Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2005 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA Monday, July 25, 2005 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. EDA Minutes June 27, 2005. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. 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. B. Resolution 05-EDA-206 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payments to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond; and Bridges Leasing Company. 8. REPORTS 9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, August 8, 2005 @ 630pm 10. ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 Regular Meeting 5 June 27, 2005 6 Mounds View City Hall 7 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 6:05 P.M. 9 10 11 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12 13 2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Flaherty, 14 Commissioner Gunn, and Commissioner Thomas 15 16 NOT PRESENT: 17 18 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19 20 MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the June 27, 2005 Agenda as presented. 21 22 Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23 24 4. PUBLIC INPUT 25 26 Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced Items 7A and 7B on the agenda and asked that 27 the Commissioners give at least three reasons for the way they vote on each item. 28 29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 30 31 A. EDA Minutes June 13, 2005 32 33 The June 13, 2005 EDA Minutes will be presented at the July 11, 2005 EDA Meeting 34 35 6. CONSENT AGENDA 36 37 A. Resolution 05-EDA-203 Approving the Proposed Sale of Land comprising the 38 Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course; and approving the Development Proposal 39 and Terms of the Purchase Agreement and Contract for Private Development. 40 41 Aaron Backman, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that since last summer the Mounds 42 View Economic Development Authority and the City Council have authorized Staff to undertake 43 various steps regarding the golf course redevelopment and Medtronic project including a 44 Wetlands Delineation Study, a commercial appraisal, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review, 45 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 (AUAR), a boundary and topographic survey and pursuing a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 46 He stated that at the end of December 2004 Medtronic presented City Council with a preliminary 47 term sheet concerning the acquisition and redevelopment of The Bridges. He stated that as a 48 result of City Council’s consideration of the offer Council directed Staff to continue to proceed 49 with negotiations with Medtronic and to pursue a course of action consistent with potentially 50 selling The Bridges for redevelopment. 51 52 Mr. Backman explained that the term sheet indicated that the Mounds View EDA would seek 53 special TIF legislation that would permit a 25-year TIF Districts. He further explained that the 54 term sheet indicated that the City would contact Clear Channel to arrange for the removal of the 55 billboards noting that two of the five Executive Session held by the EDA were to discuss 56 negotiations with Clear Channel. He stated that they came to agreement with Clear Channel by 57 mid-June. 58 59 Mr. Backman stated that the development proposal, including the terms, the purchase agreement 60 and contract for private development, are included in the packet for their review adding that this 61 document was provided to the attendees at the public hearing held last Monday, June 20, 2005. 62 He explained that under the proposed agreement Medtronic is paying $8.65 million to acquire the 63 property from the City and contributing $1 million to the State Highway Fund for the reverter 64 clause federal interest. He stated that the company would also pay the City $865,000 in park 65 dedication fees, $670,000 for compensation pertaining to the billboard signs, to cover the city 66 administration costs and the customary permit construction fees. He stated that the City expects 67 to net over $5 million from the sale at closing and after the golf course debt is paid off. He stated 68 that Ehlers and Associates, the City’s TIF financial advisor, has done a comparison of the ‘as is’ 69 model with the Medtronic model noting that they have projected that the fund balance, as of 70 December 31, 2033, would be approximately $7.5 million for the ‘as is’ model and $19.4 million 71 for the Medtronic model. He noted that a graph is included with the report adding that when the 72 models are graphed it is clear that the City is better off financially every year after the course is 73 sold to Medtronic for the life of the proposed TIF District. He stated that the economic impacts 74 of the project are profound for both the City and surrounding areas. He explained that it would 75 increase the city’s tax base by 8-percent in Phase 1 and would leverage $20.5 million in State 76 funds to reconstruct and upgrade area roads, which are used by both area residents and 77 businesses. He stated that the city would benefit from having a premier company that is willing 78 to spend well over $100 million in private investments in this City and garners a business partner 79 interested in the community’s future including its’ schools. 80 81 Mr. Backman indicated that there are other alternatives available noting that each of those 82 alternatives have a greater level of risk than the current proposal adding that the long-term tax-83 base impact would also be less. He stated that given the positive impacts of this proposal it is 84 recommended that the Mounds View Economic Development Authority adopt Resolution 05-85 EDA-203. 86 87 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 88 authorized by the City reviewed all transportation issues related to the proposed development of 89 the site. He stated that as he read through the AUAR a question was raised as to what kind of 90 traffic impacts this could have on the City. He stated that he believes it was stated this aspect of 91 it was not really looked at or addressed. He stated that they are looking at County Road J, 35W, 92 Highway 10 and Airport Road noting that the actual traffic impacts to the City south of Highway 93 10, if recalls, was not addressed in the AUAR. 94 95 Mr. Backman explained that the AUAR focused on the site itself to determine how the traffic 96 patterns are currently and how they would proceed if there were a development on the site. He 97 explained that it was determined that most of the traffic would be in terms of Highway 10 and 98 35W. He acknowledged that there was not traffic counts down south of the Highway 10. 99 100 President Marty referenced the June 20th Public Hearing stating that this issue was expressed as a 101 major concern by many of the residents. He stated that he too is very concerned as to the impact 102 the additional traffic would have on the city adding that this aspect should be addressed. 103 104 President Marty referenced page eleven, Item 3A, states retention, relocation, 105 termination\acquisition of billboards leaseholds, noted five lines down it states that Clear 106 Channel would pay the city $15,000 annually for each sign for years 1 to 10; $20,000 for each 107 sign for years 11 to 20; $35,000 for each sign for years 21 to 30. He stated that it was his 108 understanding that Clear Channel could walk at any time from the current agreement noting that 109 if this is the potential why does it appear to be bottom –loaded. 