HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2006
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, July 24, 2006
6:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty,
Commissioner Gunn, Commissioner Thomas
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please
give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your
comments to three minutes.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 10, 2006 EDA Minutes.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Consider EDA Resolution 06-EDA-221 Authorizing Demolition of the Premium Stop
property located at 2390 County Road 10.
B. Consider EDA Resolution 06-EDA-222 Authorizing Payment of a Pay-As-You-Go
Developer Payment to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond.
8. REPORTS
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, August 14, 2006
10. ADJOURNMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 10, 2006 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
6:20 P.M. 9
10
11
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12
13
2. ROLL CALL: Acting President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner 14
Thomas. Commissioner Gunn arrived at 6:25 p.m. 15
16
NOT PRESENT: President Marty 17
18
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19
20
21
MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/THOMAS. To Approve the July 10, 2006 Agenda as 22
presented. 23
24
Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 25
26
4. PUBLIC INPUT 27
28
There was none. 29
30
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31
32
A. EDA Minutes, June 26, 2006. 33
34
MOTION/SECOND: THOMAS/FLAHERTY. To Approve the June 26, 2006 Minutes as 35
presented. 36
37
Ayes – 3 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 38
39
6. CONSENT AGENDA 40
41
None. 42
43
7. EDA BUSINESS 44
45
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 2
A. Review the Mounds View Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Policy 46
47
Community Development Director Ericson explained that the issue was requested for additional 48
consideration. He said the EDA asked the Planning Commission about scenarios regarding 49
increment being generated through the life of the three TIF districts. He stated it was requested 50
that the City’s TIF policy be compared to the St. Anthony Village’s policy. 51
52
Director Ericson gave an update regarding Planning Commission’s discussion on the subject. He 53
stated there was no consensus from the Planning Commission about what should be done. He 54
said they were not able to present any recommendation about whether the TIF increment should 55
be supported as-is or changed. 56
57
Director Ericson stated the original three TIF districts run through 2015 and the increment will 58
no longer be available after that time. Hs stated the question is whether to maximize the 59
increment through the remaining years of the TIF districts, which is the status quo, or whether to 60
change the TIF districts. 61
62
Commissioner Gunn arrived at 6:25 p.m. 63
64
Director Ericson said the Planning Commission felt they were not in the position to make a 65
recommendation at this time. He said they agreed with the Economic Development Commission 66
that County Road 10 and City streets are the priority. He said they were not sure how much 67
money would be available and how much spending funds in one area would decrease funding for 68
another area. 69
70
Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission also considered at scenarios that the EDA 71
discussed and there was an additional item of discussion: the impact on the median-value home 72
in Mounds View. 73
74
Director Ericson stated that the concern is that because the dollars were presented in a 2006 75
figure, without any inflation or estimation of property values over time, a recommendation based 76
on static figures will not be correct because it will not be the reality in 2015. He stated the 77
Planning Commission suggested spending some increment on the corridor, but are not making a 78
recommendation nor are they explicitly supporting the status quo. 79
80
Director Ericson stated that both the Mounds View’s and St. Anthony’s TIF policies are 81
presented. He stated they are both structured the same, but St. Anthony’s goes into more detail. 82
He stated the EDA could review the TIF policy and make amendments and changes. He stated at 83
this point it is being brought back for additional EDA discussion. 84
85
Director Ericson reminded the EDA of their previous vote supporting the status quo. 86
87
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 3
Commissioner Flaherty stated that he read the St. Anthony TIF policy, believes it is a good start, 88
and needs to be personalized for Mounds View. He stated in terms of the City’s need for TIF, 89
the City will have $14.3 million in the status quo and $34 million worth of improvements have 90
