Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1999 EDA CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MONDAY,AUGUST 9, 1999 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ROLL CALL: President Coughlin,Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Marty, Commissioner Quick, Commissioner Thomason 1. AGENDA ADDITIONS: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve Minutes of July 26, 1999 minutes. 3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: None 4. CONSENT AGENDA None 5. EDA BUSINESS A. Public Hearing, 7:05 p.m., for the Consideration of Resolution 99-EDA-116, a Resolution approving the Sale of City owned Property located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive to Vista Construction, Inc. B. Consideration of Resolution 99-EDA-117, a Resolution Decertifying Certain Parcels in TIF District No. 2. 6. REPORTS 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNCIL AGENDA MONDAY,AUGUST 9, 1999 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomason 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council July 26, 1999 Minutes 5. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: C:UOANB\AGENDAS\CC\8-09-99.CC August 5, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Chuck Whiting, City Administrator Re: August 9, 1999 City Council Meeting Council will note that the EDA meeting precedes the Council meeting on Monday. This is what we have: EDA- 5A- Public Hearing re: 6991 Pleasant View Drive Sale to Vista Construction, Inc.: The Council has seen this item before and is familiar with it. Staff will give a short recap at the hearing if necessary. EDA-5B -Resolution 99-EDA-117 Decertifying TIF District#2 Parcels: The discussion at the work session and over the last couple of meetings certainly indicate diverging thoughts on this matter. Realistically, the decertification of the Holiday and Realife parcels will not result in any significant problem for the district if done. Ideally, a policy would be in place. Regardless of the decision on this item, the longer discussion is essentially of determining the Council's preference for determining future uses of collected but not budgeted for tax increments. Decertifying parcels eliminates increments collected from those parcels for consideration in development costs in the future,but the full value of the property would then be part of the general tax base supporting the city. Continued collection of tax increments with no designated purpose is essentially over taxation. Returning increments to the county for inclusion against the general levies of the city, county and school is an option that does allow for periodic review and consideration by the Council in future years. (Remember, this is not a one to one shift of increment to levy, it is property valuation added to the existing general property value base. The tax rate would decrease as a result,but the same levy would be collected in the general fund). The city can decide to budget increment for eligible uses, as we do now for economic development and housing programs, and of course the debt obligation of the tif districts. The city simply collects much more increment than it budgets for these uses, so a policy decision of how much, likely as a percentage, should the city collect over its budgeted expenses for the district. If the city is satisfied that its debt obligations and programs are being met,perhaps returning all additional increment collected aside from a 20% (name the figure)unallocated reserve would be a policy. If the city chose to increase its programming budget, like doing a highway 10 redevelopment, or contributing to the Mermaid or a pedestrian bridge(name the eligible public improvement), the budget would be adjusted by the Council and the policy would stay in place. The option of decertifying parcels would be a approach logical to get more currently developed property back on the general fund tax base. This option would have the affect of lowering the general fund tax rate, something that benefits property tax payers, and meet the objective tif had in the first place, growing the tax base. It is a viable choice. The Council's policy could be something like"all newly developed parcels within a district will be decertified within a period of time (name the time)." Each Council can watch for classification rate changes over time to determine whether the policy should continue if budgeted obligations and programs are covered. In summary, this resolution action only lacks the policy choice,but in a small way it removes the choice if the Council later determines it wants the funds. That though could also be the problem, particularly if no plan for the funds exists. In a related matter, the Council and I were copied with a memo from Bruce on Wednesday regarding some confusion and frustration with information requests from Julie Olson and later Council member Stigney. While on the surface it is appropriate that the City has fees and policies regarding copying and getting information, the anxiety and pressure to produce copies and collect fees for these things is not worth worrying about the city's policies, particularly if it just means everyone has to figure a way around the policies and get frustrated with it. Certainly there has been a great deal of stuff requested regarding of the last few weeks,but it has given staff a reason to delve into the files and commit to straightening them out as we go. It is also producing some interesting information and findings that have either been forgotten or are simply being done incorrectly. Julie Olson gets some credit for this, but staff members are also getting some work in. I would submit in light of the events noted in Bruce's memo,that the City's policies on responding to information simply be abandoned,that fees associated with making copies be reduced from $.30 a copy to either$.05 or none, and that all requests for stuff simply be responded to as best can by all involved. I am not trying to be weird here,but the consternation of attempting to do the"appropriate"thing in