110 111 City Attorney Riggs confirmed that they did discuss the contents of the existing leases between 112 the City and Clear Channel. He explained that it is not an issue that they could possibly walk 113 without the City or EDA having a remedy. He assured the Commission that they would clearly 114 have options noting that the bottom line is that the leases that exist now are valid and would 115 continue on. He stated that any other lease they would have moving forward would be the same. 116 He stated that any lessee could abandon the leased interest noting that this does not mean that 117 the City does not have remedies available that could be pursued. He noted that the present lease 118 does have this included, as would any other lease the city would enter into. 119 120 President Marty clarified that his concern is that he could see how they could have more of a 121 tendency to walk if they are paying $250,000 per year versus $35,000 per sign. 122 123 Carol Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, stated that she has been praying for the city regarding this 124 decision. She stated that she is praying that certain individuals on the Council would not have to 125 be reminded of their responsibility and their ethics. She stated that ethics is the best word she 126 can use in regards to this noting that if she worked for a company that was going to receive a 127 benefit from the sale of a property, whether or not the benefit would trickle down to her level or 128 not, she would exclude herself from the vote. She stated that if she had a relative working for the 129 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 130 vote. She recalled several years ago it was brought before the residents of Mounds View to vote 131 on the whether they wanted to establish a golf course on this property. She stated that as she 132 recalled the residents of Mounds View wanted the golf course and also took into account that it 133 would take a few years to become profitable and were ok with this. She stated that it is her hope 134 that with good ethics one would let all of the residents in this community have all of the facts and 135 put it to a vote. She acknowledged that the pressure is on, with all of the groundwork that has 136 already been laid, to get through this quickly to break ground in time. She expressed concerns 137 stating that sometimes there is a rush to action that might not be the right action. She stated that 138 she is praying that we all do the right thing. She stated that she is very interested in Mr. 139 Backman’s statement was a $20.5 million allocation to improve area roads. She asked for 140 clarification noting that it is her belief that the dollars are specifically earmarked for the County 141 Road J/35W interchange and the improvement of that access from County Road J to the freeway. 142 She clarified that it was her understanding from what was said at the public hearing that the only 143 improvements to County Road J would be the striping and widening the turn area at the turn 144 signal light near Sysco. 145 146 Mr. Backman clarified that the $20.5 does include substantial improvements along County Road 147 J noting that they have to reconstruct and widen it. He stated that they have to have turning lanes 148 at various points noting that the way the legislation is written there is more than one pot of 149 money. He stated that there is a $5 million allocation in the redevelopment account written 150 specifically to the City of Mounds View for public improvements. He stated that there is another 151 allocation for biosciences noting that it indicates there should be public improvements and does 152 not specifically state that they cannot improve County Road J or the turning lanes. He stated that 153 it is actually fairly broad. 154 155 Ms. Mueller stated that it is good to know that there is a $5 million allocation in the 156 redevelopment fund for County Road J. She stated she has a neighbor on Sherwood Road who 157 has been talking about potholes on his street for a long time adding that there are a lot of potholes 158 on her street too. She stated that she is very concerned about the proposed increase in traffic 159 noting that people will not take the major routes to get to the existing proposed sale property. 160 She stated that they would take the back roads adding that currently they already have troubles 161 controlling the speed on these roads. She expressed concerns stating that she feels the city is 162 selling the property way too cheaply and not getting the best bang for its buck. She stated that 163 the voters should be given the opportunity to put out their opinion on this. She expressed 164 concerns stating that the telephone survey did not canvas enough of the residents. She stated that 165 one of the questions asked on the survey was whether the residents would be in favor of keeping 166 the golf course if it were able to hold its own noting that the response was 39-percent were in 167 favor of keeping the golf course if it was self-sufficient and 32-percent were in favor of selling. 168 She stated that all things considered they should take time to review everything again, consider 169 the ethics and get it to the people. 170 171 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 172 the reasons this whole problem with golf course is being discussed is because it is currently 173 losing money. He further clarified that the main focus for the city right now is to review various 174 avenues to increase revenue for the city without raising taxes. He stated that they are all aware 175 that there are no streets currently in the City of Mounds View that are worthy of being fixed, they 176 should be replaced. He stated that it is his understanding that they are talking about a potential 177 addition of $5 million that could be used that is not even part of the overall profit that would be 178 made from the sale of the golf course after all debts have been paid. He stated that it is his 179 understanding that this would be in addition to the approximate $5 million from the sale to equal 180 $10 million that could be used at the City’s discretion for street improvements. 181 182 President Marty asked Mr. Hall where he came up with the additional $5 million. 183 184 Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Backman was just discussing it. 185 186 Mr. Backman clarified the bonding bill stating that while there is a lot of latitude on the bonding 187 bill it is clear with all parties that the funds are to be used for the County Road J reconstruction. 188 189 Mr. Hall stated that the big thing they are doing is trying to determine what is best for the City of 190 Mounds View. He expressed concerns stating that the city is not currently in a moneymaking 191 situation they are in a money-losing situation. He indicated that he has discussed this issue with 192 many individuals and it is his understanding that the word is that once real numbers are made 193 available, in black and white, a decision can then be made based on what is in the best interest 194 for the City of Mounds View. He stated that he has also discussed this issue with Ehlers noting 195 that after that conversation he felt very good about the money spent for Ehlers and the work they 196 have done. He stated that people could try to say it is misleading adding that if there is anything 197 misleading with Ehlers it’s the 3-percent gross they used on the growth period. He stated that it 198 appears to be very clear that this is an overwhelming and substantial bonus for the City of 199 Mounds View and urged the Commission to do what is best for the City now and for thirty years 200 from now. 201 202 Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, stated that he would like to comment on the 3000 jobs being 203 created in Mounds View. He stated that it is his understanding that Medtronic would be closing 204 six facilities and the employees would transfer from the closed facilities to the Mounds View 205 location and the net increase would be zero except for the growth projection of 300 jobs per year. 206 He stated that he wants it to be clear that this would bring 300 new jobs not 3000. 207 208 President Marty further clarified that it would be 3000 existing positions that would be new to 209 Mounds View and confirmed that they are not creating 3000 new jobs. 210 211 Jon McKusick, 8465 Eastwood Road, referenced an article from the Pioneer Press that states 212 approximately $24 million TIF money is expected to be spent on this project and another $11 213 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 214 Brothers property, for their parking lot. He asked why the City of Blaine wouldn’t be doing this 215 and why is Mounds View giving money to Medtronic to purchase this property. 216 217 Mr. Backman clarified stating that the $24 million figure should actually be $14.8 million, which 218 is the agreed upon amount for TIF. He stated that to make the project doable and to 219 accommodate the campus they are looking at acquiring some properties located in Blaine. He 220 stated that the buildings would be built in Mounds View and the parking lots would be created on 221 property that is actually located in Blaine. 