HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2005
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA
NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL
Monday, December 12, 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. July 25, 2005, EDA Minutes
B. September 12, 2005, EDA Minutes
C. November 28, 2005, EDA Minutes.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. The EDA Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 27, 2005 is cancelled. (no staff
report)
7. EDA BUSINESS
A. Review Medtronic CRM Development Project Acceleration; Request City Council
Establish a Public Hearing to Consider a Proposed Modification to TIF District #5.
8. REPORTS
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, January 9, 2006 @630pm
10. ADJOURNMENT
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
July 25, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
6:30 P.M. 9
10
11
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12
13
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty; Vice President Stigney, Commissioners Flaherty, Gunn 14
and Thomas. 15
16
NOT PRESENT: 17
18
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19
20
Director Ericson asked to move Item 6A from the Consent Agenda to Item 7C EDA Business for 21
discussion. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Approve the July 25, 2005 Agenda as amended. 24
25
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
4. PUBLIC INPUT 28
29
None. 30
31
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 32
33
A. EDA Minutes June 27, 2005 34
35
Commissioner Thomas had the following correction: 36
• Page 13, line 456, she clarified that tabling of a motion was not in order because there is no 37
motion. 38
39
President Marty had the following corrections: 40
• Page 2, line 56, reads: ‘Executive Session’; should read: ‘Executive Sessions’ 41
• Page 3, line 97, reads: ‘patterns are currently and how they would proceed if there were a 42
development on the site.’; should read: ‘patterns are currently, and how they would proceed 43
if there were a development on the site.’ 44
• Page 6, line 253, reads: ‘and have all answers’; should read: ‘and have all the answers’. 45
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
• Page 7, line 279, Brian Amundsen’s statement, reads: ‘gives a tax business’; should read: 46
‘give a business a tax break’ 47
• Page 9, line 368, reads: ‘the EDA to negotiation this project’; should read: ‘the EDA to 48
negotiate this project’. 49
• Page 10, line 406, reads: ‘adding that the do not believe’; should read: ‘adding that they do 50
not believe’. 51
• Page 12, line 506, asked Commissioner Flaherty to clarify the $778,000 per year. 52
Commissioner Flaherty explained that he had factored in the $5 million of surplus the 53
City received and spread that out over the 25-years for the district. 54
• Page 14, line 590, reads: ‘approximately $3 million’; should read: ‘approximately $300 55
million’. 56
• Page 15, line 602, reads: ‘noting that they would have the resources’; should read:’ noting 57
that they would not have the resources’. 58
• Page 15, line 604, reads: ‘over the last number years’; should read: ‘over the last number of 59
years’. 60
• Page 16, line 649, reads: ‘He stated that this is not a fair’; should read: ‘She stated that this is 61
not a fair’. 62
63
MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Flaherty Approve the Minutes of June 27, 2005 as amended. 64
65
Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 66
67
6. CONSENT AGENDA 68
69
A. Moved to EDA Business Item 7C for discussion. Set a Public Hearing for August 70
8, 2005 for Discussion of the Proposed Business Subsidy for the SYSCO 71
Minnesota Expansion Project. 72
73
7. EDA BUSINESS 74
75
A. Review and Consider Possible Acquisition of 2617 Sherwood Road, a 76
Property identified as a Blighted and Hazardous Building. 77
78
Community Development Director Ericson stated that 2617 Sherwood Road is vacant and 79
currently uninhabitable. He noted that last year on October 11th the City Council adopted a 80
resolution ordering the abatement of the property and since that point the City has been working 81
with the property owners in trying to correct the deficiencies. He stated that so far they have 82
been unsuccessful in getting anything accomplished. He stated that they have set multiple court 83
dates, there have been continuances adding that Kennedy and Graven have been working on this 84
on the City’s behalf noting that they have come to a possible agreement that they City could look 85
at this as a potential housing replacement program parcel. He stated that it is on the City’s list 86
and does meet all the requirements for blighted parcel for redevelopment. He stated that Staff 87
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
has put together a resolution asking for the Commission’s approval to get an appraisal done on 88
the property and negotiate a price and bring it back for the EDA’s consideration. He stated that 89
they did seek quotes for an appraisal and it could be done for approximately $400.00 90
91
Commissioner Thomas asked what the difficulty is with the homeowners, is it a difficulty in 92
contacting them or are they not willing to do the repairs. 93
94
Director Ericson explained that it is a combination of things noting that they are dealing with a 95
mortgage company and an individual who acquired the property as a potential investment 96
property not realizing there were so many issues with the property. He stated that originally the 97
City was dealing with a pair of property owners that are no longer in the picture and are now 98
dealing with a bank that has never visited or seen the property. He stated that it is difficult trying 99
to convince them that they now need to spend $25,000 to make repairs to a property that they 100
already have $175,000 invested into it. He stated that someone is making the determination that 101
it isn’t prudent to put any more money into the property. 102
103
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the property has been forfeited to the mortgage company. 104
105
Director Ericson stated that there is a property owner noting that he is not sure if there was a sale 106
of the property noting that over the last year the City has been dealing with four different groups 107
in effort to correct the deficiencies. He stated that the current property holder is Deutsch Bank. 108
109
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the City is anticipating forfeiture. 110
111
Director Ericson stated that at this point the City is not anticipating forfeiture. He explained that 112
they are not dealing with a resident they are dealing with an investment corporation. 113
114
Commissioner Flaherty asked if the City knows the loan value of the existing mortgage. 115
116
Director Ericson stated that the City has been told that it is approximately $179,000. He stated 117
that the City would seek an appraisal and offer fair market value for the property, which might 118
not be in that price range. 119
120
President Marty noted that in the Staff report the owner has agreed to a potential purchase by the 121
City and suggested moving forward with the appraisal. 122
123
Vice President Stigney clarified that if the bank now owns the property then they are responsible 124
for the condition it is in and asked if the City has leverage to have them repair the property versus 125
the City. 126
127
Director Ericson stated that Staff is looking at this option and explained that it is time 128
consuming. He noted that legal fees have been expended due to several continuances, delays and 129
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
negotiations. He explained that the City is dealing with an owner that is not local and it has been 130
difficult trying to convince the property owner, the bank, that they should the corrections 131
identified and called out by the Housing Department or remove the building, which is what the 132
City is recommending. He agreed that the City could continue through the court process but 133
Staff believes this might be the quicker remedy. 134
135
Commissioner Gunn asked if the lot is dividable. 136
137
Director Ericson stated that at this point it is not dividable because Greenwood Drive, at that 138
point, is unapproved right-of-way adding that at some point in the future it could be subdivided. 139
140
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve Resolution 05-EDA-205 Authorizing an 141
Appraisal be conducted on the Residential Property located at 2617 Sherwood Road. 142
143
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 144
145
B. Resolution 05-EDA-206 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer 146
Payments to Heartland-Mounds View Common Bond, and Bridges Leasing 147
Company. 148
149
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that there are currently three on-going 150
developer agreements, the Mermaid, Silver Lake Point and The Bridges. He noted that the 151
Mermaid has a slightly different schedule adding that the Heartland-Mounds View Common 152
Bond for the Silver Lake Point project in the amount of $34,078.73 and for The Bridges Leasing 153
Company in the amount of $27,423.00 would be due August 1, 2005. 154
155
President Marty stated this is the City’s obligation to pay back the developers per the City 156
agreement. 157
158
Vice President Stigney clarified that these are both TIF. 159
160
Economic Development Coordinator Backman confirmed noting that The Bridges leasing would 161
be done in Feb 2006. 162
163
MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty To Approve the motion to Adopt Resolution 05-EDA-164
206 Authorizing Payment of Pay-As-You-Go Developer Payments to Heartland-Mounds View 165
Common Bond; and Bridges Leasing Company and waive the reading. 166
167
Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried 168
169
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
C. Set a Public Hearing for August 8, 2005 for Discussion of the Proposed 170
Business Subsidy for the SYSCO Minnesota Expansion Project. 171
172
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that as part of the process for business 173
subsidies the current legislation requires that there be a business subsidy hearing, which has a 174
minimum requirement of a ten-day notice. He stated that Staff is looking to schedule a hearing 175
for August 8, 2005. He stated that last Wednesday Scott McGuire submitted a TIF application 176
along with a check noting that the application shows when they would like to start construction 177
and also includes a breakdown of the revised budget. He indicated that the previously submitted 178
budget was a bit low on the electrical work and has been revised to reflect the changes. He 179
