HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 EDA MinutesPROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 10, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty and Marty
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated under Item 7, Reports, there would be two
representatives from Medtronics who would give a short presentation.
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Approve the January 10, 2005 Agenda as amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES
None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
6. EDA BUSINESS
A. Resolution 04-EDA-198 Authorizing Expenditure to RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd., for
Additional Services as Outlined on Request for Design Change No. 2
Associated with the Bridges Redevelopment Site Areawide Urban Alternative
Review (AUAR).
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that on September 13th the Mounds View
Economic Development Authority authorized the selection of RLK Kuusisto to undertake the
AUAR for the Bridges Redevelopment project, and that this was intended to look at parameters
that are related to redevelopment such as transportation, public services, environmental, et cetera.
Mounds View EDA January 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
He stated that it had been published on November 17th, and there is a 30-day comment period for
various agencies to comment regarding the draft AUAR. He stated that staff is requesting an
amendment to the RLK Kuusisto contract that would facilitate the amendment application that
needs to be submitted to the Met Council. He stated that staff recommends that the EDA adopt
this Resolution, which authorizes the expenditure to RLK for additional services as shown in
Change No. 2 associated with the Bridges development at a cost not to exceed $19,855. He
stated that after the discussion at the Work Session on January 3, he had gone back to RLK to see
if the cost could be reduced, and he was able to get a lower dollar amount for the meetings. He
stated that if there are fewer meetings, then that would generate a lower cost to the City. He
stated that this cost would be paid through the City’s EDA fund.
Commissioner Flaherty asked what the fee was per hour.
City Administrator Ulrich stated that it’s at a rate of $150 per hour.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that if they do not go to all of these meetings,
then it would be less.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Marty. To waive the reading and approve Resolution
04-EDA-198 Authorizing Expenditure to RLK Kuusisto, Ltd., for Additional Services as
Outlined on Request for Design Change No. 2 Associated with the Bridges Redevelopment Site
Areawide Urban Alternative Review (AUAR).
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
7. REPORTS
Economic Development Coordinator Backman introduced Rodger McCombs and Donn
Hagmann from Medtronics.
Rodger McCombs, Vice President of Workplace Solutions for Medtronics, stated that he felt this
was an exciting project, and it was certainly an option that they were seriously considering. He
stated that they have 7,000 employees in the Twin Cities area, and grow 250-300 employees each
year. He stated they have 33,000 employees worldwide. He stated that they do about $9.1
billion in annual sales. He stated that this project would support in the first phase about 820,000
square feet, and there would be about 3,000 employees at this site, so it would be home to one of
their largest business units. He stated that Medtronics is very strong in community relations, and
they recently celebrated the 25th year anniversary of the Medtronic Foundation, which has
provided millions of dollars back into the communities where it has its businesses to support
such things as science and education.
President Marty announced that there is an opening on the EDC, and applications are available at
Mounds View EDA January 10, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
City Hall.
President Marty questioned the 820,000 square feet because he had previously heard 500,000
square feet, and Mr. McCombs stated that they had determined for what they needed that they
had increased it to 820,000 square feet.
8. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, January 24, 2005, 6:30 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting
January 14, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
4:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Flaherty, and Marty
ABSENT: Gunn
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Approve the January 14, 2005 Agenda as Presented.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES
None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
6. EDA BUSINESS
A. Resolution 05-EDA-199 Authorizing Staff to Arrange for an Appraisal of the
Outdoor Signs as part of the Bridges Redevelopment Project.
Economic Development Director Backman stated the City Administrator and himself had met
with Scott Riggs and Bob Lindall of Kennedy and Graven regarding the Medtronic project and
the removal of some or all of the outdoor signs at the Bridges Golf Course and the appraisal of
the signs. He stated that the proposals are $13,000 and $18,000, with Patchen, Mesner & Dodd
submitting the lowest bid. He stated that the estimated completion date is March 15, 2005. He
stated that he has had discussions with Jason Mesner to see if they could complete the appraisals
in a quicker fashion, and they were able to rearrange their schedule to be able to complete it two
weeks earlier, but it would cost $14,500 instead.
Commissioner Flaherty asked what the appraisals would entail besides appraising the physical
Mounds View EDA January 14, 2005
Special Meeting Page 2
aspect of the signs.
.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that they would also be evaluating the leases.
Commissioner Flaherty asked whether they would also value what Clear Channel would require
of the City to get out of the lease.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that they would be looking at a variety of
aspects, and that is why they were interacting with Kennedy and Graven as well.
President Marty asked whether the signs were being looked at individually since there was
speculation that possibly all the signs would not have to go.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that he had asked for proposals on one, two,
and all six billboards.
President Marty asked if the appraisal would look at each sign’s purported value and the cost of
the signs themselves.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that it would be both.
Vice President Stigney asked whether Clear Channel had come out with any figures or whether
they were going to.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that he would have to defer to City Attorney
Riggs on that issue.
City Attorney Riggs stated that the discussions hadn’t gone that far. He stated that they had
information from Clear Channel showing what they had spent on the signs, what they believe the
income will be, and what they believe the City will received from the signs, so they had a pretty
good baseline. He stated that he assumed that they would do something like that.
Vice President Stigney asked what the next step would be.
City Attorney Riggs stated it would be to figure out what signs could remain or be relocated so
that Clear Channel is still happy, and so the City and the EDA can move forward with the
project.
Vice President Stigney asked whether all the bases were being covered by this appraisal or
whether something else would need to be done in the future.
City Attorney Riggs stated that conceivably something could come up, but that this would
Mounds View EDA January 14, 2005
Special Meeting Page 3
provide a good baseline.
President Marty asked whether all the signs were up yet.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that there are structures on all six sites, but
they are not fully done.
Commissioner Flaherty stated his concern over spending $14,500 on appraisals when they
haven’t received a proposal yet from Medtronic. He stated his concern over the increase there
has been in the taxes for the residents of Mounds View.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that Medtronic had attended and spoke at the
last City Council meeting, so that had been a good sign. He stated that both sides were spending
money on this project, and that the AUAR was a process that needed to be done whether it’s for
this project or another project. He stated that Medtronic had hired SRF to do a traffic analysis.
President Marty asked whether this cost could be put into the purchase price for the land.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that a variety of things could be placed into a
development agreement such as this. He stated that the expenditure was TIF eligible, and that
the TIF funds are in good shape. He stated they were just beginning the process to discuss what
elements could be placed in a development agreement with Medtronic.
President Marty asked if it was necessary to complete the appraisal two weeks early with a higher
price tag.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that it was necessary, and that there are a lot of
aspects to this $65 million project. He stated that Medtronic would like to begin construction in
September. He stated that he was working on a chart to determine when various issues need to
be accomplished. He stated that there had been discussions regarding accomplishing the
development agreement by the latter part of March, so these appraisals were needed by the end of
February.
Vice President Stigney asked if the appraisals would be time specific.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that the appraisals would be like a snapshot in
time.
City Attorney Riggs stated that it would be relevant for the time period they were talking about
here, but in two years they would have a basis to work off of from it.
Vice President Stigney stated that the size and scope of this project is a once in a lifetime
Mounds View EDA January 14, 2005
Special Meeting Page 4
opportunity, and that the Council should fully pursue it to whatever means they can. He stated
that the whole purpose of TIF money is for economic development, and what larger project could
there be in Minnesota right now than this particular project.
President Marty stated that that was true, but they had had that experience with NCR where the
City had spent a lot of money when they didn’t have a purchase agreement, and NCR had gone
elsewhere. He stated his concern that Medtronic would go elsewhere if the State decided they
couldn’t expand the bridge from two to four lanes going across 35W.
Vice President Stigney stated that it was important to get this appraisal for any potential
development on this site, whether it was Medtronic or another company.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that this was being done for Medtronic.
Vice President Stigney stated that the AUAR would be good for 20 years.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that he had no problem with the AUAR because they needed to see
what the potential of that area was. He stated he was looking for something concrete.
Vice President Stigney stated that what is concrete is how much this project would increase the
tax base for Mounds View. He stated that right now they are getting absolutely nothing.
Commissioner Flaherty stated he was not against this project; he just wanted to see more
information on it.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that they are trying to get that information as
quickly as possible. He stated that other developers have approached the City, and he has
interacted with them and provided them with information. He stated if the project with
Medtronic didn’t go through, he would be negotiating with others. He stated that the State is
seriously looking at the interchange of 35W and County Road J, and they have awarded a
$100,000 contract for doing additional evaluations encompassing that intersection.
President Marty stated that the increase in City taxes was due in large part to the government
assistance cuts and the referendum for the police officers. He stated that there are hard decisions
that the Council has to make, and they are trying to figure out ways to ease the tax burden in
Mounds View. He stated that if this particular deal doesn’t work, probably just an update on this
appraisal would need to be done in the future at a nominal cost.
City Administrator Ulrich stated that this is an action that is more specific to Medtronic because
it’s at their request. He stated that the meeting on January 3rd was really the first time the
Council had had an opportunity to hear about this proposal in more detail. He stated that this
may or may not be valuable for a future project. He stated that they want to know what their risk
Mounds View EDA January 14, 2005
Special Meeting Page 5
is going into this negotiation regarding the billboard costs. He stated that this will be a good
investment for going into negotiations, and it will help to protect the City.
President Marty stated that they had been told how much they would get for the land from
Medtronic, but they don’t know the cost of getting out of the billboard lease or removing the
billboards, so until they have that piece of information, they don’t really know what it’s going to
cost the City.
Vice President Stigney stated that it’s geared toward trying to respond to Medtronic, but he could
see further benefit to it if there were negotiations with others in the future.
President Marty asked if Commissioner Gunn had commented on this.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that she was aware of the meeting, but he
hadn’t received any comment from her.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that this project is a big opportunity for the City of Mounds View,
and he understands the need for expenditures, but he wanted to get across that the Commission
and Council are going to be asking these questions.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that during his discussions with three other
developers the signs had been mentioned, so they would need to revisit this issue if this project
didn’t go through, so he viewed this appraisal as an investment.
President Marty stated that the reason they brought the billboards in is because the golf course
wouldn’t bring anything in until 2017. He stated he was not a fan of billboards, but they had to
figure out a way to pay off the golf course without saddling the citizens. He asked if it would be
appropriate to amend the Resolution to reflect a cost not to exceed $15,000 in case there were
any extra last minute costs.
Economic Development Director Backman stated that that would be fair.
President Marty stated he would like it to be communicated to Medtronic that they had amended
the resolution and expended more city funds in order to speed up the timeframe.
Economic Development Director Backman stated he would communicate that both verbally and
in writing.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To adopt Resolution 05-EDA-199, Authorizing Staff to
Arrange for an Appraisal of the Outdoor Signs as part of the Bridges Redevelopment Project, at a
cost not to exceed $15,000.
Mounds View EDA January 14, 2005
Special Meeting Page 6
Ayes-3 Nays-0 Motion carried.
7. REPORTS
8. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, January 24, 2005, 6:30 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
January 24, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:45 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty and Marty
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Approve the January 24, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 10, 2005, Regular EDA Meeting Minutes.
President Marty made a correction to page 2, line 87, where it should read “President Marty”.
He stated it should be added to that paragraph: “President Marty questioned the 820,000 square
feet because he had previously heard 500,000 square feet, and Mr. McCombs stated that they had
determined for what they needed that they had increased it to 820,000 square feet.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To approve the Minutes of January 10, 2005 as
amended.
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
B. January 14, 2005, Special EDA Meeting Minutes.
President Marty stated that beginning at page 2, line 67, Commissioner Stigney should be
referred to as Vice President Stigney throughout.
President Marty stated that at page 9, line 205, it should state that, “President Marty stated he
would like it communicated to Medtronic that they had amended the resolution and expended
more city funds in order to speed up the timeframe.”
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the January 14, 2005 Special EDA Minutes as
amended.
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Consideration of EDA Resolution 05-EDA-200, a Resolution Establishing the
2005 EDA Meeting Calendar (Backman)
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the calendar is paralleling the City
Council meetings that occur during the course of the year.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To approve EDA Resolution 05-EDA-200, Establishing
the 2005 EDA Meeting Calendar.
Ayes -4 Nays -0 Motion carried.
B. Consideration of EDA Resolution 05-EDA-201, Appointing Two Members of
the Economic Development Commission (Backman)
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that there are seven members that are
traditionally on the Economic Development Commission, and that is composed of four resident
representatives and three business representatives. He stated one of the business representatives,
David Fox, has decided that he will not renew. He stated that an application had been received
from Jerry Jaker, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Institute of Public Health, which is
located on County Highway 10. He stated that another member, Tom Field, whose term had
finished on December 31st would like to renew. He is a past Chair of the EDC and served two
years in that capacity.
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To appoint Jerry Jaker and Tom Field to the Economic
Development Commission. Vice President Stigney asked if MIPH was a nonprofit organization.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that it is a nonprofit organization that does
pay property taxes to the community. He stated that Mr. Jaker has a strong interest in
participating in economic development discussions, and in essence he runs the business because
he has various people that answer to him.
Vice President Stigney stated that his concern is that he is working with government dollars, and
he asked whether in Coordinator Backman’s view he would be the best person to represent the
City as far as business development.
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that a good chunk of his dollars are from
the insurance side of things, and that he deals with a variety of worlds in terms of that. He stated
that this is a bit different than the Planning Commission in that those members need to be a
Mounds View resident. He stated that a lot of people that run businesses in Mounds View don’t
live in Mounds View.
Vice President Stigney stated that most businesses in Mounds View are trying to make a profit,
so they would be more interested in business development. He stated that Mr. Jaker’s
willingness to serve is wonderful. He stated that if Coordinator Backman felt that Mr. Jaker
would be a good fit for this position, then he didn’t have a problem with it.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he had full confidence in Mr. Jaker.
President Marty stated that he was impressed by Mr. Jaker’s application, resume, and
background.
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
6. EDA BUSINESS
A. Resolution 05-EDA-202 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer
Payments to Red Cent Management, L.L.C; Heartland-Mounds View
Common Bond; Bridges Leasing Company; and Kenmark Partnership,
L.L.C.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that twice per year there are payments that
go to various projects, and these are developer payments for TIF projects. He stated that they are
typically paid the 1st of February and the 1st of August annually. He stated that two of these
payments are the final payments, so they will be down to two projects after this payment.
Vice President Stigney noted that for ZEP Manufacturing, it’s listed as $8,123.39, yet in the Just
and Correct Claims on page 21 he sees Kenmark at $3,886.24, and he asked why there was that
discrepancy.
Finance Director Hanson stated that that was part principle and part interest, and that the interest
is on the next page.
Commissioner Flaherty asked how much longer it would be on Heartland-Mounds View and the
Century Bank.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that in terms of Silver Lake Point, that goes
until the year 2012. He stated that in terms of Bridges Leasing, that would go until February of
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
2006. He stated that the good news is that certainly frees up TIF dollars for other projects that
they can use, so from a TIF financial standpoint, they were pretty strong on that.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 05-EDA-202 Authorizing Payment
of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payments to Red Cent Management, L.L.C; Heartland-Mounds
View Common Bond; Bridges Leasing Company; and Kenmark Partnership, L.L.C.
Ayes -4 Nays -0 Motion carried.
7. REPORTS
A. Discussion regarding the Hardee’s Restaurant Redevelopment and Caribou
Coffee (Backman) – verbal report.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the volunteer representatives on the
Economic Development Commission had ranked various projects in order of importance, and
that they had ranked the Medtronic Corporate Campus as number one. Number two is the
Skyline Motel Acquisition and Redevelopment. Number three is the Pak Building
Redevelopment. Number four is the Hardee’s Restaurant Redevelopment and Caribou Coffee.
He provided the Commission with a full list of the other projects.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that Hardee's is no longer having an
interest in their location, and there has been a buy-out that was accomplished during the last
week of December. He stated that there has a settlement regarding termination of Hardee’s lease.
He stated that the western half of the building will be leased by Caribou Coffee. He stated that it
would take a total of $376,000 to bring the building up to the standard they would want to have.
He stated if you subtract out the Hardee’s buyout amount of $226,000 and you look at the pay
back period, they are calculating that to be about six years. He stated that Caribou Coffee would
like to have a payback period of three years. He stated that the cost difference or gap is
$109,000. He stated he had brought this topic up to the EDC last Friday, and they had adopted a
motion unanimously to move ahead and pursue all options, including potentially TIF and other
types of assistance, but there was no dollar amount.
Vice President Stigney stated it sounded to him like Caribou wanted to come in, but they want
some assistance. He asked why they couldn’t work with their own money.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that without assistance, he thinks they
would end up with very little enhancement to the building and the site.
Vice President Stigney asked who was to say whether they wouldn’t do more things without
assistance.
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he had seen another location in
Vadnais Heights that was a converted Hardee’s restaurant, and it still looks like a Hardee’s
restaurant.
Vice President Stigney stated he had some reservations, and he asked how it was going to be paid
back; whether it was going to be a pay-as-you -go or a tax abatement or a grant.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated they hadn’t gotten down to specifics, but
they have discussed a low interest loan as one option, and there could possibly be a combination
of abatement or a small grant in there. He stated they hadn’t settled on what the development
agreement would look like, but they have been having discussions, and they are interested in
some assistance.
Commissioner Gunn asked whether TIF dollars were supposed to be used for helping new
businesses.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that they were.
Commissioner Flaherty stated he had a problem with going back to the people and asking them
for $109,000 when they just had a tax levy that was double digits. He stated that this is an empty
building sitting in a prime location, and they need to do something with it. He stated he thought
they needed to take all avenues they can to see what they can do as far as alleviating any tax
burden on the taxpayers.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they are not talking about General
Fund dollars, but TIF dollars, and that TIF monies are ZEParate and accounted for in a different
way. He stated that in terms of TIF funds, there is a good fund balance.
Vice President Stigney stated that he would be more inclined if they were going to borrow it from
the City and pay it back.
President Marty stated that a three-year pay back period had been brought up, and he thought this
should be brought back to the EDA after they had talked to Caribou Coffee more, and possibly
look at using TIF funds with a three-year payback period. He stated that by giving some
assistance with pay-as-you-go with a three-year payback period, they would open the door to get
some redevelopment and upgrade and similar upgrade in Mounds View Square.
Commissioner Gunn stated that she agreed.
Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, stated that he was there when Paster Enterprises opened that
operation, and one of the things that they had promised was that the north end of the property
was going to be attractive to the residents on the north side, and they never did a thing with it,
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
and had put garbage cans out there and so on, so he didn’t have much faith in him doing anything
more than he had done in the past.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that No. 5 was the Mounds View Square
Redevelopment Market Feasibility Study, and he thought there would be other things that happen
this year that may encourage them to look at redevelopment. He stated that it had been bantered
about at the EDC level of what the highest and best use would be or market feasibility study. He
stated it would be nice to have a niche grocery store or other services that they do not have in the
community. He stated that he agreed that there has not been a lot of attention in terms of the
exterior of the facility. He stated that perhaps this is one way to get the foot in the door and get
them motivated to do some other things.
President Marty stated perhaps Coordinator Backman could convey some of this discussion at the
EDA meetings.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he would.
President Marty stated that No. 8, Exploration of Hidden Hollow Development Phase Two, was
new to him.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that a number of the things on the list may
be new to everyone, and they were trying to think out of the box a little bit about different ideas
of what might happen both in terms of commercial, industrial, as well as residential. He stated
he wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of the 17 homes planned were either under construction
or built by the end of this year. He stated that Pro Craft Homes has been a good developer to
work with. He stated that there is some other land in that area, and he thought Velmier would
love to do a phase two, whether it’s adjacent there or elsewhere along the corridor. He stated
they had received a letter from them stating that they had enjoyed working with the City and
would like to do further work here.
President Marty asked if it wasn’t Don Norquist who was the developer there.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that there were several people that were
part of the team that was working with Procraft Homes, including Gary Nordness being one
element of the team.
Commissioner Gunn said not to lose this one.
8. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, February 14, 2005
Mounds View EDA January 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
9. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 14, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Flaherty, Thomas, Gunn, and Marty
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the February 14, 2005 Agenda as Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES
A. September 27, 2004 Regular EDA Meeting Minutes
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Stigney. To approve the September 27, 2004 Regular EDA
Meeting Minutes.
Ayes-3 Nays-0 Motion carried.
(Commissioners Flaherty and Thomas abstained.)
B. January 24, 2005, EDA Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Gunn made a correction to page 11, line 118. SEP should be ZEP.
Commissioner Gunn made a correction to page 12, line 147. Pack should be Pak.
Commissioner Gunn made a correction to page 13, line 211. Pastor should be Paster.
Commissioner Gunn made a correction to page 14, line 238. Procraft should be Pro Craft.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To approve the January 24, 2005 EDA Meeting Minutes
as amended.
Mounds View EDA February 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
(Commissioner Thomas abstained.)
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Schedule an Executive Session immediately after this Consent Agenda to
discuss and update the EDA on the Golf Course Redevelopment process.
(Verbal Report).
B. Schedule an Executive Session immediately after this Consent Agenda to
discuss, develop, and consider an offer for the sale of real property
commonly known as the Donut Connection. (Verbal Report).
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
The EDA recessed to Executive Session.
President Marty stated that a discussion was held during Executive Session regarding Item A,
and that further information is forthcoming, so this discussion will be continued at the next EDA
meeting.
President Marty stated that the EDA Executive Session would continue following the City
Council meeting to further discuss Item B.
6. EDA BUSINESS
None.
7. REPORTS
None.
8. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, February 28, 2005.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mounds View EDA February 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
February 28, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas, and Marty
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the February 28, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. February 14, 2005 – EDA Regular Meeting Minutes.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To approve the EDA Regular Meeting Minutes of
February 14, 2005.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
5. CONSENT AGENDA.
A. Discuss, develop and consider an offer for the sale of real property commonly
known as The Bridges Golf Course. (Verbal Report)
B. Discuss and consider acquisition of real property commonly known as the
Skyline Motel. (Verbal Report).
President Marty noted that these two items would be discussed in a closed Executive Session.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
Mounds View EDA February 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
6. REPORTS.
Vice President Stigney requested comment on the results of the Donut Connection discussion
held in the last closed Executive Session of the EDA.
President Marty advised that the consensus had been that the City would not expend funds to
purchase the property, but that they would try to advertise the property to other developers.
Commissioner Thomas stated that they would be reviewing this in a few months.
Commissioner Flaherty added that they would be contacting some developers to see if there was
any interest.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated he had contacted two developers, and
one of them has gone to look at the site and thought it may be a good location for a restaurant,
and the other is pondering the situation.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reported that the ribbon cutting ceremony held
last Saturday at the CVS Pharmacy had been well attended.
Commissioner Gunn asked what the status of the Hardee’s building was.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reported that there is scaffolding completely
surrounding the business, and that Pasture Enterprises is in the process of re-doing the corner.
He added that Caribou Coffee is definitely coming in there, and there are ongoing discussions
regarding some other food-related businesses to occupy the eastern portion of the building.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that both the TIF District legislation and
the reverter clause legislation they had been seeking had passed in the Senate, and the House
process will start tomorrow at 2:30.
7. Next EDA Meeting – March 14, 2005, 6:30 pm.
ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting to Executive Session at 6:15 p.m.
Following the closed Executive Session, at 7:00 p.m., President Marty noted that a further closed
Executive Session would be held following the City Council Meeting.
Mounds View EDA February 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
March 14, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas and Marty
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they should set a public hearing under
No. 9 regarding the Medtronic project.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the March 14, 2005 Agenda as amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES
A. February 28, 2005 Minutes
President Marty stated they would check the time of adjournment of the last meeting later.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the Minutes of February 28, 2005 as
Presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Schedule an Executive Session Immediately after this EDA Meeting to
discuss and review an offer for the sale of real property commonly known as
Mounds View EDA March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
The Bridges Golf Course (verbal report).
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Potential for Housing Development in the Laport Meadows Area and
Discussion regarding the Ardan Park. (Verbal Report).
Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that two developers have approached
the City with discussions regarding a resident development in Laport Meadows. He stated that
two of the issues for any project there would be the wetlands and the aspect of the noise. He
stated that a key element that is needed is a wetland delineation study, which he estimates would
cost around $4,000. He is reasonably confident that this would be an $8-$12 million
development. He felt the City should undertake the study so they could control the information
obtained.
President Marty commented that he thought there had already been a wetland study done in this
area.
Director Ericson stated that a hydrology study had been done in 1998 as part of the golf course
potential redevelopment process, but not a wetland delineation study. He mentioned that a
wetland delineation study has a shelf life of three years.
Commissioner Thomas asked how much of the property is in the MnDOT deed and if they would
be dealing with MnDOT again.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated it would be the northern portion of the
Ardan Park area. He stated the City owns Ardan Park. Mr. Backman indicated that none of this
property is in the MnDOT parcel.
Commissioner Flaherty suggested talking to the landowners to get their thoughts prior to
spending of any funds.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated he would be happy to send out a survey,
but the wetland delineation study may come back showing that this area is not developable.
City Administrator Ulrich mentioned that there are some questions on the survey instrument
regarding Ardan Park, and the results will be back the first couple of weeks of April.
Mounds View EDA March 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Commissioner Gunn asked whether the developers or the City should contact the landowners.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated he felt the onus should be put on the
developers to contact them because they would be doing the developing.
Director Ericson outlined other good reasons to do a wetland delineation study besides possible
redevelopment of the area.
Commissioner Thomas stated she didn’t see a good reason to pay for a wetland delineation study
at this time when it could expire before they have a concrete idea about the property owners in
the region.
President Marty stated he agreed with Commissioners Thomas and Flaherty, and Coordinator
Backman could report back to the developers and keep the Commission apprised of their efforts.
8. REPORTS
President Marty stated the potential sale of the golf course was discussed in the closed session
during the last meeting, and the discussion is still open and ongoing and will be continued
following the EDA meeting.
City Administrator Ulrich mentioned that the Skyline Motel property acquisition was also
discussed at the last meeting, and the consensus had been to leave that as a developer-driven
project as well.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, March 28, 2005 at 6:00 pm
PUBLIC HEARING FOR MEDTRONIC PROJECT: March 28, 2005 at 6:05 pm.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 6:33 p.m. Meeting was continued
after the regular City Council meeting and adjourned at 12:53 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
March 28, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas and Marty
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the March 28, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES
A. March 14, 2005 Minutes
Commissioner Thomas stated that on page 2, line 75, it should be inserted that, “Mr. Backman
indicated that none of this property is in the MnDOT parcel.”
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the meeting had recessed at 6:32 p.m. and then
continued after the regular City Council meeting, and adjourned at 12:53 a.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To Approve the Minutes of March 14, 2005 as
Amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Mounds View EDA March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
A. Schedule an Executive Session Immediately after this EDA Meeting to
discuss and review potential sale of real property commonly known as The
Bridges Golf Course (Verbal Report).
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Marty. To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
7. EDA BUSINESS
None.
8. REPORTS
President Marty reported that there had been more ongoing talks regarding finances and details
about the Bridges Golf Course property.
Commissioner Stigney reported that he and Economic Development Coordinator Backman had
attended a legislative session last week dealing with TIF legislation for the golf course parcels,
and there is continued discussion going to take place on that.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the Ramsey County Board had adopted
a resolution in support of the legislation in House File 310, and he passed out a letter that was
received back from Mr. Bennett, the Commissioner who represents the Mounds View area. He
stated that they will need to set a public hearing for April 11th.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that a motion would need to be made to set the public
hearing for Medtronic, and that meeting had been pushed back for various reasons, so he
requested that a motion be made and a public hearing be established for April 11 at 6:05 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND. Thomas/Stigney. To establish a public hearing for April 11 at 6:05 p.m.
for the Medtronic project.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that public notice had been sent to the local
paper, the bulletin, the Pioneer Press, and that will be published on March 30th. He stated that it
says that citizens may see the proposed terms and conditions of the sale at Mounds View City
Hall.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, April 11, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Mounds View EDA March 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 6:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 11, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas
NOT PRESENT: President Marty.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To Approve the April 11, 2005 Agenda as amended.
Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Dave Jahnke asked if they would be able to ask questions after Medtronics explained their
project.
Vice President Stigney stated that they could.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
None.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. 6:05 pm. Public Hearing for the purpose of considering the proposed sale of
land comprising The Bridges in the City of Mounds View to Medtronic, Inc.
Vice President Stigney asked if the public could limit their comments to three minutes apiece
since there were so many citizens in attendance. He stated that this is primarily an informational
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
meeting.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman informed that last year the Mounds View City
Council considered various alternatives to operating the golf course as is, and one option
included the sale and redevelopment of the site. He stated that the Council’s priority was to
enhance the City’s financial position, and the debt associated with the golf course is about $4.
He stated that Medtronics has indicated they would like to build a new Cardiac Rhythm
Management Campus, and that the first phase involves the construction of 820,000 square feet of
office space in several buildings. He stated that the City Council authorized staff to pursue
various actions, including commitment research, wetland delineation study, commercial
appraisal, boundary and topographic surveys, and alternative urban area-wide review process,
and a comprehensive plan amendment. He indicated the sale price of the property is $8.65
million, which excludes park dedication and other customary fees. He stated that the reverter
clause legislation was introduced as passed the Senate and is working its way through the House.
As part of the legislative process, a payment to the Minnesota Trunk Highway Trust Fund has
been negotiated with Medtronic agreeing to contribute $1 on behalf of the City. He stated that
Tax Increment Financing legislation for the project has passed the Senate and awaits House
action. He stated it is projected that increment generated would result in total payments to
Medtronic of between $14 and $15 million over 25 years for eligible development costs.
This is only 34 percent of the property taxes Medtronic will pay; the rest goes to the state.
He stated that negotiations will continue with Clear Channel regarding the removal and
relocation of some or all of the billboards. He stated that a traffic impact study reviewing traffic
information costs and capacity analysis for the proposed Medtronic development was completed.
Phase 1 development is projected to generate 8,300 vehicle trips a day onto County Road J.
Ramsey County will be taking the lead in the road improvements and is currently preparing an
RFP for design work. He stated that Governor Pawlenty signed the state bonding bill this
afternoon, and appropriations are in the bill to provide funds to improve County Road J and other
roads impacted by Medtronic and other developments in Blaine and Shoreview. He stated that
the Mounds View EDC supports the redevelopment of the Bridges and ranks the Medtronic
campus as the number one economic development priority, the reason being that private industry
represents the engine of economic development. Business creates services, products, income,
employment, and tax base. He stated that Medtronic is a solid business, and last year its sales
grew 16 percent. He stated the office complex would be Medtronic’s largest in the world, and it
would pay its employees an average of $70,000 per year for high quality jobs. He stated that the
City’s proposed assistance as outlined in the handout is commensurate with Medtronic’s capital
investment, job creation and wages.
David Etzwiler, Senior Director of Government Affairs for Medtronic, stated that Medtronic is a
company providing long life solutions for the treatment of chronic disease. He stated their roots
were in the treatment of heart disease, but in the last five to six years the company has
significantly diversified. He stated that Medtronic has 33,000 employees world-wide and does
business in 120 different countries. He stated there are approximately 6,800 employees in
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Minnesota, and they are adding approximately 300 employees a year in Minnesota. He stated
that Medtronic has been named on Fortune’s list of employer benefits six times and has been
named one of Fortune’s 100 most admired companies seven times, including the latest listing.
In addition, Business Week recently named Medtronic’s Board of Directors one of the ten best
boards in corporate America. He stated Medtronic is proud of the work they do in the
community, and they are a founding member of the Med Keystone Program and provide 2
percent of their domestic pre-tax dollars back to the community in the form of philanthropy. He
stated that the master plan for the Mounds View site is to provide 1.5 million square feet in the
future. He stated that accounting, sales, education, legal, marketing, and research and
development jobs would be housed in the facility. He stated that the reasons for wanting to build
in Mounds View are its central location and transportation options.
Vice President Stigney opened the public hearing. He stated that written comments could be
given to staff.
John McKusic, 8465 East River Road, stated he has been in Mounds View for 30 years, and he is
against Medtronic and for the golf course. He stated there are other locations that Medtronic
would choose, and he questioned how many Mounds View residents would be working there.
He stated that the golf course is a good asset for the youth. He stated that by the time all this
money is spent to get Medtronic in there, all of that money could have gone toward the golf
course. He stated that as soon as Medtronic located in Fridley, a lawsuit had started because they
wanted to cut down their square foot costs, so he didn’t think this was a good deal.
Nyle Rolfer, 7945 Long Lake Road, stated he has been a resident for 44 years, and he is not in
favor of giving Medtronic money. He stated he paid for his own sewer over 20 years. He stated
he didn’t know if anyone had seen the paper that was floating around, and he didn’t know if it
was true or not.
Council Member Stigney stated the Commission wanted questions regarding the Medtronic’s
proposal rather than reading something that may not be factual.
Mr. Rolfer asked what percentage of the buildings in Mounds View are TIF financed.
Council Member Stigney asked whether he had any questions that were relevant to Medtronic.
Mr. Rolfer stated that the golf course is about the only thing left in the city. He stated there are
thousands of acres if you drive up 35W and turn off on Lexington.
Mr. Rolfer submitted a piece of paper to the Commission.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that Minnesota is very fortunate to have
Medtronic in the state, and they are one of the premier companies in the entire country. He stated
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
an important part of the discussion is that this hearing is to get information to the Council, and
for the Council to take some time to look that over, and not to make a hard and fast decision this
evening. He stated that he is opposed to TIF, and in his eight years as mayor, he didn’t do a
single TIF. He stated that at one time TIF served a good purpose and was necessary for
economic development. He stated that Mounds View’s TIF percentage of commercial industrial
is one of the highest in the Twin City area, and that means they are pre-empting tax revenue from
not only the city, but other districts as well, and in particular the school district. He stated the
Council should get input from the School Board on how TIF affects their operations. He stated
that the franchise fee issue is quite a debate at the legislature at this time, and he had read that the
applicant is willing to pay the franchise fee. He stated that the label of fees is on its last days. He
stated the taxpayers and many of our representatives in the legislature at this time are working
very hard to make sure that taxation is not only fair, but it’s up front where everybody can see it,
so he wouldn’t count on the franchise fee. He asked the Council to slow down a little bit, and
step back and take a harder look. He submitted some written comments to the Commission.
Economic Development Coordinator stated that the water and sewer would be connected to the
city utilities from the south under Highway 10, and there would be a franchise fee generated from
that. He stated that currently the whole property is tax exempt right now, and there would be a
base that would generate revenues, and that base would be approximately $8 million.
Kevin Griffin, 8161 Red Oak Court, stated he has been a resident since 1988, and he stated he is
in support of the golf course. He stated he owns an underground construction company, and he
brings clients to the course and frequents the restaurants in Mounds View. He cautioned the
Council to exercise caution on committing any type of tax incentives for this project or any type
of project, especially to insure that there are guarantees or security in place that that type of
funding will be recovered in the future. He encouraged the Commission to pursue other
alternatives to reduce the debt of the golf course.
Greg Holee, 8192 Groveland Road, stated he is an admirer of Medtronic, but he and his wife are
golfers, and he thinks it’s a wonderful amenity. He stated it’s a nationally recognized facility,
and awards have been won for the youth development. He stated it would be a huge sense of loss
for the community to lose that facility.
Cindy Carlson, 2215 Kenwood Court, Maplewood, stated she is in favor of the proposed
acquisition by Medtronic. She stated she has participated in golfing at the Bridges, but she feels
it’s a tremendous opportunity to sell this property to Medtronic. She stated that not only is
Medtronic involved in a lot of different philanthropic activities that benefit the state and many of
the residents, but they also participate very actively in the community through the Twin Cities
North Area Chamber of Commerce in various committees on the Board of Directors and in
various fundraisers.
Dan Hall, 12860 Lever St, Blaine, stated that he has been operating the Mermaid in Mounds
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
View since 1972 and lived in Mounds View for 11 years. He stated the Medtronic has been a
customer of his for over 20 years. He stated that the image of having Medtronic in Mounds View
would be good for the community. He stated he is planning a hotel addition because of
Medtronic moving in. He stated if it wasn’t for the golf course, Mounds View might not have a
4 percent franchise fee that everyone is paying right now. He stated that the gas utilities for the
Mermaid alone is $150,000, and 3 percent of that goes to the franchise fee for NSP. He stated
that bringing Medtronic in is going to be worth over $100 million to the tax base, even if 35
percent of it is being paid by TIF over a 25-year period of time. He stated that that leaves $75
million worth that is going to be entering the tax base that is going to be paying the school
district, going to taxation, and that might even put a separate coffer in for new roads to be built in
Mounds View. He stated he would stand behind Medtronic coming in 100 percent.
Tim Mazzoni, 1520 – 23rd Avenue NW, New Brighton, stated he is a retired professor from the
University of Minnesota, College of Education, Human Development, and he wanted to speak
for the kids in the area who find that golf course to be a wonderful opportunity involving skills,
attitude, and behavior, which are attributes prized by adults. He stated the youth program there
has been recognized at the state and national levels, and it works for the youth. He applauded
Medtronic for the kind of company it is, but there will be thousands of youth using the golf
course in the future.
Shannon Meyer, 11363 Fergus St., Blaine, stated she is the President of the Twin Cities North
Area Chamber of Commerce, and she felt that as far as economic development, the Medtronic
facility would not just bring a business to the community, but it would enhance the local
communities with increased traffic, and it would increase the number of students attending the
schools. She stated there are many positives for the golf course as well, but they need to focus on
the fact that there are numerous golf courses, including the golf course in Blaine and the National
Youth Golf Course, which was specifically built for children. She encouraged the Council to
look at the Medtronic site as a wonderful asset to the community.
Tom Field, 8409 Knollwood Drive, stated he is in support of pursuing investigation of the
Medtronic sale. He stated property taxes had increased 25 and 30 percent in the past two years,
and they need to bring some businesses back to Mounds View.
Dave Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he is in favor of Medtronic because it’s a good
company, and it is a clean business. He asked what the survey result was.
Vice President Stigney stated that the survey result showed 63 percent of the people supported
development of Medtronic.
Mr. Jahnke stated that Medtronic doesn’t depend on the weather, and the golf course is over $4
million in debt to the city. He stated that Medtronic would be a very solid investment, and he
wouldn’t foresee them not making money.
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Valerie Amundson, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated she has lived in Mounds View for 27 years and
was concerned with property taxes. She stated that even before starting the road projects, they
are already being taxed more than any of the neighboring cities in Ramsey County. She stated
that new employees at the Medtronic facility won’t necessarily want to live in Mounds View.
She asked the Council to look at the numbers carefully. She stated Medtronic is a great business,
and she applauded them for the work they do, but they need to not price the Mounds View
residents out of being able to afford to live in the city. She stated that TIF financing may not be
the greatest thing for the residents and their property taxes.
Vice President Stigney stated he appreciated her comments, and they were looking at trying to
lower the taxes, and that is why they are looking at Medtronic.
Mary Burg, 224 Heritage Lane, New Brighton, stated she works at the Bridges Golf Course.
Vice President Stigney asked whether she was representing herself as an individual or as an
employee of the City or as a resident of New Brighton.
Ms. Burg stated she is representing herself and as an employee. She stated that some of the
numbers that were quoted are inaccurate.
Vice President Stigney stated that no figures have been presented on the golf course.
