Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA February 1, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. December 21, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. MI2006-001 Major Subdivision request for 3049 Woodale Drive Applicant: Dan Saplis, Inc. Address: 13637 Pierce Street NE, Ham Lake 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed 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 (TIF) District No. 5 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. February 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. January 18, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. January 23, 2006 City Council Meeting b. January 30, 2006 City Council Worksession c. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion *NOTE LOCATION* SPRING LAKE PARK CITY HALL 1301 – 81ST Avenue NE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting January 18, 2006 New Brighton City Hall 803 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:02 p.m. January 18, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Miller, Zwirn, Hull, Meehlhause, Scotch (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), and Stevenson Absent and Excused: Commissioner Hegland. Also Present: Community Development Director Ericson Oaths of Office Community Development Director Ericson administered the oaths of office to Commissioners Gary Meehlhause, Jean Miller, and Gary Stevenson. ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Election of Officers for 2006 2 Review Potential Acquisition of 2390 County Road 10 2 _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes November 16, 2005. MOTION/SECOND: Meelhause/Zwirn. To approve the Minutes of the November 16, 2005 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activities A. Election of Officers for 2006 – Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Community Development Director Ericson explained that at the first meeting of each year the Commission elects for the positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Nominations are normally stated verbally and, if requested, a secret ballot is conducted with the votes tallied by the recording secretary. Chair Stevenson called for nominations for the position of Chairperson. Commissioner Miller nominated Gary Stevenson for the position of Planning Commission Chairperson in 2006. Chair Stevenson called for further nominations. Hearing none, nominations were closed for the position of Planning Commission Chairperson and a voice vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Chair Stevenson called for nominations for the position of Vice Chairperson. Chair Stevenson nominated Jean Miller for the position of Planning Commission Vice Chairperson in 2006. Chair Stevenson called for further nominations. Hearing none, nominations were closed for the position of Planning Commission Vice Chairperson and a voice vote was taken. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. Review Potential Acquisition of 2390 County Road 10, property known as the “Premium Stop” Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the Premium Stop property is very visible on the County Road 10 corridor and been deteriorating significantly over the past few years. The canopy that had covered the gas pumps sustained wind damage during the Sept 21 windstorm. The City required that the damaged canopy either be fixed or taken down due to significant risk to the health and safety of people using the station. The Premium Stop business was shut down for pumping gas at that time. The contractor who performed the work told station operator that the canopy would be re-erected within a week but it has now been sitting in the parking lot for months. Director Ericson advised that the City accepted bids to dismantle and discard the canopy and to board up the car wash, which also had sustained damage in the storm. He explained that the plate glass window in the car wash blew in and the glass is still laying on the car wash floor. Director Ericson advised that the operator of the business wants to operate a good business and appeared before the Council about the nuisance and court citations. However, the Council indicated that at this point there are issues that need to be addressed. He explained that the Council took into consideration that the property is for sale and being marketed. The owner is an investment group located out of state and they desire to sell this property and the Council decided it is an opportunity to eliminate a blight in the corridor. The Council directed staff to negotiate with the owners to buy the property. Director Ericson explained that the Council does not take this lightly but did agree that it is a blight and that something needed to be done. The Council directed staff to more forward with acquisition so the Planning Commission needs to review the possible acquisition for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as dictated by State Statutes. Director Ericson pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this parcel, as well as the former Donut Connection parcel, is HC, Highway Convenience and the zoning is B-3, Highway Business. Last year, the Planning Commission recommended the former Donut Connection property be acquired but the Council decided to not more forward with that action. Director Ericson reported that one issue raised at the Council meeting was that the City does not necessarily have a plan for redevelopment. Councilmember Stigney had indicated he felt that maybe it was too soon to consider acquisition but the rest of the Council felt the plan takes a back seat when looking at blighted property such as this. Director Ericson reviewed the types of improvements the City will be making to the County Road 10 corridor, which will be a significant investment. Director Ericson stated there is no reuse plan at this point but the Council feels that clearing the building and blight is a better situation than what exists today. This issue is now before the Planning Commission at the request of the Council. If it is recommended for approval, staff will talk with the selling agents. Chair Stevenson asked if there would be incentive for anyone to clean this property without acquisition. Director Ericson stated there is always that possibility in terms of someone stepping in and buying the property, besides the City. However, the real estate agents have indicated that Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ the only individuals interested want to maintain the property as an independent gas station. There is no guarantee there would be any investment in the property. Director Ericson explained