Loading...
2007-06-19 Specialy PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ' 1 . - - __ CITY OF MQUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork-and cooperation,.-provides at a reasonable cost,. quality cervices that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE I9, 2007 ~- 6:30 P1VI ~ = `' SPECIAL'MEETING MOUND CITY COCTNC[L CH~IMBERS *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. Page 1. Call meeting to order 2. Update from representatives of Mound Harbor Renaissance Development (MHRD) and Welsh Companies including Lost Lake District and Harbor Lane (Auditor's Road) District ~~a 3. Discussion on property acquisition as it relates to redevelopment 4. Adjourn 1~ c n~l ec ~y _ _. ~ ~ av ~ n 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402-1458 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http:!/www.kennedy-graven. com Affirmative Action, Equal Opparmnity Employer Joxx B. DEaly Attorne~at law __-_-_ _ _ ______-- _- Direct Dial (612) 337-9207 Email: jc{eannlCextnedv-eraven.com MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 2007 TO: HRA Commissioners, Mayor and Council FROM: John Dean SUBJECT: Early Acquisition of Property From time to time the HRA or City receives voluntary requests from landowners for the HRA/City to purchase their property. In some of those instances the HRA/City has a possible use for the land; but has not yet developed its plans to the point where it would have initiated contact with the landowner regarding purchase. There are several reasons why it is in the best interests of the City/HR.A to consider and possibly accept these voluntary offers to sell land. They include: 1. Certainty as to land costs for budget and feasibility purposes. 2. Elimination of activity that could cause delay once the project starts. 3. Avoidance of possible need to use condemnation. 4. An opportunity to purchase at a reasonable price. Staff believes that it would be useful for the Council/HRA to provide direction to it regarding how it should reply to such landowner requests in situations where the HRA/City has no immediate need for the property, but has identified a future use. 312943v1 JBDMU220-1 Most of these requests come from landowners of property located in redevelopment project areas, but the request could come from other places as well. An example might be a tract of land located next to city property such as a park. Factors to Consider Staffbelieves that any directions from the HRA/City should take into consideration the following factors: 1. The form of the purchase transaction. 2. How soon the property will be needed. -_ . --- -- ___ _.~ 3: ----~-pri-c~at which~ti~lseingoffered: --.--------____ ,__ ------- 4, Whether funds are available to finance the purchase. S. Complicating factors that may make an otherwise desirable purchase undesirable. The Council/HRA may well have additional factors that should be considered. Su ~estions for Guidelines In order to stimulate discussion on this matter, we would offer the following suggestions regarding the listed factors, and the idea of having guidelines generally. 1. The CounciUHRA can take the position that it will not have guidelines; that it will ordinarily not purchase property ahead of need, and the landowner will have the burden of establishing that it would be in the best interest of the City/HR.A to do so. If the CounciUHRA think guidelines may have a place 2. Because we are dealing with situations in which there is no immediate need for the property, by far the most advantageous approach for the HRA/City would be to enter into option agreements (or contingent purchase agreements) with the landowners. Consequently, the HR.A/City may want to consider a guideline that would require an option form of transaction, but would specify the actual purchase price if the option were exercised. 3. If the option form of agreement is utilized, some of the other factors maybe of less immediate concern. For example, when the property would be needed is not so important if we are not actually purchasing it up front. If we assume that the option form may not always be available, then we believe that the factors of timing of need and available funding need to be considered. Stated differently, the exercise is to use our limited resources where they will do the most good. For that reason, we would suggest that requests to sell (which will use the same funding source) be prioritized on 312943v1 JBD MU220-1 the basis of anticipated time needed with the soonest getting the high priority. In terms of funding, we suggest that no request to purchase be considered if 'funds are not currently available to be used for that purpose, and to pay for all of the other costs related to the transaction including, if applicable, relocation payments, contamination remediation, closing costs, etc. 4. Regardless of the form of agreement, purchase price will be an important motivation in deciding whether or not to consider the request to purchase. -- -„ , _ rv G AuS~VD~. t,iau~, vv vv ....