referenced the portion of the budget as it relates to stormwater management and explained that 180
they are asking that a portion of the wetland mitigation/stormwater management component be 181
paid for via TIF assistance. He stated that they are in discussion with the Rice Creek Watershed 182
District noting that this is a significant component of the project, which would be the expansion 183
of the of the proposed parking lot. He referenced the map noting that approximately three-acres 184
of the land, to the east and to the south, would be transferred back from the City of Mounds View 185
to SYSCO for this project. 186
187
Director Ericson explained that one of the reasons this was pulled from the agenda is because 188
Staff would need to draft a development agreement for review at the August 8, 2005 meeting. 189
He stated that they would like to have something that the EDA would be comfortable with in 190
terms of a dollar amount that could be entered into the development agreement. He clarified that 191
Staff is not asking for authorization at this time but rather to get a consensus on the dollar 192
amount noting that it would be helpful. 193
194
President Marty clarified that they are considering possibly $250,000 as TIF eligible. 195
196
Commissioner Thomas clarified that it is basically saying that there is approximately $300,000 197
plus dollars that would be TIF eligible. 198
199
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that right now SYSCO is requesting 200
$250,000 adding that they do recognize that the costs would exceed that amount. 201
202
Vice President Stigney referenced TIF noting that in listening to some of the EDC meetings they 203
don’t have handle on it. He suggested a meeting with the EDA and Council to see where they are 204
with all of the TIF districts, what the balances are, and determine when they would be closed out 205
or would they be stretched out to maintain the current TIF districts. He stated that they should 206
look at the big picture stating that it is important to get these items clarified first. He recalled that 207
the SYSCO property could have been turned back over to the tax base in 2006. 208
209
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that the final obligation for TIF District 3 is 210
the payment to Bridges Leasing, which is around $30,000.00 for the Spring 2006. He stated that 211
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
the EDA has the option to look at de-certification or consider a continuance. He stated that if 212
they continue the TIF District 3 there should be projects that are looked at within that district. He 213
stated that they could not hoard the dollars and they cannot have dollars coming in and not spend 214
it for the purpose it was intended, which is economic development. He explained that in terms of 215
this particular district it is a healthy district noting that they get well over $300,000 a year in 216
increment payments. He stated that it is primarily derived by SYSCO, some derived by ZEPP 217
and some derived by Bridges Leasing, but the majority is derived by SYSCO. He stated that they 218
have had some discussions with Ehlers about doing a complete analysis of all of the districts but 219
the initial review is that they are fairly close to the original figure of approximately $1 million. 220
221
Vice President Stigney stated that he would like to see it in black and white as to where the City 222
is at and what the priorities are for the expenditures of the funds as to whether it would be put 223
back and paying the down the tax base or keep the Districts going. He stated that there is a need 224
for further discussion noting that they now have SYSCO asking for money and eventually 225
Snyder’s would be coming in to ask for the same thing. He expressed concerns about the 226
amounts being spent. He stated that he wants the details and the big picture of the project. He 227
stated that he has problems with the amounts and has problems with mitigating offsite. He 228
expressed concerns about the removal of the trees to make way for the parking lot adding that he 229
would like to see a joint meeting with Council and Staff to determine the philosophy and 230
direction on TIF for all of the districts. 231
232
President Marty agreed with Vice President Stigney. 233
234
Director Ericson agreed stating that this is what Staff is planning to do noting that if they can get 235
the information prepared and presented from Ehlers for the September work session. He stated 236
that this would be the perfect opportunity to discuss the philosophy, the health of the TIF 237
districts, whether the City would de-certify or are they going to fund other projects and at what 238
level. He stated that these are all issues that should be discussed with the EDA, the City Council 239
and Staff. He stated that this should be on the September or October work session agenda. He 240
stated that Staff would have a plan for the future but also need to know where they are today. He 241
stated that in terms of cash on hand, Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated 242
that the City would have approximately $1 million in the TIF account this year adding that what 243
is being proposed would not be out of the TIF pool, but rather an ongoing obligation similar to 244
the original SYSCO agreement, which is a pay as you go note. He stated that it would not impact 245
the account as to what is on hand adding that Staff recognizes and appreciates the comments 246
from the EDA. 247
248
Vice President Stigney stated that it would impact the taxpayers noting that the City either 249
extends the district and pay as you go or close the district. He stated that he has concerns noting 250
that the public hearing is scheduled for August 8, 2005 and he would like the information prior to 251
the public hearing. He suggested rescheduling the public hearing in order to give them the 252
opportunity to review all of the information. He stated that this is bigger than just looking at this 253
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
spot with SYSCO, it is what they are doing with the $1 million. 254
255
President Marty stated that SYSCO does have a need and they are showing the need at this time. 256
257
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that he has two observations, one, in terms 258
of the trees, what they are talking about would impact less than 5-percent of the area that is out 259
there with the former SYSCO property adding that it is not his belief that there would be a huge 260
impact on the Cottonwoods and other trees on the property; secondly, in terms of the process 261
here, the applicant has presented a good project and they are facing a situation where they do 262
need to expand this year or the project would move elsewhere. He encouraged EDA to consider 263
this project at this time. 264
265
Commissioner Thomas stated that she has questions about what the City is planning to do with 266
TIF noting that she is not comfortable with continuing the pay as you go for TIF District 3 when 267
it is an option that they could begin discussions for closing the district next year. She asked if 268
they have to decide if it comes from the pool funds or the TIF District 3 funds by the August 8th 269
hearing or can they say they are comfortable with the number and sort out what they have from 270
the TIF or whether it comes from the pool or TIF District 3 at some point following that meeting. 271
272
Director Ericson stated that it has been recommended that they do not utilize the TIF pool for this 273
and that it has been recommended by the City’s Financial Advisors that the City should do a pay 274
as you go note if the City does offer financial assistance. He explained that providing a $250,000 275
lump sum, upfront payment, sets a pretty precedent in terms of future requests. 276
277
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that if this were set as a pay as you go over 278
a three-year period the EDA would have the ability to de-certify this district in 2008. 279
280
Commissioner Flaherty stated that he is all in favor of having a meeting with the Authority and 281
asked SYSCO to be patient with the Authority. He stated that the Authority understands that 282
SYSCO does have a need and asked them to allow the Authority, as a body, to take a week to get 283
their information together to see where they are at with the districts. He stated that they want to 284
do what is right for SYSCO and the citizens of Mounds View. 285
286
President Marty clarified that it would not be a week or two that it would be over a month and is 287
a construction issue. 288
289
Commissioner Flaherty acknowledged noting that they are looking at November completion. 290
291
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that they have had discussions with Shelly 292
at Ehlers and given their schedule the soonest timeframe they could get the information would be 293
in the August/September timeframe referenced by Director Ericson. 294
295
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 8
President Marty stated that he is comfortable with this as a pay as you go for $250,000. He 296
agreed that they do need to sort this out and would also look forward to meeting with the EDC 297
and Staff to review some of the priorities, what direction they are going and the goals of the City. 298
He noted that SYSCO is operating under a timeframe and he does see this as a valid request. 299
300
Commissioner Gunn asked for clarification of the de-certification in 2008. 301
302
Economic Development Coordinator Backman explained that if there were an approval in 2005 303
the City would have 2006, 2007 and 2008 as potential years for incremental payments as 304
developer payments back to SYSCO. He further explained that there could be action taken at the 305
end of 2008, effective in 2009 to end the district noting that it would end the district five years 306
early. 307
308
Vice President Stigney asked if it would mean $82,500 for next the next three years or would it 309
be divided over four years. He stated that he is not comfortable with the $250,000.00 amount. 310
311
Economic Development Coordinator Backman stated that this could be a decision made by this 312
body. 313
314
President Marty clarified that he is hearing that the August 8th date should be kept for the public 315
hearing. 316
317
Economic Development Coordinator Backman asked if they were considering the three-year 318
timeframe. 319
320
President Marty stated that the timeframe could be discussed at the hearing. 321
322
Director Ericson stated that they could invite the EDC to the September meeting to discuss this 323
issue. 324
325
Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, clarified that the EDA is planning to have the public 326
hearing for August 8, 2005 and asked what the purpose of the public hearing would be if there 327
has been no public input. She agreed that the EDC meeting and workshop is long overdue noting 328
that they are mentioning $125,000 versus $250,000. She stated that she likes SYSCO too and 329
clarified that she is not trying to say anything against the pay as you go option noting that at least 330
it is not being taken from the $1 million. She expressed concerns stating that they don’t have a 331
referendum yet to know how it would be paid and referenced the issues with Medtronic. She 332
referenced the Rice Creek Watershed stating that she does not have this included on the agenda 333
for Wednesday night and there are things that they should review. She stated that they prefer to 334
mitigate on site noting that there are things that they haven’t had input on and if the EDA is 335
planning to do a public hearing usually they would wait for the information that would help them 336
in making a decision. 337
Mounds View EDA July 25, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 9
338
Commissioner Thomas clarified that whenever they do a public hearing they always start with a 339
base document and frequently amend it as they work through the document. She explained that 340
the EDA should have something for the discussion to determine agreement or disagreement. She 341
stated that this is common practice for all public hearings and it then gives the public something 342
to discuss. She stated that they need the base document to start with. 343
344
Vice President Stigney asked if this would be by resolution or ordinance. 345
346
Director Ericson stated that this would be by resolution and it would only need one public 347
hearing 348
349
Vice President Stigney stated that this is premature at this point. 350
351
Commissioner Flaherty agreed stating that he would prefer to meet with the EDC first. He stated 352
that he has asked for indulgence on the timetable adding that he does understand the time 353
constraints on the construction. He stated that he feels they should do what they need to do first. 354
355
MOTION/SECOND Gunn/Thomas To Approve and Set a Public Hearing for August 8, 2005 356
for the discussion of the proposed business subsidy for the SYSCO Minnesota Expansion 357
Project. 358
359
Ayes-3 Nay-2 (Stigney, Flaherty) Motion carried. 360
361
8. REPORTS 362
363
None. 364
365
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, August 8, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. 366
367
10. ADJOURNMENT 368
369
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m. 370
371
Respectfully submitted, 372
373
Recorded and transcribed by: 374
Bonnie Sullivan 375
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 376
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
September 12, 2005 6
Mounds View City Hall 7
2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8
6:32 P.M. 9
10
11
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12
13
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice-President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn, 14
Commissioner Flaherty, and Commissioner Thomas. 15
16
NOT PRESENT: None. 17
18
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19
20
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Gunn. To Approve the September 12, 2005 Agenda as presented. 21
22
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 23
24
4. PUBLIC INPUT 25
26
None. 27
28
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 29
30
The following corrections were requested: 31
32
Page 3, Line 115, should read: “…that the company has submitted a completed TIF…” 33
Page 3, Line 126, should read: “…for the purposes of DEED and…” 34
Page 5, Line 177, should read: “that if the City SYSCO received a one-year TIF…” 35
Page 5, Line 193, should read: “those improvements would costs.” 36
Page 5, Line 202, should read: “…the districts would be re- de-certified the…” 37
Page 5, Line 203, should read: “…He stated that they could would have to go ahead…” 38
Page 7, Line 277, should read: “Commissioner Thomas stated that she is stilling going…” 39
Page 7, Line 289, should read: “afternoon noting that Mr. Seipp explained…” 40
Page 8, Line 297, should read: “…use as a tool to help complement…” 41
42
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Approve the August 8, 2005 EDA Minutes as corrected 43
above. 44
45
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Ayes –5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 46
47
6. CONSENT AGENDA 48
49
None. 50
51
7. EDA BUSINESS 52
53
A. Possible Development of Laport Meadows 54
55
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman explained that in the fall of 2004, the EDA started 56
considering priorities for 2005 and discussed a dozen or so potential projects. One project 57
considered was in the area around Laport Meadows as the potential location for residential 58
projects. At that time, it was not known if developers would be interested but it was put on the 59
EDC 2006 priority list. The City was then approached by two developers who were interested in 60
residential projects and they discussed potentially customized homes and other options. The 61
developer was Rob Carlson Builders from Blaine and the other was Boshey Builders from 62
Roseville. In February, Rob Carlson Builders decided to not pursue it, and a new group of 63
people came forward from Coldwell Bankers. 64
65
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman introduced Wanda Hart of Coldwell Banker 66
Burnett and Cheryl Stinski of Skyline Builders, who have express interested in looking at Laport 67
Meadows to determine if there could be residential development knowing the limitations with 68
wetlands, the nearby park, and collection point (compost site). He advised that they have looked 69
at this project and held discussions with Jeff Switzert who is with an architectural firm and 70
collaborating with them on this project. 71
72
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman advised that in February they started discussing 73
potential ideas relative to this area. At one point, it was discussed with the Council about what 74
next steps should be taken, such as a wetland delineation, survey of residents, and other 75
infrastructure needs. Council consensus was to put it back to the developer to get input from the 76
residents as to their wishes and whether they want to or do not want to sell and what type of 77
development they want. Some of the survey questions pertained to the general public about 78
interest in retaining the compost site and alternatives to that site. The majority of respondents 79
indicated they want that service to continue in Mounds View but some indicated they have the 80
ability to do composting in their yard. He advised that over 60% of the population indicated 81
they’d like that service to continue. The survey didn’t address whether that service could be 82
provided in a different way. Currently, it is a one-acre compost site within a nine acre area. He 83
presented a diagram that identified the location of the compost site, noting it is accessed from the 84
west and south. To the south of the compost site is Laport Meadows. 85
86
Wanda Hart, Coldwell Banker Burnett, stated she first asked about this property when 87
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
representing a Mounds View resident and conducting a market analysis. Then she discovered 88
that Mounds View may be interested in developing the area so she approached Cheryl Stinski, 89
who is a developer, to see if she would be interested. Ms. Hart stated they talked to the residents 90
and presented the Council with a copy of those findings. She stated they felt the best way to 91
approach residents was with a letter and then a visit or telephone call. They were able to sit 92
down with a few residents and, for the most part, communication has been over the telephone. 93
So far they have talked to everyone at least once and a few several times. Five property owners 94
favor selling right now, two favor the development but are not interested in selling their home, 95
two answered a definite “no” to the development, and two were not committed. Ms. Hart 96
advised that the two who are in definite favor of selling are David Little and James Lund. Both 97
have indicated an interest in attending a Council meeting to express their support. She explained 98
that Mr. Lund is located south of Laport Meadows and is not part of the initial project but could 99
be if the Council wanted to consider that boundary of the development. Mr. Lund is very 100
interested in selling and will also attend a meeting to voice his support to include his property in 101
the Laport Meadows development. 102
103
Jeff Switzert, Shared Design, stated he has prepared two diagrams that include several schemes. 104
Scheme A has a senior facility in the compost location and beneath that 24 single family units on 105
individual properties. The concept for seniors has two buildings that favor the water areas, just 106
north of the buildings with a turnaround drop off area. The single family area would have an 107
alley to access garages at the back of the house with a pedestrian street going directly out to the 108
wetland area. This will make the wetland accessible to more than just the Laport Meadows 109
residents since it would be a non-vehicular roadway. There would also be several shelters with 110
docks into the wetland to allow people to sun, fish, or bird watch. The park would have a 111
meandering pathway along the buffer treed area on the south perimeter of Highway 10. That 112
would also provide noise abatement and bring pedestrians to a gathering point at the senior 113
housing and terminating in a picnic park at the north end. 114
115
Mr. Switzert presented Scheme B that contained 24 single family homes in a design that 116
incorporates three streets but no alleys. The sites would have a larger back yard and four larger 117
single family homes would be sited to the south of the wetland. The wetland would have a park 118
and meandering pathway. The senior housing would be contained in three buildings in the 119
compost area with an amphitheater and terminating in a picnic area at the far north area. This is 120
a more traditional concept. 121
122
Mr. Switzert then displayed an overlay that depicted existing conditions and how it is effective 123
with their concepts. He noted that the existing conditions work best with Scheme A, which is 124
their favored design. He also noted the location of existing structures and conditions that are not 125
part of the proposed development. 126
127
