Loading...
2005-03-22MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELbPMENT AUTHORITY MARCH 22, 2005 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Chairperson Pat Meisel; Commissioners John Beise, Mike Specht, Bob Brown and David Osmek. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, Executive Director Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Cindy Reiter, Chuck Alcon Tom Stokes, Gino Businaro, Loren Gordon, David Newman, Jerry Paquin, Jim Casserly, Gay Reiter. 1. Open Meeting Chair Meisel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Approve Agenda MOTION by Beise, seconded by Osmek to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ~-- 3. Approve Minutes MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the minutes of March 8, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Indian Knoll Manor Cindy Reiter of Westport Properties presented her report as follows: A. February Bank Statement B. January Income Statement C. Review of Bills: MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the bills as presented for February, 2005. All voted in favor. Motion carried. D. Managers Report: Plans are in progress to improve the parking lot, new furnishing are being looked at for the community room, and there are currently no vacancies. Chair Meisel stepped down as Chair and turned the meeting over to Acting Chair Osmek. 5. Consideration/Action on Contract for Private Redevelopment with Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC. John Dean presented the proposed contract and reviewed the contents, along with the history up to this point. Osmek stated that at an earlier meeting the three phases of the project were discussed and it was decided that it was in everyone's best interest, because of grant money HRA Minutes -March 22, 2005 involved, to do Lost Lake as Phase I, Auditors Road as Phase II, and Lake Langdon as Phase III. The rest of the council agreed with this phasing and the proposed contract will be amended to read as such before signing. It was noted that in the proposed contract it was up to the developer to elect in what order to do Auditors Road and Lake Langdon. John Dean reviewed other main topics of the agreement, being the land acquisition process, the clean-up of the city dump site. Specht questioned the arbitration clause of the proposed contract and Dean informed him that this will be amended and will not appear in the final agreement. Osmek stated that having a hotel in the Auditors Road phase is a priority. It doesn't have to be as large as the one previously proposed, but strongly believes that it needs to be a component of the development. Dean stated that it is the position of the developer that if a hotel that is feasible is presented, it will be given consideration. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Beise to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-04H: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Chair Meisel returned to preside over the meeting. 6. Recess Meeting MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to recess at 7:26 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. Concurrent City Council and HRA Meetings MOTION by Specht, seconded by Beise to reconvene the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting at 7:46 p.m., to run concurrently with the City Council meeting already in session. 8. Public Hearing on Redevelopment Plan with Mound Harbor Renaissance A. Consideration/Action on Resolution Adopting a Redevelopment Plan for the Mound Harbor Project Area (followed by HRA action on same matter). John Dean gave the history of this project, stating that the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and has passed a resolution to that affect. Loren Gordon presented the redevelopment plan for the Mound Harbor Project area, and explained that an assessment of the tax increment area has been done. The full report of findings is available at City Hall. 2 Acting Mayor Osmek opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m, and upon hearing no comment, closed same hearing at 7:56 p.m. John Dean explained some changes to the proposed resolution in the packet and will amend this resolution before execution. He stated that if the Council adopts the proposed resolution they will be making the following findings:(1) the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; (2) 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; (3) the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for he development of the locality as a whole; and (4) based on the information contained in Exhibit A and information presented at the hearing and otherwise known to the Council, the Project Area is blighted within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution as amended. The following persons voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. RESOLUTION N0.05-43: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA. John Dean explained that the accompanying HRA resolution should be considered at this time, and has the same revisions and findings as the previous Council resolution. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution as amended. The following persons voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. HRA RESOLUTION NO. 05-05H: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MOUND HARBOR PROJECT AREA. B. Consideration/Action on Resolution Modifying the Tax Increment 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) Rebecca Kurtz of Ehlers & Associates presented the Tax Increment Financing District Overview, reviewed the 3,4, and 5 year activity rules, followed by the reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District. Mike Fischer of LHB, Inc., presented the report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualification of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District. The full report is available in the office of the City Clerk. 3 Acting Mayor Osmek opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. and upon hearing no public comment, closed the hearing at 8:27 p.m. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution as amended. The following persons voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-44: 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 FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-2 BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN PARCELS THEREFROM. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to adopt the following HRA resolution. The following persons voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. HRA RESOLUTION NO. 05-06H: RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-2 BY THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2; ESTABLISHING THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. 9. Adjourn HRA Meeting MOTION by Beise, seconded by Brown to adjourn the HRA meeting. The following persons voted in favor: Brown, Specht, Beise and Osmek. The following voted against: None. Meisel abstained from voting. Motion carried. ~c~-a1~t,~~ ~~,c~~ Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk ~~~~~~~ Chair Pat Meisel 4 MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO.OS-04H RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the City of Mound (the "City") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "HRA") are undertaking to establish the Mound Harbor Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (the "Act"), and undertaking the necessary actions to establish within the Project Area the Mound Harbor Redevelopment Tax Increment District ("TIF District") and to adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan ("hereinafter defined as the "Tax Increment Plan") for the TIF District to facilitate the financing of public development and redevelopment costs in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the HRA deems it to be in the public interest to facilitate and encourage redevelopment of the Project Area by a combination of public and private activity within the Project Area and in accordance with any Tax Increment Plan to be adopted by