, and which is solely propelled by human power. " It is my understanding that if thesubdMsion exemption is approved as submitted, Lots A, B and C will have 'at least 50' of 929.4'. NGVD'shoreline. It is also. appears that each of these th.roe tots will be tied to three 'lots with duplexes on them. (The' information provided is la'beied Duplex'. !, 2and 3 and the Hennep!n County property information classifies these (hree sites as 'Residential Two. Unit'.) If these' assumptions were correct, L. MCD Code· would allow the following: o" Alt dock.structure and waterCraft must be maintained within the three sites' authorized dock use areas. . · One restricted watercraft may be'stored ateach of the three 'dock parcels'. Web_Pag.e. Address; http:ffwww.lmcd.org ~--mail Address: mcd@irnccl org -818- FROM : LMCD FAX NO. : 7459085 Jan. 04 201~5 05:14PM P~ One concern is that current.or future residents or Owners of the duplexes may expect to store two restricted watercraft at the 'dock parcels` to accommodate each side of the duplexes. This would NO__! be allowed unde. r current LMCD Code: 'Again, only one restricted watercraft may be stored at each of the three 'dock parcels'. Please call me if you have any questions i~ this' matter: Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION Administrative Technician -819- FROM : LMCD FAX NO, : ?459085 Mar. 18 20~5 09:33AM P2 Sec. 2.02, Subd. 2 (kev. Section 2.02. Shor~!ine Requirements. Subd. 1. General Rule. No docks or mooring areas shall be constructed, established oz mainta£ned whJc~] prouide space for or are used for mooring oz docking a greater n~r~er of restricted watercraft t)]an one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline ir] existence on May 3, 1978, unless authorized to do so by special density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with continuous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements determining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one-half (1/2) shall be disregarded, and fractions over one-half (1/2) shall be counted as one additional restricted watercraft. Subd. 2. Special Rule for 'Sites in Existence on August 30, i978. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at any dock. or mooring facility which is located on a site (as defined in Section !.02) which was in existence on August 30, 1978. Subd. 3. Additional Watercraft Allowance 'in Certain Cases. Unless a greater number is authorized by ths provisions of Subd. 1 above, up to four restricted watercraft may be kept at a dock or mooring area located on any site (as defined in Section 1.02) ~provided that all of the following conditions are met: a) There must be one, and no more than one, single family residential structure on the site. If there is no residential structure on a. site, any one off-lake lot, parcel or other piece of property which t) is legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder; 2)'adjoins the site or is separated from the site only by a public right-of-way; 3) is under common owmnership and unified use with the site; and 4) is occupied by one single family residential structure, may be designated to be a part of one site by the owner, for purposes of this paragraph. b) The dockage rights at the site are owned exclusively by the owners of the lot parcel or other piece of property on which the residential structure referred to in paragraph a) is located. c) All of the restricted watercraft kept at a dock or mooring at the site must be owned by and registered to persons who live in the one residential structure referred to in paragraph a). The homestead or non-homestead status of property for ad valorem real estate tax purposes has no bearing on or application to this subdivision. -820- FROM : LMCD FAX NO. : ?459085 Ma~. 18 20~5 09:34AM P~ Sec. 1.02, Subd. 41 { ev, -02) Subd. 4i. "Restricted Watercraft,' means any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters on the Lake except for unrestricted watercraft as defined in this section. Subd. 42. "Roof', means a permanent dock cover. Subd. 43. "Rubbish,, means any trash, refuse or waste material of any kind and old automobiles or machinery or parts thereof. Subd. 44. "Sckedu!e A', means a sound level emission range as prescribed in S.A.E. Standards _ S.A.E. J986a for mufflers. Subd. 45. "Season, or "boating season,, means the period between April !5 and October 15 of any year. SLtbd. 46. "Seasonal dock" means any dock which is so designed and constructed that it may be removed from the Lake on a seasonal basis. All components such as supports, decking and footings must be capable of removal by manual means without use of power equipment, machines or boots other than hand held power tools. Subd. 47. "Sewage,, means the water-carried waste products from residences, public buildings, institutions or other buildinss, including the excrementitious or other dischar9e from the bodies of humau/ beings or animals, togethe~ with such ground wa%er infiltration and surface water as may be present_ Subd. 48. "Sheriff,, means the Sheriff of Hennepin County or the sheriff,s authorized agents. Subd. 49 "Sh ' - orelzne,, means the line of contact of the body of Water in the Lake with the shore. Subd. 50. "Shorezone, means that area of the ice of the Lake within iS0 feet of the shoreline. Subd. 51. "Site', means any shoreline lot, parcel or other piece of property legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Subd. 52. "Slip structure,, means a structure designed solely to secure a watercraft for the purpose of protecting it from damage from sun, wind. sEorm, or rain; the term does not include boat houses, decks, roofs or similar structures. Subd. 53. "Snowmobile,, means a self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or on natural terrain steered by wheels, skis or runners. Subd. 54. "Special event,, means any act or activity on the Lake which will involve: -6- -821 - FROM : LMCD FAX NO. : 7459085 Ma~. 18 20~5 09:35AM P4 Sec.] .02, Subd. 54 a) (Rev. 3-02) a) ~he placing of any structures or buoys in the Lake other than in authorized dock use or mooring areas or as authorized by permit issued pursuant to Section 2.07; or b) the assistance of the sheriff's water patrol or other law enforcement authority for its safe execution; or c) the blocking off of a portion of the Lake from general pbbblic use or the substantial impairment of the ability of' the general public to use simultaneously tha~ portion of the Lake; or d) exceeding lawful speed limits or violating Rules of the Road; or e) f) fishing contests; or boat shows; or 9) parasailing, hang gliding or other activity involving boat towing. Subd. 55. "State,, means the State of Minnesota. Subd. 55a. "Stored Boat" means any watercraft stored, kept or maintained on, under or suspended from another watercraft. Subd. SSb. "Storage Boat" means any watercraft which is used to store, carry or ~ouse a Stored Boat unless: a) the use of the Stored Boats is clearly incidental to the use of the Storage Boat as an operating watercraft; and all Stored Boats are either: 1) Inflatable watercraft which are deflated, or 2) kept or maintained on or above decks, suspended from external davits or on an external stern platform and either: i) less than 33% of the length of the Storage Boat or ii) less than 18 feet in length, whichever is less. Subd. 55.c. "Unrestricted Watercraft,, means any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters of the lake which is: lg feet or less in length and unmotorized; or 16 feet or less in length and which uses a motor of 10 horsepower or less; or 20 feet or less in length and unmotorized, and which is propelled solely by human power. -7- -822- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Central Region Waters. 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 December 28, 2004 Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound~ Minnesota 55364-1687 Martin Sarenpa, Dock Parcel Subdivision at 3061 Westedge Blvd., Lake Minnetonka-Halsted's Bay, City of Mound, Hennepin County. Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for your request to review the application for a dock parcel subdivision. The parcel is described as Lot 001, Block 001, Property Identification Number 23-117-24-33-0012, Hermepin County. After reviewing the application and Ordinance No. 07-2004, we have the following comments to offer. In 1994, during development of its shoreland management controls, the city requested flexibility from statewide standards regarding minimum lot width. The city was granted a 60-foot lot width minimum (versus the statewide standard of 75 feet). The city's land use controls were found to be fully compliant with Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900, and DNR Waters approved the city's shoreland ordinance (letter dated September 8, 1994). During this period of shoreland ordinance development, an effort was made to include all of the Lake Minnetonka communities in discussions to design flexibility standards that would be consistent around the lake. The current application proposes to create three lots that are each narrower than the i-ninimum width required by the city's shoreland ordinance. We believe that Ordinance 07-2004, Subsection 330.10 is not ~n compliance with state shoreland standards, is inconsistent with the standards of other Lake Minnetonka communities, and it does not meet the intent of state shoreland controls; therefore we object to the applicant's proposed subdivision. Please contact me at 651-772-7910 should you have questions about these comments. Sincerely, Area Hydrologist C: DNR Regional Hydrologist, Dale Homuth DNR Shoreland Hydrologist, Peder Otterson Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Greg Nybeck Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Mike Wyatt DNR Information: 651-296-6157 An Equal Opportunity Employer 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a - Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page I of 2 Hennepin County, MN I~~ Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is update~ dally ([Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) Search By: HOUSE or BU/LDZNG #: 1306.! STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) lwestedge, b!~d UNZT# (if applicable) records per page Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2004 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2004 Tax Statement ---PropertytD.'-- .............. 2-3 -1-17-24-33-00-12 ........ Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: 3061 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND 277 Construction year: 1967 3 Parcel Size: ZRREGL MART~N SARENPA MARTIN SARENPA 3061 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estat Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactic Sale Date: September, 2003 Sale Price: $462,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Abstract or Torrens: Tax Parcel Description HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDN 001 001 TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2004 Values Established by Assessor as of 3anuary 2, 20~ Estimated Market Value: $387,000 Limited Market Value: $281,600 Taxable Market Value: $281,600 Total Zmprovement Amount: Total Net Tax: $3,286.17 Total Special Assessments: http ://www2. c o. hennepin, mn. u s/pins/addrre sult .j sp -824- 12/14/2004 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $50.29 $3,336.46 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 200 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 20~ Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $248,000 $139,000 $387,000 $101,100 $281,600 RESIDENTIAL LAKE SHORE HOMESTEAD 3831 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Tax related questions: _t_a__xjn_f..o_~_~_cp.heB~epin~mn__,.~s Need help locating a property on our site? Check out our Search_ Ti~.~ Home I Your County Government I Ljc~en~s__es, Certificate_s_.,_&~R_egistratior E~pj_o_yment _&_Volun_te_er n_g I .~eal~t_h~ __H_.o_u_s_i__n~q~ & Social Services I L_a_w,. Safety, & C_o~u_rt~s I Environment, Prol~rty, & Tr~ansportation Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www. Hennepin.us _A. c_c_~s~sjb~jJit~_po_!cy I C_~n_.t_~_c__t Hen_~_epin County I Security/p..ri_y__a_cy Staten http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.j sp -825- 12/14/2004 Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin Coup, MN Click on map to view intbrmation on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Property ID 23-117~4~3~012 Property Address 3061WESTEDGE BLVD ZOON LL~EL PAN L~tu~a~:12~6~0~ ml:~PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Approximate Property Perimeter 839 ft. Market Value Approximate Property Area 24,897 sq.~ = 0.572 acres Total Tax (2004) $ 3,336.46 $ 387,000 MOUND, MN 55364 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder~.co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen' resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://wwwl 9.co.hennepin.nm.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VAL..