Ms. Burg stated that she was going to comment on Mr. Jahnke’s numbers that he was quoting
from the survey, and he had mentioned that 63 percent had wanted the golf course to go away.
She stated it needs to be said that it was in the survey that if the golf course had to be supported
by the General Fund, would you want it to go away. She stated as an employee of the golf
course, she didn’t think that was acceptable to accept that the General Fund would support that
amenity, and that isn’t what is being proposed in any way, shape, or form.
Vice President Stigney stated that the question on the survey is not something they are discussing
tonight.
Ms. Burg stated that Mr. Jahnke was not cut off when he talked about it.
Vice President Stigney stated that Mr. Jahnke was speaking about the overall debt of the golf
course.
Ms. Burg stated that half of the people would like to see the golf course go away if it costs them
money, and the other half said they would prefer to keep the golf course.
Vice President Stigney stated that there are three questions on there, and two questions said 63
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
percent of the people wished to have the Mounds View golf course redevelop or sold for
redevelopment. He stated that when she is correcting figures, he understands what she is doing,
but that’s a different question altogether. He asked if she had a comment that was germane to the
Medtronic development.
Ms. Burg stated that she would like to see the City do a cost benefit analysis of the two projects
because she has not seen them.
Vice President Stigney stated that they haven’t either, and it’s in the process, and they will all see
if before they take any action. He stated that wanted to bring people up to date on the status of
where they are on the proposed Medtronic development, and they don’t have all the answers in.
He stated when they are here, they’ll probably do a continuation to April 25th, by that time they’ll
have more information available.
Jerry Kahn, 2833 Crestway Drive, stated that he supports the golf course. He stated that once
that land is gone, he is not aware of any other developable land in Mounds View available for a
golf course. He stated that the City of Mounds View needs it for their families and children.
Brian Amundson, 3448 Woodale Drive, asked if someone could clarify how much of the
property the City or the EDA is seeking to put into TIF, if any of it.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that 72 acres would be in the TIF district.
Mr. Amundson asked if that was the entire property, and Coordinator Backman stated that it was.
Mr. Amundson stated that that will add 23 percent of the total property that is currently in TIF.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated it might change it 2 percent. He stated that
you have to bear in mind that they are talking about the value as well, and that value right now is
about $8 million for base value. He stated that in addition, last summer they decertified 80
parcels, so they are in the process of putting some of the parcels back onto the tax rolls.
Mr. Amundson asked if the projected tax base value of $2 million is net to the city over five
years.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated it would be approximately $4 million over
25 years, $2 million net present value.
Mr. Amundson asked if from a financial standpoint when calculating the benefit of Medtronics
moving into the City it was $4 million.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated there is much more than that. He stated
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
they are talking again the base value, so right now there is nothing, and it’s tax exempt. He
stated that normally when there is a property that is taxable and it goes to tax to a TIF situation,
there is base, and it goes up from there. He stated in this case it’s zero right now, so there will be
$8 million that will have a base value, and that will generate about $150,000-$160,000 a year in
taxes for various jurisdictions, but there are other things beyond that, but that is an example of
one element.
Mr. Amundson asked if that $160,000 is already in the $4 million net to the City, and
Coordinator Backman stated that that was correct.
Mr. Amundson asked if the net was $4 million of benefit to the City, and Coordinator Backman
stated that that was correct for that piece.
Mr. Amundson gave some written comments to the Commission from Barb Haake.
Gary Nordness, 55 Dierdel Circle, North Oaks, stated he was in favor of Medtronic. He stated he
was very familiar with tax increment financing. He stated that from other areas that he’s worked
with TIF before, traditionally there is some additional tax value on the appreciation of the
structure. He stated that if it is, they are going to go from a zero tax base to a significant tax
base, and they will be utilizing the property to its highest and best use. He stated they would be
bringing in one of the most renown companies in the world, and he didn’t know why they
wouldn’t do it.
Vice President Stigney closed the public hearing.
MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To continue the public hearing to the next EDA meeting
on April 25, 2005.
Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, April 25, 2005.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Stigney adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mounds View EDA April 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Recorded and transcribed by:
Sheree Theobald
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 25, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Gunn, Flaherty, Marty and Thomas
NOT PRESENT: Stigney.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the April 25, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, referenced the Consent Agenda, Item A, the Closed
Executive Session scheduled for this evening to discuss the potential sale of the golf course
property and asked if anyone else, besides the City Council, would be in attendance. He asked if
anyone, such as a potential buyer, would be present and whether this is a meeting to determine
the asking price or to actually negotiate the sale of the property.
President Marty acknowledged Mr. McCarty’s concerns and clarified that the intent of the
meeting is for City Council discussion. He assured Mr. McCarty that no potential buyers would
be present at the closed Executive Session meeting.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. EDA Minutes March 28, 2005
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Minutes of March 28, 2005 as
presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
B. EDA Minutes April 11, 2005
Commissioner Gunn stated that on page 1, line 26, a word missing the letter ‘e’. It should read
‘Dave Jahnke asked if they would ‘be’ able to ask questions…’
President Marty noted that he did not attend the April 11th meeting but did review the tape. He
clarified that Mary Burg spoke before the public hearing was closed and her comments were not
reflected in the minutes. He stated that Ms. Burg’s name is misspelled throughout the minutes
and should be changed from ‘Berg’ to ‘Burg’.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the April 11, 2005 Minutes as amended.
Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following the April 25, 2005 City
Council Meeting to discuss and consider the sale of real property commonly
known as The Bridges Golf Course, and a buyout offer of the billboard signs
(Verbal Report).
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. 6:05 pm. Continuation of the April 25, 2005 Public Hearing for the purpose
of considering the proposed sale of land comprising The Bridges in the City
of Mounds View to Medtronic, Inc.
President Marty stated that this is primarily an informational session to answer questions that
came out of the last EDA meeting. He asked the public to limit their comments to three minutes
each noting that the meeting has been extended 7:45 p.m. because of the time constraints they
experienced at the last meeting. He stated that this public hearing would be continued at the next
EDA meeting and would be before City Council on Monday, May 9, 2005. He stated that he has
had discussions with City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich and based on these discussions an
additional, open EDA meeting would be scheduled, at a later date so that they would not have
any time constraints due to the City Council meeting.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich explained that Staff and Council have reviewed the questions
and compiled answers that would be reviewed this evening. He stated that Ehlers and Associates
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
are present this evening to provide the Commission and public with an overview of the golf
course numbers, how much money is generated through the billboards and its future financial
value to the City. He clarified that this meeting is to review the golf course numbers noting that
numbers associated with the Medtronic project would become public and discussed at a future
EDA meeting.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich reviewed the following questions and provided clarification and
answers:
• Question: Clarify the percentage of taxable properties in tax increment districts.
o Answer: Currently 16.9% for 2005 and 21.53% in 2004.
• Question: How much do TIF districts gain when it goes into tax increment?
o Answer: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich explained that it does not go directly to the
General Funds in support of the community. He stated that last year $1.8 million was
tax increment\tax capacity and the prior year was $1.58 million. He stated that Tax
Increment District 1, which covers the southeast area of the City and the Industrial
Park area, expires in 2013, District 2 expires in 2015 and District 3 expires in 2014.
• Question: What are the percentages if the Medtronic project numbers are added to the
proposed development.
o Answer: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that Medtronic would be 24.5%. He
stated that no decisions have been made with respect construction costs noting that
the tax increment would be subjected to a cap.
• Question: Where do they rank in terms of the highest percentage and TIF?
o Answer: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the City of Mounds View is
ranked 1st in the State for TIF noting that in terms of percentages the City was ranked
1st for 2005.
• City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich clarified that the Bridge is part of TIF District 3. He
indicated that the Legislation proposes to expand the district up to four districts to
accommodated the subsequent phases of Medtronic. He indicated that 40-acres would be
deeded to the City with the provision that the land would be used for public purpose. He
stated that Legislation would remove the requirement to allow sale of the property.
• Legislation Update: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich explained that the Capital Bonding
Bill is necessary for the improvements required for County Road J, the Interchange and
Airport Road. He noted that the monies for the project are included in the current Capital
Bonding Bill, if the project goes through.
• Question: Is it possible for property to be developed without tax increment.
o Answer: City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that it is possible to develop
this site without tax increment. He stated that it is expensive but not prohibitive to do
the project without tax increment funding. He stated that it would cost approximately
$400,000 to bring water and utilities to the site noting that Medtronic would pick up
the costs within the site.
• Question: What are the sources of funding?
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
o City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich indicated that the likely sources for funding would
include the current tax increment pool; tax increments generated by the site in terms
of fees; and capital funds from the Enterprise Funds. He stated that there would not
be any interruptions to the businesses located along County Road J during the
construction. He stated that the Franchise fee, which is estimated to be $80,000, is
approved annually by the City Council adding that there is no guarantee that it would
continue for the 25-year timeframe.
• Question: Costs to provide Police and Fire services to the property.
o Answer: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that in reviewing the spreadsheets
the initial costs to provide service would be approximately $30,000 with an additional
$50,000 in administrative costs, over time, to service approximately 3000 employees.
He noted that Medtronic has an onsite security force, which would help reduce costs.
• Question: How much has been spent so far exploring and researching this project.
o Answer: City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the City has spent $221,000. He
stated that 60-percent of the cost relates to the development of the project and land
surveys and 40-percent is specifically for Medtronic to run the numbers for the
project.
• Question: What is the status on the Billboards?
o City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that they are currently in negotiation for the
best deal for the City in terms of the least cost. He noted that of the 72 acres from
MnDOT, 32 acres is currently transferable and they have title for the land. He stated
that over the last couple of years the City has been reviewing options to enhance the
City. He stated that one of the issues has been the golf course because of the situation
it was in prior to the revenue it gained from the billboards. He stated that at this time,
in reviewing the Medtronic proposal, the City is emphasizing this. He assured the
Community that the City is not pursuing anything else at this time due to the ongoing
negotiations.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that there has been some discussion about the possibilities
of Phases 2 and 3 of the Medtronic project being developing in Blaine. He noted that Medtronic
has indicated that it is their desire to also develop the Phase 2 and Phase 3 campuses in Mounds
View, as there would not be a tax increment back to the developer if developed in Blaine. He
stated that there would be a significant park dedication of $600,000 proposed for the project that
would be donated by Medtronic to the Park Dedication Fund. He indicated that $160,000 of the
funds would be used for the former Cisco property. He stated that the Concepts are available to
the public for review noting that it includes both the walking trails and the environmental park.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that this hearing is one of several that will be held on this
issue. He emphasized that a decision has not yet been made. He stated that Staff is keeping the
best interest of the City at heart while working through the process with Medtronic. He clarified
that the City Council provides direction to Staff throughout the negotiation process and are a part
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
of the final decision.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the City first learned of this development in July
2004 when the City was first approached with the proposal. He stated that Medtronic indicated
that they found serious problems with the development of the site in New Brighton two to three
months before approaching the City of Mounds View. He stated that he does not know if
negotiations are occurring at other sites.
Jerry Linke, Former Mayor, asked how much staff time has been devoted to this project. City
Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that over the last month staff has devoted approximately 1400
hours noting that Director Ericson has devoted a significant amount of time to the project but the
majority of hours involved a variety of staff members.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the plan is to review the golf course numbers, get
feedback from the Community; and determine the current situation. He stated that once they
know all of the development numbers and can compare, an analysis would be done. He stated
that the results of the analysis would be discussed at future meetings.
Stacy Kilvang, Ehlers and Associates, provided the Commission and Community with a brief
background, history and update on the financing of the golf course. She stated that they have
designated as an Enterprise Fund that would be self-sustaining with the hopes of bringing cash
and dollars back to the City funds. She stated that there is a need to be realistic and conservative
when forecasting the budget in addition to knowing and understanding the market. She stated
that, as a City, they should try to determine where the golfers are coming from and also
determine how to stay competitive. She noted that golf is a weather dependent sport and the best
dates are May through August. She stated that the golf course opened in 1995, financed with
revenue bonds. She explained that it was found that the revenue generated was only covering
operating costs and was not sufficient enough to also pay off the debt. She stated that in 2002
and again in 2004 a billboard was negotiated with Clear Channel to help offset the debt. She
stated that in 2002 the City began to offer an interfund loan, which will be in effect from 2002 to
2012, to help cover the operating losses. She explained that an interfund loan does increase
annually noting that the intent, in theory, is to have the City interfund loan paid in full by 2018.
She provided the Commission with a historical overview of the gross revenues from 1995
through 2004 noting that they are seeing a trend, from 2002 to 2004, showing an increase in the
revenues. She indicated that it is falling short by a little noting that that the billboard and the
interfund loan are what is making the City flush. She noted that the loan was large in 2002/2003
stating that it would decrease annually until it is finally paid back in 2018. She stated that the
most realistic projects come from reviewing the bottom line best-case scenario noting that they
are currently reviewing 2019 and 2033 and again at the end of the 25-year term. She indicated
that they have retained earnings each year noting that this is a cash balance brought forward that
must be kept in a reserve account until paid. She provided the Commission with an overview of
the operating revenue and expenses noting that they are under budget by approximately
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
$3500.00. She stated that one item not accounted for or considered is the major capital
improvements that would be needed over time. She explained that City Council would have to
make decisions on the financing for these improvements as they come up in the future. She
stated that at the end of the term, 2033, it shows a projected $6.4 million would be retained in
earnings. She stated that while weighing the pros and cons of the future they have discussed
what would happen to the property when it goes from an exempt status to a taxable status noting
that the County Assessor would be required to obtain a current market value of the property. She
stated that the base value breakdown, tax generated back to city, shows a base property value
$7.2 million. She explained that this value comes from Ramsey County records and provided the
Commission with an overview of the total base tax generated and the breakdown to the City
General Fund, School Funds and Other Tax Jurisdictions.
President Marty opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
President Marty stated that the Commission would try to answer questions tonight, if not,
answers would be provided at the next meeting.
Jerry Linke stated that for someone to say that he is anti-business and anti-development is far
from wrong. He commended City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich for the good job on his
clarifications and asked for a copy of his report. He acknowledged that the City has a very tough
decision to make noting that currently they have nothing to go on to make that decision. He
urged the Commission to review other Communities to see how they have addressed these
concerns. He stated that the City of Fridley did an Economic Feasibility Study to determine the
benefits of having Medtronic in their area and found there were no benefits for the Community.
He asked why they are placing TIF on a company that has more money in their slush fund than
the City does for it’s own operating expenses. He noted that the current TIF districts are all for a
fifteen year timeframe because most buildings would require remodeling at the end of a fifteen
year period. He referenced the billboards and proposals and asked if there is a way that the
Community could find out the proposed numbers being discussed. He referenced the statement
that Blaine would not give Medtronic TIF for Phases 2 and 3 and asked if the $167,000 is what is
generated for a year in taxes or does this occur later.
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich explained that the numbers are based on the base value of the
land being frozen from tax exempt to taxable property. He stated that it would net the City
approximately $167,000.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, thanked the Commission and Ehlers Associates for the
opening presentation. She stated that she appreciates hearing the facts and figures noting that she
is currently neutral on the issue. She stated that she is waiting to get all the facts before making a
full statement about the project and acknowledged receiving emails from Sherry and Roger. She
referenced Fridley noting that it was eluded to that the Assessor wanted to assess Medtronic $132
per square foot, so Medtronic went to Anoka County, who offered an assessment of $109 per
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
square foot. She stated that it is her understanding that Medtronic wants an assessment of $80
per square foot and capped. She asked if this would be included as part of the negotiating notice.
She asked what happened to the 10-percent Park Dedication Fee and would the 10-percent be
paid in land or cash. She asked if the $167,000 would be used to place trails around Cisco and
would the trails be open to the public for use.
Aaron Ojard, 11361 North 6th Drive, stated that he has been serving in the Navy for ten years
now noting that he learned to play golf as a young boy at the Bridges. He stated that the
discussions should also include the tangibles that Medtronic can’t offer, which is the ability to
offer families time together. He noted the talk that the market is saturated in this area with
respect to Par 3 courses in this area and asked the Commission what course he could take his son
to where he would not be harassed for playing too slow. He stated that The Bridges is a family-
oriented course and encouraged the Commission to keep family activities in mind when making
their decision.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, noted that it appears the City is doing a considerable
amount of number crunching after decisions have already been made. He referenced the numbers
and estimates noting that he has done a bit of his own research. He stated that according to the
last report issued by the League of Minnesota Cities, the City of Mounds View’s TIF history, as
it compares to other Cities, has been very high. He stated that in the latest report, 2003, it shows
that the City is still staying in the upper numbers as far as tax capacity tied up in TIF. He asked
what the golf course’s worth would be in terms of a recreational facility and as a quality of life
issue. He stated that it is his assumption that the revenue from the billboards would get the golf
course into a position of self support noting that the Commission should also consider what
would happen with Silverview Park if the billboards don’t bring in enough revenue to cover the
maintenance. He stated that if the City can reasonably retain the golf course he urged the
Commission and City to do it.
Peter Martin, 21902 Parkwood Drive stated that he has been playing competitive golf in the PGA
circuit for many years noting that as he plays competitive golf around the State people do ask
where The Bridges course is located. He congratulated them stating that they have a wonderful
golf course that they have managed to find a way for it to be economically viable. He stated that
this is a golf course where seniors can play juniors, men and women together and young children
can learn the sport of golf. He expressed his agreement with Mr. Ojard that the children are the
future for golf and the Community. He stated that this is the best and highest use of the land and
urged the Commission to keep that way.
Tom McKay, 2625 Hilde Road, stated that the golf course was primarily built as a community
course noting that the City is now trying to extract a profit from tax dollars. He stated that he
does not agree with this process noting that the golf course creates jobs for the community
whereas Medtronic would employ the same people regardless of their location.
Dave Mitchell, 5493 Quincy Street, stated that he has lived in this area all of his life and likes
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
where The Bridges is located. He stated that it is not a Par 3 course but is one of the longer
courses in the metro area. He stated that he enjoys The Bridges due to the length of the course.
He acknowledged that the project would bring some revenue to the City adding that it would also
bring an increase in traffic. He expressed concerns about the amount of traffic this project could
generate noting that for a company of this size, there a many nice locations along the highway
that are already vacant and available for purchase. He expressed frustrations stating that it was
his thought that the City wanted green space and it appears that with this project they are now
getting rid of it. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider the value of open space adding
that he does not see this project creating any jobs specifically for Mounds View. He stated that
the park Medtronic proposes to develop appears to be for their employees and asked if the public
would be able to take advantage of the park too. He stated that access to the proposed park
would be difficult and encouraged the Commission to keep the golf course. He stated that he
couldn’t see giving away the store to one of the wealthiest companies in the country.
Shannon Meyer, 11363 ?? Lane, President of the Twin Cities Local Chamber of Commerce,
stated that the facts show that golf courses provide a quality of life not found anywhere else. She
stated that the State of Minnesota has one of highest number of golf courses, per capita, in the
nation noting that the supply of golf courses has been outpacing the demand for play and this
trend is expected to continue. She explained that the Twin Cities North Chamber collected
information on the courses in the north metro and found, over a five-year period, that the number
of rounds played has declined by 19.5-percent, on average. She noted that The Bridges is 50%
more, on an average; over the other courses adding that part of the information shows that 27-
percent of the golfers come from Mounds View. She stated that there are enough golf courses
throughout the metro area that address all golfing needs noting that the National Sports Center
recently built a youth golf course and experienced a total of 7800 participants last year, with 67-
percent of that total being youth golfers. She provided the Commission with a brief overview of
the curriculum.
Dick Timmer stated that his daughter, Katie Timmer, is a special Olympian. He stated that his
daughter, along with friend Mike Madden of St. Anthony Village, have found a true home at The
Bridges. He stated that the golfing community at the Bridges has been very good to both Katie
and Mike noting that they are both State Champions in the State’s Top Division. He explained
that they have both practiced at The Bridges for the past four years noting that some things are
priceless and it is his belief that The Bridges is one of those things. He urged the Commission to
keep the golf course noting that the environment has always been a very welcoming to them.
Katie Timmer stated that The Bridges is a huge part of her life and relationship for her and her
father. She stated that there is a really great guy at The Bridges that always makes if fun for her
to golf and practice. She stated that golf is a good, but difficult sport adding that she does not
want to see The Bridges leave because she loves to golf.
Bruce Foley, 662 Village Parkway, Circle Pines, stated that the Blaine golf course is fabulous but
doesn’t compare to The Bridges. He explained that what makes The Bridges so special is the
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
combination of the executive nature of the course and the family-oriented golf experience one
can get with their children by walking the course. He urged the Commission to keep family in
mind when making decisions regarding this course.
Wendy Marty 2626 Louisa Ave, Mounds View, stated that golf provides an individual an
opportunity to learn many qualities including honesty, integrity, etiquette, sportsmanship, respect,
confidence, responsibility, perseverance, courtesy and judgment. She stated that a study was
done that shows 50-percent of all children, after participating in a golf program, tend to show a
higher level of confidence. She urged the Commission to keep this in mind when making their
decision.
Jeff Burnham, 5180 North Lexington, stated that he takes his grandchildren golfing on a regular
basis. He stated that he took his grandson to the Blaine course last year and found that it was a
very difficult course for children to walk. He expressed his disappointment at the rude behavior
displayed towards them by some of the golfers at the course while they were playing. He stated
that he loves the Blaine course but it is not a good spot for children. He stated that five of the Par
3 courses in St. Paul area suburbs have closed in the recent past noting that the choices for
children-friendly Par 3 courses has become very limited.
John McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, asked if the City of New Brighton had decided against the
Medtronic project due to ground water issues and asked if the City has performed any soil tests in
the area and if they have, do they have the results. He stated that he has five grandchildren; all of
them have played at The Bridges and enjoyed the experience. He stated that they have also
played the Blaine course noting that the distance between holes is a considerable distance for
children to walk.
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, Mounds View stated that in reviewing the proposals
it appears that the City is giving up a lot, including their quality of life. She expressed concerns
stating that this project would bring a lot of additional traffic, not to mention the increase in the
wear and tear on the roads. She stated that they want to give up something that means a lot to the
Community noting that $600,000 in Park Dedication Fees does not seem to be enough for what
they are giving up.
Brian Amundsen 3048 Wooddale Drive, Mounds View, asked the Commission to clarify the
1400 hours of work done by Staff on this project. He asked if the hours span over a six or eight
month period and did it involve more than one staff member. City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich
stated that the hours span over an eight-month period of time and involved several staff
members.
Mr. Amundsen noted that the proposed timeline suggests a September start time and asked how
many more times this issue would be open to the Residents for discussion with the EDA and City
Council. He asked if the actual timeline for the project was available for public review. He
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
noted that it is his assumption that the EDA and City Council would have to approve the sale of
public property or assets, which would include additional hearings. He asked if the timing for
notification to the public and scheduling of the public hearings has been determined. He asked if
there are any conditions, under the current charter, that allows the public to begin initiatives to
keep the golf course or park, as allowed under Chapter 8. He asked if City Council would be
faced with trying to locate new property to build a golf course and what is the plan for increasing
the size of Red Oaks Road.
Daniel Hall, 12860 Beaver Street, Blaine, stated that he believes the only reason Medtronic
approached Mounds View is because of the street leading straight up to the golf course. He
asked if Medtronic approached the City or if the City had approached Medtronic. President
Marty stated that Medtronic approached the City with their proposal.
Mr. Hall stated that businesses like his; located around Medtronic; do get spin-off business from
Medtronic. He stated that there is a trickle down of dollars spent in the Community by
Medtronic employees noting that he has nothing against the golf course except for the fact that it
has been subsidized by programs and is still losing money. He stated that it is prudent for the
City to review realistic scenarios and the costs for the City noting that stewardship of the City
should be to determine how they City could best serve the Community. He stated that as far as
Medtronic and the TIF dollars, 99-percent of the TIF dollars are given to TIF districts by
businesses in order to entice other businesses to come into the area. He stated that as a
businessperson, he is supportive of Medtronic coming to Mounds View and it is up to the City to
determine where the dollars should go.
President Marty clarified that funds have never been taken from the General Fund to subsidize
the golf course and it has nothing to do with the pensions.
Jim Wilson, 7025 Pleasant View Drive, asked who would be responsible for the costs to mitigate
the land in the golf course, the City or Medtronic? City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that
Medtronic would be responsible for the mitigation of the wetlands on the property adding that
this is part of the eligibility requirement.
Jim Manthis, 9664 Juniper Street Northwest, Coon Rapids, stated that he is interested in
preserving The Bridges Golf Course noting that golf has always been a part of his life. He stated
that this is his 40th year in the golf business and has served on the National PGA Board of
Directors and knows the benefits of golf for everyone. He stated that when he describes the type
of facility The Bridges is to friends they are impressed by what they hear and it creates their
interest for one in their Community. He stated that he would support the Medtronic project if
someone could prove to him that this is an overwhelmingly good deal for the City but at this
point, he has yet to see the benefits and will continue to fight for The Bridges.
Tim Mazzoni, 1520 23rd Avenue Northwest, New Brighton, stated that he speaks as an advocate
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
for children and youth. He referenced the National Youth Center course and expressed concerns
and suggested that the Commission walk the youth center course and ask themselves is the
course truly designed for youth, as they state, or is it designed more for use by High School Golf
teams. He asked the Commission to consult an SRI Study done in 2002 noting that there is a
case that golf works, youth in golf works and the program at The Bridges works well for a lot of
children. He urged the Commissioners to think hard about the issues and what they have before
they make any decisions.
George Weinberger, 8011 Eastwood Road, stated that he is 20-years old and a product of the
youth program at The Bridges. He stated that he participated in their first youth program and
also in the high school programs. He stated that it was explained to him that when he entered the
voting process it was the way for him to choose the people he wanted to be his voice. He stated
that they are running a City, not a business and asked them not to lose such a precious asset to the
City.
John Ewing 10953 Xylite Park Lane stated that he treasures The Bridges. He stated that it is his
understanding that a deal has already been made to get the golf course paid for and asked
shouldn’t a deal be a deal. He stated that the City of Mounds View has given the Community a
beautiful golf course that provides people with the opportunity to enjoy the amenities and meet
new people, which is a precious experience that cannot be taken away from anyone. He stated
that if a deal has been made they should stay with it noting that they are on the right track with
Clear Channel.
Ray Ramirez, 2273 Irondale Rd, asked if a survey regarding the golf course would be distributed
to the residents in Mounds View. He stated that he is in favor of the golf course and expressed
concerns that many of the people speaking in support of the golf course tonight are from other
areas. He stated that he would like the residents of Mounds View to have the opportunity to
discuss the issues further and agreed that it is a beautiful sport for children.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road stated that it would be helpful if the City offered the
Community more information. He stated that they do not have to mitigate the wetlands in
Mounds View as it can be mitigated in any Watershed district they want to as long as they meet
the mitigation requirements. He referenced the survey stating that one has already been done by
Decision Resources and in the survey, it is the same number of people who said ‘sell’ that are the
same who also say ‘if it isn’t costing, keep it’. He stated that he would like to see a solid number
from Ehlers and Associates that projects the value of the golf course, along side comparisons of
what would happen if the land were TIF’d and the actual value of the land. He asked if they are
jumping too soon to divest themselves of this asset noting that land is going up in valued and
would continue to escalate in value. He stated that he would like to know what the professionals
would say the value of the land would be by the time the golf course has paid off its’ obligations
and also at what point do they think the citizens would question what was decided here.
Mounds View EDA April 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Cindy Weinberger, 2322 119th Circle, Blaine, stated that she is employed with The Mermaid.
She stated that she has heard so much about the positive effects for the youth in this community
and the benefits gained by the golf course and asked how much of the taxes generated at the golf
course go back to benefit the schools and how much money would Medtronic put back into the
schools. She stated that in her opinion education in the schools is much more valuable than any
sport.
Mr. Linke stated that currently it is non–taxable and none of the money would go back to the
School District. He stated that the schools would not receive any funds if it goes to TIF for a
twenty-five year period either. Ms. Kvilvang, Ehlers, clarified that this is not entirely true noting
that as discussed, the property is tax-exempt. She stated that with respect to the schools, there
are referendums out there and if Medtronic were built they would be paying on the tax rates from
the referendums.
President Marty closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
President Marty stated that this public hearing would be continued at the May 9, 2005 EDA
meeting.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the motion to continue this discussion to the
May 9, 2005 EDA meeting.
Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, May 9, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 9, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Gunn, Flaherty, Marty, Stigney and Thomas
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Approve the May 9, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes April 25, 2005
Commissioner Thomas had the following correction:
• Page one, Item 4-Public Input; Dwayne McCarty should be Duane McCarty.
City Administrator Ulrich had the following corrections:
• Page 3, line 101, reads ‘the prior year was $7.5 million’; should read ‘the prior year was
$1.58 million’.
• Page 3, line 107/108 reads ‘tax increment would be subjected to a tax.’; should read ‘tax
increment would be subjected to a cap.’
• Page 3, line 111, ranked 1st
• Line 114, 115, 116:
• Reads: ‘He indicated that Legislation has a proposal that would expand the districts to four or
five for the construction of Phase 1 of the Medtronic project.’
• Should read: ‘He indicated that the Legislation proposes to expand the district up to four
districts to accommodate the subsequent phases of Medtronic’.
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
• Line 116: clarified that the 40-acres was previously deeded to the City not 72.
• Line 124:
• Answer should read: City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that it is possible to
develop this site without tax increment.
• Page 4, line 145:
• Reads: ‘City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that the City has spent $21,000.’
• Should read: ‘City Administrator Ulrich stated that the City has spent $221,000.’
• Page 4, line 151-152:
• Reads: ‘He noted that of the 72 acres from MnDOT, 40 acres is currently transferable and
they have title for the land.’
• Should read: ‘He noted that of the 72 acres, 32 acres is currently transferable and they have
the title for the land.’
Commissioner Stigney had the following correction:
• Page 7, Duane McCarty’s address should be 8060 Long Lake Road not 61 Lake Road.
• Page 9, John McKusick’s address should be 8465 Eastwood Road not 8465 East River Road.
• Page 11, George Lambrigay’s address is missing a number, show’s 811 Eastwood Road.
President Marty had the following corrections:
• Page 10, noted the name of a speaker was not determined. He suggested reviewing the
meeting tape to determine the name of the speaker.
• Page 12, line 409, Add ‘comment from the audience’
Commissioner Gunn had the following correction:
• Page 8, line 334
Reads: ‘Katie Timmer stated that she The Bridges is a huge part of her life’
Should read: ‘Katie Timmers stated that The Bridges is a huge part of her life’
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty Approve the Minutes of April 25, 2005 as amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
NONE
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. 6:05 pm. Continuation of the April 25, 2005 Public Hearing for the purpose
of considering the proposed sale of land comprising The Bridges in the City
of Mounds View to Medtronic, Inc.
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
City Administrator Ulrich stated that Steve Mahle and Rodger McCombs, representatives from
Medtronic, are present this evening to provide the Commission and the Residents of Mounds
View with a presentation. He stated that due to time constraints the discussion on tax increment
financing would be discussed at a future meeting.
Steve Mahle, Executive Vice President, Medtronic, President of Cardiac Management Division,
stated that he has been employed with Medtronic for the past 33 years. He provided the
Commission with an overview and history of Medtronic and the cardiac management business.
He explained what it means to Medtronic to be a good neighbor and provided an overview of
Medtronic’s mission statement. He stated that the Cardiac Rhythm Management is the largest
part of the company and is the best known due to its’ history with pacemakers. He
acknowledged the question regarding their need for expansion stating that they believe, in spite
of the technological advances over the years, that there are still an enormous number of patients
to be treated, which means they need more people, which requires more space. He reviewed the
Company growth rate noting that Medtronic has been deeply rooted in the northern suburbs for a
long time and would like to remain here. He stated that Medtronic has approximately 1,755
employees currently living in the northern suburbs with an overall 25-percent from the Mounds
View area.
Mr. Mahle stated that Medtronic currently operates a distribution center in the City and their plan
is to build one of the largest facilities Medtronic has anywhere in world. He stated that the 60-
acre site would fit their needs noting that Mounds View is centrally located with access points
from both 35W and Highway 10. He stated that this is the area want to stay in and plan to grow
in. He noted the discussions around Mounds View and the community’s assets stating that it is
their hope that Medtronic would be considered a community asset. He stated that upfront the
City would get $8.65 million for the land sale with $250 million of investment activity in
construction and capital purchases, with $79 million projected in property taxes over the next 25-
years. He acknowledged the reality of TIF stating that they would receive .34 cents spent on the
dollar and the City would receive .66 cents. He assured the Commission of Medtronic’s
commitment to the community noting that they are more than a community property tax resource.
He reviewed Medtronic’s mission statement, written by Earl Bakken, stating that they have a
responsibility to be faithful to the communities that they live in. He stated that he is very proud
of the community work Medtronic does noting that Medtronic has been blessed to be successful
in their business and in turn Medtronic likes to share their success with the community.
Mr. Mahle stated that in the coming year Medtronic’s total giving would be approximately $45
million through the donations of life saving products and through cash donations for various
grants. He indicated that Medtronic has been voted one of the top donors in the country noting
that in Minnesota Medtronic’s investments include $1 million a year for hands-on science
education and $1.5 million a year for health care services, and $4 million to the Greater Twin
Cities United Way. He stated that Medtronic also donates to the Minnesota Zoo and the
Minnesota Orchestra. He stated that over the past twelve years Medtronic has invested $105,000
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
in Mounds View school programs in addition to $600,000 committed for park and recreation
dedication fees. He stated that Medtronic’s Community involvement does not end with
contributions noting that Medtronic employees also volunteer in various schools and mentoring
programs. He acknowledged that none of these decisions are easy adding that he understands the
passion and concern of the residents and their want to see their Community be successful. He
referenced the passion of the people who work for Medtronic and the community they live in
stating that it is a real blessing and it is his hope that Medtronic becomes a good neighbor in the
City of Mounds View.
Rodger McCombs, Vice President, Medtronic, stated that his organization includes real estate,
construction, facility management, security and travel support noting that all of it comes to bear,
in some way, to this project. He reviewed the financial elements of the project and the site plan
with the Commission. He stated that they have worked closely with State, County and City
officials to ensure that the site is positively developed. He stated that one item of concern that
was brought up during a past public hearing was the concern regarding the wetlands. He assured
the Commission that Medtronic views the wetlands area as an amenity noting that they have
included wetlands as a natural amenity at other facilities as a buffer. He stated that Medtronic
wants to ensure that the campus is a positive environment for both the employees and the
residents of Mounds View.
Mr. McCombs stated that the property to the west could be developed with park dedications fees
adding that they could incorporate walking trails and park areas throughout. He acknowledged
that the development would create an increase in traffic flow stating that they have worked
closely with MnDOT, Ramsey County, Anoka County, Hennepin County, Shoreview and Blaine
to address the traffic concerns. He reviewed traffic access points and flow with the Commission
noting that this was a project that MnDOT originally was not going to address for another ten
years. He stated that Medtronic endorses the plans to upgrade 35W/County Road J bridge
intersection; the County Road J traffic turn lanes, Airport Road and State Highway 10 noting that
the projects are fully funded at the State level. He explained that Real Estate and Construction is
part of his responsibility noting that the expansion would add 300 jobs over the next two years.
He stated that the new campus would generate the need for jobs to operate and provide services
at the new campus in addition to the positive impact it would have for local and regional
businesses.
Mr. McCombs stated that Medtronic deals with the tax issues noting that the TIF calculation that
was used for the Fridley Headquarters, was for $100.00 per square foot. He explained that
Medtronic reached an agreement with the City of Fridley to engage a third-party mediator to
come to an agreement for $109 per square foot as an appropriate charge. He explained that
Medtronic pays taxes in Anoka County, Ramsey County and Hennepin County noting that the
increase in the tax base would be now with an additional potential for growth. He indicated that
millions of dollars are available now through the sale of land, park dedication fees, franchise
fees, permits and administrative fees. He stated that the Medtronic expansion would be a great
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
benefit to the City of Mounds View.
Commissioner Flaherty asked how they arrived at the $79 million projected in property taxes.
Mr. McCombs explained that this is part of the model they have been using, with the City and
with Ehlers, to determine the approximate number for tax dollars. He further explained that it is
based on the assessed property value over a period of time.
Commissioner Thomas noted that Ehlers review provided good detail. She stated that she would
like to see something available on Medtronic by the next meeting.
President Marty referenced the Anoka County assessment agreement and asked if the agreement
was for a finite period of time.
Mr. McCombs stated that they agreed to the assessment over the next three tax periods and
reviewed with the Commission.
President Marty referenced Mr. Mahle’s presentation stating that the slide reviewing the dollar
breakdown noting that one slide shows that $.66 goes to the City, County and Schools and
another slide shows $.63 and asked which is the correct number.
Mr. McCombs explained that they are working with Ehlers and the correct number, which was
received from Stacie Kvilvang just prior to the meeting, is $.63. He further explained that they
were not able to update the slide prior to the meeting to reflect the correct number.
President Marty stated that Ehlers would be attending a future meeting to explain the different
types of TIF and how it breaks down. He thanked Medtronic for their presentation and opened
the floor for comments.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated hats off to Medtronic for all the good they do for
the communities they live in. He acknowledged that they run a business too and provided the
Council with a good historical background. He referenced the presentation made by Ehlers
Associates at the last meeting noting that the City would realize, with TIF, $4.7 million in total
taxes generated over a 26-year timeframe. He expressed concerns stating that Medtronic’s
contribution would be locked in a TIF fund for the length of the TIF District and until the project
is certified. He requested a projection of the land value for the golf course. He acknowledged
that the City is in the process of contemplating the value of the property noting that their arrival
on a number for the actual assessed value should be held proprietary at this time. He stated that
he worked on some figures using $7,228,000 as the base property value for tax purposes. He
explained that in using a conservative 3-percent gain from 2006 to 2033 the City would see a 3-
percent increase and by 2033 the value of the land would be approximately $6.3 million. He
stated that 3-percent is very conservative noting that for purpose of comparison he used the 3-
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
percent inflationary that Staff used on the golf course projections. He stated that the land value,
at the end, would be $16.5 million noting that with depreciation of the account, it would be free
of being necessary for defraying costs by 2019 and would be able to stand on its own. He
explained that his reason for bringing this up is because the numbers have been presented noting
that the total value of the land and assets along with the fixed assets, would be, at a minimum,
$26.2 million in equity. He stated that he is curious as to why the City of Mounds View would
let this jewel slip through their fingers when the numbers from Staff show a worth of $26 million
in TIF alone.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, acknowledged that Medtronic is a fabulous company
adding that she has a couple of questions. She noted that Medtronic has a beautiful campus
located in Fridley and asked why they did not expand in Fridley. She stated that she did some of
her own research on the assessment agreement with Anoka County stating that she found out that
there were areas available but that Medtronic did not want to pay the square footage amount. She
stated that it was her understanding that certain areas were also removed from the equation and
asked if this was true. She stated that rumor has it that they were only paying $80 per square foot
on the property and that Fridley could have sued. She asked for further clarification on the
assessment agreement. She asked for clarification on the calculations used to determine the park
dedication fees noting that the agreed amount is $600,000 and with a property valued at $8.5
million, based on the 10-percent calculation, shouldn’t the amount for park dedication fees
actually be $850,000. She asked if there were legal reasons that they were not able to use the 10-
percent calculations noting that other businesses had to pay a 10-percent park dedication fee. She
stated that in summary she would like to know why Medtronic did not expand in Fridley; How
were they able to negotiate the conference and café square footage; and how did they come up
with the park dedication fee numbers.