light of other work duties faced day to day provides a level of tension for staff I would like to alleviate. Instead,the philosophical priority would be"customer first"no matter what the situation. This would likely be a more fluid and responsive approach than what we have now. Staff always ends up getting the information anyway, so why not just put it as a first priority. It is time we also get into the customer training again too. I mention this hear since we don't have another work session until September. Let me know your thoughts and we will proceed. City Council Agenda Consent Agenda 711 - Personnel Policies: I have been in touch with Bob Long who will prepare to come to the September 7 work session on this with the Council. Council Business Item 10A- Senator Steve Novak: Senator Novak will be here to review his work at the legislature. With the Council's understanding of the airport status, seeking his leadership on this issue in the upcoming session almost seems imperative. Other areas to ask him about could include levy limits and sales tax on city purchases, future property tax classification rate changes or general reform, and Met Council/MAC issues. Item 10B-Resolution #5356 re: Anoka County-Blaine Airport Advisory Commission: I drafted the resolution with an eye to how MAC will read it. Let me know if you have any qualms. Item 10C -Right of Way Ordinance#635: Assuming the attorneys have this ready,the Council can act on it Monday night. Item 10D-Resolution #5357 Adopting Streets Committee Recommendations: Mike has put together a memo on this item. Item 10E -Resolution #5355 Pleasant View Traffic Signal: Mike prepared a resolution for the Council to approve or deny for this light. Item 10F- Resolution #5349 Thrifty Car Rental: Jim Ericson will have prepared information for this item. Item 10G-Resolution #5359 Accepting Transfer of County Road I: Again, Mike should have this item covered. Item 10H-Resolution #5192 Revoking MSA Street: Again, Mike. Quite a few resolutions for some reason Monday, but most items should be familiar to the Council. A couple of other things that the Council may want to know about. First, anyone traveling on the new Highway 10, the old Highway 10 and I-35W will note the new highway signs. The new 10 is now US Highway 10. The old 10, is still for now MNDOT's responsibility,but the process for turning it over to the county in underway and should be completed by the end of the year. Mounds View will be asked to sign off on this in some form. The signs saying it is a CSAH are up however. Our address really does not change and I think continuing to refer to it as Highway 10 will be the simplest, since no one lives on the new 10. I found this out at a County Manager breakfast and in a call from MNDOT. Council may also take note that we will be getting a new area code. If there is any interest in changing this, let me know and I can try to contact the PUC. Since we didn't want to before, I don't know what our options are, or if we have options,but it would seem that now would be the time to look at it if desired. At our staff meeting on Tuesday,we reviewed the Monday night work session and the agenda for the August 9 meeting. Nyle just got back from Thailand where their problems are much different from ours apparently. Bruce briefed everyone on the budget status and went on to meet with me on Wednesday. Still much work to be done, but I think we can frame the general fund fairly well for the August 23 work session. We spent time reviewing personnel options with Schmidt and Dorgan leaving, or as he is known now, Dor-gone. Rick Jopke, Bruce and Mike and I are looking at combinations of functions and personnel to address,particularly with Steve's leaving. We intend to hammer out some options for Council review within the next couple of weeks. Monday afternoon the Golf Course Committee met and reviewed budget options for 2000. The thought that this really should get before the full Council,preferably at a work session suggested that a special session get called for the 16th, and I may bring this up under my report on Monday. The interest in the golf course gets cluttered with other items on the agenda,but if the Council is interested in a meeting the 16th, I would try to add something on the housing program staffing as well. Amidst all this, I attended my first LMC board meeting and got to spend another two days with Carl Neu. I feel like I know his underwear size now. Some interesting things but I'll save it for another time. Attended the AMM Metro Agencies Committee this morning where Barb Haake and her survey were the guest. Finally, the going away for Cari and Steve is at the Mermaid, 4:30 on Friday. Have a good weekend and see you Monday. 02 A EDA CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW MEETING MINUTES MONDAY,JULY 26, 1999 9:37 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: Marty. 1. AGENDA ADDITIONS None. 2. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES A. Approve minutes of July 12, 1999. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Thomason . To approve minutes of EDA for July 12, 1999 as presented. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. 3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. CONSENT AGENDA A. Set a Public Hearing for 7:05 p.m., Monday,August 9, 1999, for the consideration of Resolution 99-EDA-116, a resolution approving the sale of City owned property located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive to Vista Construction,Inc. President Coughlin asked the Commission if anyone would like to remove this item for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To approve the Consent Agenda for Item A, as presented above. Ayes—4 Nays—0 Motion carried. 1C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\EDA\7-26-99.EDA President Coughlin stated the EDA meeting would be held prior to the City Council meeting on August 9, 1999. 