- 12/14/2004 -826- d ess Result page I ,~1, i I,J, , I Hennepin nty, MN Search By: HOUSE or BUZLDZNG #: j314 ...... STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) westedge blvd UNrr # (if applicable) F ~ records per page Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is updat daily (Monday- Friday) at approximately 9215 p.m. (CS1 Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dislc Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2004 23- l :L7-24-34-0063 3140 WESTEDGE BLYD MOUND 277 Construction year: 3 1970 Parcel Size: 60 X 2C MARTIN T SARENPA MARTIN T SARENPA 3140 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estat and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: February, 2002 Sale Price: $233,900 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description THE HIGHLANDS 016 N 2 FT OF LOT 17 ALL OF LOT 18 AND S 8 FT OF LOT 19 Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 200 Values Established by Assessor as of 3anuary 2, 2 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: $223,000 $153,000 $153,000 $2,269.36 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pinsladdrresultj sp -827- 12/14/2004 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $27.32 $2,296.68 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2( Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2 values: Land Market $66,000 Building Market $157,000 Machinery Market Total Market: $223,000 Land Limited $45,300 Building Limited $107,700 Total Limited: $153,000 Qualifying Tmprovements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status RESIDENTIAL- TWO UNIT NON- HOMESTEAD 3808 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Tax related questions: taxinfoC~co.hennepin.mn.us Need help locating a property on our site? Check out our Search T_ips_ Home I Your County Government I Licenses,~Ce__~ificate_s_, & Registratior Employment & Volunteerinq { Health, Housing, & Social Services I La_w_~ Safety, & Courts I Environment~_P__roperty, & Transportation Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www. Hennepin.us Accessibility Policy } Contact Hennepin County I SecurityJPriva_cy Staten http ://www2. c o. hennepin, mn. us/pins/addrre sult .j sp -828- 12/14/2004 Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin C unty, MN Click on map to view inibrmation on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info ~O~M LEVEL Last update: 12/06/2004 at 1:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 23-117-24-34-0063 527 ft. 12,868 sq.ft. = 0.295 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2004) 3140 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND, MN 55364 $ 223,000 $ 2,296.68 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder~co.hennepin,mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://wwwl 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VAL... 12/14/2004 -829- Property Information Search by Street Address Result page / ~Nage 1 of 2 Hennepin nty, MN ~ Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is upda! daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CS1 Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) iwestedge blvd .. UNTT # (if applicable) records per page Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2004 23-117-24-34-0064 3130 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND 277 Construction year: 1970 3 Parcel Size: 60 X 2C MARTIN T SARENPA MARTIN T SARENPA PO BOX 335 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estal and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: January, 2004 Sale Price: $260,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description THE HIGHLANDS 016 N 42 FT OF LOT 19 AND S 18 FT OF LOT 20 Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 200 Values Established by Assessor as of 3anuary 2, 2 Estimated Market Value: $219,000 Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: $152,200 $152,200 Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: $2,257.48 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.j sp -830- 12/14/2004 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $27.18 $2,284.66 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $66,000 $153,000 $219,000 $45,900 $106,300 $152,200 RESIDENTIAL- TWO UNIT NON- HOMESTEAD 3794 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Tax related questions: taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Need help locating a property on our site? Check out our Home I Your County Government [ LicensesL Certificates,_~ Registratior Employment & Volunteerinq I Health, Housing, & Social Services I Law~ ~a_f_e_.t¥, & C__Q_u_~_s I Environment, PEo_p_erty, & Transportation Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www. Hennepin.us Accessibilit3_P_olicy I Contact Hennej)in County ] Security/Privacy Staten http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresultj sp -831 - 12/14/2004 Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin County, MN Click on map to view infbrmation on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Last update: 12/06/2004 at 1:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID 23-t 17-24-34-0064 Property Address 3130 WESTEDGE BLVD Approximate Property Perzmeter Market Value $ 219,000 Approximate Property Area tl,312 sq.~. = 0.26 acres Total Tax (2004) $ 2,284.66 MOUND, MN 55364 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e~mail at Bob. Moulder~co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://wwwl9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VAL..- 12/14/2004 -832- Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Hennepin ntv, MN Property Information Search Result Page 1 of 2 Search By: HOUSE or BUZLDZNG #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) iwestedge blvd UNIT # (if applicable) records per page The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is update~ daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2004 Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: 2~3-117-~ '~_ --WESTEDGE BLVD~ MOUNT) -- - '~--~ 277 Construction year: 1970 3 Parcel Size: IRREGL MARTIN T SARENPA MARTIN T SARENPA 3116 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estal Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactic Sale Date: February, 2002 Sale Price: $240,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description THE HIGHLANDS 016 THAT PART OF LOT 20 LYING N OF S 18 FT THOF ALSO ALL OF LOT 21 Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2004 Values Established by Assessor as of 3anuary 2, 20~ Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Zmprovement Amount: Total Net Tax: $223,000 $171,500 $171,500 $2,543.42 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.jsp -833- 12/14/2004 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $30.62 $2,574.04 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 20(] Values Established by Assessor as of 3anuary 2, 20; Values: Land Market $62,500 Building Market $160,500 Machinery Market Total Market: $223,000 Land Limited $48,100 Building Limited $123,400 Total Limited: $171,500 Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status RESIDENTIAL- TWO UNIT NON- HOMESTEAD 3737 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Tax related questions: taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Need help locating a property on our site? Check out our Search Tip_s Home I Your County Government I Licenses, Certificate_s, & Registratior _E___m. ployment & Volunteering ] Health, Housing~ & Social Services I Law,_ Safety, &_C_c~u__~ [ Environment,_ Prop_~_~y, & Transportation Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www. Hennepin.us Accessibility__P_olic~ I Contact Hennep_!n~Cpp_n_t¥ I Security_/Privacy Staten http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.j sp -834- 12/14/2004 Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 H nepin County, MN Click on mai::) to view inibrmation on adjoining propertle:~, Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Last update: 12/06/2004 at 1:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 23-117-24-346065 556 ~. 14,245 sq,~. = 0.327 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2004) 3116 WESTEDGE BLVD MOUND, MN 55364 $ 223,000 $ 2,574.04 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only, Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder~co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3,02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://wwwl 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VAL... 12/14/2004 -835- PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 10, 2005 Present: Commissioners Derrick Hentz, Mike Mason, Monica Winkler, Don Heywood, Teri Turner, Council Representative John Beise, Park Superintendent Jim Fackler, Secretary Denice Widmer Commissioner Sue Pilling arrived at 7:55pm Chair Derrick Hentz called the meeting to order at 7:30pm e Approval of February 10~ 2005 Minutes MOTION by Mason to approve the February 10, 2005 Minutes. SECOND BY Turner. Motion Carried. Agenda Changes: Add #9, Reports by Council and Staff Fackler officially welcomed Don Heywood to the Commission, stating that he would be sworn in at the April meeting. Comments and Suggestions from citizens present: None Discuss: Date for Park Tour Following discussion, the date was set for Saturday, April 23, 2005 beginning at 9 am. Commissioners will meet at City Hall and Fackler will try to arrange the bus. Beise stated that he would compile the tour booklet. Discuss: Suggested Changes to Work Rules Fackler gave a brief rundown of the proposed changes and a short discussion followed. MOTION by Beise to accept the suggested changes to the Work Rules. SECOND by Mason. Motion carried. Discuss: Lake Clean-up Event Mason gave a background on the annual underwater clean-up that he is involved with Crystal Pierz Marine on. The scheduled date for the cleanup is June 18, 2005. Mason expressed their desire to also encourage on land shoreline cleanup as part of that cleanup effort. Mason asked POSAC to formally endorse the on land shoreline cleanup effort to City Staff and the Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes from March 10, 2005 -836- City Council and recommend that an article be published in the City Newsletter and additional publications such as The Laker. MOTION by Beise to wholeheartedly approve and promote the on land shoreline cleanup to City Staff and the City Council with an amendment by Hen~z that an article regarding the cleanup should be published in the City Newsletter and additional publications such as The Laker and the Chamber Newsletter. Discussion followed. SECOND by Hentz. Motion carried. Discuss: 2006 Budget/Expenditures/Capital Outlay Fackler stated that this item could be moved to the May Agenda for discussion following the Parks Tour in April. Discuss: April Agenda Calendar Add: Swearing in of Commissioner Heywood Add: Parks Tour- April 23ra, 2005 Reports: Council Rep: Beise stated that the LMCD approved 37 docks for the town homes; 17 town homes on the lake will each have a 30' dock, and 20 town homes not on the lake will each have 24' docks. The Watershed and DNR meetings have been set up and the environmental clean-up should begin in the next couple months. The approval by the LMCD is significant in pushing this project ahead. It expected that Phase One could begin as early as mid- summer. City Staff: Fackler was asked about the Marina. He stated that the City has approached the DNR to work on this project and the DNR was very receptive. The DNR is excited to work on this project because it offers access to the lake, and space for the 20 parking spaces they would require. This is a huge project that may entail a gas service, a trailhead park and picnic area, etc. The City is looking into gaining some expert consultants to assist on this project, but the City Council should see this in the next six months. Fackler stated that he ordered the 10 benches, 10 picnic tables and 10 trees that were approved by the Council. He stated that he is holding off on ordering the covered shelters because of the equipment needed at the Skate Park, but hopes to order the shelters later on. Beise asked if Jim could hold off on planting the trees until after the Parks Tour so that POSAC would have an opportunity to designate where they wanted the trees to go. Fackler agreed. Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes from March 10, 2005 2 -837- Fackler gave a brief rundown on the Skate Park and the lighting and structure projects scheduled for spring and summer. No date has been set for ribbon-cutting. Mason asked Fackler if anything has happened as far as the rails to trails conversion. Fackler stated that there are talks going on with Three Rivers, and that many of the cities along the trails have passed a motion approving the trails and have passed that along to the County in order to get the project moving. It may be up to individual cities to decide whether or not they want to keep the trails open in the winter and maintain them. Fackler stated that he would like to see the trail in Mound kept open. Beise stated that they have confirmation that area snowmobile clubs would groom the trails west of thc City. The project is on schedule at the present time. Fackler Stated that the Park Renovation Plan has been put on hold at the present time due to the expense involved. Mound Bay Park needs to be upgraded and is a central park for the City and may be the way to ease everyone into the idea of how much money it's going to take to renovate the parks. The City has asked for First Right of Purchase for 3 lots that would expand the parking, which has always been an issue. Swenson Park also needs a lot of work since it's a major park. The Comp plan is coming into play. Fackler will keep POSAC updated on the progress. The Planning Commission tabled the sale of Bluff's Park. Mason asked whether or not the funds from the sale would be directed back to the parks. Fackler stated they would. Discussion followed with Beise making the recommendation that the Bluff's come back to POSAC for final review and recommendation to the City Council. Fackler stated that a 9 month full-time park maintenance worker has been hired, pending the background check. MOTION by Beise to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Heywood. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes from March 10, 2005 -838- MINUTES ,MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSIOP MARCH 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, David Miller, Michael Mueller, Dave Osmek and Jon Schwingler. Absent and excused: Greg Raines. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Planner Loren Gordon and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: Jennifer Owens (2138 Centerview La); Mark Oslund (1772 Shorewood La); Daniel Geyen (5764,,,~S~ihset Rd); Ron Eikanas (6338 Rambler La); Kristen & John Beise (3124 Tuxedo '~i'~d) APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7 and ~:~ MINUTE~ MOTION by Hasse, Planning Commission the minutes of the February 7, 2005 carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Miller, to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. APPROVE AGENDA WITH ANY AMENDMENTR The agenda was not amended. MOTION by Schwingler, second by Hasse, to approve the agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. 05-03 VARIANCE - HOUSE REMODEL/ADDITION 2138 CENTER¥1EW LANE APPLICANT: JIM HATCHET The applicant requests a front yard setback variance to reconstruct the 2nd story on the existing 2 story home within the current setbacks as outlined below: Front Yard Setback Proposed Required Variance 14ft4 in 30 feet 15ft8 in -839- Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2005 In addition, a lakeside deck is planned that encroaches into the 50 foot setback area. It is recommended that the deck be scaled back to conform to setback requirements. Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance with the following conditions: 1.The City Engineer review grading and drainage issues at the time of building permit. 2.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. 3.The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. Staff offers the following in support: 1.The proposed improvements maintain the existing setbacks. 2.The proposed improvements will not increase the amount of structure bulk already present. 3.The proposed improvements are a reasor and enjoyment of the property. Discussion Osmek questioned whether was uncertain what the feet. added height to the structure. Gordon :was but plans indicate conformance at about 30.5 Jim Hatchet (2128 Centerview Lane) - Mueller asked if the applicant was willing to put gutters on the house to take care of excess runoff. He Jennifer Owens (2138 Centerview Lane) - Concerned about placement of the garage and its close proximity to the alley. A discussion followed regarding setback requirements for the lot. MOTION by Osmek, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the requested front yard setback variance. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE NO. 05-05 VARIANCE - BOATHOUSE MODIFICATIONS 1772 SHOREWOOD LANE APPLICANT: MARK OSLUND Applicants are requesting a variance to make improvements to an existing boat house located along the shoreline of the West Arm of Lake Minnetonka. The boat house is considered a "non-conforming accessory structure" having a lakeside setback of 8 feet from the OHVV. The use of the boathouse is legal. The modifications will provide additional structural integrity and stabilize the structure. No other improvements are identified in the application. -840- Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2005 Gordon also addressed the state statutes and its effect on Mound city code. Staff recommends approval of the variance request with the following conditions: 1.The applicant~shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the variance request. 2. The City Engineer and Building Official shall review the structural engineering report and place any applicable conditions on building permit approvals as necessary. 3.The applicant shall be responsible for all necessary building permits. Discussion Miller asked, since the state statutes allow this, why it's being reviewed. Gordon said, at this point, the city is being cautious until rulings come from the League. MO. TION by Osmek, second by Mueller, to recommend approval of the requested variance. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE NO. 05-04 VARIANCE - UPPE )R¥ REMODEL/ADDITION 6338 RAMBLER LANE EIKANSAS Applicant is requesting a , variance to reconstruct the 2nd story on the existing 2 story home as noted below: Proposed .Required Variance Side Yard Setback 2.97ff 6ff 3.03ff MOTION by Mueller, second by Miller, to recommend approval of the requested variance and to require the addition of gutters to appropriately direct water. MOTION carried. Voting for: Miller, Ayaz, Osmek, Michael, Glister, Schwingler and Mueller. Voting against: Hasse. REVIEW OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA Smith introduced the tax increment financing process and explained the need for a statement as to the district and project conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. As clarification, Osmek stated that the adjustment in the size of the TIF district is not as important as the extension of the district timeline from 15 to 20 years. -841 - Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2005 MOTION by Mueller, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the resolution adopting a finding that the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, second by Schwingler, to recommend approval of the resolution adopting a finding that the redevelopment plan for the Mound Harbor project area conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. MOTION carried unanimously. OLD / NEW BUSINESS REVIEW OF CITY-OWNED PARCEL RELEASE (22-117-24-44-0027) BLUFF'S PARK The Park and Open Space Advisory Commission unanimously recommended the sale of this parcel to the adjacent property owners only. This park serves no public use and is being maintained by the adjacent property owners. City Staff also reviewed the property and recommended the sale, pending ~ the City Attorney. City Attorr{ey John Dean reviewed this restrictions or reservations and directed that the deed contains no proceed with the sale. Discussion Mueller indicated this park the area neighborhood. He of the 10% that was taken with the subdivision of it is wrong to take it away from the neighborhood. Miller asked if we could get a better explanation from the POSAC as to why they felt this action was appropriate. Ayaz feels that it sets a precedent for future requests and he suspects there will be a house built on it. MOTION by Miller, no second, to table action until an explanation is received from POSAC. Miller withdrew the motion. MOTION by Mueller, second by Osmek, to table action until an explanation is received from POS^C and any other information staff feels applicable. MOTION carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON UPDATE Community Downtown Redevelopment Update report was well attended. Clean up ordinances, strictness, Council wants to enforce and provide teeth to the existing rules. 3 strikes and we fix and bill, tag and fine. Osmek said the Council is ready to stand together and enforce. -842- Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2005 STAFF UPDATE Smith outlined the following: GTS Seminar April 2nd and other GTS offerings, Lost Lake dredge application progress and dirt removal process, MCWD subcommittee opening, nuisance abatement and accessory building ordinances. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse to adjourn. Seconded and carried by affirmation at 8:59 p.m. Chair Geoff Michael Attest, Planning Secretary -843- Mar ll Z885 1G:SB:33 Via Fax -> 95Z4?ZBGZB ~&ainis~ra~or ~age BB1 0£ 885 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League ofMmnesota C~ties Governor's supplemental budget released Thursday afternoon, the governor released his supplemental budget recommendations for the upcoming two-year budget. The supplemental recommendations are unveiled shortly after the Department of Finance releases the February budget forecast and therefore reflect the effects of the updated forecast and any reprioritization of the governor's initial budget proposal. The February forecast increased the revenues available for the balance of the current biennium, which ends this June 30, by $175 million. In addition, the projections for revenues available for the 2006-2007 biennium increased by $234 million. Despite these "increases," the state continues to face a deficit for the upcoming biennial budget. However, given that the governor's initial budget was based on lower available revenue projections, the improved budget forecast effectively translates into more available revenue for the governor' s budget. The governor's supplemental recommendations would increase K-12 education funding by $108 million, $66 million of which would be used to increase the basic education finance formula. When combined with the governor's earlier budget recommendation, he is now proposing that the basic education funding formula increase by 2.5 percent per year for frae upcoming budget cycle. The governor's supplemental budget did not restore funding for the market value homestead credit cuts proposed by the governor in January. March 11,2005 Page 1 The governor's overall budget recommendations continue to rely on an assumed $200 million one-time infusion of revenue from a new casino. If that source of revenue is not realized, the governor and Legislature will have to find other revenues or other expenditure reductions before the end of the session. The governor may have provided some protection from the possible loss of the casino revenue and also from the possible loss of federal revenue due to Congressional action that could negatively impact the state. His supplemental recommendations include a set aside of $75 million which he labels as a "federal transition reserve." According to the governor, this reserve would be used to cover potential federal cuts to a wide range of non- entitlement discretionary programs, although it apparently would not be limited only to those uses. The governor's budget recommendations are only a starting point for legislative budget negotiations. The Legislature has two months remaining in this session to craft a final state biennial budget. Quqstions? Contact Gary Carlson at 652.28]. ] 255 or at What is the proper role ora city council? This week, lhe Governor's Chief-of-Staff, Dan McElroy, during a discussion on Minnesota Public Radio was asked the question, "Has the governor taken a position yet on whether or not people in the local communities where a casino would be sited--whether they should be Far more information on city legir~tive issues, contact any member of the League of Mirmesota Cities Irdergovemmumtal Relatior~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -844- Mar 11 7_BBS 1G:S9:13 Via Fax -> 95Zq?ZBGZ8 ~dni~is~ra~or Page 882_ O£ 085 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities allowed to vote on this or just go with whatever the city council says?" March 11, 2005 Page 2 in the House Governmenml Operahons& VemransAffairs Committee. McElroy replied, "We believe the city council should make that decision. I've looked at how it's been done in other parts of the country and the challenge is if the community were to undertake a referendum, it's likely the current Indian gaming group would spend a ton of money to defeat it. The proponents would have to spend a ton of money to pass it. It gets into a baffle that's not particularly constructive ...... it still wastes a lot of resources, pits neighbor against neighbor and I don't think it's necessary. We believe a city council resolution would be the right way to go." In a completely unrelated note, Governor Tim Pawlenty and House Tax CommilXee Chair Phil K. rinkie this week unveiled ltae Taxpayer Satisfaction Survey at a meeting of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. The proposal would allow property owners to petition for a vote on a city council decision to increase the property mx, making it difficult for city councilmembers and mayors to answer the question posed in the title of this article. The bill, !