Mr. Mahle explained that there was not enough room in Fridley for the size of the facility they
want to build. He stated that the initial project would be 840,000 square feet noting that they
would require additional space to expand up to 1.5 million square feet.
Mr. McCombs further explained that corporations have to plan for their future and Medtronic is
trying to project out how best to take care of their growth over the next ten to twenty years. He
stated that this move would help to address their growth needs over the next few years. He
referenced the assessment agreement in Anoka stating that there are different ways used in how
they calculate square footage, which was part of their discussion, through mediators, with Anoka.
He stated that through these discussions both parties agreed to numbers that were deemed
appropriate for that site.
City Administrator Ulrich acknowledged that the park dedication is less than the 10-percent used
as a standard for smaller projects. He acknowledged that there were legal issues and explained
that Staff did review other Communities to help determine the percentage that would be used, on
average, to determine park dedication fees in a project of this size. He stated that Staff is willing
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
to share the information if anyone is interested in reviewing.
City Attorney Riggs stated that there have been several successful legal challenges to having a
specific, standard percentage identified. He stated that they have given Council more flexibility
in determining fees noting that the 10-percent has been challenged successfully in a court of law.
Donn Hagmann, Medtronic, indicated that the proposed park dedication fee is more than four
times what they paid at the Fridley site expansion. He stated that he is not aware of another large
project, like this one, that has paid 10% noting that it has probably never happened.
President Marty indicated that the City Council does not have a complete consensus on this issue
either.
John McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, referenced the soil testing noting that there are still some
wells in the area and asked if they have any answers on the ground soil test results.
President Marty explained that they are waiting until mid-May, which is when the results would
actually be available.
Director Ericson stated that Staff is working with MPCA noting that the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency has indicated that the results received so far, do not show anything that would be
considered an issue. He stated that they are waiting for final clarification from MPCA.
Greg Belting, 1525 Sherman Lake Road, Lino Lakes, stated that he has a chiropractic office
located in Mounds View and also serves on the Mounds View EDC. He acknowledged that
Mary Burg and the Golf Course have done a good job for the City noting that the Medtronic
project would represent the single largest economic development in the City. He stated that as a
business owner, having a world leader of medical devices wanting to locate in this community is
a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City. He encouraged the Commission to consider the
positive options and impact this project would have for the City and its residents.
President Marty closed the meeting to public comment. He stated that the City Council meeting
for the City of Mounds View was scheduled to begin two minutes ago. He stated that the
Commission would move to continue this discussion at the next EDA meeting in two weeks. He
stated that the meeting would also include a presentation from Ehlers Associates explaining the
TIF scenarios.
City Administrator Ulrich suggested scheduling the continuation of this discussion on a separate
night. He suggested holding the meeting at the Community Center to better accommodate the
size of the group that would be in attendance.
President Marty agreed that it would be a good idea to schedule the meeting on a separate night
Mounds View EDA May 9, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
in a larger room. He stated that it would eliminate the time constraints and allow the
Commission to move forward and cover as much ground as possible. He stated that he would
have Staff check out the Community Center schedule noting that the meeting would probably be
two to three weeks out. He stated that Staff would coordinate the dates with the Commissioners
and the Community Center and update the residents on the schedule.
President Marty closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To approve the motion to continue the public hearing to
May 23, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. to allow Ehlers Associates to make presentations and to schedule a
public comment meeting on a date available two weeks from May 9, 2005.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
NONE
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, May 23, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 23, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty, and
Commissioner Gunn.
NOT PRESENT: Commissioner Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the May 23, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes May 9, 2005
City Administrator Ulrich had the following corrections:
• Page 8, line 306 – the motion should be Marty/Thomas not Ulrich/Thomas.
President Marty had the following corrections:
• Page 3, line 88 – Rodger McCombs should be Rodger McComb
• Page 4, line 138 – ‘facility mgmt’ should read ‘facility management’
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty To Approve the Minutes of May 9, 2005 as amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Mounds View EDA May 23, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Set a Special Meeting of the EDA for June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Mounds View Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive.
B. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this meeting to discuss
and consider the sale of real property commonly known as The Bridges Golf
Course, and a buyout offer of the billboard signs (Verbal Report).
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Duane McCarty asked the Commission what State Statute applies to the Executive Session
scheduled for this evening.
City Attorney Riggs stated that Minnesota State Statute 13d, Subdivision 3.C.3
Duane McCarty asked if the value of the property has been determined and if the Executive
Session is to specifically discuss the appraisal value.
President Marty stated that the property values have not yet been determined.
City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the purpose of the Executive Session is to discuss the
general specifics of the property purchase.
City Attorney Riggs further explained that the purpose for the Executive Session is to deal with
the terms of the offer. He stated that Council has to determine if the offer is acceptable or if there
is a need to counter the offer.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. 6:05 pm. Continuation of the May 9, 2005 Public Hearing for the Purpose of
Considering the Proposed Sale of Land comprising The Bridges of Mounds
View Golf Course to Medtronic, Inc.
Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates provided the Commission with an overview of the Tax
Increment Financing process noting that it provides the ability to capture and use the increased
local property tax revenues from new development within a defined geographic area. She
provided examples of the eligible uses and reviewed the building blocks of TIF. She reviewed
the process used to determine the base value of a property noting that they are in discussion with
the County Assessor in an effort to determine the accurate value of the property.
Mounds View EDA May 23, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Ms. Kvilvang stated that one item, fiscal disparities, requires discussion. She stated that State
law requires new commercial/industrial properties in the 7-County metro area to contribute 40-
percent of the valuation to an area-wide pool for all local taxing jurisdictions. She reviewed the
impacts noting that the EDA has indicated that the fiscal disparities would be paid inside the tax
district. She reviewed the items not captured for TIF noting that in this case Medtronic’s base
taxes comprise approximately 6-percent. She stated that the net TIF to Medtronic would be 37-
percent or approximately $ .37 of each dollar they pay in taxes. She explained that the
Development Agreement is the binding contract and includes all of the details for the project and
all of the terms as to how the project would move forward. She stated that the City would pay as
they go through the project. She explained that the Developer would bear the brunt of the initial
costs and would be required to show proof of completion and payment before the City would
make payment to the Developer. She stated that the Developers would pay their taxes; the City
would then determine the tax increment and forward payment to Medtronic.
Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the Development Performa, the comparable land costs and future
development potential for the site. She provided the Commission with a an overview of the 2005
Ramsey County Ranking data noting that the information is based on 2004 data. She stated that
at the County level Mounds View is ranked Number 1 and explained that there are three Districts
in the City because of the base valuation noting that anything captured for the tax increment base
would be a bit higher. She stated that at a State level, in 2004, Mounds View was ranked 11
noting that based on the 2005 data the City’s ranking falls to 26. She stated that they plan to do a
comparison that would show where Mounds View falls in the ranking for tax increment
percentages.
Ms. Kvilvang stated that the next step includes special legislation noting that they were initially
looking at a redevelopment district. She explained that when the proposal moved to the House
the same legislation was introduced noting that changes were made and the District was changed
to an Economic Development District. She further explained that an extension was provided that
gives the same benefits and reviewed with the Commission. She stated that the final version
would come back to the City for approval and would also be reviewed and approved by the
School Board and County. She stated that the review and consideration for approval of the
Development Agreement is scheduled for June 20, 2005 and from there it would then move
through the standard City approval process.
President Marty opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m.
Barbara Haake, 3420 County Road I referenced the Executive Session scheduled to discuss The
Bridges stating that from her perspective this a done deal. She referenced the May 4th article in
the newspaper about proposed property sale values of $300,000 an acre in Blaine and Roseville,
noting that Residents have been told that the City would get $120,000 an acre, and urged the
Commission not to ask for anything less than $250,000 per acre. She expressed concerns stating
that it feels as if Mounds View is getting taken adding that this is not a good deal for the City of
Mounds View EDA May 23, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Mounds View. She asked the Commission not to consider TIF and asked what kind of taxes
would the City of Mounds View receive if the property, valued close to $85 million, were not
under TIF. She expressed frustration stating that she has requested copies of the options
available on several occasions and has yet to receive the information.
Ms. Kvilvang explained that she does not have the numbers adding that they would work with
the Assessor to see what the value is and run the numbers through TIF.
President Marty stated that they should probably get a few quotes from realtors in addition to the
numbers from the Assessor. He stated that it would be interesting to see how it would be
marketed from a realtor’s perspective.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, referenced 469.175 – Establishing and Changing TIF
plans, Subdivision 3, states that a County Auditor shall not certify until a tax increment financing
plan for the proposed project has been approved by the municipality in which it is located in. He
clarified his understanding is that the Auditor cannot certify until the land has been approved. He
stated that the residents are very frustrated with the whole process. He reviewed future estimate
values and projected depreciation of cash accounts with the Commission noting that the numbers
are based on information from the City Finance Department and the Ramsey County Abstract
Value for 2005. He noted that the current numbers are more conservative than the numbers used
in 1988 and expressed concerns that the City is taking a very conservative 3-percent gain over a
30-year term. He stated that they would find that the conservative real estate value appreciation
is $16.5 million at the end of the term and the ending cash account would be approximately $6.7
million, with a total value, over a period of time, would be approximately $20 million. He stated
that Ms. Haake made a good point and asked the Commission to clarify the numbers that they are
dealing with and where they are coming from. He suggested that the City utilize appraisal
companies and get two or three appraisals to get a better idea of what they are dealing with. He
noted that the airport would increase land value considerably adding that the City is not dealing
with solid numbers here. He stated that he, along with other Residents, is getting weary as they
are not getting any answers to the questions asked. He stated that the Community expected more
from the City of Mounds View.
President Marty acknowledged Mr. McCarty’s concerns and agreed that the Commission and the
Residents have not been able to fully discuss all of the issues and their concerns. He explained
that there has not been enough time to fully discuss the issues with the EDA meetings scheduled
to take place before the City Council meetings. He agreed that the process has been very slow
adding that a special meeting has been scheduled for Monday, June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. to
discuss the issues. He stated that the meeting would be held at the Banquet Center and would
have the same format as the Town Hall meeting. He stated that it is their hope to have more
information available that would help to answer a lot of the questions raised by the Community.
He stated that he too has several questions noting that he discovered this weekend that this
District is set up as an Economic Development District with an eight-year term. He stated that in
Mounds View EDA May 23, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
reading the House bill as it was portrayed at the Capital that the City of Mounds View requested
that the District be extended from an 8-year to a 25-year district. He stated that he was not aware
that anyone on the EDA had asked to extend the District and clarified that in the discussions they
have held the questions asked are if there are any possible ways to reduce the District from 25
years to 20 or 15 years.
Ms. Haake offered to help the Commission work with the Representatives on this issue. She
stated that if they would give her the information, signed, that she would discuss their concerns
with the Representatives and work to resolve the issues.
Daniel Hall, 2200 Highway 10 noted that the Commission and Council have had a tough time
noting that they do not have all of the facts and figures available to make a good decision. He
suggested that the Commission and Council making sure that they have some parameters on the
numbers for the June 20th meeting. He agreed stating that the City should get some real numbers
together and obtain a few appraisals prior to the June 20th meeting, as they should know the
numbers before making all of these big decisions.
President Marty stated that this Public Hearing would be continued to Monday, June 20, 2005.
Commissioner Gunn suggested to the Residents that they write out their questions and place it in
the drop box located at City Hall. She stated that this would give Staff the opportunity to review
and have answers available at the June 20th meeting.
Tim Mitchell, 2280 Knollwood Drive, stated that this is the best golf course he has ever played in
his life. He stated that people love the course adding that he would be totally upset of the golf
course goes. He stated that it is his hope that The Bridges would continue.
Darlene Cherry, Roseville, stated that she plays at The Bridges quite often, as it is a unique and
affordable course. She stated that The Bridges is a family oriented course and a good place for
both youth and adults. She noted that The Bridges is profitable now that it has the billboard
contract and revenue. She urged the Commission to keep The Bridges. She stated that if they
decide to sell the property to Medtronic the Commission should consider building a smaller golf
course, similar to The Bridges.
Sue Jung, Regional Manager, Country Suites/Holiday Express, Coon Rapids stated that
Medtronic is a wonderful asset to a Community noting that Medtronic is one of their top ten
accounts. She stated that Medtronic is a real asset and would help the Community grow.
President Marty closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the motion to continue the Public Hearing to
Monday June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Mounds View EDA May 23, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
NONE
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, June 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission agreed, by consensus, to adjourn at 6:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 13, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:05 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Gunn, Flaherty, Marty, Stigney and Thomas
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Approve the June 13, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes May 9, 2005
President Marty had the following corrections:
• Page 3, line 88, 93, 107, 123 should be Steve Mahle
• Page 5, line 185 and 186 should read: Mr. McComb stated that they agreed to the assessment
over the next three tax periods and ‘then’ reviewed with the Commission.
• Page 7, line 261, should read Hagmann
• Page 7, line 279 – states Mounds View EEC; should read ‘Mounds View EDC’
• Page 8, line 306 – the motion should be Marty/Thomas not Ulrich/Thomas.
Commissioner Gunn had the following correction:
• Page 7, line 278 should be Greg Belting
• Page 6, line 243 should be McCombs
Mounds View EDA June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty Approve the Minutes of May 9, 2005 as amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. EDA Minutes May 23, 2005
President Marty had the following corrections:
• Page 5, line 170 states: ‘He stated that in reading the House bill it was portrayed at the
Capital.’ Should read: ‘He stated that in reading the House bill ‘as’ it was portrayed at the
Capital.’
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty Approve the Minutes of May 23, 2005 as amended.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 1-Abstain (Thomas) Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following this meeting to discuss
and consider the sale of real property commonly known as the Bridges Golf
Course, and a buyout offer of the billboard signs.
President Marty stated that he was a bit surprised to find out that they have an Executive Session
scheduled, as it was his understanding that the Commission had continued all work and
discussions until the special EDA meeting scheduled for June 20, 2005.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the Commission has a lot of work to do to prepare for the
special meeting on June 20th and should continue to work through the issues so that they are
prepared for the meeting.
Vice President Stigney agreed stating that they are still in negotiations and need the closed
session.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney Approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
7. EDA BUSINESS
NONE
Mounds View EDA June 13, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
8. REPORTS
City Clerk/Administrator Ulrich stated that an Executive Session was convened on May 23, 2005
at 6:54 p.m. He stated that all Commissioners were present except for Commissioner Thomas.
He noted that Director Ericson and City Attorney Riggs were also in attendance. He reviewed
stating that the Commission discussed the sale of real property commonly known as The Bridges.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Barbara Haake referenced the Commission discussions for the sale of The Bridges property
stating that she has put together three potential options for The Bridges that she would like to
review with the Commission. She stated that it is her understanding that the sale of the property
known as The Bridges is for $8.6 million, which when calculated at 72-acres, is $120,000 per
acre and noted that the property tax calculation is for raw land. She provided the Commission
with copies of the options and gave a brief overview of each. She asked that the Commission
give some consideration to option 3 as a part of their discussion and review.
Vice President Stigney stated that they do not have these options on the table and this is not what
is happening right now. He added that if they have an interested buyer let the City know.
Commissioner Flaherty asked staff to review and verify Ms. Haake’s numbers.
Andre Koen, 7951 Greenwood Drive, stated that he is new to the City of Mounds View. He
stated that he moved to the area due to the mix, closeness to the City and the amount of green
space in the area. He stated that he is concerned that the area would become land locked with the
sale of this property to Medtronic and asked the Commission to consider this throughout the
process.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Special Meeting of the EDA for June 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
at the Mounds View Community Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Joint Meeting EDA and City Council
June 20, 2005
Mounds View Community Center
Banquet Center, 5394 Edgewood Drive, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:22 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flahery. To Approve the Monday, June 20, 2005 agenda as
presented.
Mayor Marty opened both public hearings at 6:24 p.m.
4. INTRODUCTION
A video regarding The Bridges Golf Course was shown to the audience.
5. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL (City Administrator Kurt Ulrich)
City Administrator Ulrich stated the project involved the sale and development of 72.2 acres of
land known as The Bridges Golf Course to Medtronic Corporation for a CRM corporate campus.
He stated the project required consideration and approval of a development agreement and tax
increment financing assistance. He noted the City was first approached by CRESA partners in
July of 2004. He reviewed the action items that would need to be approved by the City/EDA and
the history of the project. He summarized the impacts of the project including financial,
economic, environmental, airport, city services, and traffic.
6. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES (Community Development Director Jim Ericson)
Community Development Director Ericson summarized other options/alternatives for The
Bridges Golf Course. He indicated option one was the “do nothing” approach and keeping the
golf course as was, reaping the benefits of the twenty-year billboard leases. The second option
was to keep the golf course and sell the driving range. The third option was to keep the golf
course, sell the driving range, and build a new driving range. The fourth option was to relocate
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 2
holes 2 through 5, and develop the excess 26 acres. The fifth option was the Medtronic proposal
with TIF financing. The sixth option was to sell the course to a different entity and provide no
TIF. In summary, he noted the Medtronic proposal would be above and beyond the benefits of
the golf course.
7. PUBLIC SUBSIDY AND FINANCIAL REVIEW (Ehlers & Associates)
Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, reviewed the special legislation by the creation of an
Economic Development TIF District and the sale of the former MnDOT property – reverter
legislation. She summarized the acquisition/park dedication fees and the retention, conditions
prior to conveyance, right of reverter, resale of reacquired property, and relocation or
termination/acquisition of billboard leaseholds. She reviewed the construction of minimum
improvements, public improvements, administrative expenses, and tax increment financing. She
summarized the wetland mitigation, prohibition on tax exemption, sale or assignment, events of
default, Phase II and Phase III, and golf course equipment and club house. She reviewed the golf
course financing, how the golf course was financed, the historical golf course gross revenue, and
the annual Interfund Loan required.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing in regard to a proposed business subsidy to be granted by the
EDA to Medtronic, Inc. under Minnesota Statues Sections 116J.993 through
116J.995. The proposed subsidy involves tax increment financing assistance
to facilitate development by the Recipient of an 820,000 sq. ft. business in the
City of Mounds View.
B. Public Hearing in regard to consideration of the proposed sale of land
comprising The Bridges Golf Course in the City of Mounds View, which is
presently owned by the City of Mounds View, to Medtronic, Inc.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Marty asked that before speaking, audience members give their full name and address for
the minutes. He advised Mounds View residents and businesses would have the first opportunity
to speak, with nonresidents speaking last. He advised that a five-minute time limit would be
strictly enforced with PowerPoint presentations being limited to 10 minutes.
Warren Johnson, 7710 Greenwood Drive, asked if MEDTRONIC built this building, how much
money would the City receive per year in taxes. Ms. Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, replied the
City would receive approximately $43,000 annually for the general fund that would increase over
time while the TIF District was in use and once the TIF District was done, the amount would go
up considerably because Medtronic would be paying the full value in taxes.
Mr. Johnson asked with all of the money coming in, how much would the resident’s property
taxes to be reduced. Ms. Kvilvang replied the goal of the City and EDA was to not have any tax
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 3
increase to the taxpayers, but there was no promise to reduce the taxes. However, there might be
a reduction to the school referendums, which would amount to a couple of dollars a year.
Jim Bergales, 8400 Red Oak Drive, indicated the traffic had drastically increased and asked from
Highway 10 up to Red Oak Drive and County Road J, what would happen to that intersection.
He asked if there would be a freeway hookup. Vernon Swing, RLK, City Consultant who
prepared the AUAR, responded initially the intersection would change with additional turn lanes
provided as well as some modifications to the signal timing, but the intersection at County Road
J and Long would remain the same.
Jan Brenk, 7800 Gloria Circle, stated since Medtronic’s goal was to consolidate all of its smaller
companies at this site, she did not believe there would be any hiring because they would be
transferring employees. She asked what guarantee they had that Medtronic would not turn the
golf course into Medtronic’s private golf course. She asked if Medtronic had ever donated any
campaign funds to any Council Member. The Council Members/EDA Commissioners as a group
replied Medtronic had not given any campaign funds to them.
Ms. Brenk noted her family owned the land prior to the State and she was opposed to this
transfer. Ms. Kvilvang replied Medtronic would not be able to retain this as a golf course or they
would be in default and with respect to the hiring of employees, this would be a condition in the
Development Agreement.
Rodger McCombs, representing Medtronic, replied Medtronic would create the jobs they
indicated they would create.
Brian Knox, 2291 Knoll Drive, stated this “smacks of a sweetheart deal to the detriment of
Mounds View residents”. He suggested they put this land on the open market and Medtronic can
join the open bidding at that time. He expressed concerns about the quality of life issues, the
noise, and the increase in traffic. He requested Council/EDA do the right thing for the citizens of
Mounds View.
John McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, expressed concern about the quality of life, the noise
pollution, air pollution, the increase in traffic, and the additional expense for police and fire. He
asked why they were selling this property so cheap and believed his property would not decrease
in value. He expressed concern about the increase in jet noise when they used the Blaine airport.
He stated he was against this proposal.
Rita Guzzetta, 7434 Knollwood Drive, stated she was a Medtronic employee and she purchased a
home in the City in anticipation of the Medtronic property being located in Mounds View.
Nancy Gollnick, 8085 Greenwood Drive, stated she was a former teacher in the City. She noted
Mounds View schools were running into difficult times and Medtronic had been a good friends
to Mounds View schools by providing funds to the science programs without any strings
attached. She believed Medtronic would continue to do this if they were located in Mounds
View. She stated the future of the company depended upon hiring well-educated people and the
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 4
schools needed additional funding in order to have educated students. She noted the City already
had two schools that were considered low income schools and believed a good company coming
into the City would benefit the schools. She stated she was in support of this project.
Daniel Hall, 2200 Highway 10, asked if the golf course was self-sufficient and what was the
revenue trend. He noted a three percent a year growth was unrealistic. He stated it was probably
a three percent negative growth during the past five years. He stated Blaine had never turned
down Medtronic to go into that City and Medtronic had not been turned down by a lot of cities.
He complimented Jim Ericson for his paper and noted it was a very thorough report. City
Administrator Ulrich replied the golf course was self-sufficient with the three percent revenue
growth and the billboard revenue. However, if there was no billboard revenue, the golf course
would not be self sufficient.
Mr. Hall noted the golf course was still being funded by the taxpayers. Ms. Kvilvang replied Mr.
Hall was correct because the operating of the golf course did not cash flow annually and that was
the reason for the billboards. She noted the City was required to put additional funds yearly to
make sure the reserve was maintained.
Phil Sipe, President SYSCO, 2400 County J, stated he had an emotional tie to the golf course,
but as a business person, it made sense to do this development project. He stated they presently
employ 639 jobs with benefits and their employees made use of the facilities in Mounds View.
He stated they supported this because of the additional tax revenue, high paying jobs, it was a
clean industry, it resulted in badly needed improvements in County Road J and the bridge over
35W, and this might be the only opportunity to improve the road in the near future, the project
included trails and the wooded land dedicated to the City by Sysco. He noted their employees
enjoyed walking during their lunch hour, but had to cross the street to access trails. He stated
their employees patronized the Mounds View businesses. He stated the Medtronic project was
an important improvement to the City and encouraged them to go forward with the development.
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he has lived in the City for 37 years and supported
the Medtronic proposal. He questioned how they had reached this point in the discussions with
respect to TIF financing and it being an inherit part of this proposal. He asked if this was a deal
breaker and who initiated the discussion regarding TIF financing. He stated he would like to
welcome them as a corporate tax paying neighbor, but he did not understand why they got this
type of a tax break. City Administrator Ulrich replied this was a Medtronic request and
Medtronic needed that to make the site work for their business requirements.
Torri Johnson, 7730 Long Lake Road, stated she was a 14 year resident of Mounds View and
lived on the north side of County Road 10. She expressed concern about the increase in traffic
and she had every reason to not support this project, but she wholeheartedly did support it
because the schools would benefit from this proposal, the City would get an immediate benefit
from the sale and the reduction of the debt, the tax base would increase, as well as $800,000 for
the parks. She stated she was excited for Medtronic to be part of the community. She urged the
Council/EDA to approve this project and do what was right for the City and its residents.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 5
Brian Kaden, 7675 Spring Lake Road, stated he has lived in the City for 32 years and he liked the
idea of Medtronic coming into the City, but he did not like Medtronic coming into the City at the
cost of the taxpayers and he did not like to subsidize businesses. He stated Mounds View had the
fourth highest TIF in the state. He asked if he would get a tax break if he put an addition on his
house through TIF financing. He stated the taxpayers were helping the businesses pay their
mortgage and that was one of the reasons he believed this was not a good deal. He stated the TIF
financing was put into place to develop land that was not desirable and this practice was being
abused. He questioned how much of a benefit Medtronic would have in the City being located in
the northeast portion of the City. He believed Shoreview and Blaine businesses were going to
benefit more than the Mounds View businesses because of the location. He stated Medtronic
was a multi-billion dollar company and if they were a good corporate neighbor, why were they
asking for a tax break that the citizens did not get. He asked why Medtronic was not paying the
same taxes as Walgreens. He stated this would be a good project if Medtronic was not requiring
TIF financing. He suggested the City look at their TIF financing programs in the future.
Lloyd Bardwell, 2932 County Road J, stated County Road J was a public drag strip. He agreed
that Medtronic was a good corporation, but he also agreed Medtronic should not be given TIF
financing. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic on County Road J and he hated
living in his home because of the traffic. He stated there was no enforcement along that road and
the infrastructure was missing to go east and west on the road. He stated he was for the
development, but he did not believe Medtronic was paying their fair share of taxes. He stated he
was not complaining about his taxes, but the City needed to do something about the speeding
traffic.
Peter Martin, 2192 Oakwood Drive, stated he has been playing The Bridges Golf Course since
day one. He indicated dollars are fine and the large companies are going to get the money no
matter what they did, but what about the land and its value to the community and the values like
families being able to play golf together, health and fitness values, natural and wildlife values,
and moral values. He noted moral values are what the citizens need most and were harder to
come buy. He stated golf was based on honesty, integrity, and patience and these were values
needed by the children today because they were not taught in the school system anymore.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated she has lived in the City for 39 years. She indicated
Medtronic was a good company and she was neither for nor against this project, but she needed
more information. She thanked the Community Development Director for preparing the options
she had requested at a previous meeting. She noted Fridley had an appraisal done of $137.00 per
square foot and through mediation it went down to $109.00 and the $80.00 per square foot was
not a fair price. She stated Twin Lakes Development in Roseville was going for $300,000 per
acre and Medtronic negotiated $120,000 per acre. She stated they were getting an appraiser price
as it was not as it was built out and she believed Medtronic should pay more. She stated
Medtronic should have to pay $235,000 to $260,000 per acre. She noted Medtronic had 4 billion
in cash and asked why the City was doing to subsidies for a company who had this type of
money. Community Development Director Ericson replied with regard to the Twin Lakes
Development there were a lot of improvements made to the land in order for it to be sold and
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 6
there was a 40 million dollar TIF subsidy being proposed on that project. He noted this project
was not the same thing because they were talking about raw land versus improved lots.
Mike Szczepanski, 2385 Laport Drive, stated he has been on the Park and Recreation Board and
The Bridges had never made money and would never make money, even though the “City sold
its soul” to Clear Channel. He stated he was for the transfer and sale to Medtronic and if most
people did not like TIF, they should ask the City Council/EDA where they have used TIF in the
past 25 to 50 years. He stated there have been no major projects coming to the City. He
indicated all large companies required TIF financing in order to locate within a City. He noted
corporations would come in and ask for everything, which was normal. He stated there was a lot
of white pollution on the golf course. He believed the City should get rid of the billboards. He
indicated the traffic was an issue and the City of Mounds View had promised a sound wall,
which had never been constructed.
Dave Hicks, 2749 Sherwood Road, stated he did not understand all of the figures and it looked
way too complicated for anything to be right about the project. He stated he believed the ending
cash value of the Medtronic development would be plus $31,000 due to somebody having to pay
the 20.5 million dollars to improve the road. Community Development Director Ericson
responded with respect to the transportation improvements, those were funded by the State of
Minnesota, which were being made available to Mounds View for this development. He noted
those funds were in the State’s general fund and if Mounds View did not use it, then another City
would get the money. He noted the northern metropolitan area was historically under-funded
regarding transportation improvements.
Tim Mitchell, 2280 Knoll Drive, stated he has lived in the City for 49 years and believed The
Bridges was the best 9-hole golf course in the metropolitan area. He asked where else were
people supposed to go to learn the game. He stated he wanted the golf course to remain a golf
course and Medtronic to find other land.
Stan Meyer, 2812 Sherwood Road, stated he did not like subsidizing fortune 500 companies. He
stated he did not have the opportunity to defer his taxes. With respect to traffic, his road was
busy also and the issue was enforcement. He believed their quality of life would go down with
this proposal. He stated Medtronic employees would not live in the City; they would commute
and believed there would be a bad impact on Highway 10. He stated $43,000 a year to the City
for taxes for 25-years was nothing and this was not a good deal for the City. He wanted some
other City to pay the cost for Medtronic.
Bob Musil, Visit Minneapolis North, stated he was here representing the recreational assets,
parks and trails, and the lodging and hospitality business in the northern metropolitan area. He
noted Visit Minneapolis North marketed and promoted 11 northern cities as a regional
destination and they supported this proposal. He presented to the Mayor a letter and Resolution
in support of the sale of The Bridges Golf Course to Medtronic. He encouraged the
Council/EDA to vote in favor of this project. He stated this might be a developmental
opportunity of a lifetime for Mounds View and he hoped they did not pass it up.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 7
Larry Huff, 5512 Erickson Road, stated he has lived in the City for 25 years and expressed
concern about the traffic and noise on County Road I and Erickson Road. He stated he did not
want to deal with more traffic. He stated Medtronic was a good company, but believed their
employees would commute. He stated he worked for another City as a plan reviewer and he did
not know if Mounds View Staff could handle the amount of workload this project would entail.
He stated he did not understand why Medtronic would come to such a small community and
expect “the world”. He stated in Maple Grove, none of their TIF financing was over ten years.
He noted in 25 years very few people in the room would be alive to benefit from this. He stated
he did not golf, but he was concerned about the noise and the decrease in peacefulness they
would no longer have if this development went through.
Tom Belisle, 2515 County Road H, asked if New Brighton had turned down Medtronic. He
stated he did not believe there would be a negative impact to property values if this was
approved. With respect to TIF, he stated if they went any other route, there would be a cheaper
development on the site. He stated he could not see maintaining the golf course that could not
maintain itself except for the billboards.
Steve Larson, 2150 Arden Court, New Brighton, Mayor of New Brighton, stated they had been in
negotiations with Medtronic, but New Brighton could not meet all of the needs Medtronic
required. He stated New Brighton could not afford to go any further and negotiations fell
through.
Eric Bakke, 5250 Jeffery Drive, presented a petition from 135 students from Irondale objecting to
this proposal. He stated the high school students cared about the golf course. He noted the golf
course benefited youth in that it taught golf, fitness, and healthy living. He stated the golf course
also provided the youth with something. He indicated this business would not generate people
coming into the City to do something on a Friday night or weekend. He stated it was hard to
believe that $100,000 would “save” the Mounds View schools. He noted Mounds View was no
Edina and he did not believe Medtronic employees would move into the City, but would move to
surrounding cities. He asked what the salary range was for the new employees and asked what
the average household value in Mounds View was. City Administrator Ulrich responded the
average salary at Medtronic, excluding executives would be $70,200 per job and the average
household median value household in the City was $168,000 to $170,000.
Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, hoped the Council/EDA had not already made up their
minds and had listened to all of the residents. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic.
He stated if the City wanted to pick up an extra $44,000 in taxes, why not take some of this land
for house lots and collect taxes that way. He stated the City needed a grocery store and other
businesses including restaurants and not more drug stores. He stated if his taxes only went down
$1.00 per year, he would rather subsidize the golf course and see the wildlife instead of large
buildings and parking lots. Ms. Kvilvang noted this was not only the $43,000 annually in taxes,
but that the first year there would be a 6 million dollar surplus brought into the City.
Dennis Hammes, 5511 Quincy Street, expressed concerns about traffic and noise. He stated the
City would need to hire additional police officers and suggested Medtronic fund these extra
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 8
officers because they were getting this tax break. He stated he was not necessarily for the golf
course because he did not play golf. He noted this was only a first bid and believed the City
could get a better offer. He suggested the City look at other alternatives also. He believed The
City could negotiate a better deal with Medtronic, such as bringing down the TIF to 8 or ten
years. He asked if this development created more residents, where would those residents live.
Community Development Director Ericson responded there were parts of the City that could be
redeveloped where it would be a possibility to add homes, but the City was fully developed.
Nick Hammes, 5511 Quincy Street, stated the $100,000 given to the Mounds View School
District was over 25 years, which was only $300 per school per year and he did not believe this
was a large gift for a multi-billion dollar company. He stated a vote for Medtronic was a vote
against the community.
Steve Bakke, 8261 Sunnyside Road, asked how they arrived at the 19 million dollars. He
believed at the end of 25 years, the property would be worth more than 12 million. He found it
interesting that the Blaine parcel would cost them 11 million and they were selling theirs for 8
million. He stated he was did not play golf and he agreed that if the City owned that property it
should be looked at like a business and there should be some value there. He stated he was
excited when he found out that Medtronic was proposing to come into the community. He stated
his wife was concerned about the traffic increase and the additional airport use. He stated the
benefit Mounds View received in property taxes would offset any negatives. He stated it
appeared the County, State and Schools would benefit from this proposal, but he did not see any
benefits coming to the Mounds View taxpayers. He stated there should be some TIF Financing,
but not 25 years. He suggested 8 to 10 years would be more reasonable.
Mayor Marty recessed the meeting at 9:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Antoinette Sprung, 8465 Groveland Road, expressed concern about the safety on County Road J.
She noted there were trucks, semi-trailers, buses, motorcycles, and airplanes going down and
over her road. She expressed concern about the safety for the children in the area. She stated her
main concern was safety and that signs were posted and enforced in the neighborhood. She
stated she was on Social Security and could not afford to move.
Ms. Kvilvang stated prior to the break there had been some questiones asked and the difference
was the franchise fees, additional taxes, and that is how they came up with 19 million.
Mayor New Brighton Steve Larson stated that Medtronic was going to build in New Brighton on
a parcel that was in the northwest quadrant, which was now proposed to be 1,000 townhomes.
He stated parts of the old dump would be excavated and they were going to build on it, which
would be a successful development. He stated they were looking at a timeframe of 5 years when
it would be fully built out. He noted there was life after Medtronic and they were actually going
to come out ahead now. He stated traffic would not get any better because there were no funds
coming to 35W for at least the next 25 to 30 years because there was no money available from
the State.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 9
Cynthia Winegarner, 2200 Highway 10, AmericInn and the Mermaid, stated she was a
stakeholder within the AmericInn and the Mermaid and believed it was rude that the Mayor
asked her to hold her comments and then had the Mayor of New Brighton speak before her. She
noted Medtronic already did a tremendous amount of business with them and their business
increased 25 percent year over year. She noted Medtronic created revenue in the City. She stated
they shuttled their guests around to local businesses and utilized the businesses in the City. She
stated Medtronic employees would have an economic impact in the City. She stated the
economic outcome to the City could be irreversible if Medtronic did not come into the City.
Mayor Marty apologized to Ms. Winegarner for asking the Mayor of New Brighton to speak
before her.
Peter Weinberger, 8011 Eastwood Road, student at Irondale, stated a few weeks back he made a
big mistake by basing his term paper on the current activities on the EDA and Council. He noted
he had interviewed three of the Council Members and had received some of the same
information. He stated he had also done a survey and came up with different results. He
believed the Medtronic employees would eat at their cafeteria instead of patronizing the Mounds
View businesses. He asked if Council Member/EDA Commissioner Gunn had a conflict of
interest because she worked for the Mounds View School District. Council Member/EDA
Commissioner Gunn replied $100,000 would not affect her job whatsoever and she doubted she
would ever see any of that money; it was not a benefit to her, and she did not think this was a
conflict of interest.
Byran Griffin, 5505 Quincy Street, stated this was a big decision and the TIF financing was a big
question mark. He stated 26 years to go without any taxes was too long. He indicated the voters
should decide this question, not the Council. He expressed concern about safety and the increase
in traffic. He noted everyone had traffic issues and speeding problems, but the way to solve it
was not to add more cars. He stated they should look at some of the other options presented by
the Community Development Director.
Cindy Sebesta, 2146 Hillview Road, stated she knew people who worked for Medtronic and they
liked the company, but she differed with the way this was structured and the sale price. She
noted the City had a lot of other options and they needed to look at this. She asked if this would
benefit the parcels that were included in the other TIF districts. She stated people had to look at
this on a personal basis and what this was costing them and they needed to reexamine the price
structure and TIF funding. She stated she did not want to subsidize a large business.
Jayne Griffith, 8778 Alamo Circle, Blaine, congratulated the Council Members for holding this
meeting. She noted she had lived in Fridley when the previous Medtronic proposal came in and
the City of Fridley did not handle it properly and hold a public hearing. She stated she was
opposed to this development. She indicated their quality of life would decrease due to the
increase of traffic, noise and light pollution. She stated it made her calm to see the golf course
and people out there golfing. She noted she was distressed about the major extreme in traffic.
She expressed concern about flooding due to the rapid development and the impervious surface.
She stated she believed it was highly doubtful there would be an economic benefit to the citizens
of businesses of Mounds View. She noted there was already a Medtronic facility very close to
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 10
Mounds View and she did not believe that facility added to the economic benefit of Mounds
View. She asked if there would be any animal research at this facility. She stated Medtronic had
been given the world in Fridley and knew first hand that when they got the Fridley facility that
they “ran over” the citizens who had no say in the process, including her parents who lost their
home to the Medtronic World Headquarters building.
Aaron Backman, Economic Development Coordinator, stated he understood that 50 percent of
the Medtronic employees ate out of the facility.
John Dietrich, RLK, stated in terms of the traffic on Xylite, there would be a traffic signal
proposed on Coral Sea and County Road J as well as improvement from Naples. He stated the
traffic increase while it would be coming would be managed.
Rodger McCombs of Medtronic stated there would be no animal research at the facility.
Michael Hemenway, 8389 Pleasantview Drive, stated he grew up in this community and moved
back to the City. He indicated he was partial to big business and he supported this proposal. He
noted there was not much to do in Mounds View and it would be nice to have some respect be
brought back to the City again. He stated he would be happy if his property taxes did not go up.
He acknowledged this would be a difficult choice.
Lisa Rolfs, 8429 Eastwood Road, stated she has never worked in the City, but they chose to stay
in Mounds View due to the quality of life. She stated the Medtronic opportunity was a once in a
lifetime opportunity. She stated there were a lot of good things about the proposal that made it
attractive such as the trail proposal, the green space on the site, and the benefits to the schools.