222 223 City Administrator Ulrich further clarified that the $24 million was their total TIF eligible 224 expenses and they are only being reimbursed $14.8 million per the proposed agreement. He 225 stated that Mounds View expenditures would come off the top of that and noted that at the 226 bottom of all that is the $11 million of land in Blaine but the remaining $24 million expenditures 227 would be Mounds View generated expenditures. He stated that because this development is 228 located on a border and could potentially impact two Counties and three Cities, special 229 legislation was put into place that allows the expenditures generated within this district to be 230 spent outside of the district. 231 232 Commissioner Thomas further clarified that Medtronic gets $14.8 million from the tax district. 233 She stated that they have over $24 million that they can use the money on but have to use all of 234 the money in Mounds View first and then they can use it on anything they have above that. She 235 assured the residents that they would never get the opportunity to use the increment dollars in 236 Blaine because there won’t be anything left. 237 238 Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated that while reviewing city policies on the city 239 website she came across a section relating to the use of business subsidies under the General 240 Policy section that states that business subsidies should not be used for projects that would place 241 an extraordinary demand on the city infrastructure and services. She stated this causes her some 242 concern noting that last Monday it was stated that there would be an additional cost of $80,000 243 for the city in order to have this large business located on City land. She stated that it is very 244 naïve to think that the city costs would only be this much when considering police and fire 245 services. She asked the Commission to take a step back and review the costs. She stated that her 246 main concern is that the main discussion about this has not been happening in a public forum due 247 to negotiations. She stated that if they are making any decisions tonight she wants to see them 248 discuss, intensely, all of the issues brought up by the residents. She stated that she wants to feel 249 that all five of the Commissioners understand all of the issues that this project entails. She stated 250 that she does not feel that the residents have seen them really engage noting that this is a huge 251 issue and impact on this City. She stated that she wants to go home really feeling that the 252 Commission has really discussed all of the issues and have all answers. She stated that all 253 questions should be answered and if not they should table it until they do have all the answers. 254 She stated that she would also like to know the reasons behind each of their votes. 255 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 7 256 Brian Amundsen, 3048 Wooddale Drive, stated that he would like to discuss this evening 257 whether this is the right. He stated that he is here to ask the Commission to deny this resolution 258 and the multiple parts of the resolution. He stated that things should be taken in their piece parts 259 and in order. He stated that he does not understand how the EDA has the authority to do 260 something, which the City has the unique authority to do. He asked if it is right that the Council 261 and the EDA had conversations for six months out of the sight and earshot of the public so that 262 the public conversation was delayed because it was unknown what the conversations were. He 263 asked if it is right that Council and EDA have only had analysis about one project with the City 264 income with the level of detail presented to the public and has not pursued the same level of 265 detail for the other options. He asked if it is right to use private negotiations for public property 266 when a public auction with full disclosure and open bidding allows the public to see the total 267 results and the real interests of any other parties, plus it doesn’t create a veil over what is 268 occurring. He clarified his understanding that Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law is intended to 269 ensure full public disclosure and participation in matters that seriously affect the city and 270 questioned whether this meeting law has been skirted. He suggested that a public auction would 271 remove the sense of conspiracy or private deals and it would allow the public into the discourse. 272 He asked if it is right to allow an issue this large to be decided by five duly elected officials when 273 there are so many strong and diverse opinions noting that elections have been used in the past to 274 make decisions that did not have as large of an impact on the city. He referenced the finances 275 and asked if it is right to use TIF for redevelopment, a tool originally intended for developing 276 housing and businesses that need assistance to grow jobs and to replace structurally unsafe 277 buildings or abandoned buildings or unused tank facilities. He asked if it right to use this tool in 278 order to give a tax business because it is a large State employer. He asked if it is right to give 279 TIF, according to an email received from Senator Betzold, that states that it seemed right for the 280 City of New Brighton so it seemed right for the City of Mounds View. He asked if it is right to 281 allow an employer to change the rules by going to the legislature, their local Senator and 282 Representative, to offer modifying language to include a one time public golf course, which they 283 desire to change. He asked if negotiation with only one party pass the fiduciary responsibility 284 test and is it right to put big business desires ahead of individual citizen property rights. Is it 285 right to take citizen property and give it to business and have no appreciable benefit to the 286 citizens for over a quarter of a century. He asked if it is right to sell a major asset of the city and 287 only get a $43,000 in property tax with a projected $80,000 cost to the city for services. He 288 asked if it is right to change the quality of life issues for citizens when there is no benefit to the 289 city except for a dollar off the city taxes. He asked if it is right to undertake more turmoil in 290 moving the Clear Channel boards when that issue was finally settled. He stated that on the issue 291 of right or wrong, leadership is about seeing right and wrong, and even if all the pressure from 292 business, significant business people and business citizens, and political leaders, is to lean 293 towards the wrong decision because others do it all the time and that is what’s done. He stated 294 that a leader sees what’s right and what’s wrong and makes the right choice to protect the citizens 295 and the right decision to not give in to pressures from companies that have the financial means 296 but won’t commit to do what is right and not take advantage of anyone. He stated that 297 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 298 those it interacts with or it is not doing it honestly or with good intentions. He stated that a 299 company that knows a property is worth more than it is offering and asks for financial aid when it 300 has the financial means to do it without is simply taking advantage because of its size. He stated 301 that in the sandbox this is referred to as a bully, someone who uses their strength to bully their 302 way rather than be willing to compromise so that everyone involved is in a win-win situation. He 303 stated that his question to them is whether they are making the right or wrong choice. He stated 304 that Medtronic is the wrong choice because they are doing it with the wrong tool, which they 305 insist on. He thanked the Commission for their time. 306 307 Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, referenced Item 7a, stating that he placed inserts in the 308 interest of clarity. He clarified that the preliminary term sheet is the document that was presented 309 to the City by Medtronic. He referenced the development proposal, terms of purchase agreement 310 and contract for private development and asked if this is what they are talking about in terms of 311 the preliminary terms sheet. 