the City, and WHEREAS, the Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC ("MHR") has proposed a development (hereinafter defined as the "Development") within such Project Area which the HRA ~I~ believes will promote and carry out the objectives for which redevelopment is undertaken, will be in - the vital best interests of the City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents and will be in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which activities within the Project Area have been undertaken and are being assisted; and WHEREAS, the HRA has been presented with a proposed agreement (the "Agreement") which outlines the terms and conditions by which the Development would be undertaken; and WHEREAS, the MHR is willing to purchase property from the HRA within the Project Area and to develop the Redevelopment Property for and in accordance with the Agreement; and WHEREAS, subject to the adoption of, and consistent with the Tax Increment Plan, the HRA is willing to provide financial assistance in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The Agreement, as amended, is hereby approved, subject to the receipt of a preliminary opinion from the HRA counsel regarding the proper establishment of the TIF District, and the Chair and Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a copy of the Agreement to MHR. JBD-260729v1 MU195-15 Resolution No. OS-04H 2. Once executed by MHR, the Chair and Executive Director are directed to take all actions and do all things necessary to perform the HRA's obligations thereunder. 3. This approval supercedes and replaces any agreements previously authorized by the HRA in connection with this Development. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota this 22nd day of March, 2005. Chair Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk JBD-260729v1 MU195-15 2 MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO.OS-OSH 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 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota, (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, and did approve the proposed Redevelopment Plan NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: I. The Authority makes the following findings: the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought; JBD-260603v2 MU195-15 2. 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 3. the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole; and 4. based on the information contained in Exhibit A and information presented at the hearing and otherwise known to the Authority, the Project Area is blighted within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.002 and 469.028. II. The Authority hereby approves the Redevelopment Plan, and makes all of the findings stated therein. Adopted by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota this 22°d day of March, 2004. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Chair Pat Meisel JBD-260603v2 2 MU195-15 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. a. Deferred maintenance of structures and site improvements. b. Buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair a. 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. 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. JBD-260603v2 MC1195-15 b. Building and paved surfaces in disrepair: Specific evidence of buildings and paved surfaces in disrepair includes: • Masonry surfaces broken and in need oftuck-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. a. Dysfunctional layout of buildings and parking. b. Substandard design of alley. c. Dated appearance of structures. a. 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. b. 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 c. 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. JBD-260603v2 4 MU195-15 i u 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. a. Inadequate parking. b. Inconvenient pedestrian and vehicular access. c. Substandard alley. a. Inadequate Parkin: 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 aCity-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 b. 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. c. 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. a. 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 azero-front-setback exacerbates the problem of excessive land coverage JBD-260603v2 5 MU195-15 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: a. Negative conditions within public rights-of--way. b. Overgrown vegetation. c. Economics of renewaVreinvestment. a. 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. b. Overgrown Ve etation: Overgrown vegetation present on many of the parcels representing a blighting influence consistent with the intent of the statutory definition for a blight area. c. Economics of renewaUreinvestment: 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 renewaUreinvestment 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-260603v2 6 MU195-15 MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION N0.05-06H RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO 1-2 BY THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1-2; ESTABLISHING THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. WHEREAS, it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound (the "HRA") and the City of Mound (the "City") that the HRA adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Mound Harbor Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan"), eliminate parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 and establish the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (collectively the "Plans"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047, and sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's consideration; and WHEREAS, the HRA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the HRA has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Plans. The HRA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide for review of and written comment on the Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon published notice as required by law; and WHEREAS, following notice as required by law, the City Planning Commission provided the HRA with its review of the Plan and the Modification; and WHEREAS, following notice as required by law the City Council held its public hearing and adopted Resolution No.05-43. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The HRA hereby finds that the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, Subd. 10 (a)(1), and finds that the adoption of the proposed Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the State of Minnesota which is already built up and that the adoption of the proposed Plans will help provide employment opportunities in the State and in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City and the State because it will discourage commerce and industry from moving their operations to another state or municipality and thereby serves a public purpose. 2. The HRA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible. 3. The HRA hereby approves the Modification of the Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment District no. l -2 thereby eliminating from said District the parcels causes the elimination of 53 parcels, thereby ... reducing the size of District No. 1-2. -von 1 4. City Council Resolution No. OS-43 is hereby confirmed and ratified by the HRA, and all of the findings contained therein are adopted, confirmed and incorporated in this resolution as if fully recited herein. 5. The Plan and Modification, as presented to the HRA on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. 5. The staff, the HRA's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a Development Agreement with any developer. 6. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of Revenue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. 7. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177. Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound this 22"d day of March, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Chair Pat Meisel -vOn