Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/09/2003
LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 CITY HALL, 7:00 P.M. The City Council is meeting as a legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, citizen participation is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules of conduct for public input at meetings. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:00 P. M. 2. ROLL: Councibnembers: McCloskey Christensen Gill -Gerbig Giannetti _ Mayor Dains Staff Getschow 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL A. Approval of minutes of 8/26/03 City Council Meeting B. Approval of claims totaling $60,148.99 C. Approval of Pay Request #5 for the 2003 Street and Utility Improvements for S.M. Hentges and Sons in the amount of $232,683.70 OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item NOT on the agenda. In consideration of the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued under Additional Items at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Council's ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. City of Lauderdale Council Agenda September 9, 2003 Page 2 6. CONSENT 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 8. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings, all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 10. ACTION A. Resolution 090903A: A Resolution Levying Taxes for 2003 Payable in 2004 (2004 Preliminary Tax Levy) B. Approval of a City of Lauderdale Fixed Assets Policy 11. REPORTS A. Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Opportunities Grant- Larpenteur Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Application 12. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 13. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 14. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 15. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION 16. ADJOURNMENT Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes August 26, 2003 1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. 2. ROLL Council present: Christensen, Giannetti, McCloskey, Gill -Gerbig and Mayor Dains Staff present: Administrator Getschow 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Christensen, second by McCloskey to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL A. Approval of Minutes. Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to approve the minutes of the August 12, 2003 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Approval of Claims totaling $54,915.75. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by Giannetti to approve the claims totaling $54,915.75. Motion carried unanimously. C. Approval of Pay Request #12 for the 2002 Street and Utility Improvements for Northdale Construction Company in the amount of $44,928.90. Motion by McCloskey, second by Christensen to approve Pay Request #12 for the 2002 Street and Utility Improvements in the amount of $44,928.90. Motion carried unanimously. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 26, 2003 Page 2 5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA A. Gail Strain, 1805 Fulham Street, addressed an issue she had with the removal of trees on her property. She had been given a notice by the City to remove dead and potentially diseased elm trees. During the removal process, the person that cut her trees down also began to cut a box elder tree down. This was because there was paint on the tree similar to the paint on the elm trees. The box elder tree was leaning into the power lines, and after not receiving a timely response from the utility company; Gail requested that the city view the problem. Public Work staff pushed the tree out the way of the utility lines. Gail stated that she was appreciative of the assistance, but later realized that the box elder tree did not need to be cut down. Even though the City assisted in lining up some one to help remove the small tree, Gail still felt that the City made an error in marking this tree in the first place and they should be responsible for its removal. Administrator Getschow stated that he and the public works staff had looked into the issue and felt that the paint used to mark the elm trees does not appear to be the same paint that shows up on the box elder. The Tree Inspector stated that the paint on the elm trees was sprayed many times 2-3 feet above the ground, while the box elder possessed a paint mark near the bottom of the tree that appeared to be an older and different marking. It was stated that there had been alley work and fence construction in this area where paint had been used the summer before. When questioned on why her handyman mistook a live box elder tree for a dead elm and was not a licensed tree trimmer, Strain stated she did not wish to pay a lot of money for a tree contractor to remove small clump of dead elm trees. She feels that the tree was improperly marked regardless of its species and the City should take responsibility for its removal. She also stressed how important it is that trees be properly marked. 6. CONSENT 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 8. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 26, 2003 Page 3 10. ACTION A. Resolution 082603A: A Resolution Receiving the Proposed Assessment Roll and Providing for a Public Hearing on the 2002 Street and Utility Improvements. The City Administrator stated that at the August 12th Council meeting, the Council ordered the preparation of proposed assessment rolls for the 2002 Street and Utility Improvements. He stated that the next step in the process is for the Council to adopt a resolution indicating receipt of the assessment roll and to set a public hearing for the proposed assessments. It is recommended that the public hearing be set for September 23, 2003. Motion by Christensen, second by McCloskey to approve Resolution 082603A: A Resolution Receiving the Proposed Assessment Roll and Providing for a Public Hearing on the 2002 Street and Utility Improvements. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. B. -C. Resolution 082603B: A Resolution Appointing an LMCIT Insurance Agent and the Approval of 2003-2004 Lauderdale Insurance Policy. The City Administrator gave an overview of the 2003-2004 insurance policy. The policy cost has increased this year by more than 9% mainly as a result of increased liability coverage costs. Motion by Christensen, second by McCloskey to not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability and to not purchase additional excess liability coverage for the coming year. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Motion by Giannetti, second by Gill -Gerbig to approve the 2003-2004 property, liability, automobile, and worker's compensation insurance policy. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by Christensen to approve Resolution 08260313: A Resolution Appointing an LMCIT Insurance Agent. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 26, 2003 Page 4 D. Resolution 082603C: A Resolution Opposing The Closure Of Any Suburban Courthouse And Requesting Ramsey County District Court To Work With Suburban Ramsey County To Ensure The Continued Operation Of A Suburban Courthouse. The City Administrator stated that the possibility of closing the Maplewood suburban court due to budget constraints has been discussed by the Chief Judge of the District Court for the past two years. The City Prosecutor and Police Department have opposed the proposed closure. This is because getting in and out of Maplewood is much easier than going to and from downtown Saint Paul. Suburban police departments, prosecutors, victims, and witnesses using Saint Paul all have longer travel distances, longer waiting times, and higher parking costs. In fact, the suburban cities have been lobbying the County for years to bring other county operations (i.e., property records and revenue, elections) out to the suburbs for convenience and lower cost. It appears at this time that all suburban entities have strongly favored the operation of the Maplewood court, or at the very least, the operation of a court outside of downtown Saint Paul. To support this effort of the suburban police departments, and other agencies of suburban Ramsey County, a resolution has been drafted for consideration by suburban City Councils. Since the resolution was drafted and placed in the packet, there has been another meeting of suburban officials where options have been proposed that allow for the continuation of a suburban court. The language of the resolution has been softened and altered to reflect this recent meeting. The Ramsey County Board will be discussing this issue within the next few weeks. Motion by McCloskey, second by Christensen to approve Resolution 082603C: A Resolution Opposing The Closure Of Any Suburban Courthouse And Requesting Ramsey County District Court To Work With Suburban Ramsey County To Ensure The Continued Operation Of A Suburban Courthouse. Roll: Yes: all. Motion carried. 11. REPORTS 12. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 13. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, August 26, 2003 Page 5 14. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 1. 2004 Preliminary Tax Levy A break was taken at 7:42 p.m. to transition into a work session discussion. 15. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION The meeting resumed at 7:43 p.m. 2004 Budget Discussion. The City Council discussed the 2004 Budget. The discussion focused primarily on the budgets of funds 201-601. 16. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by Christensen to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Ayes: All. CITY OF LAUDERDALE Claims for Approval September 9, 2003 City Council Meeting Payroll 08/29/03 Payroll: Check # 7415-7424 08/29/03 Payroll: EFT: Federal Withholding Taxes/FICA 08/29/03 Payroll: EFT: PERA 08/29/03 Payroll: EFT: ICMA Retirement Fund Aug 03 Payroll: EFT: State Withholding Taxes Vendor Claims 09/09/03 Claims: Check # 16525-16538, 16540-16542 Subtotal of Claims From Above 09/09/03 SM Hentges & Sons: Check #16539 $8,915.88 $3,157.29 $1,042.42 $925.03 $1,430.14 $44,678.231 $60,148.99 $232,683.70 Total Claims for Approval $292,832.69 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 08/28/0312:38 PM ` Page 1 Paid Register Check Employee Pay Pay Group Check Check Numbe Number Employee Name Period Description Amount Date Status 007415 000000011 BOWNIK, JAMES 18 BI -WEEKLY $1,007.22 8/29/03 Outstanding 007416 000000014 CHRISTENSEN, CLAY 18 BI -WEEKLY $502.85 8/29/03 Outstanding 007417 000000010 DAINS, JEFFREY 18 BI -WEEKLY $731.73 8/29/03 Outstanding 007418 000000003 GETSCHOW, RICK 18 BI -WEEKLY $1,881.58 8/29/03 Outstanding 007419 000000015 GIANNETTI, MOOSE 18 BI -WEEKLY $464.35 8/29/03 Outstanding 007420 000000016 GILL-GERBIG, KAREN 18 BI -WEEKLY $502.85 8/29/03 Outstanding 007421 000000002 HINRICHS, DAVID C 18 BI -WEEKLY $1,524.00 8/29/03 Outstanding 007422 000000005 HUGHES, JOSEPH A 18 BI -WEEKLY $985.61 8/29/03 Outstanding 007423 000000102 McCLOSKEY, JEFF 18 BI -WEEKLY $502.85 8/29/03 Outstanding 007424 000000037 WALSH, KEVIN 18 BI -WEEKLY $812.84 8/29/03 Outstanding 007414 VOID 18 $0.00 8/29/03 Void $8,915.88 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 09/05/03 11:26 AM Page 1 Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments Search Name AFSCME 016525 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $114.36 08/03 union dues Search Name AFSCME $114.36 Search Name BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 016526 9/9/03 090903claims 100493 $1,235.02 07/03'02 st/util imp 016526 9/9/03 090903claims 100494 $38,571.13 07/03'03 st/util imp 016526 9/9/03 090903claims 100492 $50.00 07/03 general engineering Search Name BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK $39,856.15 Search Name CINTAS 016527 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $74.46 8/25, 9/1 pw uniforms Search Name CINTAS $74.46 Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE 016528 9/9/03 090903claims 4181 $164.08 09/03 technical services Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE $164.08 Search Name EAST HENNEPIN AUTO SERVICE INC 016529 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $17.30 08/03 truck fuel 016529 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $17.30 08/03 truck fuel Search Name EAST HENNEPIN AUTO SERVICE INC $34.60 Search Name ENGBERG-SHABER AGENCY, INC. 016530 9/9/03 090903claims 5077 $418.00 '03 insurance agent fees 016530 9/9/03 090903claims 5077 $365.75 '03 insurance agent fees 016530 9/9/03 090903claims 5077 $261.25 '03 insurance agent fees Search Name ENGBERG-SHABER AGENCY, INC. $1,045.00 Search Name HUGHES & COSTELLO 016531 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/3 $850.00 09/03 legal fees 016531 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/3 $32.50 09/03 print/process fees Search Name HUGHES & COSTELLO $882.50 Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN 016532 9/9/03 090903claims 57807 $95.29 07/03 print/process fees 016532 9/9/03 090903claims 57807 $772.50 07/03 legal services Search Name KENNEDY & GRAVEN $867.79 Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS 016533 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $578.00 07/03 roseville review delivery Search Name LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWS $578.00 Search Name MAMA 016534 9/9/03 090903claims 663 $18.00 08/03 meeting Search Name MAMA $18.00 Search Name MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER 016535 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $35.00 buiding code seminar Search Name MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER $35.00 Search Name OFFICE MAX 016536 9/9/03 090903claims 7465j211 $28.73 general office supplies CITY OF LAUDERDALE 09/05/03 11:26 AM Page 2 Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments Search Name OFFICE MAX $28,73 Search Name PARK HARDWARE HANK 016537 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $126.57 batteries, maintenance supplies Search Name PARK HARDWARE HANK $126.57 Search Name PARK SERVICE 016538 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $69.65 08/03 truck fuel 016538 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $69.65 08/03 truck fuel Search Name PARK SERVICE $139.30 Search Name SM HENTGES & SONS 016539 9/9/03 090903claims 03 pay req #5 $232,683.70 '03 st/util imp Search Name SM HENTGES & SONS $232,683.70 Search Name ST PAUL POSTMASTER 016540 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $250.00 3g03 newsletter postage Search Name ST PAUL POSTMASTER $250.00 Search Name WAGERS BUSINESS SYSTEMS 016541 9/9/03 090903claims cnin9169 $236.25 4g03 copier maintenance Search Name WAGERS BUSINESS SYSTEMS $236.25 Search Name XCEL ENERGY 016542 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $18.70 08/03 city hall gas/electric 016542 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $6.23 08/03 city hall gas/electric 016542 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $151.88 08/03 city hall gas/electric 016542 9/9/03 090903claims 9/9/03 $50.63 08/03 city hall gas/electric Search Name XCEL ENERGY $227.44 Grand Total $277,361.93 Bonestroo ® Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Owner: City of Lauderdale, 1891 Walnut St., Lauderdale, MN 55113 Date: September 4, 2003 For Period: 8/5/2003 to 9/4/2003 Request No: 5 Contractor: S. M. Hent es and Sons Inc., 650 Quaker Ave., Ste. 200, Jordan, MN, 55352 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 2003 UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BRA FILE NO. 532-02-103 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount $ 1,696,724.39 2 Change Order - Addition $ 0.00 3 Change Order- Deduction $ 0.00 4 Revised Contract Amount $ 1,696,724.39 5 Value Completed to Date $ 1,428,176.68 6 Material on Hand $ 0.00 7 Amount Earned $ 1,428,176.68 8 Less Retainage 5% $ 71,408.83 9 Subtotal $ 1,356,767.85 10 Less Amount Paid Previously $ 1,124,084.15 11 Liquidated damages - $ 0.00 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 5 $ 232.683.70 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor: S M HENTGES AND SONS INC Specified Contract Completion Date: October 31, 2003 53202103REQ5 Approved by Owner: CITY OF LAUDERDALE Date: No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date PART 1 - STREETS: SY MOBILIZATION LS TRAFFIC CONTROL LS SILT FENCE, REGULAR LF WOOD FIBER BLANKET SY HAY BALES EA SEEDING AC RECLAIM BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF REMOVE FENCE LF REMOVE CONCRETE STEP EA CLEAR AND GRUB TREE ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING EA ADJUST VALVE BOX EA COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY EXCAVATION - TRAIL LF SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CY SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV) CY GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV SY 4" PERFORATED POLYETHYLENE PIPE LF CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO STRUCTURE EA AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 (CV) CY AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 - TRAIL (CV) CY BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TYPE 31 TN BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TYPE 41 TN BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TYPE 41A - $1,358.00 TRAIL TN BITUMINOUS PATCHING SY BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PATCHING SY 8618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF CONCRETE STREET PATCHING SF 7" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SF CONCRETE STEP EA 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EA SODDING, LAWN TYPE SY STREET NAME SIGN (2 BLADES), INCL POST 8.19 AND HARDWARE EA DITCHING LF Total PART 1 - STREETS: PART 1 - STREETS: - Bid Amount Total - $967,850.09 PART 2 - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF CLEAR AND GRUB LS COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) CY MOTOR GRADER WITH OPERATOR HR FRONT END LOADER WITH OPERATOR HR SKIDSTEER (BOBCAT) WITH OPERATOR HR AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TYPE 31 TN BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TYPE 41 TN Total PART 2 - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: 7 PART 2 - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: - Bid Amount Total - $92,067.50 PART 3 - STORM SEWER: 52 REMOVE MANHOLE EA 53 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EA 54 REMOVE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (RCF LF 53202103REQ5 1 69081.09 0.1 0.9 $62,172.98 1 7000.00 0.1 0.9 $6,300.00 400 1.50 53 $79.50 400 3.10 169 1690 $0.00 10 8.00 7 $0.00 0.3 3780.00 3 $0.00 22000 0.75 21370 $16,027.50 1900 3.50 18 1068 $3,738.00 3450 0.40 645 1875 $750.00 30 3.00 16 154 $462.00 5400 0.50 307 5867 $2,933.50 550 2.00 190 679 $1,358.00 60 50.00 2 25 $1,250.00 22 200.00 0.5 10 $2,000.00 2 200.00 $0.00 2 125.00 $0.00 20875 8.19 875 20875 $170,966.25 130 12.00 $0.00 8500 11.65 1733 8233 $95,914.45 1000 7.25 2 46 $333.50 26500 1.00 6688 24688 $24,688.00 1600 3.75 180 1680 $6,300.00 32 50.00 4 34 $1,700.00 6400 18.00 1143 5543 $99,774.00 45 21.25 $0.00 1250 1.50 225 $337.50 2800 32.50 1181 2579 $83,817.50 2100 35.50 $0.00 20 62.00 $0.00 740 44.75 $0.00 770 21.50 253 500 $10,750.00 13125 7.60 5298 12329 $93,700.40 150 11.80 150 $1,770.00 9400 5.20 7303 15658 $81,421.60 60 170.00 24 79 $13,430.00 3450 3.25 1796 3844 $12,493.00 3 200.00 4 4 $800.00 15000 1.80 $0.00 8 230.00 $0.00 360 10.00 $0.00 $795,267.68 40 5.00 63 $315.00 30 0.75 464 $348.00 1 1000.00 0.9 $900.OG 1500 10.00 169 1690 $16,900.00 50 100.00 7 $700.00 20 105.00 3 $315.00 85 82.00 17 $1,394.00 1500 10.50 203 2028 $21,294.00 280 1.50 330 330 $495.00 700 36.00 173 848 $30,528.00 530 38.50 609 609 $23,446.50 $96,635.50 13 150.00 13 $1,950.00 6 150.00 8 $1,200.00 1100 7.00 1416 $9,912.00 No. 