_2~i_:?_9.:% repeals the statute that limits local government compensation to 95 percent of the governor's salary. This legislation also eliminates the related cap on salary that is counted for pension purposes. Rep. Ron Erhardt (R-Edina) is the chief sponsor of the House bill and Sen. Steve Kelley (DFL- Hopkins) is carrying the Senate companion. The proposal is supported by a bi-partisan group of legislators. HF 995 passed out of the House Local Government Committee last week on a 10-8 roll call vote. We expect that the vote in the Governmental Operations Committee will also be close. Please contact members of the committee before Tuesday' s hearing to encourage them to repeal the salar3, cap or to provide a higher limit that includes an annual inflationar~ ad. iustment~ which will be offered as an amendment if necessarT. The members, their phone numbers and e-mail addresses are listed below: We hope Chief-of-Stuff McEkoy will share his views on the role of city councils wilt others at the state capitol. Questions? Contact Gary Carlson at 65]. 28]. ] 235 or at ~carlsc, n(~?!.imnc.¢zr~? Action Alert! House hearing next Tuesday on salary cap proposal Legislation that would give Minnesota cities and counties control over local compensation decisions will be heard on Tuesday, March 15 Rep. Kathy Tingelstad, (651) 296-5369, r~p. 'l~t. hv.t.m ~e.l.stad(~:!hous e.mn Rep. Dan Severson, (651) 296-7808, re~*~!~ex:erson(~'llouse.nm Kep. Phyllis Kahn, (651) 296-4257, .n?~_p_, hyll:is .kahn(~h0use.nm Rep. Michael Beard, (651) 296-8872, ~'epmik. e.bea.r&'FZ!house.nm Rep. Lloyd Cybart, (651) 296-5506, r.e_..I!,~9_y d -c~£bart,,'."/~!hm~s e.mn Rep. Randy Detainer, (651)296-9236, [~p_~ra.ndv~demmer, li~i!hom;e.mn Rep. Jerry Dempsey, (651) 296-8635, r t~P_.~i _e_r!3,_¢lemps e'v~2~ house, mn Rep. Joe Hoppe, ({f51) 296-5066, re, p.ioe,h0pce(a:~h()use.mn For more mfcamation on city legislative i~sues, contact any member of the Leag~*e of Minnesota Cities Intmgovemmental Relatic~s team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -845- 2885 16:59:57 Via Fax -> 952472B62B ~&~n~s~ra~or Page 0B3 0£ 885 LSIC -FridayFax- Rep. Larry Hosch, (651) 296-4373, te.p_larrv,.!!o S ch(~2hous e.mn Rep. Howard Swanson, (651) 296-8634, r erJ. ru:ffijotms on(~?2~hotlse.mn Rep. Sheldon Johnson, (651) 296-4201, r~: sheldon iohns onf~:'~house.nm Rep. Tine Liebling, (651) 296-0573, ~c5.~..tina.lieblm-o~ihouse.nm Rep. Leon Lillie, (651) 296-1188, Rep. Diane Loeffier, (651) 296-4219, .,r,~,e'[.>..diane.10effier~house. am Rep. Tim Mahoney, (651) 296-4277, L~j~.:LiLn..~n e~l~ ous e mn Rep. Deimy McNamara, (651) 296-3135, ~ep.. demly ,m caamar at~.7.'g~h ous e. ~rul Rep. Mark Olson, (651) 296-4237, .rep. mark. olsont~house.nm Rep. Aaron Paterson, (651) 296-4228, rev_ear on.~et ersont~hou s e.mn Rep. Neil Peterson, (651) 296-7803, re~.neil,~etexson,"~house.nm Rep. Marry Seifert, (651) 296-5374, rt~ .ma, ,rty:~eifm'tl~hous e.mn Rep. Lynn Wardlow, (651) 296-4128, r~_ :lynn, w ar dlowt~! hou s e. rrm Rep. Andy Welti, (651) 296-4378, Questions? Contact Laura Offfardahl at (651) 28]-1260 or at lo~,Ferda!df~_i).lmnc, or~ Street utility bill narrowly clears hurdle in Senate The Senate Transportation Committee took a neutral position on the League's street utility initiative, SF 366 (Marko, DFL-Cottage Grove), at a Thursday hearing. On a vote of seven to four, the bill was passed without recommendation to the Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee. A prior motion to table the bill was defeated on a vote of five to five. A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 11, 2005 Page 3 The committee heard strong testimony by the bill's author, Senator Sharon Marko, and by city officials, that street utility authority would provide a fair and much-needed tool for slxeet preservation funding. The bill ran into trouble when some key supporting senators left the hearing to attend other committee meetings. Subsequently, cities lost a couple of swing votes on the committee to the bill's opponents. Representatives of the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association, the Minnesota Trucking Association, flue Minnesota Grocers Association and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties used familiar arguments that cities would use the fees to unfairly "tax" businesses and that property taxes should sufficiently cover the cost of street maintenance and reconslruction. They also charged that the mechanism used to calculate the fees--trip generation rates~is obscure. In fact, the trip generation information would be taken from the Institute Of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which is widely accepted by engineering and planning professionals. The manual is a key source of information used to make decisions about traffic management, safety and development. Some members of the committee noted that they had not heard from city officials in their districts on this initiative and were not inclined to support it without local pressure. The next hearing on SF 366 has not been scheduled. The outcome of this legislation will depend largely on the ability of city officials to make the case that this street funding tool would be useful and would be implemented carefully and fairly at the local level. For mote information on city legislative i2rue~, comaet any member of the Leag~ae of Minnesota Citie~ Imergovem.mental Relatiov. z team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -846- Mar 11 Z005 17:00:q3 Via ~x -> 9524720620 Odni~i~r~'~or P~ge 004 0£ 885 -FridayFax- League members have a small remaining window of opportunity to influence this legislation. If your city supports the initiative, now is the time for you to inform or remind your legislators of your interest. A weekly &gislat~'ve update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 11, 2005 Page 4 The Senate companion, SF 13 81 (Pappas, DFL- St. Paul), has not been scheduled for a hearing. Questions? Contact Anne Finn at 651,281.1263 or afinn~lmnc, org. To learn more about the street utility initiative, go to the League's Street UtiliW Action Toolkit on the LMC website Questions? Contact Anne Finn at 651.281,1263 Extracurricular activities to remain in schools for now HF t 090, a bill that would have shifted responsibility for student activities such as sports and arts from school districts to local governments, met its demise this week in the House Education Policy and Reform Committee. The authors, Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) and Rep. Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville), said the bill had been introduced in an effort to help facilitate a discussion about the use of education dollars and the appropriate role of schools. The bill was greeted with alarm by educators, students, parents and local government officials. The authors acknowledged the initiative was controversial and, after several committee members and testifiers made it clear there was little appetite for this shift, they agreed to lay the bill on the table. Liquor law changes discussed this Monday The Senate's Liqtior Subcommittee will meet on Monday to take up a number of liquor related bills. Among the bills they will hear that impact cities are: SI':' 1444 (Anderson, DFL-St Paul) mandating that cities issuing liquor licenses perform two compliance checks a year per license, and setting a minimum administrative penalties for sales to minors. 1 t 3_._~ (Ourada, R-Buffalo) prohibits any new 1 a3s (Kleis, R-St. municipal liquor stores. SF _,, ..... Cloud) requires any city with a municipal liquor operation to issue an off-sale license to any qualifying entity,. The committee will take a vote on ~4F. !44~4, but will not on either of the municipal liquor bills. The wine in grocery stores proposal, SP' ! (Scheid, DFL-Brooldyn Park) is not scheduled for this hearing, although many of the issues brought forward in these bills are some of the same arguments made for expanding the sale of wine to grocery stores. This bill was introduced this week in the Senate; the companion is HE' 1727 (Beard, R-Shakopee). The House companion committee, the Liquor subcommittee of Regulated Industries, will meet Monday night to hear the non- controversial local bills. The hearing is at 7 pm in the State Office Building, room 500 North. House sraffhas said they will not be taking up any controversial bills at that hearing. For more information on city legielativ~/asu~, contact any memb~ oft.he Leagx, e of Miames~a Cities Imeigovemmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -847- Mar 11 Z805 17:81:Z4 ~ia Fax -> 95Z4?ZBGZO Administrator Page 085 DE 805 -FridayFax- Commerce Subcommittee on Liquor Chair: Sen. Sandra L. Pappas 12 noon Room 15 Capitol Agenda: SF' 1280-Skoe: Minors alcoholic beverages purchase, possession or consumption strengthened restriction. ,SF 1444-Anderson: Alcoholic beverage sales to minors mandatory civil penalties and compliance checks. SF 15...>-Dtbble: Authorizing the city of Minneapolis to issue an on-sale license. :SF 1072-Harm: Eden Prairie on-sale intoxicating liquor license. A weakly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Crees March 11, 2005 Page 5 perfect chance to meet with your legislators and tell your city's story. The following bills will be heard for discussion only; no votes will be taken: SF 1130-Kierlin: Wine sales exclusive agreements prohibition. SF t 131-Ourada: Municipal liquor stores establishm ent prohibition. SF 1...;;.-Dibble. Beer market dual distribution prohibition repeal. .:SJ~: 1,![~_}:Kleis: Municipal liquor store cities off-sale licenses issuance. SF 1_ 8_ -McGmn. Modifying law relating to wholesaler- retailer relationships. Questions? Contact denn O 'Rourke at 651.281. ] 28] or at iorou,k'e(~.!mnc, q?2g Committee meetings Committee schedules are changing frequently. To get the latest information on commi'aee agendas, check the legislative websites I.,emslative h~m~e Make your city's voice heard at the Capitol State of the Cities Legislative Conference set for March 31 At this conference, you'll: · Learn about key legislative initiatives and issues facing cities this session, including lranspormtion, land use and water quality * · Hear about the 2005 State ofttm Cities Report · Learn how Minnesota cities are coping with fiscal pressures and how our cities compare to other states. · Find out about the Financing Local Government Task Force recommendations. · Hear from legislative leaders. · Network with other city officials and learn how to foster closer slate-local partnerships. · Slay on for the networking social hour from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Kelly Inn, Sweetwater Bar and Grill. Registration Fee: $75 person Questions7 Contact Cathy Dovidio at (651) 281-1250 or (800) 925-1122, or e-mail: cdovidio~ilmnc..or~ Register online anytime at: Online Reaistra'tion *Also learn more about impaired waters at legislative update sessions on April 1 or 8. For more information visit Impaired \Vaters Meem~s The State of the Cities Legislative Conference is set for March 31, 2005 and will be held at the Four Points Sheraton, St. Paul. This conference is followed by the City Day at the Capitol--the For more in.formation on cji*7 legislative issues, contact an5' member of tim League of Miamesota Cities Iateq~oveaxmeat al Rdatiox~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -848- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Wayzata City Hall CALL TO ORDER Van Hercke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Jose Valdesuso, Excelsior; David Gross, Deephaven; Steve Johnson, Mound; Pete Nelson, Victoria; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Cree Zischke, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; John Berns, Wayzata; Tom Scanlon, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; the City of Orono has no appointed member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice Chair Van Hercke There were no Chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES. 1/26/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 2/9/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Seunjtens moved, Gross seconded to approve the minutes from the 1/26/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Nelson); motion carried. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Gross seconded to approve the minutes from the 2/9/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Seuntjens moved, Nelson seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lC, 2005 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends Board approval of 2005 -849- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 2 renewal without change multiple dock license applications as outlined in 2/17/05 staff memo, and 3A, Audit of vouchers (2/16/05 - 2128105). PUBLIC HEARINGS · City of Mound, new multiple dock license and variance applications for 40 overnight Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on Lost Lake Channel. The proposed variance application is for variance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. Van Hercke opened the public hearing at 7:06 p,m. and asked for background from Nybeck. Nybeck reviewed the staff memo, dated 2/18/05, which summarized the City of Mound new multiple dock license and variance applications. This staff memo provided background, an evaluation of the application compared to LMCD Code, and a recommendation. He believed that there were three options for the Board to consider. These included: 1) directing LMCD counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the dock length variance application, with conditions deemed necessary, 2) table a decision pending outcome of the dredging requests made by Mound with the MN DNR and the MCWD, or 3) directing LMCD counsel to prepare Findings of Fact to deny the dock length variance application because the Board does not believe that the applicant has documented a particular hardship or practical difficulty. He entertained questions or comments from the Board. LeFevere stated that acting on a variance application is a two-step process. First, there is a need to determine whether there is a hardship within the meaning of the Code. Without a hardship, the Board cannot grant a variance. Second, if the Board decides that there is a hardship, there is a need to consider whether the request is within the spirit and intent of the Code or if the request is for too much. The Board has considered shallow water and emergent vegetation to be a hardship in the past. However, the LMCD could deny this request if the Board believed that Mound was requesting too much. He reviewed riparian rights and the ability to extend a dock to the point of navigability, subject to reasonable regulations. He stated that the Board has granted a number of variances from LMCD Code in the past based on hardships of shallow water, converging lot lines, and emergent vegetation. Zischke asked if a Board decision on previous variance requests binds the current Board. LeFevere stated that the Board acting on a variance application does not create a legally binding precedent. However, it is difficult to depart from past Board decisions because of public expectations to be treated equally and because different treatment may create the impression that Board action is arbitrary and capricious. Nybeck stated that the current Mound plan would result in a 27% percent reduction in the dredge compared to the previous plan proposed in December. Valdesuso asked if there would be a boat size and type restriction in this area because of the clearance of the bridge leading into Lost Lake. Nybeck stated that he believed the applicant would be better able to address that question. -850- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 3 Knudsen asked for an overview of overall BSU's for Mound if the Board approved these applications. Nybeck stated that if these applications were approved as proposed, there would be 40 BSU's at this site, there are 24 transient BSU's already approved adjacent to this site, and there are 590 BSU's approved throughout Mound for their Commons Docking Program. Gross asked what the relationship would be between Mound and the townhomes in relationship to these docks. He questioned what would happen to these BSU's if the townhome owners do not use these docks. Nybeck stated that he believed that Mound would continue to secure the renewal multiple dock license from the LMCD. With regards to the relationship between Mound and the townhomes, he believed that the applicant would be better able to address that. He reminded the Board that they could place any restrictions deemed necessary if the Board would like to approve the request, such as boat length restrictions. Van Hercke asked for comments from the applicant. Ms. Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director, stated that she and her design team were in attendance to present the modified dock plan. The design team included Bruce Chamberlain, Jim Fackler, Chuck Alcon, and Tom Stokes. She stated that a number of things had occurred since the 12/8/04 LMCD Board Meeting and she made the following comments: · A meeting was conducted in the LMCD office in late December to address the concerns of the MN DNR and the MCWD, primarily shoreline impacts and the size of the area dredged. These comments were considered by the design team and a modified dock plan was produced from this discussion. She commented on the modified plan and how it addressed the concerns of the MN DNR and the MCWD. The plan significantly reduces the size of the dredged area and would move the dredged area further away from shore, which would allow for revegetation in this area. · On 1/25/05, the Mound City Council approved a resolution adopting a final AUAR and mitigation plan for the Mound Commons Redevelopment Plan. This mitigation plan addressed potential environmental impacts and develops strategies to address them. · She stated that Mound had recently been awarded a 1.2 million dollar grant from the Met Council for the second phase of this project. This grant promotes affordability and community enhancement goals. A multi-governmental agency effort has been coordinated to address strategies on how to address environmental issues at this site. Originally, Mound was going to address these issues by establishing a membrane at this site over the contaminated areas. However, Mound has taken an additional step in the mitigation process to remove the contaminated soils. This increased step in mitigation is being supported by these multi governmental agencies. Although this will add significant costs to this project, Mound believes that it is best for residents and the lake as a whole. · Mound and the MCWD are currently entering into a joint partnership. A 1.5 million dollar grant has been secured to include comprehensive stormwater strategies in the downtown redevelopment project to improve lake water quality and to promote the MCWD's efforts to improve the overall lake conditions. · She hoped that the final downtown development agreement would be completed in the near future. This redevelopment project is a cooperative effort amongst a variety of governmental agencies. This process lead to the request for a dock length variance and she believed that hardship has been established. -851 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 4 · She entertained questions or comments from the Board. Nelson stated that it appeared that the construction of the townhomes was key aspect of the entire downtown redevelopment project. Without these townhomes, it is possible that this project might not proceed. Smith stated that the Lost Lake Project, which includes the townhomes, is a key aspect of the entire redevelopment project because the funds generated from the townhomes will fund other parts of the redevelopment project. Nelson complimented the environmental efforts made by Mound. He asked for further comments on what would be included in the comprehensive stormwater strategies. Smith stated that Mound would be implementing other strategies over and above traditional catch basins. Some of these include permeable pavers, rain gardens, swales, roof top gardens, tree canopies, and underwater ground filtration systems. Part of the agreement Mound has with the MCWD already requires special things to be done along the greenway to deal with water quality and water quantity. She stated that the MCWD cannot meet its water quality goals on Lost Lake and Lake Landgon, through its normal regulations, without the partnership and cooperation of Mound. Nelson asked if anyone had quantified how much these efforts will reduce the amount of phosphorous introduced into the lake, including the re-suspension of phosphorous caused by props. Mr. Chuck Alcon, Project Manager, stated that one of the consulting companies of the MCWD, EOR, has concluded that the MCWD would not be able to meet some their phosphorous removal goals by 2020 utilizing existing techniques. Recognizing this, the MCWD has agreed to work with Mound on a pilot Project in this area. Mound has come up with innovative techniques to address this, which will be funded by the MCWD, and EOR has estimated a 75 percent reduction in phosphorous. By changing the strategy to remove the landfill rather than encapsulating it, this should allow infilltration techniques to be utilized at the landfill. He stated that Mound understands that there will be some re-suspension of phosphorous in this area. The challenge will be to not add to it and hopefully diminish it. Van Hercke asked the applicant to provide a history of the Lost Lake Channel area. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain, of Hoisington and Koegler, stated that Lost Lake Channel was originally dredged around 1906 for excursion boat access to connect downtown Mound with Lake Minnetonka. The channel was re-dredged in 1999 after permits were secured from. the MN DNR and the MCWD. With regards to water quality, there is a 70 acre watershed within the downtown areas that is draining into Lost Lake. This runoff is currently untreated and it would become treated if this project proceeds. Seuntjens asked to what depth the dredge was done in 1999. Chamberlain stated that the channel was dredged to 5.8', which is the maximum allowed for channel areas on Lake Minnetonka. If the proposed docking is approved by the LMCD, the dredge for that area would also be 5.8'. -852- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 5 Seuntjens asked if Mound would retain the ownership of the property between the townhomes and Lost Lake. Chamberlain stated that Mound would continue to own the upland greenway area and the shoreline. Additionally, Mound would own the docks and there would be an agreement with the townhome developer to use these docks. Seuntjens stated that the proposed slip length at these docks was 30'. He questioned whether there would be a restriction on the length of boats stored within these slips. Alcon stated that the homeowners association for this development would manage the boat length at these docks, with a 30' maximum length restriction. Seuntjens asked what the bridge clearance was leading into Lost Lake Channel. Alcon stated that the bridge clearance is 11.5' at the 929.4' lake level. Zischke asked the applicant to describe the proposed revegetation. Alcon stated that the primary concern of the MN DNR and the MCWD with the original plan was the detachment of the mat. With the modified plan, he believed that these concerns have been addressed, with some of the area to be revegetated. He stated that the area dredged would be removed and disposed of in compliance with an MPCA permit. Zischke stated that she needed further clarification of the covenants of the homeowners association, especially when a future sale takes place. Alcon stated that Mound would own the docks and the homeowners association would function as a sublicense of Mound. The homeowners association would need to install the docks as approved and will be subject to an inspection by Mound. Any covenants of this homeowners association will be subject to review by the Mound city council prior to approval of the plat. Knudsen asked what the distance was between the nearest dock in the proposed plan and the dock on west side of the channel. Alcon stated that the distance between those docks was approximately 126'. Knudsen asked if the boats to be stored in the slips would be 30' length overall. Alcon stated that was the intent. Gross asked if the homeowners association covenants would restrict the commercial rental or sale of these dock spaces. Alcon stated that language would be included in the covenants that would prohibit commercial rental or sales of these slips. -853- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 6 Knudsen asked if there was a waiting list with the Commons Docking Program. If so, he questioned how these residents might feel about other properties getting a dock before them. Mr. Jim Fackler, Mound Parks Superintendent, stated that there was a waiting list of approximately 120 on the Commons Docking Program. For these 590 BSU's, there are approximately 400 dock sites. Of these 400 docks sites, there are 170 docks sites that have similar characteristics where a resident abuts a site that is part of the Commons Docking Program. Mr. Dick Osgood, Executive Director for the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), stated that the LMA had comments and concerns. The LMA has a standing position against adding additional access to Lake Minnetonka from areas not accessible to the lake. He believed that the Mound request fits these characteristics because the Lost Lake area is cattail marsh. Although the landfill clean-up and stormwater plans are commendable, he believed that the 75 percent reduction of phosphorous proposed is a reduction compared to the increase that will happen with development