that the condition of the property is likely inhibiting the sale. Chair Stevenson asked if the City would be better off owning the property than waiting for someone to purchase the property as it is. Director Ericson stated that the first priority is to eliminate the blighted buildings from the site, indicating he did not want it to be similar to the Amoco property that sat vacant for 3 to 4 years. He advised that the Council does not want to wait 4 years to see what will happen. Also, if the City controls the property, it can help dictate what goes into that corner, rather than keeping it a gas station, or another drug store or car wash. In addition, there would be the benefit of the resale of the property once it is cleared. Chair Stevenson asked about the total cleanup with removal of gas tanks and possible contamination. He noted the level of contamination (if any) is not known nor whether the purchase price would be reduced because of that potential. Director Ericson stated that is a good point and explained that those issues would be negotiated into the purchase agreement. He assured the Planning Commission that the City would not want to buy this property unless the City knew if there were spills or contamination. The City would likely conduct a Phase I environmental analysis and, if warranted, a Phase II analysis. Director Ericson stated the City is not aware of any spills on the property and have not been notified by the MPCA of issues on the site. But, given the nature of the present operation, there is certainly that risk. Director Ericson advised that staff would make sure any agreement with the property owner would include a contingency for it being a clean site. If not a clean site, the purchase price would either be adjusted accordingly based on the cost to clean the site or the City would not purchase the site. Chair Stevenson asked about removal of the gas tanks. Director Ericson stated that would be negotiated as a condition of purchasing the property, that the tanks be removed under MPCA guidelines, whether with Oasis or the property owner. Commissioner Scotch asked about the property on County Road 10 that used to be a gas station where they sell Christmas trees. Director Ericson stated that is not City owned property and is owned by Integra Homes. Chair Stevenson stated clean up on that property was on going, about a three-year project. He commented that almost every gas station vacation has had problems. Commissioner Meehlhause stated that should be the responsibility of the seller and owner, not the buyer. He explained that with the company he works for, they are always responsible for soil contamination issues when they sell a property. Commissioner Scotch asked if the proposal is for reuse as sushi bar property. Director Ericson explained that the Donut Connection property is being re-purposed as a sushi bar and that renovation is currently underway but he is not sure when it will open. Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Scotch asked if there has been talk of the sushi bar taking on more space. Director Ericson stated that may have been discussed when they originally purchased the Donut Connection property but they may want to wait to see if their business “gets off the ground” before acquiring more land. He advised that the canopy is currently resting in their parking lot. Commissioner Miller asked how long the gas station has been there. Director Ericson stated it has been there since 1968 and the owners are not local. The property is owned by an investment group with one owner living in Wisconsin and the other Idaho or Washington. The investment group leased the property to Oasis markets who in turn subleased to another entity. Director Ericson explained the current operator admitted to the Council that he has no lease and is operating without any vested interest in the property. Commissioner Zwirn asked if there has been any communication with the investment group about maintaining the property. Director Ericson stated they have had communication with them and a court citation has been issued so they will be responsible for abatement of the property. He explained that if they don’t pay for correction, the City would assess the cost to the property taxes. He explained that the operator, the leasee, and Oasis have all said the violations were someone else’s problem. Because of this, it takes up a lot of staff’s time and there seems to be no resolution so the Council is supportive of the acquisition. Commissioner Scotch stated the City has done other property acquisitions and asked about the approximate cost. Director Ericson explained that depends on the acreage and improvements to the property. He reviewed that the property located at Eastwood and County 10 was purchased by the City, the building demolished, and the site “sat green” for a number of years until the Mounds View Animal Hospital purchased the lot. Also, the Gas for Less property on Bronson and County 10 was reutilized as a Snyder Store. Director Ericson explained that staff would look at the County assessed value and negotiate the sale based on removal of the tanks, removal of the buildings, and disposal of the canopy. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the City would incorporate the Donut Connection property into the purchase. Director Ericson clarified that staff would not include the Donut Connection property in the acquisition even though there has been discussion in the past about packaging them for acquisition. Commission Scotch asked when the last Comprehensive Plan was done. Director Ericson stated it was approved in 2002 and the Metropolitan Council will require an update by 2008 consistent with their 2032 Framework Plan. Commissioner Meehlhause stated as a citizen who drives by the location every day, this would be a positive move. Commissioner Miller concurred. Commissioner Scotch stated her agreement, depending on the cost. Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated they have not looked at the cost but have talked with the selling agent about their assessment of the property owner’s willingness to come down in price to something more reasonable. He explained that the building has a certain value if it was to be used for a business but the City considers it to be a liability since it will cost something to remove it. Staff will also assure the environmental issues are addressed. Director Ericson pointed out that if the Council thinks the risks to the community are too high or the environmental issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the Council will probably not move forward with acquisition. Chair Stevenson asked about the Commission’s ability to include comments about environmental issues. Director Ericson stated staff has heard those concerns of the Commission and will address them in the negotiations. Chair Stevenson stated he would like the Council to be aware that it is of concern for the Planning Commission even if that issue is not included in the resolution. Commissioner Zwirn stated his concern about this being the only option to act on tonight. He is also concerned about the investment group being reluctant to set prices that could be negotiated. He stated that he is looking at an owner of a property that is blighted, an eyesore to the community and putting off his responsibilities. But when it comes time to step forward and negotiate pricing, he is a hardball customer with a high price. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the City has looked at cleaning the property, abating the cost against the taxes, and then taking the property for nonpayment of taxes, which may be a lower cost to the City. Director Ericson stated staff has not started negotiating on the selling price, but the seller’s agent has expressed their listing price but indicated a willingness to negotiate and to consider the issues relating to the environmental concerns. He explained that while they have not been very responsive in dealing with the nuisance issues on the property, he would hesitate to say they are “playing hardball” with the acquisition negotiations. Director Ericson explained that he thinks they want to get out from under it and the City will not reward them for holding out or pay top or premium dollar for this property. He noted that while the option presented is the only option being presented to the Commission, there are certainly other options like abating the nuisance conditions which the City has been authorized to do. Chair Stevenson noted that as a responsible City, Mounds View would need to, for the safety reasons, remove the canopy and charge the cost against the taxes but the City could still end up purchasing the property after that. He stated this option will still get the job done, the costs will be charged against the property owner in the purchase, and it will address the environmental and tank removal concerns as well as the safety concerns. Chair Stevenson recommended supporting the resolution since it is the best option for the City and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to move forward with this acquisition. MOTION/SECOND: Miller/Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 823-06, a Resolution Recommending Acquisition of the Premium Stop Parcel Located at 2390 County Road 10. Ayes – 5 Nay – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission January 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn stated he voted against the motion because he is not convinced this is the appropriate action and thinks there are other options that should be explored. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting A. February 1, 2006 – location to be determined B. February 15, 2006 at New Brighton City Hall Community Development Director Ericson asked whether the Planning Commission would prefer to meet at the Spring Lake Park City Hall or the Blaine City Hall for the February 1, 2006 meeting. Consensus was reached to direct staff to schedule the February 1, 2006 meeting at the Spring Lake Park City Hall, if New Brighton is unavailable. Chair Stevenson advised that he will not be present for the February 15, 2006 meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: Feb 1, 2006 Type of Business: Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: 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 (TIF) District No. 5 Introduction: Medtronic has decided to move forward with Phase 2 of its approved development to be constructed concurrently with Phase 1. In so doing, Medtronic has requested additional financial assistance at the same rate and terms as was provided for Phase 1. Minnesota Statutes require that a city’s planning agency review all modifications to existing TIF Project Plans to determine consistency with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is similar to the requirement whereby the planning agency reports on the consistency of new TIF Districts with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission conducted such a review as recently as August 3, 2005 when it considered the creation of TIF District No. 5 to support the Medtronic CRM development. Discussion: Mounds View established Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 5 last year to provide financial assistance to Medtronic consistent with special legislation adopted by the 2005 Minnesota Legislature. The development agreement entered into by and between the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Medtronic provided $14.8 million dollars of assistance to Medtronic to construct the first phase of a three phase development which would consist of 1,500,000 square feet of office space at full build out. The amended agreement would provide for a maximum $22.9 million dollars of assistance. The original agreement provides that Medtronic may request additional TIF assistance for Phases 2 and 3 and that such assistance would not be unreasonably withheld by the Authority. At the direction of the EDA, Ehler’s and Associates prepared the financial analysis for the project modification which is attached to this report for the Commission to review. This document is essentially the same as what the Commission reviewed last year as approved by the EDA on August 22, 2005. The only changes you will see are preceded by the notation, “(As Modified February 13, 2006.)” This is the anticipated date the EDA will consider the modification. Appendix D of the Ehlers report represents the updated cash-flow of the project, adjusted for the additional $30,4000,000 in market value. In terms of what the Commission is reviewing, it must make a determination as to whether the modification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In other words, is the development for which the modification is predicated consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Commission is aware, the Comprehensive Plan was amended last year by changing the Future Land Use designation of the Medtronic site to “Office.” This amendment was approved at the same time that a rezoning was approved for the Medtronic CRM development which authorized 1,500,000 square feet of office space and other accessory, ancillary uses. TIF District # 5 Modification Report February 1, 2006 Page 2 The modification to the Project Plan for TIF District No. 