Commissioner Thomas stated the immediate question that comes to mind from the survey is the 128
owners on Long Lake Road who are not interested in selling and how that would figure in. She 129
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
stated this EDA is not interested in property taking so the developer would have to work with the 130
homeowner. 131
132
Mr. Switzert stated they have not yet worked on that issue. 133
134
Commissioner Thomas stated her concern with high density in the top triangle so Scheme A 135
would be more attractive to her since it has lower density. She noted the community wants to 136
maintain a compost site so that concern needs to also be addressed. 137
138
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated Ms. Hart has seen a need for additional 139
senior housing as a continuing area of interest. Seniors also support a variety of housing options. 140
He stated he thinks there are possibilities for beneficial amenities beyond the Laport Meadows 141
area. He stated the middle amphitheater is an intriguing amenity. In addition, the City has 142
addressed sound wall concerns with MnDOT, noting there is a gap in the sound wall in this area. 143
He stated it is likely the staff recommendation will be participation, in some terms, with the 144
developers to close that gap. Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated he hears 145
about that concern from residents to the east who are experiencing 62 to 75 decibels so it would 146
be good to address that issue. 147
148
Commissioner Thomas stated she would be willing to see increased density in the middle areas 149
since there is higher ground in that location. She noted the north area contains a significant 150
wetland area. 151
152
Vice-President Stigney stated the compost site is important to maintain in some location of 153
Mounds View. He noted residents have spoken “loud and clear” over the years that they need 154
that service, noting it involves many bags of leaves because of the great number of trees in 155
Mounds View. He stated he felt the pavilion amphitheater is out of touch with a senior area, and 156
they would be conflicting uses. 157
158
Commissioner Flaherty stated these concepts contain some really good ideas but the EDA’s key 159
is community input because the EDA will not step in to try and persuade residents to sell. He 160
stated that he likes the idea of a dock and fishing hole but the first stumbling block is resident 161
input. 162
163
Commissioner Gunn stated she supports Concept A which is less dense and allows the natural 164
features of the area to still come forward. She stated that perhaps the number of homes can be 165
reduced and stated her support for senior condo housing in which seniors have already expressed 166
an interest. She stated her agreement with Vice-President Stigney that an amphitheater is 167
probably not a compatible use with the senior housing and maybe a gazebo would be a better 168
option. 169
170
President Marty agreed the resident survey conducted by the developer carries a lot of weight 171
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
because they are Mounds View citizens. He stated he will not support taking any property 172
through eminent domain or condemnation. Another major hurdle is the need to maintain a 173
compost site because residents have indicated they want and need that service. President Marty 174
noted that Ramsey County was also curious about this and paid for a couple of those questions to 175
clarify that point, and that message from the residents is clear. 176
177
President Marty stated that of the two plans, he prefers Scheme A which contains less pavement. 178
He agreed that perhaps the number of homes should be scaled down. However, a development 179
would only work if all residents agreed. He noted the area to the north is an existing pond so it 180
would be difficult to develop senior housing in that location. He thanked the developers for 181
making this presentation and stated it may work if the residents agree to come on board. 182
However, if the residents choose to not sell, then that is the way it will be and they will have to 183
come up with a different plan. 184
185
Mr. Switzert asked if the current compost site can be vacated if another location in Mounds View 186
can be found. President Marty stated that is a possibility. 187
188
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated as with Hidden Hollow, some folks were 189
not willing to sell and the developer worked around those properties. With that project, there 190
was no eminent domain and it ended up with a good development. He advised that some 191
residents have inquired since that time about additional units. He stated with Laport Meadows 192
the project may not be in this form, and may incorporate current residents. 193
194
Cheryl Stinski, Skyline Development, asked for direction from the EDA about contacting the 195
residents. She asked if the City will work with them if a resident does not want to sell or if they 196
should create a development that works around that resident. She stated she thinks that may be 197
problematic and noted that the Hidden Hollow project was not similar to this property, because 198
lots in this area are extremely deep. Ms. Stinski stated some of the roadways may also be 199
problematic. 200
201
President Marty suggested they consider gaining access from the south. 202
203
Mr. Switzert stated he believes a plan can be developed that works on this site and with the 204
residents. He noted that the proposed pedestrian way would be similar to an undeveloped 205
roadway, as currently exists with Laport. He stated he believes it is key to get something of size 206
in the northern area when related to roads and utilities so the ponds can be retained. 207
208
Commissioner Flaherty stated the EDA wants to advise all of the stumbling blocks that may be in 209
the way for this to move forward. He noted the dialog on this project is just starting. 210
211
Ms. Stinski stated they wanted to know if the EDA was positive or negative about these designs. 212
213
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 6
Commissioner Thomas stated that is why she was suggesting a higher density in the middle of 214
the property, to make up for losses in other areas of the site. She stated she is supportive of some 215
kind of mixed housing. 216
217
Vice-President Stigney suggested they look at entering the site from a winding access, which 218
would look very nice and may be an advantage to working around existing houses. 219
220
Ms. Hart stated it would help them if the EDA were to authorize a wetland delineation study. 221
Then the City would own the study and it will help with the land usage of the site. 222
223
President Marty stated this is a rough scheme but farther into the process and if staff can find 224
another location for the compost, the EDA may be willing to consider authorizing the 225
delineation. 226
227
Commissioner Thomas agreed it is a significant expense. 228
229
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated that information can be useful regardless if 230
a developer is involved. He noted that with Hidden Hollow, the City participated in a portion of 231
the soil boring work. In addition, it would be a TIF eligible expense. 232
233
President Marty asked how much property the City owns. Mr. Switzert pointed out the parcels 234
controlled by Mounds View. He explained the benefit of a delineation is that it will identify how 235
close they can come towards the wetland boundary. It will identify the useable area. 236
237
City Administrator Ulrich stated this concept does need additional work 238
239
David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated older residents move from Mounds View because 240
they want one-level condo or townhome living. With regard to the amphitheater, he noted the 241
seniors won’t be able to hear it anyway. 242
243
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated staff could solicit proposals to find out 244
what the wetland delineation cost would be. 245
246
President Marty agreed, noting at a future date the developer will have additional information on 247
their proposal as well. 248
249
8. REPORTS 250
251
Economic Development Coordinator Bachman stated staff provided the EDA with a draft report 252
Predesign Agreement from DEED pertaining to the $5 million grant for activities related to the 253
County Road J reconstruction project. The grant agreement is between the City and State on how 254
funds are handled and pertains to about $1.6 million. 255
Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 7
256
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, September 26, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. 257
258
10. ADJOURNMENT 259
260
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. 261
262
Respectfully submitted, 263
264
265
Recorded and transcribed by: 266
267
Carla Wirth 268
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 269
270
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA 1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3
4
Regular Meeting 5
November 28, 2005 6
New Brighton City Hall 7
803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 8
6:53 P.M. 9
10
11
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 12
13
2. ROLL CALL: President Marty, Vice President Stigney, Commissioner Gunn, and 14
Commissioner Flaherty. 15
16
NOT PRESENT: Commissioner Thomas. 17
18
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 19
20
City Administrator Ulrich added Agenda Item 8A, An Update Regarding the DEED Funding 21
Agreement for the County Road J Improvement Project. 22
23
MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To Approve the November 28, 2005 Agenda as revised. 24
25
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 26
27
4. PUBLIC INPUT 28
29
None. 30
31
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32
33
MOTION/SECOND: Flaherty/Marty. To Approve the November 14, 2005 Minutes as corrected. 34
35
Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 36
37
6. CONSENT AGENDA 38
39
None. 40
41
7. EDA BUSINESS 42
43
A. Discuss Possibility of Expanding Medtronic Project to Include Phase Two 44
45
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 2
Community Development Director Ericson explained that staff wants to present information for 46
the EDA’s consideration as a discussion item. He advised that Medtronic may want to accelerate 47
Phase 2 and construct it concurrently with the Phase 1 development. He reviewed that one of the 48
concerns raised through the Medtronic process is that the City may never see Phase 2. However, 49
the growth of Medtronic is such that they are looking at options to provide additional office 50