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 �% 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 97 53202103REQ5 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date REMOVE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) AND HDPE PIPE LF 2200 6.00 186 711 $4,266.00 BULKHEAD EXISTING STORM SEWER EA 2 75.00 5 $375.00 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL CONCRETE PIPE LF 14 22.00 $0.00 CLEAR AND GRUB LS 1 1100.00 1 $1,100.00 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION, PER 6" INCREMENT LF 1000 0.01 $0.00 RESTRICTED TRENCH LF 282 10.00 $0.00 12" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5 LF 1200 23.00 119 1309 $30,107.00 15" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5 LF 560 24.00 451 $10,824.00 18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5 LF 1430 26.00 1420 $36,920.00 21" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5 LF 535 30.00 530 '$15,900.00 30" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 4 LF 300 47.80 294 $14,053.20 12" RCP FLARED END SECTION, INCL TRASH GUARD EA 1 752.00 1 $752.00 18" RCP FLARED END SECTION, INCL TRASH GUARD EA 1 1025.00 1 $1,025.00 CLASS III RANDOM RIPRAP CY 12 75.00 12 $900.00 2'X 3' CATCH BASIN EA 9 1112.00 9 $10,008.00 SHALLOW CATCH BASIN EA 3 1024.00 1 4 $4,096.00 V DIA STORM SEWER CBMH, INC 2' SUMP, R- 4342 CSTG EA 1 3825.00 1 $3,825.00 5' DIA STORM SEWER MH, INCL R -1642-B CSTG AND CONC ADJ RINGS EA 1 2769.00 1 $2,769.00 5' DIA STORM SEWER CBMH, INC R -3067-V, CSTG AND CONC ADJ RINGS EA 1 2629.00 1 $2,629.00 4' DIA STORM SEWER MH, INC 2' SUMP, R- 1642 -B CSTG EA 1 1928.00 1 $1,928.00 4' DIA STORM SEWER MH, INCL R -1642-B CSTG EA 3 1788.00 3 $5,364.00 4' DIA STORM SEWER CBMH, INC R -3067-V, CSTG AND CONC ADJ RINGS EA 27 1788.00 28 $50,064.00 4' DIAMETER STRUCTURE OVERDEPTH LF 2 79.00 2.7 $213.30 CONSTRUCT MH OVER EXISTING PIPE EA 2 750.00 2 $1,500.00 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER SERVICE EA 3 500.00 1 $500.00 CONNECT TO EXISTING CBMH EA 1 600.00 $0.00 Total PART 3 - STORM SEWER: $212,180.50 PART 3 - STORM SEWER: - Bid Amount Total - $221,054.00 PART 4 - SANITARY SEWER: BYPASS PUMPING LS 1 3500.00 1 $3,500.00 REMOVE MANHOLE EA 13 150.00 13 $1,950.00 REMOVE LIFT STATION LS 1 5000.00 1 $5,000.00 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE LF 3510 0.01 3510 $35.10 REMOVE FORCEMAIN PIPE LF 2880 6.00 1692 $10,152.00 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PIPE LF 4050 1.00 2353 $2,353.00 BULKHEAD EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EA 1 75.00 $0.00 ABANDON MANHOLE EA 1 175.00 $0.00 CLEAR AND GRUB LS 1 1100.00 $0.00- IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION, PER 6" INCREMENT LF 1500 0.01 20 $0.20 4' DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLES (10' DEEF EA 12 1859.00 10 $18,590.00 4' DIAMETER SANITARY MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LF 17.8 78.00 28.5 $2,223.00 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35, 0'-10' DEEP LF 437 20.50 437 $8,958.50 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35,10'-12' DEEP LF 849 22.50 849 $19,102.50 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35,12'-14' DEEP LF 1192 24.50 1192 $29,204.00 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35,14'-16' DEEP LF 585 26.50 585 $15,502.50 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35,16'-18' DEEP LF 420 32.50 420 $13,650.00 53202103REQ5 53202103REQ5 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount No. Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date 98 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35,18'-20- 5,18'-20'DEEP DEEP Lf 235 42.50 235 $9,987.50 99 CORE DRILL CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE EA 2 900.00 2 $1,800.00 100 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 8" VCP PIPE EA 3 430.00 4 $1,720.00 101 CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EXISTING PIPE EA 3 2169.00 2 $4,338.00 102 8" DIP OUTSIDE DROP INLET PIPE LF 8.9 378.00 7.9 $2,986.20 103 8" DIP SANITARY SEWER LF 40 24.00 119 $2,856.00 104 CLOSED CIRCUIT TV INSPECTION LF 3758 0.70 $0.00 105 8" X 4" PVC WYE, SDR 26 EA 123 39.00 106 $4,134.00 106 8" X 6" PVC WYE, SDR 26 EA 4 51.00 4 $204.00 107 8" X 8" PVC WYE, SDR 26 EA 1 105.00 1 $105.00 108 RECONSTRUCT INVERT EA 2 300.00 2 $600.00 109 4" PVC, SDR 26 SERVICE PIPE LF 4000 12.00 2291 $27,492.00 110 6" PVC, SDR 26 SERVICE PIPE LF 70 13.00 82 $1,066.00 111 4" PVC, SDR 26 RISER PIPE LF 150 12.00 353 $4,236.00 112 6" PVC, SDR 26 RISER PIPE LF 10 13.00 5 $65.00 113 CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER SERVICE EA 125 155.00 99 $15,345.00 114 INSULATION, 3" THICK SY 7 13.50 4 $54.00 Total PART 4 - SANITARY SEWER: $207,209.50 PART 4 - SANITARY SEWER: - Bid Amount Total - $245,848.80 PART 5 - WATER MAIN: 115 REMOVE HYDRANT EA 7 275.00 8 $2,200.00 116 REMOVE GATE VALVE AND BOX EA 7 100.00 8 $800.00 117 REMOVE WATER MAIN LF 6000 5.00 3455 $17,275.00 118 WATER MAIN TRENCH LF 5575 8.00 565 5130 $41,040.00 119 WATER SERVICE TRENCH LF 4450 10.00 1403 $14,030.00 120 MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION LF 10025 1.00 565 6533 $6,533.00 121 PIPE BEDDING LF 5575 2.00 565 6533 $13,066.00 122 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION, PER 6" INCREMENT LF 2500 0.01 $0.00 123 BACK HOE WITH OPERATOR HR 10 150.00 $0.00 124 INSULATION, 3" THICK SY 7 4.50 5 7 $31.50 Total PART 5 - WATER MAIN: $94,975.50 PART 5 - WATER MAIN: - Bid Amount Total - $144,456.50 PART 6 - WARMING HOUSE DRIVE AND PARKING AREA: 125 MOBILIZATION LS 1 500.00 0.1 1 $500.00 126 SEEDING AC 0.1 5100.00 $0.00 127 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) CY 25 15.00 $0.00 128 15" RCP CULVERT, CLASS 5 LF 40 26.00 $0.00 129 15" RCP FLARED END SECTION, INCL TRASH GUARD EA 2 621.00 $0.00 130 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TN 80 11.00 $0.00 131 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 20 1.50 20 20 $30.00 132 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TYPE 31 TN 45 36.00 17.5 73.5 $2,646.00 133 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TYPE 41 TN 33 38.50 55 55 $2,117.50 Total PART 6 - WARMING HOUSE DRIVE AND PARKING AREA: $5,293.50, PART 6 - WARMING HOUSE DRIVE AND PARKING AREA: - Bid Amount Total - $7,467.50 ALTERNATE NO. 1 - NATURE AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: 134 MOBILIZATION LS 1 2000.00 1 $2,000.00 135 CLEAR AND GRUB TREE 15 200.00 9 $1,800.00 136 WOOD FIBER BLANKET SY 400 3.10 355 $1,100.50 137 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE LF 60 10.00 68 $680.00 138 REMOVE CONCRETE SLAB AND HEADWALL LS 1 700.00 $0.00 139 REMOVE AND REPLACE FENCE LF 50 7.00 90 $630.00 140 COMMON EXCAVATION LS 1 1000.00 1 $1,000.00 141 COMMON BORROW (LV) CY 30 3.00 $0.00 142 TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) CY 16 15.00 $0.00 143 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION, PER 6" INCREMENT LF 71 4.00 $0.00 144 RESTRICTED TRENCH LF 71 15.00 71 $1,065.00 145 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EA 1 750.00 1 $750.00 53202103REQ5 Total PART 1 - STREETS: $795,267.68 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount No• Item Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date 146 18" HDPE STORM SEWER LF 53 33.00 69 $2,277.00 147 18" RCP STORM SEWER, CLASS 5 LF 8 40.00 18 $720.00 148 18" RCP FLARED END SECTION, INCL TRASH GUARD EA 1 1064.00 1 $1,064.00 149 CLASS III GROUTED RIPRAP CY 18 90.00 18 $1,620.00 150 4' DIA STORM SEWER MH. INCL R -1642-B CSTG AND CONC ADJ RINGS EA 1 1908.00 1 $1,908.00 Total ALTERNATE NO. 1 - NATURE AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $16,614.50 ALTERNATE NO. 1 - NATURE AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: - Bid Amount Total - $17,980.00 Total PART 1 - STREETS: $795,267.68 Total PART 2 - ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: $96,635.50 Total PART 3 - STORM SEWER: $212,180.50 Total PART 4 - SANITARY SEWER: $207,209.50 Total PART 5 - WATER MAIN: $94,975.50 Total PART 6 - WARMING HOUSE DRIVE AND PARKING AREA: $5,293.50 Total ALTERNATE NO. 1 - NATURE AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS: $16,614.50 Total Work Completed To Date $1,428,176.68 53202103REQ5 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF LAUDERDALE BRA FILE NO. 532-02-103 CONTRACTOR S M HENTGES AND SONS INC CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From To Pavment Retainaae Comnleted 1 04/01/2003 05/02/03 73,546.48 3,870.87 77,417.35 2 05/03/2003 06/04/03 228,495.02 15,896.92 317,938.42 3 06/05/2003 06/30/03 418,279.15 37,911.61 758,232.26 4 07/01/2003 08/04/03 403,763.50 59,162.32 1,183,246.47 5 08/05/2003 1 09/04/03 232,683.70 71,408.83 1,428,176.68 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $1,356,767.85 Original Contract $1,696,724.39 Retainage Pay No. 5 71,408.83 Change Orders Total Amount Earned $1,428,176.68 Revised Contract $1,696,724.39 53202103REQ5 Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: 2004 Lauderdale Preliminary Tax Levy BACKGROUND: State Statute requires that cities certify their proposed levies to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2003. As I noted at a previous meeting, the final levy is certified in December. Also at that December meeting, the final 2004 Budget will be adopted. Remember: In certifying the final levy in December, the Council can decrease the amount from the proposed levy amount from September, but it cannot increase the amount. Also, the proposed levy amount is the information given to all residents in the proposed county tax statement that will be sent in November. As we have discussed in budget work sessions, the State Legislature took major action in recent years by lowering the state class rates for determining tax capacity. Based on this change, and in spite of median property values increasing at a brisk pace, the Lauderdale tax capacity decreased in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, the State Legislature did not change the class rates for determining tax capacity, and with the increase in property values, the Lauderdale tax capacity increased for the first time in three years. Based on current County data, this situation looks similar for 2004. In addition to the increased property values, we are beginning to see the new commercial property west of Highway 280 coming on to the property tax rolls. The overall total market value of the city has increased along with the tax capacity from $1,226,301 to an estimate of $1,370,005. This is extremely important because the Council may not need to consider a raised tax rate, and thus higher taxes throughout the city, because we have once again increased our tax capacity. In past years when state class rates were lowered, the city's tax capacity decreased. This meant that taxes were vulnerable to rising for residents of Lauderdale because of the major burden shift from the commercial, industrial and public utility property owner to the residential property owner. This has even occurred under the conditions of the enactment of a lower tax levy. Fortunately, we do not need to concern ourselves with this scenario in 2004 since our tax capacity increased by more than 11 %. ENCLOSURES: 1. Levy Spreadsheet Options A and B 2. Resolution 090903A: A Resolution Approving the Preliminary 2004 Lauderdale Tax Levy (There is an applicable resolution for the two options being considered) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Based on Council discussions at budget meetings and the financial data presented, I am presenting two options for the City Council to approve a preliminary levy. OPTION A SAME REGULAR LEVY AS 2003 (SEE SPREADSHEET A) This was the option that was selected for the 2001 and 2003 Levy and resulted in a decrease in the tax rate in those years. In 2002, the levy was decreased by $8,406, but the tax rate increased. As you know, this was due to the 2001 Legislative reform of the state class rates, whereby even a lowering of the levy could not lower the city tax rate. Similar to 2003, choosing the no levy increase option will once again lower the city tax rate. As you can see from the Option A spreadsheet, if the levy is kept the same for 2004, the city tax rate will decrease from 32.4% to 28.8%. This means that the proposed 0% levy increase would bring tax bills down by the same percentage that the city tax rate is decreasing. The average residential tax bill in Lauderdale (on a $125,700 house) will decrease by $45.35 or 11.1%, assuming property values are equal. This option of the same levy in 2004 has been factored into the preliminary 2004 Budget. To allow for this option, expenditures in the 2004 General Fund Budget are proposed to be cut by 3%. This cut and no levy increase option also follows on the heels of a $75,000 cut of state aid into the General Fund revenue stream. Finally, it is important to note that this option still lowers the city tax rate, and subsequently the city residential tax bill, by more than 11 %. OPTION B 3% LEVY INCREASE — STILL A LOWER TAX RATE THAN 2003 (SEE SPREADSHEET B) This option captures a small percentage of the 11 % tax capacity increase, but still produces a tax rate that is lower than 2003. As you can see from the Option B spreadsheet, if the levy is increased 3.3% for 2004, the city tax rate will decrease from 32.4% to 29.9%. This means that the proposed 3.3% levy increase would bring tax bills down by the same percentage that the city tax rate is decreasing. The average residential tax bill in Lauderdale (on a $125,700 house) will decrease by $30.67 or 7.5%, assuming property values are equal. This 3.3% increase is the highest increase proposed since it still does not trigger the need for an official Truth -In -Taxation hearing. All Minnesota cities with a population over 500 are required to hold Truth -In -Taxation hearings if their property tax levy increase is greater than the implicit price deflator which is 3.3481 %. The Council may wish to consider if a 3.3% levy increase (which still produces the 7.5% tax cut) is worth the extra $16,000 in revenue for the General Fund. IF MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WISH TO SEE OTHER OPTIONS ALSO ANALYZED — PLEASE CONTACT ME PRIOR TO THE MEETING SO THAT I CAN PROPERLY PRESENT MORE MATERIAL. $100,000 Home 2004 LEVY AND IMPACT ON LAUDERDALE HOMES OPTION A 1998 $100,000 Gross Levy - HACA = Levy - Fiscal Net Levy Tax City 2001 $100,000 1% 2002 Disparities (Local Levy) Capacity = Tax Rate 1994 $467,402 $81,668 $385,734 $110,174 $275,560 $1,110,259 0.24819 1995 $469,747 $84,013 $385,734 $97,645 $288,089 $1,099,160 0.26210 1996 $480,148 $80,540 $399,608 $111,519 $288,089 $1,107,105 0.26022 1997 $533,775 $81,305 $452,470 $120,053 $332,417 $1,290,437 0.25760 1998 $550,961 $81,305 $469,656 $126,788 $342,868 $1,196,529 0.28655 1999 $550,920 $81,264 $469,656 $138,964 $330,692 $1,139,484 0.29021 2000 $576,618 $88,212 $488,406 $136,506 $351,900 $1,212,463 0.29024 2001 $576,640 $88,234 $488,406 $137,608 $350,798 $1,288,844 0.27218 2002 $480,000 $0 $480,000 $113,102 $366,898 $1,101,190 0.33318 2003 $480,000 $0 $480,000 $83,029 $396,971 $1,226,301 0.32371 2004 $480,000 $0 $480,000 $85,940 $394,060 $1,370,005 0.28763 $100,000 Home Value x Tax % 1998 $100,000 1% 1999 $100,000 1% 2000 $100,000 1% 2001 $100,000 1% 2002 $100,000 1% 2003 $100,000 1% 2004 $100,000 1% x Tax Rate = Tax on $100,000 Home 0.2866 $286.55 0.2902 $290.21 0.2902 $290.24 0.2722 $272.18 0.3332 $333.18 0.3237 $323.71 0.2876 $287.63 $125,700 Home Value x Tax % x Tax Rate = Tax on Median Lauderdale Home 2001 $76,000 1% 0.2722 $206.86 $49,700 1.65% 0.2722 $223.20 Total Tax $430.06 2002 $76,000 1% 0.3332 $253.22 $49,700 1.00% 0.3332 $165.59 Total Tax $418.81 2003 $76,000 1% 0.3237 $246.02 $49,700 1.00% 0.3237 $160.89 Total Tax $406.91 2004 $76,000 1% 0.2876 $218.60 $49,700 1.00% 0.2876 $142.95 Total Tax $361.56 DIFFERENCE:::;:::::::::::: $721:i.:: $200,000 Home Value x Tax % x Tax Rate = Tax on $200,000 Home 2001 $76,000 1% 0.2722 $206.86 $124,000 1.65% 0.2722 $556.88 Total Tax $763.74 2002 $76,000 1% 0.3332 $253.22 $124,000 1.00% 0.3332 $413.15 Total Tax $666.37 2003 $76,000 1% 0.3237 $246.02 $124,000 1.00% 0.3237 $401.41 Total Tax $647.43 2004 $76,000 1% 0.2876 $218.60 $124,000 1.00% 0.2876 $356.67 Total Tax $575.27 DIFFERENCE:::;:::::::::::: $721:i.:: $100,000 Home 2004 LEVY AND IMPACT ON LAUDERDALE HOMES OPTION B 1998 $100,000 Gross Levy - HACA = Levy - Fiscal Net Levy Tax City 2001 $100,000 1% 2002 Disparities (Local Levy) Capacity = Tax Rate 1994 $467,402 $81,668 $385,734 $110,174 $275,560 $1,110,259 0.24819 1995 $469,747 $84,013 $385,734 $97,645 $288,089 $1,099,160 0.26210 1996 $480,148 $80,540 $399,608 $111,519 $288,089 $1,107,105 0.26022 1997 $533,775 $81,305 $452,470 $120,053 $332,417 $1,290,437 0.25760 1998 $550,961 $81,305 $469,656 $126,788 $342,868 $1,196,529 0.28655 1999 $550,920 $81,264 $469,656 $138,964 $330,692 $1,139,484 0.29021 2000 $576,618 $88,212 $488,406 $136,506 $351,900 $1,212,463 0.29024 2001 $576,640 $88,234 $488,406 $137,608 $350,798 $1,288,844 0.27218 2002 $480,000 $0 $480,000 $113,102 $366,898 $1,101,190 0.33318 2003 $480,000 $0 $480,000 $83,029 $396,971 $1,226,301 0.32371 2004 $496,000 $0 $496,000; $85,940 $410,060 $1,370,005 0.29931 $100,000 Home Value x Tax % 1998 $100,000 1% 1999 $100,000 1% 2000 $100,000 1% 2001 $100,000 1% 2002 $100,000 1% 2003 $100,000 1% 2004 $100,000 1% x Tax Rate = Tax on $100,000 Home 0.2866 $286.55 0.2902 $290.21 0.2902 $290.24 0.2722 $272.18 0.3332 $333.18 0.3237 $323.71 0.2993 $299.31 $125,700 Home Value x Tax % x Tax Rate = Tax on Median Lauderdale Home 2001 $76,000 1% 0.2722 $206.86 $49,700 1.65% 0.2722 $223.20 Total Tax $430.06 2002 $76,000 1% 0.3332 $253.22 $49,700 1.00% 0.3332 $165.59 Total Tax $418.81 2003 $76,000 1% 0.3237 $246.02 $49,700 1.00% 0.3237 $160.89 Total Tax $406.91 2004 $76,000 1% 0.2993 $227.48 $49,700 1.00% 0.2993 $148.76 Total Tax $376.24 ID.*IF ER-ENCE::::::::::::::::: $3a.67): $200,000 Home Value x Tax % x Tax Rate = Tax on $200,000 Home 2001 $76,000 1% 0.2722 $206.86 $124,000 1.65% 0.2722 $556.88 Total Tax $763.74 2002 $76,000 1% 0.3332 $253.22 $124,000 1.00% 0.3332 $413.15 Total Tax $666.37 2003 $76,000 1% 0.3237 $246.02 $124,000 1.00% 0.3237 $401.41 Total Tax $647.43 2004 $76,000 1% 0.2993 $227.48 $124,000 1.00% 0.2993 $371.15 Total Tax $598.63 :DIFFERENCE:;$488U`: RESOLUTION NO. 090903A CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION LEVYING TAXES FOR 2003 PAYABLE IN 2004 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota as follows: The following tax levies are hereby made against all taxable property in the City of Lauderdale for the tax levy 2003, payable 2004: Total proposed levy for 2003 payable in 2004: $480,000 This includes fiscal disparities amount of $85,940. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there will not be a certified debt levy for the General Obligation Bonds Series 2000A, the General Obligation Bonds Series 2002A, and the General Obligation Bonds Series 2003A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator is authorized and directed at this time to certify this Resolution to the County Auditor of Ramsey County, Minnesota. CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss STATE OF MINNESOTA I, Richard Getschow, being duly qualified and City Administrator for the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale on September 9, 2003 as the same appears in the minutes of said meeting on file and of record in City Offices. Dated this 9th day of September, 2003. (ATTEST) Jeff Dains, Mayor (SEAL) Rick Getschow, City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 090903A CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION LEVYING TAXES FOR 2003 PAYABLE IN 2004 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota as follows: The following tax levies are hereby made against all taxable property in the City of Lauderdale for the tax levy 2003, payable 2004: Total proposed levy for 2003 payable in 2004: $496,000 This includes fiscal disparities amount of $85,940. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there will not be a certified debt levy for the General Obligation Bonds Series 2000A, the General Obligation Bonds Series 2002A, and the General Obligation Bonds Series 2003A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator is authorized and directed at this time to certify this Resolution to the County Auditor of Ramsey County, Minnesota. CITY OF LAUDERDALE ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss STATE OF MINNESOTA ) I, Richard Getschow, being duly qualified and City Administrator for the City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Lauderdale on September 9, 2003 as the same appears in the minutes of said meeting on file and of record in City Offices. Dated this 9th day of September, 2003. (ATTEST) Jeff Dains, Mayor (SEAL) Rick Getschow, City Administrator M E M O S B Y J A M E S DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JAMES BOWNIK, A2CA RE: FIXED ASSETS POLICY BACKGROUND Creating and adopting the Fixed Assets Policy is the first step in complying with the Government Accounting Standards Board, Rule 34 (GASB 34). The next steps are done at the Staff level. These steps include creating a capital assets list, reclassifying revenues, and creating a management discussion and analysis for the financial statements. Completion of these requirements will be reflected in the 2004 audit. One of the notable differences we'll see in the financial statements will be the depreciation of the City's assets. The depreciation of assets will allow the City to allocate costs over a period of time, rather than deducting the cost in the year of acquisition. Fixed assets software, which was purchased from Banyon Data Systems in 1999, will be used to create and maintain a record of these assets. I have attached the proposed Lauderdale Fixed Assets Policy for your review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Lauderdale Fixed Assets Policy. *9 1 FIXED ASSETS I7�77fUGLTj ►�I.O SECTION 1. PURPOSE SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS SECTION 3. CAPITAL ASSESTS AND CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLDS SECTION 4. ACQUISITIONS AND RETIREMENTS SECTION 5. FIXED ASSET INVENTORY VALUATION AND CAPITALIZATION SECTION 6. SALE OF ASSETS SECTION 7. DEPRECIATION PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING A FIXED ASSET RECORD SYSTEM SECTION 1. PURPOSE These procedures are intended to provide a standard system of control for all fixed assets owned by the City of Lauderdale. These procedures give directions to City staff regarding the operation and maintenance of the Fixed Asset Record System (FARS). SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS Ancillary Costs Costs, in addition to purchase of construction costs, related to placing a capital asset into its intended use or state of operations. Asset Life This is the standard estimated useful life of an item. To be considered a fixed asset, an item must have a useful life greater than one year. Asset Value This is the value of an item. The value will be based on the invoice plus additional costs of preparing the asset for use. To be considered a fixed asset, an item must have a value greater than $5,000. Buildings A building is a structure that is permanently attached to the land, has a roof, is partially or completely enclosed by walls, and is not intended to be transportable or movable. For example, a picnic pavilion would be considered a structure although it may have no walls. A building or structure is a roofed and/or walled structure that is city owned. Certain buildings or structures that are an ancillary part of infrastructure networks such as pumping stations should be reported as infrastructure rather than buildings. A building or structure is a roofed and/or walled structure that is city owned. Building Improvements Capitalized costs that materially extend the useful life of a building or increase the value, or both, beyond one year. Building improvements should not include maintenance and repairs done in the normal course of business. Capital Assets Under the requirements of GASB 34, capital assets include land, improvements to land, easements, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery, equipments, works of art and historical treasures, infrastructure and all other tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period. Capitalization Threshold The dollar value at which a government elects to capitalize tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period. Depreciation The process of allocating the cost of assets over a period of time, rather than deducting the cost as an expense in the year of acquisition. Depreciation Method The method used to calculate the allocation (depreciation) of the cost of a capital asset over its estimated useful life. The most commonly used method is straight-line depreciation, which allocates the cost evenly over the life of the asset. Estimated Useful Life An accounting estimate of time period that an asset will be able to be used for the purpose for which it was purchased or constructed. Fixed Asset An item obtained by the city with a value greater than $5,000 and an estimated useful life greater than one year. Full Month Convention Under a full month convention, property placed in service at any time during a given month is treated as if it had been placed in service on the first day of that month. This allows depreciation to be taken for the entire month in which the asset is placed in service. If the property is disposed of before the end of the estimated useful life, no depreciation is allowed for the month of disposition. Furniture & Fixtures Assets that are used by people in any city facility that is considered furniture or fixtures. Infrastructure Assets that are long-lived capital assets that normally are stationary in nature and can be preserved for a significantly greater number of years than most capital assets. They are permanent installations with a value greater than $100,000. Examples include water/sewer mains, roads, bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, etc. Infrastructure Infrastructure improvements are capital costs that Improvements materially extend the useful life or increase the value of the infrastructure, or both. Land Any parcel of land that is city owned whether developed or undeveloped. Include costs for professional fees, demolition, interest, taxes, commissions, etc. Land Improvement Grading, roads and parking lots on city owned land that will be capitalized. Inexhaustible — Expenditures for improvements that do not require maintenance or replacement, expenditures to bring land into condition to commence erection of structures, expenditures for improvements not identified with structures, and expenditures for land improvements that do not deteriorate with use or passage of time are additions to the cost of land and are generally not exhaustible and therefore are not depreciable. Exhaustible — Other improvements that are part of a site, such as parking lots, landscaping and fencing are usually exhaustible and are therefore depreciable. Depreciation of site improvements is necessary if the improvement is exhaustible. Machinery & Equipment Includes motorized and non motorized equipment that has a primary function or use for a city street, park, ice arena, fire fighting or utility maintenance, etc. It includes items such as tractors, mowers, snow plows. Park Improvements Improvements made to a city park that will be capitalized. This category would include items such as playground equipment, back stops, bleachers, flagpoles, etc. Salvage Value The salvage value of an asset is the value it is expected to have when it is no longer useful for its intended purpose. Tools & Other Equipment This category includes small tools and equipment. Vehicles Motorized vehicles owned by the city such as trucks. Vehicle Equipment Equipment that is installed in/on a motor vehicle such as radios, wing plows, sanders, lighting packages and tool boxes. SECTION 3. CAPITAL ASSESTS AND CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLDS A capital asset is real or personal property that has a value equal to or greater than the capitalization threshold for the particular classification of the asset and has an estimated useful life greater than one year. The city reports capital assets in the follow categories: Land/Land Improvements Other Improvements Buildings/Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Vehicles Infrastructure For financial statement purposes only, a capitalization threshold is established for each capital asset category as follows: Land/Land Improvements $10,000 Other Improvements $25,000 Buildings $25,000 Building Improvements $25,000 Machinery and Equipment $5,000 Vehicles $5,000 Infrastructure $100,000 Other assets $5,000 Capital assets should be recorded and reported at their historical costs, which include the vendor's invoice (plus the value of any trade-in or allowance, if reflected on the invoice) plus sales tax, initial installation cost (excluding in house labor), modifications, attachments, accessories or apparatus necessary to make the asset usable and render into service. Historical costs also include ancillary charges such as freight and transportation charges; site preparation costs, and professional fees. Capital asset improvement costs should be capitalized if the costs exceed the capitalization threshold and either the value of the asset or estimated life is increased by 25% of the original cost, or the cost results in an increase in the capacity of the asset, or the efficiency of the asset is increased by more than 10%. SECTION 4. ACQUISITIONS AND RETIREMENTS When the City acquires a new asset, the Finance Officer will be responsible for maintaining a record of the asset using the fixed assets software. Information about the asset will include the following: 1. Description: The description should clearly describe the asset, keeping in mind that this description will be used to help identify the asset in the future, without being to lengthy. 2. Expenditure Account: This is the expenditure account that the invoice for the asset is coded to. 3. Location: This is the intended location in which the asset will be stored. 4. Acquisition Code: This is the code which describes the funding source of the asset. 5. Activity Code: This is the code which describes which department purchased the asset. 6. Function Code: This is the code which describes the function of the department that owns the asset. Examples include general government, public works and fire department. 7. Vendor: This is the name of the vendor from whom the asset was purchased. 8. Acquisition Date: This is the date the asset was acquired. 9. Manufacturer: This is the name of the manufacturer of the asset, if applicable. 10. Model Number: This is the model number assigned to the asset by the manufacturer, if applicable. 11. Serial Number: This is the serial number assigned to the asset by the manufacturer, if applicable. 12. Invoice Number: This is the vendor's invoice number for the asset. 13. Cost: This is the cost of the item. Cost will be based on the invoice plus additional costs of preparing the asset for use. Trade-in values will not be used to reduce the carrying cost of the new asset. 14. Estimated Useful Life: This is the standard useful life of the item based on the chart in Section 7. The Finance Officer should record asset acquisitions monthly. Assets to be capitalized will be coded to 16100-16700. Assets under the capitalization value will be coded to 16701-16999. The Finance Officer is responsible for recording completed construction projects in the year completed. When an asset is retired, the Finance Officer will be responsible for updating the records for the asset. The fixed asset retirement information should include the following: 1. Asset Description: The description should be detailed and should include the year, model, model number, color, make, type and other pertinent information relating to the asset. 2. Department: This line refers to the department retiring or otherwise changing the asset. 3. Date of Change: This is the date the change took place. 4. Type of Change: The Finance Officer should state whether the asset was sold, destroyed, or traded in. If SOLD the amount of the sale and receipt number of cash receipt should be recorded. If TRADE IN the amount of the trade in allowance received on a new item. Description of new item that trade was applied towards. If DESTROYED the amount of compensation received from insurance, if the asset was destroyed as a result of an accident. A receipt number from a cash receipt should be recorded. If the asset was destroyed please note how it was destroyed, examples would include junked, totaled in an accident, stolen, etc. The Finance Officer should input asset retirement information monthly. Trade in value will be coded as a credit to the account; the gross cost will be coded as a debit to the account. SECTION 5. FIXED ASSET INVENTORY VALUATION AND CAPITALIZATION CRITERIA For fixed assets that are purchased, cost will be based on the invoice plus additional costs of preparing the asset for use. Trade-in values will not be used to reduce the carrying cost of the new asset. Assets purchased under a lease or installment method should be valued at the discounted present value of total payments. Additional costs will include those necessary so the asset may be ready for use. Assets acquired by donation, cost will be fair value on date of gift and any costs of preparing asset for use. Property acquired under eminent domain will have a cost determined by the court plus any additional attorney fees, or costs associated with preparing land for intended use. Assets acquired by forfeiture/seizure are based on the fair value on date of forfeiture/seizure and additional costs associated with preparing the asset for intended use. For all fixed assets the additional costs of preparing the asset for intended use includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Land: Legal fees, appraisal and negotiation fees, surveying fees, site preparations costs, demolition of unwanted structures and damage payments. 2. Buildings & Improvements: Architect fees, legal fees, appraisers, costs of fixtures, damage claims, insurance premiums, interest and related construction costs. 3. Machinery, Equipment & Furniture: Transportation charges, installation costs. 4. Motor Vehicles: Transportation charges, painting and installation of additional equipment. 5. Street Lighting: Street lights acquired through a city installed project will be valued at either the contractor costs plus a prorated share of all other project costs, or the contractor costs plus 35%. Street lights acquired through a developer installed project will be valued at the contractor costs plus 35%, or current fair market value (based on an engineering estimate) plus 35%. 6. Park Improvements: Physical improvements to park land that are not removable or do not increase the value of the land will not be capitalized, including trails, parking area, grading, aglimed surfaces, drainage pipes, etc. Removable, replaceable fixtures or buildings such as fencing, play equipment, and picnic shelters will be capitalized. SECTION 6. SALE OF ASSETS No assets owned by the city shall be sold to an officer or employee of the city unless the sale conforms to Minnesota Statue 15.054. Property, except real property, may be sold to an employee after reasonable public notice at a public auction or by sealed bid, if the employee is the highest bidder and is not directly involved in the auction sealed bid process. SECTION 7. DEPRECIATION Depreciation will be calculated using the straight line method over the estimated useful lives of assets. To avoid the complications of depreciating each asset from the specific date on which it was placed in service, GAAP supports guidelines that assume various assets are placed in service or disposed of at designated dates throughout the year. Governmental entities are generally recommended to use the full -month convention. (Unless the asset is fully depreciated). The total amount depreciated can never exceed the asset's historic cost less salvage value. At the end of the asset's estimated life, the salvage value will remain. Standard estimated useful life guidelines are as follows: Buildings 15-75 years Buildings Foundation/Frame/Structure 40 years Buildings -Temporary 25 years HVAC Systems (a/c heating) 20 years Roof 20 years Electrical 20-30 years Plumbing 20-30 years Sprinkler System 20 years Security/Fire Alarm System 10 years Cabling 10 years Floor Covering (other than carpet) 15 years Carpeting 7 years Interior Construction 15 years Interior Renovation 10 years Fire Alarm System 10 years Telephone Equipment 10 years Machinery, Equipment, Radio 3-15 years Water Meters 20 years Business/Office Equipment 7-10 years Athletic Equipment 10 years Audio Visual Equipment 7 years Radio Communications 10 years Fire Department Equipment 10 years Furniture 15 years Grounds Equipment — Mowers 10 years Kitchen Equipment - Appliances 10-12 years Outdoor Equipment — Playgrounds 15 years Custodial Equipment 10 years Photocopiers 5 years Mounted Equip w/Truck Chassis 8 years Plazas and Pavilions 60 years Vehicles Cars & Light Trucks Heavy trucks (more than 13,OOOlbs) Fire Trucks Heavy Equipment -Loaders, Graders Boat Land Infrastructure 3-12 years 3-8 years 8-10 years 15 years 5-50 years 10 years Not Depreciable 20-60 years Sewer Mains, Lift Stations 50 years Water Mains 50 years Street Lights 30 years Wells & Pump Houses 25 years Roads & Highways 20-40 years (includes curb & gutter) Paved 40 years Asphalt (Rural) 40 years Asphalt (Urban) 20 years Non -Paved 50 years Public Parking Lots 15 years Sidewalks 16-20 years Sewer System (Storm & Sanitary) 20-40 years Water System 20-40 years Bridges (Pedestrian) 30 years Land Improvements 15-30 years Fencing, Gates 20 years Landscaping, Ball Park 10-30 years Parking Lots 15 years Outside Sprinkler Systems 20 years Athletic Fields, Bleachers 10-15 years Paths and Trails 20 years Tennis & Basketball Courts 20 years Retaining Walls 20 years Outdoor Lighting 20 years Outdoor Equipment 20 years Benches, Swings, Slides 5 years Boat Facility, Piers, Ramps 25 years Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: Metropolitan Council Livable Communities (LCDA) Opportunities Grant- Larpenteur Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Application BACKGROUND: The City Council approved a resolution in May of 2003 supporting the application for a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Opportunities Grant to explore the possible future redevelopment of the Larpenteur Avenue corridor. Larpenteur Avenue seems to fall under the concept of Livable Communities that encourages redevelopment that is orientated toward a transit and pedestrian friendly environment in neighborhoods with a mix of residential and commercial uses that are essential to daily life. Funding under this grant would provide for a corridor study and/or development plan, which the Council has discussed over the past few years. The study could be undertaken with the assistance of the Council and a potentially appointed task force. As you know, the exploration of the redevelopment corridor has been a City Council goal since 2000. We last applied for this Livable Communities grant in 2001, but unfortunately we did not receive funding at that time. This year the news is much better - we have been approved for $20,000 of grant funding. I will provide a brief report on the award of this grant at the meeting. Included in the packet is supplemental information from the Metropolitan Council regarding the grant. ENCLOSURES: 1. News Release Announcing Grant Awards 2. Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee Report dated August 18, 2003 3. Larpenteur Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Grant Application Metropolitan Council - News & Info. Metro Council Grants Support Community Visions Page 1 of 1 News Release Metro Council Grants Support Communitv Visions Contact; Bonnie Kollodge 651.602.1357 ST. PAUL -Sept. 2, 2003 --Plans for a lakeside redevelopment in White Bear Lake with housing, shops and offices, revitalization of Rosemount's historic downtown; a mixed-use, mixed -income development in north Minneapolis and a more traditional downtown design for New Hope are all in the works with help from the Metropolitan Council. The Council, in August, approved Livable Communities opportunity grants to seven cities totaling nearly $300,000 for seven projects. The projects are in the planning stages and were selected for their potential to create connected, mixed-use development patterns that maximize existing infrastructure and expand housing choice. Other cities awarded funding include Lauderdale, Maplewood and St. Paul. Viewa_description of_these _grants. Opportunity grants support activities that help move projects into the actual development stage, such as preparation of site- specific master plans, development standards and market studies. The Livable Communities program helps communities throughout the metro area increase affordable housing, clean up polluted sites for redevelopment, and create connected, walkable and transit -friendly development that enhances communities and promotes community vitality and livability. The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the seven -county metro area. The Council advocates for vital communities, cost-effective services and a competitive region. It runs the regional bus system, collects and treats wastewater and manages water resources preservation, plans regional parks and administers funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate -income individuals and families. The 17 -member Metropolitan Council is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Minnesota governor. -30- Return to _News _Releases Metropolitan Council Home I Services I About Us I Meetings &_Events I Resource_,_ Reports & Data Regional Transportation I Jobs I Contact Us I Site Search Mears Park Center • 230 E 5th St. • St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-602-1000 • TTY: 651-291-0904 E -Mail: datacenter@m etc. state. mmus All information on this site is available in other formats upon request. © 2003 Metropolitan Council. All Rights Reserved. http://www.metrocouncil.org/news/news_403.htm 9/3/2003 Metropolitan Council - News & Info. Livable Communities Opportunity Grants - August 2003 Page 1 of 1 News Release Livable Communities O ortunit Grants - Au ust 2003 Larpenteur Ave. Corridor Redevelopment, Lauderdale --$20,000 for creation of a master plan, along with implementation tools and design guidelines, for the future redevelopment of an area along Larpenteur Ave. into a vibrant center with affordable housing choices, open public spaces, small-scale commercial uses, and good transit and pedestrian connections. Gladstone Neighborhood, Maplewood --$8,000 for development of a strategic plan and design standards for an aging neighborhood with an array of businesses. The city has already started some redevelopment activity in the neighborhood, including creation of a new mixed-use zoning district. Karamu East, Minneapolis --$46,395 for a traffic study and parking plan, planned unit development and streetscape design, market study, housing feasibility plan and overall project design. Karamu East is the second phase of a four -block mixed-use, mixed -income development in north Minneapolis. New Hope City Center Redevelopment Area, New Hope --$55,500 to prepare a master plan and redevelopment strategy for a 32.2 -acre area. The plan would address reducing the current level of retail and parking lots in the area, and devise a more traditional downtown design that would add housing diversity. Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment, Rosemount --$50,000 for public participation, development of design standards, a market study and other predevelopment activities. The city's goal is to revitalize its downtown area for businesses, shopping and housing, including improving the physical environment to promote economic success and increase civic identity and pride. Union Brass/Smurfit Housing Development, St. Paul --$62,000 to prepare a master plan, market study and conduct appraisals for a nine -acre site in the North End neighborhood of St. Paul, currently home to two industrial users and a dozen single-family homes. The city will hire an architectural firm to draw two or three development scenarios for the site with potentially mixed housing and commercial uses. Lake Village Mixed Use Redevelopment, White Bear Lake --$55,000 for design development and a financial feasibility assessment of a proposed redevelopment on the west shore of White Bear Lake. The master plan includes new streetscapes, a lakeside promenade, a new park, ground -floor stores and over 200 units of a variety of housing. Return toNews _ Releases Metropolitan Council Home ( Services I About Us ( Meetin_gsA Events I Resource, _Reports _& Data Region_a_ITransPortation IJ_obs I Contact Us I Site Search Mears Park Center • 230 E 5th St. • St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-602-1000 • TTY: 651-291-0904 E -Mail: data. center@metc. s_t_ate mn.us All information on this site is available in other formats upon request. © 2003 Metropolitan Council. All Rights Reserved. http://www.metrocouncil.org/news/news_403a.htm 9/3/2003 CCommunity Development Committee Meeting date: August 18, 2003 Date: August 12, 2003 Executive Summary Item: 2003-221 Subject: Livable Communities Demonstration Account Opportunity Grant Funding Recommendations District(s), Member(s): All Policy/Legal Reference: Blueprint and Livable Communities Act (473.867;473.175) Staff Prepared/Presented: Joanne Barron, Planning Analyst (651/602-1385) Phyllis Hanson, Mgr., Planning/Tech. Assistance (651/602-1566) Linda Milashius, Planner (651/602-1541) Division/Department: Community Development, Housing & Livable Communities Proposed Action That the Metropolitan Council award Livable Communities Demonstration Account opportunity grants totaling $296,895 as follows: Issue Do the recommended projects fit the purposes and criteria for awarding opportunity grants? Overview In April 2003, the Community Development Committee recommended and the Metropolitan Council approved the 2003 Livable Communities Annual Distribution Plan, to implement the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The Plan specifies the distribution of 2003 funding for the three ongoing LCA funding accounts, schedules, criteria and a process for awarding the grants. Grants are awarded through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) in two categories— development grants to support projects ready for construction, and opportunity grants to support projects in the predevelopment stage that show potential for evolving to projects that could be funded in the development category. The Livable Communities Distribution Plan allocated $79 million for development grants and up to $300,000 for opportunity grants. The plan also specified that any dollars not awarded for opportunity grants would be added to the development category. Twelve opportunity grant funding proposals were received on June 2, requesting a total of 5531,495. A staff team comprised of Planning and Technical Assistance, Environment, Transportation and Livable Communities staff made technical comments on and evaluated the proposals against the selection criteria. Staff applied Applicant Project Funding Request Funding Recommendation 1 White Bear Lake Lake Village Mixed Use $55,000 $55,000 2 St. Paul Union Brass/Smurfit Housing $72,000 $62,000 3 Minneapolis Karamu East $46,395 $46,395 4 New Hoe City Center Redevelopment $55,500 $55,500 5 Ma lewood Gladstone Neighborhood $8,000 $8,000 6 Lauderdale Larpenteur Avenue Corridor $20,000 $20,000 7 Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment $50,000 $50,000 Total: $296,895 Issue Do the recommended projects fit the purposes and criteria for awarding opportunity grants? Overview In April 2003, the Community Development Committee recommended and the Metropolitan Council approved the 2003 Livable Communities Annual Distribution Plan, to implement the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The Plan specifies the distribution of 2003 funding for the three ongoing LCA funding accounts, schedules, criteria and a process for awarding the grants. Grants are awarded through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) in two categories— development grants to support projects ready for construction, and opportunity grants to support projects in the predevelopment stage that show potential for evolving to projects that could be funded in the development category. The Livable Communities Distribution Plan allocated $79 million for development grants and up to $300,000 for opportunity grants. The plan also specified that any dollars not awarded for opportunity grants would be added to the development category. Twelve opportunity grant funding proposals were received on June 2, requesting a total of 5531,495. A staff team comprised of Planning and Technical Assistance, Environment, Transportation and Livable Communities staff made technical comments on and evaluated the proposals against the selection criteria. Staff applied housing performance scores to the proposals and recommended seven proposals for funding. See the attached summaries for a description of each proposal, staff evaluations and comments. The team evaluated the list of items requested to be funded for each proposal for appropriateness for funding, and recommends that all but one of the proposals receive its full funding request. In that one case, one line item was disallowed because it did not fit the list of eligible uses. 0 2 2003 Opportunity Grant Funding Recommendations* Available Funding: Up to $300,000 h Appltc�nt '� S �} Prt�,lect +,.t J �3i�YWg��' z���lu�.tl�bi� �, li,��,�,• ? r� �.f3°, t ti d, '. '. ...-z•A�_-„ �js"''_3 �'"y,.�.• �^k-��]+'„ ��`' `�. :_ xgx""ll q, �.3-3a' r c='' 1 White Bear Lake Lake Village Mixed Use $55,000 High $55,000 2 St. Paul Union Brass/Smurfit Housing $72,000 Medium -High $62,000 3 Minneapolis Karamu East $46,395 Medium -High $46,395 4 New Hoe City Center Redevelopment $55,500 Medium -High $55,500 5 Maplewood Gladstone Neighborhood $8,000 Medium -High $8,000 6 Lauderdale Lar enteur Ave. Corridor $20,000 Medium -High $20,000 7 Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment $50,000 Medium -High $50,000 WIT _7171 St. Paul Schmidt Brewe - $50,000 Medium -0- 9 Minneapolis Elliot Park $52,600 Medium -0- 10 Dayton Southwest Dayton Master Plan $50,000 Medium -0- 11 Ramsey Central Rural Reserve Area Study $30,000 Medium -0- 12 South St. Paul Concord/Gateway Project $42,000 Medium -0- $531,495 $296,895 *Proposals are listed in order of rank after applying housing performance scores LIVABLE COMMUNITIES • - a • ACCOUNT of the Livable Communities Fund Funding Available in 2003: $8.2 Million Purpose: Grants are available to assist communities with new development or redevelopment activities in all portions of the region as an incentive to accomplish the following, as appropriate to the project location: 0 Create connected places that support auto, pedestrian, and bike travel and are linked to transit where available, or build capacity for future transit. 0 Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and adjacent to the site. 0 Maximize the development potential of existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and development centers, particularly along existing transportation corridors. 0 Expand housing choices to increase life -cycle and affordable housing options, especially close to jobs. ® Foster distinctive community places, including respecting local cultural and natural features, and promoting community identity. O Consider the natural environment, including restoring natural features and managing stormwater. Categories: Applicants will choose one of two categories in which to apply for each project, depending on the stage of project's development. (Types of eligible uses are listed here for each category; attached is more information on eligible uses, selection criteria and review process). ®♦ Category 1: Opportunity Grants – up to $300,000 in grants of $30,000 to $75,000 Goal: Assist communities in developing project -specific and site-specific land use plans for projects that show potential for evolving to the development category. Eligible uses include preparing master plans; conducting design workshops; developing design standards; market studies; developing zoning and land use implementation tools, such as overlay zones, special zoning districts. Application Deadline: June 2 Award Date: August 27 ®® Category 2: Development Grants – $7.9 million plus any dollars not awarded in Category 1 10 Goal: Assist communities with projects that are ready or will be ready within a year for construction. Eligible uses include hard costs such as site assembly, acquisition, demolition and removal of obsolete buildings; new streets and sidewalks, structured parking. AI Application deadline: June 30 Award date: December 10 Eligible Applicants: Application for opportunity and development grants is open to cities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program of the Livable Communities Act, on behalf of proposals in their communities; or metropolitan counties on behalf of projects located in LCA participant communities. Applications Per City: Cities submitting more than six applications—for opportunity and development grants combined—must prioritize them. V PackeCdD3 CDC20LI OSISN ]put OppCiram duc 4 RM, l • s , • 1 of the Livable Communities Fund Application Information and Funding Criteria for Category Opportunity Eligible Uses of Funds: Preparing master plans or detailed redevelopment plans; conducting design workshops, developing design standards; market studies to assist in determining retail/office/housing mix and cost; developing zoning and land use implementation tools, such as overlay zones, special zoning districts. Ineligible Uses of Funds: Land acquisition, infrastructure, construction costs, city's administrative overhead, project coordination, activities prior to the start of the grant project; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. Also ineligible: All eligible uses for Category 2, Development Grants. Amount of Awards: Awards are expected to average $30,000 to $75,000. Local Match: Awards must be matched by a 1:1 local contribution, which can include in-kind and other contributions. The local dollar contribution can include local costs directly related to the candidate proposal that have been expended within 12 months prior to the date of the grant award. Targeting of Funds: At least 30 percent of available funds will be targeted to cities located in the developing portion of the region. Application Process: Submit 15 copies of the application and required attachments to: Linda Milashius Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN. 55101 ...and send one email copy of the application to Linda.miIashius@metc.state.mn.us Staff will send confirmation of application's receipt. The application is available online at www.metrocouncil.org/grants/lcda/oi)i)ai)i).doc Questions? Please direct questions related to the application and review process to Linda Milashius at linda.milashius(ametc.state. mn.us or 651.602.1541. For other questions, please contact your city's sector representative (see list attached). Selection Process: A staff team will evaluate proposals against the selection criteria and make recommendations to the Council for funding, through its Community Development Committee, The Metropolitan Council reserves the right to award less than the available funding in this grant cycle. V' Pa.keCo,13 CDC'0,r3-„1,IS�,3 20xi3 OppG,vt PwTv&eSummm, doc Selection Criteria: Required for Review • Proposed project is located within the Council -identified developed area, developing area or a rural growth center. • The Metropolitan Council has under review, or has reviewed and accepted applicant community's comprehensive plan. • Applicant community has or is responding to recommendations cited in the Council's review of the comprehensive plan. • The community's comprehensive plan amendments for the submitted proposal, if necessary, are completed or under review by the Metropolitan Council. • Proposed project helps achieve one or more of the affordable and life -cycle housing goals adopted by the applicant city (or the city in which the project is located if the applicant is a county) under the Local Housing Incentive program of the Livable Communities Act. • Application is complete. Addresses LCDA Program Goals The extent to which the proposal shows potential to accomplish the following, as applicable to the location: • Deliver reinvestment and revitalization through connected patterns of redevelopment, adaptive reuse, or infill development OR connected development patterns in developing areas. • Consider existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and development centers, particularly along existing transportation corridors. • Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and adjacent to the site using connected development patterns. • Link proposed development and provide pedestrian connections to transit, if available, or build density and land patterns to support future transit. • Expand housing choices in the site area or adjacent to it. • Consider the natural environmental including restoration of natural features, reduction in impervious surfaces, management of stormwater. Other Evaluation Criteria • Local political and/or community commitment • Potential for public-private implementation partnerships. • Replicability - potential for the project or its key component(s) to be replicated in other locations in the same community or other communities. • Timeliness — an opportunity would be lost if applicant city does not act in a timely way to direct development process to meet local development objectives consistent with LCDA program goals. • Applicant community's housing performance score. Additional Selection Factors These will be applied following evaluation of projects on above criteria • Maximum benefit — proposal shows high probability of accomplishing LCDA program goals in ways that maximize the site or location potential. • Geographic distribution of projects — throughout region • Location type — developed, developing, and rural growth center communities P Packet2003 CDC -100 O'S 18,01 2003 OppGram Paip seSummary. doc M k bo a u x •� 3 '�bn x •rz � 3 bA x •� 3 �bn x •� 3 b O .. i -C o w� bA t �r d bA F �Y bA x ^O ° +. v; bA � C• ct k (n cd cisCL a) N 41 cl ct3 k O p 4] -a vUi U + CZ bA = O O { cd a' j -Tz) ° �3 ool +� °+' " CIS °+' on, m c c . c -- a}' ti O ° ❑ � a.) a -o V ° _ a� o (D N O.. O U vi U bA cd N 9. i., .