312 313 Commissioner Thomas stated that this is not the preliminary terms sheet. She explained that the 314 preliminary term sheet is referring to what was given to the Commission at the end of the 315 December when they began discussing whether they wanted to enter into negotiations with 316 Medtronic. 317 318 Mr. McCarty referenced the concept and asked if this is the development proposal in terms of 319 purchase and contract. Mr. Backman confirmed. 320 321 Mr. McCarty asked if the Commission is being asked to endorse the concept in the resolution. 322 He asked if what they are approving is the first offering from Medtronic. 323 324 Commissioner Gunn clarified that this is not their first offering noting that they have worked 325 very hard throughout this process. 326 327 Mr. McCarty stated that this is not hard work on their part noting that he knows they are more 328 capable of this. He noted that Commissioner Gunn is far more capable noting that this 329 agreement is what the citizens are upset about. 330 331 Mr. McCarty referenced the potential later phases of the project and asked if this means Phase 2 332 and 3. 333 334 Mr. Backman assured Mr. McCarty that the EDA has worked hard on this noting that they have 335 had 8 Executive Sessions to discuss both the development agreement and the Clear Channel 336 negotiations. He stated that they have provided significant input throughout the process. 337 338 President Marty called a recess at 6:50 p.m. due to bad weather conditions. 339 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 9 President Marty called the meeting back to order at 7:05 p.m. 340 341 Mr. McCarty referenced the park dedication fee, he stated that he understands that the agreement 342 states that the park dedication fee would be calculated on the basis of $8.6 million paid by 343 Medtronic and that they would pay the balance of $1 million to the State Highway Fund in favor 344 of the city. He stated that the bill that was passed under Minnesota Statutes that authorized this 345 special legislation is that the Commissioner of Transportation shall convey to the City of Mounds 346 View all right and title and the City shall pay the Commissioner $1 million. He expressed 347 concerns stating that they are being offered $8.6 and the City is paying an additional $1 million 348 to clear the land and get clear title, which is a cost to the City of $9.6 and respectfully submitted 349 that the park dedication fee should be $965,000 and would reflect the total cost of the land to the 350 city and the transfer over, if this project is accepted as presented. 351 352 Mr. McCarty noted that there was information presented from staff outlining several options 353 noting that he would like to address the last option on the $7.2 million the City would end up 354 with in the end. He referenced the ‘as is’ investment option stating that this was not mentioned 355 and noted that if they were to keep the property ‘as is’ for the same term, projecting it on a 3-356 percent per annum gain, based on its current value, the property would be worth $16.5 million. 357 He stated that the Finance department has projected an ending cash balance of $9.6 million for a 358 total of $26 million. He stated that this is a great deal more than the $17 million cited in the 359 document. 360 361 Mr. McCarty referenced the issue of selling the property noting Section 2.02 of the City Charter, 362 Boards and Commission, states that there would be no separate boards of administration powers 363 in the City of Mounds View and the Council would act as such in all cases accepting that they 364 may appoint advisory commissions to perform quasi-judicial functions, which means advisory in 365 total. He stated bottom line the EDA cannot sell this property. He stated that the Council does 366 not have to transfer it under ordinance noting that if they wish to note to the EDA that they want 367 the EDA to negotiation this project they can do that by simple motion. He stated that under 368 Section 12.05, Sales of Real Property, it is stated very clearly that no real property of the city 369 would be disposed of except by ordinance. He stated that it also states that the proceeds of any 370 sale of such property would be used to retire any outstanding debts of the city in the purchase, 371 construction or improvement of this or other property used for the same public purpose. He 372 stated that he would like to respectfully submit that the golf course is a recreation activity of the 373 city and if there are any outstanding debts on any other recreational facilities the residuals or 374 profits on the property must first go to retire these debts. 375 376 Mr. McCarty stated that the EDA resolution recommending that Council sell The Bridges Golf 377 Course to Medtronic prior to finalization of the Comprehensive Plan amendments may be a bit 378 premature. He suggested perusing Minnesota Statute 462, the Comprehensive Planning Act, 379 stating that they would find that the comprehensive plans and their companion documents are 380 one and the same, cohesive and inseparable. He stated that to go forward with the sale of a 381 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 382 completely. 383 Mr. McCarty referenced the $400,000 for bringing utilities across the highway noting that it 384 might cover the engineering fees when they look to bring Well #4 back online. 385 386 City Administrator Ulrich referenced Well #4 stating that he recently spoke with the City 387 Engineer and the well does not have to be brought online for the Medtronic project. He stated 388 that the city would be able to service Medtronic with the existing city wells and water supply. 389 390 President Marty stated that he would like to talk to the Public Works Director about this issue at 391 another time. 392 393 Barbara Haake asked at what point do they go out for bids when the city is purchasing something 394 and what is the limit. 395 396 President Marty stated that the limit is $50,000 and they are only required to have one bid. He 397 assured Ms. Haake that they do advertise for bids. 398 399 Ms. Haake stated that Mr. McCarty’s points are very legal and Mr. Amundsen also had good 400 questions adding that it would be nice if they had time to answer their questions. She 401 acknowledged her understanding that they are on a limited time schedule and fast track noting 402 that she does believe that they should have had more options to consider. She stated that the vote 403 tonight, 12.5 in the City Charter says they can go for referendum adding that she wants everyone 404 to know that this is what they intend to go for. She stated that they want Medtronic to be aware 405 that this is their plan once it goes into the ordinance process adding that the do not believe that 406 there has been tough enough negotiations. 407 408 David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated that he has followed this very closely noting that he 409 has always been an opponent of the city owning a golf course because it loses money every year. 410 He stated that he is appalled that a group of people put out a document that states the only entity 411 is the golf course makes money noting he has documentation from the Finance Director that the 412 golf course has lost money every year. He stated the numbers are in adding that anyone 413 following this project knows the numbers. He stated that it is his belief that there is a group of 414 people that just does not want Medtronic there they want a golf course. He stated that he does 415 not believe that a city should be in a business and that the golf course should stand on their own. 416 He indicated that the golf course owes the city over $4 million dollars adding that the citizens 417 have elected this Commission and the Council to make the right decision here. He stated that he 418 does not care if Medtronic affects him now adding that he is sure that it would benefit future 419 generations. He stated that he hopes they make the right decision noting that the residents have 420 voted noting the recent survey. He stated that he believes the results noting that the city has hired 421 professionals to do this work and would take their word that the information provided is correct. 