space and the possibility of doing Phases 1 and 2 together to save some costs. Staff would like to 51
talk about that option and ask if the EDA would like staff to “open that door” and talk with 52
Medtronic about possibly accelerating their phasing. 53
54
Director Ericson advised that today staff received a letter from Medtronic confirming they are 55
looking at accelerating their project and asking the City if it would be interested in negotiating 56
for Phase 2 now and amending the development agreement to do Phases 1 and 2 at the same 57
time. 58
59
Director Ericson stated staff is requesting no action to be taken other than to provide direction to 60
staff if it would like staff to meet with Medtronic. He noted the benefits are obvious in bringing 61
in 380,000 square feet of office space that may have been out another 7 to 8 years. It would also 62
result in 4,400 employees rather than 3,000 employees. 63
64
Commissioner Gunn stated her support for staff to discuss this option with Medtronic. 65
66
Vice President Stigney questioned the form of greater revenues to the City. Director Ericson 67
explained that the City gets a percentage of TIF dollars generated and a share of the increment for 68
administrative fees. In addition to TIF, there would be a greater market value assigned to the 69
project. If Phase 1 is $65 million for the first two buildings, then Phase 2 would be about $96 70
million dollars. Director Ericson noted the impact to the City’s levies, school board levies, and 71
that Medtronic would take a larger percentage of bonds that are market based so taxes to 72
residents and others would be decreased by a consistent amount above and beyond a $65 million 73
project. Director Ericson noted this would also bring the market value back on line to property 74
taxes that much sooner rather than waiting 8-9 years for Phase 2. 75
76
Vice President Stigney asked about the impact to the current $11.8 million cap. Director Ericson 77
explained it is actually a $14.8 million cap and that is completely negotiable. He stated staff is 78
looking at eligible costs for a Phase 2 expansion such as the additional two stories on the Phase 1 79
ramp. Director Ericson explained there may not be a lot of eligible expenses for Phase 2, which 80
makes it more appealing to get on line sooner. 81
82
Vice President Stigney asked about the interest being paid and whether it would go back to them 83
or be waved on this Phase. Director Ericson stated staff will explore that avenue. 84
85
Commissioner Flaherty stated his support to open dialogue, which poses no risk. He pointed out 86
Phase 2 is inevitable, but this is sooner than anticipated. 87
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 3
88
President Marty stated he likes the fact that it will assure Phase 2 is in Mounds View. He noted 89
that the administrative fee from TIF for Phase 1 ranges from $41,000 to $46,000 so this could 90
add $20,000 to $30,000 a year. 91
92
President Marty stated he is concerned that with this much construction, the City’s one full time 93
building inspector may need some help. Director Ericson noted that hiring an additional 94
inspector may provide enough assistance so staff can focus on the Medtronic project. But, if 95
more help is needed, staff can look at that. He explained that Medtronic plans to submit building 96
permits in phases and built sequentially rather than dropping off 1,000 pages of plans at one time. 97
Medtronic will time submissions so it is spread out and staff can review the plans and get to 98
inspections. If additional staff is needed, the permit revenue would support that cost. 99
100
President Marty stated the Phase 1 TIF period was extended from 8 years, by State Statute, to 25 101
years. He asked if Phase 2 is submitted, could it be renegotiated to get closer to the State 102
Statutes. 103
104
Director Ericson explained he is not at a point to talk about negotiated issues but this could be 105
wrapped into the current project and if the EDA wants to consider accelerating payoff, staff could 106
look at less of an administrative fee of the TIF generated and roll the funds back into the payoff 107
so it is paid sooner. He noted the costs are greater to do two standalone TIF districts so maybe 108
Phase 2 could be wrapped into the Phase 1 TIF district that is already authorized. 109
110
President Marty stated the EDA supports directing staff to move forward with discussion. 111
112
City Administrator Ulrich stated staff would like Ehlers to run the numbers, which will incur 113
costs that would be reimbursed by Medtronic. 114
115
President Marty stated his agreement with using Ehlers since they are the most knowledgeable 116
with this project. 117
118
8. REPORTS 119
120
A. An Update Regarding the DEED Funding Agreement for the County Road J 121
Improvement Project 122
123
City Administrator Ulrich reviewed that the EDA has previously granted staff approval to 124
execute agreements for the $5 million grant received from the State for construction of County 125
Road J. At this time an issue has come up that has not yet been resolved and staff wants to bring 126
that issue to the attention of the EDA. 127
128
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 4
City Administrator Ulrich explained that with the right-of-way purchase there is a grant provision 129
that it must be made by the City, which staff thinks is ridiculous because the land is in Anoka 130
County, Ramsey County, Blaine, Shoreview, and Mounds View. Staff’s concern is to not be put 131
into a situation where Mounds View is actually purchasing right-of-way in other cities and 132
counties. Staff is trying to resolve this issue but it may require action by the EDA. 133
134
City Administrator Ulrich advised that staff and the City Attorney are working through the 135
Governor’s office to resolve that issue but it is withholding the County from making the right-of-136
way purchases in a timely manner. 137
138
City Attorney Riggs stated staff has been in discussions with DEED and the Governor’s office 139
about how this can proceed. DEED has been in consultation with the Attorney General’s office 140
that the City needs to be the acquiring agency. Staff is trying to work around that issue and there 141
may be some options that would require modifications to the agreement. If not, staff will return 142
for EDA consideration on this issue. He noted there is $5 million available and is a matter of 143
how to best facilitate that for the five jurisdictions involved. 144
145
President Marty suggested that DEED could funnel or transfer the money to the affected cities. 146
He noted that when Mounds View sold the property, the City got the money and then transferred 147
it to Mn/DOT. He stated he has talked with the Mayor and a Councilmember of Blaine and all 148
along they have been in total support because of the improvements to County Road J and I-35W. 149
President Marty stated his preference if the City could transfer the money to Blaine so they could 150
acquire the property within Blaine. 151
152
City Attorney Riggs explained there are three “pots” of money in play and dollars from DEED, 153
some designated to the County, some to the City, and some to Mn/DOT for right-of-way 154
purchase. He agreed that many agencies are involved and explained that typically the County 155
would be the acquiring agency but two counties involved in this situation. City Attorney Riggs 156
stated staff hopes to work it out so the dollars can be utilized immediately. 157
158
President Marty stated in reading reports on the AUAR from Anoka County, they were also in 159
support. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and the issue is finding the correct legal 160
mechanism based on the language in the two statutes that were adopted during the last session. 161
162
City Administrator Ulrich explained that may necessitate the EDA holding a special meeting so 163
bids can be done by December 1st. However, it is not likely that will occur if significant 164
modifications are needed. 165
166
City Attorney Riggs advised that the County wanted to make offers to the property owners by the 167
first of December and notices of condemnation may also be needed. However, if the City is the 168
acquiring agency it would be difficult because the City has not done anything in that regard. 169
170
Mounds View EDA November 28, 2005
Regular Meeting Page 5
President Marty noted a public hearing is already scheduled for December 5, 2005. City 171
Administrator Ulrich stated the EDA could schedule a special meeting on December 6, 2005. 172
173
9. NEXT EDA MEETING: Monday, December 12, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. 174
175
10. ADJOURNMENT 176
177
President Marty adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 178
179
Respectfully submitted, 180
181
182
Recorded and transcribed by: 183
184
Carla Wirth 185
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 186
187
Item No: 7A
Meeting Date: Dec 12, 2005
Type of Business: Discussion
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Economic Development Authority
From: James Ericson, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Review Medtronic CRM Project Acceleration Option;
Consider Establishing a Public Hearing
Introduction:
As the Authority will recall, at the last EDA meeting on November 28, 2005, staff presented
the Authority with a letter from Medtronic regarding their desire to explore construction of
Phase 2 of the Medtronic CRM development concurrent with Phase 1. (Letter attached for
your reference.) The Authority directed staff to explore the possibility with Medtronic and to
continue using Ehlers and Associates for financial analysis. Ehlers has conducted the
analysis and has provided staff with the results of that analysis regarding the financial
ramifications of a combined Phase 1 - Phase 2 project. (Financial data attached for your
review.)
Discussion:
Phase 2 of the Medtronic CRM development consists of a third office building of 380,000
square feet plus two additional levels on the Phase 1 parking ramp. The only eligible
expense associated with Phase 2 would be the parking ramp expansion. It has been
estimated that the cost of the ramp on a per floor basis is about $4,000,000, which means
the TIF eligible expenses for Phase 2, if it were to be constructed on its own and supported
by a new TIF district, would be limited to $8,000,000. The taxable value added by
constructing Phase 2 concurrent with Phase 1 is $30,400,000 for a total project improvement
value of $96,000,000. Setting aside the assistance agreement for Phase 1, staff examined
the amount of increment that would be generated from Phase 2 and whether it could support
the eligible expenses. With Ehlers assistance, it is clear that the additional increment would
support the expenses.