— N U � O M- U 0 m. cn O � cu 3 � -o � aj 0i L O U c CZ>, of C ..c o L G) 's. � -Z 'A U � c cn W v c M v n a) v a ¢ cn Mcc ct 3 i a G Q a O v cic n Q- *O sUU c= bA cn c w CL ^ >Ln p , 0 w 0 w x3 0 x.0 3 w x• 3 7gb 3 -o"0 x• 3 x 0 w, • {'o�x 3 �o�nx• 3onx•3 9bx -o ,0 8 ,-0� C> U ..r 0. y p k U i.. U O N N CSS E U* bA sU. N � Q. � � � � • � � c cl O * O N aS C� U U +- E O j U O CO V N «i N Q M cdU bD O 4. U y iU U O C O N U C] p O W N O O. L7 CZ n C CC: Q. O p cd N ,C,3O L1 Oo > CL..- N cd U Q- v O U U U O N p O (n p n O ro CS O L a> v NO. C L 0O b U L «S U U W a) bA p > N oz O N O U C O s vm O n v t1 v� L O U P G C,i E O p O O '� O 'CJ U O C, C-• > Q C1 U Ci 7 ^fl O p O L> U•^ U'c eS ar C E G 3 ❑ O G, U = Cl U U - c= o U tz CLLn C o v 0 o *- c �, i EnU 3 C o ° a� epi o O a o CAU n D s D o 0 0 ® L C � U rw r+w • r° • U O rte^ 0 wNi O C"' • APPLYING HOUSING PERFORMANCE SCORE TO OPPORTUNITY GRANT RANKINGS - 2003 Applications went through the review process and were given a rank of High, Medium -High, Medium or Low. These rankings were then converted to a numerical score before applying the Housing Performance Scores. Rank Conversion Assumptions: • A rank of High would be converted to 10 points • A rank of Medium -High would be converted to 7 points • A rank of Medium would be converted to 4 points • A rank of Low would be converted to 2 points Housing Performance Score: Any application whose housing performance score was below the average score but indicated it would investigate the potential for affordable or life cycle housing, was held "harmless" and given the average score of 6.9. Any application with a score higher than 6.9, was given the higher score. t Prehmrnary Nti�nertcal Peformatce Tote New "RURnkA lzcatxo Score Score Score 'Score . ==Rank 1 White Bear Lake — Lake Village Mixed Use High 10 6.9 16.9 1 2 New Hope — City Center Redevelopment Medium -High 7 8.8 15.8 4 3 Maplewood — Gladstone Neighborhood Medium -High 7 69 13.9 5 4 St. Paul — Union Brass/Smurfit Housing Medium -High 7 9.8 16.8 2 5 Minneapolis — Karamu East Medium -High 7 9.7 16.7 3 6 Lauderdale — Larpenteur Ave. Corridor Medium -High 7 6.9 13.9 6 Redevelopment 7 Rosemount — Downtown Redevelopment Medium -High 7 6.9 13.9 7 8 Minneapolis — Elliot Park Medium 4 9.7 13.7 9 9 Dayton — Southwest Dayton Master Plan Medium 4 6.9 10.9 10 10 Ramsey — Central Rural Reserve Area Study Medium 4 6.9 10.9 11 11 St. Paul — Schmidt Brewery Medium 4 9.8 13.8 8 12 South Paul — Concord/Gateway Project Medium 4 8.6 10.6 12 Applicant: White Bear Lake Recommended Funding Amount: $55,000 ,Project Name: Lake Village Mixed Use Redevelopment Project Description In 1999, the City purchased the 1.25 -acre Johnson Boat Works site located on the west shore of White Bear Lake for $1.8m. A commission was then appointed and a design team, headed by Close Landscape Architects, was selected to assist in developing a master plan for the entire 12 -acre commercial district that encompasses the boat works site. The master plan will transform a regionally significant area from a poorly conceived assemblage of existing land uses to a vibrant, neotraditional, mixed-use development which is compact, and both pedestrian and transit friendly. Ground -floor stores, including restaurants and a coffee shop, will surround a new park and lakeside promenade. Over two hundred units of a variety of new life -cycle housing types are proposed, with much of it located above first floor commercial uses. The City is seeking funding to further develop an implementation plan to encourage evolution of uses over time. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $55,000 Total Recommended: $55,000 Ainonnte "uiestec AmountRecomnended, - Use of=funds' $30,000 $30,000 Design development of Lake Ave. streetscape and $15,000 51500 promenade $20,000 $20,000 Design development of phase -one of mixed use project on S10,000 -0- Johnson Boat works site $5,000 $5,000 Financial feasibility analysis of phase one Development Timeline: Start Date: Oct. 2003 Anticipated Completion Date: Dec. 2003 Applicant: St. Paul Recommended Funding Amount: $62,000 Project Name: Union Brass/Smurfit Housing Development Project Description This is a 9 -acre site located in the North End neighborhood of St. Paul, covering nearly 4 city blocks. The site is home to two industrial users, Jefferson -Smurfit and Union Brass, and a dozen single-family homes. The city plans to hire an architectural/urban planning firm to draw two to three development scenarios for this site with housing and possibly mixed housing and commercial as the main use. The scenarios will show how different densities and mix of use would work for the site. The drawings will be brought tot he neighborhood for feedback. The consultant will then develop a master plan based on the scenarios and community input. The -city also plans to hire a firm to conduct a market study to determine the mix of income/rent for this neighborhood, and to hire an appraiser to find out the market value of the cur -it industrial uses. This will assist in soliciting developer interest and give the City basis for allocation of public resources. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $ 72,000 Total Recommended: $62,000 Amount Requested Amount Recommended Use of Funds $40,000 $40,000 Developing architectural drawings and development scenarios, and preparing a master plan. $15,000 51500 Conducting a market study 57,000 S7.000 Conducting appraisals S10,000 -0- j Developing a marketing brochure Development Timeline: Start Date: Oct. 2003 Anticipated Completion Date: March 2004 10 Applicant: Minneapolis Recommended Funding Amount: $46,395 Project Name: Karamu East Project Description Karamu East is the second phase of a four block mixed-use, mixed -income development consisting of four components over a two -block area. The first component consists of 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space at street level and 61 upper level parking stalls. The second component is a two-story office structure totaling 13,000 sq. ft. with the potential to integrate a drive-thru facility at the rear. The third component is a three-story, 45 -unit senior cooperative housing facility. Nine of these for -sale units will be designated as affordable. The fourth and final component is a nine -unit townhouse development for first-time homebuyers. Karamu East will have substantial street frontage and a pedestrian -oriented environment, taking advantage of the existing pedestrian traffic along Plymouth Ave. Additional design considerations include integrating bus stop shelters and reconnecting the residential neighborhood behind Karamu to Plymouth Ave by restoring the original street grid pattern at Newton and Oliver Avenues. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $46,395 Total Recommended: $46,395 ' �Ama ut<irt Re.," ue'sted� A"mount-�e�ommeniled - 'Use o� Fun�Ts $5,000 $5,000 Traffic study and parking plan $10,000 $10,000 PUD and pedestrian overlay, streetsca e design $5,000 $5,000 Market study for commercial components $13,895 $13,895 Feasibility and site analysis for housing $12,500 $12,500 Overall project design Development Timeline: Start Date: Sept. 2003 Anticipated Completion Date: March 2004 Applicant: New Hope Recommended Funding Amount: $55,500 Project Name: New Hope City Center Redevelopment Area Project Description This is a 32.2 -acre site characterized by a number of shopping centers that were constructed in the 1960's and early 1970's. Recently redevelopment opportunities have presented themselves with the potential closing of Kmart, the merger of Marquette and wells Fargo banks which currently has three sites in the redevelopment area, and the environmental conditions of the school district administration building. Funds would be used to prepare a master plan and redevelopment strategy to address the "pruning back" of retail and the reduction in the amount of impervious surface. The creation of the master plan would devise a more traditional downtown . design. This design would include a vital commercial core providing additional housing diversity. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $55,500 Total Recommended: $55,500 Amount Requested Amount Recommended Use of Funds $9,000 $9,000 Phase II workplan — feasibility analysis, refine concepts, preliminary development guidelines, etc. $10,000 $10,000 Phase III worl:pian — implementation strategies, zoning amendments, workshops $20,000 $20,000 Financial feasibility analysis $4,000 $4,000 Project facilitation $7,500 $7,500 j Stormn,ater design and infrastructure analysis $5,000 55,000 i Plannini consultant Development Timeline: Start Date: Mid 2002 Anticipated Completion Date: Dec. 2003 Applicant: Maplewood Recommended Funding Amount: $8,000 Project Name: Gladstone Neighborhood Project Description The Gladstone Neighborhood is an aging neighborhood containing businesses that have generally not invested in large-scale property improvements. As a result, the commercial areas have a tired appearance with a disjointed array of businesses, generally lacking in character. In order to renew this as a vibrant and viable area while utilizing the existing recreational amenities, the city council has decided to create a strategic development plan for the area. The city has taken the following steps toward this plan: • Construction of the city's first roundabout at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street last fall, with landscaping and decorative lighting being installed this spring. • Completion of a market feasibility study this spring by Maxfield Research, Inc. • Creating a new mixed-use zoning district by city staff that will promote the redevelopment of areas within the city into mixed-use urban centers with compact, pedestrian -oriented commercial and residential developments, such as that envisioned in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The opportunity grant is requested to continue the strategic development plan for the area by developing design standards for the Gladstone Neighborhood. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $8,000 Total Recommended: $8,000 Amount Re uested, Amoui►tReconnmeuded Use of Flimilgi,. $4,000 $4,000 Develop a strategic development plan $4,000 $4,000 Development of design standards Development Timeline: Start Date: Sept. 2003 Anticipated Completion Date: March 2004 Applicant: Lauderdale Recommended Funding Amount: $20,000 Project Name: Larpenteur Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Project Description This is a proposal seeking predevelopment funds to assist in the creation of master plan, along with implementation tools and design guidelines, for the future redevelopment of an area on Larpenteur Avenue in Lauderdale that would exemplify the Metropolitan Council's definition of "livable communities". This area has the potential to be a vibrant center utilizing smart growth principles that would produce several affordable housing choices, open public spaces, and small-scale neighborhood commercial uses with excellent transit linkages (both pedestrian and bus) to the greater immediate metropolitan area. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $20,000 Total Recommended: $20,000 Amount Requested Amount Recommended Use of Funds $20,000 $20,000 Creation of a master plan — including public and/or resident I task force meetings, market studies and the creation of design standards Development Timeline: Start Date: Dec. 2003 12 Anticipated Completion Date: Sept. 2004 Applicant: Rosemount Recommended Funding Amount: $50,000 Project Name: Rosemount Downtown Redevelopment Project Description Downtown Rosemount redevelopment aims to revitalize the historic heart of Rosemount as the community continues to make a transition from a rural town center to a suburb in the southern Twin Cities metropolitan area. The overall goals for the redevelopment can be summarized as follows: ® Make Downtown Rosemount an economically viable place to do business and a vital place to shop and live. ® Create new opportunities for private investment. ® Improve the physical environment of downtown, including consistent site plans and quality structures, to promote economic success and express civic identity and pride. ® Raise the property tax value of downtown properties. Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $50,000 Total Recommended: $50,000 AiigllntRe nested _ AnountBecommehded TJse of Hinds $12,500 $12,500 Citizens advisory committee facilitator $10,000 $10,000 Design standards $7,500 $7,500 Redevelopment project management consultant $2,500 $2,500 Commercial/residential market study update $2,500 $2,500 Communications plans $15,000 $15,000 Property qualification inspections Development Timeline: Start Date: August 2003 13 Anticipated Completion Date: April 2004 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: White Bear Lake Overall Ranking: HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Great location, central to the city and adjacent to the lake, accessible and visible from the highway. • Great project with lots of potential to provide additional housing and commercial mixed use and revitalization of an area with significant amenities. Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Intra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commihnent Partnerships Replication Timeliness High X X X X 5 X X MH • Pro'ect proposes rental and for -sale, with first phase housing above commercial and will include affordable units as well. X • Application provides assurance of plan to include significantly expanded green areas and stormwater treatment and infiltration components. X X X Medium • City has already done considerable work, purchased the old Johnson Board Works site, prepared master plan details. • Great public involvement and commission to guide the redevelo ment— sure to continue. 8 0 Developer will be solicited to implement this plan and provide resources for public realm improvements. 9 • High potential for replication by other lake or river towns. Low • Could be a model of environmentally sensitive development and affordability, transit -oriented mix of activities. 10 9 Timing is right, given purchase of Johnson Boatworks key parcel. • City has site control of the boat works site and is motivated to get going with the development and public improvements. • Likelgreat market appeal for this considering nearby downtown and Lakeshore amenities. Comments: Criteria 1 • Great location, central to the city and adjacent to the lake, accessible and visible from the highway. • Great project with lots of potential to provide additional housing and commercial mixed use and revitalization of an area with significant amenities. 2 • Great potential for adaptive reuse. • Project will be cost effective in that it will utilize existing public utilities and infrastructure, and have good access to highways, trails and transit. 3 • Proposal shows an excellent balance of uses. 4 • Transit on Highway 61 with connections into the site can be strengthened. • Served by Metro Transit and Lake Area bus. • Pro* ect provides needed infill and increased density next to existing transit routes. 5 • Great potential for mixed use and multifamily housing. • Pro'ect proposes rental and for -sale, with first phase housing above commercial and will include affordable units as well. 6 • Application provides assurance of plan to include significantly expanded green areas and stormwater treatment and infiltration components. • City wants to achieve 20% green space in area — great goal. • Project links with the Vento Regional Trail. 7 • City has already done considerable work, purchased the old Johnson Board Works site, prepared master plan details. • Great public involvement and commission to guide the redevelo ment— sure to continue. 8 0 Developer will be solicited to implement this plan and provide resources for public realm improvements. 9 • High potential for replication by other lake or river towns. • Could be a model of environmentally sensitive development and affordability, transit -oriented mix of activities. 10 9 Timing is right, given purchase of Johnson Boatworks key parcel. • City has site control of the boat works site and is motivated to get going with the development and public improvements. • Likelgreat market appeal for this considering nearby downtown and Lakeshore amenities. Other • These in rovements will further catalyze private investment in the area. 14 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: St. Paul — Union Brass/Smurfit Housing Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Potential to be a valuable infill development and reuse of underutilized industrial site --Two existing industries are going out of business or relocating from this neighborhood. • Excellent opportunity for connections to a variety of housing, retail and industry nearby. Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commitment —Partnerships Replication Timeliness High • Pro'ect has potential to enhance several projects currently underway or that have been recently completed. 3 • Basic idea is good - high density residential with connections to new elementary school and park. • City hopes to establish more of a commercial use base for the existing businesses in the area by attracting new housing and residents MH X X X X X X X X X X Medium • Whatever development concept is selected will return industrial area to more natural, urban environment, thereby reducing paved surfaces and increasing green space. 7 Conm'lunity Council and neighborhood businesses and residents support the project. • Local CDC has interest in the site. Low . Developers will be solicited and two developers have already shown interest in the site. 9 • Industrial reuse re licability 10 • Timely because the Jefferson -Smurfit building is for sale, Union Brass has inquired about relocation possibility, developers appear to be knocking at the door and several other pedestrian and transit improvements recommended by the Comments: Criteria 1 • Potential to be a valuable infill development and reuse of underutilized industrial site --Two existing industries are going out of business or relocating from this neighborhood. • Excellent opportunity for connections to a variety of housing, retail and industry nearby. • Area is not presently walkable — this project will identify improvements that will create a more pedestrian -friendly neighborhood — will re-establish traditional block pattern. • Newer elementary school to the south, park to the north. 