been identified. He stated that past surveys of the residents point that the needs are high on 91
residents’ lists of priorities also. He stated the money is also needed for streets. 92
93
Commissioner Flaherty stated he previously said that if the present increment is not maximized, 94
the Council will have to go back to the citizens for funds in the form of bonds or tax increases. 95
He stated he is in favor of giving money back to the citizens, but does not “want to take money 96
out of the left pocket and put it into the right.” 97
98
Commissioner Thomas asked what Staff is requesting from the EDA. She stated there are two 99
different issues, a TIF policy and a TIF plan. She stated the policy is in front of the EDA and 100
asked what Staff is requesting regarding the TIF plan. She stated the TIF policy is very similar to 101
St. Anthony. She asked what the EDA needs to accomplish and whether Staff wants the EDA to 102
present a plan. 103
104
Director Ericson replied that staff would like to know if the policy is fine as is. He stated there 105
was a desire to look at other plans and Staff and the EDA wanted to review them. He stated in 106
terms of the plan, Staff is looking at possible expenditures through the life of the districts. He 107
stated the EDA needs to formalize an agreement regarding how the funds should be spent. 108
109
Director Ericson added that Staff is looking for direction about priorities for funding 110
expenditures. He stated the EDC has laid out their priorities and that Staff would like direction 111
about where to focus their efforts. 112
113
Acting President Stigney stated he appreciated Director Ericson’s summary of the Planning 114
Commission meeting. He stated he does not recall what the Planning Commission’s priorities 115
are and would like to be informed. He stated the Planning Commission is being asked by the 116
EDC for input to have more of a balance between economic and residents’ interests. 117
118
Acting President Stigney stated that regarding Scenario B, removing $2 million from the SYSCO 119
district, that taxpayers would save $32 per home per year in taxes. Acting President Stigney 120
stated he may agree with such a plan. He stated he would like to use TIF to bring in a 121
development, and once the development is done, the TIF should be given back to the taxpayers. 122
He stated he does not believe in an “all or nothing” situation. He stated that residents have paid 123
in enough and should get some back. 124
125
Acting President Stigney addressed the policy and stated he does not have a problem if the EDA 126
considers St. Anthony’s policy as a basis to begin. He stated he likes St. Anthony’s summary 127
about the purpose of TIF funds. He explained that nailing down a TIF policy going forward 128
should be a priority. He stated he would like to see a summary of St. Anthony’s policy 129
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 4
incorporated into Mound’s View TIF policy. He stated he does not have a problem with Staff 130
reviewing St. Anthony’s policy. 131
132
Commissioner Thomas stated the policies are very similar and that she would not like to spend a 133
lot of time on the policy instead of working on the actual TIF plan. She stated the policy does 134
not speak to pre-1990 projects and that she does not see a differentiation among the districts. 135
136
Acting President Stigney stated it does discuss pre-1990 developments and reiterated his support 137
of the summary in St. Anthony’s policy 138
139
Commissioner Gunn stated that she was confused by the Planning Commission meeting as well. 140
She said that she agrees with Commissioner Flaherty about the balance of the TIF funding. She 141
stated there is always somewhere that the taxes will be raised. She added that she believes St. 142
Anthony’s policy is fairly similar and that nothing caught her attention either way. 143
144
Director Ericson addressed the “all or nothing” and B scenarios. He stated Commissioner Gunn 145
raised a good point. He added that the three TIF districts are governed under different laws 146
regarding the collection of TIF. He stated any funds or increment collected go into a pool that 147
can be spent anywhere in the City for expenditures. He added that the City has not closed out the 148
district because of this reason. He stated until the districts are closed, the TIF money is collected. 149
150
Director Ericson stated Finance Director Beer analyzed the savings if the various scenarios were 151
adopted. He mentioned that the decertification of SYSCO District 3 could be done immediately. 152
He stated the tax dollars would then be turned back to the general levy, which would spread 153
across more properties where property owners would see a tax decrease. 154
155
Director Ericson stated that, all things being equal, property owners would notice a slight 156