422 He stated that they have one opportunity to get one of the best companies who treat their 423 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 424 the right decision and thanked them for their time. 425 Jackie Ensminger, 7954 Long Lake Road stated that golfing or any sport promotes family values 426 noting that it does not make a family have values, no sport does. She stated that family values 427 start from within the home. She stated that in the same token greed has brought down 428 civilizations, corporations and individuals noting that Mounds View is a very small community. 429 She stated that she has lived in Mounds View and has become very beholden to this community. 430 She stated that people associate Mounds View with the Mermaid and thanked Mr. Hall for all of 431 the money they have put into the community noting that the city has not promoted itself well 432 enough. She expressed concerns stating that the Council went before the legislature to speak for 433 the community regarding the LGA slashing and they didn’t hear the community noting that a 434 large corporation comes to town and there is special legislation. She stated that this does not feel 435 right adding that she does appreciate all of the hard work and effort on this issue. 436 437 Mr. Hall urged the Commission to move forward and make the decisions that need to be made to 438 get the job done. 439 440 President Marty stated that he noticed Bob Thistle, a representative from Springsted, was in the 441 audience at the June 20th public hearing. He stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Thistle 442 and had the opportunity to ask why he attended the public hearing and whether he had reviewed 443 the proposal. He stated that Mr. Thistle explained that City Administrator Ulrich had invited him 444 to the public hearing noting that he did not have an opportunity to review the proposal. He noted 445 that a lot of questions and issues have been raised regarding the negotiation process, which has 446 been well taken. He noted that if this deal is approved it would be for a lifetime. He 447 acknowledged that Medtronic is on a fast track and does have a real need for this facility. He 448 stated that his question is whether this is the best deal for all involved. He stated that if they are 449 going to do this deal they would do it right and if they are not going to do this deal they would 450 also do it right. He stated that he does still see several issues adding that he would like to call for 451 a motion to table this discussion and suggested that they contact Bob Thistle with Springsted to 452 get an outside independent evaluation of the deal they have on the table. He stated that it would 453 give them some breathing room to determine whether they are getting the best deal for the city. 454 455 Vice President Stigney called a point of order stating that tabling of motions is not in order in 456 accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. He stated that there is no motion on the floor. 457 458 MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To approve EDA Resolution 05-EDA-203 which 459 states that Mounds View Economic Development Authority Resolution approving purchase 460 agreement and contract for private development between the City of Mounds View, the 461 Economic Development Authority and Medtronic and to waive the reading. 462 463 Vice President Stigney stated that this is the greatest opportunity this city has ever had and will 464 have in the future of this city. He stated that he has lived here for 39 years and nothing has ever 465 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 12 come before this city like this great of an opportunity for the City. He stated that they are looking 466 at changing a tax-exempt property that has never paid taxes and never will pay taxes to the city, 467 county or school district because it is tax exempt. He stated that they are going to review this in 468 comparison to what Medtronic will pay both long-term and short-term. He noted the question 469 was raised as to what would happen when it closes out noting that Medtronic would be paying 470 over $1 million per year to the city and you want to let it go for a losing proposition of a golf 471 course. He stated that they would also get $83,000 in franchise fees each year and start with 472 $43,000 to $60,000 in tax base each year that would also increase each year during the life of the 473 TIF District. He noted the $856,000 in park dedication fees, $100,000 to the school district, $1 474 million to MnDOT plus the $865,000 in cash to the City. He noted that 63-percent of the people 475 polled have said get rid of the golf course because it is subsidizing. He stated that the billboards 476 are subsidizing it because if they weren’t paying the billboard money into the golf course it 477 would go into the general fund. He stated that it couldn’t go to the general fund because the 478 bond covenants state that all funds must go to the golf course. He stated that trails would also be 479 included noting that it is mind-boggling to see where the debate has taken this issue. He stated 480 that he is so glad that Medtronic has considered coming into this city and it is his hope that we 481 haven’t scared them off as he would love to welcome them. 482 483 Commissioner Gunn agreed with Vice President Stigney noting that they need to look at the 484 future of the city, not just the here and now. She stated that the city as a whole is falling apart 485 and they need the tax money coming in and the benefits now and in the future. She recalled that 486 someone recently said that there would not be any repercussions from not having Medtronic 487 adding that she would have to disagree with this statement. She stated that she is seeing a bigger 488 picture noting that she has worked on the Highway 10 Committee to get this road developed 489 adding that this would be a real boost for the city to have Medtronic come in as they could 490 possibly attract other businesses to the area including restaurants and shops. She emphasized that 491 they have to look at the big picture and the future, not just the here and now. 492 493 Commissioner Flaherty stated that he first came to the Authority in January 2005. He stated that 494 he has listened carefully to everyone who has spoken on this issue noting that The Bridges golf 495 course does evoke a lot of passion within the community. He agreed that it does teach and 496 promote family values and it is beginning to show signs that it could sustain itself now due to the 497 billboard contracts with Clear Channel. He stated that it has a fine staff under the direction of 498 Mary Berg and they have won numerous awards for excellence noting that it is a first class 499 operation. He stated that Medtronic is a well-respected company that has a true humanitarian 500 mission noting that they have been an asset to the State of Minnesota and the areas in which they 501 have operated. He noted that they are a Minnesota company with a desire to stay in Minnesota 502 rather than go to the highest bidder perhaps in another state. He stated that they have several 503 components to consider including revenue for the city. He reviewed the figures that were laid 504 out to the city and to the public noting that in comparing the two it works out that Medtronic 505 would bring $778,000 per year with the Medtronic deal and $301,000 for the as is, the way the 506 city keeps it. He stated that it would also include additional funding for the schools. He agreed 507 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 13 that the golf course would maintain existing green space adding that Medtronic is only going to 508 develop a portion of the property and the remainder would be available for use by Mounds View 509 residents as a park facility with trails. He referenced other developers noting that he does not 510 believe that there are more than a handful of developers in the state that could handle a project of 511 this size within this state. He stated that they know what Medtronic brings to the table adding 512 that other developers would be a best guess. He stated that development for residential homes 513 would only be a continuation of the city operating on the backs of homeowners. He referenced 514 industrial development and asked if they really want the possibility of an industry that could 515 cause potential environmental issues, noise pollution or other additional daily traffic because of 516 trucking. He stated that it is his belief that if the golf course property were put out for proposal 517 by other developers he does not believe that Medtronic would be part of that group. He 518 referenced the concerns expressed as to whether they are getting the best value for the land and 519 the best deal for Mounds View stating that he believes that the value is not only based on 520 monetary reasons but we need to also judge it by the type of business, the image, the potential for 521 future growth and the type of people associated to this industry that would come into this project. 