~..,-"----, -- - price that is not more than the City/HRA's view of the market value of the property as reflected by the assessors EMV for the property. If an option form of transaction is to be used, we suggest that the same market value approach be taken, and that the actual purchase price be included in the option agreement. 5. Whatever we call the "guidelines" they should also make it clear that they do not obligate the City/HRA to approve any request to purchase (even if it meets the guidelines) and they do not entitle any landowner to be able to sell to the City/HRA even if the request meets the guidelines. 6. We also suggest that any guidelines contain "bail-out" provisions that would rule out the voluntary transaction. Such situations could include difficult or excessive costs related to such items as relocation benefits; or significant or unknown costs related to contamination, demolition or site preparation. Other points 1. It is not staff s intention to engage in discussion of any specific sale request at the study session. The intention is to receive guidance from the HRA/Council that will allow staff to formulate a response. The HRA/Council would be involved in future stages of any transaction, including, of course the ultimate decision to approve any proposed agreement. 2. For the purposes of the study session, in very general terms, we are talking about two types of agreements: (i) Purchase Agreement. I use this term to refer to a form of agreement by which fee title is transferred at a stated purchase price from the seller to the buyer in a relatively short time after the satisfaction of normal preconditions such as title and contamination. Ordinarily the buyer looses its earnest money if it defaults and does not purchase. 312943v1 JBD MU220-1 3 (ii) Option Agreement. I use the term to refer to a form of agreement by which the buyer has the option to accept fee title at a stated purchase price from seller in a relatively lengthy time after the exercise of the option; and subject to satisfaction of normal preconditions. The buyer may or may not loose its option money if it elects not to exercise depending on the language of the agreement. There are an infinite variety of agreements, but these are probably the basic forms that we will be looking at. 312943vi JBD MU220-1 s ~!r'~~i~~ar~r ~. -:..P ~•~~ ~ .. N spaco r~ocds °~:~=° Building 46,500 sf (Required) 40,900 sf (Provided) • Demolition of existing 1966 Bus Storage Garage • Remodeling of 1988 Public Works Office and Vehicle Maintenance Building • Purchase and demolition of 3 neighboring properties • Re-Use of existing .74 Acre Maintenance Yard • Screening & stormwater management have not been accounted for • Minnetrista storage yard is not accounted for L!{ 'l '~' ~ • Central location • Utilizes existing land & buildings • Good access to site a *~',~r r',3 • Site is not large enough to accomodate space needs • 3 Adjacent properties must be aquired • Future expansion limited • Layout of facility limited due to existing buildings and site contraints • Duplication of common functions with Park Building ARCNIiECiURAI AIIIANCE Site 318,078 sf (Required) 115,700 sf (Provided) ., ~ New public works building 2,145,000 Remodeling existing PW building 1,115,000 Demolition /Site work 142,100 Sub total (including 7.5% cont.) 3.657.258 Soft Costs (22%) 804.597 Owner Provided Items Land (3 residences) 750,000 Salt /Sand, Seasonal storage bldg 248,500 Yard bins 32,700 Sub total 1,031,200 Total Project Cost 5.493,054 0 fion 1 a City of Nlound Public Works p Concept Plans Option Ib s u~37~:~~~ y • Demolition of existing 1966 Bus Storage Garage • Remodeling of 1988 Public Works Office and Vehicle Maintenance Building • Purchase and demolition of 4 neighboring properties • Re-Use of existing .74 Acre Maintenance Yard • Screening & stormwater management have not been accounted for • Minnetrista storage yard is not accounted for p~r~ • Central location • Utilizes existing land & buildings • Good access to site • Additional parcel allows more yard or binding space r,, t,r j`~,> • Site is not large enough to accomodate space needs • 4 Adjacent properties must be aquired • Future expansion limited • Layout of facility limited due to existing buildings and site contraints • Duplication of common functions with Park Building ARCHIiEC1UHRE AIIIANCE City of Mound Public ~I/orks Concept Plans -~. a~~, ~- space needs ~ ,5 30 6~ " Building 46,500 sf (Required) 49.300 sf (Provided) Site 3i8,o78 sf (Required) 135.300 sf (Provided) Ctrs t New public works building 2,901,000 Remodeling existing PW building 1,115,000 Demolition /Site work 161,100 Sub total (including 7.5% cont.) 4.490.383 Soft Costs (2a%) 987,884 Owner Provided Items Land (4 residences) 1,000,000 Salt /Sand, Seasonal storage bldg 469,000 Yard bins 53.400 Sub total 1,5aa,4oo Total Project Cost 7,000,667 Option Ic • Demolition of all existing Public Works Building • Purchase and demolition of 4 neighboring properties • Re-Use of existing .74 Acre Maintenance Yard • Proposed Lynwood Blvd closure to expand PW yard • Screening & stormwater management have not been accounted for • Minnetrista storage yard is not accounted for ~ ~~~ >~ • Central location • Utilizes existing land & buildings • Good access to site • Additional parcel allows more yard or binding space • New construction allows more efficient layout • Parking seperate from yard space • Provides safest and largest site option n ,-°+ • Site is not large enough to accomodate space needs • 4 Adjacent properties must be aquired • Future expansion limited • Layout of facility limited due to site contraints • Duplication of common functions with Park Building Ci~~ c ~ 1~1c~r~ Public t~/orks ~'oncept Plans ~Y... Building 46,500 sf (Required) 46,500 sf (Provided) Site 318,078 sf (Required) 135.300 sf (Provided) ~~:~ ~ New public works building 4,132,500 Remodeling existing PW building NA Demolition /Site work 226,250 Sub total (including 7.5% cont.) 4,685,656 Soft Costs (22%) 1,030.844 Owner Provided Items Land (4 residences) 1,000,000 Salt /Sand, Seasonal storage bldg 469,000 Yard bins 93.600 Sub total 1,562,600 Total Project Cost 7.279,101 RflCHIiECiUflAI ALLIANCE ~tf o ,S 30 60 ~-~j s~~.,~l~l; of ~ spc e ,~~el.i~ ~.r-~ Option Id G'ity of l~lound Public ~Uorks Conce t Plans p • Demolition of existing Parks & Island Park Hall Building Building 15,300 sf (Required) • New building constructed in southwest corner of site and 15.300 sf (Provided) will serve as retaining wall for hill above • No additional land required Site 86,803 sf (Required) • Screening & stormwater management have not been accounted for 45.300 sf (Provided) • Space needs of building accomodated, although site is too small • Utilizes existing land Site is not larg enough to accomodate New public works building 1,423.250 • Potential for improved space needs Remodeling existing PW building NA appereance and safety Adjacent properties difficult to expand Demolition /Site work 79,050 into, due to severe slopes Sub total (including 7.5% cont.) 1,614.973 • Layout of facility limited due to site shape, area, and topography Soft Costs (22%) 355.294 • Duplication of common functions with Public Works Building Owner Provided Items • Potential neighborhood resistence to Land expansion and / or removal of Island Seasonal storage bldg 122,500 Hall Building Yard bins 11,700 • Site circulation is limited resulting in Sub total 134,200 potenial operational inefficiencies Total Project Cost 2,104,466 • Access through residential neighborhood RHCH11EC1UHRE ALLIANCE required ~ ~~ ~1~~~ spec c ~`7ee~s N Option 2 City of Mound Public Works Concept Plans • New io+ acre site - Location to be determined Building 53.589 sf (Required) • Combined Public Works and Parks Facilities 53589 sf (Provided) • Minnetrista Pile Storage is included • Screening & stormwater management are provided Site io acres (Required) • Entire Space Needs are accommodated with room for expansion T.B.D. (io acres shown) pros • Site can be selected to minimize impact on adjacent ,uses • Operational and space efficiencies can be achieved through shared uses of common areas • Existing City sites can be converted to their "highest and best use" and provide income to off-set project cost • No impact on existing facilities during construction ARCH11ECiURRI ALLIANCE cost ,, ~, ~~, ~ ,~ • New site must be acquired New public works building • New facility may have perceived Demolition /Site work negative impacts with neighbors Sub total (including 7.5% cont.) or surrounding municipalities, i.e. noise, traffic, appearance, Soft Costs (22%) use, etc. • Depending on location, may be Owner Provided Items less centrally located Land Acquisition Land Disposition (income) Salt /Sand, Seasonal storage bldg Yard bins Sub total 4.874.000 337.500 390863 1,232,520 i,ooo,ooo (i,5oo,000) 556,500 53,000 io9,5o0 Total Project Cost 6.944.382 summary space needs °~•r~