in the area. With increased hardcover in the area, coupled with new development and re-development, it is likely that the reduction of phosphorous would not be significant. Many of the strategies proposed by Mound do not adequately treat dissolved phosphorous that readily moves through soils and ground water into the lake. The removal of cattails in this area removes the last chance for absorption of phosphorous. He stated that the LMA was in opposition to the Mound proposal. There being no further comments, Van Hercke. closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Seuntjens stated that he a couple of concerns because this is a wetland area and it is not an open area of water. He believed that the proposed number of BSU's,'40, exceeds what is reasonable in this area. Additionally, he expressed concern about the length of the boats to be stored in this area and believed that a 25' length restriction would be more appropriate. Nelson stated that he liked the proposed project because it illustrates cooperation amongst a number of governmental agencies and previous concerns have been addressed. However, he expressed concern about the length of the boats proposed and believed a reduced length restriction, such as 25', would be appropriate for this area. He did not see a clear correlation between the value of the townhomes and a reduced boat length. Knudsen stated that he had concern about making a decision on the proposed docking until the MN DNR and the MCWD make a decision on the Mound dredging request. He also expressed concern about the size and number of watercraft proposed. He questioned whether a slip could be approved for the 17 units that abut the shoreline, with a reduced number of slips for the units off the lake. At this time, he stated that he would be inclined to table the application pending the action of the MN DNR and the MCWD. Nelson stated that he would support a conditional approval, provided the number and size of BSU's could be addressed. Nybeck stated that he had talked to Ms. Smith prior to the Board meeting. If the Board is inclined to approved a reduced number and/or restrict the size of the boats to be stored in these BSU's, she has -854- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 7 requested the Board to recess the meeting to allow her to discuss this with the design team prior to taking a vote. He stated in the past, the Board has approved applications on a conditional basis because the Code requires the applicant to secure requisite permits and licenses from all governmental agencies. Valsdesuso stated that he was in favor of the proposal, provided there was a restriction on boat sizes. He recommended a 25' or 26' boat length restriction and he did not believe that there was a justification for more than 37 BSU's because this would provide one BSU for each unit. Gross stated that he supported the idea of smaller boats, such as 25' or 26', because boats that exceed this length more commonly have multiple engines and increase prop dredging. Johnson stated that a number of 24' long boats have a draft as deep as the draft of 30' long boats because 30' long boats generally are wider. Van Hercke applauded the efforts made by Mound and she supported the project in general. However, she expressed concern about the LMCD approving the project on the grounds that it will assist Mound in funding the remaining aspects of the downtown redevelopment project. She believed that the Board should review the proposal utilizing the decision standards outlined in the staff memo and she did not believe the proposal met a number of them. She stated that maybe the density standard at an area that has emergent vegetation should be more restrictive than the 1:50' General Rule, citing 1:100' as an example. Zischke stated that she had similar concerns to those expressed by Van Hercke. She expressed concern that this is a wetland area and she questioned how much change is appropriate. She questioned whether every unit of this development needs a slip and whether there is a need for the three visitor slips. Seuntjens stated that this marsh is not a virgin marsh because it was dredged back in 1906 and transient docks have already been approved for Mound by the LMCD adjacent to the proposed docks. Because of this, he believed that the Board should proceed. However, he questioned how the Board would like to proceed. MOTION: Valdesuso moved, Nelson seconded to direct LMCD counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the Mound new multiple dock license and dock length variance applications, subject to: 1) reducing the number of BSU's from 40 to 37, 2) reducing the length of boats from 30' to 25' or 26' length overall, and 3) requiring the applicant secure all requisite permits and licenses from all governmental agencies, especially the dredging permit(s). Smith requested the opportunity from the Board for the Mound design team to discuss any motion with restrictions prior to the Board voting on the motion. MOTION: Zischke moved, Gross seconded to table the action on the original motion until later in the Board meeting, VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. -855- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 8 Eagle Bluff HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure the multiple dock facility on Halstead and Priests Bays. Van Hercke opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. and asked for background from Nybeck. Nybeck reviewed the staff memo, dated 2/18/05, which summarized the Eagle Bluff HOA new multiple dock license application and the request to amend LMCD Code Section 2.02, subd. 5. He believed that the focus of the Board should be to address the request made by the applicant to amend LMCD Code. Based on this, the Board could direct LMCD counsel to prepare a Code amendment as requested by Eagle Bluff HOA or take action on Plan B. He believed that an argument could be made to either change or not change the Code as requested. One argument to change the Code would be that the transferring of shoreline from Outlot B to Outlot C would reduce the overall boat density for this site and would ensure that boats would not be stored along the channel, which could cause an impediment to navigation. Another argument could be made not to change the Code because the non-continuous shoreline was caused by the developer in the late 1970's by not clarifying the docking rights at Lot 1, Block 1. He entertained questions or comments from the Board. Seuntjens stated that the problem at Lot 1, Block 1 was created by the developer and he did not believe that an ordinance change was necessary. Gross asked why the applicant preferred Plan A over Plan B. Nybeck stated that he believed the primary reason why the association preferred Plan A over Plan B was to minimize the crossing of County 44 to Priests Bay to Outlot A. Knudsen stated that if the request to change the ordinance were adopted by the Board, there would be no changes to boat storage from 2004, excluding boat storage at Eot 1, Block 1. Nybeck stated that one advantage of making an amendment to Code Section 2.20, subd. 5 is that it would tie up all of the shoreline at Outlot B and there would be no subsequent requests for boat storage from Outlot B. Knudsen stated that he had not heard back from the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 on whether they would oppose a Code change. Nelson stated that he would not like to see boats stored at Outlot B because it is in a channel area. If amending the existing Code would preclude this, he expressed support to change it. However, he recognized that a Code change could set an undesired precedent. Nybeck stated that he and LeFevere had previously discussed whether changing the Code would set an undesired precedent. He asked LeFevere to comment on this. LeFevere provided historical background on the Code that Eagle Bluff HOA has requested to be amended. This Code provision was originally adopted for a development in Mound, Pelican Point HOA. This development included shoreline on the main land and a small undeveloped island in close proximity. The developer had the right to place docks on the shoreline of both the main land and the island. However, the -856- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 9 developer expressed an interest in leaving the island in its natural state and placing alt of the docks on the main land, with a higher density than the 1:50' General Rule. The Board agreed with this and the Board ultimately adopted a Code amendment, with a number of provisions to be met. Eagle Bluff HOA has expressed an interest in utilizing this ordinance; however, it does not meet two provisions. To make this ordinance work for their situation, Eagle Bluff HOA has requested the Board to: 1) amend the maximum distance allowed between the transferor and transferee sites from 150' to 300' and 2) amend the maximum density at the transferee site from 1:35' to 1:25'. He stated the original ordinance was adopted to deal with Pelican Point HOA and the Board should determine whether changing these figures for Eagle Bluff HOA would set an undesired precedent. Zischke asked for clarification on possible future docking from Outlot B. Nybeck stated that docking from Outlot B would require a multiple dock license if either five or more boats were stored at this site or if the Shoreline was included with Outlot A and five or more watercraft are stored at this site. Ms. Janet Hanson, 3380 Eagle Bluff Road, stated she was a resident of Eagle Bluff HOA and she was representing them. She stated that she did not have a lot to add to staff background; however, she requested the Board to approve Plan A. She recognized that Plan A would require a Code amendment; however, she proposed this because it would reduce pedestrian traffic across County Road 44 and there is parking established adjacent to Outlot C. If the Board does not desire to change the Code for Plan A, she expressed an interest in the Board considering Plan B. She entertained questions or comments from the Board. There being no further comments, Van Hercke closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Gross asked LeFevere for clarification on why the Board should change the Code rather than granting a variance. LeFevere stated that the Board has traditionally granted variances for length, side setbacks, and adjusted dock use areas. However, the Board has never granted a density variance for shoreline that does not exist at a site. He recognized that some Board members might be uncomfortable rewriting Code for specific applications. However, it is not uncommon to rewrite Code for applications that are more environmentally friendly and would not be inappropriate. Two que.stions for the Board to address include: 1) Whether the Board agrees with the original thought process for the Pelican Point HOA situation, and 2) Whether the Board wants to change the requirements as proposed by the applicant. MOTION: Knudsen moved, Nelson seconded to direct LMCD Counsel to prepare a Code amendment for Code Section 2.02, subd. 5 with the two following changes: 1) changing the distance of the dock use areas of the transferor sites and transferee site from 150' to 300', and 2) changing the boat storage density at the transferee from 1:35' to 1:25'. Seuntjens questioned whether the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 would be surprised if six boats are still stored on Outlot C if an ordinance amendment is adopted and Plan A is approved by the Board. -857- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page10 Nybeck stated that he had talked to the owner of Lot 1, Block 1 last spring. Their primary interest is that they do not want to be part of the multiple dock license to protect their property interests. At that time, this property owner stated that they supported allowing the association to continue to store six boats at Outlot C. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, Zischke); motion carried. · City of Mound, new multiple dock license and variance applications for 40 overnight BSU's on Lost Lake Channel. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Nelson second to remove the motion for the City of Mound applications from the table. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Valdesuso asked for clarification of the motion being considered by the Board. Nybeck stated that the motion was to direct LMCD counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the dock length variance application, with a number of conditions. These included: 1) reducing the number of BSU's from 40 to 37, 2) restricting the length of the boats to be stored at these slips to 25' or 26', and 3) requiring the applicant to secure all requisite permits and licenses from all governmental agencies. Gross proposed a friendly amendment to restrict boat lengths to 26', with single engines. Valdesuso and Nelson agreed to this. LeFevere stated that reducing the slip length, in addition to the boat length, would likely result in a slight reduction of the area to be dredged. Additionally, it would be easier for staff to measure a slip length rather than a boat length. This is especially true since the Board has historically regulated boat lengths by the boats length overall, including add-ons, rather than the length specified by the boat manufacturer. Valdesuso clarified the motion that the 26' length restriction would be on boats length overall. Seuntjens proposed a friendly amendment that would restrict slips lengths to 26'. Valdesuso and Nelson agreed to this. Smith estimated that the wetland area in Lost Lake area is approximately 70 acres and the proposal is to dredge less than two acres of it. After discussing the motion with the Mound design team, she proposed an alternative proposal for the Board to consider. Mound would agree to reducing the number of BSU's from 40 to 37. For the 17 units on the lakeshore, Mound still proposes to have a slip to store a 30' long boat. However, for the remaining 20 units, Mound would agree to reduce the length of the slips from 30' to 26. Van Hercke asked for clarification on what the needs were for the 30' long boats. Smith stated that Mound believed that the 30' long boats at the 17 units are necessary to clean-up the site and fund the remainder of the project, pointing out that it is somewhat tied to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) schedule. If the boat lengths are reduced as proposed, the value of these units will likely decrease and -858- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 11 have an impact on the TIF proceeds. She stated that the site clean-up added $3,000,000 in costs to this project. Van Hercke expressed concern about tying 30' long boats to Mound's ability to meeting their'r'lF obligations. Knudsen asked what the projected price ranges would be for these units. Alcon stated that the target market value for the 17 units on the lake is $850,000. For remaining 20 units, the target market value is $500,000. LeFevere stated that the developer should understand that the lake is public and there are no guarantees in the future that the number and size of BSU's will be vested at 26' or 30', if approved by the Board. Valdesuso and Nelson stated that they agreed with comments made by Mound and would like to amend their original motion, with the two friendly amendments. The amended motion would be to direct LMCD counsel to prepare Finding of Fact and Order for approval of the Mound new multiple dock license and dock length variance application, subject to: 1) reducing the number of BSU's from 40 to 37, 2) approving 30' tong BSU's for the 17 units on the lake and 26' long BSU's for the 20 interior units (with boats fully contained within these slips, 3) requiring that boats to be stored within these BSU's shall have only single engines, and 4) requiring the applicant to secure all permits and licenses from all governmental agencies. Johnson proposed a friendly amendment that would allow single or twin engines in the 17 BSU's that would be 30' long. Valdesuso and Nelson did not agree to this. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (3; Knudsen, Suerth, and Van Hercke); motion carried. LeFevere asked the applicant to submit an amended plan based on the amendments discussed this evening. WATER STRUCTURES A. Bayview HOA, new multiple dock license application submitted on 9/22/76 to back license 10 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on a 100' wide outlot on Smithtown Bay (The applicant has amended their request to seven BSU's), Van Hercke asked Nybeck for background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that the applicant had recently requested the Board not consider discussing or taking action on this application at this meeting because of legal counsel concerns. Because the Board directed staff to schedule this agenda item this evening in January, he believed that the Board should consider this request. Mr. Chris Mach, 6510 Bayview Drive, stated that Bruce Malkorson had been retained as legal counsel for Bayview HOA. Because of a conflict of interest with a resident in Bayview HOA, Malkorson cannot legally represent the association. Bayview HOA has targeted two other attorneys and he asked for a continuance to the 3/9/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. -859- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page12 Seuntjens stated that he would like to put a timetable on this application to have it resolved prior to the upcoming boating season. Mr. Allan Greenwood, 6500 Bayview Drive, stated that he had little communications with Bayview HOA relating to this and he was a little confused because Mr. Thomas had been the association's contact to date. Homes are being sold in this development and he questioned whether this was a delay tactic to sell home while docking rights are being addressed. Although he initially agreed to the amended site plan with seven BSU's, he expressed some reservations at that time, especially with the number of boats. He questioned whether the association was formally organized and who would oversee this dock, if approved by the Board. He stated that he did not have a lot of confidence in the Baview HOA that would oversee this dock. Knudsen asked Mr. Greenwood if he would be opposed to continuing this agenda item as requested by Mr. Mach. Greenwood stated that he would not be opposed to continuing this agenda item. However, he believed that the Board should focus on applying LMCD rules to the development and how it was set up, rather than focussing on what either the association or he wants. Because of this, he believed the Board could make a decision on this agenda item this evening. LeFevere stated that courts generally want to be responsive to requests made similar to what has been made by Bayview HOA.. Because they are going through a change in legal counsel and they have signed a consent form to the 60-day rule, he recommended that the Board grant the requested continuance. Zischke stated that she would like better clarification that there is a homeowners association for this development. LeFevere stated that LMCD has traditionally not required legal proof of authority to make an application, unless the authority is challenged. He pointed out that Mr. Mach had provided him with a Secretary of State certificate that documents that Bayview HOA is a legal entity and incorporated. He asked Mr. Mach to submit a copy of this certificate to the LMCD office. MOTION: Knudsen moved, Suerth seconded to table consideration of the pending Bayview HOA new multiple dock license application to the 3/9/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion of LMCD Code relating to bridges on Lake Minnetonka. Van Hercke asked Nybeck for background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that he and LeFevere had recently discussed how to better guide discussion by the Board on LMCD Code relating to bridges. Rather than starting from scratch at the Board level, he recommended that the original discussion take place at the staff level with Charlie, with one or two Board -860- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~l February 23, 2005 members participating in this discussion, to better refine the issues and possibly to develop recommendations. MOTION: VOTE: D. Additional Page13 Seuntjens moved, Valdesuso seconded to remove this agenda item from the agenda and schedule it for discussion at a future LMCD Board Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Business. There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Chair update of 2/17/05 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Sub-Committee Meeting. Van Hercke provided an overview of the 2/17/05 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Sub-Committee. This discussion is outlined in the Meeting Repod for this sub-committee meeting. She stated that the 3/3/05 sub-committee meeting has been cancelled and the next sub-committee meeting is scheduled for 3/17/05. The primary focus of this meeting will be discuss how to include input and feedback from stakeholders in the near future, with Nybeck assembling a variety of background information. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL B. Additional Business. Knudsen stated that the 2004 LMCD Audit was being finalized and he believed that this document would be reviewed at the 3/9/05 LMCD Regular Board Meeting. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc., consideration of maintenance proposal for the 2005 EWM Harvesting Program. Van Hercke asked for background from Nybeck. Nybeck stated that a maintenance proposal has been received from Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc. for the 2005 EWM Harvesting Program, Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc has served as the fleet mechanic for the past four harvesting seasons. The proposal is for a flat rate contract of $26,250 for a 22-week season from April 15th through September 15th, at the same rate as 2004. With a reduction of one harvester from the fleet, and the equipment being newer, the Board has previously discussed the idea of this contract amount being slightly reduced. However, he recommended that the contract should remain the same because there are a number of mechanical tasks to be performed up and above normal activity. These tasks will need to be done by mid June and the contractor has agreed to allow the LMCD to withhold the last payment if this work is not completed or other work is not completed at the end of the -861 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 Page 14 season, MOTION: Gross moved, Van Hercke seconded to direct staff to prepare a contractual agreement with Curfman Trucking and Repair, Inc. to serve as the 2005 EWM Harvesting Program Fleet Mechanic, for an amount of $26,250.00. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously Discussion of plans for 2005 LMCD Zebra Mussel Program · Update of"Red Lake - Green Lake" concept · Discussion of distribution of TPT educational video · Other Suerth made two comments. First, he and Nybeck had been unable to set a meeting up with the MN DNR to discuss overhead rates associated with the zebra mussel inspection. He hoped to meet with the MN DNR on this sometime in the near future and he stated that he would keep the Board informed on this. Second, he stated that there are problems with collecting funds to expand inspections in the future in conjunction with the zebra mussel program. He proposed a test letter, to be sent to residents in two or three of the Lake Minnetonka cities, to see if they would be willing to send a donation to the "Save the Lake" fund based on the number of watercraft that they own. The purpose of this test letter would be to see how much financial support there is for this project. MOTION: Valdesuso moved, Johnson seconded to direct Suerth to finalize this letter, working with Nybeck and Chair Skramstad, and send it out in the near future. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Nelson stated that he had been unable to discuss the status of the "Red Lake - Green Lake" concept with Senator Olson. He hoped to catch up with Senator OIson in the near future and he stated that he would keep the Board informed on any feedback he gets from her. He stated that there was a proposed distribution list of the TPT educational video included in the packet that was draft. This list is not a fixed list and additional videos could be purchased, if needed. He envisioned that these videos would be distributed in the next couple of week, with a cover letter from Chair Skramstad. Zischke stated that she believed that a news release that this video is available would be beneficial for the public. 6. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5, ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. -862- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 23, 2005 6. SAVE THE LAKE Page 15 There was no discussion. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR There was no discussion. OLD BUSINESS Valdesuso stated that he was going to an Excelsior City Council meeting in the near future and he believed that they would be asking for an update on the possibility of the MCWD funding the LMCD's harvesting program in the future. He believed that the LMCD had not received a definitive answer on this from the MCWD. The consensus of the Board was for Nybeck to check with the MCWD on this issue and report back to the Board. NEW BUSINESS Staff update on recently discussed Board planning topics · LMCD Code Section 2.09- Deicing Regulations · LMCD Code Section 3.021- High Water · LMCD Code relating to dock installations Nybeck provided an update on these planning topics. For Code Sections 2.09 and 3.021, Babcock needs to work with LeFevere on some minor Code amendments. He believed that this should be brought back for review by the Board in the near future. For possible Code amendment(s) relating to dock installers, he and Skramstad plan to coordinate a meeting with dock installers in the near future and the Board will be kept informed on this. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. Katy Van Hercke, Vice Chair Jose Valdesuso, Secretary -863- Page 1 of 4 Kandis Hanson From: "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl@westonka.k12.mn.us> To: "Leah Weycker" <weyckerl@westonka.k12.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: WHCC 3/23 Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:00-1:30 PM Gillespie Center 2590 Commerce Blvd. Mound Any comments or questions, contact Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or ~.~y.~!~.r~e~.~kl_.~.,~u.~ 1. Lunch 12:00 Feel free to bring your own bag lunch or join us for a light "free will donation" lunch, suggested value $6.00. 2. Introductions 3. Announcements 4. Additions or changes to the agenda / minutes 5. Presentations of programs with budget requests. We will hear from the remaining programs that are requesting LCTS funds for the 2005-2006 fiscal year. 6. Budget approval We need to approve the budget to send on to our fiscal agent. We will also discuss the projected budget cuts and ways to sustain the "collaborative" way of working. "IfI shoot at the sun, I may hit a star." --P. T. Barnum ** Advisory Group Updates Health - Depression and Suicide Awareness Task Force Sandy Olstad, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke The senior center is interested in partnering with us for a series on depression and suicide. The Clinic Connection continues to be successful in offering medical services for families with out insurance. Thanks again to Mound Ridgeview Clinic for the support. - 864- 3/16~2005 Page 2 of 4 Denise Eng and Kristin Johnson have set up several presentations in the community to give out information on the domestic abuse support group and our community efforts to continue these services. They also talk about all the great stuff Sojourn Project does for our community residents. Youth Activities - Skate Park Task Force Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Jean Ann Thayer, Kathy Jones, Kim Erickson Heiar, Kathy Jones, Amy Taggart. A nice letter came from the trainer for NYPUM, the summer minibike program, about the kids we sent last year. It is in the budget to continue the program for this summer. The skate park is still in winter mode. We need to plan a grand opening and hope to have funds to complete some of the last details. The shelter may have to wait, unless we receive a grant for those funds. A group is meeting to revive a community celebration in Mound. The last City Day, we coordinated the parade and I have offered to help again this year. We will need volunteers to help the day of the event - July 15th, 2005. Parent Education Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Holly Rakocy, Amy Taggart Attendance at the March 14, Barbara Carlson, Family Life First and Kathy Jones, Westonka Chemical Health Specialist, was low but the information was great. The LMCC taped the presentation so look for it on the local cable station. Thanks to the Friends of the Westonka Library for co-sponsoring the event with us. Post It notes are going to be printed to promote our WESTONKA.ORG family resource web site. Amy will give them out at all the community events she attends. Community Margaret Holste, Carol Olson, Ginny Lozano, Jeanette Metz, Dena Kuenzel The community group will be looking at emerging issues related to the student survey. They did an email budget request to retain funds for this need. Executive / Finance Kim Heiar, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer, Mary Hughes The executive group will meet to discuss the overall budget before the March meeting. Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County The juvenile justice grant for mental health screening is underway and there are many bugs that need to be worked out. Chief Jim Kurtz has been very helpful in offering solutions to the process for helping kids entering the juvenile corrections system a tool to identify needs and get mental health services. - 865- 3/16/2005 Page 3 of 4 ** Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes - February 23, 2005 Present: Jenny Brown, Peggy Cottrell, Johanna Eckman, Denise Eng, Bill Erickson, Kim Heiar, Kathy Jones, Theresa Ledermann, Ginny Lozano, Gloria Lundberg, Laura Lundberg, Carol Olson, Sandy Rauschendorfer, Amy Taggart, JeanAnn Thayer, Sandy Wing, Leah Weycker 1. Introductions 2. Additions or Changes to the Agenda/Minutes: Carol Olson moved and Gloria Lundberg seconded the motion to accept the minutes as printed. Approved unanimously. 3. Announcements: * We need to set meetings for all the work/advisory groups to discuss budget. The final budget will be voted on at the next WHCC meeting on March 23. * We are sponsoring a parent education speaker on March 14th at the library from 6-7:30. Barbara Carlson, Family Life First and Kathy Jones, Chemical Health Counselor, will be talking about the importance of family life and how our students answered questions related to the importance of family. Spread the word. 4. Kathy Jones, Minnesota Student Survey Data Student survey was given in February of 2004 and is given every three years to students in 6th, 9th, and 12th grade. Kathy gave a brief presentation of the results and highlighted trends or areas that our community is higher or lower than the state average. Some of the problem areas are: Family alcohol and drug use, females report being victims of sexual abuse, Marijuana use is way higher than the state average and has been in the past several years, and 1 in 4 of the 9th graders report having had sexual intercourse. The areas we are going in the right direction are tobacco use and smokeless tobacco use is way lower than the state average. Kathy will be presenting survey results related to the importance of family and family life at the upcoming speaker series on Mar. 14 at the library. 5. Presentations of projects requesting LCTS funds. Laura Lundberg discussed the Grief Group. We have given $1,000 and that is the request for this year also. Methodist Hospital comes out to the school for this support group of students. This year it has expanded from the high school to the middle school and has been a good resource to the guidance department. Any adult that is close to the student can refer the student to this program. About 7-10 students participate in the group this year. JeanAnn Thayer, councilor at the middle school discussed the Summer School bus. The request this year is for $600, less than last year, based on actual use. This money is used for scholarships only and covers about 9-10 students (average of $60 per student). All of whom successfully completed summer school last year. The kids participating - 866- 3/16/2005 ,~, II, , ~ Page 4 of 4 in summer school are failing classes or need extra help or sometimes it is requested by the parent. JeanAnn also covered the Kindness Retreat, conducted by Youth Frontiers. The retreat serves, 5th graders and sets the tone for how to treat each other. In an effort to build good leaders for the long term, this year they added 7th graders in addition to the 9th grade mentors that had been participating. 30 mentors assist with about 165-185 students and get a lot out of the program too. They are requesting $2,000, the same amount as last year. All projects that are requesting funds from our 2005-2006 budget will be presented so that we can vote on the budget at our March meeting. Amy moved to adjourn the meeting, JeanAnn seconded the motion. Passed. Recorder Leah Weycker - 867 - 3/16/2005 The GiHespie Gazette VOL XIII NO March- 2005 Dear Members, I have a lot of news for you this month. First, the Minnesota Dinner With Your Friends was very well attended. We received lots of comments from you about the good food and the fun you had that evening. Donna Easthouse and Gayle Grady were our special chefs for the night. They donated and prepared the outstanding chicken-wild rice hot dish. That was indeed a gourmet delight. Working in the kitchen with these two long-time friends was lots of fun. My heartfelt thanks and appreciation go to both of them. Their generosity and yours brought $830 to our treasury from this non-fund raising' event. But that isn't the end of the story. At the Membership Meeting, it was decided to have these dinners once each quarter. So if you missed the la.st one, you. can plan now to attend on April 1. That date suggests a fun evening, doesn't it?. Already two of our great cooks have volunteered to share their talents. One will be preparing her original hot dish recipe while the other will make her "community favorite" Jell-O. You don't want to miss it!! If you have a favorite game or activity and are willing to lead others in it, please let me know. It will be fun to include new activities each time. Please plan now to be there April 1. Serving begins at 5PM. We served 194 adults and six children at the "Sunday At The Center" breakfast. Our treasury netted $1350. As you know, this was a "trial run" to see ff we wanted to continue the breakfasts. The decision was yes. The next Sunday At The Center will be March 6. We will serve from 9AM - 12:lSPM. After much discussion, and by popular demand, the menu will remain the same. In coming months, it will probably vary some. So if you have suggestions or preferences, let me know. I will pass them along to the chairperson of the event. We will have "Sunday At The Center" on the first Sunday of each. month with the exception of April. That day there will be a Belgium waffle breakfast sponsored by our own Northwest Tonka Lions. You will hear lots more about that later. A round of applause should be heard for those who helped Gene Partyka and Bob Badzlnski with the SOS Printing project. We will have the opportunity to do more of these; so don't miss the chance to help. Let either of these men know if you want tO be called when the work comes. Some flashing news for those who like to help out in this fundraising room...the paper unfolding has begun once more. Come and help out! March 20 is the date for the Soaper Supper that benefits the Westonka Community Food Shelf. Serving will begin at 5PM. Come have a gourmet soup, rolls/butter plus dessert. Your donation w'dl be appreciated. Help the food shelf continue to serve the community. A woman who came to the breakfast commented on the large number of volunteers who were working. I want to personally thank each of you. Any event that we attempt would be absolutely impossible without you. Many of you arranged your church attendance so you could help. Some were there both Sat. and Sun. The sun was barely up when you came on Sunday. When you see aj0b that needs doing, you are ready and willing to jump in and do it. How do I adequately express my thanks? I don't know that I can. When ! get nervous about an event, I just look at the list of volunteers. Confidence comes because I know these people will be "watching my-back". I hope that everyone who volunteers in any way realizes how essential he or she is. Volunteers are the backbone and the heart of The Gillespie Center. Tasks that would be imPOssible for one are easy when shared by many. As we Continue the breakfasts, our goal is to have a sufficient number of workers to make it unnecessary for the same volunteers to be there each month unless they choose to be. For this to happen~ we need lots of people on whom we can call to help in the kitchen, on the serving line, in the dining room, as dishwashers, or selling tickets. Won't you think about joining the team? The volunteer opportunities at The Center are almost endless. We need your talent whatever it may be. Do you possibly know hoW to manage or repair our electronic or electrical equipment? Are you willing to bring someone who needs a ride to an event? Would you like to help make new members aware of our programs and activities? Do you appreciate our beautiful flowerbeds and would like to help maintain them? Are you willing to help with projects in the Meisel Room or mailings? Are you an experienced grant application writer? Do you have a fund raising idea? Is publicizing events your favorite thing? Would you enjoy being a receptionist or a host for the lunch program? Hopefully you see that you are needed. There is an area in which you can help. The load is easy if we all take part and being a'part is lots of fun. JUST IMAGINE WHAT WE CAN DO TOGETHER. Your Advisory Council had a vacancy due to a resignation. The by-laws stipulate that vacancies can be filled by appointment. The council agreed at our last meeting to ask a certain member t6 fill that vacancy. It is my great pleasure to tell you that Ron Gramenz has agreed to serve. Ron and his late wife Nancy started the bridge group that meets each Wednesday at 1PM. He serves as a dishwasher in the dining program, and has helped with many of our special events in a variety of ways. His smile is contagious, and he is a pleasure with whom to work. He is an enthusiastic, active, and committed member of The Gillespie Center. Welcome aboard, Rom The Advisory Council looks forward to you serving with us. Barbara Calhoun, Chairperson of the Gillespie Advisory Council P1 -8158-