522 He stated that over the last year he has talked with neighbors and asked them what their concerns 523 are living in Mounds View. He stated that most responded that their biggest concerns are taxes 524 and increases in the cost of services provided. He stated that he understands that the residents of 525 Mounds View asked him to be their representative and to make the best decisions for all citizens. 526 He assured the community that he has listened to everyone’s concerns and believes that the golf 527 course has been a wonderful asset for the community but he also believes that Mounds View’s 528 future does not lay with the golf course but it does with Medtronic. 529 530 Commissioner Thomas clarified that it was her understanding that last week the meeting was 531 designed to hear from the public and their chance to speak would be tonight. She stated that this 532 gave them time to absorb and research to provide answers this week. She stated that she has 533 spent much of the week meeting with many different people and talking with residents who are 534 both for and against and somehow it seems the community can’t get around this issue becoming 535 a personal, emotional issue. She stated that it should be about the numbers adding that it has to 536 be about more than the dollars and cents discussed here. She stated that it does come down to 537 how she feels about this issue and whether the questions and concerns were answered and 538 addressed. She stated that they have been presented with an opportunity and proposal that they 539 can say yes or no to and then deal with the next step. She explained that she has to decide, based 540 on her beliefs and as an individual, what is best for the City of Mounds View. She stated that she 541 understands the limitations this property has adding that any opportunities should be explored. 542 She stated that initially she had significant concerns noting that every one of her concerns has 543 been addressed. She stated that they worked very hard for six months raising questions and 544 looking at all potential options. She referenced the cap on the TIF District stating that she 545 understands what they had to do adding that she does not like the idea of a 25-year TIF district 546 but she can do the math and understands what is being discussed. She stated that it was 547 suggested that if this is the dollar amount needed to be competitive that it should be capped at the 548 district and when it is reached it would end. She stated that this is their shot in getting this to be 549 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 14 less than 25-years. She stated that this should be dealt with noting that 25-years is a long time 550 noting that Medtronic did come to the table and agreed. She stated that it is only one thing, as 551 they progressed, that when they had issues and raised questions, they were truly able to negotiate 552 with the company and it is very frustrating that the community does not recognize what they have 553 done and what they have struggled with over the last six months. She stated that this brings 554 benefits well in excess of the $14.8 million the city is offering in way of a TIF finance noting that 555 these dollars would come back to the city multi-fold. She stated that Medtronic managed to 556 acquire the funds for County Road J not the city. She explained that Medtronic went to the 557 legislature, fought for it and got it, which shows the kind of partner they could bring into this 558 community. She stated that it would bring $20.5 million, which is far beyond the tax increment 559 being discussed. She stated this is one item out of all the benefits the city would gain. She stated 560 that once this goes through, if it goes through, they have a significant resource to deal with and 561 the surplus dollars off the sale. She stated that it has been premature, as a Council, to discuss the 562 possibilities for these dollars because we did not know if we would have them. She stated that 563 the residents raised some very valid concerns at the meeting last week and discussed many of 564 them with the residents last week. She noted that the city has many of these concerns regardless 565 of whether Medtronic comes to the city or not but with the surplus pot of money that the city 566 would have it would allow them to actually address these issues. She stated that the 567 transportation issues have been discussed for years and have not been able to address them due to 568 the lack of resources. She stated that the city would now finally have the resources to address 569 these concerns. She stated that she has to hold, as an individual, that her vote is as ethical and is 570 based down to level as she could go and is the number one right thing for her to do. She stated 571 that the rest would have to stand as individuals on that. 572 573 President Marty stated that on page 12 of the June 20th minutes Aaron Backman stated that in 574 July 2004 CRESA Partners approached the city and within a week and a half of that they had 575 received calls from a couple residential developers expressing an interest in the site. He stated 576 they had one plan for various townhomes and other types of residential development that could 577 occur on the site, which was brought up to Council but staff did not believe this was the highest 578 or best use for this location and nothing further was done with this proposal. He stated that 579 Roger stated we would be increasing the franchise fee by approximately $83,000 and noted that 580 he is of the understanding that this would be once it is totally built out. 581 582 Vice President Stigney clarified that this would be for Phase 1. 583 584 President Marty stated that in looking over the proposed development agreement he still has 585 several issues. He stated that they should have put out RFP’s to determine the best development 586 plan. He noted that last week Steve Larson, Mayor of New Brighton, stated that the deal they 587 discussed with Medtronic did not materialize and that their City decided to parcel off the land to 588 different developers. He noted that the net gain for the City of New Brighton would be 589 approximately $3 million adding that they did not mention the use of TIF, which would mean 590 that the funds would go directly to the City of New Brighton’s tax base. He stated that he has 591 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 15 had issues throughout the discussion process with the timeframe of the TIF District. He stated 592 that it was originally proposed as a redevelopment TIF district, which could have a lifespan of 593 25-years noting that it was changed and modified to what it should be, which is an Economic 594 Development District. He explained that by TIF Statute and State law an Economic 595 Development District is capped at 8-years noting that there was special legislation to extend this 596 to 25-years for Medtronic, and for Medtronic alone. He noted that the first year wouldn’t count 597 so it would actually end up being a 26-year TIF district. He acknowledged that this could pay-off 598 sooner than it is proposed but it is still a quarter of a century and many would not realize the 599 benefits from a 25-year TIF district. He stated that it was pointed out that in actuality the savings 600 would be a couple bucks a year on their taxes through the school districts. He referenced the 601 traffic issues noting that they would have the resources to address these issues in addition to the 602 road repairs. He stated that he does not see this as a big cash cow noting that he discussed this 603 with Finance Director Hansen and asked for his input on the issues. He explained that the 604 Finance Director explained that in 25-years the city would be in great shape but in the meantime, 605 as Joe pointed out, and over the last number years the city has had to do double-digit tax 606 increases just to meet basic city expenses. He stated that at a break of $41,000 to $43,000 a year 607 coming directly to the city would increase a bit every year but the billboard contract was 608 negotiated for five years noting that no one on the Council was actually in favor of billboards. 