She stated generally she was for it, but she was not necessary for this “deal”. She felt the City
was being out negotiated by Medtronic and did not want the City to give out too much. She
expressed concern that they were at the top level of the TIF financing right away and that the
traffic and noise issues had not been addressed. She noted they needed to have a concrete plan in
place with much more information concerning the traffic as well as the increased need for public
service officers, etc. She stated the City needed to think big and any proposal should remove all
of the billboards. She asked the Council/EDA to determine what they wanted Mounds View to
be. She noted this was a large, attractive site, and ideally situated. She stated the City should not
underestimate the value of this. She asked the City go back to the table and renegotiate.
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated she had done some research and Mounds View
was one of the highest taxed cities in the entire metropolitan area. She stated Medtronic had
grown their revenue from 6.4 billion to ten billion, which is a large increase. She stated
Medtronic’s taxes have grown 83 percent to 1.8 billion. She noted their income was growing
faster than their revenue. She asked at what cost was the company growing and asked if they
were taking advantage of Mounds View. She stated she did not want to be taken advantage of.
She noted she was a stockholder in the City and she cared about the bottom line and the future
and she wanted to see the City’s leaders do what was right. She noted she had not seen any
evidence that this was the best thing for the City. She asked the City to explore what was best for
the City and the land. She stated this was a great deal for Medtronic, but was it the best for the
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 11
City. She stated this proposal would not make a bit of difference on her property taxes. She
stated she had nothing against Medtronic and believed they were a good company, and that was
not the debate, but they needed to do what was best for Mounds View and they needed to be sure
that this was the best use of the land. She stated Medtronic’s stockholders wanted them to
negotiate as cheap of a deal as possible, but that did not mean that is what was best for Mounds
View. She requested the City should look at all options.
Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, responded the TIF Financing was 40 percent less than
Medtronic could have asked for and this had been negotiated down. He noted the important
thing to distinguish was that the multi-million dollar corporation could buy the land, but the
reality is that they would not buy the land and Medtronic would want what was best for their
stockholders.
Ronald Strittmater, 2911 Wyoming Avenue South, St. Louis Park, formerly of Coon Rapids,
stated he was introduced to The Bridges 8 years ago and he played there every weekend and
sometimes during the week also. He indicated one of the reasons he left Coon Rapids was
because of the traffic. He stated he enjoyed this community and he came up to this community
two or three times a week to play golf.
John Kulp, 8461 Spring Lake Road, thanked the Council for listening to them. He stated he had
lived in the community for 10 years. He stated he did not want Mounds View to turn into a
“little LA” and he moved here because it was a small community, yet it was close to the City. He
stated he did not want this community to turn into something it was not designed to be. He noted
jets were being proposed to come to the Blaine Airport. He stated he was not anti-business and
he understood Medtronic’s deserved some help to come into the City, but Mounds View had very
little available land and he did not think Mounds View was the appropriate place for this
business. He stated he did not have a problem with growing the City, but this was a small city
and everyone had to make choices. He stated did they really need to sell the golf course. He
suggested the City do a better job of advertising the golf course. He stated there had to be a way
to make The Bridges more profitable without giving it up entirely. He believed the City could do
better.
Cathy Olin, 8245 Spring Lake Road, believed her road was the busiest road in Mounds View.
She asked if the City had looked at any other options. She stated the Mounds View residents
moved here for a reason – the land, the trees, and the community. She believed the residents
should have the vote and not just the Council. She believed most people speaking tonight
wanted to keep the golf course. She noted many people came from other areas to play the course
because it was a good course. She indicated they needed something to draw the people to the
community, like restaurants. She asked them why the City had not put a restaurant on the golf
course to get more people to come into the community. She asked if Medtronic had taken any
Council Members/EDA Commissioners out to dinner or for drinks, etc. Mayor/President Marty
replied as a Council/EDA they had not seriously looked at any other options. He indicated
Medtronic had not taken any Council Member/EDA Commissioner out and the only time the
Council/EDA had met with Medtronic had been at City Hall in Conference Room C.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 12
Aaron Backman stated in July, 2004 CRESA partners approached the City and within a week and
a half of that they had received some calls from a couple of residential developers expressing an
interest in the site. He stated they had one plan for various townhomes and other types of
residential development that could occur on the site, which was brought up to the Council, but
staff did not believe this was the highest or best use for this location and nothing further was
done with that proposal. He stated this spring they were also approached by a developer for a
large campus, which was also brought to the EDA’s attention and it was felt that this
development might not bring in the amount of road development necessary.
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated she heard the only way there would be improvement
to County Road J was if Medtronic took the golf course. She noted she had presented a petition
in the past regarding Groveland as a cut through. She asked what the rush was. She asked if the
deal was already made and was the City wasting their time. She indicated she wanted the best for
the City. She noted if this deal went though she wanted to see a benefit in her lifetime and not
have to wait 25 years. She requested the City pull in some more opinions and think about this for
awhile. She asked the City to step back and reevaluate what their true purpose was. She asked
why the City was being pressured into making a decision. She asked the City to look at other
options. She asked the City to look at all offers. She noted this was a beautiful community and
while she was not a golfer, the course was very nice. She asked the City not to rush into this
deal. She asked the City to consider everything they have heard tonight and take a little more
time before they made a decision. Stacie Kvilvang responded the Council/EDA had not made up
their mind and this was not a done deal. She indicated this was not the first deal the City had
considered, but this was the first financially feasible plan presented to the City. She noted
Medtronic was a large corporation, but that did not mean they were better negotiators.
Tim Roberts, 1113 Nassau Circle, Blaine, stated this came to his attention because he was a
beginning golfer and he golfed at this facility. He indicated there had been a lot of numbers
given tonight and the ones that concerned him was the length of the TIF financing. He noted the
City was getting a taxpayer who was not paying taxes for 25 years and the second phases of their
development went out to 2014 and therefore, they were not getting taxes for 44 years. He noted
this development would increase administrative costs and the City would spend a lot of money
without having the tax money come in for a long time. He stated this TIF was just too long and
the City did not realize any economic benefit for a long time. He stated he was a CPA and this
did not appear to be a good financial deal for the community. Stacie Kvilvang responded it was
true that 25 years was the maximum term, but there were communities where TIF had been
shortened and she anticipated that this TIF would be paid off within 19 to 20 years.
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated he was upset the amount of time staff and non-
staff was taking answering questions instead of the Council/EDA answering. He stated the
Council/EDA was hired by a citizen vote to represent the citizens and they were charged with a
significant responsibility by growing the community and keeping it fiscally sound. He stated the
Council/EDA represent the citizens and voters in the City and asked them to fulfill their duty to
the citizens. He noted the Council/EDA did not represent outside businesses. He noted the
Charter stated the City would need to transfer the property to the EDA and also noted the Charter
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 13
allowed a referendum petition to be submitted. City Attorney Riggs stated the Ordinance would
need to be adopted and residents would have 30-days to submit a referendum petition.
Mr. Amundsen stated it would be necessary to get 990 signatures for a referendum petition. He
noted Mounds View was one of the higher taxed cities in the area and had more TIF than most
cities in the state. He stated the City had a real need to improve their income. He stated the
Council/EDA needed to decide why they were allowing a private bid instead of competitive
bidding. He believed there was already a TIF District on the Sysco property and asked if the City
was planning on retiring that District in order to create a new TIF District. City Administrator
Ulrich replied there was an existing TIF District on part of the parcel and that District would still
exist in part.
Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers & Associates, stated it had been awhile since she looked at those
specifics, but she believed there might be a small portion of the District that would need to be
decertified, but the main District would remain in tact. She requested additional time to answer
this.
Mayor Marty stated that he would have been more than happy to answer and respond and staff
was because it was the consensus of the rest of the Council that for this meeting tonight, staff and
Ehlers and associates would answer the questions to get their expertise out. He stated they were
aware the Council represented the citizens and they took that responsibility seriously. He stated
competitive bidding was a good point.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he supported the concern about staff answering
rather than the Council. He stated because Council was not answering, they were allowing staff
to do their job. He stated Ehlers & Associates has been using an abstract value from Ramsey
County as their base value. He stated the fact was that the actual number was 9.1, which was 2
million higher. He suggested the City pay the one million and tell Medtronic that they would
consider their offer. With respect to the 20.5 million for transportation improvements, he stated
unless they had that in writing, he did not believe MnDOT would come forward and this should
not be used as a carrot for the residents of the City. He noted 25 percent of the City’s tax base
was in TIF financing. He stated they needed to think in terms of the future within the residents’
lifetimes and a 25-year TIF was too long.
Stacie Kvilvang stated the difference in the numbers was that one of the parcels included in the
notice was not in the TIF District. She noted one of the parcels would remain exempt, which was
the former Sysco property.
Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, stated Medtronic was a fine company, but it was one of several
fine companies in the area. He stated the City Council was required to hold a public hearing by
law for this matter. He asked if Council had a predetermined position on this and he requested
Council and not the staff respond to this question. He stated he was afraid of the answer because
so much as gone on because the EDA and the Planning Commission has passed this, as well as a
lot of legislative pressure. He stated he was disappointed with the TIF financing. He believed
the number of jobs Medtronic were proposing was too optimistic. He noted the golf course was
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 14
owned by the residents and it was the City who had control of this and the future use of this land
should be determined by the resident’s and not only by the Council. He stated the billboards
were compatible for the golf course, but not for Mounds View.
Mayor/President Marty stated to poll the Council would not be justified because they were not
yet ready to take a vote.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Stigney stated he was a taxpayer and his predisposition
was to do the very best for the overall taxpayer. He stated he would make up his mind as to what
he thinks was best.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Thomas replied she did not have a predetermined position.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Flaherty stated he had not made up his mind and asked
them to be allowed to gather all of the information and make a decision. He stated the citizens
made him a representative for the City and that was what he was going to do. He stated he would
make the best decision he could for the City.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Gunn stated she was not the swing vote and she had a
mind of her own. She indicated she needed to hear from everyone so she could make a decision.
She stated they were all going through the numbers and the information.
Mayor/President Marty stated he had in the past stated that based on the information he had at
different points that he could not vote for this deal, but now they were getting more information,
pieces of the puzzle were coming together, but he still wanted to hear from the residents. He
stated when he has met with the Medtronic representatives, he had always told them that
whatever deal came in it had to be the best deal for the citizens and if he did not feel it was the
best deal, he would not vote for it and at this time, he was still waiting to hear from everyone and
he was still gathering information which was still coming in. He noted, personally, on a decision
of this magnitude, he would not feel uncomfortable at all for this to go to a resident vote.
Jim Gould, 7879 Spring Lake Road, stated it appeared the Council/EDA had painted themselves
into a corner and asked who would pay the $312,000 staff time if this did not go through. City
Administrator Ulrich responded right now the amount was at $314,000, which would be the
responsibility of the City if this did not go through.
Mr. Gould expressed concern that the bill would keep going up and the taxpayers would end up
paying for it. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic. He expressed concern about the
increase in planes at the airport. He stated the City needed to look at the recreational asset the
golf course was to the community and it would be better to hold onto the land because the land
value would always be there and there was no rush to get rid of it right now. He stated the golf
course probably got utilized a lot more than they realized. He believed this was a conflict of
interest for Council Member/EDA Commissioner Gunn also.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 15
Mayor Marty stated the issue of conflict of interest had already been raised and addressed. He
indicated this was a public elected job and a public school system and he did not see this as a
conflict. City Attorney Riggs stated from a legal standpoint, this was not a conflict of interest.
Wendy Marty, 2626 Louisa Avenue, stated this was her opinion and her opinion alone. She
stated she had lived in Mounds View for 15 years and she grew up in St. Anthony, which she
loved, but she could not afford to live in St. Anthony. She stated she was sure Mounds View had
the lowest income in the area. She stated the Medtronic proposal was not a good proposal and
she recommended they realign the golf course and sell a portion of the property to Medtronic.
George Winiecki, 2704 NE County Highway 10, stated he has been doing business in Mounds
View for 21 years. He stated in owning his own business he learned a lot and he had trouble
when the City got involved in property ownership because it led to problems. He stated the City
did not belong in business. He noted they had to put their emotions aside and look at this in
strictly a business sense. He stated he was for Medtronic, but with guarded reservations. He
believed Medtronic should “sweeten the pot a little more”, but at the same time, they had a great
blue chip buyer and they could deal with one developer instead of a bunch of them. He stated the
City had to look for a good, solid buyer, which the City had, but he believed the City needed to
hold Medtronic’s “hands and feet into the fire” to get a better deal. He stated the golf course land
was a great asset and it would not go away if they lost the deal. He appreciated what the
Council/EDA was doing and he did not envy them, but he believed they could get a better deal.
Shannon Meyer, President TC North Chamber of Commerce, stated this was a difficult decision.
She noted the business community was important for the vitality of the City. She indicated they
had asked their members for input regarding this proposal and the members agree that The
Bridges was a fantastic golf course, but some of the concern was the overall feasibility of the golf
course with the main concern being the 3 percent projected increase in revenue. She noted the
other golf courses in the Chamber were flat lined and were not making their revenues. She stated
the same quality of life issues that the citizens were concerned about were the same issues
businesses were concerned about. She noted it was important to revitalize the school system,
which this project would do. She stated it was great to have the 20.5 million dollars for road
improvements. She stated the impact of Medtronic was great on the local businesses. She asked
the City look at all perspectives and noted without businesses they could not have a City.
Jerry Blanski, 2933 Wooddale Drive, stated he wished they had all of this material in their hands
prior to walking in the door tonight. He stated many people could not see the display screen and
recommended it be raised up the next time. He thanked Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers and
Associates and wished he could present something as well as she did. He stated he had received
a flyer in his mailbox today regarding this proposal and did not understand why anyone would
distribute this type of a flyer. He stated he was not for or against Medtronic and he did not play
golf, but if the City was looking at different options, the City was looking at a good company that
did good things for the entire world. He stated he did not the City should open this up to bids
because there was the risk of getting a company in there that was not as good. He asked if they
were so proud of the golf course, why the City had signage on a skid on County Road J and Coral
Sea Street to advertise the course.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 16
Todd Leffler, 7660 Woodlawn, New Brighton, and owner of a rental property in Mounds View.
He stated as he drove here this evening and drove by 19 for rent signs. He noted it was a tough
rental market right now. He stated there were 1,400 rental units in the City which was a huge
part of the population. He noted he was losing money and could not afford to raise his rent,
which meant he could not put more money into the building and therefore the building get run
down and the quality of tenant went down. He noted the police were not issuing speeding tickets
because they were busy at the rental places. He stated he wanted Medtronic in the community so
he could put some money back into his rental building. He stated if they did not have Medtronic,
they would have a “Pawn America” community and the community needed new jobs and fresh
blood. He stated he lived off Interstate 694 and he would gladly take the freeway noise of this
community. He stated he did not believe the Mayor of New Brighton when he indicated new
Brighton was going to put townhomes on the dump.
Mike Read, 2208 Lois Drive, stated all they have been hearing tonight was numbers being added
and subtracted to make anything look good. He stated he golfed, but there were other golf
courses. He indicated he did not like the 25-year TIF Financing and if that could be lowered, he
believed more people would be in support of this proposal.
Fritz Gastreich, 5030 Bona Road, indicated he was in favor of this proposal. He stated they were
12,000 residents in a 3 million population metro area. He believed it was amazing Medtronic
chose this community for their facility. He thanked Medtronic for giving Mounds View
consideration. He stated there seemed to be a bit of a consensus that the City should go back to
the bargaining table to get a better deal. He stated the City needed to remember that Medtronic
was a world class business and being a world class business Medtronic had world class
competitors and Medtronic did not have time to sit around and negotiate endlessly on their
business future. He indicated there were many, many other options for Medtronic. He stated if
the City was walking away from this, they were walking away from Medtronic and in the
meantime the City would be subsidizing the citizens around them to the tune of 80 percent for
the non-citizens who used the golf course. He requested the City keep in mind that most likely
this was final one way or another and Medtronic would look for other options.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, pointed out the City prepared a survey on these issues and
62 percent of the people wanted to get rid of the golf course so he did not think they needed a
citizen vote on this. He stated time was running out and the golf course has been “bleeding” the
City. He believed cities should stay out of business and the golf course has lost money since day
one. He stated there were no guarantees that the golf course would ever make money. He noted
the billboard company could cut their contract in five years or cancel it altogether. He indicated
they had to count on good weather in order for the golf course to make money. He stated with
the Medtronic proposal, they did not have to depend on the weather or billboards to make money.
He stated they had an opportunity that they would never get again. He noted they did not have
time to waste and Medtronic would pull out and the City needed this tax base, even though they
might not see the entire realization for many years.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 17
John Kopas, 2222 County Highway 10, stated he had very strong emotions and if he lived by the
golf course, he would be concerned about the traffic also. He noted he was before the Council
about 2.5 years ago and he was the victim of Brighton Village and was told he had to move
because they were going to get torn down. He noted he did not want to move, but he was not
given any choice. He believed the Medtronic employees would do business in Mounds View.
He stated Highway 10 was beginning to look nice and the City should be proud. He supported
Medtronic coming into the community and there were a lot of benefits to having a first class
company come to the community.
Stacy Gardebrecht, 8484 Sunnyside Road, stated this was the first time she had heard that The
Bridges Golf Course was owned by the City. She noted she had lived in the City for three years,
but did not know the City owned the golf course. She stated the City should never say never and
the Council/EDA needed to look at what was best for the community. She asked if there was a
guarantee that Medtronic would be a good solid company and still be in the community in 25
years. She noted there were no guarantees and asked what would happen if Medtronic was not
around in 25 years.
Edwin Benson, 5108 Long Lake Road, stated eventually the golf course would probably have to
go, but he did not believe this was the appropriate development because of the 25-year TIF
financing. He noted the City was not making any more land, so the land would not go down in
value.
Bill Folkes, GM and Director of Golf, 701 Bunker Lake Boulevard, stated he had read through
the proposals and he had done a lot of research over the years. He noted under option one he
would not place a lot of weight on the three percent yearly increase. He indicated they were
budgeting flat rounds over the next couple of years, so the three percent was hopeful, but he
would not put a lot of stock into it. He believed it would be a good idea to determine what the
utilization rates were back in the year 2000 and if it continued to grow to the level of 50,000
rounds could they actually do a level of 50,000 rounds, and if they could not do that to break
even on the property, they had to take that into consideration. He asked how much longer the
City would want to subsidize the golf course.
Mr. Blanski asked if this went through that Medtronic consider putting their address as Mounds
View and not Minneapolis.
Brian Amundsen asked if they had checked into how much TIF money a City should be allowed.
City Administrator Ulrich replied they had not looked into this.
Mr. Amundsen requested they look into this.
Mr. Amundsen asked what the City was going to do with the existing TIF District they already
had in place. Shelly Eldridge replied all of the parcels they were looking at putting into the TIF
District were currently exempt and therefore they were already not generating taxes and they
would have no effect on the current tax district.
Mounds View City Council June 20, 2005
Special Meeting Page 18
Mayor Marty requested staff look into if there were any guidelines for the use of TIF.
10. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Marty closed the Public Hearing at 11:52 p.m.
11. NEXT STEP
City Administrator Ulrich stated the next meeting would be on Monday, June 27, at which time
Council/EDA would be either approved, table or deny this Resolution.
Mayor/President Marty stated he did not know why they needed to only look at this option and
noted on a project of $50,000 or more they needed to get three bids.
MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Flaherty. To put out RFP’s to see what other bids might come in
and what other options there were.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Stigney stated from what he heard there was something
that was passing here and he did not see it as prudent to go out for bids and suggested they look
at the merits of this project alone and see what happened at next week’s meeting.
Council Member/EDA Commissioner Gunn agreed and to do this now would open a can of
worms that they did not need at this stage and if Mayor/President Marty was not in favor of this
project, he could vote this down next Monday.
Mayor/President Marty stated he wanted to throw this out because they were tentatively set to
take a vote on this next Monday and whether this passed or failed he wanted this set out for
discussion.
Ayes -2 Nays -3 (Council Member/EDA Commissioners Stigney, Thomas, and Gunn)
Motion failed.
12. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m., June 21, 2005.
Transcribed and recorded by:
Kathy Altman
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
June 27, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:05 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty,
Commissioner Gunn, and Commissioner Thomas
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the June 27, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced Items 7A and 7B on the agenda and asked that
the Commissioners give at least three reasons for the way they vote on each item.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes June 13, 2005
The June 13, 2005 EDA Minutes will be presented at the July 11, 2005 EDA Meeting
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Resolution 05-EDA-203 Approving the Proposed Sale of Land comprising the
Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course; and approving the Development Proposal
and Terms of the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development.
Aaron Backman, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that since last summer the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority and the City Council have authorized Staff to undertake
various steps regarding the golf course redevelopment and Medtronic project including a
Wetlands Delineation Study, a commercial appraisal, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review,
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
(AUAR), a boundary and topographic survey and pursuing a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
He stated that at the end of December 2004 Medtronic presented City Council with a preliminary
term sheet concerning the acquisition and redevelopment of The Bridges. He stated that as a
result of City Council’s consideration of the offer Council directed Staff to continue to proceed
with negotiations with Medtronic and to pursue a course of action consistent with potentially
selling The Bridges for redevelopment.
Mr. Backman explained that the term sheet indicated that the Mounds View EDA would seek
special TIF legislation that would permit a 25-year TIF Districts. He further explained that the
term sheet indicated that the City would contact Clear Channel to arrange for the removal of the
billboards noting that two of the five Executive Sessions held by the EDA were to discuss
negotiations with Clear Channel. He stated that they came to agreement with Clear Channel by
mid-June.
Mr. Backman stated that the development proposal, including the terms, the purchase agreement
and contract for private development, are included in the packet for their review adding that this
document was provided to the attendees at the public hearing held last Monday, June 20, 2005.
He explained that under the proposed agreement Medtronic is paying $8.65 million to acquire the
property from the City and contributing $1 million to the State Highway Fund for the reverter
clause federal interest. He stated that the company would also pay the City $865,000 in park
dedication fees, $670,000 for compensation pertaining to the billboard signs, to cover the city
administration costs and the customary permit construction fees. He stated that the City expects
to net over $5 million from the sale at closing and after the golf course debt is paid off. He stated
that Ehlers and Associates, the City’s TIF financial advisor, has done a comparison of the ‘as is’
model with the Medtronic model noting that they have projected that the fund balance, as of
December 31, 2033, would be approximately $7.5 million for the ‘as is’ model and $19.4 million
for the Medtronic model. He noted that a graph is included with the report adding that when the
models are graphed it is clear that the City is better off financially every year after the course is
sold to Medtronic for the life of the proposed TIF District. He stated that the economic impacts
of the project are profound for both the City and surrounding areas. He explained that it would
increase the city’s tax base by 8-percent in Phase 1 and would leverage $20.5 million in State
funds to reconstruct and upgrade area roads, which are used by both area residents and
businesses. He stated that the city would benefit from having a premier company that is willing
to spend well over $100 million in private investments in this City and garners a business partner
interested in the community’s future including its’ schools.
Mr. Backman indicated that there are other alternatives available noting that each of those
alternatives have a greater level of risk than the current proposal adding that the long-term tax-
base impact would also be less. He stated that given the positive impacts of this proposal it is
recommended that the Mounds View Economic Development Authority adopt Resolution 05-
EDA-203.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
President Marty referenced page five of the report noting that it states The Bridges AUAR
authorized by the City reviewed all transportation issues related to the proposed development of
the site. He stated that as he read through the AUAR a question was raised as to what kind of
traffic impacts this could have on the City. He stated that he believes it was stated this aspect of
it was not really looked at or addressed. He stated that they are looking at County Road J, 35W,
Highway 10 and Airport Road noting that the actual traffic impacts to the City south of Highway
10, if recalls, was not addressed in the AUAR.
Mr. Backman explained that the AUAR focused on the site itself to determine how the traffic
patterns are currently, and how they would proceed if there were a development on the site. He
explained that it was determined that most of the traffic would be in terms of Highway 10 and
35W. He acknowledged that there was not traffic counts down south of the Highway 10.
President Marty referenced the June 20th Public Hearing stating that this issue was expressed as a
major concern by many of the residents. He stated that he too is very concerned as to the impact
the additional traffic would have on the city adding that this aspect should be addressed.
President Marty referenced page eleven, Item 3A, states retention, relocation,
termination\acquisition of billboards leaseholds, noted five lines down it states that Clear
Channel would pay the city $15,000 annually for each sign for years 1 to 10; $20,000 for each
sign for years 11 to 20; $35,000 for each sign for years 21 to 30. He stated that it was his
understanding that Clear Channel could walk at any time from the current agreement noting that
if this is the potential why does it appear to be bottom –loaded.
City Attorney Riggs confirmed that they did discuss the contents of the existing leases between
the City and Clear Channel. He explained that it is not an issue that they could possibly walk
without the City or EDA having a remedy. He assured the Commission that they would clearly
have options noting that the bottom line is that the leases that exist now are valid and would
continue on. He stated that any other lease they would have moving forward would be the same.
He stated that any lessee could abandon the leased interest noting that this does not mean that
the City does not have remedies available that could be pursued. He noted that the present lease
does have this included, as would any other lease the city would enter into.
President Marty clarified that his concern is that he could see how they could have more of a
tendency to walk if they are paying $250,000 per year versus $35,000 per sign.
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated that she has been praying for the city regarding this
decision. She stated that she is praying that certain individuals on the Council would not have to
be reminded of their responsibility and their ethics. She stated that ethics is the best word she
can use in regards to this noting that if she worked for a company that was going to receive a
benefit from the sale of a property, whether or not the benefit would trickle down to her level or
not, she would exclude herself from the vote. She stated that if she had a relative working for the
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
company and working as a part of the negotiation team, she would also exclude herself from the
vote. She recalled several years ago it was brought before the residents of Mounds View to vote
on the whether they wanted to establish a golf course on this property. She stated that as she
recalled the residents of Mounds View wanted the golf course and also took into account that it
would take a few years to become profitable and were ok with this. She stated that it is her hope
that with good ethics one would let all of the residents in this community have all of the facts and
put it to a vote. She acknowledged that the pressure is on, with all of the groundwork that has
already been laid, to get through this quickly to break ground in time. She expressed concerns
stating that sometimes there is a rush to action that might not be the right action. She stated that
she is praying that we all do the right thing. She stated that she is very interested in Mr.
Backman’s statement was a $20.5 million allocation to improve area roads. She asked for
clarification noting that it is her belief that the dollars are specifically earmarked for the County
Road J/35W interchange and the improvement of that access from County Road J to the freeway.
She clarified that it was her understanding from what was said at the public hearing that the only
improvements to County Road J would be the striping and widening the turn area at the turn
signal light near Sysco.
Mr. Backman clarified that the $20.5 does include substantial improvements along County Road
J noting that they have to reconstruct and widen it. He stated that they have to have turning lanes
at various points noting that the way the legislation is written there is more than one pot of
money. He stated that there is a $5 million allocation in the redevelopment account written
specifically to the City of Mounds View for public improvements. He stated that there is another
allocation for biosciences noting that it indicates there should be public improvements and does
not specifically state that they cannot improve County Road J or the turning lanes. He stated that
it is actually fairly broad.
Ms. Mueller stated that it is good to know that there is a $5 million allocation in the
redevelopment fund for County Road J. She stated she has a neighbor on Sherwood Road who
has been talking about potholes on his street for a long time adding that there are a lot of potholes
on her street too. She stated that she is very concerned about the proposed increase in traffic
noting that people will not take the major routes to get to the existing proposed sale property.
She stated that they would take the back roads adding that currently they already have troubles
controlling the speed on these roads. She expressed concerns stating that she feels the city is
selling the property way too cheaply and not getting the best bang for its buck. She stated that
the voters should be given the opportunity to put out their opinion on this. She expressed
concerns stating that the telephone survey did not canvas enough of the residents. She stated that
one of the questions asked on the survey was whether the residents would be in favor of keeping
the golf course if it were able to hold its own noting that the response was 39-percent were in
favor of keeping the golf course if it was self-sufficient and 32-percent were in favor of selling.
She stated that all things considered they should take time to review everything again, consider
the ethics and get it to the people.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Dan Hall, 2200 Highway 10, suggested that everyone should back up a bit. He noted that one of
the reasons this whole problem with golf course is being discussed is because it is currently
losing money. He further clarified that the main focus for the city right now is to review various
avenues to increase revenue for the city without raising taxes. He stated that they are all aware
that there are no streets currently in the City of Mounds View that are worthy of being fixed, they
should be replaced. He stated that it is his understanding that they are talking about a potential
addition of $5 million that could be used that is not even part of the overall profit that would be
made from the sale of the golf course after all debts have been paid. He stated that it is his
understanding that this would be in addition to the approximate $5 million from the sale to equal
$10 million that could be used at the City’s discretion for street improvements.
President Marty asked Mr. Hall where he came up with the additional $5 million.
Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Backman was just discussing it.
Mr. Backman clarified the bonding bill stating that while there is a lot of latitude on the bonding
bill it is clear with all parties that the funds are to be used for the County Road J reconstruction.
Mr. Hall stated that the big thing they are doing is trying to determine what is best for the City of
Mounds View. He expressed concerns stating that the city is not currently in a moneymaking
situation they are in a money-losing situation. He indicated that he has discussed this issue with
many individuals and it is his understanding that the word is that once real numbers are made
available, in black and white, a decision can then be made based on what is in the best interest
for the City of Mounds View. He stated that he has also discussed this issue with Ehlers noting
that after that conversation he felt very good about the money spent for Ehlers and the work they
have done. He stated that people could try to say it is misleading adding that if there is anything
misleading with Ehlers it’s the 3-percent gross they used on the growth period. He stated that it
appears to be very clear that this is an overwhelming and substantial bonus for the City of
Mounds View and urged the Commission to do what is best for the City now and for thirty years
from now.
Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, stated that he would like to comment on the 3000 jobs being
created in Mounds View. He stated that it is his understanding that Medtronic would be closing
six facilities and the employees would transfer from the closed facilities to the Mounds View
location and the net increase would be zero except for the growth projection of 300 jobs per year.
He stated that he wants it to be clear that this would bring 300 new jobs not 3000.
President Marty further clarified that it would be 3000 existing positions that would be new to
Mounds View and confirmed that they are not creating 3000 new jobs.
Jon McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, referenced an article from the Pioneer Press that states
approximately $24 million TIF money is expected to be spent on this project and another $11
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
million is expected to be spent to purchase the property in Blaine, Pomps Tire and Blaine
Brothers property, for their parking lot. He asked why the City of Blaine wouldn’t be doing this
and why is Mounds View giving money to Medtronic to purchase this property.
Mr. Backman clarified stating that the $24 million figure should actually be $14.8 million, which
is the agreed upon amount for TIF. He stated that to make the project doable and to
accommodate the campus they are looking at acquiring some properties located in Blaine. He
stated that the buildings would be built in Mounds View and the parking lots would be created on
property that is actually located in Blaine.
City Administrator Ulrich further clarified that the $24 million was their total TIF eligible
expenses and they are only being reimbursed $14.8 million per the proposed agreement. He
stated that Mounds View expenditures would come off the top of that and noted that at the
bottom of all that is the $11 million of land in Blaine but the remaining $24 million expenditures
would be Mounds View generated expenditures. He stated that because this development is
located on a border and could potentially impact two Counties and three Cities, special
legislation was put into place that allows the expenditures generated within this district to be
spent outside of the district.
Commissioner Thomas further clarified that Medtronic gets $14.8 million from the tax district.
She stated that they have over $24 million that they can use the money on but have to use all of
the money in Mounds View first and then they can use it on anything they have above that. She
assured the residents that they would never get the opportunity to use the increment dollars in
Blaine because there won’t be anything left.
Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated that while reviewing city policies on the city
website she came across a section relating to the use of business subsidies under the General
Policy section that states that business subsidies should not be used for projects that would place
an extraordinary demand on the city infrastructure and services. She stated this causes her some
concern noting that last Monday it was stated that there would be an additional cost of $80,000
for the city in order to have this large business located on City land. She stated that it is very
naïve to think that the city costs would only be this much when considering police and fire
services. She asked the Commission to take a step back and review the costs. She stated that her
main concern is that the main discussion about this has not been happening in a public forum due
to negotiations. She stated that if they are making any decisions tonight she wants to see them
discuss, intensely, all of the issues brought up by the residents. She stated that she wants to feel
that all five of the Commissioners understand all of the issues that this project entails. She stated
that she does not feel that the residents have seen them really engage noting that this is a huge
issue and impact on this City. She stated that she wants to go home really feeling that the
Commission has really discussed all of the issues and have all the answers. She stated that all
questions should be answered and if not they should table it until they do have all the answers.
She stated that she would also like to know the reasons behind each of their votes.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated that he would like to discuss this evening
whether this is the right. He stated that he is here to ask the Commission to deny this resolution
and the multiple parts of the resolution. He stated that things should be taken in their piece parts
and in order. He stated that he does not understand how the EDA has the authority to do
something, which the City has the unique authority to do. He asked if it is right that the Council
and the EDA had conversations for six months out of the sight and earshot of the public so that
the public conversation was delayed because it was unknown what the conversations were. He
asked if it is right that Council and EDA have only had analysis about one project with the City
income with the level of detail presented to the public and has not pursued the same level of
detail for the other options. He asked if it is right to use private negotiations for public property
when a public auction with full disclosure and open bidding allows the public to see the total
results and the real interests of any other parties, plus it doesn’t create a veil over what is
occurring. He clarified his understanding that Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law is intended to
ensure full public disclosure and participation in matters that seriously affect the city and
questioned whether this meeting law has been skirted. He suggested that a public auction would
remove the sense of conspiracy or private deals and it would allow the public into the discourse.
He asked if it is right to allow an issue this large to be decided by five duly elected officials when
there are so many strong and diverse opinions noting that elections have been used in the past to
make decisions that did not have as large of an impact on the city. He referenced the finances
and asked if it is right to use TIF for redevelopment, a tool originally intended for developing
housing and businesses that need assistance to grow jobs and to replace structurally unsafe
buildings or abandoned buildings or unused tank facilities. He asked if it right to use this tool in
order to give a business a tax break because it is a large State employer. He asked if it is right to
give TIF, according to an email received from Senator Betzold, that states that it seemed right for
the City of New Brighton so it seemed right for the City of Mounds View. He asked if it is right
to allow an employer to change the rules by going to the legislature, their local Senator and
Representative, to offer modifying language to include a one time public golf course, which they
desire to change. He asked if negotiation with only one party pass the fiduciary responsibility
test and is it right to put big business desires ahead of individual citizen property rights. Is it
right to take citizen property and give it to business and have no appreciable benefit to the
citizens for over a quarter of a century. He asked if it is right to sell a major asset of the city and
only get a $43,000 in property tax with a projected $80,000 cost to the city for services. He
asked if it is right to change the quality of life issues for citizens when there is no benefit to the
city except for a dollar off the city taxes. He asked if it is right to undertake more turmoil in
moving the Clear Channel boards when that issue was finally settled. He stated that on the issue
of right or wrong, leadership is about seeing right and wrong, and even if all the pressure from
business, significant business people and business citizens, and political leaders, is to lean
towards the wrong decision because others do it all the time and that is what’s done. He stated
that a leader sees what’s right and what’s wrong and makes the right choice to protect the citizens
and the right decision to not give in to pressures from companies that have the financial means
but won’t commit to do what is right and not take advantage of anyone. He stated that
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
companies are in the business of making profits for its shareholders but does it with respect for
those it interacts with or it is not doing it honestly or with good intentions. He stated that a
company that knows a property is worth more than it is offering and asks for financial aid when it
has the financial means to do it without is simply taking advantage because of its size. He stated
that in the sandbox this is referred to as a bully, someone who uses their strength to bully their
way rather than be willing to compromise so that everyone involved is in a win-win situation. He
stated that his question to them is whether they are making the right or wrong choice. He stated
that Medtronic is the wrong choice because they are doing it with the wrong tool, which they
insist on. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, referenced Item 7a, stating that he placed inserts in the
interest of clarity. He clarified that the preliminary term sheet is the document that was presented
to the City by Medtronic. He referenced the development proposal, terms of purchase agreement
and contract for private development and asked if this is what they are talking about in terms of
the preliminary terms sheet.
Commissioner Thomas stated that this is not the preliminary terms sheet. She explained that the
preliminary term sheet is referring to what was given to the Commission at the end of the
December when they began discussing whether they wanted to enter into negotiations with
Medtronic.
Mr. McCarty referenced the concept and asked if this is the development proposal in terms of
purchase and contract. Mr. Backman confirmed.
Mr. McCarty asked if the Commission is being asked to endorse the concept in the resolution.
He asked if what they are approving is the first offering from Medtronic.
Commissioner Gunn clarified that this is not their first offering noting that they have worked
very hard throughout this process.
Mr. McCarty stated that this is not hard work on their part noting that he knows they are more
capable of this. He noted that Commissioner Gunn is far more capable noting that this
agreement is what the citizens are upset about.
Mr. McCarty referenced the potential later phases of the project and asked if this means Phase 2
and 3.
Mr. Backman assured Mr. McCarty that the EDA has worked hard on this noting that they have
had 8 Executive Sessions to discuss both the development agreement and the Clear Channel
negotiations. He stated that they have provided significant input throughout the process.
President Marty called a recess at 6:50 p.m. due to bad weather conditions.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
President Marty called the meeting back to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. McCarty referenced the park dedication fee, he stated that he understands that the agreement
states that the park dedication fee would be calculated on the basis of $8.6 million paid by
Medtronic and that they would pay the balance of $1 million to the State Highway Fund in favor
of the city. He stated that the bill that was passed under Minnesota Statutes that authorized this
special legislation is that the Commissioner of Transportation shall convey to the City of Mounds
View all right and title and the City shall pay the Commissioner $1 million. He expressed
concerns stating that they are being offered $8.6 and the City is paying an additional $1 million
to clear the land and get clear title, which is a cost to the City of $9.6 and respectfully submitted
that the park dedication fee should be $965,000 and would reflect the total cost of the land to the
city and the transfer over, if this project is accepted as presented.
Mr. McCarty noted that there was information presented from staff outlining several options
noting that he would like to address the last option on the $7.2 million the City would end up
with in the end. He referenced the ‘as is’ investment option stating that this was not mentioned
and noted that if they were to keep the property ‘as is’ for the same term, projecting it on a 3-
percent per annum gain, based on its current value, the property would be worth $16.5 million.
He stated that the Finance department has projected an ending cash balance of $9.6 million for a
total of $26 million. He stated that this is a great deal more than the $17 million cited in the
document.
Mr. McCarty referenced the issue of selling the property noting Section 2.02 of the City Charter,
Boards and Commission, states that there would be no separate boards of administration powers
in the City of Mounds View and the Council would act as such in all cases accepting that they
may appoint advisory commissions to perform quasi-judicial functions, which means advisory in
total. He stated bottom line the EDA cannot sell this property. He stated that the Council does
not have to transfer it under ordinance noting that if they wish to note to the EDA that they want
the EDA to negotiate this project they can do that by simple motion. He stated that under Section
12.05, Sales of Real Property, it is stated very clearly that no real property of the city would be
disposed of except by ordinance. He stated that it also states that the proceeds of any sale of such
property would be used to retire any outstanding debts of the city in the purchase, construction or
improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. He stated that he would
like to respectfully submit that the golf course is a recreation activity of the city and if there are
any outstanding debts on any other recreational facilities the residuals or profits on the property
must first go to retire these debts.