Using the same assumptions from the original analysis, there appears to be a total of $22
million of available increment for the $96,000,000 project. Regardless of the outstanding
qualified costs, the increment provided would be limited to reimbursement of ONLY the
structured parking ramp, the cost for which is estimated at $24.0 million, well in excess of the
available increment.
In return for this consideration, Medtronic would pick up the City's cost to install the utilities to
their site (budgeted at $400,000), would cover all the relocation costs for the signs (the
previous agreement identified City cost at $550,000) and finally, perhaps most significantly,
Medtronic would be responsible for ALL potential sign buy-outs (a potential savings to the
City of $1,620,000.) Altogether, the potential financial benefit to Mounds View is $2,570,000,
all of which the City would potentially have to pay out relating to this project in its present
form. Medtronic would also cover all administrative expenses incurred as a result of
processing this request (estimated on the high side to be $150,000.)
Medtronic Phase 2 Report
December 12, 2005
Page 2
In our opinion and in the opinion of our financial advisor, there is no discernible downside. No
additional funds will be expended that will not be reimbursed. No taxes will be lost, no
revenues diverted, no additional infrastructure is needed. In fact, the City would gain an
anticipated additional 50% in both TIF admin fees and franchise fees above and beyond
Phase 1 projections. Mounds View residents and taxpayers will also benefit in that the
Medtronic project would shoulder an even greater share of any market based bond
referendums or levies (residents approved one for ISD 621 a couple years ago) so all things
being equal, taxpayers would pay even less than they otherwise would have. In addition to
the potential $2,570,000 in savings the City would immediately realize, instead of a $65
million project coming online in 2033 to significantly boost general fund revenues or
significantly reduce taxes, the City will have a $96 million project coming online in 2033 to
even more significantly boost general fund revs or more significantly reduce taxes.
Recommendation:
Based on the above analysis which is supported by documentation prepared by Ehlers and
Associates, Staff and your financial advisors support moving forward with a negotiation with
Medtronic based on the above terms and conditions. If the EDA supports the possibility of a
modification to accommodate Phase 2 construction concurrent with Phase 1, staff
recommends adopting the attached resolution which simply requests the City Council to
establish a public hearing to consider such a possibility. (The City Council would need to
adopt a similar resolution at their meeting.) Because we are planning on canceling the Dec
27, 2005 EDA and Council meeting, the EDA should call for the hearing now to allow for a
hearing to be conducted in February. Accordingly, Resolution 05-EDA-211 has been drafted
for your consideration.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-717-4021, Kurt
Ulrich at 763-717-4001 or Aaron Backman at 763-717-4029.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
James Ericson
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. Medtronic Letter, dated
2. Modification Schedule
3. Financial Analysis
4. Resolution 05-EDA-211
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 (a special legislation economic development district) December 12, 2005 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing on the proposed Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the proposed modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. December 12, 2005 City Council calls for public hearing on the proposed Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the proposed modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. December 22, 2005 Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions, detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources and uses of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers & Associates. Ehlers & Associates confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the property to be included in TIF District No. 5.
January 13, 2006 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board and County Board (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will fax & mail by January 11, 2006.]
January 30, 2006 Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of Modifications. February 1, 2006 Planning Commission reviews Modifications. February 2, 2006 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [New Brighton Bulletin/Mounds View Bulletin publication
deadline, January 26, 2006 – Ehlers & Associates will e-mail notice and map to
newspaper by January 26, 2006.] February 13, 2006 EDA considers the Modifications. February 13, 2006 City Council holds public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. [Ehlers & Associates will email Council packet
information to the City by February 6, 2006.] ___________ Ehlers & Associates files Modifications with the MN Department of Revenue, Office of the State Auditor, and requests certification of the TIF District with Ramsey County. **Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax increment district will not require unplanned county road improvements, the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the public hearing. The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Please be aware that the County Board could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or (2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
City of Mounds ViewMedtronic Qualified Costs Qualified Costs Per Development Agreement Qualified Costs Updated Based Upon Actual Costs To Date & Proposed Costs For Phase IIUsePhaseAmountAmount TIF EligibleUsePhaseAmountAmount TIF EligibleDifferenceLand Acquisition (Blaine)111,000,000$ 2,440,000$ Land Acquisition (Blaine)111,000,000$ -$ -$ Billboard Relocation1260,000$ 260,000$ Billboard Relocation1260,000$ -$ -$ Billboard 2005 payment & Loss of Future Revenue1-$ -$ Billboard 2005 payment & Loss of Future Revenue1670,000$ -$ 670,000$ Park Dedication1-$ -$ Park Dedication1865,000$ -$ 865,000$ Enviornmental1100,000$ 100,000$ Enviornmental1100,000$ -$ -$ Soil Correction11,900,000$ 1,900,000$ Soil Correction11,900,000$ -$ -$ Demolition/Relocation1500,000$ 500,000$ Demolition/Relocation1500,000$ -$ -$ Wetland Mitigation11,500,000$ 1,500,000$ Wetland Mitigation11,500,000$ -$ -$ Utilities - Medtronic1600,000$ 600,000$ Utilities - Medtronic1600,000$ -$ -$ Utilities - City1-$ -$ Utilities - City1400,000$ -$ 400,000$ Parking - Surface Only (3,000 Stalls)13,000,000$ 3,000,000$ Parking - Surface1-$ -$ (3,000,000)$ Landscqping and lighting11,500,000$ 1,500,000$ Landscqping and lighting11,500,000$ -$ -$ Access Road - Coral Sea11,500,000$ 1,500,000$ Access Road - Coral Sea11,500,000$ -$ -$ Fees Associated with Above11,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Fees Associated with Above11,000,000$ -$ -$ City Administrative Fees1500,000$ 500,000$ City Administrative Fees1528,758$ -$ 28,758$ Billboard Relocation2-$ -$ Billboard Relocation2550,000$ -$ 550,000$ Structured Parking2-$ -$ Structured Parking116,000,000$ 14,800,000$ 16,000,000$ Structured Parking2-$ -$ Structured Parking28,000,000$ 7,200,000$ 8,000,000$ City Administrative Fees2-$ -$ City Administrative Fees2150,000$ -$ 150,000$ TOTALN/A23,360,000$ 14,800,000$ TOTALN/A47,023,758$ 22,000,000$ 23,663,758$ -$
12/7/2005 Exhibit B
Medronic Project
City of Mounds View
Fiscal Disparities Inside the District ("B" election) 3% Inflation 5% P.V.