5. EDA BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recorded and transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 2C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\EDA\7-26-99.EDA Item No. SR Meeting Date: 8-9-99 Staff Report No. Type of Business: EDA WK:Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;EDBA:EDA Business Mounds View Economic Development Authority Staff Report To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority From: Steve Dorgan, Housing Inspector Item Title/Subject: 6991 Pleasant View Drive Sale of Property to Vista Construction, Inc. Date of Report: August 3, 1999 SUMMARY At the city council workshop meeting on May 3, the council directed staff to arrange for the sale of the city owned property at 6991 Pleasant View Drive for redevelopment purposes. The EDA picked a 1' and 2nd choice out of five submitted proposals. The 1"choice, Marquis Builders, Inc., recently rescinded their proposal because the buyer backed out of their agreement(attachment 1). The EDA had signed a Participation Agreement with Marquis Builders which required the developer to provide a $500 deposit on the property. The $500 deposit is nonrefundable. Staff has begun negotiating with the second developer for the sale and redevelopment of the subject site. The proposal submitted by Vista Construction, Inc. included the purchase of the lot from the EDA for $47,250 for the construction of a 1,860 finished square foot four level split entry home. The home will have 3 bedrooms, two bathrooms and a 3-car garage (attachment 2). Staff is in the process of revising the purchase and redevelopment agreement, which will also include a financial agreement in the amount equal to the improvements on the property as required by the HRP policy. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED Approve Resolution No. 99-EDA-116 for the sale of the city owned property located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive to Vista Construction, Inc. for the purpose of redeveloping the subject site. Rick Jopke, Co unity Development Director Attachments: 1) Letter to Rescind Proposal, Marquis Builders, Inc. 2) Proposed Home, Vista Construction, Inc. 3) Resolution 99-EDA-l16 MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDA-116 COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND VISTA CONSTRUCTION,INC. It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners(the"Board") of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority(the"Authority") as follows: 1. Recitals. a. The Authority has the powers provided in the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469-124 10 469.134 and 469.090 to 469.108 (collectively, the "Act"). b. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote development and redevelopment of certain land within the City of Mounds View and in this connection is engaged in carrying out the Mounds View Economic Development Project(the"Project") within the City. c. There has been approved pursuant to the Act a Project Plan for the Project. d. The redevelopment and development of property within the Project by private developers are stated objectives of the Project Plan. e. The Authority acquired the land and house located at 6991 Pleasant View Drive (the"Property") as part of the Housing Replacement Program per Resolution No. 98-EDA-93 and in furtherance of the objectives stated above. f. Vista Construction, Inc. (the"Developer") is offering to purchase the Property from the EDA under the guidelines of the Housing Replacement Program for$47,250.00 of which the terms of the purchase and redevelopment of the Property are outlined in the attached Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement (the"Agreement"). EDA RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDA-116 PAGE TWO OF TWO 2. The Board hereby determines that the Authority's execution of the Agreement and subsequent sale and redevelopment of the Property would be in furtherance of the Project Plan and hereby approves and authorizes said actions, including the execution of the Agreement by the officers of the Authority in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate. 3. Upon execution and delivery of the Agreement, the officers and employees of the Authority(including members of the City staff, acting in their capacity as staff to the Authority as well) are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be appropriate or necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the Agreement, including the sale and redevelopment of the Property, per the provisions set forth in the Agreement. 4. The Board hereby determines that the execution and performance of the Agreement will help realize the public purpose of the Act and are in furtherance of the Project Plan. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority on August 9, 1999. BY: Dan Coughlin, President ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, Executive Director op ,i��+;);�1.`� 'r�; 400i3 MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDA-117 COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING CERTAIN PARCELS IN TIF DISTRICT NO. 2 WHEREAS,there has been a request to decertify two parcels within TIF District No.2; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Economic Development Authority of the City of Mounds View that the following parcels are to be removed (decertified) from the City of Mounds View Tax Increment Financing District No. 2, effective for property taxes payable in the year 2000: 1. Parcel 06-30-23-43-0038 (Holiday Station Store) 2. Parcel 06-30-23-43-0041 (Realife Cooperative). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk-Administrator is hereby instructed to forward a copy of this resolution to Ramsey County and complete any other forms necessary to complete the removal or decertification of said parcels. The motion by Commissioner for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner , and the roll being called, the following vote was recorded: Voting Aye: Voting Nay: Not voting: Whereupon said resolution was declared to have been duly passed and adopted this 9th day of August, 1999. BY: Dan Coughlin, President ATTEST: Charles S. Whiting, Executive Director