2 • Will be cost effective in that the project will utilize existing urban infrastructure. • Pro'ect has potential to enhance several projects currently underway or that have been recently completed. 3 • Basic idea is good - high density residential with connections to new elementary school and park. • City hopes to establish more of a commercial use base for the existing businesses in the area by attracting new housing and residents 4 . Site is well served by frequently operating bus service 5 • The market study that is part of the project will identify what type and price of housing is suitable to diversity the housing stock. 6 • Provides assurance of retrofit with conventional stormwater treatment and reduction of impervious surfaces. • Whatever development concept is selected will return industrial area to more natural, urban environment, thereby reducing paved surfaces and increasing green space. 7 Conm'lunity Council and neighborhood businesses and residents support the project. • Local CDC has interest in the site. 8 . Developers will be solicited and two developers have already shown interest in the site. 9 • Industrial reuse re licability 10 • Timely because the Jefferson -Smurfit building is for sale, Union Brass has inquired about relocation possibility, developers appear to be knocking at the door and several other pedestrian and transit improvements recommended by the community are being implemented. Other 15 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Minneapolis — Karamu East Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 ® Provides much needed infill and redevelopment/community revitalization in an area served by two existing high frequency bus routes. • Proposes restoring the traditional grid pattern of urban streets, through reopening segments which will help create more Ranldng 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commitment Partnerships Replication Timeliness High X • Proposed mixed use project will contribute to the local community more than the existing land use. 3 • Seeks mixing of housing and commercial uses in a pedestrian -oriented atmosphere, with some green space. • Takes advantage of resident and health services within one block, new public housing and concentrated employment MH opportunities. X X X X 4 X X X MediuLn__l • Area will be part of a transit service restructuring tentatively planned for 2006. S • May result in addition of needed senior housing and other mix of housing choices, including affordable townhomes, as well as middle income housing as a balance to a variety of affordable choices at present. X X Low 6 Proposal doesn't address greenspace in much detail. 7 • Already constructed components of the project. 8 a Appears to have good partnership between neighborhood redevelopment agency, MCDA (who owns some portions of the site) and at least two private for -project groups. Comments: Criteria 1 ® Provides much needed infill and redevelopment/community revitalization in an area served by two existing high frequency bus routes. • Proposes restoring the traditional grid pattern of urban streets, through reopening segments which will help create more walkable, safer, pedestrian friendly, transit -oriented places. • The application says this is a blighted area, with one of the few available vacant tracts of land to the north side, and a sin le story, older_, struggling shopping center. 2 o Project is located next to two existing high -frequency bus routes, and the additional compact development will build upon the walkability and transit orientation of the community. • Proposed mixed use project will contribute to the local community more than the existing land use. 3 • Seeks mixing of housing and commercial uses in a pedestrian -oriented atmosphere, with some green space. • Takes advantage of resident and health services within one block, new public housing and concentrated employment opportunities. • Proposes redevelopment of existing retail into a much more complementary development. • Question need for a drive-through development. 4 e Transit routes connect to downtown and Robbinsdale. • Area will be part of a transit service restructuring tentatively planned for 2006. S • May result in addition of needed senior housing and other mix of housing choices, including affordable townhomes, as well as middle income housing as a balance to a variety of affordable choices at present. 6 0 Returns grassy property which was formally asphalt to productive use. 6 Proposal doesn't address greenspace in much detail. 7 • Already constructed components of the project. 8 a Appears to have good partnership between neighborhood redevelopment agency, MCDA (who owns some portions of the site) and at least two private for -project groups. 9 . Example of redevelopment/revitalization with possibility of reversing concentrations of poverty through infill on a relatively small parcel of land, adding housing mix and a bigger variety of commercial options. 10 . Good phase plaii/approach. • Needed redevelopment to avoid further decline. Other 16 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: New Hope Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Excellent potential for reuse of old K -mart site and associated shopping center area to create more connected patterns. • Good potential to redevelop and revitalize the area. • City has begun streetsca e project on 42"d Ave. which would be enhanced by accomplishment of this project 2 • Substantial opportunity for reuse of existing infrastructure. Rankin 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 10 7 8 4Reptication Community Commitment —Partnerships Timeliness Hi h X 5 a Excellent potential for major housing. • Recent household study indicates alternative housing choices needed. Project will create a variety of types that currently don't exist in the area. MH . Provides assurance of retrofit with conventional storm water treatment, reduction of impervious surface and addition of X X X X X X X X Medium 0 Public participation process may be replicable — model for many suburbs facing similar redevelopment issues. • City has studied what other conun inities have done to learn from their models. 10 . Very timely. • K -mart might close, banks are consolidating, and school district administration is relocating—great time to get a head start so city can be ready with a plan that coordinates all of the opportunities created with these char es. Low Other • City should ensure that every street should have sidewalks on both sides, and focus on being explicit about pedestrian and transit facilities. Comments: Criteria 1 • Excellent potential for reuse of old K -mart site and associated shopping center area to create more connected patterns. • Good potential to redevelop and revitalize the area. • City has begun streetsca e project on 42"d Ave. which would be enhanced by accomplishment of this project 2 • Substantial opportunity for reuse of existing infrastructure. • Pro'ect could help reverse decline of an older center. 3 . Will promote multifamily housing and scale back retail. 4 • Excellent potential at intersection of two major streets and transit routes. • Has potential to link to existing and future transit and development could enhance route ridership. • Transit is already quite abundant at this location. 5 a Excellent potential for major housing. • Recent household study indicates alternative housing choices needed. Project will create a variety of types that currently don't exist in the area. 6 . Provides assurance of retrofit with conventional storm water treatment, reduction of impervious surface and addition of public open sace. 7 a Lots of public involvement with consultant meetings with property owners, roundtables and open houses. 8 9 0 Public participation process may be replicable — model for many suburbs facing similar redevelopment issues. • City has studied what other conun inities have done to learn from their models. 10 . Very timely. • K -mart might close, banks are consolidating, and school district administration is relocating—great time to get a head start so city can be ready with a plan that coordinates all of the opportunities created with these char es. Other • City should ensure that every street should have sidewalks on both sides, and focus on being explicit about pedestrian and transit facilities. 17 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Maplewood Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Infill development of residential, connmercial mixed use that is pedestrian oriented along existing bus routes is a good goal, and this project moves in that direction. • The development could provide more mixed-use and vitality. Rankin 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 Community Commitment PartnershipskRc)li:cafio:n IO Timeliness High X X and Downtown St. Paul. Additional development, particularly higher intensity housing mentioned in the application X X • Potential for mixed use and mix of housing types MH • Would add 150 new units 6 X X X 7 X X X Medium 8 • Already working with business owners and residents, including majority land owners. 9 • Potential for new mixed use zoning district 10 • Previous activities have generated good momentum. • Private landowners anxious to redevelop. Low Other • Well leveraged by city staff work and already completed market study. • Good ro osal on a shoe strip —_(ood "bang for the buck' Comments: Criteria 1 • Infill development of residential, connmercial mixed use that is pedestrian oriented along existing bus routes is a good goal, and this project moves in that direction. • The development could provide more mixed-use and vitality. 2 • Excellent potential to build on previous city investments such as the new roundabout and streetscape • This development would be able to take advantage of excellent existing commuter bicycle facilities and recreational bicycling and walking facilities that are here — Gateway State Trail and Bruce Vento Regional Trail. 3 • Appears to add housing only, but is part of a larger plan to create a redeveloped mixed-use area. • Fairlgood balance now, proposal will enhance existing mix. 4 • The area is directly served by Metro Transit Route 64 to regional employment and retail, particularly at Maplewood Mall and Downtown St. Paul. Additional development, particularly higher intensity housing mentioned in the application would be positive for transit ridership. 5 • Potential for mixed use and mix of housing types • Would add 150 new units 6 • Provides assurance of plan to re-establish native plantings, provide trail connections, and incorporate environmental/storm water infiltration component. 7 • Good commitment, already has done some work in the traffic circle and feeder streets. • Commitments for market research and planning study; strong interest from land owners 8 • Already working with business owners and residents, including majority land owners. 9 • Potential for new mixed use zoning district 10 • Previous activities have generated good momentum. • Private landowners anxious to redevelop. Other • Well leveraged by city staff work and already completed market study. • Good ro osal on a shoe strip —_(ood "bang for the buck' 1S 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Lauderdale Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 0 Concepts for redevelopment in a manner that creates walkable places are good, but there is not sufficient information in the application to determine whether this project, if implemented would constitute a significant reduction in residential density, which could impact transit ridership and possibly the frequency of transit. Ranldug 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 Community Commitment Partnerships 9 to Replication Timeliness High 0 Utilizes transit and existing infrastructure. 3 0 Uses not yet determined, so no clear indication of where this is going. 0 Appears to be lowering of residential density, but adding commercial and greenspaces and gathering areas. Recomtrrend that the city attempt to incorporate at least as much land use intensity and provide for existing residents in its MH X X 0 Already has a good mix of uses within the area. X 0 Area in need of revitalization. 4 X X Medium 0 Pedestrian connections would be improved. X 0 Housing choices should be defined up front. X X X X Low 0 Excellent local conunitment and connection with comprehensive plan. 8 0 Appear open to working with residents, government, private, and non-profit 0 No developer has been identified at this point. 9 0 Could be a good model of redevelopment strategy. Comments: Criteria 1 0 Concepts for redevelopment in a manner that creates walkable places are good, but there is not sufficient information in the application to determine whether this project, if implemented would constitute a significant reduction in residential density, which could impact transit ridership and possibly the frequency of transit. 0 Need for redevelopment and reinvestment may be high here. 0 This project could spur additional development along Larpentuer Ave. 0 Proposal could link site to natural area in city. Proposal will examine pedestrian networks. 0 Existing development pattern in unclear and future development pattern is not yet proposed. 2 0 Redevelopment along urban arterial, commercial corridor 0 Utilizes transit and existing infrastructure. 3 0 Uses not yet determined, so no clear indication of where this is going. 0 Appears to be lowering of residential density, but adding commercial and greenspaces and gathering areas. Recomtrrend that the city attempt to incorporate at least as much land use intensity and provide for existing residents in its redevelopment planning. 0 Already has a good mix of uses within the area. 0 Area in need of revitalization. 4 0 Route 61 is a higher frequency bus line. It is not clear whether the project could reduce the number of housing units, and thus impact transit use on this line. 0 Pedestrian connections would be improved. 5 0 Housing choices should be defined up front. 6 0 Application acknowledges the environmental shortcomings of area that this proposal would provide an opportunity to improve upon, but proposes only to explore low impact development storm water management techniques. 7 0 Excellent local conunitment and connection with comprehensive plan. 8 0 Appear open to working with residents, government, private, and non-profit 0 No developer has been identified at this point. 9 0 Could be a good model of redevelopment strategy. 0 Potential for replication. 10 0 Immediate need should be better defined. Other 0 City might want to include local universities in the process, may be opportunities for student assistance. 0 Council staff could provide technical assistance to assess existing land uses and clarify particulars of the study. 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Rosemount Overall Ranking: MEDIUM-HIGH Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Good potential to guide/upgrade of Highway 3 to add pedestrian walkways, trails and sidewalk improvements 2 • Has excellent potential to take advantage of integration of new housing and other mixed use development in an existing underutilized commercial center, along a highway corridor. Rantdng 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 Community Commitment 8 9 10 Partnerships Replication Timeliness High • Given sufficient intensity of development, transit service could be expanded. 5 e Substantial opportunity for medium and high density housing in the downtown, which would be needed to support revitalized core. 6 . Provides assurance of retrofit with conventional (and consideration of innovative) stormwater treatment and an increase MH X X X X 8 X X Medium • Developer interest will be solicited once the plan is done. X X 9 X X Low . Several property owners ready to relocate. • New city council eager to implement project. Other Comments: Criteria 1 • Good potential to guide/upgrade of Highway 3 to add pedestrian walkways, trails and sidewalk improvements 2 • Has excellent potential to take advantage of integration of new housing and other mixed use development in an existing underutilized commercial center, along a highway corridor. 3 • Good mix. 4 • One Minnesota Valley transit route connects downtown Rosemount to Apple Valley Transit Center, which has very limited weekday, primarily peak -only, service. • It is unlikely in the near future that a direct link to other conununities (Burnsville and Eagan) would be implemented. • More realistic to talk about improved service to Apple Valley. • Given sufficient intensity of development, transit service could be expanded. 5 e Substantial opportunity for medium and high density housing in the downtown, which would be needed to support revitalized core. 6 . Provides assurance of retrofit with conventional (and consideration of innovative) stormwater treatment and an increase in green space. 7 . This project is the city council's highest priority. ® CIP includes resources in years 2004-05, which shows commitment. 8 . Strong ties to Dakota County Community Development Agency, but not private development partners. i Vague action plan with few partners, other than public agencies, on board. • Developer interest will be solicited once the plan is done. • Application does not make clear that the developers will actually be required to invest as partners in infrastructure needed. 9 • Could be applied to smaller downtowns in rural areas 10 . Several property owners ready to relocate. • New city council eager to implement project. Other • Project builds on a previously Council-fimded project. (LCDA Opportunity Grant of $15,000 in 2001). • This approach maximizes the benefit of previous work; but allows the new city council to take the project forward and shape it. • TIF reliance too Treat? 20 21 Applicant: St. Paul .Project Name: Schmidt Brewery Redevelopment Strategy Project Description In 2002, the City undertook the development of the Riverview Transit Corridor Plan. Situated along the Riverview line is the former Schmidt Brewery facility. Located one and half blocks east of the proposed Randolph Street Transit Station, the former brewery is now a controversial ethanol production facility facing an uncertain future. The transit corridor task force recognized the importance of the brewery site and the need to devote additional planning resources to determine the site's redevelopment, hr light of the significance of this neighborhood landmark, the task force recommended the following planning steps: ® A reuse study to determine its land use and development potential. Pedestrian and neighborhood oriented uses should be a priority. ® Activities to achieve historic designation should be initiated and any historic buildings should be preserved for adaptive reuse. The community should continue to be involved in advising the City and HRA in the reuse study. Applicant: Minneapolis Project Name: Elliot Park Project Description This project is to fund Design & Development workshops toward the goals of improved pedestrian and transit connections between housing, retail, and employment in Elliot Park and East Downtown. Elliot Park Neighborhood is hosting a series of Design & Development Workshops for 2003-2004, based on its Master Plan (adopted by the Minneapolis City Council in April 2003) that will combine design sessions with specific development initiatives. Two initiatives to advance the "Neighborhood Commons" theme of the Elliot Park Master Plan are proposed. These initiatives will involve proposals for new housing and con-nnercial development associated with the coming of LRT. Applicant: Dayton Project Name: Southwest Dayton Master Plan Project and AUAR Study Project Description The proposed project is for a transportation analysis, sewer and stormwater infrastructure analysis, natural resources inventory, and mitigation plan for the southwest portion of the city. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides overall guidance for land use and infrastructure development in the Southwest portion of the city. Cemstone has expressed interest in developing an industrial park and locating a plant in Dayton to help meet the regional need for aggregate. Other landowners have contacted the City regarding potential residential development in the area. These proposals will require an environmental review process and planning decisions related to regional infrastructure and natural resources. The study area is proposed to include a new Interstate 94 interchange, as supported by adjacent communities. The area also includes proposed mixed-use development, trails, parkland. The proposed uses include high-density residential housing and jobs along a transportation corridor, in walking distance to the proposed Hwy. 81 Bus Rapid Transit. The study project vwill present an opportunity to address these issues, allow for environmentally sensitive development, and allow higher and better use of the land. 22 -Applicant: Ramsey Project Name: Central Rural Reserve Area (CRRA) Study Project Description The City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan requires the city to work on identifying the potential of the Central Rral Reserve Area to receive municipal utilities after the year 2020. In the interim, the area is restricted to 4 in 40 density until the city completes the study. The CRRA contains 970 acres (with 150 vacant acres), the rest of the area is comprised of Ramsey Central Park and 570 single-family homes. The purpose of the request is to assist in the funding of a study, as required under the comprehensive plan, to determine how, with the extension of municipal services, the City can optimize land use, promote infill opportunities, increase housing choices for area residents and increase housing inventory in anticipation of the regional growth expectations. Applicant: South St. Paul Project Name: Concord/Gateway Project Project Description The City is in the process of developing and implementing a land use and streetscape plan for the North Concord Exchange and Grand Avenue Corridor. The City's intent is to formulate a land use plan for the revitalization and redevelopment of the North Concord Exchange Corridor from a blighted commercial corridor to a mixed use commercial/residential gateway to South St. Paul. The land use plan and zoning controls are essentially in place. The streetscape element is slated for a May 2004 start date. 23 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: St. Paul — Schmidt Brewery Overall Ranking: MEDIUM Comments Criteria Criteria: 1 . Good candidate site for redevelopment and revitalization. • Adaptive reuse of a historical building. • Will need reinvestment strategizing to ensure that the site does not become entirely vacant and blighted. 2 • Reuse of site will complement the corridor's wide variety of development centers that already exist in the corridor that are well connected with transit and highways. • Com lements recent city investment in surrounding area. 3 0 Project proposes to study balance of uses that will complement the existing corridor conummity development. Rauldng 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commitment Partnerships Replication Timeliness High . Partnerships will be essential between private developers, the city and the conummity according to the application; however, no explicit private sector entities have been defined. 9 . Limited replicability in areas of industrial site reuses. 10 . Could be good time to explore reuse of property with recent closure of beer/pop production and uncertainty of ethanol operation and the need for assurances that this site will not be a blight to the proposed ADM Terminal housing project. • Premature — property owner is not on board. • Lawsuits on ethanol plan pending — Should await outcome or could bias proceedings. MH X X Medium X X X X Low I i i i X X X X Comments Criteria 1 . Good candidate site for redevelopment and revitalization. • Adaptive reuse of a historical building. • Will need reinvestment strategizing to ensure that the site does not become entirely vacant and blighted. 2 • Reuse of site will complement the corridor's wide variety of development centers that already exist in the corridor that are well connected with transit and highways. • Com lements recent city investment in surrounding area. 3 0 Project proposes to study balance of uses that will complement the existing corridor conummity development. 4 • High level of transit service available with or without Riverview Transitway Corridor. • Area of site along W. Seventh is an existing high -frequency bus corridor. 5 . Could have potential to expand housing choices if housing uses are deemed feasible within the proposed planning effort. 6 • Modest commitment to restoring natural resources. • Potential linkage to Mississippi River green spaces and trails not mentioned as a goal. 7 . Task force formed to oversee the Riverview Transitway Corridor planning actually originated a recommendation to do this type of stud — project proposes to involve a similarly composed task force. 8 . Partnerships will be essential between private developers, the city and the conummity according to the application; however, no explicit private sector entities have been defined. 9 . Limited replicability in areas of industrial site reuses. 10 . Could be good time to explore reuse of property with recent closure of beer/pop production and uncertainty of ethanol operation and the need for assurances that this site will not be a blight to the proposed ADM Terminal housing project. • Premature — property owner is not on board. • Lawsuits on ethanol plan pending — Should await outcome or could bias proceedings. Other 24 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Minneapolis — Elliot Park Overall Ranking: MEDIUM Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Proposal is notconnected to development planning to maximize connectivity. • Could have potential to provide a walkable streetscape on Chicago Ave. south of the LRT station, connecting the Elliot Park neighborhood with the Riverfront and the hundreds of new residential units that are currently under construction or Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices G Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commitment Partnerships Replication Timeliness High ® Improved pedestrian and transit connections may enhance development. 3 • This is a mixed-use area, with more uses planned; and the community is requesting help to create gathering places, green space, streetscape, etc. • Proposes an improved street network. MH • Proposal to improve the pedestrian environment along Chicago Ave. with linkages to Elliot is a transit -supportive goal. • Enhancements to pedestrian environment and public realm through streetscape improvements and inclusion of the "commons" is fully supported by the draft Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan — which will be submitted to Metro X X Medium X X X X X + X X Low . Possibility to reduce impervious surface. • Project's potential to carry out neighborhood plan for enhanced green space along streets, improved water filtration, tree planing, etc. exceeds city requirements. I X I Comments: Criteria 1 • Proposal is notconnected to development planning to maximize connectivity. • Could have potential to provide a walkable streetscape on Chicago Ave. south of the LRT station, connecting the Elliot Park neighborhood with the Riverfront and the hundreds of new residential units that are currently under construction or in the planning stages. • Potential to be a conduit to creating better design and street connections throughout the neighborhood. 2 • This is the region's first real transitway corridor, and it connects the downtown with the region's airport and a huge bus transfer facility/destination at the Mall of America. ® Improved pedestrian and transit connections may enhance development. 3 • This is a mixed-use area, with more uses planned; and the community is requesting help to create gathering places, green space, streetscape, etc. • Proposes an improved street network. 4 • Proposal to improve the pedestrian environment along Chicago Ave. with linkages to Elliot is a transit -supportive goal. • Enhancements to pedestrian environment and public realm through streetscape improvements and inclusion of the "commons" is fully supported by the draft Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan — which will be submitted to Metro Council in September 2003. O Request to divert main line buses in a north/south direction or to create a new circulator route on the east edge of downtown is not something the Metro Transit is interested in. 5 0 Lots of affordable housing there now. • Housing happening through market supply/demand. 6 . Possibility to reduce impervious surface. • Project's potential to carry out neighborhood plan for enhanced green space along streets, improved water filtration, tree planing, etc. exceeds city requirements. 7 • Master Plan has not been reviewed by the Metro Council and not considered a corrip plan amendment by the city. 8 9 0 Might be used around other LRT stations. 10 e Timely in that LRT will open in April 2004 and city departments are currently discussing how to implement the recommendations of the city's and neighborhood's plans. e The portion of the project proposing creation of a plan that could call for transit changes is questionable at this time. Other Request seems like a lot of money for meetings. This is the entire request. • Design/concept plan already completed. Project is into implementation phase which is not the intent of Opportunity Grant. 25 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Dayton Overall Ranking: MEDIUM Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • No specific plans. • Project could connect development and create more walkable places if the study results in creating densities and mixes, and street patterns which are truly walkable and connected. Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 l0 Community Commitment Partnerships Replication Timeliness High coordination with Hennepin County, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. 3 . Application references natural resource amenities, residential and job development. 4 . At present, no transit routes provide direct service to the community. • The location of this project near a potential busway station (and possibly new interchange) may offer the opportunity to NM I 5 . No solid commitment to affordable and mixed income housing is made in the application. • The mobile home park now provides affordable housing but application is unclear whether the mobile home park will X Medium X X X X X X X X X LowIr • Re Tonal agencies involved. 8 • AUAR project costs will be shared with developers, the DNR, MnDOT and the Count),. 9 • Potential to show how to integrate transit -oriented development, roadway infrastructure, natural resources protection as art of a large area development. Comments: Criteria 1 • No specific plans. • Project could connect development and create more walkable places if the study results in creating densities and mixes, and street patterns which are truly walkable and connected. • Potential to plan for mixed-use greenfield development within a walk of a potential Northwest Busway station. • Potential to link areas to the Highway 81 corridor. 2 a Development appears contingent upon access to I-94 at a new interchange that is likely to be a long-term improvement. • Transportation system impacts should be addressed through the project's transportation analysis and mitigation plan, in coordination with Hennepin County, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. 3 . Application references natural resource amenities, residential and job development. 4 . At present, no transit routes provide direct service to the community. • The location of this project near a potential busway station (and possibly new interchange) may offer the opportunity to cluster more of the city's expanded development within a walk of transit and with good regional highway access. 5 . No solid commitment to affordable and mixed income housing is made in the application. • The mobile home park now provides affordable housing but application is unclear whether the mobile home park will survive, and if it doesn't, whether affordable housing will be incorporated into the new development. 6 • All of the tasks relate to mitigating impacts of new development and therefore it follows that natural resources/ environment will be preserved. • Suggest integrating some existing opens ace. 7 . Public involvement through AUAR public meetings and advisory conlnuttee. • Re Tonal agencies involved. 8 • AUAR project costs will be shared with developers, the DNR, MnDOT and the Count),. 9 • Potential to show how to integrate transit -oriented development, roadway infrastructure, natural resources protection as art of a large area development. 10 0 Developer ready to pay for part of study and master planninu now. • Landowners interested in residential development. • Good timing for coordination with sewer and transportation infrastructure planning. • Sewer available in 2005 creating imminent development pressure. • Area is outside of existing MUSA and not slated for urbanization until after 2020. Other • This is comprehensive planning, not "predevelopment" planning 1'or a potential development project, so is not appropriate for this funding source. • While site is on the 81 busway corridor, it appears unlikely to evolve into the LCDA Demonstration category. • Appears premature for this funding source. 26 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: Ramsey Overall Ranking: MEDIUM Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 . Potential to be connected with the Ramsey Town Center development that is proposed around the possible Northstar Commuter Rail Station. • Would provide for higher intensity development within that area of the region than might otherwise occur. Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 10 Community Commitment —Partnerships Replication Timeliness High ® Infill development could be difficult when dealing with that many land owners. O Development will be expensive when it includes relocation, acquisition of 500+ homes, removal of septic systems and demolition. 3 ® Proposal can provide the city the means to analyze the potential to redevelop the area into a more intensive land use MH pattern. • Likely to be very high density to overcome costs. 4 • No transit is presently available. • Redevelopment of the area can provide an opportunity to construct pedestrian connections in the form of a walkway Medium X X X X X X X X X Low o Redevelopment of the area will remove failing on-site septic systems. X a Extending utilities could offer opportunity to apply innovative wetlands and stormwater management and secure new drainage/utility easements. • DNR protected wetland exists on the site. Comments: Criteria 1 . Potential to be connected with the Ramsey Town Center development that is proposed around the possible Northstar Commuter Rail Station. • Would provide for higher intensity development within that area of the region than might otherwise occur. • Redevelopment of area could provide potential to improve connections with new sidewalks, trails, roads and transit station 2 • One of several older areas in the city with potential to receive city sewer service, essential for the development of any additional more intensive land use patterns in the city. ® Infill development could be difficult when dealing with that many land owners. O Development will be expensive when it includes relocation, acquisition of 500+ homes, removal of septic systems and demolition. 3 ® Proposal can provide the city the means to analyze the potential to redevelop the area into a more intensive land use pattern. • Likely to be very high density to overcome costs. 4 • No transit is presently available. • Redevelopment of the area can provide an opportunity to construct pedestrian connections in the form of a walkway system. • Walkway could be connected to the Ramsey Town Center providing a connection to the future rail station. 5 • Good potential to expand housing choices. • Will include medium and high density housing with a nvx of types and values. 6 o Redevelopment of the area will remove failing on-site septic systems. a Extending utilities could offer opportunity to apply innovative wetlands and stormwater management and secure new drainage/utility easements. • DNR protected wetland exists on the site. 7 • City has good track record of public involvement. • City Council supports study. • The study was reconunended as part of the Council comprehensive plaii review. 8 ® Potential for public-private partnership should be determined iii part by the analysis of the area's redevelo nient poteiuial. 9 C Potential for replication rnay be high — providing a framework for smooth transition from rural to urban services. 10 9 Development pressures continue to build. Y Study needed to protect the area until need for urban development and services. Other 9 This appears to be more of a comprehensive planning effort, rather than "predevelopment" planning for a potential development project, so is not appropriate for this finding source. • This is a good project but concern that the Town Center remain a priority for the city. 27 2003 LCDA Opportunity Grants Ranking by Criteria City/Project Name: South St. Paul Overall Ranking: MEDIUM Comments: Criteria Criteria: 1 • Area seems to need an overall land use and development plan and strategy. • The description of what is intended is quite general, and does not emphasis redevelopment projects • Mixed-use infill/redevelopment of a blighted commercial corridor would be of value in revitalizing the area, but the application doesn't make clear the connection to land use and development. Ranking 1 Connected Patterns 2 Existing Infra- Structure 3 Balance of Uses 4 Transit Connections 5 Housing Choices 6 Natural Resources 7 8 9 to Conununity Commitment Partnerships Replication Timeliness High • No transit elements are incorporated into the Redevelopment Concept Plan. • Bus service at present is only fair to poor. • Unlikely bus service improvements will be made in the near term unless substantial new development begs for increased levels of service. MH a Indicates high density but not sure at what density or number of units. 