decrease in their tax bill, but other taxes may be increased. He stated the Planning Commission 157
initially wanted to recommend “what was of impact to the property owner.” He stated the 158
Planning Commission believed that if the amount of money given back was negligible, then it 159
did not make sense to give up the TIF dollars. 160
161
Director Ericson stated the Planning Commission made it clear that County Road 10 is a priority. 162
163
Director Ericson explained that he went through St. Anthony’s and Mounds View’s policies and 164
that Saint Anthony has a stronger policy statement. He stated that perhaps the EDC should 165
review the policies and make a recommendation. He stated the EDA has the authority to make 166
changes to the policy. 167
168
Acting President Stigney stated the County and School District taxes are confusing. He stated 169
the EDA is discussing City taxes and $32 is not an amount to take lightly. He stated that the 170
money can go back into the taxpayers’ pockets and the City is only losing $2 million. He stated 171
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 5
there is not enough money for all of the projects regardless and the City needs to scrutinize 172
projects and determine priorities. 173
174
Acting President Stigney stated he has some problems with the applications for the TIF money. 175
He stated he would like the Planning Commission’s priority list for specific projects. 176
177
Commissioner Thomas stated she favors Scenario B because it is not just an issue. She stated it 178
is a move the City can make to put properties back on the tax rolls and to send the message that 179
Mounds View will give assistance but that will be over once the businesses are on their feet. She 180
stated it is a larger issue than the $32 refund. She added that the money belongs to the taxpayers 181
and it makes the City responsible. 182
183
Commissioner Thomas stated that TIF funds are easy for the City to spend and the City needs to 184
make a symbolic measure to remind the community and Council about whose money it is. She 185
stated the City should not be asking for the money. She added that she likes projects that are 186
visible, not ones the citizens do not see because the City does not ask specifically for the funds. 187
188
Commissioner Flaherty stated there are better ways to make symbolic moves. He stated he likes 189
Mounds View’s body of work, but likes the way Saint Anthony’s policy flows. He stated Saint 190
Anthony’s policy is concise, precise, and strong. He stated that Mounds View has a policy, but it 191
could be formatted better. 192
193
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated he was at the Planning Commission 194
meeting on July 5th. He said there was some suggestion that the five scenarios did not have the 195
validity if there was not the factor of inflation. He stated he does believe the scenarios are fair 196
because the same assumptions were made throughout. 197
198
Coordinator Backman stated if there is a desire for Staff to analyze how the policy is written, the 199
EDC would be willing to compare the policies and would even be willing to review those of 200
other cities. He stated the language could be refined. 201
202
Acting President Stigney stated he would like the summary from Saint Anthony’s policy 203
incorporated and suggested it be run by the EDC. 204
205
Ken Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, stated he has been at several of the TIF discussions. He 206
stated the discussions are confusing because the issues of the policy and plan are not kept 207
separate. He said he does not want to deal much with existing districts. 208
209
Mr. Glidden stated he agrees that if there was clear-cut criteria established with the districts, 210
there would not be the discussions about when and what to do. He stated that he does not believe 211
the TIF policies are precise or clear enough. 212
213
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 6
Mr. Glidden stated he would like to see what goals are established with various TIF districts and 214
steps to take when it is completed so there is no confusion. He stated he has not seen the Saint 215
Anthony or Mounds View TIF policies. He said he came here asking the EDA to ensure that 216
there are things in Mounds View’s TIF policy addressing specific objectives, criteria of TIF 217
districts, and benefits to City. 218
219
Mr. Glidden stated he scanned through a document that addresses those issues and that there are 220
serious discussions about criterion establishing a TIF district. He stated that the Mounds View 221
TIF policy should address those issues and ensure that they are clear-cut and communicable to 222
residents. He stated all the discussions he’s been involved in point that the policy is too vague. 223