Mr. McCarty stated that the EDA resolution recommending that Council sell The Bridges Golf
Course to Medtronic prior to finalization of the Comprehensive Plan amendments may be a bit
premature. He suggested perusing Minnesota Statute 462, the Comprehensive Planning Act,
stating that they would find that the comprehensive plans and their companion documents are
one and the same, cohesive and inseparable. He stated that to go forward with the sale of a
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
parcel of property that isn’t even zoned properly, he asked that they think this through
completely.
Mr. McCarty referenced the $400,000 for bringing utilities across the highway noting that it
might cover the engineering fees when they look to bring Well #4 back online.
City Administrator Ulrich referenced Well #4 stating that he recently spoke with the City
Engineer and the well does not have to be brought online for the Medtronic project. He stated
that the city would be able to service Medtronic with the existing city wells and water supply.
President Marty stated that he would like to talk to the Public Works Director about this issue at
another time.
Barbara Haake asked at what point do they go out for bids when the city is purchasing something
and what is the limit.
President Marty stated that the limit is $50,000 and they are only required to have one bid. He
assured Ms. Haake that they do advertise for bids.
Ms. Haake stated that Mr. McCarty’s points are very legal and Mr. Amundsen also had good
questions adding that it would be nice if they had time to answer their questions. She
acknowledged her understanding that they are on a limited time schedule and fast track noting
that she does believe that they should have had more options to consider. She stated that the vote
tonight, 12.5 in the City Charter says they can go for referendum adding that she wants everyone
to know that this is what they intend to go for. She stated that they want Medtronic to be aware
that this is their plan once it goes into the ordinance process adding that they do not believe that
there has been tough enough negotiations.
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he has followed this very closely noting that he
has always been an opponent of the city owning a golf course because it loses money every year.
He stated that he is appalled that a group of people put out a document that states the only entity
is the golf course makes money noting he has documentation from the Finance Director that the
golf course has lost money every year. He stated the numbers are in adding that anyone
following this project knows the numbers. He stated that it is his belief that there is a group of
people that just does not want Medtronic there they want a golf course. He stated that he does
not believe that a city should be in a business and that the golf course should stand on their own.
He indicated that the golf course owes the city over $4 million dollars adding that the citizens
have elected this Commission and the Council to make the right decision here. He stated that he
does not care if Medtronic affects him now adding that he is sure that it would benefit future
generations. He stated that he hopes they make the right decision noting that the residents have
voted noting the recent survey. He stated that he believes the results noting that the city has hired
professionals to do this work and would take their word that the information provided is correct.
He stated that they have one opportunity to get one of the best companies who treat their
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
employees well to come to the City of Mounds View. He encouraged the Commission to make
the right decision and thanked them for their time.
Jackie Ensminger, 7954 Long Lake Road stated that golfing or any sport promotes family values
noting that it does not make a family have values, no sport does. She stated that family values
start from within the home. She stated that in the same token greed has brought down
civilizations, corporations and individuals noting that Mounds View is a very small community.
She stated that she has lived in Mounds View and has become very beholden to this community.
She stated that people associate Mounds View with the Mermaid and thanked Mr. Hall for all of
the money they have put into the community noting that the city has not promoted itself well
enough. She expressed concerns stating that the Council went before the legislature to speak for
the community regarding the LGA slashing and they didn’t hear the community noting that a
large corporation comes to town and there is special legislation. She stated that this does not feel
right adding that she does appreciate all of the hard work and effort on this issue.
Mr. Hall urged the Commission to move forward and make the decisions that need to be made to
get the job done.
President Marty stated that he noticed Bob Thistle, a representative from Springsted, was in the
audience at the June 20th public hearing. He stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Thistle
and had the opportunity to ask why he attended the public hearing and whether he had reviewed
the proposal. He stated that Mr. Thistle explained that City Administrator Ulrich had invited him
to the public hearing noting that he did not have an opportunity to review the proposal. He noted
that a lot of questions and issues have been raised regarding the negotiation process, which has
been well taken. He noted that if this deal is approved it would be for a lifetime. He
acknowledged that Medtronic is on a fast track and does have a real need for this facility. He
stated that his question is whether this is the best deal for all involved. He stated that if they are
going to do this deal they would do it right and if they are not going to do this deal they would
also do it right. He stated that he does still see several issues adding that he would like to call for
a motion to table this discussion and suggested that they contact Bob Thistle with Springsted to
get an outside independent evaluation of the deal they have on the table. He stated that it would
give them some breathing room to determine whether they are getting the best deal for the city.
Vice President Stigney called a point of order stating that tabling of motions is not in order in
accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. He stated that there is no motion on the floor.
Commissioner Thomas clarified that tabling of a motion is not in order because there is not
motion.
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To approve EDA Resolution 05-EDA-203 which
states that Mounds View Economic Development Authority Resolution approving purchase
agreement and contract for private development between the City of Mounds View, the
Economic Development Authority and Medtronic and to waive the reading.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
Vice President Stigney stated that this is the greatest opportunity this city has ever had and will
have in the future of this city. He stated that he has lived here for 39 years and nothing has ever
come before this city like this great of an opportunity for the City. He stated that they are looking
at changing a tax-exempt property that has never paid taxes and never will pay taxes to the city,
county or school district because it is tax exempt. He stated that they are going to review this in
comparison to what Medtronic will pay both long-term and short-term. He noted the question
was raised as to what would happen when it closes out noting that Medtronic would be paying
over $1 million per year to the city and you want to let it go for a losing proposition of a golf
course. He stated that they would also get $83,000 in franchise fees each year and start with
$43,000 to $60,000 in tax base each year that would also increase each year during the life of the
TIF District. He noted the $856,000 in park dedication fees, $100,000 to the school district, $1
million to MnDOT plus the $865,000 in cash to the City. He noted that 63-percent of the people
polled have said get rid of the golf course because it is subsidizing. He stated that the billboards
are subsidizing it because if they weren’t paying the billboard money into the golf course it
would go into the general fund. He stated that it couldn’t go to the general fund because the
bond covenants state that all funds must go to the golf course. He stated that trails would also be
included noting that it is mind-boggling to see where the debate has taken this issue. He stated
that he is so glad that Medtronic has considered coming into this city and it is his hope that we
haven’t scared them off as he would love to welcome them.
Commissioner Gunn agreed with Vice President Stigney noting that they need to look at the
future of the city, not just the here and now. She stated that the city as a whole is falling apart
and they need the tax money coming in and the benefits now and in the future. She recalled that
someone recently said that there would not be any repercussions from not having Medtronic
adding that she would have to disagree with this statement. She stated that she is seeing a bigger
picture noting that she has worked on the Highway 10 Committee to get this road developed
adding that this would be a real boost for the city to have Medtronic come in as they could
possibly attract other businesses to the area including restaurants and shops. She emphasized that
they have to look at the big picture and the future, not just the here and now.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that he first came to the Authority in January 2005. He stated that
he has listened carefully to everyone who has spoken on this issue noting that The Bridges golf
course does evoke a lot of passion within the community. He agreed that it does teach and
promote family values and it is beginning to show signs that it could sustain itself now due to the
billboard contracts with Clear Channel. He stated that it has a fine staff under the direction of
Mary Burg and they have won numerous awards for excellence noting that it is a first class
operation. He stated that Medtronic is a well-respected company that has a true humanitarian
mission noting that they have been an asset to the State of Minnesota and the areas in which they
have operated. He noted that they are a Minnesota company with a desire to stay in Minnesota
rather than go to the highest bidder perhaps in another state. He stated that they have several
components to consider including revenue for the city. Commissioner Flaherty explained that he
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
had factored in the $5 million of surplus the City received and spread that out over the 25-years
for the district. He stated that it would also include additional funding for the schools. He
agreed that the golf course would maintain existing green space adding that Medtronic is only
going to develop a portion of the property and the remainder would be available for use by
Mounds View residents as a park facility with trails. He referenced other developers noting that
he does not believe that there are more than a handful of developers in the state that could handle
a project of this size within this state. He stated that they know what Medtronic brings to the
table adding that other developers would be a best guess. He stated that development for
residential homes would only be a continuation of the city operating on the backs of
homeowners. He referenced industrial development and asked if they really want the possibility
of an industry that could cause potential environmental issues, noise pollution or other additional
daily traffic because of trucking. He stated that it is his belief that if the golf course property
were put out for proposal by other developers he does not believe that Medtronic would be part
of that group. He referenced the concerns expressed as to whether they are getting the best value
for the land and the best deal for Mounds View stating that he believes that the value is not only
based on monetary reasons but we need to also judge it by the type of business, the image, the
potential for future growth and the type of people associated to this industry that would come into
this project. He stated that over the last year he has talked with neighbors and asked them what
their concerns are living in Mounds View. He stated that most responded that their biggest
concerns are taxes and increases in the cost of services provided. He stated that he understands
that the residents of Mounds View asked him to be their representative and to make the best
decisions for all citizens. He assured the community that he has listened to everyone’s concerns
and believes that the golf course has been a wonderful asset for the community but he also
believes that Mounds View’s future does not lay with the golf course but it does with Medtronic.
Commissioner Thomas clarified that it was her understanding that last week the meeting was
designed to hear from the public and their chance to speak would be tonight. She stated that this
gave them time to absorb and research to provide answers this week. She stated that she has
spent much of the week meeting with many different people and talking with residents who are
both for and against and somehow it seems the community can’t get around this issue becoming
a personal, emotional issue. She stated that it should be about the numbers adding that it has to
be about more than the dollars and cents discussed here. She stated that it does come down to
how she feels about this issue and whether the questions and concerns were answered and
addressed. She stated that they have been presented with an opportunity and proposal that they
can say yes or no to and then deal with the next step. She explained that she has to decide, based
on her beliefs and as an individual, what is best for the City of Mounds View. She stated that she
understands the limitations this property has adding that any opportunities should be explored.
She stated that initially she had significant concerns noting that every one of her concerns has
been addressed. She stated that they worked very hard for six months raising questions and
looking at all potential options. She referenced the cap on the TIF District stating that she
understands what they had to do adding that she does not like the idea of a 25-year TIF district
but she can do the math and understands what is being discussed. She stated that it was
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
suggested that if this is the dollar amount needed to be competitive that it should be capped at the
district and when it is reached it would end. She stated that this is their shot in getting this to be
less than 25-years. She stated that this should be dealt with noting that 25-years is a long time
noting that Medtronic did come to the table and agreed. She stated that it is only one thing, as
they progressed, that when they had issues and raised questions, they were truly able to negotiate
with the company and it is very frustrating that the community does not recognize what they have
done and what they have struggled with over the last six months. She stated that this brings
benefits well in excess of the $14.8 million the city is offering in way of a TIF finance noting that
these dollars would come back to the city multi-fold. She stated that Medtronic managed to
acquire the funds for County Road J not the city. She explained that Medtronic went to the
legislature, fought for it and got it, which shows the kind of partner they could bring into this
community. She stated that it would bring $20.5 million, which is far beyond the tax increment
being discussed. She stated this is one item out of all the benefits the city would gain. She stated
that once this goes through, if it goes through, they have a significant resource to deal with and
the surplus dollars off the sale. She stated that it has been premature, as a Council, to discuss the
possibilities for these dollars because we did not know if we would have them. She stated that
the residents raised some very valid concerns at the meeting last week and discussed many of
them with the residents last week. She noted that the city has many of these concerns regardless
of whether Medtronic comes to the city or not but with the surplus pot of money that the city
would have it would allow them to actually address these issues. She stated that the
transportation issues have been discussed for years and have not been able to address them due to
the lack of resources. She stated that the city would now finally have the resources to address
these concerns. She stated that she has to hold, as an individual, that her vote is as ethical and is
based down to level as she could go and is the number one right thing for her to do. She stated
that the rest would have to stand as individuals on that.
President Marty stated that on page 12 of the June 20th minutes Aaron Backman stated that in
July 2004 CRESA Partners approached the city and within a week and a half of that they had
received calls from a couple residential developers expressing an interest in the site. He stated
they had one plan for various townhomes and other types of residential development that could
occur on the site, which was brought up to Council but staff did not believe this was the highest
or best use for this location and nothing further was done with this proposal. He stated that
Roger stated we would be increasing the franchise fee by approximately $83,000 and noted that
he is of the understanding that this would be once it is totally built out.
Vice President Stigney clarified that this would be for Phase 1.
President Marty stated that in looking over the proposed development agreement he still has
several issues. He stated that they should have put out RFP’s to determine the best development
plan. He noted that last week Steve Larson, Mayor of New Brighton, stated that the deal they
discussed with Medtronic did not materialize and that their City decided to parcel off the land to
different developers. He noted that the net gain for the City of New Brighton would be
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
approximately $300 million adding that they did not mention the use of TIF, which would mean
that the funds would go directly to the City of New Brighton’s tax base. He stated that he has
had issues throughout the discussion process with the timeframe of the TIF District. He stated
that it was originally proposed as a redevelopment TIF district, which could have a lifespan of
25-years noting that it was changed and modified to what it should be, which is an Economic
Development District. He explained that by TIF Statute and State law an Economic
Development District is capped at 8-years noting that there was special legislation to extend this
to 25-years for Medtronic, and for Medtronic alone. He noted that the first year wouldn’t count
so it would actually end up being a 26-year TIF district. He acknowledged that this could pay-off
sooner than it is proposed but it is still a quarter of a century and many would not realize the
benefits from a 25-year TIF district. He stated that it was pointed out that in actuality the savings
would be a couple bucks a year on their taxes through the school districts. He referenced the
traffic issues noting that they would not have the resources to address these issues in addition to
the road repairs. He stated that he does not see this as a big cash cow noting that he discussed
this with Finance Director Hansen and asked for his input on the issues. He explained that the
Finance Director explained that in 25-years the city would be in great shape but in the meantime,
as Joe pointed out, and over the last number of years the city has had to do double-digit tax
increases just to meet basic city expenses. He stated that at a break of $41,000 to $43,000 a year
coming directly to the city would increase a bit every year but the billboard contract was
negotiated for five years noting that no one on the Council was actually in favor of billboards.
He stated that they worked out a sunset clause where the billboards would come down in twenty
years but with this proposal the billboards would not come down for 30-years or longer. He
explained that the timeframe doesn’t start until the billboards are moved and in place. He stated
that presently all of the billboards are located north of Highway 10 and Medtronic does not want
the billboards located on their property. He agreed adding that they cannot fit all of the
billboards in this area and some of the billboards would have to be brought into town and remain
for the next 30-years. He clarified that he has never been in favor of billboards but agreed to the
contract as a means to an end to pay off the golf course without incurring an increase in property
taxes to pay off the golf course. He stated that he would like to move to table this discussion to
ask Springsted and Associates to review this proposal and give the City an independent third-
party viewpoint.
Vice President Stigney called a point of order stating that a motion to table is out of order in
accordance with the Roberts Rules.
President Marty moved to postpone.
Vice President Stigney referred to page 201 of Roberts Rules of Order, newly revised, it states
that tabling a motion can only be used to set something aside temporarily for a matter that is of
more urgency that needs to be dealt with at that moment.
City Attorney Riggs clarified that it should be a motion to postpone.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
MOTION/SECOND Marty/ To postpone further discussion and to ask Springsted and
Associates to review this proposal and give the City an independent third-party viewpoint.
Motion failed due to lack of second.
Vice President Stigney noted that Medtronic is also paying the $314,000 in expenses for the
AUAR and water testing. He stated that Medtronic would be transferring positions with a
growth potential of 300 jobs per year. He referenced the Economic Development spin-off
opportunities stating that it is his belief that it would be unequal noting that as far as increasing
values of the homes in the area because the demand for housing could be a big advantage. He
noted that 80-percent of the residents do not play golf and he is here to represent their interests
too. He noted that the golf course is a cash strain and has been from the beginning. He stated
that from May of last year to May of this year there has been a 27-percent decline and the golf
course has brought in $70,000 less than last year, which means city is subsidizing course.
Commissioner Thomas stated that the revenues were compared from this year and last year
noting that it is not a fair comparison. She stated that it is not the fault of the golf course that
there has been a decrease in play due to these discussions and weather. She stated that this is not
a fair comparison noting that they have a good enough history to compare that they do not need
to take this into account.
President Marty stated that he agrees that the residents should have the right to vote on anything
of this magnitude in the city, as they are all part owners. He stated that to have five people vote
on an issue that is a hot button topic concerns him. He stated that Springsted did an independent
evaluation on the golf course in 2000 for bonding and to determine why it was losing money. He
explained that it was revealed in the report that it was due to the lawsuits and legal fees after the
golf course was constructed due to construction shortfalls. He stated that he would like this
entered into the record and pulled forward. He stated that Springsted found that the golf course
was making far more money than the conservative estimates it was projected at and if it hadn’t
been for the lawsuits after construction the golf course would have been self-sufficient with
estimates that were made setup for the bonding and payments. He stated that the amount of
revenue it had generated far exceeded the estimates. He asked if there is anyone on the Council
that has anything they would like to disclose before taking the vote. He noted that Commissioner
Thomas has mentioned to him at the House Subcommittee meeting that she knew Donn
Hagmann and that he is her cousin’s father.
Commissioner Thomas confirmed that he is her aunt’s ex-husband and pointed out that this was
the first time she had seen him in twelve years.
Commissioner Gunn stated that there is no conflict of interest and the City Attorney has also
clarified that there is no conflict of interest.
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
President Marty asked City Attorney Riggs to clarify the process of transferring the property to
the EDA and why they are doing this.
City Attorney Riggs explained that the EDA exists on its own authority and is a legal entity in
and of itself. He stated that it is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469 and once it is
created it overrides any charter provision and is a legal separate entity. He stated that they are
sitting as an entity that is totally separate from City Council. He stated that it is not necessary to
transfer the property noting that the Council could choose to do it if they so desire. He confirmed
that neither of these arises remotely to anything approaching a conflict of interest according the
Minnesota law.
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To approve EDA Resolution 05-EDA-203, a
Resolution approving purchase agreement and contract for private development between
the City of Mounds View, the Economic Development Authority and Medtronic and to
waive the reading.
4 – Ayes 1 – Nay (Marty) Motion carried.
B. Resolution 05-EDA-204 Requesting the Mounds View City Council Set a
Public Hearing for August 22, 2005 for the Proposed Establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 5 (A Special Legislation Economic
Development District)
Mr. Backman stated that in order to facilitate the Medtronic development the city sought passage
of a special TIF legislation during the 2005 session. He stated that on May 23, 2005 the
Minnesota Legislature approved the public finance bill, which included the city’s legislation
allowing the creation of this district. He explained that in order to begin the process of creating
the district and TIF plan the EDA has to request that the City Council calls for a public hearing
on the proposed adoption of the modification to the development program for the Mounds View
Economic Development Project and to propose adoption of the TIF plan.
MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Thomas To approve Resolution 05-EDA-204 a request that the
Mounds View City Council set a public hearing for August 22, 2005 for the proposed
establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (A Special Legislation Economic
Development District) and to waive the reading.
4-Ayes 1-Nay (Marty) Motion carried.
7. REPORTS
City Administrator Ulrich reported that the last Executive Session was held on June 13, 2005
from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with all EDA members present along with the City Attorney, a
Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
representative from Ehlers and Associates, the Community Development Coordinator and City
Administrator. He stated that this meeting was continued to June 16 at 4:00 p.m. and adjourned
at 5:48 p.m. He explained that the purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss the proposed
sale of land comprised of The Bridges and to review the development proposal in terms of the
purchase agreement and the contract for private development. He noted that at that time it was
moved forward by consensus to June 20th for the public hearing.
President Marty stated that he would like to clarify that he has nothing personal against
Medtronic.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: July 11, 2005.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 11, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice-President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn,
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas.
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the July 11, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
NONE
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes June 13, 2005
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas Approve the Minutes of June 13, 2005 as presented.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
B. EDA Minutes for June 27, 2005 will be presented at the July 25th Meeting.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
NONE
7. EDA BUSINESS
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
A. Presentation by Phil Seipp, President/CEO and Scott McGuire, CFO of
SYSCO Minnesota regarding the company’s TIF Request to facilitate
expansion of the company’s Mounds View parking
Phil Seipp, President/CEO, stated that the original building was built in 1989 and that since that
time they have had two expansions of the warehouse. He stated that when they built the building
they donated 47-acres to the City to be used as part of the park lands within the City. He stated
they currently employee 629 individuals noting that his challenge is to grow the business, add
jobs and strengthen their customer base. He indicated that their biggest obstacle right now is
parking noting that they have adequate employee parking for the day in/day out business, they
run into problems when they have large events such as sales training. He stated that during those
periods of time they park in driveway areas and fire lanes. He stated the other times where they
have constraints is when their large customers come in to do training and hold large meetings.
He stated that they have also run out of truck spots, which creates a real impediment when trying
to move trucks around, load them and move them out for the day. He explained the proposal
stating that the project would involve moving the service drive to the east and adding employee
parking along the east side of the building. He stated that these spots would be for overflow
parking. He stated that they plan to relocate the water retention pond to the south and create 53
additional truck parking spots along the south side of the building on both sides of the entry
drive. He stated that they expect to add approximately 100 jobs over the next five years and
would span across all three shifts. He indicated that some of the positions would be sales
positions where the individuals would work out of their homes.
Commissioner Thomas asked how many additional trucks would be brought in and out over the
next five years.
Mr. Seipp stated that they would probably hire approximately 30 new drivers, which would add
30 trucks.
Mr. Seipp noted that there is approximately three acres of land that had been previously donated
to the city that borders the property line to the east and south that they are asking the city to give
back. He stated that they are also asking for tax increment financing because this project could
potentially create considerable additional expenses when they begin to consider the stormwater
retention issues and square footage requirements. He indicated that this project would probably
exceed what they would normally expect for the additional square footage in the parking area and
reviewed with the Commission.
Commissioner Thomas asked if they are actually asking for tax increment financing or the ability
to utilize the TIF funds. She stated that the Commission is not looking to create another TIF
District.
Mr. Seipp clarified that they are asking for funds from the current TIF account.
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Economic Development Coordinator Backman referenced the packet provided to the
Commission noting that it includes a letter of explanation from Mr. Seipp discussing the estimate
for the current project, an estimate done in April by RLK, and an estimate done by SYSCO’s
Houston Engineers showing a higher estimate of costs due to the construction and engineering
work that would have to be done, especially with the electrical work due to the need to relocate
some of the utilities. He explained that he had asked them to provide a breakout of what the
stormwater/wetlands portion of the project would be and reviewed the numbers with the
Commission. He clarified that he is not suggesting that the City fund the parking lot but he is
suggesting that if there is a consideration for this project that it be limited to the stormwater
management and items typically dealt with through the Rice Creek Watershed District. He
reviewed the existing conditions stating that the project would relocate the pond further to the
southeast and it would move the road further to the east. He provided a brief overview of the
proposed parking areas and explained that the three acres, previously donated to the city, would
be needed for the additional parking if they move the pond further south. He provided the
Commission with an overview of the project timeline noting that it also includes a comparison of
the estimates and what they are asking for in addition to a breakdown of costs per job within the
overall project.
President Marty referenced last two pages noting that the amount for SYSCO’s stormwater
management is $250,000 and it also shows the EDC’s recommendation for $250,000 and asked if
this would be $500,000 or are these two numbers referring to the same amount, $250,000.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the EDC considered this request in
June and their recommendation was to fully fund the request at $250,000. He stated the request
is for $250,000 and the recommendation is for the $250,000 noting that the EDA does have the
ability to set other limits if they wish. He noted total cost per square foot is not applicable
because they are not talking about a building addition, they are talking about a parking lot
expansion and utility costs. He referenced the city cost per job noting that this is the typical unit
of measurement in economic development terms, shows $2500 and total investment per job
created would be approximately $12,000 in capital investment for both private and public
investment.
Vice President Stigney asked if the TIF contribution would be an upfront contribution and would
it be a pay as you go or is this a grant.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they have asked for upfront noting that
it could be a pay as you go over a period of time.
Vice President Stigney clarified that this is in TIF District 3 and asked if this proposal were
granted would the funds be taken from TIF District 3 or from pooled funds taken from all of the
district funds.
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that currently the financial health for TIF
District 3 is good and is generating approximately $300,000 to $400,000 a year with modest
obligations. He stated that the City would pay off all obligations related to TIF District 3 in
approximately one year. He stated that most of the increment is being generated by SYSCO
noting that the City has assisted them in the past. He stated that this was paid off in 1997.
Vice President Stigney asked if the money would come from TIF District 3 or TIF pooling and if
it came from TIF District 3 how long would it extend the district out.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the TIF District 3 is set to expire in
July 2014 and this would not extend the TIF District beyond that period of time. He noted that if
there was an amount approved over a period of time it is conceivable that the entire district could
be de-obligated within a couple of years as opposed to going out eight years. He stated that
currently the City has obligations that are out approximately one year and once the City is done
with these obligations, increment is coming in and the City has to show the Ramsey County how
the City is using the money for economic development or close the District.
Vice President Stigney asked what the duration would be to pay it back.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that if the $250,000 is approved it would
take approximately two years to pay off.
Vice President Stigney referenced the 2 to 1 mitigation and asked where it would be mitigated to.
John Dietrich, RLK, Kuusisto, explained that the current proposal is to go offsite for mitigation
in order to preserve the wooded wetlands that are up against the proposed improvements. He
stated that they have had conversations with City Staff and the Rice Creek Watershed Staff
noting that they have not made formal applications to the Rice Creek Watershed at this time. He
stated that their proposal is to go offsite within the Rice Creek Watershed district adding that the
mitigation would have to be within the same sub-watershed of the Rice Creek district. He noted
that they have not had detailed discussions regarding the actual locations with Rice Creek at this
time.
President Marty recalled that some of the land SYSCO deeded to the City was like a wetland
area. He noted that years ago Rice Creek Watershed came to Mounds View to discuss creating
ponding in this area and he would like to look at the possibility of controlling the water on the
land versus mitigating and paying somewhere else to control it.
President Marty acknowledged that SYSCO has been a good neighbor to Mounds View and
clarified that SYSCO ‘s request is for $250,000, noting that their spreadsheet shows an estimate
of approximately $233,000 in addition to requesting that the City allow SYSCO to use some of
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
the land they previously deeded to the City. He indicated that he did not have a problem with the
land-use noting that he would prefer that SYSCO work to keep the costs closer to the $233,000
estimate shown on the spreadsheet.
Commissioner Thomas referenced the land transfer and asked for clarification on the total
acreage.
Mr. Seipp clarified that the totally acreage would be approximately three acres and would include
the land for the stormwater retention pond. He indicated that SYSCO did not care whether they
own the land or not but in discussions with the City it was felt that it would be better not to have
the property line run right through the stormwater retention pond. He noted that they would
maintain the pond either way adding that it would probably make the most sense to have it
located on their land.
President Marty asked if there are any legal costs to transfer the land back to SYSCO.
City Attorney Riggs explained that they are discussing a type of development contract noting that
simple deed does not cost that much. He explained that the contract itself and how it would be
handled is the more substantial cost. He stated that the costs could range from $200 to $1000
overall.
Vice President Stigney referenced the costs to change the Comprehensive Plan and asked how
this would be paid for.
Director Ericson explained that this would be a cost born by the applicant, which includes the
cost of the application fee and the processing of the application.
Commissioner Flaherty asked Mr. Seipp why there is a need for assistance.
Mr. Seipp explained that the corporation has other alternatives available to them to spend this
money here noting that they have sister companies in Wisconsin, Iowa and North Dakota that
have capacity noting that it would not surprise him if they suggested contracting the borders and
allow them to serve customers from their facilities. He expressed concerns noting that this would
not help them to grow or create jobs. He stated that they are trying to hold the costs under $1
million noting that the receptivity to the costs of wetland mitigation and moving a stormwater
retention pond would be a difficult struggle for them to convince the corporation of the need.
President Marty noted that SYSCO has operated on this property for several years and has made
several changes over the years and asked if there is a possibility that SYSCO might end up back
here asking for more space. He asked if the three acres would be enough or should they review
the plans further and possibly consider transferring five acres now to avoid having to go through
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
this process again in the future. He asked if SYSCO has a long-range plan that indicates further
expansion in the future.
Mr. Seipp explained that based on the constraints they have they would probably have to push
the stormwater retention pond further south if they were to try to add additional spaces. He
indicated that they do have relief coming in approximately five to seven years noting that they
would be serviced out of a re-distribution center located somewhere in the Midwest area. He
explained that this would change their business dramatically noting that the product stored at
their facility would be decreased and the process would totally revolutionize the way they do
their business. He stated that it would also help to alleviate some of the trucking problems they
are currently experiencing. He stated that SYSCO believes that the three acres would be
adequate.
B. Discussion and Potential Recommendation regarding Assistance for
Business/Parking Expansion for SYSCO Minnesota.
President Marty stated that he does not have a problem authorizing $235,000. He asked if the
expenses to transfer the land would be passed on to SYSCO.
City Attorney Riggs stated that typically this is what is done in any type of development
situation.
Mr. Seipp assured the Commission that this is acceptable to SYSCO.
Commissioner Gunn noted that costs go up and clarified that the $250,000 requested is probably
to ensure that all expenses for the project are covered.
Commissioner Thomas suggested placing a cap on the costs at $250,000 and asked if it would be
possible to invoice the actual costs as they go through the process.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that when the City did the Highway 10
Business Center the City did bill actual costs when they did the demolition.
Vice President Stigney stated that he would like to see a TIF Assessment or evaluation sheet for
this project before they move forward. He stated that if they do grant any money for this project
it should also be tied to the number of new employees it would bring in versus the projected 100
employees over five years. He stated that reimbursement should be based on the actual number
of new employees. He stated that SYSCO should be willing to pay for half of it and be thankful
they got $125,000 out of the City.
Barbara Haake, County Road I, asked how much money is actually in the TIF Fund.
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Vice President Stigney clarified that it has not been established yet as to whether the funds would
come from the TIF District 3 or the pooled funds.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the fund is currently in healthy
condition noting that they have paid off major bond payments and his understanding is that the
fund balance is approximately $1 million right now.
Ms. Haake noted that the community is going for a referendum on Medtronic and suggesting that
the TIF funds be used for development costs and if the City is over $300,000 in development
costs for Medtronic and if it ends up going for referendum this would have to be paid. She stated
that she just wanted to be sure that the City has enough funds and she is now comfortable that the
City does have enough to cover the costs.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the City has a time limit to spend the funds.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that Ramsey County would give the
City a grace period of time if there is no activity within a district. He further explained that if, in
2006, all obligations have been paid, he would expect that by the following year the City would
have to show some form of obligations or the County would likely ask for dollars back.
Vice President Stigney referenced mitigation noting that he has some problems with mitigating
outside the City limits noting that it would cost a lot more. He asked who would be responsible
for paying the mitigation fee and would it be part of the TIF reimbursement.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that the costs associated with the
stormwater management and wetland mitigation are TIF eligible costs and reviewed the budget
breakdown for wetland mitigation with the Commission.
Vice President Stigney stated that he does have a problem with paying premium price to go
outside to mitigate on land and then have Mounds View pay for it. He stated that he believes that
SYSCO should pay 50-percent of the costs.
President Marty stated that he would also like to see the mitigation kept on the property and
asked how time sensitive this issue is. He asked if SYSCO could come back with a ‘but for’
workup for the Commission in two weeks.
John Dietrich, RLK, stated that it was their hope to be in process here and moving towards the
Planning Commission and Council in July. He stated that this would allow them the time to
make their application to the Metropolitan Council in order to start the process moving forward,
which could go up to a 60-day timeframe. He stated this would start to impact any ability to
place anything into the ground this year. He stated that the process has already been accelerated
Mounds View EDA July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
to the greatest extent possible. He stated that a two-week delay would put the fall start time for
this project in jeopardy.
Vice President Stigney noted that one of the City requirements is to have a TIF Evaluation sheet
completed before requesting TIF. He stated that he would like this to happen before the
Commission grants any funds. He clarified that it is his understanding that the agenda says
nothing about the Commission taking any actions on this item tonight.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed noting that the intent was to get a
sense of how the EDA viewed this project noting that if the EDA was not interested in
transferring land back to SYSCO it was important to get that knowledge now. He stated that he
does think it is possible to have an action, contingent upon review of the appropriate submittals,
adding that he does not think it would take SYSCO long to fill out the appropriate forms. He
stated that he would work with SYSCO and assured the Commission that they would be ready
within two weeks.
President Marty stated that he does not see any problems with the land transfer back. He stated
that if they could get the TIF Evaluation sheet put together and to the Planning Commission by
July 20th for review by the EDA on July 27th. He asked that they provide as much detail as
possible.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, July 25, 2005.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
July 25, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty; Vice President Stigney, Commissioners Flaherty, Gunn
and Thomas.
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Director Ericson asked to move Item 6A from the Consent Agenda to Item 7C EDA Business for
discussion.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the July 25, 2005 Agenda as amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes June 27, 2005
Commissioner Thomas had the following correction:
• Page 13, line 456, she clarified that tabling of a motion was not in order because there is no
motion.
President Marty had the following corrections:
• Page 2, line 56, reads: ‘Executive Session’; should read: ‘Executive Sessions’
• Page 3, line 97, reads: ‘patterns are currently and how they would proceed if there were a
development on the site.’; should read: ‘patterns are currently, and how they would proceed
if there were a development on the site.’
• Page 6, line 253, reads: ‘and have all answers’; should read: ‘and have all the answers’.
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
• Page 7, line 279, Brian Amundsen’s statement, reads: ‘gives a tax business’; should read:
‘give a business a tax break’
• Page 9, line 368, reads: ‘the EDA to negotiation this project’; should read: ‘the EDA to
negotiate this project’.
• Page 10, line 406, reads: ‘adding that the do not believe’; should read: ‘adding that they do
not believe’.
• Page 12, line 506, asked Commissioner Flaherty to clarify the $778,000 per year.
Commissioner Flaherty explained that he had factored in the $5 million of surplus the
City received and spread that out over the 25-years for the district.
• Page 14, line 590, reads: ‘approximately $3 million’; should read: ‘approximately $300
million’.
• Page 15, line 602, reads: ‘noting that they would have the resources’; should read:’ noting
that they would not have the resources’.
• Page 15, line 604, reads: ‘over the last number years’; should read: ‘over the last number of
years’.
• Page 16, line 649, reads: ‘He stated that this is not a fair’; should read: ‘She stated that this is
not a fair’.
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty Approve the Minutes of June 27, 2005 as amended.
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Moved to EDA Business Item 7C for discussion. Set a Public Hearing for August
8, 2005 for Discussion of the Proposed Business Subsidy for the SYSCO
Minnesota Expansion Project.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Review and Consider Possible Acquisition of 2617 Sherwood Road, a
Property identified as a Blighted and Hazardous Building.
Community Development Director Ericson stated that 2617 Sherwood Road is vacant and
currently uninhabitable. He noted that last year on October 11th the City Council adopted a
resolution ordering the abatement of the property and since that point the City has been working
with the property owners in trying to correct the deficiencies. He stated that so far they have
been unsuccessful in getting anything accomplished. He stated that they have set multiple court
dates, there have been continuances adding that Kennedy and Graven have been working on this
on the City’s behalf noting that they have come to a possible agreement that they City could look
at this as a potential housing replacement program parcel. He stated that it is on the City’s list
and does meet all the requirements for blighted parcel for redevelopment. He stated that Staff
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
has put together a resolution asking for the Commission’s approval to get an appraisal done on
the property and negotiate a price and bring it back for the EDA’s consideration. He stated that
they did seek quotes for an appraisal and it could be done for approximately $400.00
Commissioner Thomas asked what the difficulty is with the homeowners, is it a difficulty in
contacting them or are they not willing to do the repairs.
Director Ericson explained that it is a combination of things noting that they are dealing with a
mortgage company and an individual who acquired the property as a potential investment
property not realizing there were so many issues with the property. He stated that originally the
City was dealing with a pair of property owners that are no longer in the picture and are now
dealing with a bank that has never visited or seen the property. He stated that it is difficult trying
to convince them that they now need to spend $25,000 to make repairs to a property that they
already have $175,000 invested into it. He stated that someone is making the determination that
it isn’t prudent to put any more money into the property.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the property has been forfeited to the mortgage company.
Director Ericson stated that there is a property owner noting that he is not sure if there was a sale
of the property noting that over the last year the City has been dealing with four different groups
in effort to correct the deficiencies. He stated that the current property holder is Deutsch Bank.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the City is anticipating forfeiture.
Director Ericson stated that at this point the City is not anticipating forfeiture. He explained that
they are not dealing with a resident they are dealing with an investment corporation.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the City knows the loan value of the existing mortgage.
Director Ericson stated that the City has been told that it is approximately $179,000. He stated
that the City would seek an appraisal and offer fair market value for the property, which might
not be in that price range.
President Marty noted that in the Staff report the owner has agreed to a potential purchase by the
City and suggested moving forward with the appraisal.
Vice President Stigney clarified that if the bank now owns the property then they are responsible
for the condition it is in and asked if the City has leverage to have them repair the property versus
the City.
Director Ericson stated that Staff is looking at this option and explained that it is time
consuming. He noted that legal fees have been expended due to several continuances, delays and
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
negotiations. He explained that the City is dealing with an owner that is not local and it has been
difficult trying to convince the property owner, the bank, that they should the corrections
identified and called out by the Housing Department or remove the building, which is what the
City is recommending. He agreed that the City could continue through the court process but
Staff believes this might be the quicker remedy.
Commissioner Gunn asked if the lot is dividable.
Director Ericson stated that at this point it is not dividable because Greenwood Drive, at that
point, is unapproved right-of-way adding that at some point in the future it could be subdivided.
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 05-EDA-205 Authorizing an
Appraisal be conducted on the Residential Property located at 2617 Sherwood Road.
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried.
B. Resolution 05-EDA-206 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer
Payments to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond, and Bridges Leasing
Company.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that there are currently three on-going
developer agreements, the Mermaid, Silver Lake Point and The Bridges. He noted that the
Mermaid has a slightly different schedule adding that the Heartland-Mounds View Common
Bond for the Silver Lake Point project in the amount of $34,078.73 and for The Bridges Leasing
Company in the amount of $27,423.00 would be due August 1, 2005.
President Marty stated this is the City’s obligation to pay back the developers per the City
agreement.
Vice President Stigney clarified that these are both TIF.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed noting that The Bridges leasing would
be done in Feb 2006.
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty To Approve the motion to Adopt Resolution 05-EDA-
206 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payments to Heartland-Mounds View
Common Bond; and Bridges Leasing Company and waive the reading.
Ayes -5 Nays-0 Motion carried
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
C. Set a Public Hearing for August 8, 2005 for Discussion of the Proposed
Business Subsidy for the SYSCO Minnesota Expansion Project.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that as part of the process for business
subsidies the current legislation requires that there be a business subsidy hearing, which has a
minimum requirement of a ten-day notice. He stated that Staff is looking to schedule a hearing
for August 8, 2005. He stated that last Wednesday Scott McGuire submitted a TIF application
along with a check noting that the application shows when they would like to start construction
and also includes a breakdown of the revised budget. He indicated that the previously submitted
budget was a bit low on the electrical work and has been revised to reflect the changes. He
referenced the portion of the budget as it relates to stormwater management and explained that
they are asking that a portion of the wetland mitigation/stormwater management component be
paid for via TIF assistance. He stated that they are in discussion with the Rice Creek Watershed
District noting that this is a significant component of the project, which would be the expansion
of the of the proposed parking lot. He referenced the map noting that approximately three-acres
of the land, to the east and to the south, would be transferred back from the City of Mounds View
to SYSCO for this project.