6 7 . Looks like it has commitment, at least streetsca e part. I x Medium X X • Some improvements already underway. X X X I I X Low • Streetscaping is not something that is meaningful as an LCDA application without a much broader context of planning X • Recommend arranging a charette workshop or similar technical assistance format on this project with knowledgeable I I X X Comments: Criteria 1 • Area seems to need an overall land use and development plan and strategy. • The description of what is intended is quite general, and does not emphasis redevelopment projects • Mixed-use infill/redevelopment of a blighted commercial corridor would be of value in revitalizing the area, but the application doesn't make clear the connection to land use and development. 2 • Adding mixed-use development to this area will enhance this corridor. 3 • Appears to have a balance, but don't have a good feel for mixes of uses and density, nor green spaces. 4 • Proposal appears to be oriented primarily to pedestrian and streetscape improvements, not necessarily consciously connected with transit. • No transit elements are incorporated into the Redevelopment Concept Plan. • Bus service at present is only fair to poor. • Unlikely bus service improvements will be made in the near term unless substantial new development begs for increased levels of service. 5 a Indicates high density but not sure at what density or number of units. 6 7 . Looks like it has commitment, at least streetsca e part. 8 • No information to evaluate this. 9 • 10 • Some improvements already underway. Other • Streetscaping is not something that is meaningful as an LCDA application without a much broader context of planning and redevelopment. • Recommend arranging a charette workshop or similar technical assistance format on this project with knowledgeable professionals and Council staff. • The city's Local Surface Water Management Plan (LWMP) was due to have been completed by May 2003. 28 £OODU6 ut}q•£0i, smau/smau/2ao'jTaun000.T}auT•mmm//:di •pan.rasaN s}y61b 11V -11ounoo uejllodoa}aW £OOZ O 'Isonbei uodn s}euraol aay}o m aigellene sl a}Is sly} uo u01}eWJOIu1 11V sn•ur.u•a}�}s•ojar.u�aa}uao•e}gip :I1eW-3 V060 -66Z -L99 :AJ -L - 0006 -Z09 -L99 :auoyd 40659 NW `Ined '}S -'IS 415 3 0£Z - a041JIaO V113d saeaW nea5 a}IS I s�}-�oewoo I sgor I uo1}e}rodsue�l leuol�a eek s}aocia — as inosa- s uan aal�j I Sft }nog}y I saainaas I a a I!ounoo ue}11odo.r}aW saspala�j smaN oq-ujn4a,, •aouaano6 elosauuiW ayj }o aansealc ay} 42 sanaas pue Aq pajulodde sl ilounoD uelllodoa4aW aagwaw-ZT ayl salllwe} pue slenpinlpul awooul-ajeaapow pue -mc ao} salllunlioddo 6ulsnoy apinoad leyl spun] saalsiuiwpe pue s�lied Ieuol6ai sueld 'uoljenaasaad saoanosa.r aalem sa6euew put .tajemalsem sjeaaj pue sloalloo 'wajsAs snq leuo16aa ayj sung TI •uol6aa anlllladwoo e pue saolnaas anljoa44a-jsoo 'salllunwwo: Ielln aoj saleo0npe IlounoD ayl •eaae o.tlaw Alunoo-uanas ayl ao} u0ljezlue6ao 6uluueld leuol6aa aya sl llouno:) uejIIodoa4aW ay_ 'Allligenll pUe A1!1e1ln Allunwwoo sa4owoac pue salllunwwoo saoueyua leyj juawdolanap AIpuapj-jlsuea4 pue alge>llem 'paloauuoo alean pue 'juawd0lanapaa ao} sail: palnllod do uealo '6ulsnoy algepao}}e aseanul ewe oajaw ayl jno46no.r44 salllunwwoo sdla4 weActid salllunwwo:) algeAIj ay_ -salpn4s jailaew pue sp.repu2js luawdolanap 'sueld aalsew oljload! -ails Io uoll2aedaid se 4ons labels juawd0lanap lenjoe a44 04u1 sloa[oad avow dlay 4244 salllnlloe j.roddns s4uea6 Allunjaodd( •slue)6 as j jo uoildlaosap e Main -Ined 'IS pue poomaldeW 'alep-iapne- apnloul 6ulpunj papieme sail!:) aayjo -aolo4o 6ulsnoy puedxa pue aanlonalsea}ul 6ullslxa azlwixew leyl swaijed luawdolanal asn-paxlw 'paioauuoo aleaao of leilua4od alagl ao} paloalas aaam pue sabels 6uluueld a44 ul aae sjoa[oad ayl s4oaCoac uanas ao} 000'00£$ Apeau 6u!12401 sa11!o uanas 01 sluea6 AIlun4aoddo salllunwwoD algenl-j panoadde '4snbny u! 'llounoD ay_ 'I!ounoD uelilodo.t4aW ay4 woaj dlay yllm silaom ayj ul Ile a.te adoH maN aoj u61sal umolumop leuolllpeal aaow e pue sllodeauulW yljou ul juawd0lanap awooul-paxlw 'asn-paxlw e fumolumop 0laolsly s,lunowasol to u0ljeZllejlnaa 'saoljjo pue sdoys '6ulsnoy Ijlm @Nel .teag allyM ul juawdolanapaa aplsa>Iei e ao} sueld--COO' Z 'Z 'IdaS-lfltld '_U /-SEVZ09,TS� abpollo>l aluuog :loeluo- suoiwwoo jao nS sjuejq Iiounoo ojjejA asealaa sMar 4mos in 19U U4 sqoIl I uo!jo;jodS'UP1 j 1eU01$821 quill T Spode `sooinoS9}j s}U3A3 � S UI;a� S n 1nogy 1, SQ1:)rAda j �o j abed suoTSTA �}tunuzuzoo }.ToddnS s}ueag jiounoD o.T}ay�j •ojuj V smoN - jtounoD ue}tjodoTjo- £OOZ/£/6 u4u•e£0tsmau/smau/.�?.zo•Iioun000z;aurmmm//:d; •pamosaa s}y6Rl 11V 'I!ounoo ueplodoj}aW €OOZ O •Isanbal uodn s;ewjoj jay;o ui elgellene sl a;ls sly} uo uol}ewjo;ul [IV sn uua a}s �aua��auaa;ep :llew-3 117060-66Z-659 :All • 0006-Z09-199 :auoyd 1.0655 NW `Ined 'IS • 'IS 415 3 0£Z • ja}uaO Njed sjeaW yaieas a;iS I sn;da}uo I sq -or I uoi;4jodsuejl leuo1- 5- a}eQ'8 s}joda�aajnosa� I s}uan3 s�"ui aaW I sn;nogy I saoln.laS I awoH Ilounoo ue;llodo.i;aW saseaja�jsmaN oa wnja� •6uisnoy jo A4@ijen a;o sgiun OOZ Jano pue sajogs joolj-punoj6 'Naed Mau a 'apeuawwd @p!s@Ne e 'sadeospajas Mau sapnpui ueld jalsew ayl •DNe-I Jeae aaiyM;o @Joys 4sam aya uo juawdojanapaj p@sodojd a;o juawssassE A1111ciisea; leioucuij a pue juawdoIanap u61sap Jo; 000'SS$--aMe-1 jean 94IyArj';uawdoianapaa asn paxlW 96eII!A allel •sasn leiojawwoo pue 6uisnoy paxiw Allepuaaoc q4!M a}!s aya Jo; soiJeuaos juawdojan@p @@Jq4 Jo OMI MCJp 01 wjij jejj:)@4!yoje ue wiy 111m /ilio ayl s@woq Al!we;-916uis uazop a pue sjasn jep4snpui oml of awoy Alluajim 'fined 'IS JO pooyjogy6iau pu3 y1JON @L14 ui @I!s ajoe-auiu a Jo; slesiejddE 1onpuoo pue Apnjs ja�jew 'ueld aaasew a ajedajd 01 oo0'Z9$--Ined 1S'4uawdolanaQ 6ulsnoH j!pnws/ssejs uoiup •apijd pue Ajpuapi omio aseaJoui pue ssaoons oiwouooa @Iowojd 04 juawuoJmua jeoisALId ayj 6umojdwi 6uipnpui 16UISnOL PUP 6uiddoys'sassauisnq Jo; me umolumop sji az1je4inaJ 01 si jeo6 s,Ajp ayl •sa14inipe 4uawdojanapajd jayqo pue Apnjs jaNaeu e 'spjepuegs u61sap;o quawdojanap 'uoiledioiljed oilgnd jo; 000'OS$--junowasoa '4uawdol9n9p9b unno;unnoa ;unowasoll -Aq!SJanip 6uisnoy ppe pinom geyj u6isap umolumop leuoiaipej: ajow e asinap pue 'eaje ay4 ui sjol 6uilJed pue 1121W JO laA@l luajjno ay4 6urmpaj ssajppe p1nom ueld ayl eaJe ajoe-Z'ZE jol A6aleJas luawdoIan@paJ pue ueld Jalsew a ajedajd of OOS'SS$--adoH nnaN 'ewV 4uawdolanapa-d jajua:) Aj!:) adoH m9N •silodeamW yajou ui 4uawdojanap awooui-p@xiu. asn-paxiw joojq-jnoj e jo aseyd puooas aya si jseq nweje>{ •ubisap pa[ojd jjejano pue ueld � 4!1!gisea; 6uisnoy lApn4s ja>ijeu u6isap adeos4aw4s pue juawdojanap 4!un pauueld 'ueld 6ui�Jed pue �(pn4s oijjeJa e JOJ S6£'9t,$--siIode9uulW ljse3 nweje)i •4oijgsip 6uiuoz asn-paxiw mau e;o uoileajo 6uipnlou 'pooyjogy6iou aya ui Aainiaoe 4uawdojanapaJ awos palJe4s Apeajle sey Alp ayl •sassauisnq jo Aejje ue yiim pooyjogy6i@L 6ui6e up joi spJepue4s u61s@p pue ueld oi6ajejjs e;o auawdojanap J04 000'8$--poonnaideW 'poogjogy6laN auo;spels •suoigoauuoo ueuisapad pue jisuejj pooh pue 'sasn leiojawwoo aleos-liews 'saoeds oilgnd uado 'saoioyo 6uisnoL algepjo}�e y1iM JaIuao 4ueJgin e 04UI •any jnaluadje-1 6uole eaje up jo auawdolanapaJ ajnlnj ayj joj 'sauilapin6 u61sap pue shoo: uoijejuawaldwi yjim 6uole 'ueld Jalsew 2 J uoileajo Jo; 000'OZ$--9lepj9pne-j '4uawdoianapa-d jopljjo:) -and jna;uadje-1 £OOZ Isn elgeni, eseGION smaN 13o I abed. £OOZ;sn2nd - s;uejg X;tun;joddo swj!unwwoD olgenT'I •ojuI N smaN - ITounoD ue;Tjodoz;oj LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT OPPORTUNITY GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2003 CITY OF LAUDERDALE LARPENTEUR AVENEUE CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT Project Name Applicant City Project Located In Project Location: Contact Person and Authorized Official: PROJECT SUMMARY Larpenteur Avenue Corridor Redevelopment City of Lauderdale City of Lauderdale Larpenteur Avenue, between Eustis Street and Pleasant Street Rick Getschow, City Administrator 1891 Walnut Street Phone: 651-631-0300 Fax: 651-631-2066 This is a proposal seeking predevelopment funds to assist in the creation of master plan, along with implementation tools and design guidelines, for the future redevelopment of an area on Larpenteur Avenue in Lauderdale that would exemplify the Metropolitan Council's definition of "livable communities". This area has the potential to be a vibrant center utilizing smart growth principles that would produce several affordable housing choices, open public spaces, and small-scale neighborhood commercial uses with excellent transit linkages (both pedestrian and bus) to the greater immediate metropolitan area. 2 E 2 � LL _ \ 2 k � q / \ # q / ■ m � GO, k g \ (D m w m M 2 0 \ \ m LU / U) k t k ® C) 04 ƒ / ƒ ƒ 2 < < ■ § ƒ o o \m / E g ®® \ (o o \ \ f E g e / M cu 2 E(1) c G 2 \ k $ O 2 o CL a.$/ 4) / $ Q 0 / ƒ ƒ ' / o / k E E a \ 0 m c f @ E k f e k / / E o > Q k \ ' % 0 k ƒ E \ \ 0 / t § f E > o_§ 7 e § / . LU 2 R @ g \ > w $ / S 0 7 \ 7 ƒ @ . E ° / m 3 Q % § # E # q 2 ¥ % § e) % w a § N . a \ 2 k � 2. PROJECT STATUS A. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not needed. This project is for the purpose of implementing elements of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this corridor. Attached is a highlighted page 16 of the Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan that addresses this issue. At this time, there are not any anticipated zoning changes or variances that are needed. B. Master Plans, Market Studies, and Design Standards will all be developed as part of this project. 3. PLANNED OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT A. Existing and Future Land Use. The current land uses on the project site consist primarily of high-density multiple -family housing. There are also single-family residential and commercial uses in the project area. Adjacent land uses within the Larpenteur Avenue area consist of single-family residential, multiple - family residential, commercial, industrial, and park uses. The proposed project would involve the potential demolition of substandard housing and would result in a development would include new and additional housing choices, community gathering spaces, and adjacent commercial neighborhood uses. B. Conti ected or Walkable Places. The proposed project would create more pedestrian walkways and connections to some adjacent land uses in the Larpenteur Avenue area that consist of other single-family residential, multiple -family residential, commercial, industrial, and park uses that are currently not accessible. For example, there is currently a Lauderdale Nature Area to the southeast of this proposed development where pedestrian access needs to be improved. C. Balance of Residential, Commercial, and Green Space. The goal of this project is to create a master plan or redevelopment plan for an area of Larpenteur Avenue that would possess an excellent balanced mix of uses. This current low -moderate income area has the potential to be a vibrant area based on smart growth principles that include several affordable housing choices, open public spaces, and small-scale neighborhood commercial uses with excellent transit linkages (both pedestrian and bus) to the greater immediate metropolitan area. D. Transit Linkages. This area of Larpenteur Avenue is a major service line for Met Transit. The master plan and market studies for this redevelopment project would build upon the excellent transit access that currently serves this area. E. Expand Housing Choices. This project could greatly expand the housing choices available in the area. Currently, the main choice of housing in the multiple -family residential area is one and two bedroom apartment units all within a certain rental range. This redevelopment would create more types of housing choices serving more different populations of persons with varying incomes in the area. F. Environmental Potential. This project would provide an opportunity to improve the environmental management shortcomings of the area. First, this project could reduce the high amount of impervious surface that currently exists. Also, the City would explore implementing low impact development techniques that are a part of the Met Council's Best Management Practices Handbook to manage stormwater. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, SUPPORT AND PARTNERSHIP A. Local Commitment and Public Participation. During the city comprehensive planning process, a task force composed of Lauderdale residents and city officials approved the goal of creating a Larpenteur Avenue redevelopment plan following years of research and discussion. Following the completion of this latest Comprehensive Plan in 1997 and during subsequent strategic planning meetings, the City Council approved and established as a city goal in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 the desire the explore the redevelopment of a portion of the Laipenteur Avenue Corridor. The City Council feels that this area has a more than sufficient base of population and activities in an environment that is very accessible to transit but can be vastly improved through a redevelopment that increases jobs, provides neighborhood commercial/retail options, while also creating a more walkable environment. Previous research has led city staff to conclude that feasibility and market studies are needed for the development of a master plan. The City Council felt that the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Program was the opportunity and impetus needed to move this project forward. The City Council and several residents, through their contributions on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force, possess a strong commitment to plan for this Larpenteur Avenue redevelopment based on smart growth principles and to ultimately implement that redevelopment. All city staff, including the City Administrator, will be involved in all aspects of the predevelopment. Lauderdale is a small inner -ring suburb where there is a high degree of interaction between the residents and city officials. Most community residents will be fully involved in the process because the visibility and impact of this project is very high since Larpenteur Avenue is the only commercial corridor and main thoroughfare in the entire City. B. Partnerships. The City would partner with all other governmental agencies that have a property or infrastructure interest in the project area. These agencies include, but are not necessarily limited to, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The City would place a high degree of importance on partnering will all private, for-profit, or non-profit entities that may ultimately be involved in the predevelopment and subsequent redevelopment of the Larpenteur Avenue corridor. 5. OTHER EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Replicability. This project would serve as a model for redevelopment in other areas of the city. There are other portions of Larpenteur Avenue and Eustis Street that possess similar uses to the ones in this project area. This redevelopment model could then be replicated to these other area upon a successful completion of this project. B. Timeliness. The project would begin immediately upon receipt of the grant. The scope of work to be completed in this grant would occur between September 2003 -September 2004. The estimated completion date of the project is in September of 2004. The goals of the City are in place following this planning process to move toward actual implementation and redevelopment. 6. ATTACHMENTS • Vicinity and Site Location Map (Project Area) • City of Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan material • City Council Resolution 052703A: A Resolution Authorizing Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Program Z o (D 0 65, =3 :3 CD CL 6 CL CT (D (D C- C: CD O_ i L CO r 17 1 0 =3 8 (D C: 3 cr 'rI III ` I - _11 -L 11 L111 (D CL) LI 0 LLL (D 0 LL L FT a) 3 Rtu-= 11 W CD , 0 ID _E 11 CD CD (D — — — — — — — — El- [ f FF] < C-) n 0 i l` U LI =i; (D CD CD CL T ij j_ L9 i I I _j CD — — — — — — — — — — x :3 -0 cn �n 0 cn C C (D (D AM gull LIU 3 - CD 0) ea =3 0 =r Cl w cr -0 0 C: < cr Iv F). cn - 3 (D 00 C: q Qa CD W 0 Q_ =3 CL (n -al CL < =3 0 > s LJ Z'N — 0 C co C: > 0) CD 3 0 M M CL rn m ;u M 0 a) 0 0 U) _- 0 m 1,D kv - z 50 --1 m (D 0 C� m a o CD CL z m 3 M ;b -0 fD 5.rt0 P - CD 4A M OL Z 0 (D m O 0 3 m o' o(D . o o a. (Q m C <o' w a v ca O o :� cD C3 U) zr (D w N m o �m N (7 O C, 3 U-2. Al Q (D 3 (D lD � (D n O O O Q (D (D Q• as (D N (D (D O (D v N X c3'' N O= - N (n O cn C C (3 CD (D CD v o C- :3 o_ o. (D v m sa O C < CD �. cn O (D C: a a m W 0 D o a :3 a c C (o N O W.(Q o tU O 5 (D O Q 0 0- 93 00 O C ci o ( m m'�'# At ._. m0mmmm A L m N) o(n 0 r --i -i CO -i C CO r- rt 00 -40 ®` m Z m 3 Ami, (n O 0! (re z J m Ui Co' c b Land Use & Tax Base Issue Questions • What can the City do to increase its tax base? • How can the City increase its tax base without increasing the burden on residential properties? • Can the City receive more revenue from tax exempt properties for City services? • What can the City do to ensure the best possible use of its remaining commercial and Goals, Policies, and Action Steps GOAL I. EXPAND THE CITY'S REVENUE AND TAX BASE. 1. Encourage development and/or redevelopment of commercial and industrial properties. • Use tax increment financing, and other mechanisms where applicable, to encourage the clean-up and development of polluted sites. • Develop alternatives for encouraging economic development, such as creating an Economic Development Authority. • Allow what is left of the Goodwill/Easter Seal site after the Highway 280 reconstruction to be used for commercial/industrial development. 2. Ensure that commercial/industrial development within the City does not have a negative impact on residential areas. • Revise zoning ordinances regarding setbacks, signs, and screenings to ensure an adequate buffer between residential and commercial/industrial areas. • Rewrite zoning ordinances to include performance standards that encourage businesses that would not significantly increase traffic and noise, but would contribute to the City's tax base. • Survey residents to see what types of businesses would be most desired. Page 16 CITY OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Lauderdale, Minnesota, is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2003 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and, WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project for predevelopment planning funds, within the City of Lauderdale and referred to as the "Larpenteur Avenue Corridor", that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria; and, WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and, WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of Lauderdale, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the opportunity grant application submitted on June 1, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Administrator is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for predevelopment funding on behalf of the City of Lauderdale and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of Lauderdale on this 27th of May, 2003. (ATTEST) Ie f Dams, Mayor (SEAL) Rick Getschow, City Administrator