Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
82-11-16
CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota MOUND CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Tuesday, November 16, 1982 7;30 P.M. - City Hall 1. Minutes of October 28, 1982, Special Meeting November 3, 1982, Special Meeting November 9, 1982, Regular Meeting 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. To consider a request to allow property described as Lots 35 & 37, Auditor's Subdivision #170 to revert back to Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for the purpose of developing a shopping center. 1) Legal Opinion on Site 2) Public Discussion 3) Council Discussion and Action B. Presentation and Consideration of the Concept Plan' for the "Streetcar Boat Shopping Center" - Request for A~proval C. Presentation of Preliminary Ideas for the Development of a "Town Square Shopping Center" Presentation Only D. Request from the Developers of the "Town Square Shopping Center" that the City of Mound'undertake a Feasibility Study for a Redevelopment Project in Downtown Mound that would use fully a Program of Tax Increment Financing 1) Discussion of Tax Increment Financing, its' Benefits and Liabilities PLANNING'COMMISSION ITEMS 3. Case No. 82-149 - Bill Petron, 2434 Commerce Blvd. Part of Gov't Lot.l, Sec. 23 and Part of Gov't Lot 3, Sec. 24, in Twp. 117 N.. Rg. 24 MAP 9 Site Plan Ap.proYal and Preliminary Subdivision 4. Case No. 82-151 - Eleanor B. Smith - Re: 3106 Island View Drive - Lot 57, Phelps Island Park 1st Division MAP 13 12 Foot Street Front Variance 5. Case No. 82-153 - Gawl & Knaeble Contractors, Inc.- Re: 3021 Devon Lane - Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Arden MAP 12 Lot Size Variance 6. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present (please limit to 3 minutes) 7. Application for a Bingo Permit - Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church 8. Police Department Animal Control Policy - Bruce Wold Selection of City Auditor for 1982 Required Audit ~ORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Property Evaluation Report Covering City Buildings Pg. 2628 Pg. 2629-2631 Pg. 2632-2636 Pgo 2637 Pg. 2638-2643 Pgo 2644-2652 Pgo 2653-2657 Pg. 2658 Pg. 2659-2668 Pg. 2669-2674 Pg. 2675-2681 Pg. 2682 Pg. 2683-2684 Pg. 2685-2686 Pg. 2687-2703 Pg. 2627-a B. Memo from David Hozza on .Downtown Development co. Clipping fro~ Mpls. Tribune on Block Clubs D. Westonka Chamber of Commerce "Chamber Waves" E. Minutes Senior Citizen Housing Corp. Meeting F. Copy of Letter Handed Out by Tonka to All Hourly Employees Explaining Company Benefits G. [.M.C.D. Third Quarter Budget Report H. Letter from State Department of Economic Development toTonka, I. Land Use Planning Workshop Announcement J. Park Commission Meeting - Minutes of November 4, 1982 K. Minnesota Financing - A Brochure from the State Providing an Interesting Background on Company Financing Pg. 2704-2706 Pg. 2707 .. Pg. 2708-2711 Pg. 2712-2713 Pg. 2714-2715 Pg. 2716-2719 Pg. 2720-2721 Pg. 2722-2727 Pg. 2728-2729 Pg, 2730-2743 Page 2627-b SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CItY COUNCIL . Pursuant [o duc call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the Cityof Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 534] Maywood Road in said City on October 28, 1982, at l:O0 P.M. Those presente.were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Polston, Gordon Swenson, and Donald Ulrick. Jon Elam and City Clerk 'Fran Clark. Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Robert Also present were: City Manager The'Mayor opened the meeting and explained that this'meeting was called to discuss the'annoucement that Tonka Corp. has made about Closin~ it's plant in Mound and moving to.E1 Paso, Texas. He then turned the meeting over to the City Manager who explained that Mr. Steve Shank, President of the Tonka Corp. was present to share with the Council his thoughts on how to minimize the impact of the closing on the community. Mr. Shank explained that many things went into Tonka's decision to move the plant: competition; inflatlon,.p'roductlon costs ('labor,.wage rates and most of all transportation'costs). He assured the Council that property taxes in Mound were not the issue. The schedule.for thq move will be to continue work at the Mound plant for the first half of 1983 and phase down the plant in the last half of 1.983, closing by the end of 1983. Tonka will work to make the transition easier for the emplOyees by sponsoring job fairs, etc. The Tonka Corp. is actively looking, for other firms to take over the buildings and is open to suggestions about future uses. They feel they have a major investment in the buildings and would like a positive use for the property. The City Manager stated that the major impact to the City will be the water and sewer and the railroad. He has spoken with the MWCC and they will adjust their bills to the City as TOnka scales down their operation. Charon moved and Ulr~ck seconded a motion to adjourn at 1:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 226 November 3, 1982 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a. Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepln County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on November 3, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Robert Polston, Gordon Swanson, Donald Ulrick. Councilmember Pinky Charon arrived at 7:40 P.M. and left at 8:00 P~M. Also .present were: City Manager Jon Elam, Water. & Sewer Superintendent Greg Skinner, City Clerk Fran Clark; and the following interested citizens: Frank Livingston and. Mr.' & Mrs. John Livingston. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in. attendance. ELECTION CANVASSING BOARD The City Election results were presented to'the Canvassing. Board for their approval. The results were as follows: Mayor (two year term) Rock Li'ndlan Bob Polston Councilmembers (2 elected, each 4'year terms) Gary Paulsen Russ Peterson Steve Smith Vote~ Cast 1,822 2,122 2,209 2,419 1,788 Swenson moved.and Ulrick seconded th~ followlng resolution. RESOLUTION #82-293 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS. PRESENTED ON THE CANVASS OF VOTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 1982, GENERAL. ELECTION. The vote was unanimously in favor with Councilmember Charon absent and excused. Motion carried. LIVINGSTON - SUBDIVISION - SEWER CONNECTION The City Manager explained that in September the Council passed Resolution #82-249 approving the preliminary subdivision/lot split of PID #24-117-24 24 0014 with stipulations. One of those stipulations was !'separate water and sewer connections be provided for.each structure". The two properties have separate water lines but both sewer lines are connected to one stub. Mr. Livingston claims that when this was done in the mid-1~60's, it was done in accordance with the orders and directions of the City Sewer Inspector. He feels that the present lines into one stub have been more than adequate and cannot see putting in a separate l~ne to the piece he is subdividing off and selling to the Wagners. The City Code now calls for separate lines to separate stubs. 227 November 3, 1982 Water & Sewer Superintendent Greg Skinner s~ated that the advantage to following the ordinance and requiring 2 separate .lines is that the the City will be uniform throughout; and the City will not be liable for,any back-upu.if it would occur later. After considerable discussion between the Council and Mr. Livingston, Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to have the City Attorney draw up an agreement between the City and Mr. Livingston and another between the Ci.t¥.and the Wagners allowing the 2 sewer lines into one stub if the two pAope'rty owners give the City' the following agreement: 1. A "hold harmless agreement" for any damage done by the sewer lines. 2. That.noadditions or second floor will be added to the cottage unless the owner puts in a separate sewer llne to a separate stub. 3. If the cottage is torn down or destroyed, the sewer line now!coming from the cottage will be sealed off and not used. 4. If there is any further subdivision of LotlB, separate sewer line~ (as many· as necessary)will be install'ed by the property owners. '5. The City will not respond to a clogged sewer llne to either lot until a private contractor (at the property owner's expense) determines it i"s the City sewer, line. When this agreement is completed by the City Attorney and submitted and signed by the property owners, the Council will consider it approved. The vote was unanimously in favor with Charon absent and excused. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. COMMUNITY SERVICES'BUILDING The City Manager stated that Gary Mayer of I'nd,. $cbool'Dist, 277 had come to see him after the candidates meeting about the possibility of the City moving City Hall to the School. He·asked the Council they feel about moving to the school and how they wanted h~m to handle this with the school. Counciilmember Ulrick'stated that he w~uld abstain from discussing this because he is employed By the ~chool, The Council felt that with a new Council coming ~n,;that.further thoughts along that line should come from them,· The C[t¥'Manager stated that he will write a letter to Gary Mayer and expla~n..that in 1983 the City will be looking at several options, but would l~ke to hold on a decision until the new Council takes offi~ce. B. TONKA UPDATE The City Manager stated that he is keeping a close watch on the developments at Tonka and has a meeting with the ·State Department of Ecomonic Development in the next few days to d~scuss the possible other uses for the building. C. WATER METER PROBLEM The City Manager suggested that before deciding which meter to go with, that the Council could hire a consultant on this. When he and Greg were in Detroit looking at meters there was a very knowledgeable fellow who held a seminar on the pros and cons of different meters. It might be worth paying for him to come up 228 November 3, 1982 and look at our system and give us some ideas on what would work the best in Mound. The Council agreed that this might be a very good idea. Polston moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 4 3/ 22~ November 9,~982 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 534i Maywood Road in said City on November 9, 1982, at 7:30.P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilme~bers Pinky Charon, Gordon Swenson, and Donald Ulrick. Councilmembe. r Robert PolStion arriVed at 7:38 P.M. Also present were: ~City Attorney Jim Larson, City Manager-Jon. Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Patzy D'Avia, Paul Henry, Harvey Berquist, Mr..& Mrs.. Dick Bi. alon, Gary Paulsen,' Russ Peterson, Ron Gehring, Bud. S'tannard, John Wagman, Bob Hanson and Webelos Den of Pack 297 Cub Scouts. . The Mayor. opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.· MINUTES "' The Minutes of the October'26, 1982, Regular Meeting were presented for consilderat[on. Swenson moved and Charon.seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 26,.!982, Regular Meeting as sub~itted. The. vote was unanimously in favor with Counci.lmember Polston absent. Motion carried. 'PUBLIC HEARING..- VACATION OF A P0~TION OF SULGROVE ROAD - RICHARD BIALON The City Manager reminded the Council that this vacation was requested in order to get'2.1 feet of Richard Bialon'.s home off the designated Sulgrove Road right-of-way. The City Attorney and the Ci'ty. Engineer have worked 'out a Vacation on.the south'5.00 feet of Sulgrove Road which lies between the s°utherl.y~extensions across it of the·west line of Lot ll, Block 28 and the east line of Lot ]5, Block 28, a~l in "Whipple"; and a street and utility easement. .Since that time, the three property owners (Henry, Berquist and Bialon) have been wocking together to try and solve the land problems in this area. They have started and association and retained an attorney to help them solve the problems. The property owners have submitted some supplemental materials for the Council to .consider. These materials propose a'different layout for.the vacation then the one advertised in the public hearing notice. They feel it will be a better solution and if the Council approves their plan they would·meet the~followlng condition~: 1. AssociatiOn wi.ll grant an easement to gain access to Lots 1,2,3, 18,19 and 2Owhich are currently owned by Mr. Henry and Mr. Berquist. -2. Mr..'Bialon~will give an easement to.the City for access to other property owners. 3. Mr. Berquist will 'give an easement to Mr. Henry to gain access to Lots 1,2,3,18,19 & 20. 4. All easements, quit claim deeds, etc. will. be approved, by the City. Councilmember Polston arrived. The City Attorney advised that a new public hearing would have to be advertised and held because the legal description of the vacation would be changed with the new proposal. 230 November 9, 1982 The Council wants to retain' utility and street easements over the the vacated portion of Sulgrove. Councilmember Ulrick would like to see a stipulation in the vacation that the City of Mound will not provide maintenance to that road. Swenson moved and UlriCk seconded a motion.to DENY the vacation of the south 5.00 feet of 'Sulgrove Road which lies between the southerly extensions across it of the west.line of Lot 11, Block 28 and the east llne of Lot 15, Block 28, all in "Whipple" according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Swanson moved and U].~ick seconded the fol.lowing resolutlon. RESOLUTI. ON #82-294 RESOLUTION SETTING DECEMBER 7, 1982, at 7:30 P.Mo FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE VACATION OF SULGROVE ROAD. The property owners will provide a legal description to the City for the vacation to be~publl.shed. The vote was unanimously in favor~ .Motion carried. Mr. Berquis.t'then asked the Council if they would consider selling Lot 5 Which was taken by' the City for wetland) So that he can build a garage on part of it. The City Manager explained all the problems with this type of transaction but stated that if the Council wish he would try to get it thru all the red tape; Polston moved and Ul~ick seconded the fo]lOWing resolution. RESOLUTION #82-295 RESOLUTION TO RECONVEY LOT 5, BLOCK 28, WHIPPLE · (PID #25-117-24 12 0182) BACK'TO THE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND 'TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. L.M.C.D. CODE AMENDMENT The City Manager reported that at his first me~ting as representative for Mound to the L.M.C.D., they are Proposing a Code Amendment relating to the number of watercraft which may be kept at any dock or mooring facility (L.M.c.D. Code Section 3.02, Subd. 9 and 10). This amendment relates to controlling.and llmiting the number of boats tied up at a private dock to two or less withoQt a permit. This amendment does not include boats 16 feet and under, or 10 hp or under. 'It was developed to try and control the commercialization of dockage in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Ulrick voiced opposition to restricting private property owners from leasing their docks. Charon moved and Polston seconded a motion recommending the L.M.C.D. approve the Code Amendment regarding boat storage (Section 3.02, Subd. 9 & 10) as presented. The vote was 4 in favor with Ulrick voting nay. Motion carried. 231 November 9, 1982 The City Manager also reported that he has suggested that when the L.M.C.D propose changes to their.code that these be run by each City's Council comments and recommendations prior to Qpproval. The L.M.C.D. agreed to do this and.the above is the first of these amendments. COMMENTS & SUG'GESTI'ONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked, if ther.e were any comments or suggestions from the citizen present. There were none. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1982 The City Manager preSented'a propOSed schedule for.~the November & December meetings andasked if'the Council had any problems with this schedule. The Council agreed to the following: NOVEMBER 9th. 16th. 23rd 30th DECEMBER . 7th 14th '2tst' 28th " JANUARY 1983 First Meeting Second Meeting Third Meeting No Meeting First Meeting Second Meeting N° Meeting~ Third Meeting '. 4th . First Meeting of'New Year'- Organization Meeting IDEAS.FOR'PUBLIC HEARING-'- NOVEMBER 1~, 1982 Counct'lmember Swenson stated that he di.dn;t think'this item should be on the Agenda tonight. The City Manager explained that 2 separate legal notices have been published and that just wanted some idea from the Council on the kind of Agenda they would like to follow, at these public hearings. The Counci. 1 agreed that.they should be treated as 2 separate items. PAYMENT OF BILLS Swanson moved and Ch~ron se~ondeda motion to approve'thePayment of bills a.s presented on the pre-list'in the amount .of $11~,911.2l, when funds are available. A roll call vote was'unanimously in'favor.. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Park. Commission Minutes - from October 14, 1982 meeting. B. Letter from Curt P~ars.on - Dated October 20,..1982, regarding zoning matters. C. Letter from Metropolitan.Waste Control Commission - Approving the City of Mound Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Do REVIEW - Metro Council Bulletin - October 22, 1982. ~ovember 9, 1982 E. Emergency Preperedness~Material - 3 articles F. Dist. 277 School Board Minutes - October 13, 1982.Meeting. G. Ratio of Sales to Price Real Estate for.1981-82 for Prope.E.ty Values H... Letter from John Cameron - Regarding the 1981M.S.A..Street Improvements (Tuxedo & Three Points Blvd.) - The Council wants the engineer not to agree to patching. The Council wants Tuxedo, Three Points and Bart)att brought up to.standard~ Sprl.n~sted'News)etter -regarding the recently enacted U.S. "Tax. Equity and Fiscal Responsib~l)ty Act of 1982" (TEFRA) which included a number of modifications affecting .the issuance of Industrial. Development Bonds. J.' Letter from Tonka Corporation - a confirmation of Steve Shanks meeting .with the Council on October 28, 1982'.' K. Report on Street Light Costs for 1983 L. American'.Legion Post 398 - Gambling Report as of October 23, 1982o M. Park Development & lmprovementlPlan - dropped from this Agenda. N. Tax Increment Financing Materials - reference material for the Counc'ilo O. Calendar for November 1982 CONTINENTAL UPDATE - JIM LARSON City Attorney Jim. Larson [eported that Hearing Examiner Bruce Campbell has issued his proposed order .to the Public Utilities Commission. He went over the proposed order with. the council, if the Puc accepts the recommendations, Mound could get approximately a 6~ reduction in rates. The PUC will issue its order on December 20, 1982. Swenson moved an.d Charon seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. App. lebaums Acro-Mi nnesota Blackowiak & Son Bur] ington Northern Buds Radiator & Body Bryan Rock Prod. Bowman' Barnes Greg Bergquist Commiss of Revenue Fran Clark Cargill Salt Cromer Management Robert Cheney Dependable Services John Ewa] d E 1 Ma r ket ing · Election Judges (48) Feed Rite Controls Farmers Steel Co, Goptier Oil Good i n Co, W,W, Grainger Inc, G1 enwood lng 1 ewood Henri Co, F|nance Henn Co, Treas The Hozza Assoc Henn .Co, Finance Gerald Henke Henn Co. Treas Robert Johnson Island Park Skelly Sharon Legg Doris Lepsch Lindstroms Metro Waste Control MN Rec & Park' MacQueen ' Equ i p Marina Auto Supply Miller Oavis Mound Fire Dept Mound Locksmi th Minnesota UC Fund N.S.P. North Star Waterworks Nei tge Construction Planning & Devel Serv Popham Haik Kaufman Phleger Law Office Poucher Printing Reynolds & Reynolds Shepherds Laundry Spring Park Car Wash 54.95 318.11 8O. O0 533.33 28.50 23.98 126.39 15.O0 3,202.93 17.50 806.98 61.25 334. O0 33.00 25. O0 235.00 -2,512.13 204. O0 14.80 286.85 155.5o 171.71 40.40 21.39 870. OO 714.60 52,319.71 1 5.OO 3.00 12.76' 40. O0 90.67 15.00 1,448.46 1,683. O0 84.00 218.20 529.28 12.70 4,411.25 148.00 2,299. O2 3'~%4o. 73 150. OO 360. oo 1,024.50 1,326.77 18o. oo 125. O0 118.32 53.00. 78.50 Don Streicher Guns Sterne Electric Suburban Tire Specialty Screening State Treas T & T Maintenance Thrifty Snyder Drug Title Ins. Village Chevrolet U of M Registrac Water Products Widmer Bros. Westonka Sanitation Winner Industries R.L. Youngdahl TOTAL BILLS LIQUOR BILLS Ho11¥ Bostrom Butch,s Bar Supply Border Glass City Club Distrib Coca Cola Day Distrib East Side Beverage Gold Medal 'Bev. Home Juice Kool Kube I~e Midwest Wine A.J. Ogle Pepsi Cola Pogreba Distrib Regal Window Clean Real One Acquisition Thorpe Distrib Griggs Cooper Johnson. Bros. Liquor MN Distillers Ed Phillips 73.25 591.12 299.40 110.50 197..83 '53.40 47.25 252.50 239.85 50. O0 214.26 378. OO 15o. oo 11.54 297. O0 83,640.07 257.00 80.80 97.10 2,520.65 138.60 3,737.85 3,312.65 96.48 ll.O4 126.~0 1,212.60 1,327.42 253.00 2,880.20 10.75 675.00 5,217.45 2,753.51 2,983.48 1,413.59 2,165.47 Total Liquor Bills 31,271.14 GRAND TOTAL-ALL BILLS 114,911.21 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF'PUBLIC'HEARING A request has been received by the Hound City Council to let a parcel of land known as Lots 35 & 37, Auditor's Subdivision #170 revert back to its. owner. This parcel, located adjacent to.Lost Lake and the Metr~ 500 gas station, has been used,, in the past, by the City for construction storage. Its' future use has not been defined bY the City, thus the reason for holding this heari'ng. Should it be used, as proposed, for a shopping center or some other use7 Your comments and suggestions~ either in writing or verbal, are most welcome. The Public Hearing wili be heldon'Tuesday, November 16, 1982, at 7:30'P.M.' in the Council Chambers. of-the Mound Clty Offices,.534l Maywood Road, Hound, Hinnesota. Francene C. Clark City Clerk To be published in The Laker November 9, 1982. 4, 4, ,I-I:, -.TOTAL * ~,~o 5,~,.'--' TOTAL ~ETAi l ~AN~ FACILITy - tO~O00 ~.F.'- ~A'~ING P~OVID[D - I~ ~TALL~ . Case No. 82-148 The Streetcar Boat Center, Inc. came to the Planning Commission meeting October 18, 1982. for conceptual approval of the plans for a shopping center in the Lost Lake area (Lots 35 and 37, Auditoks Subdivision 170 and Block 4, Shirley Hills.ynit Fl. Case No. 82-I~8 Concept Plan Review for The Street Car Boat Center, Inc. Lots 35 and 37, Auditors Subd. 170 and Block q, Shlrley Hill.s. Unit F M.L."Buzz~' Sycks, Attorney Bill Koenig and Architect Kaye Westerlund were present. Commissioner Stannard stated that he had gotten interested and involved in this project and that he would abstain from action taken on this item. M. L. Sycks, President of. the Street Car Boat'Center presented a. plan that he has been working on for three years for'the'development of the Lost Lake. area for a shopping center. The request is for conceptual and site approval. Mr. Sycks introduced his associates who are working with him on this project--Bill Koenig, Attorney'; Kaye Wes~erlund, Architect and Bud Stannard', Construction Specialist. Commissioner Liz Jensen arrivedL During discussion, it was brought out that part of the project consisted o~ a new Super.America. Station to be constructed on the corner of Cypress Lane and Shoreline Boulevard. Metro Station is to' be d~molished and the Super America at the present location will be closed. Options for Purchase of land have been obtained from the Tonka Corporation, Our Lady of the Lake Church and Croix 0il Company. -The project will be privately funded. They have had a financial feasibility study run on whether.it is possible'to make any money, Center is to be developed in two phases. The restaurant will be phase 2, as getting permits and licensing would have to be done by the restaurant o~ner. Various questions were answered by the Street Car Boat Center officials.. Weiland moved and O'Donnell seconded a motion to give conceptual approval of the Street Car Boat Center, Inc. p!ens for shopping center. Stannard abstained and all others voted in favor. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission .Agenda of October 18, 1982. Board of Appeals Case No. 82-148 Location: Shoreline Boulevard & Cypress Lane Legal Description: Lots 35 and 37, Auditors Subdivision 170 and Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F Request: Conceptual Plan Review Zoning District: B-1 Applicant The Streetcar Boat Center, Inc. M.L."Buzz" Sycks, Pres. 2305 Commerce Boulevard Phone: 472-1060 or 472-4833 I have attached to this memorandum several letters pertaining to the develop- ment of the project known as the Streetcar Boat Shopping Center. The applicant would like the Planning Commission to review their plans and concepts for a timely phasing of the project's development. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD RO/. MOUND, MINNESOI';., (612) 472-t September 30, 1982' TO: Jon Elam; City Manager FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official SUBJECT: Check list for Shopping Center Development I am listing what I feel should be the required approvals and informa- tion necessary to .bring a site plan request before'the. Plann ng Commis- sion for the Shoppi.ng Center at Lost Lake: Site Plan to include: A. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and 'proposed: Lot(s), building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and utilities. B. Existing and proposed elevations.' .. C. Distance between': 1. Building and.front, side and rear lot lines; .2. 'Principal buildingand accessory buildings; 3. Principal building and principal buildings, or adjacent lots " D. Loca~'~ons of: Signs, easements, underground'utilities, sprink]er lines, refuse, storage, any screening and ]ight ng. Engineer to sign site plan Submit soil reports Square footage of lot, parking areas, etc. Legal description of site. Approvals and/or applications filed with various regulatory agencies.: Hennepin Cou'nty Department of Transportation 2.Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 3.Hennepin County Department of.Health (restaurants) Eo I would like to review any submitted plans with the City Engineer, Attorney, Planner and Fire Chief before a final site plan would be approved. ertrand gf/ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Rob Chelseth, City Planner October 4, 1982 Preliminary Comments on Street Car Boat Shopping Center Proposal It is my understanding that the City of Mound has been asked to respond to a project concept developed by The Builders Studio, Inc. in September of 1982. The City's response must take into account the fact it may play a dual role in the development proposal; a participant, offering approvals of land needed to assemble the site; and, a review authority, insuring the proposal meets State and Local regulations. Although both roles are played simultaneously, it is valuable to segre- gate the interests of each for exploratory analysis. Regarding Mound's role as a participant, the City may ask itself if it conslders this proposal desirable from a development policy standpoint. In this case, review of the comprehensive plan and land use development policies may offer guidance. At the same time, the City should explore the financial merits of any proposal; how much is the City being asked to give up, and what it is receiving in return? As part of these negotiations, the City Should ask for information on the development plans, including detailed design information, time schedules on the development, leasing agreements with tenants, and other sure signs of the commitments necessary to make the project go. Finally, as in any joint venture, the City may wish to know more about its "partners"; their past development experiences, ex- pertise and financial backing. The other principal role Mound plays involves the application of Local and State regulations. In going from the general to the specific, we begin with State regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The EQB requires an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) in cities of the 4th class (Mound) that do not state approved shoreland regulations for developments over 20,000 square feet in size, that are located within 1,000 feet of a lake shoreline. As proposed, this develop- ment appears to be greater than 1,000 feet from the shorelines of Lake Minnetonka and Langdon Lake. However, given its close proximity to a DNR identified wetland area, the necessity of preparing an EAW will have to be checked with both the EQB and DNR before the local review process begins. The final determination can only be made after the spe- cific sites of construction work and impacts are determined. In terms of local land use controls, the principal regulations are con- tained in the Mound City Zoning Ordinance. The City Building Official MEMORANDUM - Preliminary Comments on Street Car Boat Shopping Center Proposal - Page 2 has summarized many of the applicable provisions (Memo dated: 9/30/82). What is important here is the sequence in which information is provided. At this time, Mound should be looking for several items of informationl 1. A parcel map showing the lots involved, current ownership, along with an explanation of the status of land needed for the project site. The City is seeking some form of assurance that the developers wi]] control the entire site, and complete the project as proposed. 2. A development plan showing the timing and phasing of the project, unless the entire project will be constructed at once. If portions of the project are optional, what will become of the area of the project if not fully completed as planned? 3. Commitments for participation and financial support for the project. Although these should be as firm as possible, it is understood they may have contingencies in them (e.g. the transaction of Mound's deed to a parcel of land back to the Church). 4. More specific site planning work (see Building Official's memo), along with the assurances from State (EQB, DNR), County (Highway Department), special agencies (Watershed District) and others re- garding the need and requirements for any approvals they must grant. As usual, it can be stressed that the City of Mound is eager and willing to assist private business in advancing proposals for expanding our local economy. At the same time, we feel a great deal of emphasis must be placed on the design and content of the project, so that we will be pleased with the results, which we will have to live with for many years to come. Rob Chelseth City Planner RC/ms RESOLUTION COVERING THE SALE OF THE LOST LAKE SITE TO THE STREETCAR BOAT SHOPPING CENTER, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Mound Council is strongly in favor or creating new shopping and commercial business in the City, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to assist any developer who seeks to build in the City and wants to encourage and facilitate development on a piece of City owned land described as Lots 35 and 37, Auditor's Subdivision 170, and WHEREAS, a group called the Streetcar Boat Shopping Center, Inc. has requested that the City relinquish its interest in the above property and sell it to the developers at a price agreed to by the City and the developers, and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that this is a positive step foward for the City's development, and WHEREAS, the City does not want to do anything that would impede this developments progress; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to immediately sign an option agreement covering this site and to immediately proceed to complete the necessary ~ on the site so that when the developers hav e' provided the City with firm financial guarantees and all applicable permits from the Department O~ Natural R~.6o~Lr.~eg~ Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distric~..~&~%~i,{~y~6~..~.6u~,~,~.~u~. that ~ ~r~n~7 ~ccd ~.~i!! b~ prc¥~dcd te th~ d?~l~?ers FURTHERMORE, because it may take some time for the developers to fulfill these requirements, the City is willing to provide the option to cover the site for a period of time up to two years from the date of the adoption of this resolution. CITY of MOUND November 16, 1982 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL FATHER SWEENEY BILL KOENIG CITY MANAGER~I0 I have just received, in this mornilngs mail (Tuesday), the Title Opinion on the "Lost Lake Site". It is a real surprise in that.as you will note on page one, "that said premises are owned as of October 20, 1982, in fee simple title by the City of Mound. The former Deed restriction that would revert the land back to the Catholic Church "ceased to be valid and operative by reason of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 500.20 and may be wholly disregarded". Needless to say this changes the City's position from being a reconveyor to a seller. Before we can sell the land though, additional title work will be necessary and may take some time. If the Council wishes to move ahead, you may want to simultaneously authorize the City Attorney to proceed with that work. JE:fc enc. ~NT ESTATES lescendible, de- hereafter con- to possession ,., 'and possibili- ame manner as ~n 1. 134sl~s~d; crue ~d be re- ~ing' suc/~ disl~ ~lation to fut~re ;tten instrument ents and profits ame period per- xy. This section ienation may be )ther instrument ion, such autho- ~t be deemed an d profits axe di- :xpectant estate, md education, the 'able sum, out of ~r of alienation. acre is a suspen- ncc of which the accumulation is !y entitled to the by trustee. The ~ts and profits of a )art of a stock ,m tax under the its and profits of tmulated without ~ 3 ¢8oc~, so, z, delivery of the ~eated by de- n of the estate, res, in respect to ~ in severalW, in espective2y, shall the same may be devises of land~, :ommon, and not -his section shall : xecutors. 6267 ESTATES IN REAL PROPERTY 500.221 ~4)0~0 DEFEASIBLE ESTATES. Subdivision 1. Noml~l c0ndltions and limtta. flons. When any conditions annexed to a grant, devise or conveyance of land are,.or shall become, merely nominal, and of no actual and substantial benefit to the party or parties to whom or in whose favor they are to be performed, they may be wholly dis- regarded; and a failure to perform the same shall in no case operate as a basis of for- feiture of the lands subject thereto. Sub& 2. Restriction of duration of ~ondttion- All covenants, conditions, or strictions hereafter created by any other means, by which the title or use of real property is affected, shaU cease to be valid and operative 30 years after the date the deed, or other instrument, or the date of the probate of the will, creat/ng them; and after such period of time they may be wholly disregardecL Subd. 3. Time to assert power of termination- Hereafter any right to reenter at to repossess land on account of breach made in a condition subsequent shall be barred unless such right is asserted by entry or action within six years after the hap- pening of the breach upon which such right is predicated. [ Ri. s 3234; 1937'c 487 s I ] (8075) .. 50021 APPLICATION TO GROUND LF. AS~ The provisions of sections 500.16 and 500.20 shall not apply to so-alled ground leases providing for the construction by the lessee of buUdings or other structures upon the lands of the lessor. [ J937 c 487 s 3 3 (8075-I) ~)0~2 Subdivision 1. .[ Repealed, 1977 c 269 s 2 ] Subd. 2. [ Repealed, 1959 c 495 s 3 ] Sub<l. 3. [ Repealed, 1973 c 427 s 2 ] Subd. 4. [ Repealed, 1973 c 427 s 2 ] SubcL 5. [ Repealed, 1973 c 427 s 2 ] S00~21 RESTRICTIONS ON ACQUISITION OF TITLE. Subdivision 1. Defin~ tions. For purposes of this section, "agricultural land" means land capable of use in the production of agricultural crops, Uvestock or Uvestock products, poultry or poultry products, milk or dairy products, or fruit and other horticultural products but does not include any land zoned by a local governmental unit for a use other than and noncon- forming with agricultural use. For the purposes of this section, "interest in agricul- tm-al land" includes any leasehold interest. Subd. 2. Aliens and non-American corpo~'atlons. Except as hereinafter provided. no natural person shall hereafter acquire directly or indirectly any interest in agricul- tural land unless he be a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien of in addition to the United States and, , the restrictions in section 50024, no corporation, partnership, limited partnership, trustee, or other business entity shall herenffter, di- rectly or indirectly, acquire or otherwise obtain any interest, whether legal, beneficial or otherwise, in any title to agricultural land unless at least 80 percent of each class of stock issued and outstanding or 80 percent of the ultimate beneficial interest of such entity is held directly or indirectly by citizens of the United States or permanent resi- dent aliens. This section shall not apply to agricultural land that 'may be acquired by devise, inheritance, as security for indebtedness, by process of law in the collection of debts, or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise; provided, that all agricultural land so acquired in the collection o! debts or by the enforcement of a lien or claim shall be disposed of within three years after acquiring ownership. Further, the provisions of this section shall not apply to citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose rights to hold land are secured by treaty or lands used for transportation purposes by a common carrier, .- as defined in section 218.011, subdivision 2, or lands or interests in lands acquired for use in connection with mining and mineral processing operations provided, .however, that pending the development of agricultural land for mining purposes such land may not be used for farming except under lease to a family farm, a family farm corpora- tion or an authorized farm corporation- Further, the provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural land operated for research or experimental purposes, pro- vided that the ownership of the agricultural land shall be incidental to the research or experimental objectives of the .person or business entity, and provided that total acre- · .,IosEI~H It. HAMILTON, 'THOMAS F'. ,.JANI£$ O. LAm$ON, · .JOHN J. BOWDE:N tAW OF'rICE:e: WURST, PEARSON, HANILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD 11OO F'IRB'F BANK PLACE WES'3' MINNEAPOLI$~, MINNESOTA $5'~'Oa November 15, 1982 (BIZ) Mr. John Elhr,, City Manager City of Mound 5341' Maywood Road Fmund, Minnesota 55364 PREMIX: Lots 25, 35,' 37 and all that part of Lot 7, 'lying North of the center line of the Alley separating LOts 1 to 6 inclusive from said LOt 7, extended Easterly to the .Easterly . line of said Lot 7, all in Auditor's Sub'divisi°n M~her 170; EXCEPT those portions of the above described Lots lying within the following described tract of land: That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 117 North Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as commancir~ at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of 665.21 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the right 87 degrees' 38 minutes, a distance of 630.65 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South, deflecting to the right, 92 degrees 22 minutes, a distance of 150 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the left 92 degrees 22 minutes, a distance of 100 feet; thence North, deflecting to the left 87 degrees 38 minutes, a distance of 150 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left 92 degrees 22 m{nutes, a distance of 100 feet to the actual point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. We have examined the title to the above described premises as of October 20, 1982, at 7:00 o'clock a.m., based on an AbStract of Title containing 153 entries and certified to that date by Title ~ance Company of Minnesota. From suah examination, we conclude that said premises were owned as of that date in fee simple by' the City of Mound. Such .ownership is subject to the following: 1. Taxes payable in 1982, exempt. A reservation of minerals and mineral rights in favor of the State of Minnesota as to Lot 25 and that part of lot 7 described above. WURST, PEARSON, HAhtlLTON, LAR$ON & UNDERWOOD Mr. John Elam, City Manager November 15, 1982 Page 2 A restriction contained in Deed Dom_~at No. 2765260 that Lots 35 and 37 be used for public purposes only. The fore- going instrummnt provides that said restrictiorm shall be construed as a l~tation so that in the 'event said restric- tions and limitation is violated the property shall revert from the City of Mm~nd to the grantor, to-wit: O~r Lady of Lake Church, also known as the Church of Ooz Lady of lake, Mmund, Minnesota, a ~Rnnesota corporation. Notwithstanding the foregoimg restriction, it'is ou= opinion that the reversion- ary interest of the foregoing grantor ceased to be valid and operative by re~son of the provisions of MS. § 500.20 and may be wholly disregarded. The deed from Ouz Lady of the Tmke Church purports to convey to the City of Mound all of Lots 35 and 37, Auditor's Subdi- vision 170. However, an ex~,~,~nation of the deed by which the foregoing Church acquired title reve~_s that its title is l~m4 ted to that portion of-the foregoing lots which lies ' easterly of the east line of the main cbara~l of the county ditch and the projection of said east line to the southerly boundary line of the right of, way of the St. Paul, Mirm~mpolis and Manitoba Railroad. The City also obtained a deed from Will4~m H. A. Koehler, also known as W. H. A. Koehler and Hortense Koehler, his wife, also covering Lots 35 and 37, Auditor's Subdivision ~er 170. A copy of the Abstract entry referring to the foregoing deed is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Based upon a review of Mr. Koehler's chain of title, it is our opinion that the foregoing deed may have conveyed to the City that portion of Lots 35 and/or 37 which lie west of the west edge of the County ditch and extension of said west edge to the south line of the right of way of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mmaitoba Railroad Company. A copy of the Abstract entry referring to the deed conveying said pr~m~ses to Mr. Koehler is attached hereto as Exhibit B. By reason of the uSe of the east and west lines of the county ditch as boundary lines for the two parcels referred to above, a gap may exist running north and south between the east and west ditch lines and projections thereof to the railroad right of way. Portions of LOt 7 described in the caption of this opinion may 'be subject to an easement in favor of the owner of the southerly 50 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision Number 170. Portions of Lot 7 and portions of Lot 25 may be subject .to reversion to the State of Minnesota if not used for the public purpose '~designated in the deed of conveyance. In addition, please refer to the items on the attached cover as they do not appear of record. TFU: csk 142. William H. A. Koehler, also kno%~ as W. H. A. Koehler and Hortense Koehler, his wife to The Village of Mound, Minnesota (Minnesota Municipal Corporation) Doc. No. 3298652 Quit claim Deed · Dated June 19, 1961 Fi]ed July 18, 1961 Book of Deeds, page Consideration $1.00 etc. All that part of Lot. 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County lying North of the center line of the alley separating Lots 1 to 6 said subdivision from Lot 7 in said subdivision, extended Easterly to the Easterly line of Lot 7; also ' All of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170 Hennepin County; also All of Lot 37, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170 Mennepin County; also All of Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170 Hennepin County; and Ail that parcel described as that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest .Ouarter of Section 13', Township 117, Range 24, described as cormmencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13: the_~ce' North along the West line thereof 665.21 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the right 87 degrees 38 minutes, a distance of 630.65 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South, deflecting to the'right, 92 degrees 22'minutes, a distance of 150'feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the left 92 degrees 22 minutes, a distance of 100 feet; thence North, deflecting to the left 87 degrees 38 minutes, a distance of 150 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting to the left 92 degrees 22 minutes, a distance of 100 feet to the actual point of beginning. EXHIBIT A As pointed out in our attached opinion covering the examination of title to the real estate you are about to purchase, there are certain matters that you should check as they do not appear of record and have not been checked in our title examination. 1. POSSESSION. You are charged with notice of the rights of anyone in possession even though his interest, if any, is not on record, You should also inspect the property for any evidence.of use or possession by strangers or adjoining property owners, of roads, private driveways, drainage ditches, encroaching buildings or fences. 2. MECHANICS' LIENS. Claims of liens for labor or material furnished for the improvement of the premises need not be filed until 90 days after the completion of the work or until 90 days after thc last item of material has been furnished. Have any improvements been made within the last 90 days which have not been paid for? 3. SURVEY. Any questions as to location of boundary lines, encroachments, easements or related matters can be determined only by a proper survey. 4, ZONING ORDINANCES. Do the municipal regulations permit use of the property for your purposes? 5. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Assessments for special improvements are usually peyable in installments over a period of years. The amount of any unpaid special assessment balance may be determined .by inquiry at the proper municipal office. 6. PERSONAL PROPERTY. A purchaser of real estate improved by a building located thereon should have a definite written agreement covering items such as refrigerators, stoves, drapes, carpets, water softeners, and other items of personal property. 7. SEWER. Is sewer connected, or is cesspool used? 8. WATER BILLS. Ascertain from the Water Deparl~ent whether or not the water bill has been paid, and have transfer made on their records. 9. HOMESTEAD CLASSIFICATION. Ascertain from the Municipal Assessor's office whether the prope~,' is classified as homestead or non-homestead for real estate tax purposes. 10. HOMESTEAD TAX ASSESSMENT. If you are to occupy the property as a home, make application at the Municipal Assessor's office for homestead tax rate. WURST,' PEARSON, HAMILTON, L~:{SON & UNDERWOOD CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City.of Mound'haS received-a request to consider undertaking a Downtown Redevelopment Program using Tax Increment Financing. The purpose of this'public hearing.will be to explore this development proposal in greater depth and explain Tax Increment Financing and its pros and cons. Your.' comments,'ideas and suggestions, either in writing or verbal, are most welcome. The Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 1982, at 8:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of the Mound Ci'ty Office, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. Francene C 'Clark, City C~lerk To be published in The Laker November 9, 1982 LAF,~¥ L"4 PARK P ~' I~T OF LOT ~2 o ..