609 He stated that they worked out a sunset clause where the billboards would come down in twenty 610 years but with this proposal the billboards would not come down for 30-years or longer. He 611 explained that the timeframe doesn’t start until the billboards are moved and in place. He stated 612 that presently all of the billboards are located north of Highway 10 and Medtronic does not want 613 the billboards located on their property. He agreed adding that they cannot fit all of the 614 billboards in this area and some of the billboards would have to be brought into town and remain 615 for the next 30-years. He clarified that he has never been in favor of billboards but agreed to the 616 contract as a means to an end to pay off the golf course without incurring an increase in property 617 taxes to pay off the golf course. He stated that he would like to move to table this discussion to 618 ask Springsted and Associates to review this proposal and give the City an independent third-619 party viewpoint. 620 621 Vice President Stigney called a point of order stating that a motion to table is out of order in 622 accordance with the Roberts Rules. 623 624 President Marty moved to postpone. 625 626 Vice President Stigney referred to page 201 of Roberts Rules of Order, newly revised, it states 627 that tabling a motion can only be used to set something aside temporarily for a matter that is of 628 more urgency that needs to be dealt with at that moment. 629 630 City Attorney Riggs clarified that it should be a motion to postpone. 631 MOTION/SECOND Marty/ To postpone further discussion and to ask Springsted and 632 Associates to review this proposal and give the City an independent third-party viewpoint. 633 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 16 634 Motion failed due to lack of second. 635 636 Vice President Stigney noted that Medtronic is also paying the $314,000 in expenses for the 637 AUAR and water testing. He stated that Medtronic would be transferring positions with a 638 growth potential of 300 jobs per year. He referenced the Economic Development spin-off 639 opportunities stating that it is his belief that it would be unequal noting that as far as increasing 640 values of the homes in the area because the demand for housing could be a big advantage. He 641 noted that 80-percent of the residents do not play golf and he is here to represent their interests 642 too. He noted that the golf course is a cash strain and has been from the beginning. He stated 643 that from May of last year to May of this year there has been a 27-percent decline and the golf 644 course has brought in $70,000 less than last year, which means city is subsidizing course. 645 646 Commissioner Thomas stated that the revenues were compared from this year and last year 647 noting that it is not a fair comparison. She stated that it is not the fault of the golf course that 648 there has been a decrease in play due to these discussions and weather. He stated that this is not 649 a fair comparison noting that they have a good enough history to compare that they do not need 650 to take this into account. 651 652 President Marty stated that he agrees that the residents should have the right to vote on anything 653 of this magnitude in the city, as they are all part owners. He stated that to have five people vote 654 on an issue that is a hot button topic concerns him. He stated that Springsted did an independent 655 evaluation on the golf course in 2000 for bonding and to determine why it was losing money. He 656 explained that it was revealed in the report that it was due to the lawsuits and legal fees after the 657 golf course was constructed due to construction shortfalls. He stated that he would like this 658 entered into the record and pulled forward. He stated that Springsted found that the golf course 659 was making far more money than the conservative estimates it was projected at and if it hadn’t 660 been for the lawsuits after construction the golf course would have been self-sufficient with 661 estimates that were made setup for the bonding and payments. He stated that the amount of 662 revenue it had generated far exceeded the estimates. He asked if there is anyone on the Council 663 that has anything they would like to disclose before taking the vote. He noted that Commissioner 664 Thomas has mentioned to him at the House Subcommittee meeting that she knew Donn 665 Hagmann and that he is her cousin’s father. 666 667 Commissioner Thomas confirmed that he is her aunt’s ex-husband and pointed out that this was 668 the first time she had seen him in twelve years. 669 670 Commissioner Gunn stated that there is no conflict of interest and the City Attorney has also 671 clarified that there is no conflict of interest. 672 673 President Marty asked City Attorney Riggs to clarify the process of transferring the property to 674 the EDA and why they are doing this. 675 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 17 676 City Attorney Riggs explained that the EDA exists on its own authority and is a legal entity in 677 and of itself. He stated that it is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469 and once it is 678 created it overrides any charter provision and is a legal separate entity. He stated that they are 679 sitting as an entity that is totally separate from City Council. He stated that it is not necessary to 680 transfer the property noting that the Council could choose to do it if they so desire. He confirmed 681 that neither of these arises remotely to anything approaching a conflict of interest according the 682 Minnesota law. 683 684 MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Gunn To approve EDA Resolution 05-EDA-203, a 685 Resolution approving purchase agreement and contract for private development between 686 the City of Mounds View, the Economic Development Authority and Medtronic and to 687 waive the reading. 688 689 4 – Ayes 1 – Nay (Marty) Motion carried. 690 691 B. Resolution 05-EDA-204 Requesting the Mounds View City Council Set a 692 Public Hearing for August 22, 2005 for the Proposed Establishment of Tax 693 Increment Financing District No. 5 (A Special Legislation Economic 694 Development District) 695 696 Mr. Backman stated that in order to facilitate the Medtronic development the city sought passage 697 of a special TIF legislation during the 2005 session. He stated that on May 23, 2005 the 698 Minnesota Legislature approved the public finance bill, which included the city’s legislation 699 allowing the creation of this district. He explained that in order to begin the process of creating 700 the district and TIF plan the EDA has to request that the City Council calls for a public hearing 701 on the proposed adoption of the modification to the development program for the Mounds View 702 Economic Development Project and to propose adoption of the TIF plan. 703 704 MOTION/SECOND Stigney/Thomas To approve Resolution 05-EDA-204 a request that the 705 Mounds View City Council set a public hearing for August 22, 2005 for the proposed 706 establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (A Special Legislation Economic 707 Development District) and to waive the reading. 708 709 4-Ayes 1-Nay (Marty) Motion carried. 710 711 7. REPORTS 712 713 City Administrator Ulrich reported that the last Executive Session was held on June 13, 2005 714 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with all EDA members present along with the City Attorney, a 715 representative from Ehlers and Associates, the Community Development Coordinator and City 716 Administrator. He stated that this meeting was continued to June 16 at 4:00 p.m. and adjourned 717 Mounds View EDA June 27, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 18 at 5:48 p.m. He explained that the purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss the proposed 718 sale of land comprised of The Bridges and to review the development proposal in terms of the 719 purchase agreement and the contract for private development. He noted that at that time it was 720 moved forward by consensus to June 20th for the public hearing. 