T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
District New Redevelopment District
County District #
Inflation Rate - Every Year: 3.00%
Pay-As-You-Go Interest Rate: 5.00%
Note Issued Date (Present Value Date): 01-Aug-06
Local Tax Rate - Frozen 122.827% Pay 2006 TNT
Fiscal Disparities Election (A - outside or B inside) B
Year District was certified Pay 2006
Assumes First Tax Increment For District 2008
Years of Tax Increment 26
Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2033
Fiscal Disparities Ratio 39.6705% Pay 2006 TNT adjusted for new construction
Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 121.802% Pay 2006
Local Tax Rate - Current 122.827% Pay 2006 TNT
State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 51.000% Pay 2006 TNT
Market Value Tax Rate (used for total taxes) 0.12778% Pay 2006 TNT
Commercial Industrial Class Rate 1.5%-2.0% Pay 2006
First 150,000 1.50%
Over 150,000 2.00%
BASE VALUE INFORMATION
Class Rate After
Land Building Total Class Original After Conversion Date
PID Address Market Value Market Value Market Value Rate Tax Capacity Conversion Tax Capacity Payable
05-30-23-13-0001 Jackson Dr 3,755,744 0 3,755,744 1.5%/2.00% Tax Exempt 1.5%/2.00% 74,365 2006
05-30-23-21-0005 Coral Sea Street 2,819,086 157,800 2,976,886 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 59,538 2006
05-30-23-21-0006 Unassigned 1,037,610 0 1,037,610 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 20,752 2006
05-30-23-24-0059 Jackson Dr 982,716 0 982,716 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 19,654 2006
05-30-23-24-0060 Edgewood Dr 385,505 0 385,505 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 7,710 2006
Totals 8,980,661 157,800 9,138,461 0 182,019
PROJECT INFORMATION
Total Market Value Taxes Per Total Market Class New Year Date
Phase Use Sq. Ft./Units Sq. Ft./Units Sq. Ft./Units Taxes Value Rate Tax Capacity Constructed Payable
1 Office 0 80.00 $0.00 0 0 1.5%-2.0%0 2005 2007
1 Office 720,000 80.00 $2.88 2,070,103 57,600,000 1.5%-2.0%1,151,250 2006 2008
1 Office 480,000 80.00 $2.88 1,380,936 38,400,000 2.00%768,000 2007 2009
TOTAL 1,200,000 3,451,040 96,000,000 1,919,250
Note:
1. Tax estimates are based upon developer's estimates
2. Project estimated to be 10% completed year 1 and 50% completed year 2 & 100% complet in year 3 based upon developer's estimates
TAX CALCULATIONS
Total Local Fiscal Local Fiscal State-wide Local Fiscal State-wide Market
use Tax Tax Disparities Tax Disparities Property Taxes Disparities Property Value Total
Capacity Capacity Tax Capacity Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes
Office Campus 1,919,250 1,157,874 761,376 122.827% 121.802% 51.000% 1,422,182 927,371 978,818 122,669 3,451,040
TOTAL 1,919,250 1,157,874 761,376 1,422,182 927,371 978,818 122,669 3,451,040
Note:
1. Tax estimates are based upon 2005 Tax Rates received from Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue
Not Captured by TIF
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
Medronic Project
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Base Project Fiscal Captured Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PAYMENT DATE
PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Disparities Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present PERIOD ENDING
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Reduction Capacity Increment 0.36%5.00%Increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02-01 2006 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2006
0.0 08-01 2006 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007
0.0 02-01 2007 182,019 182,019 0 Present Value Date - 8-01-07 0.0 08-01 2007
0.0 08-01 2007 182,019 182,019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2008
0.0 02-01 2008 182,019 1,151,250 384,499 584,732 359,104 (1,293) (17,891) 339,921 323,542 0.5 08-01 2008
0.5 08-01 2008 182,019 1,151,250 384,499 584,732 359,104 (1,293) (17,891) 339,921 639,192 1.0 02-01 2009
1.0 02-01 2009 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,191,159 1.5 08-01 2009
1.5 08-01 2009 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,729,664 2.0 02-01 2010
2.0 02-01 2010 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 2,255,034 2.5 08-01 2010
2.5 08-01 2010 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 2,767,590 3.0 02-01 2011
3.0 02-01 2011 182,019 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,799 664,984 (2,394) (33,130) 629,461 3,284,218 3.5 08-01 2011
3.5 08-01 2011 182,019 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,799 664,984 (2,394) (33,130) 629,461 3,788,245 4.0 02-01 2012
4.0 02-01 2012 182,019 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,577 686,957 (2,473) (34,224) 650,260 4,296,227 4.5 08-01 2012
4.5 08-01 2012 182,019 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,577 686,957 (2,473) (34,224) 650,260 4,791,820 5.0 02-01 2013
5.0 02-01 2013 182,019 2,097,216 759,768 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 5,291,254 5.5 08-01 2013
5.5 08-01 2013 182,019 2,097,216 759,768 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 5,778,507 6.0 02-01 2014
6.0 02-01 2014 182,019 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,386 732,900 (2,638) (36,513) 693,748 6,269,491 6.5 08-01 2014
6.5 08-01 2014 182,019 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,386 732,900 (2,638) (36,513) 693,748 6,748,501 7.0 02-01 2015
7.0 02-01 2015 182,019 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,482 756,910 (2,725) (37,709) 716,476 7,231,137 7.5 08-01 2015
7.5 08-01 2015 182,019 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,482 756,910 (2,725) (37,709) 716,476 7,702,001 8.0 02-01 2016
8.0 02-01 2016 182,019 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,751 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 8,176,391 8.5 08-01 2016
8.5 08-01 2016 182,019 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,751 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 8,639,210 9.0 02-01 2017
9.0 02-01 2017 182,019 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,227 807,113 (2,906) (40,210) 763,997 9,105,455 9.5 08-01 2017
9.5 08-01 2017 182,019 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,227 807,113 (2,906) (40,210) 763,997 9,560,328 10.0 02-01 2018
10.0 02-01 2018 182,019 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,948 833,350 (3,000) (41,517) 788,832 10,018,533 10.5 08-01 2018
10.5 08-01 2018 182,019 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,948 833,350 (3,000) (41,517) 788,832 10,465,562 11.0 02-01 2019
11.0 02-01 2019 182,019 2,504,186 921,215 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 10,915,830 11.5 08-01 2019
11.5 08-01 2019 182,019 2,504,186 921,215 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 11,355,117 12.0 02-01 2020
12.0 02-01 2020 182,019 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,275 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 11,797,554 12.5 08-01 2020
12.5 08-01 2020 182,019 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,275 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 12,229,200 13.0 02-01 2021
13.0 02-01 2021 182,019 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,957 916,877 (3,301) (45,679) 867,897 12,663,910 13.5 08-01 2021
13.5 08-01 2021 182,019 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,957 916,877 (3,301) (45,679) 867,897 13,088,018 14.0 02-01 2022
14.0 02-01 2022 182,019 2,736,392 1,013,332 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,515,108 14.5 08-01 2022
14.5 08-01 2022 182,019 2,736,392 1,013,332 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,931,781 15.0 02-01 2023
15.0 02-01 2023 182,019 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,565 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,640 14,351,355 15.5 08-01 2023
15.5 08-01 2023 182,019 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,565 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,640 14,760,696 16.0 02-01 2024
16.0 02-01 2024 182,019 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,577 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,294 15,172,861 16.5 08-01 2024
16.5 08-01 2024 182,019 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,577 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,294 15,574,973 17.0 02-01 2025
17.0 02-01 2025 182,019 2,990,129 1,113,991 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 15,979,834 17.5 08-01 2025
17.5 08-01 2025 182,019 2,990,129 1,113,991 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 16,374,821 18.0 02-01 2026
18.0 02-01 2026 182,019 3,079,833 1,149,577 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 16,772,483 18.5 08-01 2026
18.5 08-01 2026 182,019 3,079,833 1,149,577 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 17,160,446 19.0 02-01 2027
19.0 02-01 2027 182,019 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,978 1,107,886 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,551,015 19.5 08-01 2027
19.5 08-01 2027 182,019 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,978 1,107,886 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,932,058 20.0 02-01 2028
20.0 02-01 2028 182,019 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,392 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,315,639 20.5 08-01 2028
20.5 08-01 2028 182,019 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,392 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,689,864 21.0 02-01 2029
21.0 02-01 2029 182,019 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,527 1,179,463 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,456 19,066,560 21.5 08-01 2029
21.5 08-01 2029 182,019 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,527 1,179,463 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,456 19,434,069 22.0 02-01 2030
22.0 02-01 2030 182,019 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,438 1,216,870 (4,381) (60,624) 1,151,865 19,803,986 22.5 08-01 2030
22.5 08-01 2030 182,019 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,438 1,216,870 (4,381) (60,624) 1,151,865 20,164,880 23.0 02-01 2031
23.0 02-01 2031 182,019 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,175 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,336 20,528,120 23.5 08-01 2031
23.5 08-01 2031 182,019 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,175 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,336 20,882,501 24.0 02-01 2032
24.0 02-01 2032 182,019 3,677,481 1,386,667 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,239,167 24.5 08-01 2032
24.5 08-01 2032 182,019 3,677,481 1,386,667 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,587,135 25.0 02-01 2033
25.0 02-01 2033 182,019 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,353 1,335,960 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,593 21,937,329 25.5 08-01 2033
25.5 08-01 2033 182,019 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,353 1,335,960 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,593 22,278,983 26.0 02-01 2034
Totals 47,729,145 (171,825) (2,377,866) 45,179,454
Present Value Date - 8-01-07 23,536,292 (84,731) (1,172,578) 22,278,983
14,869,617 Previous Phase I TIF run
NOTES:7,409,366 Difference (Phase II TIF)
1. Inflation has on tax rate has not been calculated.
2. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes, fiscal disparities taxes or market value property taxes
Prepared by Ehlers and Associats, Inc. TIF Run 12-07-05 P2006TNT se.xls
12/7/2005 Exhibit B
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
Medronic Project
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Base Project Fiscal Captured Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PAYMENT DATE
PERIOD BEGINNING Tax Tax Disparities Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present PERIOD ENDING
Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity Capacity Reduction Capacity Increment 0.36%5.00%Increment Value Yrs. Mth. Yr.