~ irt m r- I * LOCATION: an area between lO.O and ll.O acres in size, bounded on the west by Commerce Blvd., the south by the Burlington Northern Railroad, the east by Belmont Lane, and the north by Church Road. pART OF .): Case No. 82- CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1982: Board of Appeals Case No. ~-:-152 Loc~tion~ 7.5 to 8 Acre Site Downtown Mound as per attached Request: Concept Approval Zoning District: B-1 Applicant: Smiley/Glotter Associates 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN. 55403 Phone: 332-1401 The City Council and Planning Commission have been requested to explore the possi- bilities of designating a Redevelopment and Tax Increment District for Downtown Mound which will be known as "Town Square". The following pages # 2432, 2433, 2434 and 2435 were submitted by Rob Chelseth, City Planner, for your review, the League of Minnesota Municipalities Section F refers to Tax Increment Financing and followed by letters from Smiley/Glotter Associates defining their request. Representatives from the proposed Town Square Development will be in attendance to present the concepts, feasibility and development plans for the area described on the map. Jan Bertrand Building Official Case No. 82-152 Concept Approval -.Town.Square 7.$.to .8'~cre Site. Di~wntown Hound Smiley/Glotter Associates - Architectural Properties Developers Mr; 5miley was here representing Architectural Properties which:is the develop- ment part'of Smi. ley/Glotter.Associ:ates. 'Initially they-.were engaged, by the ban~ to look at their, needs and.develop ~helr needs in: town. As they.p~ogressed' with that. plan.and'a'search for proper~y,'.it expanded.into the fact that .there were'othe'rs'in the'Con~nunity:in search of newer'fac.ilities and thus came'about this particu]ar request for a Tax Increment Di. strict'and Industrial Development Bonds. They-are representing.a number.of land owners and tenants of. Hound that have.indicated interest in developing a shopping center project. To. accomplish this Town-:Square concept, It will be necessary.to acquire a clear parcel of approximately 11 acres.. The parcel that is.'.requested to be acquired as a Tax · Increment O1'strict is the area bounded by.Commerce Boulevard on the west, the Burlington Northern.Ral]road on the.south,:Belmont Lane on the east.and Church. Road on the'north;' Hr. Smiley showed slides on various conceptual posslblllties for the Town square and'elaborated'on the benefits of the r~novat[on plan. -They are:requesting that:the Planning Commission take action ~o support a'reso- lution.authorlzing a preliminary.study to ascertain the feaslbility for develop- ment of a. Tax Increment DS. strict. Rod Pakonen .of Pip&r, Jaffray and Hopwood, the Company that will be. the project underwriter, was present to answer ques- tions. : Rob Chelseth, Clty.Plbnner, reviewed 7 steps involved in implementing a Tax I.ncrement Finance'Plan. Afte~ the presentat'ion,~the Planning Commission made comments and asked questions; Commissioner.'Stannard ~h0 is involved with the other shopping centec project, does not ~an: the.Council to have' to chose sides on the pro- jects'. Thinks this is a great plan, but has reservations about the T.I.F. and fre~zlng of the tax'base. 'Had talked with Hr. Paul of the County who had done a study and based-on the 28 or 29~ of the tax dollar that goes to the County,.T.I. programs in Hennepin County have now cost each .homesteader l-n Mound'to pick up about $1q. a year.. 5ome questions the Commissioners "asked were: How many years before bonds.would' be paid off? ~hat approval steps ~ould be necessary.- only the City Council? is Public Hearing re- .qulred? The following persons present also had Comments and questions: Bill Clark asked why taxpayers should pay for relocating his business? Ambrose Yehle working with Thrifty Drug quoted figures'of market survey Councilmember Bob. Polston asked about costs the City would incur? Dr. Kenneth Romness Buzz 5ycks John Heino for Coast to Coast Pete Ward of Tom Thumb :. .: Mike Morrison, Shepherd's Laundry Doug Stark' Mayor Rock Lindlan After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission took the following action: Weiland moved and Vargo seconded a motion to recommend support of a reso- lution authorizing preliminary study to ascertain the feasibility for develop- ment of a Tax Increment Financed District. The vote was Stannard abstained, ali others voted in favor. Motion carried. Smiley/Glotter Associates 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 612/332-1401 Architects Engineers Planners Interior Designers S.C. Smiley, FA.LA. J.H. Glotter, A.I.A. R.Y. Laiderman, A.I.A. G.R. Nyberg, A. LA. PRESENTATION: SUBJECT: DATE: DEVELOPER: To Mound City Council A Request for TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS October 26, 1982 ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES It is in the capacit~ of the Developer that I am appearing this evening. In this capacity I represent a number of land owners and tenants on a parcel this group would like to redevelop into a coordinated shopping center project to be identified as Town Square° A num- ber of these participants are here in attendance. To accomplish this development it is necessary to acquire a clear parcel of approximately 11 acres. The specific parcel that is requested to be acquired as a Tax Increment District is that area bounded on the west by Commerce Boulevard, the south by the Burl- ington Northern R,R., the east by Belmont Lane and north by Church Road. It is intended that a Mini-Mall shopping center of 75,000 to 100,000 square feet will be planned for the site. The Center will include the following: Super Valu Store Thrifty Drug Mound State Bank Restaurant and Retail Shops Mound Clinic Offices Miscellaneous Services 18,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f.~ 12,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. 5,000 s.f. Also included are: Areas for Future Expansion A Commons Mall Sectioned Parking (easily meeting desired ratios) Service Court and Ready Ingress and Egress to and from the Mall Some of the group would participate as owners 'as well as tenants in the Town Square. Others would be tenants only. With the establishment of the Tax Increment District and the opportunity for Industrial Development Bonds, the project can be successfully developed with£n the constraints of today's economy. This has been supported in our discussions with Piper, Jaffray and Hopwood who have agreed to be the project underwriters. We feel that there is much to be gained by the City in supporting this request: Property values developed for the site will be increased 4 fold. A Centrum or City Hub would be established as a Central Business area consisting of the Town Square and the surrounding commercial sector. The renovation program now underway coupled with the development of Town Square will give Mound a totally new image and vitality. - Parking problems will be alleviated. - Traffic flow will be improved. - Trees, planted areas, outdoor furnishings, and appropriate lighting will enhance a pleasing park-like setting. - A unified, architecturally aesthetic, com- mercial campus will be achieved. Some Letters of Intent requesting space in Town Square have already been receiVed. Given these most favorable factors we respectfully request the Council's serious review and approval of our proposal. We are available as the need. arises to work with the City and its representatives to respond to any specific needs as they may arise. If there are any questions, I or representatives from our group will be pleased to answer them. Thank you. S. C. Smiley, FAIA, RAIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES/DEVELOpERs SCS:eh Smiiey/Glotter Associates 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 612/332-1401 Architects Engineers Planners Interior Designers S.C. Smiiey, EA.I.A. J.H. GIotter, A.I.A. R.¥. Laiderman, A.I.A. G.R. Nyberg, A.I.A. October 25, 1982 Mound City Hall city of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attn: Jon Elam Dear Mr. Elam: As per our discussions we would like to appear before the City Council at its next meeting on Tuesday October 26th. We, as Architectural Properties, are acting as developers in behalf of several of the property owners and tenants on the property as outlined on the enclosed plot. It is respectfully requested that said property be established by the City as a tax increment district° This would en- able the interested property owners and renters to rede- velop an entirely new Mini-Mall as Town Square Center on the proposed site. It is further anticipated that indus- trial development bonds would be available thereby making possible total development of this most desireable project. A few of the City commercial groups and parties that have shown a keen interest in the prospect of this development are as follows: Super Valu Thrifty Drug Mound State Bank Mound Clinic Dr. Kenneth Romness Phillip Lansing Mike Mueller Richard Schwert Dr. Byron Petersen Many other businesses, of course, will ultimately be tenants in the Town Square Center. At this time, however, site de- termination is our first order of business. Respectfully submitted, .8~C. Sim ley( F~IA, RAIC Architectural~4~operties SCS: eh ~~ Case 82.-152 'PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR MOUND DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT * LOCATION: an area between 7.5 and 8 acres in size, bounde~¢ on the west by Commerce Blvd, the south by the Burlington Northern Railroad, the east by Belmont Lane, and the north by:~he rear property line of those parcels fronting on the north side of Lynwood Blvd {approximately 190' north of Lynwood. Btvd). L.,AF'AY ~,,l "PARK ..,, PART OF kF~Y[ OF 35'20 Case 82-152 * RELOCATION COSTS Relocation costs will vary greatly depending on the decisions of individua). owners. Those desiring to relocate their place of business or residence are eligible for state mandated amounts of compensation. The formulas are different for 'residences and bus.inesses, and basically involve payment of moving Costs and some expenses associated with changing your location of business or purchasing replacement housing. A waiver of relocation costs may be obtained from those businesses who are planning to relocate within the new development, lowering the overall expense to'some degree. A third option may. be that some businesses do not wish to relocate in Mound, and may request a "payment in lieu" of.moving (up to $10,000). Given the fact that Mound probably wishes to keep every business it has, the emphasis will likely be on moving and relocation costs. DEMOLITION All existing structures on the site must be demolished and cleared, or removed from the area. Estimates may be obtained for this work from the city engineer, or ppssibly knowledgeable city maintenance personnel, who could assist~in thi~ work. A rough working range for these costs would be $100,000 to $150,000, * SITE IMPROVEMENT These are basically the costs associated with bringing Public ~tilities onto the site (sewer, water, electric, gas, etc.) as well as miscellaneous earth work and planting. · * GENERAL COSTS Include surveys, soil tests, appraisals, title'searches,.legal fees, administration of the pr6gram and contingency fonds. Roughly figured at i 20 to 25 percent of the total costs. * FINANCING It is expected that there will be some program income from the sale of acquired property back to the developers. Although all property on the site (not including public property) has been valued at about $300,000, it is unlikely that the 12nd could be sold back to the developers for this amount. The subsidy or "write-down"'of land co,ts are normally one of the key public contributions to. making a project like this financially feasible to developers. Thus the income from the land sales is difficult to estimate until some negotiations take place with the developer~r Mound'has a source of federal funds (Community Development Block Grant) which, may be applied to some of these program activities (land acquisition, relocation, site improvements, etc). However, these funds are programmed through July 1983, and their contribution'may be.relatively modest in size. A locally available financing technique is tax increment financing (TIF). Under this procedure, the City Council or NRA (with City Council approval) would put together a development plan for downtown Mound '(really a legal document rather than a planning document, designed to,meet the provisions of_ chapter 472A or 462.421), and then establish a TIF redevelopment district within this project area. To qualify as a TIF redevelopment district, the parcels selected {which may be continguous or non-continguous} must meet the following test {chapter 273.73 subdv. 10): "...{1) 70 percent of the parcels in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other public improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or ... (2) 70 percent of the parcels in the.district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvement~ and 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard and an additional 30 percent of the buildings are found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unity density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well being of the community; (5).The proPerty consists of vacant, unused, underused, inap- propriately used or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive ~r vacated railroad rights-of-way. (b) 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 suf- ficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. "Parcel" shall mean a tract or plat of land established prior to the certification of the district'as a single unit for purposes of assessment. A preliminary survey of the Mound redevelopment site indicate~ that"the 19 parcelsJlare occupi, ed by buildings, 1 by a street, and 5 by parking lots or alley ways. Only 2 of the~parcels are vacant lots. Of the 11 parcels with buildings, at least 2 (one house and the Anderson Building), might meet the test of being structurally substandard. Given the fact that not all of the parcels do not have to be placed in the tax increment district, there appears adequate flexibility in scope to create a district qualifying under number (2) of the condi, tions listed above. If two substandard structures are identified, another 7. parcels (five of which must have structures on them) could be brought together to form a district. If a third substandard structure is identified, an additional 5 parcels could be brought into the district, and so on. Establishing a TIF district has become a somewhat complex process filled with several',pitfalls. Basically, the procedure would follow this path: (1) City Council agrees this area, and the Mound downtown in " general, needs'redevelopment (essentially done). (2) City Council decides to either disignate itself as the body to implement and administer the redevelopment project, or it may select the Housing -3- (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) and Redevelopment Authority to manage the process. There are some subtle advantages and disadvantages to each of these routes. First, under Section 273.75 Limitations, an HRA may use revenues to underwrite a '~ broad range of site acquisition, improvement and preparation costs, as well as a broad range'of administrative costs (financial planning, legal fees, etc.) as described under chapter 462.421. Subd. 13. A city council operates under chapter 4724, which states revenues can be used only to pay off capital costs and administrative expenses incurred 'in developing the district. This means the use of funds might be limited 'to the TIF district versus the entire downtown project. This point should be verycar~fully explored, as'if one purpose of the TIF district is to potentially assist in work in the entire downtown pro- ject area, there may be advantages to using the HRA. A second area of concern is the City Council must finally approve the TIF plan if the HRA develops'it.' Thus unless there ~s general agreement'~ between the Council and'HRA on %he need and objectives of using TIF, political problems could plague the process as-~t nears complet, ion. A preliminary feasibility study is.completed for the prJject. If it appears workable, the City would begin negotiations with the developers of the pqrcel to obtain commitments on their part in the form of a developer's agreement.. This is key to making the project go, and giving the City the flexibility to assemble the site. Staff prepares, a redevelopment plan'and tax increment financing ,plan. City Council holds a public hearing on the TIF Plan~ The City contacts affected school district and Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Pequesting comments on:the plan. City Council adopts the redevelopment plan and TIF plan, reaching required legislative findings. Necessary plan documents are submitted to the County Auditor and Minnesota State Department of Energy, Planning and Economic Development. Probably the most critical questions is the most elusive at this time. That is,.how much funding could a.TIF district support. This amount will be determined by how much the assessed value of new development in the district exceeds the current assessed value. The total current assessed value for all properties and improvements is $923,400, thus improvements would have to exceed this .amount. Preliminary indications are that this should not be a problem. For example, Super Valu is discussing at least a 29,000 s.f. building at a cost of $35.00/s.f.; this works out to an estimated total cost of $1,015,000. The Nennepin County Assessors Office normally values buildings at about 85 to 90 percent of their real market value, which would put the assessed value of this structure at $862,750 (not including land). Assuming a drug store, bank, and liquor store are built,.the total excess value should provide a sizeable increment. As the developer's plans solidify, and the City begins negotiations, these figures can be developed in greater detail. 180 cost at an eight percent interest rate. Buildings, capable of rehabilitation, may be included in the urban homesteading program. Families forced to move as 'a result of municipal acquisition by emi- nent domain under this Act are eligible for reloca- tion benefits.So (See Part ! of this chapter.) The several potential sources of financing and other resources in the housing area as as follows: Within these districts the mUnicipality may adopt' a development program consistent with which the ~nunicipality may acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, alter, extend, operate, maintain, or pro- mote developments aimed at improving the physi- cai facilities, quality of life and quality of trans- portation.55 The municipality may acquire land or easements througl~2qegotiation or through powers of eminent domain/u 1. MHFA loans and grants. 2. City loans and grants, funded either by the sale of general obligation bonds or through the use of general revenues. 3. General revenue sharing funds. 4. Federal programs and funds. (Contact the Office of Local and Urban Affairs at the State Planning Agency to determine what funds are available.) 5. Grant of tax-forfeited property. The state is authorized to grant tax-forfeited properties to units of local government for public pur- poses (such as urban homesteading).51 (See part H of this chapter.) 6. Special taxes, tax increment financing and bond issues and other forms 'of financing authorized under the HRA Act.$2 7. Sweat equity (as discussed concerning urban homesteading, above). 8. Private participation. 9. Housing Bonds.52a Another potential method for providing 'housing is the Development District Act, discussed in the following section. E. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS The Development District A'ct53 established a 'new method to utilize tax increment financing in such a way as to generally stimulate development, improve .the economic base of an area, provide for public facilities and develop housing, including market rate housing. Creation of Development Districts Cities are authorized to create development dis- tricts and establish development programs to be carried out in the districts. A development district is a specific area within the corporate limits of any municipality which has been so designated~54 No less than 60% of the areaofany such district must consist of land' which has been platted and de- vel'oped. The area of the district may not be enlar- ged after five years following the date of desi§na- tion of the district. Before formation of a development district the governing body must provide a reasonable oppor- tunity to the.members of the county board .of commissioners and the members of the school board to meet with the governing body. The gov- erning body must fully inform the members of the cgunty boards and of the school boards of the tis- cai and economic implications of the proposed de- velopment district. A governing body may enter into agreements with the county boards and school .boards in which the district is located to share a porti~l:) o,f the captured assessed value of the dis- trict.-" INCREMENT FINANCING The authority to use tax increment finan~.i~ng is found in the housing and redevelopment act?