721 722 President Marty stated that he would like to clarify that he has nothing personal against 723 Medtronic. 724 725 9. NEXT EDA MEETING: July 11, 2005. 726 727 10. ADJOURNMENT 728 729 President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. 730 731 Respectfully submitted, 732 733 Recorded and transcribed by: 734 Bonnie Sullivan 735 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 736 Item No: 7A Meeting Date: July 25, 2005 Type of Business: EDA Business Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Resolution 05-EDA-205 Authorizing an Appraisal be Conducted on the Residential Property Located at 2617 Sherwood Road Introduction: The property located at 2617 Sherwood Road is vacant and currently uninhabitable. The City’s involvement began in 1998 with the issuance of a building permit to make improvements to the home. The improvements went uninspected despite the city’s efforts to gain access to the property. Upon learning of several unsafe and potentially hazardous conditions within the home, notices of violations were issued, court citations issued and eventually warrants issued to the owner for failing to appear at the Court proceedings. During this same time, many other nuisance and building code violations were present and persistent. At some point, the owner defaulted on the mortgage and the City began anew with the mortgage company and a new owner in an effort to correct all of the unsafe conditions within the house and violations on the property. After repeatedly being told corrections would be made and not following through, the City brought action before the City Council on October 11, 2004 to declare the building hazardous and to authorize the abatement of the hazardous conditions. Refer to Jeremiah Anderson’s staff report and subsequent correspondence and court proceedings on the matter. Discussion: After continued discussions with the owner and mortgage company and its representatives, it has become increasingly clear that achieving resolution of the violations present at 2617 Sherwood Road will be difficult and time consuming, in spite of the ongoing legal actions undertaken by the City. Given that, staff is suggesting an alternative means of resolution, that being acquisition by the city using TIF dollars associated with the Housing Replacement Program. Created in 1995, the Housing Replacement Program is a voluntary program that allows the City to purchase blighted residential properties from willing sellers. The purpose of the Housing Replacement Program is to reduce the social costs of blight, improve residential neighborhoods and increase the tax base. There are three stated objectives for this program—replace deteriorated lower value housing with larger, higher valued housing; eliminate blight; and increase the availability of quality housing for families. The home will likely be substandard in some way or exhibit some level of blight. This is defined as follows: 1. Substandard as to condition, property value, size or usage. 2. Obsolete and having a faulty design for block and area in which it is located. 3. Deterioration which has caused blight to other adjoining properties 4. Detrimental to the safety or health of abutting properties in the block. The owner of 2617 Sherwood Road has agreed that a potential purchase of the home by the City might be an acceptable resolution to the ongoing issues between both parties. See the authorization attached from Mike Striker granting access to the property for the purposes of conducting a real estate appraisal. Sherwood Road Appraisal July 25, 2005 Page 2 This property is included in the list of properties eligible for acquisition utilizing TIF funds, as adopted by the City of Mounds View last year. Ramsey County assessment records indicate that the property (land and home) have a value of $157,800. The 1300 square foot home, in the City’s opinion, is a liability rather than an asset, however any offer to purchase would need to take the both land and building value into consideration. The 1.54 acre property is zoned R-1, single family residential and its acquisition under the Housing Replacement Program policies would be consistent with said policies and guidelines and consistent with Mounds View’s Comprehensive Plan. To determine an appropriate purchase amount, an appraisal will need to be conducted on the site. Staff has solicited estimates from area property appraisers and received quotes that range from $325 to $400. Staff would like the authority to select the appraiser who is available to perform the work immediately, at a cost not to exceed $400. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Authority adopt Resolution 05-EDA-205 that authorizes staff to arrange for an appraisal of the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road at a cost not to exceed $400 and to bring forth to the EDA a resolution authorizing the acquisition of the lot based on a negotiated purchase price relative to its appraised value. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Jim Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Photographic Documentation - Exterior Photographic Documentation - Interior Aerial View EDA RESOLUTION NO. 05-EDA-205 MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2617 SHERWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road is currently vacant and unsuitable for habitation; and, WHEREAS, on October 11, 2004, the Mounds View City Council identified the property as hazardous and approved an order to abate all violations; and, WHEREAS, efforts to eliminate the violations and hazardous conditions are ongoing yet have thus far been unsuccessful; and, WHEREAS, the property owner has indicated a willingness to sell the property to the City as a means to resolve the issues associated with the property; and, WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that the property at 2617 Sherwood Road is on the City’s list of parcels identified for potential acquisition; and, WHEREAS, to determine the fair market value for the property, it would be appropriate to conduct a residential appraisal of the parcel and improvements; and, WHEREAS, the City maintains a list of area appraisal firms who are able to perform such an appraisal and have solicited estimates from said firms ranging from $325 to $400. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) hereby authorizes staff arrange for an appraisal of the property located at 2617 Sherwood Road at a cost not to exceed $400. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT, the Authority directs staff to negotiate a purchase price with the owner for the property relative to the appraised value and to bring back for the Authority’s consideration the resulting purchase agreement, if such an agreement is reached. Adopted this 25th day of July, 2005 by the Mounds View Economic Development Authority ________________________________ Rob Marty, President ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, Executive Director (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 05-EDA-206 MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF PAY-AS -YOU-GO DEVELOPER PAYMENTS TO HEARTLAND-MOUNDS VIEW COMMON BOND AND BRIDGES LEASING COMPANY. It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) as follows: WHEREAS, the EDA has entered into pay-as-you -go development agreements on three properties with the developers of those properties; and, WHEREAS, first half payments for Pay 2005 regarding two of these agreements are due on August 1st; and, WHEREAS, payment of $34,078.73 to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond for the Silver Lake Pointe project is now appropriate; and, WHEREAS, payment of $27,423.00 to 21st Century Bank on behalf of Bridges Leasing Company for the Midwest I.V. project is now appropriate. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Economic Development Authority does hereby approve payments of $34,078.73 to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond, and $27,423.00 to 21st Century Bank on behalf of Bridges Leasing under pay-as-you-go development agreements. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority this 25th day of July, 2005. _______________________________ Rob Marty, President ATTEST: ________________________________ Kurt Ulrich, Executive Director (seal)