He said the City adopts those districts for special reasons for economic development. 224
225
Mr. Glidden posed the question about what percent of the tax base will be developed or re-226
developed over the next five to ten years. He stated that such a discussion might bring up some 227
TIF ideas that would help the EDA establish the specific criteria for TIF funding. 228
229
Commissioner Thomas stated Mr. Glidden pointed out one of her concerns: that the objectives of 230
TIF districts are too broad. She said she likes the limitations Mounds View has on TIF funding 231
and spending. She said Saint Anthony’s is much broader and she likes Mounds View’s 232
limitations. She stated she would like to maintain Mounds View’s limitations and asked the 233
EDC to review it. 234
235
Acting President Stigney stated he believes Mounds View’s policy is too broad and Saint 236
Anthony’s summary does a good job nailing it down. He responded to Mr. Glidden that some 237
problems come in with pre-1990 TIF districts. He stated that once the TIF money is paid on any 238
new projects, the TIF will be automatically closed out even if the district is kept open. He 239
clarified that pre-1990, all TIF districts were kept open to maximize the funding until the end of 240
the district. 241
242
Commissioner Flaherty stated that Mounds View is following their policy by implementing such 243
a review and pointed out Item 2 in the TIF policy. He stated the question is not whether Mounds 244
View is following its policy, but whether the policy needs to be tightened up. He stated Mounds 245
View is following its established policies. 246
247
Commissioner Thomas brought up that the EDA did not provide Director Ericson with specific 248
direction. Director Ericson asked if the EDA is interested in exploring option 2 (B). Acting 249
President Stigney stated he has always preferred Option B, and stated Staff should explore option 250
B closer. 251
252
Commissioner Thomas suggested the policy be run by the EDC for reformatting. Acting 253
President Stigney added that the priorities of the Planning Commission and the summary 254
language from Saint Anthony’s policy should also be considered. 255
Mounds View EDA July 10, 2006
Regular Meeting Page 7
256
8. REPORTS 257
258
A. Update Regarding the Acquisition of 2390 County Road 10 (Verbal Report) 259
260
Director Ericson suggested the item be put on Council agenda under reports. 261
262
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, July 24, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. 263
264
10. ADJOURNMENT 265
266
Acting President Stigney adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m. 267
268
269
Respectfully submitted, 270
271
272
Recorded and transcribed by: 273
Lauren McKay 274
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 275
276
Item No: EDA 7A
Meeting Date: July 24, 2006
Type of Business: Business
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Consideration of EDA Resolution 06-EDA-221 Awarding
Contract to Demolish 2390 County Road 10
Introduction:
On June 26, 2006, the Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) approved the
acquisition of the property located at 2390 County Road 10 for blight elimination and
redevelopment. The sale of the property closed on June 29, 2006 after all required
documentation had been obtained. Up until shortly before its acquisition, the property
had operated continuously as a gas station and convenience store, most recently as “The
Premium Stop.”
Discussion:
On July 13, 2006, staff mailed out Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for the demolition and
site restoration of the property at 2390 County Road 10. The cover letter and RFP is
attached for the EDA’s reference. Five proposals were received by the deadline:
Contractor Total of Demolition Bids*
Semple Companies, Inc. $35,560
Carl Bolander & Sons $39,146
Kevitt Excavating $24,910
Griffin Contracting $27,460
Veit Companies $24,936
* Asbestos abatement costs are additional
Recommendation:
Staff has drafted EDA Resolution 06-EDA-221, a resolution awarding a demolition
contract to Kevitt Excavating in an amount of $24,910 plus asbestos abatements costs,
plus an additional ten percent contingency to cover any unforeseen or unanticipated
expenses, for the demolition and site restoration of 2390 County Road 10.
_____________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Zoning Map
Photographic Documentation
Aerial Image
Demolition Contractors – RFP LIST
2390 County Road 10
RFPs mailed July 13, 2006
Lloyds Construction Services, Inc.
7207 W. 128th St.
Savage, MN 55378
952-746-5832
952-746-5800 (fax to Jeff Stocker)
www.lloyds-construction.com
Semple Excavating
91 Ridder Circle
St. Paul, MN 55107
651-772-1449
Brad Ensrude
bradensrude@qwest.net
Griffin Contracting
Dave Manders
8700 Xylite Street NE
Blaine, MN 55449
763-780-6332
Davem@gpsgc.com
Kevitt Excavating, Inc.