~ for housing and o~tnher redevelopment; in. the port authorities act?V for the improvement of decaying housing, commercial and industrial areas through the formation of developp).ent districts; in the oua industrial development act, . to provide financial incentives to private industry through the rolo- cation of commercial or indus~r~,l facilities; and in the development districts .act,w~ for many types of projects located in a development district created by a city. The complex procedures for using tax, increment financing_are the same no matter which act is followed.6oc When using tax increment financing, a plan is mandatory and the number of years the tax increment may be used to repay the general obligation bonds issued to finance a project is limited. This method of financing various community development~projects should not be undertaken without the advice of an attorney who is familiar with all its aspects. The League's Technical and Research Service may also be contacted to provide a fiscal analysis of a project to help in determining its feasibility. O#QWO I Case No. 82-149 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1982: Board of Appeals Case No. 82-149 Location: 2434 Commerce Boulevard Part of Gov't. Lot l, Section 23 and Part of Gov't. Lot 3, Section 24 in Township 117 N. Range 24, West of 5th Principal Meridian Applicant: Bill Petron (Sally's Shop) 2434 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN. Phone: 472-2911/471-6763 Request: Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Zoning District: B-1 (R-I district below Lost Lake elevation of 929.5 MHW) The applicant is requesting to construct a 25' X 50'3 commercial building on 'the site to house his furniture repair, stripping and refinishing operation. The site is zoned B-1 Central Business and has the applicant's single family house also on the site as well as a detached garage. He will be removing the garage to construct the new building. In the future, he plans to build another garage. He does not plan to have the general public come to the building as a retail establishment, but rather they would be bringing furniture in for repair and/or finishing and return later to pick them up. He sta~ed he would not have any exterior storage. The B-1 Zoning district allows "Service Shops" as a permitted use which I feel describes his establishment. The present home is non-conforming by the zoning district provisions. This new use is more compatible with the district. The building height, lot area, and setback requirements do meet the zoning require- ments for the B-1 district. The performance standards are: a) Refuse - a proper container for debris shall be provided. b) Screening - only required within 30 feet of residential for 4 parking stalls/driveway to parking within 15 feet of residential use or zone. The site to each side is zoned commercial, but presently has residential ~Jses. I would suqqest screening (landscapin~ or shrubs to be designated or approved as existing). c) The applicant has stated he will not require any exhausting of fumes into the atmosphere for his operation which would not meet Minnesota Air Pollu- tion Standards. The grades listed on the survey will not be changed at the rear wetland area of the site. The two (2) foot intervals marked indicate a building site elevation (existing) at 9½ feet above the M.H.W. elevation. The two driveway curb cuts on the site plan are existing. The parking requirementfor "Service Shops" are not listed, but from his explanation of the use, I have recommended 4 stalls as per business and professional office = (1) space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area. Rob Chelseth, City Planner, will be sending a recommendation to you regarding the present non-conforming use on the property. The owner of the property is willing to divide the property into two parcels with a proposed line drawn approximately at the center. I would recommend: 1) a side yard at the residential parcel of 10 feet to allow access to a future garage site at the back of the house; 2) separate utilities to each parcel; 3) minimum lot size of 7500 square feet; 4) a new survey submitted at the time of final approval with the legal descriptions and correct placement of monuments; Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1982 Case No. 82-14~ - Page 2 Case No' 82-149 5).owner file for final approval within one year of the date of the prellminary approval; 6) all property owners with financial interest sign application; 7) that a waiver be granted from the'platting procedures to allow the present metes and bounds description, and 8) allow the owner to start the construction of the buildiRg during the subd'ivision process with the certificate of building obcupancy conditioned upon final subdivision approval. Jan Bertrand Building Official Case No. 82-149 Site Plan ApprOval and Preliminary Subdivision (2434 Commerce) · Part of Gov't. Lot 1, Sec. 23 and Part of Gov't. Lot 3, Sec. 24 in Twp. 117 'N.' Range 24 .. Bill Petron was present. The Building Officia) reviewed the applicant's.request to build a.structure for furniture refinishing and to subdivide the property into two parcels as shown on'the proposed division. Width of'lots on street would each be approximately 50 feet; distance between existing house and proposed structure is 22 feet which when divided, would allow driveways to the rear of both structures. Discussed proposal. Applicant plans on separate utilities and will get new survey with descriptions. Planning Commission asked about a. plan:showings.location of parkin! Stannard moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the subdivision of land subject to the conditions recommended by the Building Inspector. The vote was unanimously in favor. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Rob Chelseth, City Planner November 2, 1982 Request for Site Plan Approval for 2434 Commerce Boulevard - Applicant, Bill Petron The lot proposed for development currently contains a single family home as the principal use; this is a non-conforming use given the B-1 Central Business Zoning of the land. It is re- commended that the proposed permitted commercial use be located on an independently described parcel of land subdivided from the original lot, that conforms to lot area and dimension re- quirements of the ordinance. This action will l) provide the property owner with a minimum of hassle and maximum future flexi- bility over the use of both structures and lots; 2) eliminate the problem posed to the City by allowing two principal uses (one permitted and one non-conforming) to be located on one lot (clearly against the intent and purpose of the ordinance); and, 3) eliminate hearing and zoning procedures that would delay project start up. Rob Chelseth City Planner RC/ms AppLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND LAND Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: ,~g-?/7- Jiz // ooo / To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: From New Lot No. Square feet TO Reason: TEL..o. ,"/?,'" ' ~'?~3 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: CertiI'ic.'.te of Survey for £ally'., Shop in 6overr,,~unt 5or l, Seetton 23-'L19-24, '.nd (x~v~-rrm~n% Lo% 3, Section 24-1.'-7-24 ! J'c cv',? 2 ~'- .' / ,' - . I · lilt · '~, , · .' I hereby certify t.hst thi.~ iea %rue and correct ' ~.~ representation o~ a suz.~e~ of the I'~ur,d~rie~ ~f t~t ' - "~ .... - ' ~ ' r~rt of ~overnme~t Lo~ I, ~ect~on ,.;, ~n~ ~t ~rt ol ~ ~overnment. ~t 3, Section 24, ~11 in To~.~hip 117 North, P~ncc 24 ~st o:' the 5tn l*inci~l ~-~rtd~n, descried as . ~ozz;enclng ~t the hortr~esct ~'orner of said ~vern~nt ~t .thence on un ass,~ed l,eurin:~ of South ~l~nc: the Eest llne of s~!d ~v~rnmunt ~ 1 = di:~ane~ o:' 13C.33 foet; ~ar, ce Sou~h 49° ~.~s~ a distsnc,; a:' 2a1..3! r~et ~, ~;:a .,ct~l point o~ ~n- 'ning; ~nenc-e Sou;h~e~t.,rX~= ~tonc ~ t~nE~r, tiu! c:;z'vc to the !.~ft h~vinF a r~dlu~ of 5'Ii.2'~ leu% a distunre of' 190.~2 foot to ~rimf Nor%h 41° '~.~sl. f'rom :, }'~Int c,n %he ~es% ~tna or ~axd Govern- 'x,~nt ~% I dls~unt 7~'>'.2,( leo% ?~uth fro;:, t~.e l:o'z'theu~t eor,l~ said ~vc--'nmen% ~t !; tY,~nr~ So~,C~ 41~ F,~st ~ dist~r:ce r,l' 19 of ;.('R.64 feat, ~::oz',~ o:' Le,~, t~ s~id E,.s~ line; thence'~n~th~Lonc a~., ~'ne :, di~..:.~ :'.' ~'.:.~ re~; t~.,~nce ;:o~ 3v°~i' 13(..)P feet, ,'ore or ie~s, ~.o a [in~ hearing $m,t~, ~l0 Eu~% from Cl:u S',sC tine o~' ~:,~!d ~k,v~r:'.r.~:,;~ .;~t I dis~mnt..Cit..t'~ :',~.o% or ~,;2..k.: fe*t, ~,nict~ :,,~.: i~ ~:~r;ma bi.' ~ j~i!c!,:l 1;,nd:;~rk; %hgr,ce Sou~h aistJ:'r~ ~'.' ill; :eeT] wi!-;, '~,-,int. ~5 l,.~:'k,~5 k., !, .~U~J,'i~ {d' i,': i've!, r.:'l'-, or 'L~N.:, %c. '.Lv:,ctu,i ~,~int O:' ~.~',.!n:;inj, ('2,~ Judici~! J ~.-ROAD' Case No. 82-1 ~,~v'~.Z~! l~"' '" .L~~ ~',,,,'/. Zoi .~ ! C=rtil'teate of S~ey for Sally'~ 5ho~ · __ -- ,, / / ~0 ,, / .. , - ~> · ') - I ~ ' ~ -~ I 'Sc~ie: L" : ~.: ' J ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . .~ // / l , -// · hereby' certify LMt th&~ iz a ~e arJ eorrec~ . '~ · . ' ~ ,'epre=er.~on o:' ~ survey of ti',~ ~o,~,d,,rie~ of tbut k ' ~,~ . ;~: O~ Ooverr~,~n: ~: 1, Section 2~, ~.:imt ~rt o~. ~ " · ~ ' uov~t,~'~r,t ~t ~, S, ction fZ, .~lI tn To~shio l!V North, ~ ' nit, c; ;benc'e 2outn~e~t,;r)... ~Lon{'~ %;r.¢entiu! c~ to the 13ft . r,a~r~n~, ]{o:'Ll, 410 ,..ont from ~ :.3iht On %h,~ ~8% ~~ov~r;.-,, ~ ' ~ve:-nz~n~ ~% I; t:l,:r:eu :3uLh ,~!~ ~-,s~ J cint~c~ :;fiO f~e% to a j~lc!~! L,.::d,~,'<; %nenc,', con'.~r,u~r.i: South Al© ~,ce ~19 ~ 'i3:'.¢~ :'eet, f:ore or less, %a a line ke;:rtn~ Sou%~ ~int On ~¢e,., ,~:'.~ or t-s;~, ~o r,,:' ~,,s~ ;~.,; t>,,,nr,~ ~~~%~,0~ of !..,;:.~'¢ feet, %hlc2 x)~l.t i~; ~:~rkc~ !::.' n Ju:lJcb, L A:.nd~/~rk; thor, ee ~u%h 39c of L~l;!~l.~n;:) ~h~ch ~in% ir ~r~,l'ked }~.' b ju:llc~v~ ~:ndr~:'k; thence ~:o~)t ~o k.:~ ~ ~isL~nre :~' ii'~ !ue%, w;3ch ..,',iht !5 ~.*~'k,6 by a .:u~,':uL laad~:r.{; t.gPre conTi~l:~nL' Nnrth l~° ;...~,I ~ 4f.l,(; ~,.~r::'~:'j., '.":'- .:UL~:.t.~'.".=d ir. '.',~Yv,'.r:~ C~:e 2-3.-. L'/'%L~, ~,.r~r';[r,/. ti, %:~,: b'.V%~'~;: :.% 5U:V:'2, :' ; ';.. '.:,. %: J ]'."'.L; ,r :,' ~.L axi:".~h,..,,~l'~f:;,':: tf:,;-Y~..h. ~L ;,:,9.~ t;OL ;~%r.',Z% ~0 nh:.¢ CLhSr J~;~',v,:"f't. : ' ',, ~ ,'.,, ":.- Case No. 82-14~ Case No.82-1~ Proposed resolution Case No. 82-149 RESOLUTION NO 82- RESOLUTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF PART OF GOV'T. LOT 1, SECTION 23, & PART OF GOV'T. LOT 3, SECTION 24, WEST OF 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN (2434 Con]nerce Blvd.) WITH STIPULATIONS WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners, and WHEREAS, the purpose of said subdivision is to create two parcels containing 7,500 square feet of lot area and where the ordinance requires 7,500 square feet of lot area for the B-1 Zoning District of usable lot area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF~MOON~j-MINNESOTA: The request of William D. Petron for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as PIN 23-117-24-11-0001 is hereby granted preliminary approval upon the following conditions; 1. A new survey be submitted at the time of final approval with the proper legal descriptions, correct placement of monuments, and lot size and building setbacks with elevations noted. 2. Separate utilities to each parcel to be provided. 3. A minimum setback to each structure to be 10 feet at the new division line. 4. The newly created building site pay or be assessed any additional street unit charges in the amount of $ 5. All property owners with financial interest sign for subdivision approval. Ge Owner be granted permission to start the construction of the building during the subdivision process with the certificate of occupancy conditioned upon final subdivision approval. 0 Failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat of the lot-split per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this preliminary approval shall deem the preliminary approval null and void, unless a written extension is applied for and approved. Case No. 82-151 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1982: Board of Appeals Case No. 82-151 Location: 3106 Island View Drive Legal Desc.: Lot 57, Phelps Island Park 1st Division Zoning District: R-2 Request: 12 Foot Street Front Variance 'Applicant: Eleanor B. Smith 1372 W. Minnehaha Parkway Minneapolis, MN. 55409 The applicant is requesting to build a 24' by 34' plus (840 square foot) walkout home plus an attached 24' X 22' garage and a deck at the lake side and south side of the house. The lot width is 50 feet with a depth of 241.69 'feet (12,080 square foot lot area). The applicant is requesting to build the attached garage 8 feet from'the public right-of-way property llne instead of the required 20 feet with the garage doors open to the side lot line. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, the front yard setback for the R-2 Zoning Ordinance is 20 feet. If the garage were a detached structure, the setback would be allowed at 8 feet. The lot area, lot width and Other structure set- backs will meet the requirements. (4 feet sideyard to deck, 14 feet to house @ south side, 6 feet to garage on north side, plus 50 feet+ @ lakeside, 8 feet to attached garage ~ street west side. Recommend: The attached topography map shows a 5 foot fall in elevation in the first 32 feets from the street. In the next 40 feet, a 10 foot fall in elevation toward the lakeshore. The 60 foot length of the house and 8 foot setback would allow the owner a garage floor eleva- tion slightly above the street to allow drainage away from the struc- ture toward the street. If the attached garage is pulled away from the street, a drainage way would be necessary to divert run-off water from the structure. If a 20 foot setback is maintained, the rear of the house would have a 16 foot fall in 80 feet. Abutting neighbors have been notified. Due to topography of the lot, I would recommend approval of the variance. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms OF MOUF 5 : Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: CITY OF MOUND ApPl icat .. Fee Pa i ct ~'~4,, ~ 0 '~' D 1 ed ./o ,~ ~..- J~.~ APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) '. Addition .I/~ PID No. /~/: t19 .-.,t~ _~ dodo 3. Owner's Name ~~ Day Phone No. ~~ /~ ~O Address [~ ~,~~~~~~~ ~.~r3~~ 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: ((~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. Present Zoning District . Existing Use(s) of Property ( ) Amendment ( ] Sign Permit ( )*Other Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~-~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all 'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required_ b~' law. Signature of Applicant , Planning Commission Recommendation: Da t e '~ ~ncil Action: Resolution No. Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # PA-I.5"1 .D. Location of: Signs, easements~ underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. 'Any additional, informati"on as may reasonably be required by the City Staf~ and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonin~l Varlance A. All information below, a site plan, as described In Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the 'property' conform to all use regulations for the zbne district In .which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( ) 'If "no", specify ea~l~ non-conforming use: . . / ' :11' I/Y '- . ' , C. Do t~)~e existing'str,O'ctures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations 'for tV'he ·zone distri'ct in'which i't is.located? Yes ( ) . No' ( ) ' I f .~'no", speci fy 'each non-confor_jaing~use: O. · Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for anyo.f/the.uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ~2~) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. sma11 ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape' . ( ) 'Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship described above ·created by the action of anyone having property lnterests.y the land after, 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes (.) N° '(~) If yes, explain: · F. Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change', such·as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes (-) No ~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a Ka~ance peculiar only to the property described in'this petition? Yes(~X) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? He What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use'of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessayy.) /~ Will granting 6f the variance be materially detrimental to"property i~;;;rthe · same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?' ROA1 '-.. :58 - I ~/..L s ~W l-c- I - 'r' Z Proposed resolution Case No, 82-151 RESOLUTION NO. 82- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD 12'FOOT VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 57, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION (3106 Island View Drive) WHEREAS, the owner of ·property described as Lot 57, Phelps Island Park lst. Division has applied for-a 12 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of'a new home with an attached 24'X22' garage with 8 feet of the street front property line and the doors facing the side lot line, and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a principal structure to be setback 20 feet to the front property line, and WHEREAS, The Rlanning Commission recommended approval of this variance due to the hardship of the land topography. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA; That the City Council does. hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the front yard variance of 12 feet as requested for Lot 57, Phelps Island Park 1st Division Note: Case No. 82-151 Request for a 12 FoOt Street Front Varlance Lot 57, Phelps Island Park 1st Divlsion . Eleanor 'B. Smith was present. Applicant brought in a plat showing the topography of the lot and a petition signed by most of the neighbors approving the plans for the house including the' requested 12 foot front yard variance for an attached 2~' X 22~ garage. Dis- cussed that a detached aaraqe would not need a variance and, if the proposed attached garage is setback the ~equired 20 feet, a'drainage way would be necessary to divert run-off water from the structure.and the rear of the proposed house would have a 1G 'foot fall in 80 feet. Also discussed that~ the proposed deck would extend to within ~ feet of the side yard llne. Planning Commission should look at Section 23.q08(c) relative to decks before next building season. Weiland moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend we accept the variance of the .placement of.the gar~ge.8.feet from the,front yard line (12 foot 'front yard variance). Welland amended the motion to further recommend that the deck not be a)lowed to be'enclosed at any time. Stannard seconded the amendment. The vote on the amendment was ail in favor;' the vote on the motion-as amended was unanimously in favor. Case No. 82-153 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1982: Board of Appeals Case No. 82-153 Location: 3021 Devon Lane Legal Desc.: Lots 4 & 5, Block i, Arden Request: Lot Size Variance Zoning District: R-I Applicant: Gawel & Knaeble Contractors, Inc. 2422 Washington St. N. E. Minneapolis, MN. 55418 Phone 78~-6116 The app]icant is requesting to construct a 48' X 28' single .fami)y home.with a tuckunder garage. The City has a purchase agreement with Mr. Knaeble to · obtain the S. 1/2 of Lot 32, B)ock ], Arden. He is planning to start construc- tion before the title to the S, )/2 of Lot 32 is obtained from the City so, in effect, he is requesting a tempOrary variance. Presently, he has 8,000 square feet; with the additional S. ]/2 of Lot 32, he will have a lot area of ll,200 square feet. All other setbacks and bulk of structure will meet the zoning regulations. Abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Building Official Case No,. 82-i53 'Lot Size Variance - 3021 Devon Lane Lots ~ & $, Block 1, Arden "~ AppliCant, Gawel & Knaeble Contractors, Inc., were not present° The applicant is requesting a temporary lot size variance in order to ~tart construction on a single family home.with a tuckunder garage. Applicant is 'purchasing part of Lot 32 from the City which will give him a.total of 11,200 square feet. This temporary variance is needed until the City finishes the legal work on getting a ·proceedings subsequent completed. Discussed the neighbor's encroachment of greenhouse and driveway on Lot 4o Weiland moved and Mierzejewski seconded a motion to recommend granting a temporary variance of lot size conditioned on the fact that with the acquisitlonof part of Lot 32, they will have a legal sized lot of approxi- mately 11,200 square feet. The vote was.unanimously in favor. 3351 DEVON LANE I80B KNAEELE PHONE 789-6116 mD MOUND, / President )MINNESDTA j272 WASHINGTON ST N.E. Proposed Resolution Case No. 82-153 RESOLUTION NO. 82- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE TEMPORARY LOT~SIZE VARIANCE OF 2,000 SQ. FT. AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 4, 5, BLOCK 1, ARDEN (3021 Devon Lane) WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the property owner is presently in the process of purchasing one- half of Lot 32, Block 1, Arden and would like to start construction of a single family home this fall, and the City Code requires a minimum lot size oflO,O00 sq. feet in the R-1 Zoning District, and the property owner will have 11,200 square feet of lot area after the purchase of the one-half of Lot 32, Block 1, Arden when the title and deed are filed with the County Registrar of Titles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the Temporary Lot Size Variance of 2,000 Square Feet as requested for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Arden CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property ~ Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition ...... Owner's Name ~~,(:~-/~/4-/, Applicati'on No. ~2-!53 Day Phone No. "7c~'-- ~/"//~ / 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: 0 (/~Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ] Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /,-~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this applica.tion by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant ~[_.,',~,/~ ~. Date f~ ~-- Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Jncil Action: Re~olution No. Date Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case # 82-153 .D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indlcate North compass direction : F. *Any add'itional, informati'on as may reasonably be required by the City Staf~ and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonln9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described In Part !1, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present' use of the property'conform to all use regulations for the z6ne district in ~hlch it Is located? Yes (~ rio ( ) 'If "no", specify ea~ non-conforming use: C. Do the existing 'structures comply.~lth all area height and bulk.regulations for the zone district In'which i't Is.located? Yes (~ No~ ( ) If Pno~, speci.fy'each non-conforming use: d U. v - D: .~h]ch unique physical characteristics of the subject propert¥'prev~nt ~ts ~easonable use for any of the,uses.permitted in that zoning distrlct? ( ) .Too narro~ (.) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shall°w ( ) Shape' (~) 'Other: Specify: 'U ~ V ~ C,/ E. i~as the hardship described abov~ created by the action of anyone having property interests, in the la~d after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes (.) No : , . ) If yes explain' F. Vas the hardship created by'any'other man-made change', such'as.th~ reloca- tion of a road7 Yes G. Are the conditions of-~ardship for/~hich:you request a variance peculiar · only to the property described in this petition? Yes (a~) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected7 N..~hat is t~e~'mlnl~um'' modification (variance) from the area-b/~lk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify,'using maps, site plans ~ith dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. ~ill granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? :',AFTON RD.~°, CUMBERLAND .-/s~.o... D I0 LANARK ROAD L VIOS3N~iH 3N¥9 NOA3O ISEE 3HOH OlISflB · ' II I I I .1 ! I' I .15 ..~. I ' i , ~ I I RECEIVED 0 1982 CITY OF MOUND o APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT Date Nov 8~ ~982 Our Lady of the Lak.e Ca~.holic Church Name of Applicant (If an organization, give organization name} Address 2385 Commerce Blvdl .Mound MN 55364 Phone No.' 472 1284 Bingo Manager (Name) Rev. John Sweeney,Pastor ,. Address 2385 Commerce Blvd, Mound MN 55364 Address of where Bingo will be played 2411 Commerce Blvd, Mound MN 55364 0LL School Cafeteria Dates and Mours .Bingo will be played Have Bingo every Thursday during 1983 and 4 ~aturdays (dates ~o be determined later) (Attach separate sheet if more room necessary)· Is License Fee attached? Yes N6 X Amount Fidelity Bond: ~ (a) Amount (b) Name of Bonding Company (c) Expiration Date of Bond * (Minimum $10,000.) *Note: Fraternal~ religious, veteran and other non-profit organizations may request the Bond t~ be waived. Please indicate below if you are making such a request. Yes, we would' like it waived Annual Bingo Licenses shall expire on November 30 next after date of issue. Section 42 Subd. 3 : -- Signatur~.