0.0 02-01 2006 0 0 0 0.0 08-01 2006
0.0 08-01 2006 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007
0.0 02-01 2007 182,019 182,019 0 Present Value Date - 8-01-07 0.0 08-01 2007
0.0 08-01 2007 182,019 182,019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2008
0.0 02-01 2008 182,019 1,151,250 384,499 584,732 359,104 (1,293) (17,891) 339,921 323,542 0.5 08-01 2008
0.5 08-01 2008 182,019 1,151,250 384,499 584,732 359,104 (1,293) (17,891) 339,921 639,192 1.0 02-01 2009
1.0 02-01 2009 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,191,159 1.5 08-01 2009
1.5 08-01 2009 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,729,664 2.0 02-01 2010
2.0 02-01 2010 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 2,255,034 2.5 08-01 2010
2.5 08-01 2010 182,019 1,919,250 689,168 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 2,767,590 3.0 02-01 2011
3.0 02-01 2011 182,019 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,799 664,984 (2,394) (33,130) 629,461 3,284,218 3.5 08-01 2011
3.5 08-01 2011 182,019 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,799 664,984 (2,394) (33,130) 629,461 3,788,245 4.0 02-01 2012
4.0 02-01 2012 182,019 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,577 686,957 (2,473) (34,224) 650,260 4,296,227 4.5 08-01 2012
4.5 08-01 2012 182,019 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,577 686,957 (2,473) (34,224) 650,260 4,791,820 5.0 02-01 2013
5.0 02-01 2013 182,019 2,097,216 759,768 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 5,291,254 5.5 08-01 2013
5.5 08-01 2013 182,019 2,097,216 759,768 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 5,778,507 6.0 02-01 2014
6.0 02-01 2014 182,019 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,386 732,900 (2,638) (36,513) 693,748 6,269,491 6.5 08-01 2014
6.5 08-01 2014 182,019 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,386 732,900 (2,638) (36,513) 693,748 6,748,501 7.0 02-01 2015
7.0 02-01 2015 182,019 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,482 756,910 (2,725) (37,709) 716,476 7,231,137 7.5 08-01 2015
7.5 08-01 2015 182,019 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,482 756,910 (2,725) (37,709) 716,476 7,702,001 8.0 02-01 2016
8.0 02-01 2016 182,019 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,751 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 8,176,391 8.5 08-01 2016
8.5 08-01 2016 182,019 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,751 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 8,639,210 9.0 02-01 2017
9.0 02-01 2017 182,019 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,227 807,113 (2,906) (40,210) 763,997 9,105,455 9.5 08-01 2017
9.5 08-01 2017 182,019 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,227 807,113 (2,906) (40,210) 763,997 9,560,328 10.0 02-01 2018
10.0 02-01 2018 182,019 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,948 833,350 (3,000) (41,517) 788,832 10,018,533 10.5 08-01 2018
10.5 08-01 2018 182,019 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,948 833,350 (3,000) (41,517) 788,832 10,465,562 11.0 02-01 2019
11.0 02-01 2019 182,019 2,504,186 921,215 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 10,915,830 11.5 08-01 2019
11.5 08-01 2019 182,019 2,504,186 921,215 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 11,355,117 12.0 02-01 2020
12.0 02-01 2020 182,019 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,275 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 11,797,554 12.5 08-01 2020
12.5 08-01 2020 182,019 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,275 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 12,229,200 13.0 02-01 2021
13.0 02-01 2021 182,019 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,957 916,877 (3,301) (45,679) 867,897 12,663,910 13.5 08-01 2021
13.5 08-01 2021 182,019 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,957 916,877 (3,301) (45,679) 867,897 13,088,018 14.0 02-01 2022
14.0 02-01 2022 182,019 2,736,392 1,013,332 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,515,108 14.5 08-01 2022
14.5 08-01 2022 182,019 2,736,392 1,013,332 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,931,781 15.0 02-01 2023
15.0 02-01 2023 182,019 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,565 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,640 14,351,355 15.5 08-01 2023
15.5 08-01 2023 182,019 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,565 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,640 14,760,696 16.0 02-01 2024
16.0 02-01 2024 182,019 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,577 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,294 15,172,861 16.5 08-01 2024
16.5 08-01 2024 182,019 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,577 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,294 15,574,973 17.0 02-01 2025
17.0 02-01 2025 182,019 2,990,129 1,113,991 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 15,979,834 17.5 08-01 2025
17.5 08-01 2025 182,019 2,990,129 1,113,991 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 16,374,821 18.0 02-01 2026
18.0 02-01 2026 182,019 3,079,833 1,149,577 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 16,772,483 18.5 08-01 2026
18.5 08-01 2026 182,019 3,079,833 1,149,577 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 17,160,446 19.0 02-01 2027
19.0 02-01 2027 182,019 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,978 1,107,886 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,551,015 19.5 08-01 2027
19.5 08-01 2027 182,019 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,978 1,107,886 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,932,058 20.0 02-01 2028
20.0 02-01 2028 182,019 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,392 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,315,639 20.5 08-01 2028
20.5 08-01 2028 182,019 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,392 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,689,864 21.0 02-01 2029
21.0 02-01 2029 182,019 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,527 1,179,463 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,456 19,066,560 21.5 08-01 2029
21.5 08-01 2029 182,019 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,527 1,179,463 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,456 19,434,069 22.0 02-01 2030
22.0 02-01 2030 182,019 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,438 1,216,870 (4,381) (60,624) 1,151,865 19,803,986 22.5 08-01 2030
22.5 08-01 2030 182,019 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,438 1,216,870 (4,381) (60,624) 1,151,865 20,164,880 23.0 02-01 2031
23.0 02-01 2031 182,019 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,175 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,336 20,528,120 23.5 08-01 2031
23.5 08-01 2031 182,019 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,175 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,336 20,882,501 24.0 02-01 2032
24.0 02-01 2032 182,019 3,677,481 1,386,667 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,239,167 24.5 08-01 2032
24.5 08-01 2032 182,019 3,677,481 1,386,667 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,587,135 25.0 02-01 2033
25.0 02-01 2033 182,019 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,353 1,335,960 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,593 21,937,329 25.5 08-01 2033
25.5 08-01 2033 182,019 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,353 1,335,960 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,593 22,278,983 26.0 02-01 2034
Totals 47,729,145 (171,825) (2,377,866) 45,179,454
Present Value Date - 8-01-07 23,536,292 (84,731) (1,172,578) 22,278,983
14,869,617 Previous Phase I TIF run
NOTES:7,409,366 Difference (Phase II TIF)
1. Inflation has on tax rate has not been calculated.
2. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes, fiscal disparities taxes or market value property taxes
Prepared by Ehlers and Associats, Inc. TIF Run 12-07-05 P2006TNT se.xls
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 05-EDA-211
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOUNDS VIEW CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the Mounds View
Economic Development Authority ("EDA") as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council ("Council") of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota ("City")
established the Mounds View Economic Development Project pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage
the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and
WHEREAS, the EDA is proposing a modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds
View Economic Development Project and a modification to the Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5, all pursuant to, and in accordance with,
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 and Sections 469.090 to 469.1082,
inclusive, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby requests that the Council call for a public hearing on February 13,
2006 to consider the proposed adoption of a modification to the Project Plan for the
Mounds View Economic Development Project and the proposed modification of the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5, a special legislation
economic development tax increment financing district, (collectively the "Modifications") and
cause notice of said public hearing to be given as required by law.
2. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit copies of the Modifications to the
Planning Commission of the City and requests the Planning Commission's written opinion
indicating whether the proposed Modifications are in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City, prior to the date of the public hearing.
3. The Executive Director of the EDA is hereby directed to submit a copy of the
Modifications to the Council for its approval.
4. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit the Modifications to Ramsey County
and Mounds View School District No. 621, in which TIF District No. 5 is located in, not
later than January 13, 2006.
EDA Resolution 05-EDA-211
Page 2
5. Staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to
prepare the Modifications and related documents and to undertake other actions
necessary to bring the Modifications before the Council.
Approved by the Board on December 12, 2005.
__________________________________
Rob Marty, President
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Kurt Ulrich, Executive Director