Director Ericson explained that one of the reasons this was pulled from the agenda is because
Staff would need to draft a development agreement for review at the August 8, 2005 meeting.
He stated that they would like to have something that the EDA would be comfortable with in
terms of a dollar amount that could be entered into the development agreement. He clarified that
Staff is not asking for authorization at this time but rather to get a consensus on the dollar
amount noting that it would be helpful.
President Marty clarified that they are considering possibly $250,000 as TIF eligible.
Commissioner Thomas clarified that it is basically saying that there is approximately $300,000
plus dollars that would be TIF eligible.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that right now SYSCO is requesting
$250,000 adding that they do recognize that the costs would exceed that amount.
Vice President Stigney referenced TIF noting that in listening to some of the EDC meetings they
don’t have handle on it. He suggested a meeting with the EDA and EDC to see where they are
with all of the TIF districts, what the balances are, and determine when they would be closed out
or would they be stretched out to maintain the current TIF districts. He stated that they should
look at the big picture stating that it is important to get these items clarified first. He recalled that
the SYSCO property could have been turned back over to the tax base in 2006.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the final obligation for TIF District 3 is
the payment to Bridges Leasing, which is around $30,000.00 for the Spring 2006. He stated that
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
the EDA has the option to look at de-certification or consider a continuance. He stated that if
they continue the TIF District 3 there should be projects that are looked at within that district. He
stated that they could not hoard the dollars and they cannot have dollars coming in and not spend
it for the purpose it was intended, which is economic development. He explained that in terms of
this particular district it is a healthy district noting that they get well over $300,000 a year in
increment payments. He stated that it is primarily derived by SYSCO, some derived by ZEP and
some derived by Bridges Leasing, but the majority is derived by SYSCO. He stated that they
have had some discussions with Ehlers about doing a complete analysis of all of the districts but
the initial review is that they are fairly close to the original figure of approximately $1 million.
Vice President Stigney stated that he would like to see it in black and white as to where the City
is at and what the priorities are for the expenditures of the funds as to whether it would be put
back and paying the down the tax base or keep the Districts going. He stated that there is a need
for further discussion noting that they now have SYSCO asking for money and eventually
Snyder’s would be coming in to ask for the same thing. He expressed concerns about the
amounts being spent. He stated that he wants the details and the big picture of the project. He
stated that he has problems with the amounts and has problems with mitigating offsite. He
expressed concerns about the removal of the trees to make way for the parking lot adding that he
would like to see a joint meeting with Council and Staff to determine the philosophy and
direction on TIF for all of the districts.
President Marty agreed with Vice President Stigney.
Director Ericson agreed stating that this is what Staff is planning to do noting that if they can get
the information prepared and presented from Ehlers for the September work session. He stated
that this would be the perfect opportunity to discuss the philosophy, the health of the TIF
districts, whether the City would de-certify or are they going to fund other projects and at what
level. He stated that these are all issues that should be discussed with the EDA, the City Council
and Staff. He stated that this should be on the September or October work session agenda. He
stated that Staff would have a plan for the future but also need to know where they are today. He
stated that in terms of cash on hand, Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated
that the City would have approximately $1 million in the TIF account this year adding that what
is being proposed would not be out of the TIF pool, but rather an ongoing obligation similar to
the original SYSCO agreement, which is a pay as you go note. He stated that it would not impact
the account as to what is on hand adding that Staff recognizes and appreciates the comments
from the EDA.
Vice President Stigney stated that it would impact the taxpayers noting that the City either
extends the district and pay as you go or close the district. He stated that he has concerns noting
that the public hearing is scheduled for August 8, 2005 and he would like the information prior to
the public hearing. He suggested rescheduling the public hearing in order to give them the
opportunity to review all of the information. He stated that this is bigger than just looking at this
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
spot with SYSCO, it is what they are doing with the $1 million.
President Marty stated that SYSCO does have a need and they are showing the need at this time.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he has two observations, one, in terms
of the trees, what they are talking about would impact less than 5-percent of the area that is out
there with the former SYSCO property adding that it is not his belief that there would be a huge
impact on the Cottonwoods and other trees on the property; secondly, in terms of the process
here, the applicant has presented a good project and they are facing a situation where they do
need to expand this year or the project would move elsewhere. He encouraged EDA to consider
this project at this time.
Commissioner Thomas stated that she has questions about what the City is planning to do with
TIF noting that she is not comfortable with continuing the pay as you go for TIF District 3 when
it is an option that they could begin discussions for closing the district next year. She asked if
they have to decide if it comes from the pool funds or the TIF District 3 funds by the August 8th
hearing or can they say they are comfortable with the number and sort out what they have from
the TIF or whether it comes from the pool or TIF District 3 at some point following that meeting.
Director Ericson stated that it has been recommended that they do not utilize the TIF pool for this
and that it has been recommended by the City’s Financial Advisors that the City should do a pay
as you go note if the City does offer financial assistance. He explained that providing a $250,000
lump sum, upfront payment, sets a pretty precedent in terms of future requests.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that if this were set as a pay as you go over
a three-year period the EDA would have the ability to de-certify this district in 2008.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that he is all in favor of having a meeting with the Authority and
asked SYSCO to be patient with the Authority. He stated that the Authority understands that
SYSCO does have a need and asked them to allow the Authority, as a body, to take a week to get
their information together to see where they are at with the districts. He stated that they want to
do what is right for SYSCO and the citizens of Mounds View.
President Marty clarified that it would not be a week or two that it would be over a month and is
a construction issue.
Commissioner Flaherty acknowledged noting that they are looking at November completion.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they have had discussions with Shelly
at Ehlers and given their schedule the soonest timeframe they could get the information would be
in the August/September timeframe referenced by Director Ericson.
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
President Marty stated that he is comfortable with this as a pay as you go for $250,000. He
agreed that they do need to sort this out and would also look forward to meeting with the EDC
and Staff to review some of the priorities, what direction they are going and the goals of the City.
He noted that SYSCO is operating under a timeframe and he does see this as a valid request.
Commissioner Gunn asked for clarification of the de-certification in 2008.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that if there were an approval in 2005
the City would have 2006, 2007 and 2008 as potential years for incremental payments as
developer payments back to SYSCO. He further explained that there could be action taken at the
end of 2008, effective in 2009 to end the district noting that it would end the district five years
early.
Vice President Stigney asked if it would mean $82,500 for next the next three years or would it
be divided over four years. He stated that he is not comfortable with the $250,000.00 amount.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that this could be a decision made by this
body.
President Marty clarified that he is hearing that the August 8th date should be kept for the public
hearing.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman asked if they were considering the three-year
timeframe.
President Marty stated that the timeframe could be discussed at the hearing.
Director Ericson stated that they could invite the EDC to the September meeting to discuss this
issue.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, clarified that the EDA is planning to have the public
hearing for August 8, 2005 and asked what the purpose of the public hearing would be if there
has been no public input. She agreed that the EDC meeting and workshop is long overdue noting
that they are mentioning $125,000 versus $250,000. She stated that she likes SYSCO too and
clarified that she is not trying to say anything against the pay as you go option noting that at least
it is not being taken from the $1 million. She expressed concerns stating that they don’t have a
referendum yet to know how it would be paid and referenced the issues with Medtronic. She
referenced the Rice Creek Watershed stating that she does not have this included on the agenda
for Wednesday night and there are things that they should review. She stated that they prefer to
mitigate on site noting that there are things that they haven’t had input on and if the EDA is
planning to do a public hearing usually they would wait for the information that would help them
in making a decision.
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Commissioner Thomas clarified that whenever they do a public hearing they always start with a
base document and frequently amend it as they work through the document. She explained that
the EDA should have something for the discussion to determine agreement or disagreement. She
stated that this is common practice for all public hearings and it then gives the public something
to discuss. She stated that they need the base document to start with.
Vice President Stigney asked if this would be by resolution or ordinance.
Director Ericson stated that this would be by resolution and it would only need one public
hearing
Vice President Stigney stated that this is premature at this point.
Commissioner Flaherty agreed stating that he would prefer to meet with the EDC first. He stated
that he has asked for indulgence on the timetable adding that he does understand the time
constraints on the construction. He stated that he feels they should do what they need to do first.
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve and Set a Public Hearing for August 8, 2005
for the discussion of the proposed business subsidy for the SYSCO Minnesota Expansion
Project.
Ayes-3 Nay-2 (Stigney, Flaherty) Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, August 8, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 8, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:30 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty; Vice President Stigney, Commissioners Flaherty, Gunn,
and Thomas.
NOT PRESENT:
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the August 8, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Bill Werner, 2765 Shorewood Road, stated that he has a philosophical issue that has to do with
mitigation. He reviewed the dictionary definition stating that to mitigate is to make pain, grief,
punishment, or the like milder, and asked how it relates to the wetlands.
Director Ericson stated that in terms of wetland mitigation, the mitigation aspect relates to the
fact that you are taking and replacing wetlands that are potentially lost by a development and
mitigating it to a different area, the mitigation being the replacement. He further explained that
in terms of making a painful situation less, you make the loss of the wetland a less of a problem
by creating additional wetland in its’ place so it is termed as a mitigation.
Mr. Werner asked where they would replace the wetlands, in the City, the County or the State.
He clarified that the location where it would be replaced would matter.
Commissioner Flaherty explained that mitigation could be done either on the site or where the
development would go noting that it could be anywhere within the City or County. He explained
that typically the City tries to mitigate within the site itself. He further explained that if a parcel
of land is developed and water needs to be moved they try to mitigate within the development
itself.
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Mr. Werner asked if this is a law or is this something that the EDA does because they think it is a
good thing to do.
Director Ericson confirmed that it is a law although the City whole-heartedly supports the
replacement of wetlands regardless. He explained that this is from the Wetland Conservation
Act Legislation as well as the Rice Creek Watershed District regulations.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, suggested that someone on the EDA or Council explain
the local wetland ordinance and the priorities as set forth in the ordinance in terms of the
mediations that could take place.
Director Ericson stated that the City has a very aggressive position on wetland management and
has had for a number of years. He explained that there are two levels of wetland review in the
City; there is a wetland buffer that protects all land within 100-feet of a wetland noting that any
of activity that occurs within 100-feet of a wetland necessitates a wetland buffer permit and has
to come before the Council; any work that occurs within a wetland has to come before Council
for a wetland alteration permit and there are various standards that have to be adhered to based
on specific criteria. He stated that the City cannot grant a permit in excess of what is necessary
and is in a sense, the minimum alteration necessary to accomplish the goals of the project. He
stated that the intent is to limit, to whatever extent possible, any alteration or development within
a wetland. He stated that the City has taken the position, since the early 1990’s, that the wetlands
are very critical to the City’s environmental eco-system and the benefit that they provide the City
in terms of stormwater management, they do not want to lose the wetlands that they have adding
that the City has been actively protecting them for a number of years.
President Marty further clarified that it is not just stormwater management it is also for water
quality.
Mr. McCarty asked what the requirements are in terms of onsite retention. He asked if this is one
of the first requirements for onsite.
Director Ericson stated that in terms of mitigating on site or accommodating stormwater
management features on site, it is the intent of the City that a project would accommodate
stormwater management on site on a property. He stated that it is important that the stormwater
runoff generated from one property does not continue to flow downstream and cause further
problems. He stated that in terms of mitigation there is a hierarchy of where the City can
mitigate noting that the first goal is to always mitigate on site, the second is to mitigate
immediately adjacent to the site and third is within the Watershed district. He stated that this is
also a recognized goal of the Watershed District and is definitely a requirement that mitigation is
accommodated on site.
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. EDA Minutes for July 11 and July 25, 2005 will be presented at the next
EDA Meeting.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
NONE
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Resolution 05-EDA-207 Approving the Development Agreement to Provide
$250,000.00 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food
Services of Minnesota to facilitate the expansion of the Business located at
2400 County Road J in Mounds View.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that SYSCO Minnesota has outgrown its
available truck and employee parking and desires to add capacity. He stated that the company is
seeking to expand the SYSCO PUD site by approximately three acres. He stated that on August
3, 2005 the Mounds View Planning Commission approved SYSCO’s request for a PUD
amendment and they approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment to expand the parking lot
and driveway. He stated that the outlot that is part of the 48 acres east of SYSCO has been
basically kept natural noting that the three acres would be transferred back from the City to
SYSCO for this particular expansion. He stated that SYSCO has estimated that the expansion
project would cost approximately $1.2 million and the budget has been included for review.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that SYSCO has requested $250,000.00 in
TIF assistance to pay for extraordinary development costs, specifically stormwater management
and wetland mitigation expenses noting that the company has submitted a completed TIF
application to the City. He stated that the project includes the construction of parking areas to
the east and the south side of the cold storage portion of the complex and reviewed with the
Commission. He explained that this would require the relocation of the existing stormwater
pond to the south and east of its’ present location.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that Briggs and Morgan prepared a draft of
the agreement noting that the agreement reflects a pay-as-you -go TIF reimbursement. He
explained that the terms if the tax increment revenue would be three years at 5-percent interest
adding that in the first two years the company has committed to creating 40 fulltime jobs at an
hourly wage of at least $18.00 per hour from the date the project is completed. He stated that
initially they talked about 100 jobs over five years and typically for the purposes of DEED and
other State agencies they are typically looking at what is created over the first two years. He
provided the Commission with a breakdown of the positions noting that out of the 40 jobs the
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
positions would include 12 drivers, 12 would be sales, 10 in the warehouse and six would be
administrative/office functions. He stated that Staff is recommending that the EDA adopt the
resolution approving the development agreement to provide $250,000.00 in TIF assistance to
SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that Ehlers has recommended revising
two elements within the proposed draft agreement and referenced page four, where it discusses
tax increment definitions noting that each of the development agreements typically has various
definitions that refer to what the district is. He explained that they should specify a percentage in
the definitions noting that due to the way it is currently written SYSCO would potentially receive
all of the increments and this is a healthy district right now with a balance of over $300,000.00.
He further explained that if they don’t change it, it would basically be paid off in a year even
though they have a term of three-years and if it is in this language the increment would come in
and basically take care of the note. He referenced C-1, Exhibit B, stating that this is the TIF Note
itself, and if they look at the third paragraph, which outlines the payment schedule over three-
years and should clarify the intent. He stated that the sentence stating ‘on each payment date the
authority shall pay by check or draft and mail to the person registered as the owner of the note, at
the close of the last business day of the authority preceding such payment date an amount equal
to the sum of the tax increments received by the authority during the six-month period preceding
such payment date’ adding that rather than an amount equal to the sum of the increments it
should be 30-percent of the increments. He stated that there should be a reference to ‘an amount
equal to the sum of 30-percent’. He stated that he would review this with Staff to ensure that
they have the correct language adding that it should be consistent throughout the document. He
explained that if these changes are not incorporated and it is generating a $309,000.00 increment
the note would be paid off in less than a year. He stated that these are the two areas of change
and assured the Commission that Staff would review the document to make sure that all other
areas are accurate.
Commissioner Thomas asked why Staff recommended 30-percent and what other scenarios were
used to determine the payment structure.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that if they are looking at payments
over three years and the amount is $250,000.00 they would have the principal of approximately
$83,333.00 and then factor in the interest would bring the payment to approximately $90,000.00
for one year, which would represent approximately one-third of the increment that is currently
being generated. He stated that this would reflect a three-year scenario.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if this is based on 2006 or 2008 dollars and asked for clarification
as to why it would be a good thing to extend this out over a three-year period.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that it is not so much the time value of
money it is more in terms of cash flow and making sure that the City covers their obligations. He
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
noted that typically the City has had terms longer than three years noting that the consensus was
to have the assistance within a defined, shorter period of time. He stated that Scott McGuire,
CFO, also indicated that this would be a sufficient time period for them.
Vice President Stigney stated that it was his understanding that SYSCO indicated that cash flow
was not a problem for them and they didn’t care if they got it upfront or stretched out. He stated
that if SYSCO received a one-year TIF then the TIF would be ready to close out when the TIF
District is ready to close out. He stated that to him this appears as if they are extending the TIF
District to accommodate SYSCO and he has a problem with that.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the City is looking at various aspects
in terms of cash flow noting that the City would still have the ability to decertify the district five
years early noting that it would not preclude a lot of options for the City.
Vice President Stigney asked how the City could decertify a district if they are still collecting
revenues on it over a three-year period. He asked why the City wouldn’t want them to pay it
back within the one-year and close the district.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the City has various projects currently
in the works and have ideas on how the City would improve the Highway 10 corridor noting that
it would be a bit premature to presume how much the City would spend on these efforts right
now. He stated that hopefully in the next year or two Staff would have a better sense of what
those improvements would cost.
Vice President Stigney stated that when a district has met its purpose it is his personal belief that
this is when the district should be closed out because it costs the taxpayers money to keep the
districts going.
President Marty explained that right now with the TIF Districts the City captures 100-percent of
the taxes coming in. He noted that the consultants have pointed out for years that to redesign and
redo County Highway 10 would cost far more. He stated that even if the City didn’t spend a
dime of the TIF pool up to the time the districts would be de-certified the City would still not
have enough money to redo County Highway 10. He stated that they would have to go ahead and
tax the citizens to redo Highway 10 and install a couple of trails. He stated that adding trails,
landscaping, repairing some of the intersections and making County Highway 10 safer and more
pedestrian friendly would take a lot more money than what the City has. He explained that this is
one of the main purposes the City has been earmarking TIF dollars for. He stated that they could
also use TIF for housing and redevelopment costs too noting that if they de-certify the district
early the City would not have the funds available without taxing for them.
Vice President Stigney clarified that President Marty’s philosophy is that the City should milk
every dollar the City can legally get from the TIF district. He stated that he has a problem with
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
this noting that this is just one district and the City has three districts. He stated that the City has
to consider what they are charging the taxpayers noting that the taxpayers are picking up
approximately $61,000.00 a year for SYSCO for fiscal disparities. He agreed that everyone
would like to get the maximum dollars noting that there is a time limit for these districts when it
has met its’ original purpose. He stated that he believes that when the development is done it
should be closed out.
Director Ericson pointed out that by adopting this development agreement and authorizing the
three-year TIF note for this project it does not preclude the authority for having an opportunity to
review the financing of the TIF Districts, City obligations and expenditures to ensure that the
City has the necessary funds available. He stated that it is his understanding that there are no pre-
payment penalties and the City could pay off the TIF note before a year concludes.
President Marty confirmed that it is setup so that it would come back so that the City could
review the TIF priorities and Districts. He referenced Page 7, Article 3, Item 3.2, No. 2, noting
that it states that an unpaid balance of the note shall bear simple, non-compounded interest from
the date of issuance of the note at 5-percent per annum and interest shall be computed on the
basis of a 365-day year with 12 30-day months’ and asked for clarification.
Vice President Stigney explained that what he is trying to suggest is that they make it a one year
district, with one payment and they pay-as-you-go one payment.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that with TIF notes there is typically an
interest rate that is considered as part of the TIF note. He stated that a 5-percent rate is a good
rate and is typically used for companies with strong financials. He stated that they have had rates
that have ranged from the lower interest all the way up to 8-percent noting that in terms of the
computation, the 365-day/year is the standard calculation method and the interest rate is applied
to the principal for the $250,000.00.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman further explained that in terms of the calculations
the City is estimating that over the three-year period of time, as payments are coming in, the City
would be making payments back to the developer, i.e. SYSCO. He stated that under usual
circumstances the City is paying principal and interest noting that the way it was structured the
City was only able to pay on the interest and it was not being paid off. He explained that
ultimately the risk is on the developer because if the increment were not sufficient to pay off the
note, at the end of the note time period they would be out.
President Marty clarified that the City would be paying SYSCO 5-percent interest on the
$250,000 over the three-year time period.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed that there would be interest on the
$250,000.
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
President Marty referenced Page 8, Section 3.3, Business Subsidies Act, Item 2, states that ‘if the
goals are met in part the developer would pay a portion of the business subsidy, plus interest,
determined by multiplying the business subsidy by a fraction, the numerator, of which is the
number of jobs of the goals which are not created at the wage level set forth above and the
denominator, which is 40’ and clarified that if they do not create the jobs they state then they
would pay the City interest back.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they would have to re-pay a portion of
the business subsidy plus interest. He explained that it holds their feet to the fire in the sense that
the City wants to have job creation and that the City has expectations about the wage levels.
Commissioner Flaherty stated that when this first came up at the EDA Commission hearing he
was not very happy because it came on the heels of everything else when the EDA was talking
TIF D istrict as far as Medtronic was concerned. He explained that they had decided as a
Commission that they wanted to review the TIF Districts and determine what exactly the TIF
Districts are earning and exactly how much the City has in districts. He stated that this is a bit
quick for him noting this came back up again before they have had an opportunity to review
where the districts are, where they are going, where they want to decertify and what funds the
City has with the increment monies. He stated that he is still of this mindset noting that it is
quick for him coming on the heels of the Medtronic deal.
Commissioner Thomas stated that she is still going back and forth on this noting that she has
expressed concerns in the past with regards to spreading the payments out, when knowing what
they want to do and understanding still the cash flow issues, what they want to do with the funds.
She stated that she tends to agree with Vice President Stigney. She noted that this is a difficult
situation and suggested, as a compromise, a 50-percent split taking it down to a two-year spread
She stated that it is her understanding that they have the cash flow, at that point, in that district,
without taking it too far out. She stated that this would cut it down to a reasonable planning level
for the City without dragging it out and allows the City to cash flow some items to get the project
going. She noted that they couldn’t wait until next year adding that this is where she believes the
City is in trying to manage a compromise.
President Marty stated that he spoke with Phil Seipp, President/CEO of SYSCO, earlier this
afternoon noting that Mr. Seipp explained that this is time sensitive and if this doesn’t go
through, their cap is approximately $1 million and in reviewing the spreadsheets the amounts
were over $300,000 and the criteria that SYSCO uses is that if they can keep it under $1 million
they would get the funds from their corporate headquarters, if not SYSCO might be looking to
invest in their money in other areas, possibly outside of the State of Minnesota. He stated that he
sees SYSCO as being a very good neighbor and strong business here in Mounds View and it is
not like they are asking for millions of dollars. He stated that they pay their taxes and they have
been a growing business and sees this as a positive way that the EDA Authority and City could
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
use as a tool to help complement SYSCO noting that this would be paid back to the City. He
stated that he is going ask Economic Development Coordinator Backman and Director Ericson to
clarify how the 50-percent versus the 30-percent would impact the City.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed stating that in terms of the $1 million
relative to SYSCO that is their threshold from Corporate noting that if it exceeds this amount it is
probable that SYSCO would look at locations in the Wisconsin or Iowa areas. He stated that he
is concerned about the possibilities of Rice Creek Watershed coming back with additional
changes. He stated that they have had some discussions with the State about finding an
additional $50,000 to $100,000 so that they do not end up with a gap. He stated that they met
last week in an effort to have this covered in the event that the Watershed does come back with
additional changes. He stated that in regards to the two-years versus three-years, a document
Ehlers just completed has been included in their packet noting that it addresses the state of the
health of the districts. He reviewed the district fund balances with the EDA noting that the
healthiest district at the end of 2004 was District 3. He noted the revenues coming in stating that
the revenues from District 1 outshined everything else. He stated that the district had over
$600,000 in revenues coming in noting that all together revenues coming in for the first half of
2005 was $861,000, which was offset by expenses of $143,000 with a current balance of
$1,060,000. He stated that the second-half payments coming in with another $861,000.00 noting
that there would be developer payments and administrative costs. He stated that bottom line the
City could have a balance at the end of December of $1,600,000. He stated that in looking at the
individual districts the largest district would be District 1 with approximately $900,000; District
2, the smallest district, would have approximately $133,000; He noted that District 2 was the
district where they decertified 87 parcels this past summer; and District 3 would have $633,000.
He stated that on that basis he would agree that a two-year payout would work.
Vice President Stigney stated that it is interesting to note that this passive open space land that
was given to the City for the purpose of keeping it as open space land and now SYSCO wants to
develop on it and change it to heavy industrial. He stated that he does not have a big problem
with this if they can mitigate this in some way and the City does not lose the wetland area or the
purpose of the wetland. He stated that he does have problems with SYSCO asking for TIF
assistance. He noted that they also have two billboards in the area adding that he questions
whether SYSCO really needs TIF assistance. He stated that if SYSCO wants to build a new
wetland they should do it on their own dime.
Commissioner Flaherty acknowledged that SYSCO has been a good neighbor in Mounds View
adding that the City appreciates their efforts. He stated that he understands the $1 million
benchmark from Corporate noting that he has had experience with this and this is a big concern.
He stated that he understands that this is why they are asking for the TIF assistance. He stated
that he is in between on this issue adding that he would be inclined to go with the 50/50 option
versus a three-year payout.
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Vice President Stigney stated that he would like further clarification on the 50/50 split. He
suggested that the 50/50 split should be 50-percent of what they are asking for, which would be a
two-year payout at $125,000.
MOTION Stigney/ To adopt Resolution 05-EDA-207 Approving the Development Agreement
to Provide a 50/50 split with a Two-Year Payout at $125,000.00 in Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate the expansion of the
Business Located at 2400 County Road J in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota.
Motion dies due to lack of a second.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To adopt Resolution 05-EDA-207 Approving the
Development Agreement to Provide a 50/50 split with a Two-Year Payout at $250,000.00 in Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance to SYSCO Food Services of Minnesota to facilitate the
expansion of the Business located at 2400 County Road J in Mounds View.
Ayes –4 Nay – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
A. Update regarding the Medtronic Redevelopment Project
Economic Development Coordinator Backman provided the Commission with a brief update on
where the City is at on the County Road J Reconstruction project. He referenced the meeting
held on July 18th noting that several things have been accomplished relative to the road project
including:
• A meeting was held with MnDOT to discuss geometric needs for the future of the
35W/County Road J interchange.
• Wetland and threatened/endangered species fieldwork has been completed;
• An initial meeting has been held with the Rice Creek Watershed District to discuss the
Judicial Creek impacts.
• There has been work on the overall hydrology, watershed boundaries and preliminary
stormwater pond sizing and location.
• Development of a bridge plan and elevation concept drawing is under way.
• Soil borings have commenced in this area.
• Meetings have been held with the Medtronic Staff and Engineers to coordinate the tie-ins to
the Coral Sea improvements.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the current actions include:
• Shoreview City Council is holding a workshop to discuss the County Road J Reconstruction
project.
• A utility meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 9, 2005, that would include all utilities
Mounds View EDA August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
along County Road J.
• An Open House for the County Road J Reconstruction Project is scheduled for Tuesday,
August 9, 2005, at the Blaine City Hall, 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to allow the public an
opportunity to ask questions about the project.
• The goal of Ramsey County and S.E.H. to have design work 30-percent done by the end of
August 2005.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, August 22, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Bonnie Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
August 22, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:02 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice-President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn,
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To Approve the August 22, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The following corrections were requested:
• Page 3, line 112, change “EDC” to read “EDA”
• Page 4, Line 154, change “RIK, SYSCO” to read “RLK, Kuusisto”
• Page 8, Line 310, change “that if they could put together the” to read “that if they could
get the”
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty. To Approve the July 11, 2005 Minutes as amended.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Consideration of EDA Resolution 05-EDA-208A, a Resolution Approving the
Elimination of Parcels from TIF District No. 3 and 05-EDA-209B, a
Resolution Approving the Establishment of TIF District No. 5, a Special-
Legislation Economic Development District.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman referenced the packet provided to the
Commission noting that at the June 27, 2005 meeting, the EDA and City Council adopted
resolutions approving the sale of land comprising the Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course,
approved the Medtronic Development proposal, terms of the purchase agreement. He explained
that in order to facilitate this development, the City sought passage of special TIF legislation
during the 2005 legislative session. On May 23, 2005, the Minnesota Legislature approved the
Public Finance Bill that included the City’s legislation and allows it to create a 25-year Economic
Development TIF District, with variations from TIF law authorized in Chapter 152, Article 2,
Section 26. The Economic Development TIF District legislation requires that the Boards for
Ramsey County and the Mounds View School District need to approve the legislation. Both
Boards approved the TIF District legislation for Medtronic on June 28, 2005.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman used a colored map to describe the parcels and
adjacent rights-of-way that the proposed District No. 5 encompasses as well as District No. 3.
He noted that Parcel Number 05-30-23-22-0004 is 46 acres that will be retained by the City for
open space. This parcel is currently in TIF District No. 3 and it would be part of the new district,
less the three acres that is being deeded back to SYSCO Minnesota for that company’s expansion
project.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that the new District is being created to
facilitate development of Phase 1 of a business campus for Medtronic, which includes
approximately 820,000 square feet of office space. A development agreement has been
authorized, contingent on the approval of the proposed TIF Plan and establishment of TIF
District No. 5. If approved, development is likely to begin in the Fall of 2005.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman noted the Mounds View EDA and City Council
have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain TIF-
qualified costs. He advised that Staff recommends approval of the two resolutions, as submitted.
Commissioner Thomas stated she held a brief discussion with Economic Development
Coordinator Bachman regarding this agenda item. She asked Ms. Eldridge to review the issues
related to Parcel Number 05-30-23-22-0004 and why Staff recommends it be included in the TIF
District. She noted that it would be undeveloped and she is uncomfortable with including this
parcel if it doesn’t have to be included in TIF.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that it is the recommendation of Ehlers
& Associates to include it for several reasons. He advised that if there are any TIF expenses
within that area such as roads or trails, or something TIF eligible, it could be paid by increment
generated from the District. He explained that with a TIF District, the City can subtract parcels
but once created the City cannot add parcels to the District. However, Staff is flexible in looking
at the wishes of the EDA and in looking at other options relative to this parcel.
Commissioner Thomas asked why there would be anything inhibiting the use of TIF dollars since
they would be TIF eligible improvements regardless of whether this parcel is or is not within the
TIF District.
President Marty noted the parcel in question is already within TIF District No. 3.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the EDA could remove the parcel from TIF District No. 3 and
leave it out completely.
Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers & Associates, Inc., advised that one reason Staff recommended to leave
the parcel in for now, but maybe not forever, is that the City does not yet know what will be on
that parcel. However, once the buildings are located Staff will know if more land is needed.
Also, once the City has a better idea of where and how the buildings will be set, actual land and
lots splits for both SYSCO and Medtronic, and what is happening with the SYSCO outlot, then
the EDA can decide if the parcel should be taken out of the TIF District.
Ms. Eldridge explained that putting the parcel in the District now will give the EDA more
flexibility and there is nothing to preclude removing the parcel in the future, once the EDA
knows what will be happening on the parcel. In addition, the EDA can use some of the
increment from older districts. However, Staff has not yet gone through that analysis or
determined whether the EDA will change or decertify districts. Ms. Eldridge stated she believes
it would be premature to take this parcel out of the TIF District at this point and recommended it
be reviewed again in the future.
Commissioner Thomas stated she had forgotten about the triangle piece of property and whether
the City may need it for an access way. She asked if the City can get a right-of-way easement.
Vice-President Stigney questioned the impact to the money that Medtronic is giving the City for
trailways.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that the contribution to the park
dedication is $865,000 of which up to $150,000 can be allocated for trails. There is no
specification whether the parcel is in TIF District No. 3 or TIF District No. 5 or some other
configuration. There is no regulation or specificity in that regard. He used a map to note the
location of the triangular piece of property that was referred to by Commissioner Thomas.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman advised that OPUS does not anticipate any
buildings would be located on the SYSCO property but there would be a fire road so they will
grant easements.
Vice-President Stigney pointed out that if an easement is needed, the City owns the property and
could grant the easement. Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated that is correct.
Vice-President Stigney noted that if they want to purchase the triangular piece of property, they
could negotiate with the City. Economic Development Coordinator Bachman concurred.
Vice-President Stigney stated that since this parcel is not part of the 72.2 acres they purchased, he
is uncomfortable with putting it in TIF District No. 5.
Commissioner Flaherty stated the parcel is “healthy” in TIF District No. 3 and he sees no
rationale for putting it in TIF District No. 5. Also, the parcel isn’t part of the development or
needed for the development.
President Marty stated his agreement with Commissioner Flaherty’s comments.
Commissioner Thomas stated this would be a tax-exempt property and it is not doing anything in
TIF District No. 3 so it would be fine to take it out. But, she is not sure that it needs to be put
into TIF District No. 5. If removed from TIF District No. 3, it would be totally decertified at that
point. She stated she has not yet determined why it should be included in TIF District No. 5
unless for access, but it appears the City can get easements anyway.
Commissioner Gunn pointed out that if the parcel is put into TIF District No. 5, the EDA would
have the TIF pool to use.
Commissioner Thomas noted the TIF pool could be used anyway.
Commissioner Gunn stated it was discussed in the past about decertifying sooner and, in that
case, the TIF pools disappear.
Commissioner Thomas stated that with this piece of property, it makes no difference to either
TIF District and the pool of funds would be available regardless. She stated she does not see the
benefit of transferring this parcel to TIF District No. 5 unless it is needed for access.
President Marty agreed and noted it could stay alive for the next 27 years.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that it is a tax-exempt property anyway so it would not make
a difference. She restated her position that she is not comfortable with putting the parcel in a
TIF District if there is no reason to do so.
Commissioner Flaherty agreed and noted the EDA still has options to use, if needed. He added
that if there is an easement issue, it can be easily rectified.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated he generally supports recommendations of
advisors but for this particular issue, Staff is flexible. He explained that the key issue is the other
five parcels comprising the 72.2 acres and the 46 acre triangular area is less critical for this
development. He stated that Parcel Number 05-30-23-22-0004 could be included or excluded
from the District from Staff’s point of view.
President Marty stated his preference to leave the parcel in TIF District No. 3.
President Marty read a paragraph from Page 2 of the Staff report indicating: “The Mounds View
EDA and City Council have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
project for certain TIF-qualified costs. These include, but are not limited to, land acquisition, site
improvements, public utilities, parking facilities, roads, billboard removal and relocation, and
demolition. The amount and use of TIF by Medtronic is outlined in the previously approved
development agreement.
President Marty stated the issue of land acquisition pertaining to Blaine has been mentioned a
number of times at past meetings. In his opinion, that would be the last priority. He asked why
land acquisition is listed first, ahead of everything else.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that the Staff report includes the listing
as shown in the legislation. It is not a listing of priority. He stated he believes there are other
items that would entail more TIF expenditures.
President Marty referred to the Ehler’s presentation, and drew the EDA’s attention to the list of
authorized uses on Page 2, noting the project cost total of $32,700,000 and interest of
$16,947,319, but the land acquisition is only $2,100,000.
Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, explained that this is a TIF Plan and the numbers are estimated
costs. He advised that the EDA can make line item changes as needed. With regard to President
Marty’s earlier question, he explained that the State Auditor lists acquisition first but that doesn’t
mean it would be reimbursed first.
President Marty noted that even with the interest removed, it still equals, $15,752,681. He stated
his understanding that this project would have a cap of $14.8 million but the numbers show it is
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
almost $1 million higher than that and does not include almost $17 million in interest being paid
to Medtronic.
Mr. Inman explained that this is a budget and the amount they get will be limited by the contract.
That limit is $14.8 million. He explained that this is an estimate and the EDA can ago lower but
cannot go higher so it is generally estimated on the higher side.
City Attorney Riggs concurred that there is a cap of $14.8 million.
Mr. Inman stated the EDA is legally obligated to $14.8 million and the interest would be on top
of that.
President Marty noted there will be almost $17 million of interest on top of the $14.8 million
amount.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman noted that administrative costs show 10% but the
cap is at 5% so that would be a difference of about $1 million less in expenditures. He restated
this is a budget estimate and if there are additional increments because of larger valuations, this
could get paid off early and back on the tax rolls in 19.5 years. In that case, less interest would
be paid.
Mr. Inman stated they tend to recommend to give the broadest range of possibilities. That is why
Staff recommended the parcel be included and why the budget is somewhat higher. He noted
that interest would have to be paid in any case no matter how it is financed, even if bonds are
issued. The interest is to finance the cost of the improvements.
President Marty noted the administrative costs would be about $1 million less so the full
$2,100,000 would go to Blaine for the land acquisition. Mr. Inman stated that would be correct if
it got that far down in the “pecking order.”
President Marry read the Interfund Loan Requirement indicating: “If the City wants to pay for
administrative or other expenditures from a tax increment fund, it is recommended that a
resolution authorizing a loan from another fund be passed prior to the issuance of the check.” He
asked if there are any plans for interfund loans.
Mr. Inman stated it is on the budget page.
President Marty asked where those funds would come from.
Mr. Inman stated they are defined to give flexibility and if the EDA decided to do that, Staff will
bring back recommendations and resolutions for approval that identifies where the funds would
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
come from. He explained this section merely memorializes the fact that the EDA may do that.
However, this is a method of finance and would need to be approved by the EDA by resolution.
President Marty noted if the State compresses business taxes, as they have in the past, and the
EDA gets into a bind, the EDA could transfer from the TIF pool in order to meet obligations.
Mr. Inman stated that would not be the case for this situation because the contract limits the
developer to whatever taxes they generate. If there is tax compression, they just get whatever
they pay. The EDA would not be required or obligated to find funds to pay them.
President Marty stated he understands this being included as a “safe gap” but he does not
understand why interfund loans and transfers are included as $5 million.
Mr. Inman explained that none can take place unless approved in the future and it is only
included as an option.
Director Ericson explained that the Highway 10 plan is adopted and if financing comes up short
and there are excess dollars in TIF District No. 5, then the City could authorize a loan to borrow
from that District. This resolution would allow that ability but it does not mean the City would
have to approve an interfund loan. It would have to be approved by a resolution adoption.
President Marty stated his understanding this TIF District is a pay-as-you -go so it will not be
creating a pool.
Mr. Inman stated it does not create a pool but experience is that it will be paid off early so in a
certain period of time, the EDA will have to decide whether to shut down the district and put it
back on tax rolls. Or, it could be used for a different project such as a highway project
mentioned by Director Ericson.
Commissioner Thomas stated it is the same as TIF District No. 3; the EDA can determine if it
wants to end it early or use the funds for other projects.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated another option is that utilities could be paid
from administration.
President Marty referred to the last paragraph of Page 2-2, Subsection 2-5 indicating: “The EDA
or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights-of-
way…The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct
purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan.” He stated he
personally does not like condemnation and including it makes him uncomfortable.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Commissioner Thomas stated some of the language is standard “boiler plate” and not specific to
just this District.
President Marty referenced Page 2-3, Subsection 2-6, Classification of the District, and read the
following definition of TIF: “Economic development district’ means a type of tax increment
financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds
to be in the public interest” and then lists three different reasons. He stated all three are to the
benefit of the State and does not reference local jurisdiction. He stated that the creation of TIF
Districts is of benefit to the State.
Commissioner Thomas noted President Marty is reading from the State Statute, which is why it
is referencing benefits to the State.
President Marty read Subsection 2-7, Duration of the District, indicating “Pursuant to the special
legislation, subd. 2(b), the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first
increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is
expected to be in 2007. He pointed out that the clock won’t “start ticking” for about two and a
half years.