~k-Per-son ~-xi g pplicatio TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE Jon Elam, City B~nager Bruce Wold, Chief of Police Animal Control MEMO DATE November 4. As you are aware, one of the nagging problems for the City of ~bund is animal control. ~bst notably, the control of dogs at large. Budget cuts made the retention of an animal warden impossible. Consequently, on duty police officers spend some of their time apprehending and :transporting dogs.. Unfortunately, police officers don't care for this line of work for any number of reasons: ego, filth, time lost from what they consider their primary mission (crime fighting), etc .... ~.finnetrista came up with a novel program for handling dog at large calls. Ten dollars is given to the person who apprehends the dog. Minnetrista designates their reserve officers as persons qualified to receive the bounty. The bounty is given directly to the reserve officer as an incen- tive. The bounty is paid directly from the general fund regardless of whether or not the dog is redeemed. ~ I am prepared to propose a program similar to the program now employed by biinnetrista. Officers. Gary Cayo and John Ewald,. liaison officers for the Explorer Post and b{ound Police Reserves, respectively, both feel they can get their personnel, motivated to perform the job. I would modify the' Minnetrista program as follows: Rebate the monies, in the form of a check, picking up the dog. 2. The. fee per dog wouldbe $5.00. to the organization 3. Raise the redemption fee per dog by five to ten dollars to fund the program. Chapter 39 of the Mound City ordinances should be modified as follows to implement the program: Section 39.45 (last sentence): Any.dog, cat, or other animal found funning at large or not under restraint shall be taken by the animal warden, a police officer,'conmunit¥ service officer, or other offiCers thepoliCe chief may deSignate ..... 2. Section 59.60 (first sentence): It shall be the duty of an animal warden, police officer, Comity service officer or other officeys'the police chief maydeSignate .... Jon Elam November 4, 1982 Page Two 3.' Section 39.65 (first sentence): To enforce this ordinance, the animal'warden, police officer, co~,~unity'serViceofficer or other officers'designated bythe'police chief... 4. Section 39.90(d): An impoundment fee of $20.00 or ~ .... The impoundment fee shall be (~45.00- ~ if .... 5. Section 39.90(e): If it is the second or third time within a one year period, the impounding, fee Shall be ($55.00 or $~ .... I realize it is my responsibility to draw the resolutions needed to ammend this ordinance. However, I am sure review of this change by the City Attorney is needed prior to any council action. Because of this, I am not submitting anything in resolution form. Chief Bruce Wold Mound Police Department CC: J. Ewald G. Cayo CITY of MOUND November 12, 1982 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER As a part of trying to evaluate City consultant services, Sharon Legg, at my. request,.spent a good deal of time over the past month soliciting proposals from the various firms who do government audits° From the proposals received and the interviews that were ~onducted, I would recommend the firm of Abdo, Abdo & Eick. The other firm was GeOrge M. Ha0sen Co. and I would not recommend them because, in part, Sharon formerly worked for them and thus the potential for either firm trying to exploit Sharon by sending in junior staff (as they did this year) or.by keeping a close relationship with her because of past work relationships. I think we can all grow under the eye of a new auditor who has no preconceived notions and would reallY be trying extra hard to satisfy Mound. I would recommend the hiring of Abdo, Abdo & Eick for a fee not to exceed $7,000 for the 1982 Audit to be done in 1983. JE:fc CITY of MOUND Date: November 5, 1982 To: Jon' Elam From: Sharon Legg Re: 1982 Audit 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 As you know, I have asked for and received proposals from the following CPA firms to perform the 1982 audit: Abdo, Abdo & Eick Anfinson Hendrickson & Co. Deloitte Haskins & Sell George M. Hansen Co. Adrian Helgeson & Co. Thorson Campbell Rolando & Lehne No. of hrs to Typing & Total complete Binding Proposal 200 $ 680 $ 7,105 235 650 7,600 345 800 10,9OO 230 700 7,000 280 400 8,900 200 600 6,74O The above proposals are exclusive of the preparation of the pencil copy of the report which I plan to do myself. If they were to do this, there would be an additional cost of $500 - $1,000. Of those listed above, I would recommend either Abdo, Abdo & Eick or George M. Hansen Co. Based on my discussions with Thorsen Campbell, ! would not recommend them. My feeling was that they were not as knowledgeable in the governmental accounting field as the others I am recommending. Abdo presently has offices in Mankato and Owatonna and is in the process of opening a new branch in Bloomington. They recently hired Gary Groen to run their new office. He formerly worked for another CPA firm and has extensive governmental audit experience. They have given us a three year proposal as follows. This would lock them into the price, assuming the same amount of work was done for them but would allow the Council to switch should they be dissatisfied for any reason. 1982 $ 6,895 1983 7,255 1984 7,:640 George M. Hansen Co. has assured us that they would have Jim Johnson:Fun the audit, t have worked with Jim and know he does and excellent job,.. They have audited the City since about 1977 and knOw the City well, And, they h.eye a lower bid. { wguld be happy with. either firm. How do you feel? R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOC., INC. 3131 F'ERNBROOK lANE · PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55441 · (612) 553-1800 November 3, 1982 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attention: John Elam RE: Property Evaluation Dear Mr. Elam: Enclosed please find a copy of the AmPacis Evaluation Property report. This apparently was never sent to us from AmPacis and after Mr. Husbands brought this to our attention we were able to secure same. We have forwarded a copy of this to Bill for his records and we have filed the Statement of Values form with the Home Insurance Company to insure, the continuation of your Agreed Amount Endorsement. If you have questions in regard to the evaluation or if we can be of service to you please feel free to give us a call. Thank you for your patience in this matter. Pat Fennell Account Executive PAF/sh Enclosure cc: William E. Husbands PROPERTY EVALUATION REPORTS For Clty of Mound, Minnesota 01... '. The AmPACIS COMPANY 4901 West 77th Street MinnemPolis, MN 55435 SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION TelePhone: (6,12) $35-6046 PROPERTY EVALUATION REPORT RECONSTRUCTION COST EVALUATION REPORT PREPARED ESCI_USIVELY FOR .... Company: ......... Address: ......... CitY, State, ZiP: R. L. YIDUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3131FERNBROOK LANE PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 ProPeptY Omner-: .... Location Evalue. ted: CitY, State, Zip:.. CITY OF MOIJND VARIOUS, AS PER FOLLOWING PAGES. MOUND, MN 55364 Evaluated BY: [late Evaluated: R. BERG - 4014 06/08/82 OccupancY: VARIOUS, AS STATED ON ATTACHED EVALUATION REPORTS. Number ,:,~ Buildin_qs In This Re~,:,rt: SEVEN (7) B,Jildin_q Class: CLASS "C' & D" Cost Ratin-~: Construction I.]!ual it'.,-: AVERAGE Over. al '1 Cor, ditior,: Aver. a_qe :Story Hei_ql',t: VARIIDUS FEET A4.45 AVG. GOOD C'ost Dm. tm Used As Of: 04/01/:32 }-} ]>.':.'. NOT]:CE <.".:1 · THE PROPERTY EVALUATION(S) CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT DO NO'F CONSTITUTE A "BONDED APPRAISAL," NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE CONSTRIJED IN ANY WAY AS AN API~'RAISAL. THIS: PROPERTY EVALLIATION REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR USE IN THE DIETERMINATION OF THE AF'PROXIMATE IREPI_ACIEMENT C:O'.E:T('.E~) I--OR INSURANCE PURPOSES ONLY. COMPONENT DATA UNITS . FACTOR .--REPLACEMENT COST~- NEW~ DEPR. Buildin9 Evaluated: CITY HALLI VARIOUS CITY BUSINESS OFFICES. B~sic Area o~ Building: B~sic Are~ o~ Basement: B~sic Buildin~ Perimeter: 5712 SQUARE FEET 1095 SQUARE FEET . 262 LINEAL FEET. EXCAVATION & SiTE PREPARATION: Excavatin~ & Back¢illin~ 10589 Site Gradin9 & Fini~hin~ 15000 0,20 2118. 2012. 0,13 1950. i 1853. FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footings With Concrete Founda. tion~ 6807 1.24 8441. 8019. BUILDING FRAME: Wood Posts/Columns & Beams 6807 2.33 15860~ 15067. EXTERIOR WALLS: Wood Sidin~ Over Wood Fr,.me ROOF STRUCTURE: Wood Joists & Decl<in~: Commom TYPe SYstem 5240 10,37 5433~. 51&22. 2856 3.8b 11024. 10473. ROOF COVERING: Composition Shingles 2856 1.10 3142. 2985. FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No Basement Section) Wood doists & Decking: Common T~'~e SYstem 1095 2.0:B 2278. 2164. 5712 5.43 3].016. 29465. FLOOR COVERING: Cmr~etin~: Commercim. 1 ISr~de 5712 2.50 14280. 13566. CEILING SYSTEM: GYpsum Board: Tm. red & F'm. inted 6:_--:07 1.48 10074. 9571. INTERIOR C:ONSTRUCTION: Frame Partiti¢,nin~; Average For I]CClJI~incY 5712 16. '.~5 96:B 1 :E:. 91977. HEATING & COOLING: Z,:,ne d SYstem; Warmed & Cooled Air 57~2 6. '9:3 39:::70. :37,876. ELECTRIC:AL & LIGHTING: 3mmm,m Cond,Jit & Breaker SYstem PLUMBING SYSTEM: Avepa~e Fop OccuPan,:Y .ADdUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factop ..... 1.00 Hei,ht Factor... 1.00 . UPdate F~ctor... 1.02 Local Factop .... 1.04 ~ 6807 7.64 52005. 49405. 6807 4.84 .UNADdLISTED TOTALS: 32946. ..373161. 31299. . 357353. MULTIPLIER: 1.061 ARCHITECT'S FEES 22946. 34323. 21798. 32607. .ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: .433430. INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: Excavation~ Site Prep.: Footings, Foundations, .Under.pound. Etc.: !Architectural Fees: .TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: * NEW *. * DEPRD * - 4078. - 3865. - 8446. - 8019. -34323. -32607. -46832. -444~1. INSURABLE VALUES: 386598. 367267. COMPONENT DATA UNITS FACTOR --REPLACEMENT COS~-- NEW. DEPRJ Buildins Evaluated:. WATER & STREET DEPARTMENTS OFFICES "ISLAND PARK" VILLAGE HALL 4845 MANCHESTER ST. MOUND, MN 55364. Basic Area of Buildine: Basic Area of Basement: B~$ic Buildin~ Perimeter: 3321 SQUARE FEET 6,33 S~UARE FEET 266 LINEAL FEET.: EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: Excavatins & Backfillin~ Site Gradin9 &Fir, ishir,~ FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footings With H.C.B. Foundations EXTERIOR WALLS: Poured Concrete' ROOF STRUCTURE: Steel Trusses & Decking: Ho~e TYPe Trusses ROOF COVERING: Composition Shingles FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No B~sement Secti.on) FLOOR COVERING: AsPhalt Tile Surface CEILING SYSTEM: GYPsum Board: TmPed & Painted INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION: M~sonrY Pmrtitionin~; Average For Occupancy HEATING & COOLING: Forced Hot Air ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: Conduit & Breakers PLUMBING SYSTEM: 5064 O. 10 506. 202. 7000 O. 08 560. .224. · 3954 1.17 4626. 1850. 2660 ~.85 26201. 10480. 3321 3.42 11358. 4543. 3321 0.~4 3122. 124~. 3~54 2' 08 .9224 o 32~0. 3321 O. 79 26,24. 104~. 1270 0. S3 1054. 422. 3321 ~.15 303:B7. 12155. 3321 2.39 7~37. 3175. 3'B54 4.56, 18030. 7212. Avera_me For OccuP&ncY ADdUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factor ..... 1.00 Height Factor... 1.00 . UPdate Factor... 1.02 ~Local FaCtor .... 1.04. MULTIPLIER: 1.06 ARCHITECT'S FEE (6.1%) 3321 1.85 UNADJUSTEDTOTALS: 6144. 2458. 120773. . 48"309. 7246. 7809. 2899. 3124'. ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: 135528. 54332. INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW ~ * DEPRD *~ Excavation~ Site PreP.: Footings, Foundations, :Under,round, Etc.: :Architectural Fees: ,TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: -. lO&O. '- 426. - 4&2&. - 1850. - 780~. - 3124. -13495. .~ 5400. INSURABLE VALUE:.. 122333. 48932. COMPONENT DATA UNITS FACTOR Buildin~ Evaluated: CITY GARAGE 4845 MANCHESTER ST. MOUND, MN 55364 Basic Area of Building: 4000 SQUARE FEET Basic Are~ o~ B~sement: -0- SQUARE FEET Basic Buildin~ Perimeter: 280 LINEAL FEET. EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: Excmvatin~ & Bmckfillin~ Site Gr~din~ & Finishin~ --REPLACEMENT NEW DEPR. .FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footir,~s :With Concrete Foundations 2240 0.17 381. 381. 10000 0.07 700. ..490. : BUILDING FRAME: Bearin~ W~lls; Floor SuPPorts Only 4000 1.02 4080. 285~. ~XTERIOR WALLS: Concrete Block: Plain TYPe 4000 0.44 1760. 1021. ROOF STRUCTURE: Steel Bmr Joist & Deck SYstem: 24 Inch Joists 4200 8.5~ 2&078. 25255. ROOF COVERING: Composition B,Jilt-U~ SYstem 4000 3.52 14080. ~856. FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No Basement Secti.on) 4000 0.77 3080. 2156. FLOOR COVERING: H~rdner & Se~ler Compounds HEATING & COOLING: SusPended SPace Units 4000 1.61 6440. 4508. ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: Average For OPeration 4000 0.30 1200. 840. 4000 0.5~ 2360. 1652. ,UMBING SYSTEM: Minimum SYstem: Adequate 4000 2.14 8550. 59~2. 4000 0.58 2320. 1624. .... 07 ~mm~.JUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factor ..... 1.00 Height Factor... 1.00 ~ UPdate Factor... 1.07 ~Local Factor .... 1.04 UNADJUSTED TOTALS: 81039. 56&31. MULTIPLIER: 1,113. ARCHITECT'S FEES 9157. 5592. 6399. _3908. ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: 95788, 66938. INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW * * DEPRD ~ Excavationl Site PreP.: Footings, Foundations, Underground, Etc.: . Architectural Fees: TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: - 1203. - 969. - 4080. - 285~. - 5592. - 3908. -10875. 7733. INSURABLE VALUES: 84913. 59205. COMPONENT DATA UNITS FACTOR --REPLACEMEN~ COST,- NEW- . DEPR. ' B~uildin~ EvAluated: COMMUNITY CENTER 5801 BARTLETT ST. MOUND, MN 55364 Basic Area o~ Buildine: Bmsic Area of Bm~ement: Bmsic Buildine Perimeter: 1470 SQUARE FEET 1470 SQUARE FEET 176 LINEAL FEET. EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION~ Excavatine & Bmck~illine Site Gradin~ & Finishin~ 11760 O.OS ~40. ~40. 5000 0.11 550. :. 550. FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footings With H.C.B. Foundations 2~40 0.70 2058. 823. .BUILDING FRAME: Wood Posts/Co]umns &.Beams _EXTERIOR WALLS: Wood Sidin~ Over Wood Frame 2940 1.20 3528. 1411. 2464 5.?6 14685. 5874. ROOF STRUCTURE: Wood doists & Decking: Commom TYPe SYstem 2654 2.54 6741. 26~6. ROOF COVERING: Cedar Wood Shingles 2654 1.1:B 3132, 3132, FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No Basement Section) Wood doists & Decking: i Common TYPe SYstem 1470 1.2~ 18~6. 1253. 1470 3,01 4425. 1770. FLOOR'SURFACE: Oak Tongue & Groove Floorin~ 1470 3,36 4943, 1977. CEILING SYSTEM: Ton~,Je & Groove Sidin~ Marl. 1470 2.33 3425, 1370, INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION: Minimum FrAme Partitions 1470 3.7e 5571. 2228. ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: Conduit, Fuses & Breakers 2~40 1.57 4675. 1870, PLUMBING SYSTEM: Average For Occupancy .ADdUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factor ..... 1,00 Height Factor.., 1.00 ~ Update Factor... 1.15 Local Factor ..... 1.04. 2940. 1.1.4 .UNADdUSTEDTOTALS: 3352. 59921. 1341. . 27235. . MULTIPLIER: 1.196 . .ARCHITECT'S FEES (7.6%) .ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW * *.DEPRD ~. Excavation~ Site Prep.: Footings, Foundations, Underground, Etc.: Architectural Fees: ~- 1490. - 1490. - 2525. -. 1013. - 5447. - 2476. TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: 11745. 5447. 77113. 5338. 2476.' ,.35049. -9462. -4979. INSURABLE VALUES: _ 67651. .30070. · T-- NT '. ~MPONE DATA UNITS FACTOR --REPLACEMENT NEW DEPR. Buildin~ Evaluated: CITY FIRE STATION .2415~WILSHIRE AVE. MOUND, MN 55364. (Does Not Include Kitchen..E~uiPment.) ~!'Basic Area of Building: ,Basic Arem of Basement: i Basic Buildin~ Perimeter: 9883 SQUARE FEET -0- SQUARE FEET: 376 LINEAL FEET. !EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: Excavmtin~ & BAck~illin~ Site Gradin~ & Finishin~ 4088 40000 O. 23 0.10 940. .4000. · FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footings · With Concrete Foundations 8753 1.22 10679. ;~ ,~BUILDING FRAME: Be~rin~ Wallsl Floor Su~eorts Only O. 73 7215. EXTERIOR WALLS: Concrete Block: Plain TYPe 5452 10.36 56483. .ROOF STRUCTURE: Steel Bar Joist & Deck SYstem: 14 Inch Joists: Wood Joists & Deckin.: · Commom TYPe SYstem 8753 1130 4.40 3.'03 38513. 3424. ROOF COVERING: ComPosition Built-UP SYstem 8753 0. :::8 7703. FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No Basement Section) Wood Joists & Deckir,~: :Common TYPe SYstem 8753 1130 1.77 3.34 15493. 3774. FLOOR COVERING: CmrPetin~: Commercial m3rmde Vinyl Asbestos Tile Sur. fmce 1130 1040 1. :BO O. 90 2034. 936. ILING SYSTEM: ~3YPsum Bomrd: T~Ped & Pminted SosPended Me~al Grid: Non-Combustible Tile Panels 121 2170 0.83 1.63 100. 3537. 940.~ _4000. 9824. 6637. 51964. 35432. 3150. 7086. 14253.. 3472. 1871. 861. 92. 3254. .... 11 ~m~ERIOR CONSTRUCTION: H.C.B. Partitionin~ i P~inted Surfaces HEATING & COOLING: Forced Air SYstem .ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: i Conduit; Circuit Breakers PLUMBING SYSTEM: 9883 ADJUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size F~ctor ..... 1.00 Height Factor... 1.00 : UPdate F~ctor... 1.02 ' .~Loc~l Factor ..... 1·04 'MULTIPLIER: 1.06 8753 ::.~ :Bi 77114. 70945. 9883 2.29 226~2. 20822. 9883 4.27 42200· 38824. 3.52 3.52 34788. 32005. UNADdUSTED..TOTALS: 331565. 305435. .19894. 18326. · _STIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: ARCHITECT'S FEES 351459. 323761. .31280.' . 28815. 382739. 3'52576. INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW ~ * DEPRD ~ .E×cavation~ Site PreP.: Footinms, Foundations, .Under~rour, d,. Etc.: : Architectural Fees: - 4~40. - 4940. -11599. -10653. -31280. '~'~ -~,~,_,15. TOTAL EXCLUSIONS;: INSURABLE VALUES: -47815. -44408. 334920. 308168. .... 12 COMPONENT DATA --REPLACEMENT COST~- UNITS FACTOR NEW- . DEPR. Building Evaluated: CITY. STORAGE~BUILDINg 2232 COMMERCE AVE. .MOUND, MN ~ 55364 .Basic Area oF Building: Basic Area oF Basement: B~sic Buildin~ Perimeter: 6720 SQUARE FEET 6720 SQUARE FEET: 352 LINEAL FEET. _EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: : Excavatin~ & B~ckFillin~ .Site Gradine & Finishin~ 94080 7840 0.14 .. 0.14 .FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: ,.Concrete Footings · With H.C.B. Foundations 13440 1.12 .BUILDINg FRAME: Bearinm Walls) Floor SuPPorts DnlY 13440 O. 72 EXTERIOR WALLS: Structural Clay Tile .ReinForced Concrete Walls 7040 .4928 8.40 7.20 .ROOF STRUCTURE: .Wood Joists & Decking: Commom TYPe SYstem' Wood Joists & Decking: Commom TYPe SYstem 6720 2.85 ROOF COVERING: Composition Built-UP SYstem 6720 O. 37 FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade Elevated Conc. Joist & Slab 6720 6720 1.61 4.75 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION: Minimum Frame Pmrtiti.onin~ 6720 0.14 HEATING & COOLING: Forced Air SYstem 6720 O. 44 ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: Conduit, Fuses & Breakers 6720 1.22 PLUMBING SYSTEM: Minimum SYstem 6720 0.26 13171. 706.. 15053. 9677. 59136. 35482. 19152. 2486. 10819. 31~20. 941. 2957. 1747. 13171. 706. 4516. 2903. 17741. 10644. 5746. 746. 3246. 9576. 282. 887. 2460. 524. :ADdUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factor ..... 1.00 .Height Factor .... 1.00 : UPdate F~cto~... 1.07 .Local F~ctoP .... 1.04: · MULTIPLIER: 1. 113 : .ARCHITECT'S FEES (8.5%) ;UNADdUSTED..TOTALS: ESTIMATED RECONSTRLICTION COSTS: INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW * * DEPRD ** --E×cavationl Site PreP.: ..Footin.s, Foundations, ,.Underground, Etc.: : i Apchitectup~l Fees: ·-15445, -15445. -17139. -. 5026. -20003, - 6920. .TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: 211445. 23893. 20003. 255341. -66464. _ 73148., 8266. 6920. ,88334. -27931. INSURABLE VALUES: 188877. 60943. COMPONENT DATA UNITS FACTOR --REPLACEMENT COST~- NEW. DEPR. Buildin~ Evaluated: PUMP HOUSE No.. 6 (TYPical TYPe) 2414 WILSHIRE AVE. MOUND, MN. 55364 (PumPin~ Equipment Not Included.) Basic Area oF Buildir,~: Basic Area oF Basement: Basic Buildin~ Perimeter: 400. SQUARE FEET -0- SQUARE FEET 80 LINEAL FEET.. ..EXCAVATION & SITE PREPARATION: Excavatin~ &.Back~illin~ Site Oradin~ & Finishine 640 90O O. 23 O. 09 147. '147. ..81. : FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS: Concrete Footings With H.C.B. Foundations 400 1.08 432. 423. EXTERIOR WALLS: Face Brick: Cavity Wall SYstem ~.ROOF STRUCTURE: Prestressed Concrete Single "Tee" SYstem 800 400 8.5.9 3.17 6872. 1268. 6735. 1243. ROOF COVERING: ComPosition Built-UP S4-$tem 400 0.77 308,. 302. .FLOOR STRUCTURE: Concrete On Grade (No Basement Secti.on) 400 1.61 644. 631. .HEATING & COOLING: : Electric Wall Heaters 400 O. 59 236. 231. ELECTRICAL & LIGHTING: Conduit; Breakers 400 1.50 600. 588. UNADJUSTED TOTALS: 10588. 10381. ADJUSTMENT MODIFIERS: Size Factor ..... 1.00 Height Fmctor... 1.00 . UPdate Factor... 1.07 Local Fmctor .... 1.04 . MULTIPLIER: 1. 113 1196. 1173. ARCHITECT'S FEES ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION COSTS: INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS: NEW ~.. *.DEPRD *~ 720. .... 12504. 720. .Exc~v~ionl Site PpeP.: Footings, Foundations, Under~round, Etc.: Architectural Fees: TOTAL EXCLUSIONS: ..- 254. - 254. - 481. - 471. - 720. - 720. 1445. INSURABLE VALUE.:.. 10821. _.10829. TNE NOZZA ASSOCIATES, INC. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES BUILDING 183 UNIVERSITY AVENUE EAST ST. PAUL.. MINNESOTA 55101 612-228-0168 TO: FROM: RE: 3ohn Elam ~ Based on my observations from the cursory examination of downtown Mound, and my attendance at the city council meeting on Tuesday, October 26, I would suggest that the following questions and concerns be raised as the city looks at the various proposed developments for downtown Mound. The city has a marvelous opportunity to develop a regional scale retail/commercial complex in the downtown area. This complex should be oriented toward the lake, and possibly could include a walk around Lost Lake, marina, pedestrian ways, bridges or skyways over County Highway 15 and 110, as well as potential uses for the railroad land and other land. Given the first observation, it is critical that whatever development takes place does not take place in a helter-skelter manner. The reason for this is that for any regional center to work, regardless of whether it is under one ownership or several, regardless of whether its built by one or more developer, the complex or in this case the entire downtown not only has to have a draw, but once people are attracted to the area, the area must be accessible by automobile. Once the customers are in the complex, there has to be the proper type of customer movement in and about the complex as well as appropriate amenities. The traditional model for this type of complex is the shopping center model, which has anchors, usually two, although sometimes more, which consist of large realtors with national names that can attract people and get customers moving back and forth among the anchors stopping at smaller shops in between. In this particular case, because of the configuration of downtown with the water, the highways and the railroad tracks, you may want to look at a triangular circulation pattern with one anchor being somewhere around city hall, the other anchor being at the southern portion of 15 & 110 and the third anchor being north of the intersection of 15 & 110. Along with that physical notion of having a regional shopping center, the successful regional shopping center is made up of more than just buildings. It has a single operator that makes sure that the complex is operated in a manner that is convenient and productive for the existing owners, tenants, and customers as well as attractive to potential customers. This means that there is unified leasing, maintenance, and consistent policies, usually under one entity and usually under the direction of one person. In addition to this they are usually common marketing policy (e.g. special events, etc.). But, the point I make, is that this is one entity and that the one entity. looks out for the common good of all of the merchants, tenants and customersin the complex. In this particular case you may want to look at forming such an entity right now with either all the merchants downtown or a couple of the interested participants, or the developers currently making proposals or the city council--whomever you want. The name of that entity could be Downtown Mound, Inc. or whatever you want but the importance is that there be one group that speaks for the common good of everybody. Along with this notion of having a entity to operate the complex as you would a shopping center complex, you may want to consider the possibility of puttlng the entire downtown within the boundaries of this entity. In additon to that, you may Want to consider putting the entire downtown in some type of redevelopment distrlct or improvement district or tax increment and financing district or whatever. The reason I say this is that there is clearly going to be a lot of moves of existing merchants as well as attraction of new merchants. The challenge is to keep the existing merchants up and going, make any potential relocation as easy as possible while at the same time attracting new merchants. This is not an easy task and traditionally in any type of redevelopment or development situation some existing merchants close and other new ones open. It's been my experience that this can be avoided if the proper attention is given to this beforehand. Along wlth the notions in the previous two points it very well may be important to get the entire downtown in some type of development district. The reason being that any improvements made in one part might be for benefit of a11. For instance, if there has to be a substantial amount of public expenditure in the development of the marina or any pedestrian mall or any walk around Lost Lake or skyway connections across the county hlghways or a relocation of ratlroad tracks or whatever, it is important that you not only have the power to expend public funds in these specific areas but also that the benefits are for all of downtown, and consequently, all contribute to the improvements. In addition, by having the entire area in the tax increment project, you would initially beneflt from the capture of tax increment from the vacant land. For instance, the land owned by the Catholic church I would guess is on the tax assessment rolls at zero value as far as taxes are concerned. Obviously any and all improvement to that land would contribute to the tax increment. Probably the same thing is true as far as the railroad property. Along with this previous point, you may want to take a look at including any existing or potential employers in this district. This district doesn't necessarily have to be just the downtown development district. It could be viewed as a commercial/industrial Jobs generating/tax base generating economic development type of activity. This is critical in that what you could do is develop a place where people could not only work but shop as well. This could be done without any substantial aquisition or relocation of existing businesses or residences in Mound. Some of the questions and concerns that should be asked as far as the particular developments are concerned are as follows: a. Would they be willing to work with other developers? b. Where are they going to get the financing and how solid is it? c. Would the be willing to fit into the context of city plans? d. What is their timetable? e. What is their relocation policies? f. Where are they getting the potential tenants? g. What will this development do to both the plan for downtown as well as the operation of downtown ? The city should do a side-by-side comparison of all projects that would fit into this downtown development area. The side by side , comparison should not only include the relocation neceSsary but all other costs and benefits including the tax base, financing etc. From thls side-by-side comparison per unit averages can be made (e.g. tax base per square foot, or number of customers to downtown or the affect on other businesses). The city should consider possible roles of various governmental and development entities. Particularly important in consideration is what role the HRA will play, since the HRA traditionally has far more redevelopment and financing powers than a city does, and it's generally easier and more flexible to do development under a HRA than under a city. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that these are questions and comments are strictly preliminary. Obviously there has to be many discussions taking place before al! these issues are resolved, but I thought it was important to pass along to you 'some of my preliminary observations before any additional discussion took place. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you. ~ .......... $~t~, Nov, -'"ldlOCK""' '" "" ''''''''''': Bring:small" ' " ' ' ':" .wn.m 'gd 'To' " ' "· '. N..Y..;',,'.,' · .;.. ~',- : .... , · .,;~. . '.. . . .: . · ~,' , ~.' . . :~'. ,-,. ,~., """sc'th' "" , ' a~ i~lllflJ bike ~C~, Elsewhere in ~e~ and protectin~ older r~idcn~ By Mamiya Hoffmln ;' ~: ' .?.. ~ ~ 'if shyly in mwfl could ~ dub~ ~r~ian~ence Monitor "~ ':?", .'? '., "Mr. Bt~k A~iMton" It would buve to ~ Muff ~r~owJt~ CO. mw "~' ntty~ffni~ director or the ~onprofi~ NewYor%N.Y.. : .' ' - . "It's my M~ nnd If Fro. Bolng ~ ' ~n~mn, mud pflvMely funded live ~'J~ Fd Hke It M~ ~e ~&.. ~t~ ~mmitt~ for New Yor~ bilk n~und,w ' · . ,. City. He' ~ the city from one · ' . - '.. · ... ·. , end to the other, 4rom net~bor~ ~t ~ ~e ~nflment of memO.=of, to netgh~, ~vlug tutu ~nd City. ~te~lly-thouun~ or New~' therein. Be bus ~en 'Yorke~ are ~HIn~ up the~ sJeev~ ', hand tn ~e Ior~tion of 4,~0 new and ~c~ln{ e~nO of neigh~r-;' bt~k ~iatlo~ ~n~ the commit. h~ need, from ~uul ~ tee w~ ~tabil~ in 1975 Jn direr ..~ieanup ~mpai~, from . r~ to the ~ty's {~l crbis.. al fncillO~ afl~ ~utifi~Oou e~ to C8~ pro~ for children ' "A bJ~ ~tation," Be~owRz and the elderly. · .- .~ - pluJp~ "giv~ people w~o mt~t.~b- . · ,. . , .~ ,~7 * =~ e~ {~1 ~we~ the chance to A bi~ ~tion ~ uu.o~u~d ~ak up and t0 ef{~ change and ~e~ng of nel~ 'who ~t ~ ~, improvement.of their Mr~L It d~vek know each o~er and tall a~ut ~. o~ p~d~ hud it brin~ u ~ ~u~ or lm~ca M'~, im~ city down to them ~ch ~ housing c0ndttlo~,%-% ~ s~n ~ M~ t~ P~o: ' ~ .~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ .+~;, ...,= ..~'...} ~;' ~Jg, ~t ~:~ - ~,.~': · ~fety and ~ni~on.~Bl~k ~ . (,. .-. ~.,. ;..= ,.~..:..... ;.,.~., .~; ~. t~:.. ,~/; ~,..., ~.,-.~..~ ~., ~:,~,' .:~'~L:>{ ,' ,,.,~,,.*. '* ..~ r ..'-~ '~' ~o~ have'~n a~und for 8~t a..~'Mom~r8o{ ~MmnhattanbiockCJubs~rpceduptomepJantingL~f:~{,~ ..... cent~. Cu,ently there are u~t,.'{; .,,~.;=,~:::~e~.:. ~,, ,.... ?. ~ ', ~./~; ~? w.~;...~,:, ,~;:=.;..:{~ .,;. 14,000 in the five ~ro,~ of ,New ?,~ and ~e ~nt to, i~'aRer ;R;'~%dle~ prot~Hn{ ~e~ chlld~ [ ~orkO~ ~-' : ~ .... ~ '.' .~.=iand~keJtp~t~e~.'~. ,t/.'~ ."'~ .~ M~n{careof~eir elderly .'~,Y, . . ,.......,~,:_ .... .~... .~. .. . ..... ~ :~, ~.-,~.~.~:~,t . ~... .....~ :..~ '. Man o~e~ f~! ~et ~e bl~k- - :.~ Ha~r ~hWa~ ~ Of ' ~e. 'Rive~d~'~ ~ Pmje~ under way in other· :. ~tntion movement h~ been one, ~'~ Drive. R~Jden~~, Anociation: n~.~~ .... ~ ;'o~ ~e m~ ~JH~ u~ formidable '~.'~ m~ .of '.his groOp'.s2work ~u r~ ' . for~ for g~ ~e ~ ~ yet ex~ ~ volv~ 'a~und improving 'nether;% ' rJeoced. It hu'~tu~ed ~me of ~e ~ ~h~ nfety.: ~'We've ~seen ,stre~i , cl~'s ~riter sine'tOm, they'uy,--~me Bo.dowu.s~pty'u'a ruul~'~ . . and hu brunet back a small4own - ~ he .nyt..The '..~lation- hir~ ~ of ~owiq one's neiihbo~ ~ ~ard f~m a"prtvMe ~cu~ ~r-j ' and of ~nf n~ut ~em and ~ar.'~vi~e fiye even~ 8 w~ I~ mefi%a~ . tflswith the~, ./. ,.~ ;. ~,.~)~..~'have ~u~t better ~ll~.pr~ . ' ..... ~ ', ~.'." .'.?..'. '.~".,/,'~ ~.,.,.. te~l~ a~d have i~vlted ~lice se~u:~ ' ' · · ~New York ~ still no 5~Pta*"*'~ys'S * ~ty ~eys of ~e'buildifl~ on'~e~j '.~' one ~nthustastic block-~ctatlon bl~&:They beve"niM'.rep~ed ntt~ - · mem~r ~nding to. pick up t~i;~e~etlig U% .~ ~, ~...~.~,~ out or the I~ be~ ~und me ~em ~, ., .... , ..... ,,..,.,,; , ..... , .~ t~at her ~oup had planted, "But it ~ ~ i Other. bl~ ,'~ia~o~:'ln 'Up~ J . ca,Inly a ~ot,neuter ~d cleaner ~ ', Manhattan 'are 'concerned' wlt~,,J t~nJtw~,andit'simprovtnsall~e hi cieani~ Out h~ngou~ or dope ~d-~] ' ' tl~e." · , , ~.;...~j 't~e.scope of projects is ns wide and varied ns the bloCks represente,~.~: Jules Schuthack, president/of Lkxldtst Street Association, thins' Dial-n-Neighbor, expiolninf, '*'In · City this si~e everyone needs j number they can call If they need : assistance or · frlendlyT visit. provide that 24*hour number for our members. · ' ~" Schutheck came to. New York Is Germon relu~ee 40 yeats nas ,nnd ,.: has never ceased to love nfld appre- ciate it. "We first banded to~etlier,~ here to fight a discotheque comln~ th~q our block," he explains. "Having woo; lhot battle, we went off to pJnnt tree~ · ~vork on ~urbe~e 'prohlems,-und clean up si¢lewolks. Some of us think \. of our street, as our outdobr 'll.vthg/J NOVENBER 1982 PRESI DENT' S MESSAGE WtSTONKA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE "CHAMBER HAVES" Dear Members: Our November General Membership Meeting will be an important one in that we will~ be updating many items that need ~,our approval. The incoming slate of officers are going to have to implement your decisions. Please read the following materials before the meeting. rely, ' GENERAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 17 - LORD FLETCHER'S Be prepared to discuss and to vote on them! 6:00-7:00 - Social 7:00 - Dinner 7:45 - Meeting AGENDA 1) Call to Order - President Jerry LongPre Invocation Pledge of Allegiance 2) Member of the Month - Presentation by Wayne Smith 3) Retiring Officers - Presentation by Jerry Longpre 4) Final Nominations and Voting - Dick King, Chairperson for the 1983 Officers and Board of Directors Current Nominees Officers: President- Paul Pond, Treasurer- Donna Quigley, vice President - Ron Norstrem Secretary - Di rectors: Mound - Ron Carlson Minnetrista - Ted Koeneki Spring Park - Navarre - Steve Wood At-Large - Steve Abrams At-Large - John Burger At-Large - Dave Anderson At-Large - Audrey Schultz Past President - Jerry Longpre 5) Proposed 1983 Budqet and Dues Structure- Ron Carlson, Chairperson Page Discussion and Voting by General Membership Proposed 1983 Budget Expenses Rent Tel ephone Exec. V.P. Salary Of fi ce Suppl les Insurance Dues Chamber Waves Guest Meal s .Flowers and Memoriums Printing Yost Award ' Member of Month Exec. V.P. Petty Cash Committee Budgets Board of Director's Fund 1982 Deficit $ 660.00 720.00 6000.00 180.00 288.00 100.00 200. O0 120.O0 200. O0 50O.OO 200.00 600.00 1350.00 $ 1i,118.00 $ I1,118.00 500.00 500.00 $ 12,118.00 Proposed 1983 Dues Structure 1983 1982 Individual 35.00 35.00 Small Business - 1 to 4 employees* Medium Business - 5 to 12 employees* Large Business - over 12 employees* 75.00 95.00 150.00 '225.00 350.00 500.00 Major Manufacturers Municipalities 500.00 50.00 950.00 Service and Non-Profit Organizations 35.00 Small Professional Offices - Community Organ 150.00 Small Manufac. Maj. Fin. Inst. 750.00 · ' *2 part-time employees -- 1 full time employee 1981 25.00 35.00 75.00 150.00 3OO.0O 200.00 Page 3 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT'S NOTES The proposed Budget and Dues Structure have been arrived at after a great deal of research and review. The 1983 Dues and Budget Committee asked me to compile a number of facts and documents in order to facilitate their efforts. In the process of putting all this information together for them and you, it has been possible to organize many of the Chamber's previous records such as membership data, annual financial statements and yearly dues structures. The Chamber office and its chief inhabitant are getting more organized with each passing month! We seem to have weathered the financial unhappiness of 1982; and i£ the,membership decides that it wants a strong Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce in 1983, then I feel certain that the mechanics are in place for a positive, forward moving year. Please invite a guest to the next general meeting. Remember - THOSE WHO GIVE HAVE ALL THINGS! Sincerely, Chic Remein Our apologies to Dorothy Netka - Ue forgot to say that She and Bill were Co-Members of the Month for September. The Winter Ball Committee is really moving along - Date - Jan. 15th, Place - Lafayette Club, Price - $30.00 - Per Couple, Music by New Vintage, Tickets Available Nov. 29 - Dec. 18 at Tim & Tom's, Flowers by Helen, and Netkas Furniture. Space is limited to 100 couples so hurry to get your tickets. Dress will be semi-formal, and the rumor is that the prize commit- tee is really out-doing itself with some very special items. To volunteer services or prizes please call Event Chairperson, Diane Theis, .qound Medical Clinic - 472-1144 or Prize Chairperson, Wayne Smith, Hilltop School - 472-1600. The Cross-Country Ski Race is also in the planning stages, b~e will definitely need the involvement of other area service organizations to pull this one off. Please call Chairpersons, Howard Sunby - 472-3197 or Chic Remein - 472-6780 if you or your organization want to be involved. This can really become a valuable fundraiser for our community. Let's get it going! October General Meeting Review - l.~e had a good turn-out at the Mist for guest speaker )lary Hurley, lead teacher for Westonka's Adult Education Program. Thank you Mary! Congratulations to the City of Orono on being named Member of the )-lonth. Thanks, Orono, for sending Dick Benson to collect the award. He's a welcome addition to any meeting. ' 9 Page 4 Don't forget to treat yourself and a guest to dinner at Lord Fletcher's at 7:00 on November 17th. This is probably the most significant General Meet-' ing of the year'. Your Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors CITY OF MOUND 5341MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1982 MOUND CITY HALL 7:$0 P. I. TO 8:50 P.M. IVESTONKA ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSING CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESENT: Mary Eileen Church, Tom Frahm, I~.J. Gregg, Howard Hodges Ron Kraemer ABSENT: Joseph A. L. Errigo, Jr. STAFF: Larry Blackstad, John L. Rocheford, Jr. AGENDA: A~IENDED to delete Approval of blinutes of Last Meeting (June 28, 1982) DECISIONS: (1) APPOINTED the following oft-'icers ol" the Corporation to serve a two:~.(2) year term to expire Fall 1984: Howard Hodges - President Tom Frahm - Vice President Mary Eileen Church = Secretary (2) APPROVED the selection of Dickey/Kodet architectural firm. NOTES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (1) DEVE LO P~.tENT PROCESS The Development Process was explained by John Rocheford (Develop- ment Coordinator). Provided the process goes along as scheduled, construction of the building will hopefully start in July 1983. The selection of a contractor is the next step of the development process. The Board agreed that staff would contact those contrac- tors who have shown interest. Each prospective contractor will be asked to make a 20 minute presentation at the next scheduled Board ~[eeting. (See notes and announcement #5) (2) LAND ACQUISITION The acquisition of the land by the four cities was discussed by Larry Blackstad. Larry.agreed to meet with each city council to finalize commitments of Block Grant funds for the"land acqui- sitions. (.5) NEXT REGULAR bIEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The next regular meeting of the Nestonka Elderly and Handicapped Housing Corporation Board of Directors will be held on Tuesday, October 26, 1982 at 7:50 P.M. at the Mound City Hall. P MINUTES OF MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1982 MOUND CITY HALL 7:30 to 9:35 P.M. WESTONKA ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED HOUSING CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: Mary Eileen Church, Tom Frahm, Howard Hodges, Ron Kraemem ? Geri Frey jOseph A. L. Errigo, Jr., W. G. Gregg, Larry Blackstad John Rocheford, Jr. AGENDA: APPROVED as Presented. MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING (October 19, 1982) APPROVED as Presented. DECISIONS: (1) SELECTED Frana and Sons to be the general contractor NOTES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (1) D. Kodet, architect, outlined and discussed some of. the architectural issues. (2) Presentations were made to the Board by Bor-Son Construction Company, Frana and Sons Inc. and Joe Maerten-Brenny Construct- ion Co. (3) John Rocheford will call the next meeting of the Westonka Elderly and Handicapped Housing Corporation Board of Directors. Respectfully Submitted, Date: Mary Eileen Church, Secretary Tonka Corporation 4144 Shoreline Boulevard P.O. Box 445 Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 Telephone: 612/.475-9500 October 27, 1982 TO: Hourly Production Employees As a result of the announced plans to phase down the Mound production facility in 1983, the following benefits will be provided to those production employees' who work for Tonka in 1983 and stay with us as long as they are needed, providing their termination is a result of the Company's decision to discontinue operations. 1. Severance Pay Severance will be paid at the close of the operation according to the following schedule: 0 -5 years service 5 - 10 years service 10 - 15 years service 15 - 20 years service 20 - 25 years service 25 - 30 years service 30+ years service 2 weeks pay 3 weeks pay 4 weeks pay 5 weeks pay 6 weeks pay 7 weeks pay 8 weeks pay 2. Vacations .Payment for vacations earned from May 1, 1982 through April, 1983, will be paid on the last Friday in April of 1983. Vacations earned from May 1, 1983 through the close of the operation will be paid at the time severance is paid. 3o Sick Days Sick days earned in 1982 may be used in 1983. Unused days will be paid at the time of termination. Sick days earned in 1983 will be paid at the time of the close of the operation. 4. Medical and Dental Coverage Your medical and dental coverage that is in effect will continue through- the end of the month in which you are terminated. In addition, this coverage will continue for three (3) months. Tonka will provide this at no cost to you. You can continue the medical coverage an additional six (6) months by paying the .full cost. After that time, you may convert to an individual policy. This coverage will terminate if you become re-employed and receive coverage from your new employer. 5. Life Insurance Life insurance coverage will terminate at the end of the month in which employment termination occurs. You do have the option of converting this insurance without evidence of good health within thirty (30) days of the termination date. Accidental Life Insurance and Short & Long Term Disability These insurance coverages will end at the time of your termination° 7. Pension The Pension Plan will be amended to provide for 100% vesting for those employees participating in the plan and whose employment with Tonka is terminated in 1983 as a result of the phase down of Mound production. This means that the benefit that you have accrued as of the date of your termination will be available upon retirement at age 65 or earlier, subject to early retirement provisions of the plan. Information concerning the amount of pension benefit will be sent to you after termination of your employment° Placement/Job Fair Service Seminars will be conducted to assist you in obtaining other employment. 9o Unemployment Compensation Employees will be eligible for unemployment. Severance pay will not reduce the amount of unemployment benefits to which you are entitled. It might, however, delay the starting date of payment. If you voluntarily terminate, are terminated for a reason other than our decision to discontinue operations, or are not recalled, you will only be eligible for the following: 1. Six (6) months continuation of medical coverage at your expense. 2° Payment for accrued vacation. 3. A vested future pension benefit as explained in Section 7. If you have any questions, please call the Personnel office. Thank you. Stephen G. Shank President and Chief Executive Officer SGS:ls LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BUDGET REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 LAKE MII','NETONKA CONSEP, VATION DISTRIC-r BUDGET REPORT MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GENERAL September 30~ 1982 FUND DISBURS~4ENTS General Fund - Administration 3rd Quarter 1982 Year to Date 1981 Year to Date Personal Services Salaries $11,093 $33,069' $30,750 Auditing Services 490 490 400 Total Personal Services 11,583 33,559 31,150 Contractual Services Telephone 165 450 411 Postage 383 982 812 Printing, Pub. & Adv. 79 734 755 Utilities 124 237 281 Maintenance - Off. Equip. 322 733 902 Janitorial Services 160 430 450 Other Contractual Services 1,234 . 2~337 .1,515 Total Contractual Services 2,467 5,903 5,126 Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies 449 1,149 1,835 Books & Periodicals 18 64 82 General Supplies 197 266 112 Total Commod. & Supplies 664 1,479 2,029 Other Chargds Office Rent 495 1,485 1,485 Insurance & Bonds 271 620 283 Memberships -- 175 155 Employer Contributions 1,857 5,537 5,098 Mileage & Expenses 312 823 872 Total Other Charges 2,935 8,640 7,893 Capital Outlay Off. Furn., Fixtures & Equip. -- -- 608 Total Capital Outlay .... 608 1982 Budget $44,064 4OO 44,464 520 1,000 1,300 35O 1,030 660 4,700 9,560 1,500 '105 155 . 1,760 1,980 78O 165 6,900 1,000 10,825 95O 95O z of Budget 75.0% 122.3 75.4% 86.6% 98.2 · 56.5 67.7 71.2 65.2 49.6 61.9% 76.7 61.1 171.3 84. O% 75. O% 79.4 106.1 80.3 82.3 79.6% --% TOTAL GENERAL FUND - ADMINISTRATION 17,649 49,581 46,806 67,559 General Fund - Legal Legal Services 1,655 12~!43 8,154 15~400 TOTAL GENERAL FUND - LEGAL 1,655 12,143 8,154 15,400 General Fund - Committees & Contingenqy Committees 723 TOTAL GENERAL FUND - COMMITTEES & CONTINGENCY 723 TOTAL GENERAL FUND - DISBURSF~NTS $20,027 1,542 1,542 $63,266 1~193 1,193 $56,153 4~000 4,000 $86,959 73.4% 78..8% 78.8% 37.8% 37.8% 73.0% LAKE MII'4NE]'OI'4KA CONSERVATION DIS'I'RICT LAY~ BUDGET REPORT MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GENERAL September 30~ 1982 REVENUE LMCD Communities Other Income TOTAL GENERAL FUND - REVENUE 3rd Quarter $12,982 3~400 $16,382 1982 Year to Date $62,392 7~041 $69~433 1981 Year to Date $60,633 ..14~142 $74,775 1982 Budget $64,992 21,967 $86,959 % of Budset 96.3% 32.2 79.9% L/,KE MII',~;,IE'I'ONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BUDGET REPORT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - SAVE THE LAKE FUND September 30~ 1982 Balance December 31, 1981 REVENUE Save the Lake Fund Donations Other Income 3rd Year quarter to Date $2,495.00 $13,245.00 1~334.79 !.~419.14 TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE FUND-- REVENUE $3,829.79 $14,664.14 $19,299.51 DISBURSEMENTS Save the Lake Fund Project Expense: Awards $ -- Litter Barrels 71.50 Pamphlets 1,253.72 Lake Modeling Program (FWBI) -- Lake Use Study 651.58 Shoreline Photo Servo 13.00 LM Task Force 227.50 TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE FUND - DISBURSEMENTS $2,217.30 390.74 143.00 5,030.29 2,500.00 651.58 13.00 227.50 8,956.11 Balance September 30, 1982 $25,007.54 Minnesota Department of Economic Development November 5, 1982 Mr. Kenneth A. Wilcox Director of Corporate Development Tonka Corporation 4144 Shoreline Boulevard P. O. Box 445 Spri.n§ Park, ~ 55384 Dear Mr. Wilcox: It was a pleasure meeting with you and Mr. Shank. Thank you for the information presented to us on the reasons for your decision to relocate the manufacturing operations of your company. Mr. Lloyd Laumann subsequently toured us through the building in Mound. As a result of our inspection, we recommend that the following alternative options be explored for the disposal of the facility by your company. Sell the building as is. We will assist you in accomplishing this once we receive the building data on the form provided to you. Also, we recommend that you obtain a reputable real estate broker to handle the property in question. To be very frank, this option will be difficult to achieve. The building is old, metal construction for the most part, poorly integrated, varying floor levels, etc. There is a remote possibility that the building could fit a single potential user's needs. We will search for such a user. Condominiumize the buildin~ into three or ~our separate buildings following the construction phases of the building. Thus, separate usage c~ould be made for individual office/warehouse or light in- dustrial activity. If this option is elected, we would need completed avail, able industrial building data sheets on each building. The City of Mound has a zero lot line ordinance in effect which would expedite the implementation of this option. Convert the buildin~ to commercial usage such as a shopping mall. Needless to say, a developer Would have to be found that is willing to take on such a project. 