3335 Pennsylvania Avenue North
Crystal, MN 55427
763-545-3557
Leahbia08@yahoo.com
Veit Companies
Nick Bartemio
14000 Veit Place
Rogers, MN 55374
763-428-2242
nbartemio@veitusa.com
www.veitcompanies.com
Sauter & Sons Excavating
6651 141 Avenue NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
763-421-7919
Carl Bolander & Sons
251 Starkey Street
St. Paul, MN 55107
651-224-6299
Evan@bolander.com
www.bolander.com
Andy Ristrom (x148)
Evan Mackey
Ceres Environmental
3825 85th Ave. No.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
763-425-8822
John Ulschmid
Anderson Ray & Sons
930 Duluth Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
651-774-2550
651-774-0384 (fax)
Request for Proposals
Demolition Contractor Wanted
Property Location: 2390 COUNTY ROAD 10
MOUNDS VIEW, MN 55112
Bid to include but not limited to the following:
Removal and legal disposal of all structures to include buildings, signage, canopy
posts, building contents, walls, floors, slabs, debris and footings. (Privacy fence at
rear of property to remain)
Includes all tipping fees and disposal costs
Removal and disposal of parking lot, driveways, curbing, and all associated concrete
according to attached site plan. (Please note limits of demolition; saw-cut
bituminous at limit line.)
Removal and disposal of all white goods and fixtures
Water, sewer, electrical, telephone, gas and cable and other disconnections as
required
MPCA Notifications
Ramsey County Right of Way permit
City Demolition Permit Fees
City Licensing
Baiting
Asbestos/Hazardous Building Material Survey
Backfill (with clean fill) and final grade demolition site creating a flat surface with 4”
topsoil.
Hydroseed topsoil area with MnDOT approved boulevard grass seed mixture
Municipal / governmental references
Bid Exclusions: Asbestos Abatement
To obtain access to property: Call Jim Ericson at 763-717-4021
Please return proposals no later than Thursday, 4:00 pm, July 20, 2006 to:
JIM ERICSON
City of Mounds View
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
Phone: 763-717-4022
Fax: 763-784-3462
Jim.ericson@ci.mounds-view.mn.us
Authorization:
____________________
Jim Ericson
Community Development Director
City of Mounds View
RESOLUTION NO. 06-EDA-221
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX
INCREMENT FUNDS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND RESTORATION OF 2390
COUNTY ROAD 10 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLIGHT ELIMINATION AND FUTURE
REDEVELOPMENT
It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the Board) of the Mounds
View Economic Development Authority (the Authority) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01 The Authority has the powers provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.124 to 469.134 and 469.090 to 469.108 (collectively, the Act).
1.02 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.
1.03 There has been approved pursuant to the Act a Project Plan for the
Project.
1.04 The redevelopment of property within the Project is a stated objective of
the Project Plan.
1.05 In order to achieve the objectives of the Project Plan, the Authority has
determined to provide substantial aid and assistance through the financing of certain
public costs of development.
1.06 It has been proposed that the Authority demolish the property located in
the City at 2390 County Road 10 (the Property) and that the Authority approve the
demolition contract and/or similar contract(s) (collectively, the Contract) attached as
“Exhibit A” for the demolition of the Property for the purposes of redevelopment.
Section 2. Resolved.
2.01 The Board hereby determines that the Authority’s execution of the
Contract and the subsequent demolition and site restoration of the Property would be in
furtherance of the Project Plan and hereby approves and authorizes said actions,
including the execution of the Contract by the officers of the Authority in their discretion
and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate.
2.02 Upon execution contract, 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 Contract,
including the demolition and site restoration of the Property, which is being
accomplished for blight elimination and redevelopment purposes.
2.03 That the Board of the Authority hereby determines that the execution and
performance of the Contract with Kevitt Excavating and demolition of the Property and
site restoration will help realize the public purposes of the Act and are in furtherance of
the Project Plan and authorizes the President and Executive Director to appropriate a
maximum of $27,400 plus asbestos abatement costs to be determined, of tax increment
funds.
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic
Development Authority this 24th day of July 2006.
___________________________
Rob Marty, President
ATTEST:
____________________________
Kurt Ulrich, Executive Director
Exhibit A: Demolition Contract