Commissioner Flaherty noted that section also indicates: “The EDA or City reserves the right to
decertify the District prior to the legally required date.” He explained the EDA can decertify the
district prior to the legally required date so it wouldn’t have to go the full 27 years.
President Marty referenced Page 2-4, Subsection 2-8, that indicates: “…the Original Net Tax
Capacity as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by
the assessor at the time the property is classified as taxable.” He stated it is up to the Ramsey
County Assessor but the City’s appraisal came in at $10 million.
President Marty stated he does not understand the chart at the bottom on Page 2-4 and questioned
the Original Local Tax Rate of 125.768%.
Mr. Inman referenced the chart on Page 2-9 and explained the combined tax rates of all taxing
jurisdictions.
President Marty referenced the first paragraph on Page 2-7, that indicates: “The cost of all
activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal
modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements.” He asked if
the costs could be modified upwards.
Mr. Inman referred to Page 2-6 and explained that the State Auditor will allow the EDA, by
resolution, to move money from one area to another. However, that at the end of the day it
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
cannot be increased but can be reduced. To increase the amount the City would have to repeat
the entire public hearing process.
President Marty asked about the costs. Mr. Inman stated they have to be statutory qualified costs.
President Marty asked for an explanation of the charts on Page 2-9, Impact on Tax Base and
Impact on Tax Rates.
Mr. Inman explained it is a statutory requirement to set forward the percent of the tax or tax
capacity as a percentage of the whole. Right now the City’s tax capacity is $6.679 million and
when adding Medtronic into the tax capacity, it will be approximately 14.28% of the City’s total
tax capacity. The other chart is showing it in tax rate. The charts show what taxes each taxing
jurisdiction would get based on that tax rate. Also, there is a State education tax that is not
required to be included in this chart for that calculation.
President Marty referenced Page 2-10, Subsection 2-16, Definition of Tax Increment Revenues,
sub. 1, that indicates: “Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess
taxes, as computed under M.S. Section 469.177.” He asked what those taxes would be.
Mr. Inman reviewed the rate and explained if approved, it will be a frozen tax rate. So, if
Mounds View and the County increases the levy rate, that increase does not go back to the
District.
President Marty referenced Page 2-11, Subsection 2-17, Modifications to the District, and read
sub. 5 and 6 that indicates:
“5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses,
that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City,
Shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required
for approval of the original TIF Plan.”
President Marty noted that prior to this it states “during the first five years” and asked if it could
be enlarged. Mr. Inman explained the District could not be enlarged or the budget increased
without going through the same notice and public hearing process.
City Attorney Riggs stated the same would be true of the special legislation.
President Marty read the last paragraph indicating: “…the tax increments may be used to pay for
the County’s actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county
may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the
expenses were incurred.”
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
President Marty asked what the County’s administrative expenses would be and where payment
would come from.
Mr. Inman stated each County deals with TIF differently and some have a computer program or
Staff time. Each year the County will provide the City with a list of expenses and they will
deduct that cost from the TIF prior to giving it to the City. He explained that it varies from
County to County and some bill for their expenses while others deduct the costs.
Ms. Eldridge advised that Ramsey County goes through substantial analysis of the City’s TIF
Districts. Mound View is now getting billed for District Nos. 1, 2, and 3 every year. The
deduction is made prior to settlement and goes to the State Auditor for their administrative fees.
Ramsey County will send a bill that will be split into the amount and divided by all Districts in
the County so it is a flat fee. The other side of it is by parcel. The more parcels in the District,
the more maintenance at the County level that is involved. She estimated it will be less than
District Nos. 1 and 2.
President Marty stated those dedications come from the City’s portion. Ms. Eldridge explained
they come from the TIF increment as they do with the other Districts.
Director Ericson clarified that it comes from the increment but does not reduce the City’s
percent. The City still retains 5% of the increment collected.
President Marty referenced Page 2-13, second sentence of the third paragraph, that indicates:
“The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as
specified in a developer’s agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration.”
President Marty asked if these are the payments that Medtronic has. Mr. Inman stated that is
correct and they are further limited by the agreement.
President Marty referenced Page 2-15, Subsection 2-27, Other Limitations on the Use of Tax
Increment, that indicates: “…Increment may only be spent on one or more of the following
costs, improvements, or activities: …including structured parking; administrative expenses;
wetland mitigation; soil correction …”
President Marty asked if these are eligible corrections and if the Blaine property needs soil
corrections, would it come from here. Mr. Inman stated the agreement does not say that.
President Marty referenced Page 2-15, item 3, that indicated: “Five Year Limitation on
Commitment of Tax Increments. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(c), the five year
rule under M.S., Section 469.1763. Subd. 3, has been extended to a ten year period. He asked if
they will have up to 10 years from 2007 to create Phases 2 and 3.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 11
Mr. Inman stated it is indicating that they have up to ten years to spend the qualified costs that
Mounds View will reimburse them for. If they only do Phase 1 and never do Phases 2 and 3
within the ten years, then everything goes away.
President Marty referenced Appendix A-2, the project description under transportation
indicating: “The Bridges AUAR, authorized by the City, reviewed all transportation issues
related to the proposed development of the site. RLK-Kuusisto of Minnetonka prepared the
AUAR documents.” President Marty stated he does not feel it is correct because the AUAR
considered the freeways and trunk roads but the City street traffic was not taken into
consideration.
President Marty referenced the Exhibit B chart and asked for larger-sized print on future reports
so it is easier to read.
President Marty questioned Appendix F, the but/for for qualifications.
Mr. Inman gave an example of someone buying a car that is worth $10,000 but comes to $17,000
when you add principal and interest. You wouldn’t say it’s a $17,000 car, you’d say it is a
$10,000 car. He stated the same is done with the stream of TIF payments. The chart shows it is
worth $15,700,000 in today’s dollars. This formula is a statutory formula that is required to be
performed. The theory is that if the number at the bottom was rather small in comparison with
the other two, it would show that you are not getting much market value. The larger number at
the bottom the more the statute indicates you will be getting in market value than if you had not
done this project. Mr. Inman explained that is the theory.
President Marty stated this is close to what he had arrived at from the $32,700,000 figure, which
was $15,752,681 so this is only off by about $50,000.
President Marty referenced the second paragraph of Appendix F that includes a sentence that
indicates: “In addition, site constraints require the developer to acquire adjacent land to preserve
existing wetlands and green space which adds additional costs.” He stated the land being
acquired is developed and asked about this comment.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated it comes into play if they don’t acquire the
adjacent properties, the two businesses, and move them in Blaine. They would have to have a
greater proportion in parking, wetland #2 may be lost, and it may be more difficult to get wetland
mitigation to the east. This also allows for better placement of the park facility.
President Marty read a sentence in Appendix F2 that indicated: “Therefore, the City concludes
as follows: a. The City’s estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire district
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 12
will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0.” He pointed out that the City of
New Brighton is finding the opposite to be the case.
President Marty read another subparagraph as follows: “c. The present value of tax increments
from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated
to be $15,708,780.” He stated that it is capped at $14.8 million and not a fluid number, but it
will be higher with the interest.
Mr. Inman stated this is the present value number and includes $14.8 million plus administrative
expenses. That is the cap and the maximum this plan will let you have.
Commissioner Thomas commented that the TIF dollars for the City’s property is not the same
situation as what New Brighton has because they don’t have a tax exempt city function on the
property they are talking about. She noted that Mounds View currently has a functioning
business on that property and that will not change in any way except for this project. That is why
subparagraph a., in Appendix F2, is shown as $0.
President Marty referenced the last paragraph of Appendix F-2 that indicated: “The conclusion
and recommendation of City Staff is that the TIF Plan is consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan based upon the following information and City actions. …On February 2,
2005, the Planning Commission for the City approved a recommendation to the City Council as
to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment revising the land use designation for this
development site in the District from Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO) and Passive Open Space
(OSP) to Office (OFC).” He stated that facts have changed considerably since February 2, 2005
and there has even been a change of flavor with the Planning Commission.
President Marty read a portion of the first paragraph of Appendix F-3 that indicated: “On July
20, 2005, the Planning Commission confirmed that the proposed sale of the development site in
the District to Medtronic was consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. On August 3, 2005,
the Planning Commission did not approve a resolution finding that the TIF Plan for the District
conformed to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.”
President Marty stated the conclusion is that it is consistent but the City has modified the
Comprehensive Plan to make it consistent. He noted that from the beginning to now, there have
been a number of modifications and they are still working on that so it seems there are a number
of items and statements in this report that appear, as you read through it, somewhat of a mass of
inconsistencies. He noted the City is getting them in order but things have changed tremendously
since February.
Commissioner Flaherty stated the EDA and City reserves the right to decertify the District prior
to the date and, by all discussions, that date will be 19.5 years to decertify the District.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 13
Commissioner Flaherty asked for an explanation of the indication on Page 2-13, Subsection 2-21,
Excess Increments, that indicates: “The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments
under paragraph ( c) within nine months after the end of the year.”
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that the EDA cannot hoard TIF dollars
and if increments are being generated by TIF Districts, then projects must utilize those dollars. If
there are no obligations, Ramsey County could say they believe it is excessive and needs to be
redistributed.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if that is based on the desertification of the District.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that TIF Districts are created for the
purpose of economic development. If the TIF dollars are not used they cannot be funneled to
general fund dollars. The TIF dollars must either be used or the District decertified.
Commissioner Flaherty drew the EDA’s attention to Appendix A, Introduction, indicating: “The
current site has acreage that is not buildable and wetland relocation will be required.” He asked
if that means this current contract is selling about 20 acres of swampland and the actual buildable
land of the 72.2 acres is 52.2 acres.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated that is correct.
Commissioner Flaherty reviewed the “but/for” qualifications detailed in Appendix F indicating:
“While property could be sold to another developer for some other use, these scenarios are not
feasible in the market due to various constraints mentioned above along with others. First
industrial uses could not meet the market valuation due to the fact that they are single story in
nature (can’t get to the same density as office), lack the amenities in design and construction and
are traditionally valued at ½ the market value of commercial and office uses. Second,
commercial retail uses have the same restraint in that the market does not allow for vertical
commercial/retail development.” He asked if the Medtronic development is going up (vertical)
so it creates higher density and higher value on the land.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Flaherty noted that by those two statements, the City is getting better value than
someone else coming in.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated that is correct.
President Marty noted there are two resolutions for the EDA’s consideration.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 14
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt EDA Resolution 05-
EDA-208A, Approving the Elimination of Parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 3
located within the Mounds View Economic Development Project in the City of Mounds View,
removing parcel 05-30-23-22-0004, the triangular property, from TIF District No. 3.
President Marty asked that the signature line of the resolution be changed from “Chair” to
“President”.
Ayes –4 Nay – 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
President Marty indicated he would like to amend the resolution in reference to the Planning
Commission’s lack of recommendation. Commissioner Thomas stated the motion must first be
moved prior to an amendment being made.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt EDA Resolution 05-EDA-
208B, Adopting a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development
Project, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Therein and Adopting a Tax
Increment Financing Plan Therefor.
Mr. Inman stated it indicates the EDA does not want parcel 05-30-23-22-0004 in this District
either.
President Marty stated that is correct.
Mr. Inman stated the record should show the EDA is modifying the Plan without that parcel and
Staff will amend plans accordingly.
Brian Amundson, 3048 Wooddale Drive, asked for clarification on the EDA action. He
explained that on the City’s web site he found Exhibit A, City of Mounds View TIF Policy, and
applications. Mr. Amundson asked what step the EDA is taking tonight in relation to this exhibit
that says how the EDA will deal with TIF. He also asked if Medtronic has asked for a TIF
District, which is the first step of the policy.
City Administrator Ulrich stated there is an application for TIF from Medtronic and that
application is part of the first step of the process. This is the creation of the public hearing for
the TIF District and approval of the Plan.
Mr. Amundson asked when that application was submitted to the City. Economic Development
Coordinator Bachman stated it was submitted in June of 2005.
Mr. Amundson stated that he was told by Staff at the end of June that there was no application.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 15
Commissioner Thomas explained the application came in just after that question was raised. She
further explained that no agreement was necessary up to that point but after the meetings were
held and the TIF district approved, the application was necessary.
Mr. Amundson asked if the EDA is currently reviewing the application for TIF, its public
purpose, job creation numbers, and sources and uses. Commissioner Thomas stated the action is
the creation of the TIF District by the EDA. The EDA talked about job creation numbers at the
last meeting.
Mr. Amundson asked if there is a deposit agreement submitted. City Administrator Ulrich
answered in the affirmative
Mr. Amundson asked if the application is available to the public for review. City Administrator
Ulrich answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Amundson asked if the application has it been available prior to this meeting. City
Administrator Ulrich answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Amundson asked if the public was advised it was available for review. Commission Thomas
stated it was part of the report.
Director Ericson explained that the City does not announce every time a document is available
for public viewing because all documents are available for public viewing.
Mr. Amundson asked if the application proposal worksheet is also available that provides the
evaluation points in determining whether a District is appropriate. City Administrator Ulrich
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Amundson asked if EDA members have all received that document. Commissioner Thomas
stated all members have the information in the report.
City Administrator Ulrich explained the information was passed out the end of June and it went
through the worksheet in terms of job creation as required.
Mr. Amundson stated since there is a pending request for such development to go to the public
on a ballot, he is surprised the EDA is taking any action prior to the public saying whether there
will be a sale. He stated to him it seems premature to issue authorization for the creation of a TIF
District that may never see an owner. Also, he thought the TIF application had to be after the
applicant acquired the property. He pointed out that these questions relate to procedural issues
related to the EDA’s own policies.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 16
President Marty asked if the application is to be after the owner acquires property. City
Administrator Ulrich stated it could be either ownership or control of the property, but he would
have to look at the policy.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated the problem is that it would compromise
the but/for test. Basically if the EDA is justifying the TIF expenditure, it needs to say that but/for
this particular assistance, this project would not happen.
Mr. Amundson explained he is asking the Authority why it is moving ahead at this point when
other actions may result in never requiring the creation of this District. He stated it seems
appropriate to do things in order and to also avoid legal contentions by assuring actions follow
the City’s policy. Mr. Amundson explained that he was previously told that the application had
not been submitted and believes it is not appropriate to entertain one before moving forward with
the sale. He stated he appreciates that the application now exists and he would like the
opportunity to review it. He was surprised the notice was not made available.
Commissioner Flaherty stated it behooves the City to move forward on a project of this
magnitude and he cannot in good conscience stop the project where it is now without moving
forward. He stated that he understands the petition is being submitted and that Mr. Amundson is
asking the City to stop any negotiation until the petition is ratified.
Mr. Amundson asserted the EDA is taking an action it is not authorized to take since the
ordinance is not in effect that allows the EDA to sell the property to the requested future property
owner. Commissioner Thomas advised that the Ordinance had a 30 day effective period and
went into effect on August 20, 2005.
Mr. Amundson asserted the action does not take effect until the petition is ratified.
President Marty stated the petition issue will be addressed at the Council meeting.
Mr. Amundson stated he wanted to address whether policy and procedure is being followed.
AMENDMENT MOTION: Stigney/. To waive the reading and adopt EDA Resolution 05-EDA-
208B, Adopting a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development
Project, Establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Therein and Adopting a Tax
Increment Financing Plan Therefor, as amended to add Section 7. Exempting parcel 05-30-23-
22-0004, the triangular property, as approved in EDA Resolution 05-EDA-208A.
Commissioner Thomas questioned how the exemption would be reflected since the PIN is no
longer listed in the previous resolution. For documentation sake, when the resolution is filed, she
noted it will not have that parcel reflected so referring to it in this document will not make sense.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 17
Mr. Inman noted the parcel does not appear in the second resolution but does appear in the Plan
and all documents the EDA has received. He stated he would like the action to include the parcel
number to avoid confusion.
City Attorney Rigg agreed that is the most correct route since it is referenced in the Plan. He
stated what is before the EDA does not have that parcel pulled out at this time and the EDA
should have a record.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman suggested Section 1 of the resolution be revised
to state: “…Minnesota which is underutilized and that the adoption of the proposed Plans, as
amended, will help provide employment opportunities…”
Commissioner Thomas stated there are only the five parcels and suggested including those PIN
numbers rather than excluding the one that is being omitted.
Vice-President Stigney stated Staff can determine how to best reflect that amendment.
SECOND: /Thomas.
Vote on amendment motion:
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he has reviewed the draft contract and believes
this proposal is being piecemealed, not by design, but in actual fact. He stated there are several
other issues in the overall contract that the EDA will need to deal with. He stated the original
contract had an exclusion for existing jobs that has been stricken from the current contract. He
assumed that it is intended that Medtronic will move positions from other facilities to the
Mounds View location and wondered if that qualifies as the jobs goal as required under the
Economic Development Act. Other issues of concern relate to indemnification for liability;
however, studies have found a certain amount of hazardous conditions, and that the contract
requires the City to indemnify all comers in the first phase. Mr. McCarty stated he has many
other issues and is in fear that the EDA is “digging a hole” and when the end comes the City will
not like the results but be hard pressed to retract actions. He stated in his mind, the City should
understand every contingency from beginning to end before getting this far. That is what the
previous speaker was alluding to and is his concern as well.
Commissioner Flaherty read the Purchase Agreement, Section 5.2, Jobs and Wages, which
indicates that within two years after the date of issuance of the certificate of completion, the
compliance date, that developer shall cause to be created at least 1,500 new full-time equivalent
jobs on the development property.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 18
Mr. McCarty stated that language does not exclude existing positions and does not prevent them
from bringing existing positions in from other facilities. He stated those are the concerns the
residents have been talking about and should be addressed.
City Administrator Ulrich asked Mr. Inman to respond to the concern that this project does not
meet the job creation goals of the State.
Mr. Inman explained there are no job creation goals of the State but the State requires that you
have job creation goals and they were adopted by the public hearing. He further explained that
the City can determine if that involves new jobs or existing jobs.
City Administrator Ulrich stated the indemnification on environmental issue is meant to protect
the City during the construction phase. There would be limited liability with the City picking up
to $200,000 of environmental clean up costs, if any.
Mr. McCarty referenced Section 116, j., 943, and noted that some criteria expected on the
business subsidy that there would be economic gain to the State and job creation. He explained
that he is saying the City can, if they wish, require those new jobs promised to the citizens of
Mounds View and anyone else attending the public hearing on June 20, 2005. The City can hold
them to that promise and if they don’t fulfill then the City can “pull the pin” on this thing. Mr.
McCarty stated the deeper you go the more difficult it will be to “turn the train around” should
new evidence make it less desirable for this project to go forward as proposed.
Commissioner Thomas stated the responsibility of the State and City is new jobs in Mounds
View. Medtronic currently has 90 employees at the shipping facility in Mounds View. She
stated anything above that is new jobs to her and that is where she draws the line.
Mr. McCarty asked Commissioner Thomas if she feels that that imported jobs are new jobs.
Commissioner Thomas answered in the affirmative.
Mr. McCarty stated the employee may be living in New Brighton and he thinks that is a limited
view.
Mr. McCarty asked who guarantees anything above the $200,000 liability limit should a law suit
be brought, since the City is the indemnifier. He also asked under what law the City can claim a
liability limit of $200,000. He noted the tort liability for governments under statute is $600,000.
City Attorney Riggs explained that this is EDA property that would be transferred and just like
any landowner if in the chain of title, they are jointly and severally liable for any type of
environmental obligation. He stated this is the case whether by contract or insurance. He
advised that the City has taken steps to shift liability and there is also insurance to cover certain
percentages. He offered to review the contract terms with Mr. McCarty and the EDA, if desired.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 19
Mr. McCarty stated the proposed draft contract does not go into those details, which is part of the
dissatisfaction of many residents in Mounds View. He suggested the contract lays the entire
indemnification requirements entirely on the City. Mr. McCarty read a portion of the
indemnification language and stated to him, that is a very strong commitment. He stated that it is
fine to say “only to the extent of $200,000,” but he would like to see evidence where this body
can predispose a court order of over $200,000. He stated that it is a commonsense point of view
that until the project is finished for the two years or whatever it is, he doubts that a strong case on
behalf of an injured party would allow a limit of $200,000 unless Medtronic will pick up the
amount over $200,000.
SECOND AMENDMENT MOTION: President Marty/. To amend the third WHEREAS to
indicate: “…The EDA has also requested the City Planning Commission to review the plans and
did not approve a resolution accordingly, and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the
plans upon published notice as required by law.
Amendment motion died due to lack of a second.
Vote on motion as amended:
Ayes –4 Nay – 1 (Marty) Motion carried.
B. Consideration of EDA Resolution 05-EDA-209, a Resolution Authorizing
Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payment to Red Cent Management,
LLC for the Building N Project in Mounds View.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman referenced the packet provided to the
Commission and stated he does this report every six months for the Finance Director. He noted
two payments were approved for the first part of August to the Silver Lake Point and Midwest
Ivy projects. He stated that basically there were additional property taxes paid by Bethlehem
Baptist Church. He stated there was acquisition of Building N by the EDC at the end of June
2004. They made a payment at the end of the year and applied for property tax exemption that
would be effective for 2005. Ramsey County looked at the transactions and determined there
was additional lease revenue paid to the new property owner, Bethlehem Baptist Church, by
Medtronic Systems and that went on for a number of months. As a result, Ramsey County
determined a portion of the building was taxable so payment of $26,667 was made to Ramsey
County in May of 2005.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman advised that there was a larger payment last time
but that was for the full building. The way the TIF agreement is structured, there is an excluded
base so they get $3,066.16. He explained that there will be a follow up payment in the fall of
this year for a similar amount.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 20
President Marty asked if that will pay it off at that point. Economic Development Coordinator
Bachman stated he hopes so.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Adopt EDA Resolution 05-EDA-209, a Resolution
Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payment to Red Cent Management, LLC for
the Building N Project in Mounds View.
Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated she raised several questions at the last meeting and
asked Staff to respond at the meeting tonight so all the residents of Mounds View can hear the
answers.
Commissioner Thomas suggested it be discussed during the Council meeting so all can hear the
answers who are watching the Council meeting.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
Ms. Mueller asked Staff to explain what the existing TIF Districts are, what property the Districts
entail, and what percentage of the City’s property is in TIF Districts. In addition, she asked how
the new action and establishment of a new TIF District will increase the percentage of the City
that is TIF.
Director Ericson stated there were three TIF Districts prior to the action taken tonight. Currently
there are 225 acres in TIF Districts and Mounds View is about 2,600 acres. Of the total City of
Mounds View, 8.55% is captured in TIF District Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The creation of TIF District
No. 5 adds 2% that is captured within TIF Districts. However, Outlot A is no longer part of TIF
District No. 5. It remained within TIF District No. 3 so that will change, but 10.56% remains the
same.
Ms. Mueller thanked Mr. Ericson for the response.
Vice-President Stigney reported that he attended the YMCA community meeting last week
dealing with relocation of employees during reconstruction of City Hall.
Vice-President Stigney stated the fireworks last night were fantastic.
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman announced a Caribou sighting at Mounds View
Square, and that the grand opening will be held this Saturday, August 27 at 5:00 a.m.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, September 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Mounds View EDA August 22, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 21
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
September 12, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:32 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice-President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn,
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the September 12, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following corrections were requested:
Page 3, Line 115, should read: “…that the company has submitted a completed TIF…”
Page 3, Line 126, should read: “…for the purposes of DEED and…”
Page 5, Line 177, should read: “that if the City SYSCO received a one-year TIF…”
Page 5, Line 193, should read: “those improvements would costs.”
Page 5, Line 202, should read: “…the districts would be re- de-certified the…”
Page 5, Line 203, should read: “…He stated that they could would have to go ahead…”
Page 7, Line 277, should read: “Commissioner Thomas stated that she is stilling going…”
Page 7, Line 289, should read: “afternoon noting that Mr. Seipp explained…”
Page 8, Line 297, should read: “…use as a tool to help complement…”
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Approve the August 8, 2005 EDA Minutes as corrected
above.
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Possible Development of Laport Meadows
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that in the fall of 2004, the EDA started
considering priorities for 2005 and discussed a dozen or so potential projects. One project
considered was in the area around Laport Meadows as the potential location for residential
projects. At that time, it was not known if developers would be interested but it was put on the
EDC 2006 priority list. The City was then approached by two developers who were interested in
residential projects and they discussed potentially customized homes and other options. The
developer was Rob Carlson Builders from Blaine and the other was Boschee Builders from
Roseville. In February, Rob Carlson Builders decided to not pursue it, and a new group of
people came forward from Coldwell Bankers.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman introduced Wanda Hart of Coldwell Banker
Burnett and Cheryl Stinski of Skyline Builders, who have express interested in looking at Laport
Meadows to determine if there could be residential development knowing the limitations with
wetlands, the nearby park, and collection point (compost site). He advised that they have looked
at this project and held discussions with Jeff Sweitzert who is with an architectural firm and is
collaborating with them on this project.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman advised that in February they started discussing
potential ideas relative to this area. At one point, it was discussed with the Council about what
next steps should be taken, such as a wetland delineation, survey of residents, and other
infrastructure needs. Council consensus was to put it back to the developer to get input from the
residents as to their wishes and whether they want to or do not want to sell and what type of
development they want. Some of the survey questions pertained to the general public about
interest in retaining the compost site and alternatives to that site. The majority of respondents
indicated they want that service to continue in Mounds View but some indicated they have the
ability to do composting in their yard. He advised that over 60% of the population indicated
they’d like that service to continue. The survey didn’t address whether that service could be
provided in a different way. Currently, it is a one-acre compost site within a nine acre area. He
presented a diagram that identified the location of the compost site, noting it is accessed from the
west and south. To the south of the compost site is Laport Meadows.
Wanda Hart, Coldwell Banker Burnett, stated she first asked about this property when
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
representing a Mounds View resident and conducting a market analysis. Then she discovered
that Mounds View may be interested in developing the area so she approached Cheryl Stinski,
who is a developer, to see if she would be interested. Ms. Hart stated they talked to the residents
and presented the Council with a copy of those findings. She stated they felt the best way to
approach residents was with a letter and then a visit or telephone call. They were able to sit
down with a few residents and, for the most part, communication has been over the telephone.
So far they have talked to everyone at least once and a few several times. Five property owners
favor selling right now, two favor the development but are not interested in selling their home,
two answered a definite “no” to the development, and two were not committed. Ms. Hart
advised that the two who are in definite favor of selling are David Little and James Lund. Both
have indicated an interest in attending a Council meeting to express their support. She explained
that Mr. Lund is located south of Laport Meadows and is not part of the initial project but could
be if the Council wanted to consider that boundary of the development. Mr. Lund is very
interested in selling and will also attend a meeting to voice his support to include his property in
the Laport Meadows development.
Jeff Sweitzert, Shared Design, stated he has prepared two diagrams that include several schemes.
Scheme A has a senior facility in the compost location and beneath that 24 single family units on
individual properties. The concept for seniors has two buildings that favor the water areas, just
north of the buildings with a turnaround drop off area. The single family area would have an
alley to access garages at the back of the house with a pedestrian street going directly out to the
wetland area. This will make the wetland accessible to more than just the Laport Meadows
residents since it would be a non-vehicular roadway. There would also be several shelters with
docks into the wetland to allow people to sun, fish, or bird watch. The park would have a
meandering pathway along the buffer treed area on the south perimeter of Highway 10. That
would also provide noise abatement and bring pedestrians to a gathering point at the senior
housing and terminating in a picnic park at the north end.
Mr. Sweitzert presented Scheme B that contained 24 single family homes in a design that
incorporates three streets but no alleys. The sites would have a larger back yard and four larger
single family homes would be sited to the south of the wetland. The wetland would have a park
and meandering pathway. The senior housing would be contained in three buildings in the
compost area with an amphitheater and terminating in a picnic area at the far north area. This is
a more traditional concept.
Mr. Sweitzert then displayed an overlay that depicted existing conditions and how it is effective
with their concepts. He noted that the existing conditions work best with Scheme A, which is
their favored design. He also noted the location of existing structures and conditions that are not
part of the proposed development.
Commissioner Thomas stated the immediate question that comes to mind from the survey is the
owners on Long Lake Road who are not interested in selling and how that would figure in. She
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
stated this EDA is not interested in property taking so the developer would have to work with the
homeowner.
Mr. Sweitzert stated they have not yet worked on that issue.
Commissioner Thomas stated her concern with high density in the top triangle so Scheme A
would be more attractive to her since it has lower density. She noted the community wants to
maintain a compost site so that concern needs to also be addressed.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated Ms. Hart has seen a need for additional
senior housing as a continuing area of interest. Seniors also support a variety of housing options.
He stated he thinks there are possibilities for beneficial amenities beyond the Laport Meadows
area. He stated the middle amphitheater is an intriguing amenity. In addition, the City has
addressed sound wall concerns with MnDOT, noting there is a gap in the sound wall in this area.
He stated it is likely the staff recommendation will be participation, in some terms, with the
developers to close that gap. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated he hears
about that concern from residents to the east who are experiencing 62 to 75 decibels so it would
be good to address that issue.
Commissioner Thomas stated she would be willing to see increased density in the middle areas
since there is higher ground in that location. She noted the north area contains a significant
wetland area.
Vice-President Stigney stated the compost site is important to maintain in some location of
Mounds View. He noted residents have spoken “loud and clear” over the years that they need
that service, noting it involves many bags of leaves because of the great number of trees in
Mounds View. He stated he felt the pavilion amphitheater is out of touch with a senior area, and
they would be conflicting uses.
Commissioner Flaherty stated these concepts contain some really good ideas but the EDA’s key
is community input because the EDA will not step in to try and persuade residents to sell. He
stated that he likes the idea of a dock and fishing hole but the first stumbling block is resident
input.
Commissioner Gunn stated she supports Concept A which is less dense and allows the natural
features of the area to still come forward. She stated that perhaps the number of homes can be
reduced and stated her support for senior condo housing in which seniors have already expressed
an interest. She stated her agreement with Vice-President Stigney that an amphitheater is
probably not a compatible use with the senior housing and maybe a gazebo would be a better
option.
President Marty agreed the resident survey conducted by the developer carries a lot of weight
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
because they are Mounds View citizens. He stated he will not support taking any property
through eminent domain or condemnation. Another major hurdle is the need to maintain a
compost site because residents have indicated they want and need that service. President Marty
noted that Ramsey County was also curious about this and paid for a couple of those questions to
clarify that point, and that message from the residents is clear.
President Marty stated that of the two plans, he prefers Scheme A which contains less pavement.
He agreed that perhaps the number of homes should be scaled down. However, a development
would only work if all residents agreed. He noted the area to the north is an existing pond so it
would be difficult to develop senior housing in that location. He thanked the developers for
making this presentation and stated it may work if the residents agree to come on board.
However, if the residents choose to not sell, then that is the way it will be and they will have to
come up with a different plan.
Mr. Sweitzert asked if the current compost site can be vacated if another location in Mounds
View can be found. President Marty stated that is a possibility.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated as with Hidden Hollow, some folks were
not willing to sell and the developer worked around those properties. With that project, there
was no eminent domain and it ended up with a good development. He advised that some
residents have inquired since that time about additional units. He stated with Laport Meadows
the project may not be in this form, and may incorporate current residents.
Cheryl Stinski, Skyline Development, asked for direction from the EDA about contacting the
residents. She asked if the City will work with them if a resident does not want to sell or if they
should create a development that works around that resident. She stated she thinks that may be
problematic and noted that the Hidden Hollow project was not similar to this property, because
lots in this area are extremely deep. Ms. Stinski stated some of the roadways may also be
problematic.
President Marty suggested they consider gaining access from the south.
Mr. Sweitzert stated he believes a plan can be developed that works on this site and with the
residents. He noted that the proposed pedestrian way would be similar to an undeveloped
roadway, as currently exists with Laport. He stated he believes it is key to get something of size
in the northern area when related to roads and utilities so the ponds can be retained.
Commissioner Flaherty stated the EDA wants to advise all of the stumbling blocks that may be in
the way for this to move forward. He noted the dialog on this project is just starting.
Ms. Stinski stated they wanted to know if the EDA was positive or negative about these designs.
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Commissioner Thomas stated that is why she was suggesting a higher density in the middle of
the property, to make up for losses in other areas of the site. She stated she is supportive of some
kind of mixed housing.
Vice-President Stigney suggested they look at entering the site from a winding access, which
would look very nice and may be an advantage to working around existing houses.
Ms. Hart stated it would help them if the EDA were to authorize a wetland delineation study.
Then the City would own the study and it will help with the land usage of the site.
President Marty stated this is a rough scheme but farther into the process and if staff can find
another location for the compost, the EDA may be willing to consider authorizing the
delineation.
Commissioner Thomas agreed it is a significant expense.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that information can be useful regardless if
a developer is involved. He noted that with Hidden Hollow, the City participated in a portion of
the soil boring work. In addition, it would be a TIF eligible expense.
President Marty asked how much property the City owns. Mr. Sweitzert pointed out the parcels
controlled by Mounds View. He explained the benefit of a delineation is that it will identify how
close they can come towards the wetland boundary. It will identify the useable area.
City Administrator Ulrich stated this concept does need additional work
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated older residents move from Mounds View because
they want one-level condo or townhome living. With regard to the amphitheater, he noted the
seniors won’t be able to hear it anyway.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated staff could solicit proposals to find out
what the wetland delineation cost would be.
President Marty agreed, noting at a future date the developer will have additional information on
their proposal as well.
8. REPORTS
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated staff provided the EDA with a draft report
Predesign Agreement from DEED pertaining to the $5 million grant for activities related to the
County Road J reconstruction project. The grant agreement is between the City and State on how
funds are handled and pertains to about $1.6 million.
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, September 26, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
October 24, 2005
New Brighton City Hall
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112
6:34 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Vice-President Stigney,
Commissioner Gunn, Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the October 24, 2005 Agenda as presented.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. EDA Minutes of August 22, 2005
Vice President Stigney requested a correction on Page 18, Line 744, to read: “liability limit of
$200,0000.”
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Stigney. To Approve the August 22, 2005 Minutes as amended.
Ayes –4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Presentation by Wanda Hart, Coldwell Banker, re: Laport Meadow
Residential Project
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reviewed that Skyline Builders, Inc. has been
considering a potential residential project in the Laport Meadows area. At the September 12,
2005 Mounds View EDA meeting, Cheryl Stinski of Skyline Builders and Wander Hart of
Coldwell Banker discussed a proposed residential project in the Laport Meadows area, east of
Long Lake Road. At that meeting, Jeff Sweitzer, architect with Sharratt Design Company,
presented several concept plans of what the project could look like. The EDA asked the
developer to revise the concept plans to reduce density and have further discussion with the land
owners.
Wanda Hart, Coldwell Banker Burnet, reported that they contacted the 11 parties involved in this
potential project, some are landowners and homeowners, some are just homeowners, and some
just landowners. Of the 11 contacted, one is a definite ‘no’ to the entire project and the others are
in line with the project and thinking about it. She stated the exciting part is that their new idea
for the area puts less pressure on Long Lake Road so those homeowners can participate or not.
Jeff Sweitzer, Sharratt Design Company, thanked the EDA for allowing them to present their
new proposal tonight. He displayed a concept plan which is predicated on the idea there are
certain property owners who are yes, some are no, and some are maybe. He used a map to point
out the properties that do not want to participate and noted this plan allows people to be in or out
of the project, or added at a later date. It also responds to the Rice Creek Watershed District
indication there is a high water table on the western edge. He noted the location of a green
backyard buffer to address that issue, resulting in a meandering pathway between two round-
abouts which will slow down traffic and designate it possibly as its own neighborhood.
Mr. Sweitzer noted this concept is predicated on the compost site moving and a senior housing
project located to the north. In addition, they have reduced the number of units so it is not
invasive on the wetland or neighborhood. He pointed out the location of the Lund property,
which may want to be part of the overall development if it comes to pass.
Mr. Sweitzer placed an overlay on the concept plan which depicted the location of the existing
homes. He noted the trail meanders through an evergreen trail, connecting the senior area to the
picnic area. The first plan had a pedestrian path out to a fishing pier, which is now more of an
internal amenity even though it would be open to all. He emphasized that this new concept is
more respectful of the current land owners and their decision to participate or not.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that it would require them to subdivide and sell part of their
property. Mr. Sweitzer stated that is correct and they have addressed that issue with the property
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
owners who have agreed to sell the back half of their property.
Vice President Stigney asked about the difference in the number of houses.
Mr. Sweitzer reviewed there are 30 single-family homes with Concept A and this concept has 28
single-family homes. The 28 homes includes an 8-unit condo building and 3-units of row
townhouses.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman advised that Concept A had a total of 124 units
and the revised concept now shows 84 units, so the number has been cut by one-third.
Commissioner Flaherty stated this concept is more attractive to him than Concept A due to the
lower density. He noted the two senior buildings at 42 units each with a nice sculpture garden.
He asked about the maintenance of the senior condo area.
Mr. Sweitzer stated that question could be answered by Cheryl Stinski of Skyline Builders who is
the developer but unable to attend tonight.
Ms. Hart stated it would be similar to any other condo association with fees that are competitive
to other associations. The senior condos would be owner occupied.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman asked about the project market value.
Ms. Hart stated they have not reviewed those numbers in depth but the condos will be in the area
of $200,000 and up. The private custom residential homes will be similar to or higher in dollar
value than the Hidden Hollow homes off County Road H2.
Vice President Stigney stated some of the Hidden Hollow homes are over $600,000.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated these homes will probably be in the range
of $350,000 to $500,000.
Ms. Hart concurred and explained they have not reviewed the numbers in detail because they do
not yet know how much land is available due to the wetland area. She pointed out three home
sites to the southeast of the wetland that may be of a higher value.
Commissioner Flaherty asked about access to the trail. Mr. Sweitzer pointed out the access
locations on the concept plan including the boardwalk through the wetland area.
Commissioner Gunn stated she finds this plan to be very attractive, much less intrusive, and
unique. She noted it blends in well and does not take over.
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Commissioner Thomas asked about arrangements for the compost site and parking for the condo
and senior housing area.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the relocation of the compost site is a
policy decision that the EDA will have to make. He stated with this concept plan, he likes the
arrangement, noting three solid areas for “selling points”: 1) It does not add additional roads
onto Long Lake Road and uses existing right-of-way and roads, which will be attractive to the
County as well. 2) It has a lower density and allows for phases in the project. 3) It uses some of
the existing infrastructure and builds on existing infrastructure so the City does not have to
“recreate the wheel” or relocate utility lines.
With regard to the location of the compost site, Public Works Director Lee stated that is a policy
decision of the Council or EDA about what is the highest and best use for this land. He stated
staff could initiate discussions with Ramsey County about the long-range goals for the compost
collection site and if they would consider more of a regional compost site.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman reviewed that the City Survey indicated a
majority want to retain a compost site in Mounds View but some indicated a willingness to take
composting material to Shoreview or Arden Hills. He stated residents could be asked what
distance they would be willing to drive to an alternate site.
Commissioner Thomas stated she loves this revised plan which echoes more of what the EDA
had in mind. She noted the next step is the EDA’s, to find another location for the compost site.