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/296-2755 An t£¢ I~ !ol ( ~1 )P~ ~rlt ~F}ity Empl~ ~yer Mr. Wilcox -2- November 5, 1982 Demolish the buildin~ and sell the land for office/warehouse or straight office construction. We strongly recommend that you first conduct a market feasibility study for the best usage of the property. This could be done at a nominal cost and will give you a positive direction as to the best means of disposing of the Property. Financing will be a crucial element in bri~nging any one of. the options to a reality. Enclosed is our booklet on Financing outlining tax exempt revenue bonds and tax increment financing avenues which certainly should be explored. The City of Mound is well aware of these avenues and could possibly utilize a Community Development Block Grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I have met with Jonathan Elam, city manager, Mound, and have discussed the matter in question with him in some detail. Based on our meeting with him, he is already developing a strategy to resolve the problem. We will provide whatever input possible in developing this strategy and 'implementing it. After my meeting with Mr. Elam, I have concluded that the fullest cooperation by the City of Mound will be extended in resolving the problem it faces with your announced relocation. Successful resolution will only be accomplished by the cooperation of your company, City of Mound, this department, and any others that can provide helpful assistance. I understand from Mr. Elam that he will 6e meeting with you on a regular basis in addressing and meeting the needs of the aforementioned resolution. I offer the services of this department at those meetings. In the meantime, if I can be of any further assistance to you, please let me know. Sincerely, Business Development Representative Enclosures 27 / LAND USE PLANNING WORKsHOpS FOR COMMUNITY DECISION MAKERS AND REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS Sponsored By;. Minnesota Planning Association Real Estate Certificate Program Department of Conferences Continuing Education and ExtenslOl~ University of Minnesota ~ in cooperation with ~ Government Training Service 9, WILLMAR :' I~ECEMBER 11, CHISHOLM ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Sponsored By:. Government Training Service CONTINUING EDUCATI[~ CREDIT Five hours of credit have been applied for to the Commissioner of Securities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 82.22, Subdivision 13 relating to continuing real estate education. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI~I Loft Graven Program Coordinator Department of Conferences 315 Pillsbury Drive SE University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 5S45S 612/373-5361 Barbara Peterson Prograe Coordinator Government Training Service 202 Minnesota Building 46 East Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota S6101 612/g22-740g or toll free 800/652-9719 REG)~-TRAT) (~l FORM Name P :hone Organization/Jurisdiction/Firm Business Address City/State/Zip Please find enclosed $25 (check, money order or voucher made payable to the ~overnment Training Service) in payment of the fee for: __Annual Planning Institute OR __Land Use Planning Workshop to be held on: November 30: Twin Cities December 2: Owatonna December 7: Detroit Lakes December 9: Willmar Oecember 11: Chisholm Return this form to the Government Training Service, 202 Minnesota Building, 46 East Fourth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, one week prior to workshop date. .k · he Nlnnesota Planning Association and t~e Govemru~ent ~mainlng Service are pleased to collaborate in bringing t~o important planning prc~rame to five sites around the state: MPA offers a second series of land use workshops focusi, ng on legal aspects plus current statewide and lo~al issues. The Annual Planning Institute for Planning Co~ssioners £1ected Officials (normallv held in De~ember in the ~wln Cities) ~s ~en m~a~i~d ~ a o~g fo~t on ~e ~d'. The ~de.a is ~ ~e ~m extensi~ lnCr~uct~ ~ pla~Zng bas~cs available ~ officials in smiler ~l- ties as well as t~se n~dlng to m~retch travel a~ Cra~n; bud~ts. T~ds ~oint effort insures that both 'newcomers and veterans in land use planning will be able to participate in educatdonal opportur,~ties spec~ficallg designed to meet ~heir needs--at the same place, et the same .time, w~th a thence to mse~ an~ share ideas ore= lunch! Whg not bring a carfull from gout communZt~? HPA WORK~HOP OBJECT~VES/FEATIJ~S Both community decision-makers and real estate'professtonals are faced with the need to anticipate future conmuntty needs, under- stand Implications of community development or stagnation and adapt to changes affecting the physical environment. Because recent legislative actions and court cases have raised Issues central to the process of land use planning, this workshop devotes the entire mornlng to three sJgnJfJcant legal topics. As a parttctpant~ you will: *Gain an'overview of new lews and regulations affectSng such diverse areas as manufactured (~mobfle') homes and hazardous waste *Otscover the expanded liabilities of ~urtsdtc- tions and elected officials under the state and U.S. constitutions, Civil Rights Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, eminent domain and special assessment appeal statutes and other tredtttonal legal doctrines *identify enforcement options available'to .jurisdictions and the implications of pur- suing comp1 iance *Focus on current concerns of your area-- ranging from non-traditional housing to energy alterna ti yes to economic development options *Have an opportunity to exchange Ideas with local officials and real estate professionals in your coa~untty MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4,' 1982 MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING Present: Co-Chair Cathy Bailey and Cheryl Burns; Commissioners Toni Case, And~ Gearhart, Delores Maas and Pete Ward; Council Representative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; Park Director Chris Bollis;'Dock Inspector Don Rother and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Also present were Councilman Gordon Swanson, Council- man Elect Gary Paulsen and interested citizens, Bob Hanson of 4544 Cumberland Road, and Joseph Fink of 4823 Donald Drive. Chair Cheryl .Burns opened the meeting. MINUTES The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of October 14,1982 were presented for conslderatlon. Ward moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 14, 1982 Park.Commission meeting as presented~ The vote was unani- mously in favor. Dock Map Location Review Joseph Fink and Bob Hanson were'preSent regarding the docks located at Avalon Park. Joseph Fink explained that after having'his boat vandalized 4 times,.he approached the .neighbors by.Ava)oh'.Park and broke the ice and got acquainted and offered to take care of. the dock areas; also helped one fellow find a dock to share. Now they all ha~e a'good thing going; they are ~orking t°ge~her and it's super and they are even watching his boat. Only problem is the large boats side by side. Don didn't'expect to have 4 or 5 pontoons and big boats in this area; but they are working the problem out. Have had to move boats around; Fink asked when the docks have to be taken out. The Dock inspector responded that docks do not have to be removed unless in a sliding area. The Park Director reported that this year they've had no complaints of problems with spacing or anything like that. Bailey moved and Gearhart seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council that the present dock location map be maintained for 1~83. The vote was un- animously in favor. The City Manager reported there were only 3 major dock violations thi~ year--- People leasing out their-docks, About 397 of the 400 dock-spaces were taken this year. Everyone that applied for a dock space received a space. Many shared their dock space. The extra docks will be used at 'Mound Bay Park for community docks. Ward asked if the Park Commission members could get a copy of the master dock map. REPORTS Council Representative Charon asked if group had heard about the Lost Lake Shopping Center project. Discussed briefly. Bailey would like to see something done to link downtown with City Hall by a board walk. 'City Manager reported that 1) work on Mound Bay Park got started 1 day before the snow; he has hopes that the weather warms up so a couple of day's work can be com- pleted this year---a day of excavating and a couple of bringing in sand; and 2) the Council approved the construction of the stairs on Bluebird and Avocet and authorized the dredging of Emerald Channel and Ridgewood Access. Discussed that the Park Commission still has work to do on the Park Plan---need to work out priority plan. Park 'Commission Minutes November 4, 1982 - Page 2 Discussed Park Commission membership. expire this year. Secretary to check out which members~ tePms Bailey questioned if property behind Netka'a could be available to the senior citizens for gardens. (This is private property/not City property) Bailey also questioned if it were legal for an underground gasoline tank to be next to a beach .(park)? Discussed briefly. Adjournment Ward moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn the Park Commission meeting at 8:25 P.M'. The vote was unanimously in favor, so meeting adjourned to next meeting on December 9, 1982. FINANCING IN MINNESOTA Fina'ncing. The lifeblood of every business. How to get it? Where to get it? These questions are paramount to a business owner who. has decided to build, expand or who needs operating capital. There are many sources and types of financing to meet the many needs of Minnesota businesses. Although requirements vary, most financial sources require similar basic information. ^ business owner should have a well developed business plan that communicates the worthiness of the business as a credit risk or investment. The basic elements of such a plan follow: Forecast of Capital Requirement This forecast should state the amount of capital needed, and the reason for the need. it should detail factors of the amounts needed for receivables or inventories and how these amounts were determined; how much cash will be generated from operations; how the owner plans to use internal financing sources; and when the capital will be needed. Profit Plan This should project sales and profits for a period at least equal to the term of any loan. In the case of equity investment, a minimum term is five years. The profit plan should detail sales revenue, cost of sales, and expenses, so that the bank or investor can make comparisons with other businesses in the same industry to determine whether or not projections are realistic. Marketing Plan This plan specifies how the business intends to achieve its sales projections. Specific marketing steps should be described such as the addition of new locations, new product or new services, increase in the sales force, advertising programs and promotional efforts. Cash Flow Statement This statement should indicate how much cash will be available from operations and how it will be used to acquire assets, reduce liabilities, compensate investors, and the like. The cash flow statement permits th~ banker to determine how the loan will be repaid, and permits the equity investor to determine the compensation that can be expected from the investment. The following list of financial and management sources was compiled to help businesses in Minnesota answer financing questions. Private and public sources are included with a description of the program. eoRIVATE SECTOR SOURCES OF FINANCIAL HELP Start-Up and Expanding Several traditional private sector sources of financing are available to both the business that is starting up and the established business that wants capital for expansion or operation. Banks many instances, a local bank is first place to look for money. iervices available to commercial customers include short-term loans, some longer term loans, checking accounts, consultation on credit 'and cash management, collection services, equipment leasing, international banking services, retirement plans and payroll preparations. Businesses seeking bank loans must provide a plan that outlines the amount required, how it will be used, time length of the loan and source of repayment. Banks participate in loans with local development corporations, the Small Business Administration, finance companies, small business investment corporations, insurance companies, the Farmer's Home Administration, the CI.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, the Department of 'lousing and Urban Development id other federal and state gencies. Savings ond Loan Institutions Savings and loan institutions provide long-term real estate financing through mortgages. The company's financial security and the appraised value of the property to be financed are assistance considerations. Real estate mortgages are generally 75 percent of the property's market value. Terms are usually for 15 to 30 years. Savings and loan institutions also invest in businesses by taking on mortgages through mortgage brokers and bankers. Venture Capital Companies A venture capital firm invests in high risk situations that provide attractive capital gains to the investor if the company succeeds. Usually these equity monies are used to finance start-ups, expansions, acquisitions or to refinance a troubled situation. Terms vary and are dependent on an individual company's equity needs and growth prospects. Commercial Finance Companies A commercial finance company generally provides short-term, revolving credit for working capital purposes with a pledge of corporate assets, including accounts receivable, inventory and equipment as collateral. Leasing, factoring, term loans, rediscounting, secondary real estate and time sales financing are also offered. In many cases a commercial bank will participate in the loan, thus reducing the overall cost. Commercial finance companies are specialists in assembling loan packages and in cash flow ' techniques. Part of their service is providing valuable consulting help along these lines to their clients. Leasing Companies A leasing company can finance the purchase of new equipment, refinance old equipment and, in some cases, finance leasehold improvements and buildings. Maturities are usually tied to the expected life of the financed asset and are secured by that asset. Small Business Investmenf Companies A Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) is a privately owned and operated venture capital company that has been licensed by the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide equity and working capital, and long-term loans to small firms. Firms applying must be a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration. The Small Business Administration defines a small business as one whose: assets do not exceed $9 million; net worth does not exceed $4 million; and average net income after taxes for each of the two [4 receding years was ~0t more than 00,000. Additional Sources for Expanding Businesses While banks, commercial finance companies, savings and loans, and leasing companies are usually available to businesses at all developmental stages, some financial sources are generally available only to established companies that are maturing or expanding. Insurance Companies · Insurance companies can be. classified primarily as life and health, or property and casualty. Life insurance companies prefer investments with fixed returns because of actuarial predictions. These companies invest in real estate mortgages, long-term, privately placed corporate loans; and venture capital financing directly placed through the parent company or subsidiary. Investments of locally generated reserves are regulated by individual states to protect policyholders. Requirements of the state of domicile must be satisfied. Long-term obligations must be secured by physical assets or by the borrower's proven earning power. The minimum amount is usually $300,000, with a term of more than 10 years and an interest rate slightly higher than that of banks. These loans complement bank loans because insurance companies are usually interested in longer maturities. Life insurance companies obtain referrals through independent loan correspondents, including mortgage brokers and bankers who are paid a finder's fee for their services. Investment Bankers Investment bankers are financial intermediaries in public and private placement markets for long-term business funding. In the public markets,they distribute private and government issued securities to individual or institutional investors. Their income is derived from the difference between the price paid to the issuer and the price received from the investors. Investment bankers provide expertise in equity or long-term debt financing. They also provide counseling in raising short-term funds for special situations like mergers and acquisitions. Criteria for selecting companies to be underwritten by investment bankers vary with the size of the bank. Usually investment bankers are approached directly by the issuer or by a respected third party, such as a commercial banker. Although it's possible to float an issue without investment bankers, their services offer certain advantages: · Familiarity with financial markets, providing sound advice on securities, terms ant timing. · Economical distribution of an issue. · Availability of funds from sale of the issues. · Markets for stocks created and supported after their distribution. Modgage Bankers The mortgage banker acts as an intermediary between a business and an insurance company, bank, or savings and loan institution in matching a mortgage need to an investment in the collateral property. Like a mortgage broker, a mortgage banker matches builder with investor. Unlike the broker, the banker also services the mortgage by collecting monthly installments. Often a mortgage banker awards a loan on the basis of one of two factors. One is the value of the real estate involved, particularly its location. The other is that generaI purpose buildings are more likel~ to attract investors than special purpose buildings. The investor also considers the applicant's credit reputation. 3 LIBLIC i'i A ii n Grant Program SOURCES OF o,: FINANCIAL HELP There is a vast array of public financing sources available to Minnesota businesses and communities. The Minnesota Department of Economic Development can assist businesses and communities in identifying applicable government programs for their specific needs and situations. Federal Programs l "nali Business Administr ion The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers project grants, direct loans, guaranteed and insured loans, technical information, insurance, and personnel counseling and training. Specific programs include: Displaced business loans Economic injury disaster loans Economic opportunity loans for small businesses Lease guarantees for small businesses Management assistance to small businesses Minority business development-- procurement assistance · Management and technical assistance for disadvantaged business Physical disaster loans Procurement assistance to small businesses Product disaster loans The C/ty of St Pau/ ,St. Paul Del~t. of Planning and Economic Development St, Paul Port Authority DeBt. of Housing and UrBan Development Brown and Bicjelow, Inc~ Rauenhorst Corporation George Latimer, A4~..vo~ Joanna Show-alter, Counc//,°re~. Gary Stout, D/rector' George Winter, Pre,sto'e~ Moon Land reau, *-~::b'~f'dO Thomas Feeney, Area dames Day, F~es/de~ Developer Small business investment companies Small business loans State and local development company loans Coal mine health and safety loans Bond guarantees for surety companies Meat and poultry inspection loans Occupational safety and health loans Minority vendors program Base closing economic injury loans Handicapped assistance loans Emergency energy shortage economic injury loans Strategic arms economic injury loans Water pollution control loans Air pollution control loans Service Corps of Retired Executives and Active Corps of Executives 4 Regular Business Loans The Business Loan Program is one of the most widely used by the SBA to help small businesses which are unable to get financing in the private marketplace. Loans are available to independently-owned small businesses that meet general Small Business Administration criteria. Eligible projects include the purchase of buildings, equipment and materials, the construction, expansion and conversion of facilities as well as working capital. Direct and Immediate Participation Loans up to $150,000 are available. However, under exceptional circumstances loans of up to $3.50,000 can be made. Intere§t rates are set quarterly. Terms vary from six to 20 years. Guaranteed Loans as large as g0 percent of the total cost per project to a maximum of $3.50,000 are available. Loans as large as $.500,000 are made in extreme need. Applications may be made any time. Hotification is given within 60 days of acceptance. Economic Development Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Fconomic Development Administration (FDA) offers project grants, direct loans, guaranteed and insured loans and dissemination of technical information. Specific Programs are: Grants and loans for public works and development facilities Business development assistance (See below) Support for planning organizations Technical assistance Public works impact projects State and local economic development planning Distri~:t operational assistance Special economic development and adjustment assistance program Grants to states for supplemental and basic funding of Titles I, ii and IV activities Trade adjustment assistance Business Development Loans FDA projects in the amount of $500,000 or more are handled through the Business Development Loan program. Business development loans offer direct loans and guarantees not available from private sources. They help businesses preserve existing employment, create permanent new jobs and expand or construct facilities. Direct loans are long-term fixed- asset loans with a term of 25 years at flexible interest rates. The loan may not exceed 65 percent of the total project cost. The remaining 35 percent should be obtained from other sources, including local development corporations. At least ! 0 percent of project costs must come from the applicant's equity. Direct working capital loans with a term of no longer than five years, at flexible interest rates, may receive 100 percent EPA funding, with the limitation that not more than $10,000 be provided for each job created or saved. Working capital loans with a term of no longer than five years and at prevailing interest rates may receive up to 90 percent FDA guarantees. Applications may be made any time. Notification will be given 90 to ! 20 days after acceptance. Farmer's Home Administration Business and Industrial Development Loans and Grants This program offers guaranteed and insured loans and project grants to rural organizations and individuals to help improve, develop or finance business, industry and employment. Private firms in nonurban areas with a population of fewer than .50,000 are eligible. Loan Guarantees covering up to 90 percent of total loan, are available to improve economic and environmental conditions in rural areas through the development or purchase of land, buildings and equipment; the provision of working capital; and the refinancing of existing debts. Loan guarantees are not available for agricultural production. Sufficient collateral is required to secure guaranteed loans. Loan maturities cannot exceed 30 years for land, buildings and permanent fixtures; ! 5 years for machinery and equipment; or seven years for working capital. The proposed project must meet U.S. Department of Labor certification requirements. They are designed to insure that jobs or business activities are not transferred from one area to another and that an industrial over- capacity is not concentrated in a single area. Grants are available to communities for the acquisition and development of rural industrial sites. This includes construction and expansion of existing facilities. Applications may be submitted at any time. Notification is given within 45 days of acceptance. U.S, Depadment of Housing and Urban Development Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG) are used to stimulate new development and investment in distressed areas through public and private sector partnerships. Under this program eligible cities apply for UDAG, which cities then may provide to private developers as second- mortgage financing. Minnesota has over 400 eligible cities. CIDAGs are designed to maximize the leveraging of private-sector dollars. Applications with less tha~ a five to one public-dollar ratio generally wilt not be considered. In addition, one new job must be created for every S10,000 of CIDAG funds requested. ate ogram i rdea Redevelopment ministration Loan Program As outlined in Chapter 472 of the Minnesota Statutes, the Department of Economic Development administers the Area Redevelopment Administration Loan Program to assist new and existing businesses. This includes loans for purchasing land, buildings, machinery and equipment. A loan can be made directly to a business, a local development corporation or an area redevelopment agency in a community or county. The state finances up to 20 percent of the total. This works as a catalyst to involve other lenders such as the Small Business Administration, the Economic Development dministration and private funding ~urces. A detailed business plan must be submitted. This includes an accurate analysis of the need for ~uch a business, the number of new jobs to be created, economic impact, location and nature of the business, and current financial data. Loan approval time ranges from two to three months. If federal participation is involved, the time may increase. CIp to 20 percent of total project cost can be financed by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. The following is an example of a project financed by the Area Redevelopment Administration Loan Program. Source of financing /~innesota Department of Economic Development participation Private source financing Owners of business Percentage of pro~cl cod 20 (maximum) .50 (maximum) 20 ]0 (minimum) lO0 Revolving Loan Fund- The Minnesota Department of Economic Development uses federal Economic Development Administration 304 funds in a revolving fund providing loans to qualified Minnesota businesses. Revolving loans create jobs and strengthen the state economy by filling a gap in the financial market. Direct and indirect loans are available to businesses or proposed businesses (indirect loans are participate in federal grant-in-aid programs. Funds may be used in industrial development proje .cts such as sewage lines or paved roads for an industrial park. The maximum participation is 50 percent of the project cost. When the project is done in conjunction with another federal agency, no more than 80 percent of the total cost can be federal dollars. The Technical Assistance program can fund up to !00 percent of the cost of a feasibility study or a demonstration project. The project must be submitted by an official unit of the government. passed through a local development corporation). Loans are made for purchasing land, buildings, machinery and equipment. The loan fund provides up to 20 percent of project financing to a $250,000 maximum to help the applicant qualify for loan monies available through public and private lending institutions. Only specific counties within the state qualify for use of the Revolving Loan Fund. The Revolving Loan Fund follows the same format as the state's Area Redevelopment Administration Loan Program listed in this brochure. Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission The Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission embraces 114 counties in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Commerce· The Commission's priorities include industrial development, human resources, energy, transportation and tourism. The two grant programs available are Supplemental Grants and Technical Assistance. The Supplemental Grants program allows state and local entities to iron Range Resource And Rehabilitation Board Taconlte Environmental Protection Fund Local property taxes on the taconite industry provide monies for the Taconite Environmental Protection Fund. Funding is limited to communities and townships. Eligible projects include economic development or tourism, community development, park and recreational development, and human resources, rehabilitation and vocational training. The Board also provides grants for land management, local public works projects, summer youth employment and building demolition. Counties eligible for funding include: Aitkin (northern only) Carlton (northern only) Cook Itasca (except Deer River) Koochiching Lake St. Louis (except Duluth and Flood- wood) All projects should: · Meet the basic purpose of the development of the economy and resources of northeastern Minnesota. · Be based upon a current, reliable feasibility analysis. · Require no more than g0 percent of total funding from the Board. · I'iot exceed a total of $] 00,000 requested in any fiscal year. · Be self-sustaining and require no financial support from the Board for maintenance or operation. · Be construction or program related and not include any requests providing for hiring or operational costs. Indian Business Loan Program The Indian Business Loan program, established by Chapter 362.40 of the Minnesota Statutes, provides innesota-based Indians with ,ortunities to start, or expand a business, or for technical and management assistance. Funds come from 20 percent of tl~e taxes collected from severed mineral interests held by individuals, corporations or organizations in Minnesota. Two parallel business loan funds exist: "Reservation" and "t'lon- Reservation." Loans are made for profit businesses and can finance up to 25 percent of the total project package. Funds must be used for long-term financing. Loans cannot be used to repay or consolidate existing liabilities. Technical Assistance The Minnesota Department of Economic Development provides assistance monies to businesses arid communities for several echnical projects. These include anagement and marketing, product and plant development engineering, and facility development and redevelopment. The project proposal must also address one or more of the following areas: Chronic unemployment Economic distress or facility decay Declining population Economic development The state's maximum participation is $20,000, with a required 15 percent local match. Feasibility studies are usually performed by independent consultants. Study results are public information. Local Development Corporations Local Development Corporations (LDCs) have a unique program offered to them through the Small Business Administration to assist small business concerns. LDCs can offer !00 percent project financing, lower interest rates and an opportunity for reduced dilution of corporate equity for expanding industry. Through the 502 loan program, the SBA is authorized to make loans to LDCs for use in assisting specific small businesses. SBA may lend up to $.500,000 to the LDC for each small business. The LDC in turn provides financing to help firms construct, modernize or expand their plants. Loan Purposes Through the .502 program, LDCs are able to finance plant construction, modernization or conversion. The purchase of land, machinery and equipment is also eligible. Loans made through the program may not be used for working capital or debt repayment except interim debt incurred during the project's construction phase. Through the program, an LDC can provide use of the facility or equipment to a small business concern through any of the following methods: · Leasing the facility or equipment to the small business with option to buy, with rental payments accepted as installment purchase payments. · Leasing the facility or equipment to the small business without option to buy, but for the period the SBA regulations require. · Lending funds directly to a small business to construct a new facility. The LDC would accept' the firm's promissory nbte with the company obtaining clear ownership when the note is paid. · Selling the small business the completed facility. Source of Loan Funds Before obtaining SBA 302 financing, an LDC must provide a reasonable share (minimum 10 percent) of the project's cost. Funds can be raised by the. sade of stocks, debentures, memberships or cash equivalents. The balance of project funding is received through a bank loan guaranteed by SBA to 90 percent or $.500,000, whichever is less; or a bank first mortgage loan (60 percent of total project cost) combined With an SBA direct second mortgage loan (30 percent of'the total project cost). On guaranteed loans, the legal and reasonable rate as defined by the SBA on the entire loan balance may be charged as interest. For direct participation loans, the legal and reasonable rate on the bank share and the published rate on the SBA share may be charged as interest. The published rate is usually significantly lower than the current market interest rate. The maximum maturity on LDC loans is 25 years. This does not include time required to complete construction, conversion or expansion of existing facilities. Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing is a technique that uses increases in property values attributed to redevelopment to pay for public redevelopment costs. Tax increment financing may be used to provide public funds for the redevelopment or rehabilitation of blighted or deteriorated areas of the city, the construction of Iow and moderate income housing, the promotion of economic development, and employment opportunities in the city. A municipality or authority contemplating the establishment of a tax increment financing district will begin the process by identifying a blighted or deteriorated area in need of redevelopment, an area suitable for the construction of Iow- moderate income housing, or identify areas and projects that will assist in the abatement of unemployment, provide employment opportunities and generally lead to a baJanced pattern of economic and community development. The property encompassing the area where the tax increment financing district is to be established will characteristically demonstrate declining or relatively small increases in assessed value when compared to the property in other areas of the municipality. The municipality or authority documents this information in a plan for development or redevelopment and a tax increment financing plan. A tax increment financing district is created by adopting a plan for redevelopment and a tax increment financing plan. The assessed value of the property within the district is then determined according to the last equalized tax roll and represents the original assessed value of the tax increment district. Each of the taxing jurisdictions (municipality, county, school district and special taxing jurisdiction) continues to receive that share of the taxes collected on the assessed valuation that represents the original assessed value just as if the district had never been created and there had been no change in the assessed valuation of the area. When the original assessed value of the district has been certified by the county auditor, the municipality may begin the redevelopment and tax increment financing process. The municipality sells bonds to provide an immediate source of revenue to acquire property, relocate businesses and residents, demolish buildings and prepare the site. The assembled parcels of cleared land are sold to a Private developer who constructs a building. When the building is complete and on the tax rolls, the tax increment financing district has a new, higher assessed valuation. The difference between the new, higher and the original assessed value is the captured assessed value. Applying the mill rate to this captured value provides the tax increment. The annual tax increments repay the bonded indebtedness incurred to finance the public costs associated with redevelopment. 9 TAX-EXEMPT eFINANCING Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds Business and industry may reduce substantially the interest rate on fixed-asset financing by using Minnesota's Municipal Industrial Development Revenue Bond program. The Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act enables communities, counties, redevelopment agencies and port authorities to finance, through revenue bond issues, the establishment or expansion of industrial and commercial projects which provide new employment opportunities and broaden local tax bases. Advantages Subject .to the terms and conditions of the federal Internal Revenue Code, the interest income earned on industrial revenue bonds is · exempt from taxation. The resultant costs associated with borrowing money through revenue bonds are substantially reduced. Other advantages offered to business and industry include ] 00 percent financing of project costs and no dilution of corporate equity. Eligibility Standards ^ project must maintain or expand empJoyment in Minnesota, assist in the economic development or redevelopment of a municipality, maintain or increase the tax base of the city, and maintain or diversify business and industry in the state. Types of Projects Tax-exempt revenue bond financing may be provided for revenue producing enterprises of an industrial, commercial or tourism nature. The use of tourism-related bonds, however, is restricted to communities outside the seven- county metropolitan area. Other eligible projects include health care 10 facilities, harbor development, telephone systems, electric power improvement and pollution control projects in industrial facilities. Eligible Projecf Cosfs Industrial development revenue bonds may be issued for land, construction, equipment and engineering costs as well as architectural, legal and fiscal fees. interim interest during the construction phase of a project may also be included for a period not to exceed six months. Tax-exempt revenue bond financing may not be used for those project costs which are not depreciable (an eligibility requirement established by the Internal Revenue Code). Therefore, ineligible project costs include working capital, new materials, inventory, moving or rent expenses, work in process or debt refinancing. The applicant must acquire fixed assets after, not before, the revenue bond issue has been approved by the local unit of government and ' the Commissioner of Securities, Nlinnesota Department of Commerce. Tax-exempt financing is not available to pay building rent, nor can it be used as permanent financing for a building acquired or constructed by the applicant in whole or substantial part prior to formal approval of the project. F|nancinG Limitations The federal Internal Revenue Code has placed limitations on the amount of tax-exempt bond financing which can be provided to most projects. Communities are permitted to provide tax-exempt revenue bond financing if the total pro/ecL cost does not exceed $10 million over a six year period. In definitive terms, a municipality can issue industrial development revenue bonds up to $10 million fOr one firm provided the capital expenditures of the firm during a three year period before and a three year period after the bond issue, combined with the issue, do not exceed $10 million in the municipality. Total project cost is defined in the Internal Revenue Code as the sum of all capital expenditures (such as land, buildings, machinery and equipment), whether related to the project or not, made in the project municipality by the owner, persons related to the owner and principal project users. Thereforel a careful inquiry must be made of the applicant's capital expenditures in the project municipality during the past three · years. ^dditionally, a careful projection of the anticipated capital expenditures the applicant will make in a municipality for the next three years must also be made. If the sum of these capital expenditures (including the total project cost) during the applicable six year period is less than~l 0 million, the project is then eligible for tax-exempt revenue bond financing up to $]0 million. If the $10 million ceiling should be exceeded by a company following the issuance of the bonds, the interest would become taxable. The company would have to pay a substantial penalty to the bondholders. Those projects which are exempt from the capital expenditure limitation include the acquisition of pollution control equipment and the construction or acquisition of airport, marine terminal and tourism-related facilities. Community Considerotions Unlike general obligation bonds, tax-exempt revenue bonds do not pledge the "full faith and credit" of a community as repayment security. Revenue bonds are secured solely by periodic payments that come due under terms of a revenue agreement; by reserves established for a project; by a guarantee of the company; or more often, by a mortgage on the property. How to Inltate a Revenue Bond Project A revenue bond project may be initiated in several ways. Generally, the following steps are taken: (Il ^ business firm/corporation, non-profit corporation, partnership or individual proprietorship contemplates establishment or expansion of business properties in a Minnesota community. (2) The firm develops a project plan including estimated costs and amounts to be borrowed. (3) The firm consults with representatives of the Minnesota Department of Economic Development to discuss initial plans. Following this discussion, a meeting is held with representatives of the city, investment bankers and bond counsel to determine if the project is one for which the city might be willing to issue mx-exempt revenue bonds and to determine if the project is feasible for financing under the limitations imposed by the Minnesota Industrial Development Act. (4) The governing body of the project community reviews the contemplated proposal and by preliminary resolution decides that the project will further the purposes and policies of the Municipal Industrial Development Act.** (5) The city governing body files application for approval with the Commissioner of Securities of the Minnesota Department of Commerce. (6) If the project is approved by the- Commisssioner of Securities, a revenue agreement and o{her financial documents drafted. Details of financing negotiated to the mutual satisfaction of the firm, municipality, investment banker and bond counsel. (7) The municipal governing body reviews the documents and by resolution, authorizes their execution and the issuance and sale of revenue bonds. (8) The revenue agreement, bond and other documents are executed and delivered. (9) Revenue bonds are offered for sale. Bonds sold in Minnesota must be registered and found exempt pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 80^ ! g76. (10) Once a year the bond trustee or the municipality files a progress report with the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. (! ~) The uniform commercial code security agreement for mortgage registration, if used, is filed with the county recow or register of deeds. The Project Teom Tax-exempt revenue bonds are an attractive, yet complex method of financing that often requires the assistance of economic development and mortgage lending specialists. Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Economic Development, investment bankers, underwriters and bond counseJ should be involved in the earliest stages of the project. Please contact the Department of Economic Development for more information on how to initiate and complete a revenue bond project. °°A company that is contemplating, of revenue bonds should not exp~ any funds in connection with the project until the issuer has passed the preliminary resolution. _0 ") 0 / 11 The Tax-Exempt/Vkortgage is a relatively new concept developed from the Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Program. It aids the economic growth of Minnesota communities. The municipality usually issues a single note instead of multiple bonds and secures the note by assigning a first mortgage on the facilities. The mortgage is usually placed with a local financial institution. With interest rates 1. ~ to 21/2 percent below conventional mortgages, the tax-exempt mortgage is, by far, the least expensive method of financing available to most mortgage · rowers today. revenue agreement between the municipality and the user of the facilities may take the form of a lease, an installment purchase -contract or a loan agreement, in most respects, the tax-exempt mortgage follows the same guidelines and procedures as the Municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Program. Tax-exempt mortgages follow conventional lending practices in that the program requires 15 to ;).5 percent equity position by the borrower. Tax-exempt mortgages can be issued by a municipality in amounts up to $1 million for the acquisition, construction, remodeling or improvement of land or depreciable property. Amounts greater than $1 million and up to $10 million can be issued if the borrower's capital expenditures don't exceed $10 million during a three year period before and after financing. The mortgage is included in the capital expenditure limitation law for industrial development revenue bonds. CALL OE WRITE TO GET STARTED This brochure provides the highlights of various financial assistance programs available to businesses and communities in Minnesota. Please write or call the Minnesota Department of Economic Development so that a staff member can begin working on the details. For more information, contact the hlinnesota Department of Economic Development, 480 Cedar St., St. Paul,/vth) 55101, 612/296-3924, or call one of these regional offices: Alexandria Box 699 Alexandria, hlJnnesota 56308 612/762-213], Ext. 220 Hibbing Box 727 303E. lgth St Hibbing,/vUnnesota ~5746 218/262-389~ St. Cloud Suite 300 14 Fifth Avenue S. St. Cloud, hfinnesota 56301 612/255-416 ] /Vtankato ! 20 South Front St /Vtankato, h~innesota 56001 507/38~ ] 794 Metropolitan hlJnnesota Department of Economic Development 480 Cedar St St. Paul,/V~nnesota 55] 01 612/296-5009