She stated it is her opinion there should be a location found within the City and she is not
comfortable with locating it in the north corner at this time. She stated this is an amenity the City
is providing and while it will never be the highest and best use of any property, it is important to
her to keep providing this service. She stated she does not want to get in a bind by approving this
now and then trying to find an alternate compost site. She reiterated this is the responsibility of
the City, Council, and staff, and she is not willing to give up providing that service to the
residents.
Commissioner Gunn stated she assumes this plan can be done in phases to start with the homes
first until the alternate compost site is relocated. She pointed out that residents have been asking
for senior condos and this plan addresses that need.
Vice President Stigney agreed that the compost issue definitely needs to be looked at and he
wants to know what the developer could do if the compost site is shifted to the north. He asked
if this development could encompass that use.
Mr. Sweitzer stated they have not looked at that option but can do so.
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
Economic Development Coordinator Backman advised that the compost area covers about one
acre of the 9-acre site. He noted there are issues with the links and pointed out that if the
compost site moves to the north, it becomes more visible so buffering would have to be
addressed, or they may need to forego one of the buildings.
Mr. Sweitzer pointed out the location of a wetland area to the north, which may be an issue in
placing a compost site to the north because it may impact the water quality. He explained that he
does not have that expertise so a consultant would have to become involved to determine the
impacts to the wetland.
Ms. Hart stated she has walked the site and the area on the north end is very narrow. She felt a
compost site would have to come farther down and would end up impacting the location they
propose for the northern senior condo building. She stated it is her personal opinion that would
not be a good location because it is not large enough and would impact the wetland.
Commissioner Flaherty stated the developer would be hard pressed to get approval from the EDA
without some compromise on the compost site by the developers. He stated the compost site
needs to be retained in some way and in some location within Mounds View.
Mr. Sweitzer advised that all senior condo parking would be located in a heated underground lot.
Surface parking would be created for visitors.
B. Resolution 05-EDA-210 Authorizing the Laport Meadow Wetland
Delineation Study
Economic Development Coordinator Backman used a map to identify the subject area bounded
by Highway 10, Long Lake Road, and what would be Laport Drive. He noted the mixed
ownership pattern and explained the City owns or controls portions of the area and private
landowners the rest. He advised that over eight of the parcels in the Laport Meadows area are
currently vacant.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman advised that staff requested written proposals and
received two from qualified firms specializing in wetland sciences to conduct a wetland
delineation study of the Laport Meadows area. The proposals ranged in cost from $2,323 to
$2,660 with SEH submitting the lowest bid.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated staff recommends the HRA adopt the draft
resolution, which authorizes the consulting firm of SEH, Inc. to conduct a wetland delineation
study of the Laport Meadows area at a cost not to exceed $2,500.
President Marty arrived at 7:02 p.m.
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Commissioner Flaherty stated per the previous discussion related to the compost site, he would
like to wait until the EDA sees an alternative to relocate the compost site before authorizing the
delineation study. He stated he would like to have the developers, City staff, and Ramsey County
come up with an alternative to the compost site prior to moving ahead with a delineation.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that this information would be useful
for the whole area, about 40 acres, and would not address a specific concept plan. This
information will pertain to the location of the wetlands. He explained that as with the Hidden
Hollow soil borings, the delineation will get information to determine if the soils are appropriate
for development.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman pointed out that the weather is starting to change
so the “window” to do delineations is coming to a close. If the delineation is done over the
winter, the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will look at that information differently. He
stated the delineation will indicate where the wetland area is located and encouraged the EDA to
consider this request. In addition it would provide guidance to the developer since if the wetland
is larger, it will impact where the homes, development, and roads are located.
Commissioner Thomas noted the concept plan presented tonight is not a final plan and a
delineation plan would be beneficial for the City to know what can be done with the concept
plan. She stated the plan reviewed tonight can be workable and the EDA’s goals are to work
with this property. She stated she is comfortable with considering this action tonight.
Commissioner Gunn stated her agreement.
Commissioner Flaherty asked how long is the delineation information good. Economic
Development Coordinator Backman indicated three years.
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, stated she is a member of the RCWD, which spent $95,000
to look at the Greenfield Park area. To save money, she suggested City staff approach the
RCWD to get their engineering information which was done in the last two years. She advised
that the RCWD will also do this kind of work without a high charge.
President Marty suggested staff contact the RCWD to see if they have reviewed that area.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman advised a hydrology report was done by Peterson
Environmental in 2000 but too much time has elapsed to use that information.
Ms. Hart stated she and Mr. Sweitzer met with the RCWD and learned they did not have
information on this property.
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 05-EDA-210
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
Authorizing the Laport Meadow Wetland Delineation Study.
Commissioner Flaherty stated he is still against proceeding with this study just for the sake of
having information. He indicated he would prefer doing it once there is a concrete plan that will
move forward.
Commissioner Gunn stated having this information will help the developer to come up with a
plan that is beyond the concept stage.
President Marty asked if there is a possibility that the RCWD could assist with this study for a
lower cost. He noted that RCWD would want to review this area anyway and using them may
cut out a step.
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated the RCWD usually has engineers that they
work with and he believes this is a competitive price. He stated RCWD could provide
information on the 100- and 500-year flood planes but this study will be to delineate the wetland
on the site.
President Marty asked if this cost would be built into the development cost so the City is
reimbursed. Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated when working with Procraft
Homes there was a predevelopment agreement. With this project, the City does not have a
predevelopment agreement but that will occur and he believes it is a reasonable cost for which
the EDA could be reimbursed.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Flaherty) Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, November 14, 2005 at 6 p.m. (New Brighton City
Hall).
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
Mounds View EDA October 24, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 14, 2005
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
6:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn,
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas.
NOT PRESENT: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To Approve the November 14, 2005 Agenda as
presented.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following correction was requested:
Page 4, Line 150, should read: “…to find another location for the compost site.”
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the October 24, 2005 Minutes as revised.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Continuation of a Joint Meeting Between the EDA and the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) to address TIF Goals and TIF Funding
Priorities
Community Development Director Ericson explained this is a continuation of the meeting
between the EDA and EDC which started in September at a work session where topics discussed
included: TIF philosophy, goals, spending priorities, and level of increment to be received
through the term of the TIF Districts. There was good discussion on various priorities and
consensus reached that Highway 10 improvements remain a priority for the City. Director
Ericson stated that other items need some substantial discussion. The EDC met and revised their
priority list, which has been provided to the Council.
Director Ericson recommended that discussion continue tonight so those goals can be finalized
for adoption in January.
Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, explained that they looked at the priorities previously
discussed and broke them down into the categories of Capital Projects, Redevelopment, and
Housing. They then determined possible funding sources. She explained that with Capital
Projects and Housing Redevelopment Projects, it is good for the City to augment funding with
grants.
Ms. Kvilvang noted the four Capital Projects are the pedestrian trails along County Road 10,
County Road 10 local match, road reconstruction (City-wide – 6 year plan) and future
infrastructure/redevelopment needs. The Redevelopment priorities are the Skyline Motel, PAK
Building, Premium Stop/Donut Connection, Moundsview Square, and County Road 10/Woodale.
The Housing goals are the Housing Improvement Program, Laport Meadows, and Sherwood
Housing Development for a total project cost of $18,619,923. Ms. Kvilvang noted the total of
financing available equals $20,079,459 so the City is in good shape to consider these projects.
Ms. Kvilvang noted their report included a brief description of the projects, issues related to the
projects, and funding sources. She stated they would like direction from the EDA on whether
these are the priorities, if the priorities are correctly listed, and to establish a timeline on each
project.
President Marty asked about funding sources. Ms. Kvilvang stated Shelly Eldridge will be
addressing that issue and how it can be bonded in two different series.
Shelly Eldridge, Ehlers & Associates, stated between the three Districts it appears there is
approximately $1.5 million available annually from 2006 on until 2013 and then the Districts
start to expire if they go full term. Looking at the most simplistic way, it will generate $15
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
million during the life of the Districts including pay-as-you -go and SYSCO. How the EDA
chooses to spend it is up to them. These funds would pay approximately $11 million in bonds.
She explained they looked at issuing them in a two-year period to provide capacity in the
bonding if there are other debt needs. She recommended that the City stay under $10 million in
bonding.
President Marty asked if they will end up with $15 million. Ms. Eldridge stated that is correct if
the District goes the full duration.
President Marty asked if, after payments, it would equal $11 million. Ms. Eldridge stated that
would be true if the EDA bonded; $11 million in capital and $5 million in interest for bonding.
President Marty stated the Council has talked about doing road projects City-wide and asked if
some of the TIF could be applied to road reconstruction. Ms. Eldridge stated they contacted the
City’s TIF legal counsel who indicated that is an eligible TIF use because these districts were
established in the mid-1980s. Since that time, TIF regulations have become much more
restrictive.
Vice President Stigney asked if that is true for any streets. Ms. Eldridge stated that is true of any
streets within the larger redevelopment, which is coterminus with the City’s boundaries.
Vice President Stigney asked about redoing the Districts to capitalize on fiscal disparities. Ms.
Eldridge explained that now the districts are under A Election, which captures increment outside
the boundaries and raises the tax rate. The City has the opportunity to change it to B Election,
which reduces the tax increment for the life of the District by the fiscal disparities portion. That
would give a cumulative value of $9 million and the City would be able to bond about $5.7
million. On the flip side, if that had been done by the end of this year, the City’s tax capacity rate
for truth in taxation was 43.74 and would have been down to 40.748, all other things being equal.
Vice President Stigney asked what it would cost to do that. Ms. Eldridge stated if it would only
require a resolution, the cost would be minimal. However, she will have to check to determine if
a public hearing process is needed. She explained that each District would have to be looked at
individually.
Commissioner Flaherty asked if it makes sense to do that at this time.
Commissioner Thomas stated it may make sense to do that with District #1 but District #3
expires in two to three years.
Vice President Stigney asked Ms. Eldridge to provide the Election information on District #1 to
City Administrator Ulrich.
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
Commissioner Thomas asked how changing to Election B impacts the tax rate within the district
and tax disparity rates. Ms. Eldridge stated there is one obligation left in the District #1 and it
only has a year or so left. She stated her bigger concern is with District #2. She advised that
there is also an in-between consideration to share back with the County, School District, and
City.
Ms. Kvilvang stated the discussion before the EDA is the magnitude that can be captured versus
going with the Election that would reduce the amount. She asked the EDA to first consider their
priority projects.
President Marty asked if the EDC members have recommendations.
EDC Commissioner Torri Johnson stated they have discussed this list for about one year and take
it seriously as the areas to focus on in the City. She stated based on the last discussion, County
Road 10 is in the forefront. Other projects would be if a developer brings something to them or
if there are safety issues.
Commissioner Thomas noted County Road 10 is divided into two pieces. Ms. Kvilvang
explained that typically with County Road projects, the City has a match of funding to dedicate to
the project that are not County funds.
Director Ericson noted that Page 2 of the report includes an engineer’s estimate regarding the
County Road 10 project. He explained that they did their best work to identify the cost
associated with that project and the total is estimated to be $9.1 million, which is less than the
ballpark estimate. He advised that staff has already submitted grant and funding applications but
that funding would not become available until 2007. TIF dollars are available that are not
obligated and the City will face the real possibility of having to give them back if not used.
Director Ericson noted the City has plans and priorities and it is a matter of moving forward with
those projects. He stated he recognizes the benefit of looking at the Election A and B and fiscal
disparities, but the priorities and funding needs must first be identified. Then consideration can
be given of how to put those dollars back on the tax rolls. He stated it is important to look at the
projects identified as priorities and provide feedback on what staff should move forward with. If
not a priority for the EDA and Council, then it tells staff what is available. He noted that
everything in the priority list can be funded with existing dollars available to the City.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the local match is what should be considered on the priority list,
or should the EDA be talking about a $10 million project and whether it is a City project, or
someone else’s project. She stated that she believes it will be a long time if the City is going to
wait for match dollars. Commissioner Thomas stated she thinks the City needs to talk about a
$10 million project and whether the City should bond for it to make it happen.
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
President Marty agreed that is a wise approach, noting it can take years to get matching funds and
it is never guaranteed. He stated this project may not get done or it could be 10 or more years out
if the City waits for matching funds. He stated County Road 10 has been talked about for years
and with the exception of several signal changes, timing sequences, and a few trailways, that is
all that has been done. He stated it is in the 2006 budget to move forward and that will have to
be done to get the project going.
President Marty referenced the staff report and commented on the listing of projects. He stated
he does not see some of them as viable priorities but more like a “wish list” that the City would
like to see happen. But, he does not see it as being realistic to invest City or TIF funds.
Director Ericson explained that the EDC was looking at it from the perspective of what needs to
be changed in the City, what areas are not presenting a positive image, and where the tax base
can be increased and improved. He stated the Skyline Motel is a prime example of a property
where taxes are not increasing, it is underutilized, and has caused problems in the past. He stated
that will probably not change but for City involvement.
Director Ericson stated all of the potential development projects presuppose there is a willing
seller. He noted PAK is looking to redevelop but there is a funding gap so they are looking at the
City for funding participation. He agreed that with the Donut Connection property, a restaurant
is interested in the site so it is now a lost opportunity for the City. Previously it was for sale
under the County assessed valuation but the City did not purchase it.
Director Ericson stated the gas station is now for sale and suggested as part of Project #3
(Premium Stop/Donut Connection/Sitdown Restaurant) it would make good sense to acquire
with TIF for a potential redevelopment. He advised that the gas station site was marketed as
redevelopment but the only calls being received are from potential buyers who want to maintain
it as an independent gas station. He stated he is not asking for authorization tonight but may in
the future request the EDA look at possible acquisition.
Director Ericson stated that Moundsview Square is a project where Paster would be looking for
some assistance, as they did with the Hardee’s building. However in that case, they did not get
all of their information to the City in a timely manner so they decided to go forward without City
assistance. But, to redevelop the Moundsview Square property, they would be looking at the
City for assistance and but for that assistance, it may not move forward.
Director Ericson stated this may be a “wish list” but it impacts the aesthetics of Mounds View.
He stated the City wants to reinvigorate the County Road 10 corridor and improve the tax base by
investing in some of the properties to achieve that goal.
Commissioner Thomas stated President Marty has indicated the infrastructure redevelopment is
his first priority and redevelopment of the businesses would come second to that. She stated it
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
comes down to the primary purchase of the property should be a developer, not the City.
However, the City is the primary entity to install the infrastructure. She stated the hindrance on
those properties may have been because of the City’s lack of infrastructure. So, during the next
two years as other investments are made, it may encourage development to take place that does
not require City involvement.
Commissioner Thomas stated the Premium Stop is a serious concern for her but it is an
independent property so the City has to wait for them to decide what they want to do. She stated
that issue along with the heart-of-the City issue puts the Skyline Motel acquisition farther down
on the list for her, even knowing about the public safety concerns.
Commissioner Flaherty stated he concurs and appreciates the EDC bringing these priorities
before the EDA. He stated he is in favor of controlling what the City can control. When dealing
with the County Road 10 corridor, it involves contractors and the County and is somewhat out of
the City’s control. However, City-wide road construction can be controlled by the City and there
are no restrictions standing in the City’s way. He stated that ties into the County Road 10
corridor and is a very large “piece of pie.” He stated his support to move on the development of
the City’s roads.
President Marty stated Director Ericson mentioned that excess TIF funds will have to be returned
if a project is not started before 2007 but he saw nothing about the trailway project on Silver
Lake Road, which will take $350,000 and up, depending on the wetland areas. He stated he is
still working with the County Commissioners in the City’s attempt to get a stop light at Silver
Lake Road and County Road H.
President Marty asked why that was not reflected in the list. Director Ericson stated that can be
added and the funding priorities re-tabulated. He noted there are several other projects that could
be added as well.
President Marty stated it could be used for street reconstruction but Ehlers & Associates had it
pegged out only six years. At the last meeting this issue was discussed, Public Works Director
Lee said the street reconstruction was about an 18-year project to get all the streets done. He
explained that his concern is that people within the next six years will get a $9 million break and
then after that residents will be assessed. He asked if the $9 million can be stretched out so every
resident gets a “piece of the pie.”
City Administrator Ulrich stated the likely scenario would be to leave the assessment to residents
the same but the 75% the City covers would not be taxed throughout the City. He agreed it
would be nice to find a way to ease that in since it is a long term project.
Commissioner Gunn stated she agrees that the City’s roads are the number one priority.
However, she does not want to lose sight of the County Road 10 project. She stated the trails
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
along the highway are also a number one priority because there are more pedestrians and
bicyclers along County Road 10 than previously. She stated this is becoming a serious safety
issue and needs to be a focus when the County Road 10 project starts. On the Premium Stop
property, she supports having staff look into buying it because it is a main property along the
corridor and impacts the image of the City. She noted that one of the considerations in buying a
property is whether it is a safety issue and this property has a serious safety issue. She noted the
canopy is now sitting next to a property where someone is starting a new business.
Commissioner Gunn pointed out that if the City has control of the property, it can control who it
is sold to but if it is independently owned, it will continue to be a gas station.
Vice President Stigney stated he agrees with the importance of County Road 10 but disagrees
with the City buying land for future development because it has limited funds and priorities have
been set. He stated he differs with buying the gas station property and thinks the City should
assist developers to do the project but not necessarily buying the property. He stated he agrees
with the other statements made by the Commissioners.
President Marty stated the EDA has reaffirmed the priorities as follows:
1. Pedestrian Trails along County Road 10 (safety and beautification issue that may help
attract business to the corridor)
2. Road Reconstruction / Future Infrastructure Redevelopment Needs
3. County Road 10
President Marty stated the City needs to move forward with County Road 10 but the City’s roads
have needed to be reconstructed for many years. He added that he wants to keep in the housing
program in case dilapidated housing can be brought up to Code.
President Marty stated if there is a way to assist some of the businesses along County Road 10
with TIF for upgrades or to help redevelop, he would support it. He noted the Community
Development Department has already brought several viable businesses in to the community.
EDC Commissioner Belting stated staff put together a great list and it was intended to outline
some priorities for the Council to consider down the line. He agreed that trails and safety are
huge issues and encouraged the City to use the TIF dollars to get trails started instead of having
to return funds.
EDC Commissioner Johnson stressed that they were also talking about “willing sellers” and she
wanted to make that clear. EDC Commissioner Belting concurred that was the intent.
President Marty stated he is not a proponent of eminent domain unless it is a life or death type of
situation. He stated that is the prevailing view of the EDA as well.
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
Commissioner Thomas stressed that the EDA is not just talking about purchase and if there is
something the developer needs assistance with to make it work, they should talk to the EDA.
Ms. Kvilvang stated the message is clear that County Road 10 is the priority for redevelopment.
She suggested the EDA think about setting their vision beyond the infrastructure so if an
opportunity comes forward with a property like the Donut Connection or Moundsview Square
that is owned by Krause Anderson, they can take advantage. She noted the EDA has now
identified three major projects.
B. Resolution 05-EDA-210 Authorizing the Demolition of 7861 Groveland Road
Community Development Director Ericson stated this is a request for authorization from the
EDA to accept a bid to demolish the house at 7861 Groveland Road that the City acquired in
2000, tried to rent out but that didn’t work. The building has now been vacant for several years,
there has been vandalism, so it has become a liability. Director Ericson advised that there are
good neighbors who let the City know if there is a problem but staff recommends the City
explore demolition. He noted three bids were received but came in somewhat high. If approved,
the site would be restored to a natural level condition with the basement filled in and the ground
sodded or seeded. Staff recommends approval.
Vice President Stigney stated the report indicates that efforts were made to sell the house and
move it. He asked if the house was advertised for free. Director Ericson stated they have and
also contacted moving companies but he does not recall if it was advertised in the last year. He
explained the problem with trying to move it anywhere into the metro area is that the building
has to come up to current codes, which the building is not able to meet. So, it would have to be
moved beyond the metropolitan area. In addition, it may not survive the move and the valuation
is not high enough.
Vice President Stigney asked about the new furnace. Director Ericson stated that anything of
value can be salvaged. He stated some money may have been put into this house to rent it out,
but a new furnace was not purchased. In addition, the appliances have been removed from the
building. Vice President Stigney asked that the furnace be removed if it is new.
Commissioner Thomas asked about the asbestos issue. Director Ericson stated the old linoleum
floor tile may have asbestos but they do not expect it to be significant.
Commissioner Flaherty agreed the demolition price seems to be high, noting the demolition of
two other structures were in the area of $8,000. He asked why there is such a disparity in the
demolition bids for this home that contains about the same square footage. He also asked when
was the last time the house was rented.
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
Director Ericson stated it was in 2002 and after that there were some negative experiences with
renting out properties and the City realized they did not want to manage rental property. He
noted that the City is not set up to be rental property managers. There were problems with the
tenants not paying rent and doing damage. The City took the matter into court and received
settlements that will never be collected. After that the building was boarded up because it was
not worth renting out.
President Marty noted this bid is to demolish a house and the other two structures that were
demolished were prefab structures.
Commissioner Flaherty asked why the tenants were not evicted if they were not good tenants.
Director Ericson stated the City did evict them but it took a while.
Commissioner Thomas stated the range for demolition does not appear high to her when you
consider what is involved with home inspections. She stated that ten years ago when she was in
this field, the demolition would be in the range of $12,000 so she is comfortable with the range
of $16,000.
Commissioner Gunn noted it also includes two out structures.
President Marty asked how this fits into the City’s redevelopment plans, noting it is by the PAK
building. Director Ericson explained that it is zoned commercial and in a redevelopment area so
it was purchased in the context of future redevelopment. The City determined to rent it out until
there was potential for redevelopment. However, currently it is costing the City money and
creating a liability.
President Marty asked about using it for Fire Department training. Director Ericson stated that
was researched and determined to not be feasible.
Vice President Stigney asked about getting a written asbestos estimate. Director Ericson stated it
would require having an asbestos abatement specialist view the property but staff who has this
type of training does not believe it will be a big project because with asbestos floor tile, hazmat
suits are not required, just proper disposal.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Thomas. To Adopt EDA Resolution 05-EDA-210, Approving and
Authorizing the Expenditure of Tax Increment Funds for the Demolition of 7861 Groveland
Road for the Purpose of Future Redevelopment, in an amount not to exceed $16,580 plus
asbestos abatement costs, and an additional ten percent contingency buffer to cover any
unforeseen or unanticipated expenses.
Commissioner Flaherty stated he does not know what the City paid for this property and the vote
is now to spend another $16,000 to demolish it. He stated that the land proceeds will probably
Mounds View EDA November 14, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 10
not equal what has been spent on this property, which is why the City should not be in the land
business.
Director Ericson stated there always was the intent to demolish the buildings and that fixed cost
was always there with the understanding this would be a redevelopment. He noted it can
probably be sold for $100,000 so the City may not come out ahead financially but it will remove
a blighted condition and bring in a new structure and better tax base. He explained that
sometimes it takes years to realize the benefit.
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
8. REPORTS
None.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, November 28, 2005 @ 6:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
November 28, 2005
New Brighton City Hall
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112
6:53 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn, and
Commissioner Flaherty.
NOT PRESENT: Commissioner Thomas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
City Administrator Ulrich added Agenda Item 8A, An Update Regarding the DEED Funding
Agreement for the County Road J Improvement Project.
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 Agenda as revised.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
4. PUBLIC INPUT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Approve the November 14, 2005 Minutes as corrected.
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
None.
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Discuss Possibility of Expanding Medtronic Project to Include Phase Two
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Community Development Director Ericson explained that staff wants to present information for
the EDA’s consideration as a discussion item. He advised that Medtronic may want to accelerate
Phase 2 and construct it concurrently with the Phase 1 development. He reviewed that one of the
concerns raised through the Medtronic process is that the City may never see Phase 2. However,
the growth of Medtronic is such that they are looking at options to provide additional office
space and the possibility of doing Phases 1 and 2 together to save some costs. Staff would like to
talk about that option and ask if the EDA would like staff to “open that door” and talk with
Medtronic about possibly accelerating their phasing.
Director Ericson advised that today staff received a letter from Medtronic confirming they are
looking at accelerating their project and asking the City if it would be interested in negotiating
for Phase 2 now and amending the development agreement to do Phases 1 and 2 at the same
time.
Director Ericson stated staff is requesting no action to be taken other than to provide direction to
staff if it would like staff to meet with Medtronic. He noted the benefits are obvious in bringing
in 380,000 square feet of office space that may have been out another 7 to 8 years. It would also
result in 4,400 employees rather than 3,000 employees.
Commissioner Gunn stated her support for staff to discuss this option with Medtronic.
Vice President Stigney questioned the form of greater revenues to the City. Director Ericson
explained that the City gets a percentage of TIF dollars generated and a share of the increment for
administrative fees. In addition to TIF, there would be a greater market value assigned to the
project. If Phase 1 is $65 million for the first two buildings, then Phase 2 would be about $96
million dollars. Director Ericson noted the impact to the City’s levies, school board levies, and
that Medtronic would take a larger percentage of bonds that are market based so taxes to
residents and others would be decreased by a consistent amount above and beyond a $65 million
project. Director Ericson noted this would also bring the market value back on line to property
taxes that much sooner rather than waiting 8-9 years for Phase 2.
Vice President Stigney asked about the impact to the current $11.8 million cap. Director Ericson
explained it is actually a $14.8 million cap and that is completely negotiable. He stated staff is
looking at eligible costs for a Phase 2 expansion such as the additional two stories on the Phase 1
ramp. Director Ericson explained there may not be a lot of eligible expenses for Phase 2, which
makes it more appealing to get on line sooner.
Vice President Stigney asked about the interest being paid and whether it would go back to them
or be waved on this Phase. Director Ericson stated staff will explore that avenue.
Commissioner Flaherty stated his support to open dialogue, which poses no risk. He pointed out
Phase 2 is inevitable, but this is sooner than anticipated.
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
President Marty stated he likes the fact that it will assure Phase 2 is in Mounds View. He noted
that the administrative fee from TIF for Phase 1 ranges from $41,000 to $46,000 so this could
add $20,000 to $30,000 a year.
President Marty stated he is concerned that with this much construction, the City’s one full time
building inspector may need some help. Director Ericson noted that hiring an additional
inspector may provide enough assistance so staff can focus on the Medtronic project. But, if
more help is needed, staff can look at that. He explained that Medtronic plans to submit building
permits in phases and built sequentially rather than dropping off 1,000 pages of plans at one time.
Medtronic will time submissions so it is spread out and staff can review the plans and get to
inspections. If additional staff is needed, the permit revenue would support that cost.
President Marty stated the Phase 1 TIF period was extended from 8 years, by State Statute, to 25
years. He asked if Phase 2 is submitted, could it be renegotiated to get closer to the State
Statutes.
Director Ericson explained he is not at a point to talk about negotiated issues but this could be
wrapped into the current project and if the EDA wants to consider accelerating payoff, staff could
look at less of an administrative fee of the TIF generated and roll the funds back into the payoff
so it is paid sooner. He noted the costs are greater to do two standalone TIF districts so maybe
Phase 2 could be wrapped into the Phase 1 TIF district that is already authorized.
President Marty stated the EDA supports directing staff to move forward with discussion.
City Administrator Ulrich stated staff would like Ehlers to run the numbers, which will incur
costs that would be reimbursed by Medtronic.
President Marty stated his agreement with using Ehlers since they are the most knowledgeable
with this project.
8. REPORTS
A. An Update Regarding the DEED Funding Agreement for the County Road J
Improvement Project
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that the EDA has previously granted staff approval to
execute agreements for the $5 million grant received from the State for construction of County
Road J. At this time an issue has come up that has not yet been resolved and staff wants to bring
that issue to the attention of the EDA.
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the right-of-way purchase there is a grant provision
that it must be made by the City, which staff thinks is ridiculous because the land is in Anoka
County, Ramsey County, Blaine, Shoreview, and Mounds View. Staff’s concern is to not be put
into a situation where Mounds View is actually purchasing right-of-way in other cities and
counties. Staff is trying to resolve this issue but it may require action by the EDA.
City Administrator Ulrich advised that staff and the City Attorney are working through the
Governor’s office to resolve that issue but it is withholding the County from making the right-of-
way purchases in a timely manner.
City Attorney Riggs stated staff has been in discussions with DEED and the Governor’s office
about how this can proceed. DEED has been in consultation with the Attorney General’s office
that the City needs to be the acquiring agency. Staff is trying to work around that issue and there
may be some options that would require modifications to the agreement. If not, staff will return
for EDA consideration on this issue. He noted there is $5 million available and is a matter of
how to best facilitate that for the five jurisdictions involved.
President Marty suggested that DEED could funnel or transfer the money to the affected cities.
He noted that when Mounds View sold the property, the City got the money and then transferred
it to Mn/DOT. He stated he has talked with the Mayor and a Councilmember of Blaine and all
along they have been in total support because of the improvements to County Road J and I-35W.
President Marty stated his preference if the City could transfer the money to Blaine so they could
acquire the property within Blaine.
City Attorney Riggs explained there are three “pots” of money in play and dollars from DEED,
some designated to the County, some to the City, and some to Mn/DOT for right-of-way
purchase. He agreed that many agencies are involved and explained that typically the County
would be the acquiring agency but two counties involved in this situation. City Attorney Riggs
stated staff hopes to work it out so the dollars can be utilized immediately.
President Marty stated in reading reports on the AUAR from Anoka County, they were also in
support. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and the issue is finding the correct legal
mechanism based on the language in the two statutes that were adopted during the last session.
City Administrator Ulrich explained that may necessitate the EDA holding a special meeting so
bids can be done by December 1st. However, it is not likely that will occur if significant
modifications are needed.
City Attorney Riggs advised that the County wanted to make offers to the property owners by the
first of December and notices of condemnation may also be needed. However, if the City is the
acquiring agency it would be difficult because the City has not done anything in that regard.
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
President Marty noted a public hearing is already scheduled for December 5, 2005. City
Administrator Ulrich stated the EDA could schedule a special meeting on December 6, 2005.
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, December 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recorded and transcribed by:
Carla Wirth
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
December 12, 2005 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
6:55 P.M. 9
10
11
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12
13
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice-President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn, 14
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas. 15
16
NOT PRESENT: None. 17
18
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the December 12, 2005 Agenda as presented. 21
22
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
4. PUBLIC INPUT 25
26
There was none. 27
28
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 29
30
A. July 25, 2005, EDA Minutes 31
32
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Thomas. To Approve the July 25, 2005 Minutes as presented. 33
34
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 35
36
B. September 12, 2005, EDA Minutes 37
38
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the September 12, 2005 Minutes as 39
corrected. 40
41
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 42
43
44
Mounds View EDA December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
C. November 28, 2005, EDA Minutes 45
46
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Approve the November 28, 2005 Minutes as presented. 47
48
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 49
50
6. CONSENT AGENDA 51
52
A. The EDA Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 27, 2005 is canceled. 53
54
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the Consent Agenda, as presented. 55
56
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 57
58
7. EDA BUSINESS 59
60
A. Review Medtronic CRM Development Project Acceleration; Request City 61
Council Establish a Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Modification to 62
TIF District 5 63
64
Community Development Director Ericson reviewed that at the meeting of November 28, 2005, 65
staff brought forward information that Medtronic was considering options of constructing 66
additional space in the metro area and are considering construction of Phase 2 concurrent with 67
the construction of Phase 1 in Mounds View. At that meeting, the EDA directed staff to review 68
that option so staff worked with Ehlers & Associates to conduct an analysis regarding the 69
financial ramifications of a combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 project. 70
71
Director Ericson explained that Phase 2 is for 380,000 square feet and two additional levels to 72
the parking ramp. It would result in an additional $30 million in property values and the phases 73
together it would be $96 million of project value. TIF generated based on a $96 million project 74
is $22 million. Director Ericson stated the City authorized an agreement with Medtronic for 75
Phase 1 for $14.8 million so the difference with including Phase 2 is $7.2 million. 76
77
Director Ericson noted that Medtronic has $25 million in reimbursable or qualified costs for 78
Phase 1 and would be reimbursed only $14.8 million dollars. To determine the impact to 79
combine Phases 1 and 2, staff set aside Phase 1 and then looked at Phase 2 to see what it would 80
bring in for additional increment. Staff determined Phase 2 would provide $7.2 million in 81
additional increment and the only qualified costs to Phase 2 construction are the two levels of the 82
parking ramp, costing about $8 million dollars. 83
84
Director Ericson explained that in return for this consideration, Medtronic would assist in City 85
expenses for the project. Medtronic would pay for the cost to extend the utilities on their 86
Mounds View EDA December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
property as well as the $400,000 cost to bring the utilities up to their property. In addition, 87
Medtronic would agree to cover City costs for relocating the billboards. Originally the City was 88
going to pay $550,000 and Medtronic had agreed to cover part of that but would now agree to 89
cover all of that cost. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, Clear Channel has to relocate four 90
billboards from the Medtronic site. The City is potentially on the hook for two billboards if they 91
cannot find a home for them, or a cost of $1.6 million to Clear Channel. Medtronic would pick 92
up the cost for the other two billboards, or $1.65 million. That anticipates one of the billboard 93
would go to the SYSCO outlot area. Director Ericson stated that Medtronic knows they could be 94
on the hook to pay for relocation of all four billboard at a cost that could equal $2.7 million. In 95
addition, Medtronic will pay for the costs for staff to prepare that amendment to allow them to 96
bring in Phase 2, which could equal $150,000. 97
98
Director Ericson reported that with bundling Phases 1 and 2, staff has found there would be no 99
cost or risk to the City and no additional tax dollars spent on this project or revenues from the 100
City being spent that would not be reimbursed. The tax dollars would reimburse Medtronic for 101
the $7.2 million in qualified costs. He noted a summary of the terms are included in the staff 102
report, identified as the draft, and includes 16 points. He explained that staff is not asking for 103
EDA consent or agreement but to set a public hearing and allow for the process to move forward. 104
105
Director Ericson advised that staff received confirmation from Ehlers that Medtronic would be 106
acceptable to paying out for these costs that the City of Mounds View is currently on the hook 107
for. The benefit for combining Phases 1 and 2 is that both would be paid off at the same time 108
and back on the tax rolls at the same point in time. Also, rather than $65 million in today’s 109
dollars it would be $96 million in today’s dollars. 110
111
Director Ericson stated staff and financial advisors recommend the EDA establish a public 112
hearing for February 13, 2005 so staff can send out notices and talk to the school district. Staff 113
recommends moving forward with negotiations since it seems like a good project for the City 114
without any additional expenditure, and assures Mounds View will get Phase 2 construction. 115
116
President Marty noted staff has indicated there would be a benefit of $2.75 million but the report 117
states $2.57 million. Director Ericson explained that when preparing the staff report he forgot to 118
add in reimbursable TIF administration expenses and did not correctly add up the billboard 119
buyout. He stated the figure is closer to $2.75 million. 120
121
Commissioner Thomas asked if this is going through the standard TIF hearing process and 122
regulations. Director Ericson stated that is correct and noted that this is not a new TIF district, 123
simply a modification to the original agreement and holding the necessary public hearings to do 124
so. All information will be presented publicly and will go through the proper channels with the 125
School District and County. 126
127
Commissioner Flaherty stated he thinks this option looks good. 128
Mounds View EDA December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
129
President Marty noted that Phase 1 would be $65 million as built out and adding Phase 2 130
increases it to $96 million, or a $31 million addition. He stated that it seems it should be one-131
third of what Phase 1 was. President Marty reviewed the calculations for Phase 1 and Phase 2 132
and stated it really seems to be a “wash” because the City would be providing a benefit of $2.5 133
million. 134
135
President Marty stated he is very concerned about running sewer and water under the freeway, 136
noting the engineer projected the cost to be $800,000. Medtronic had agreed to pay $400,000 and 137
the City would pay $400,000. He explained he is concerned because he has seen engineering 138
estimates go “north and south.” However, if Medtronic picks up the entire cost then it would 139
relieve his concern about the accuracy of the estimate. 140
141
President Marty stated Medtronic has possession of the property and if Mounds View can get 142
Phase 2 built on Mounds View soil, it will generate a $96 million complex. He asked Ms. 143
Kvilvang about the numbers with increasing TIF to want Medtronic wants. He noted the early 144
projection that this was supposed to pay off early and asked if another $31 million building 145
project will pay off early. 146
147
Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, stated they looked at that issue. The original projection 148
was based on $80 per square foot as set by the Assessor. She explained that they believe the 149
building will be valued at higher than $80 per square foot so it will pay off faster. 150
151
In response to President Marty, Ms. Kvilvang advised that with this large size of project, another 152
$1 million is about half a year of savings. 153
154
Director Ericson pointed out there are $8 million in qualified costs and the City would offer $7.2 155
million in TIF assistance. When Ehlers ran the numbers based on a $96 million project and 156
factoring out the City’s 5% administration fees, then $7.2 million is available. He explained that 157
you then factor out what Medtronic will cover in costs. The value is actually 50% more than 158
with Phase 1 so the $14.8 million half is about $7.2 million. Also, the City will increase 159
franchise fees by 50% for that project, resulting in an increase in the administrative TIF fees back 160
to the City by 50%. Director Ericson explained that the benefit would be beyond $2.75 million 161
in tangible benefits by moving forward with this request. 162
163
President Marty stated that makes him feel more comfortable. 164
165
Commissioner Thomas stated her support to have staff further explore this option. 166
167
President Marty asked when the draft of 16 points was available. Director Ericson stated it was 168
not available to include in the meeting packet but each summary point was taken from the staff 169
report. 170
Mounds View EDA December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
171
Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated he hopes there will be an informational meeting in 172
advance of the public hearing as was done last summer. He stated the offer from Medtronic to 173
take over all public utility cost is generous but the City’s portion is covered through the Phase 1 174
TIF District and pools of other Districts so that does not really “save” any money over the 175
original plan. 176
177
Mr. McCarty stated he doubts staff has the answers tonight but he would like to know how much 178
this will add to TIF captured market value/tax capacities. He would also like to know how much 179
will be added to District 5 if it comes in as a subdistrict. Mr. McCarty asked how much it will 180
impact in terms of percentage the total market value/tax increments as opposed to market value. 181
As far as the offer goes for Phase 2, he stated he cannot make a decision. However at first blush 182
he is not impressed and it may or may not be worthwhile. He asked if Medtronic would also 183
provide the numbers to the City if Phase 2 was not allowed a TIF package, and if that can be 184
done considering the original plan included three phases. 185
186
Mr. McCarty stated he knows what it would add if Phase 2 is non-TIF, it would add $41,000 to 187
the kitty which will bring tax collections from $33,000 to $84,000 a year. 188
189
In response to President Marty, Mr. McCarty stated he is talking about evaluation, not the size of 190
the project. 191
192
Director Ericson stated the City can notice and hold additional sessions advertised as a public 193
meeting or disclosure of the project and everything it entails. 194
195
President Marty asked Ehlers to run those numbers and stated his support to hold an 196
informational meeting in January. 197
198
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To Approve Resolution 05-EDA-211, Requesting the City 199
Council of the City of Mounds View Call for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a 200
Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the 201
Proposed Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District 202
No. 5. 203
204
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 205
206
8. REPORTS 207
208
None. 209
210
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, January 9, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. 211
212
Mounds View EDA December 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
10. ADJOURNMENT 213
214
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. 215
216
Respectfully submitted, 217
218
219
Recorded and transcribed by: 220
221
Carla Wirth 222
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 223
224