5 adjusts the budget and cash flow estimates consistent with assistance for the second phase of the Medtronic expansion. The proposed expansion is consistent with the approved PUD, the zoning of the property, and consistent with the terms of the executed development agreement. The proposed expansion is also consistent with the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) which was approved for this site. And finally, the development is consistent with the Comprehensive plan which was amended last year specifically in response to this project. Recommendation: Review the attached material and discuss the plans to modify the project plan for TlF District No. 5. Resolution 824-06 is attached for the Commission's consideration if you agree that the proposed modification to the project plan is not inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Aaron Backman, the City’s Economic Development Coordinator, and a representative from Ehlers and Associates will be present to answer any specific questions regarding the proposed modification. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Ehlers and Associates Project Plan Modification report dated January 25, 2006 2. Resolution 824-06 Ehlers & Associates, Inc. City of Mounds View Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 Overview The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Planning Commission regarding the Modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. More detailed information can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Review the Modification to determine conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. Generally, the substantive changes include the construction of Phase II which is being considered to be complete with Phase I of the Project. Parcel Numbers: No changes to the District boundary are being made with this modification. Proposed Development: The Plan is being modified to facilitate development of Phases I and II of a business campus for Medtronic, which includes approximately 1,200,000 s.f. of office space in the City of Mounds View. The original Plan proposed, after all Phases, the potential for a 1.5 million square foot campus in Mounds View that is designed for up to 6,000+ employees. The company envisions a 72-acre campus, surrounded by various walking/biking paths, ponds, natural wetlands and trees. Phase I of the project included the construction of a building complex totaling 820,000 sq. ft. of office space. The Phase I complex would be designed for approximately 3,300 employees, with surface parking for about 3,400 vehicles. Potential later phases of the project would likely include construction of two more buildings totaling 680,000 sq. ft of office space. The Phase II/III complex could be designed for about 2,700 employees. Later phases are projected to be completed in 2012 and 2017 respectively and may involve structured and surface parking for vehicles. Due to various market conditions, Medtronic, Inc. has decided to proceed with Phase II of the anticipated project. Phase II consists of the construction of an additional 380,000 sq. ft. of office space. The total project, therefore, will consist of 1,200,000 sq. ft. of office space. In addition, the surface parking plan is being replaced with a 4,200 vehicle parking ramp. The Phase II complex would be designed for approximately 1,400 employees bringing the potential employees in the Mounds View campus to 4,700. TIF District Overview Page 2 Draft as of January 25, 2006 MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the modification of TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 (an economic development district) within THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: August 22, 2005 Adopted: August 22, 2005 Modified: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT .............. 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 .......................... 2-1 Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1 Subsection 2-4. Project Plan Overview..................................... 2-2 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-3 Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District..................................... 2-3 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2-6 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election................................. 2-10 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies...................................... 2-10 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ...................................... 2-11 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions................ 2-11 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-13 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-14 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-14 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-15 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-15 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-16 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-17 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-17 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-17 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-17 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-18 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-18 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment................. 2-18 Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-19 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B MAP OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ............................... B-1 APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT............. C-1 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .............................. D-1 APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E-1 APPENDIX F BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS.............................................. F-1 APPENDIX G SPECIAL LEGISLATION ................................................. G-1 Mounds View Economic Development Authority Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project 1-1 SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. For further information, a review of the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project, adopted May 9, 1994 and amended on August 14, 2000 and most recently on June 28, 2004, is recommended. It is available from the City Administrator at the City of Mounds View. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Mounds View Economic Development Project. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 Subsection 2-1. Foreword The Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"), the City of Mounds View (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing district established under the 2005 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 26, located in the Mounds View Economic Development Project. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of five parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate development of Phase I of a business campus for Medtronic, which includes approximately 820,000 s.f. of office space in the City of Mounds View. Please see Appendix A for further project information. A Developer Agreement has been authorized, contingent on the approval of the proposed TIF Plan and establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. Development is likely to begin in 2005. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Project Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the District. (As Modified February 13, 2006) The District originally consisted of five parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District was created to facilitate development of Phase I of a business campus for Medtronic and is being modified to include Phases I and II, which includes approximately 1,200,000 s.f. of office space in the City of Mounds View. Please see Appendix A for further project information. A Developer Agreement has been entered into and may be ammended, contingent on the approval of the proposed Modification to Financing District No. 5. Development is likely to begin in 2006. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Project Plan for the Mounds View Economic Development Project. This modification does not increase the boundaries of the District. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Project Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Mounds View Economic Development Project and the District. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-2 Subsection 2-4. Project Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. 5. The City proposes infrastructure facilities within the District, no additional open space within the District, no environmental controls specific to the District, proposed reuse of private property as an business campus, and continued operation of the Mounds View Economic Development Project after the capital improvements within the Mounds View Economic Development Project have been completed. Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. Parcel Numbers 05-30-23-13-0001 05-30-23-21-0005* 05-30-23-21-0006* 05-30-23-24-0059 05-30-23-24-0060 *These parcels are being removed from Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. (As Modified February 13, 2006) *These parcels were removed from Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. Pursuant to the 2005 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 26 (H.F No. 2498) (the "Special Legislation") Subd. 1, paragraph (b), the "area" is bounded by, and including, on the north County Road J west of Coral Sea Street and 82nd Lane NE east of Coral Sea Street, on the east Coral Sea Street north of 82nd Lane NE and Interstate Highway 35W south of 82nd Lane NE, on the south and southwest U.S. Highway 10, and on the west the western boundary of Outlot A, Sysco, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota. A copy of the 2005 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 152, Article 2, Section 26 (H.F. No. 2498) can be found in Appendix G. The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-3 way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is an economic development district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 as defined below: "Economic development district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds to be in the public interest because: (1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or (2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or (3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state. The District is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirement from clause 1, 2 and 3. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(d), the limitations on spending increment outside of the district under M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, and on spending increment for developments more than 15 percent of the square footage of which is used for purposes other than those listed in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, do not apply. Pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 1(a), City may establish within the corporate boundaries of the City one or more economic development tax increment financing districts subject to the special rules under subdivision 2 and the districts must be located on property that is exempt from taxation for property taxes payable in 2005 and within the area defined in paragraph (b). The Special Legislation, Subd. 3 allows the authority to establish tax increment financing districts under the Special Legislation until December 31, 2015. Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(b), the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2032, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-4 (As Modified February 13, 2006) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(b), the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2008. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2033, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor at the time the property is classified as taxable. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2007) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2006, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2006. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2007. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-5 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)* $2,587,865 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $143,814 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $953,911 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,490,140 Original Local Tax Rate 125.768% Pay 2005 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,874,119 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% *The cashflow estimates a 3% inflation factor over the term of the District. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. (As Modified February 13, 2006) Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Mounds View Economic Development Project, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2008. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)* $3,901,440 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $182,018 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $1,475,513 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $2,243,909 Original Local Tax Rate 122.827% Estimated Pay 2006 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $2,756,126 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% *The cashflow estimates a 3% inflation factor over the term of the District. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-6 Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets, billboard relocation and removal, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the EDA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a Limited Tax Increment Revenue Note (pay-as- you-go note) and possibly a portion through interfund loans. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $14,800,000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that up to $5,000,000 in interfund loans may be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that up to $5,000,000 in transfers may be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that up to $14,800,000 in Limited Tax Increment Revenue Note proceeds may be financed with tax increment revenues. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The EDA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the EDA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $32,600,000 Interest Revenue $100,000 PROJECT REVENUES $32,700,000 Interfund Loans $5,000,000 Transfers $5,000,000 TIF Note $14,800,000 (As Modified February 13, 2006) Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, parking facilities, streets, billboard relocation and removal, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the EDA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assess- ments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a Limited Tax Increment Revenue Note (pay-as- Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-7 you-go note) and possibly a portion through interfund loans. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $22,900,000 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that up to $5,000,000 in interfund loans may be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that up to $5,000,000 in transfers may be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that up to $22,900,000 in Limited Tax Increment Revenue Note proceeds may be financed with tax increment revenues. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The EDA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the EDA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below. SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $46,600,000 Interest Revenue $100,000 PROJECT REVENUES $46,700,000 Interfund Loans $5,000,000 Transfers $5,000,000 TIF Note $22,900,000 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate development of an approximate 820,000 sq. ft. business campus for Medtronic, Inc. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-8 USES OF FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $2,100,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $6,000,000 Public Utilities $600,000 Parking Facilities $3,000,000 Roads $500,000 Billboard Removal/Relocation $930,000 Demolition/Relocation $500,000 Interest $16,947,319 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) $2,122,681 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $32,700,000 Interfund Loans $5,000,000 Transfers $5,000,000 TIF Note Principal $14,800,000 The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms. It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $57,500,000 as is presented in the budget above. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2, paragraph (d) provides that except as provided in paragraph (e), increments may only be expended within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), and related to development occurring within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), whether or not included in a tax increment financing district. Increments may only be spent on one or more of the following costs, improvements or activities: (1) acquisition and removal of existing billboards; (2) acquisition of land and easements, if the parcel is occupied by a building constructed before 1990; (3) sanitary sewer, sewer, and water improvements; (4) road improvements; (5) parking, including structured parking; (6) administrative expenses; (7) wetland mitigation; (8) soils correction; and (9) environmental cleanup. (As Modified February 13, 2006) Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate development of an approximate 1,200,000 sq. ft. business campus for Medtronic, Inc. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-9 development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $500,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $1,000,000 Public Utilities $1,000,000 Parking Facilities $16,800,000 Roads $100,000 Billboard Removal/Relocation $930,000 Demolition/Relocation $100,000 Interest $23,820,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,450,000 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $46,700,000 Interfund Loans $5,000,000 Transfers $5,000,000 TIF Note Principal $22,900,000 The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms. It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $79,600,000 as is presented in the budget above. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2, paragraph (d) provides that except as provided in paragraph (e), increments may only be expended within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), and related to development occurring within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), whether or not included in a tax increment financing district. Increments may only be spent on one or more of the following costs, improvements or activities: (10) acquisition and removal of existing billboards; (11) acquisition of land and easements, if the parcel is occupied by a building constructed before 1990; (12) sanitary sewer, sewer, and water improvements; (13) road improvements; (14) parking, including structured parking; (15) administrative expenses; (16) wetland mitigation; (17) soils correction; and (18) environmental cleanup. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-10 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(f), the limitation on the ability to elect the method of computation under M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, for an economic development district does not apply and the EDA or City may elect the method of computation under paragraph (a) or (b) of section M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b (inside the District). If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (inside the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (b) The following method of computation applies to any economic development district for which the request for certification was made after June 30, 1997, and to any other district for which the governing body, by resolution approving the tax increment financing plan pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, elects: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-11 (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. The EDA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the exemptions listed on the previous page. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-12 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2004/2005 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Ramsey County 372,289,367 1,490,140 0.4003% City of Mounds View 6,679,189 1,490,140 22.3102% Mounds View ISD No. 621 70,841,477 1,490,140 2.1035% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 2004/2005 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Ramsey County 49.210% 39.13% 1,490,140 733,298 City of Mounds View 46.966% 37.34% 1,490,140 699,859 Mounds View ISD No. 621 22.112% 17.58% 1,490,140 329,500 Other 7.480%5.95%1,490,140 111,462 Total 125.768% 100.00%1,874,119 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual 2004/Pay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2005/Pay 2006 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. (As Modified February 13, 2006) The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-13 IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2005/2006 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Ramsey County 420,951,592 2,243,909 0.5331% City of Mounds View 7,580,925 2,243,909 29.5994% Mounds View ISD No. 621 79,119,945 2,243,909 2.8361% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 2005/2006 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Ramsey County 46.686% 38.01% 2,243,909 1,047,591 City of Mounds View 43.740% 35.61% 2,243,909 981,486 Mounds View ISD No. 621 23.313% 18.98% 2,243,909 523,123 Other 9.088%7.40%2,243,909 203,926 Total 122.827% 100.00% 2,756,126 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 2005/Pay 2006 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2006 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2005/Pay 2006 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings: 1. Bridges Boundary and Topographic Survey (prepared bt E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc., October 21, 2004) 2. Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Bridges Office Development (prepared by RLK- Kuusisto, November 17, 2004) 3. Amendment to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for the Bridges Office Development (prepared by RLK-Kuusisto, April 22, 2005) 4. Traffic Impact Study for the Bridges Office Redevelopment (prepared by RLK-Kuusisto, November 17, 2004) 5. Traffic Impact Study for the Bridges Golf Course Site (prepared by SRF Consulting Group, February 22, 2005) 6. Bridges Golf Course Wetland Delineation Report (prepared by SEH, September 23, 2004) 7. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Bridges Area in Mounds View and Blaine (prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, October 2004) 8. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of Bridges Property in Mounds View (prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, February 17, 2005) Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-14 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the Authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the Mounds View Economic Development Project or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If an economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the Mounds View Economic Development Project or the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the Mounds View Economic Development Project or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-15 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-16 that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately August, 2009 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Mounds View Economic Development Project pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of the Mounds View Economic Development Project by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Ramsey County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-17 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Mounds View Economic Development Project or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Project Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development not be completed. Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the City Administrator. Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-18 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Mounds View Economic Development Project pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. Increments may only be spent on one or more of the following costs, improvements, or activities: acquisition and removal of existing billboards; acquisition of land and easements, if the parcel is occupied by a building constructed before 1990; sanitary sewer, sewer, and water improvements; road improvements; parking, including structured parking; administrative expenses; wetland mitigation; soils correction; and environmental cleanup. Increments may be expended on costs, improvements, or activities outside the area defined in subdivision 1, paragraph (b) of the Special Legislation, wherever located, whether or not included in a tax increment financing district, for sanitary sewer, sewer, and water improvements and improvements to Coral Sea Street, Airport Road, 82nd Lane NE, County Road J, U.S. Highway 10, and Interstate Highway 35W so long as the improvements are related to development within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b). 2. Pooling Limitations. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(d), the limitations on spending increment outside of the district under M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, does not apply. Except as Mounds View Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 2-19 provided in paragraph (e) of the Special Legislation, increments may only be expended within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), and related to development occurring within the area defined in the Special Legislation, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), whether or not included in a tax increment financing district. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Pursuant to the Special Legislation, Subd. 2(c), the five year rule under M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been extended to a ten year period. Subsection 2-28. Summary The Mounds View EDA is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651) 697-8500. APPENDIX A-1 APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION Medtronic Campus I-35W & State Hwy 10 Mounds View, Minnesota Introduction The Bridges of Mounds View Golf Course is a City-owned course encompassing approximately 72.2 acres. In the fall of 2004 Medronic, Inc. began negotiations with the City to purchase the property for the purpose of developing an office complex on the site. The site poses a number of challenges for redevelopment of a business office complex of the quality required by Medtronic. The current site has acreage that is not buildable and wetland relocation will be required. The site is configured such that additional adjacent properties will need to be acquired, businesses relocated and building demolished to assemble a site that will allow the proposed project to be constructed. Additionally, the site issues include the need for an access road, lack of utilities and the removal of up to six billboards located on the site. New Medtronic Corporate Campus Medtronic, Inc. is the world's leading medical technology company, providing lifelong solutions for people with chronic disease. Its products include those for cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, vascular, neurological, spinal, diabetes, and for ENT surgery. The company has conducted a search throughout the Twin Cities for a new corporate campus that would meet the growing research and development needs of the Cardiac Rhythm Management (CRM) division of this growing company. In the Fall of 2004, Medtronic began focusing on the Mounds View site for locating its new CRM campus because: 1. The area is large enough to allow Medtronic to expand and combine multiple facilities, including several temporary locations, into a new cohesive, efficient and motivational campus environment for employees. At a minimum the Company wants 60 buildable acres of land. The golf course location has the potential to provide the necessary space. 2. The City of Mounds View is centrally located in the North Metro area which will accommodate current Medtronic employees and will be a suitable site for attracting future employees. The Company has done an analysis of its employee base and found the Mounds View location to be efficient and ideally situated in relation to its employees. 3. The Mounds View site offers a highly visible location with several transportation options, including access to I-35W and State Hwy 10. The proposed site provides over one mile of visibility on two major thoroughfares. The appraisal undertaken by the City indicated that the highest and best use of the land would be for a commercial office or mixed-use development. 4. The Bridges campus is geographically close to Medtronic's Rice Creek and Headquarters campuses in the City of Fridley. 5. Medtronic already has its North American Distribution Facility in Mounds View located just off of County Highway 10. APPENDIX A-2 Proposed Project Description S The Project Master Site Plan, after all Phases, envisions the potential for a 1.5 million square foot campus in Mounds View that is designed for up to 6,000+ employees. S The company envisions a 72 acre campus, surrounded by various walking/biking paths, ponds, natural wetlands and trees. S Phase I of the project includes the construction of a building complex totaling 820,000 sq. ft. of office space. The Phase I complex would be designed for approximately 3,300 employees, with surface parking for about 3,400 vehicles. S Potential later phases of the project would likely include construction of two more buildings totaling 680,000 sq. ft of office space. The Phase II/III complex could be designed for about 2,700 employees. S Later phases are projected to be completed in 2012 and 2017 respectively and may involve structured and surface parking for vehicles. Transportation S The Bridges AUAR, authorized by the City, reviewed all transportation issues related to the proposed development of the site. RLK-Kuusisto of Minnetonka prepared the AUAR documents. S The Traffic Study, paid for by Medtronic, reviewed traffic forecasts and capacity analysis of the roads to be used by Medtronic employees. The Study indicated that a significant portion of the additional daily trips on the roads are being caused by adjacent development in Blaine and Shoreview. S The Medtronic corporate campus will be designed to maximize the flow of traffic into and out of the facility and bordering freeways. S On April 11, 2005 Gov. Pawlenty signed the State's Bonding bill that includes appropriations for road improvements necessary for the Medtronic project. The budget included $20.5 million intended for various improvements, including Airport Road, Co. Rd. J, Xylite St., Coral Sea St., Interstate 35W and Naples St. It will improve the current traffic situation and as well as accommodate additional capacity. S Because of the Medtronic project, County Road J & I-35W Bridge would be reconstructed by 2008. These infrastructure improvements are occurring 20+ years ahead of when they otherwise would be scheduled. (As Modified February 13, 2006) Due to various market conditions, Medtronic, Inc. has decided to proceed with Phase II of the anticipated project. Phase II consists of the construction of an additional 380,000 sq. ft. of office space. The total project, therefore, will consist of 1,200,000 sq. ft. of office space. In addition, the surface parking plan is being replaced with a 4,200 vehicle parking ramp. The Phase II complex would be designed for approximately 1,400 employees bringing the potential employees in the Mounds View campus to 4,320. APPENDIX B-1 APPENDIX B MAP OF THE MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5 APPENDIX C-1 APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 05-30-23-13-0001 Jackson Dr City of Mounds View 05-30-23-21-0005* Coral Sea Street City of Mounds View 05-30-23-21-0006* Unassigned City of Mounds View 05-30-23-24-0059 Jackson Dr City of Mounds View 05-30-23-24-0060 Edgewood Dr City of Mounds View *These parcels are being removed from Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 5. Pursuant to H.F No. 2498, 4th Engrossment - 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006), Article 2, Tax Increment Financing, Section 25, Subd. 1, paragraph (b), the "area" is bounded by, and including, on the north County Road J west of Coral Sea Street and 82nd Lane NE east of Coral Sea Street, on the east Coral Sea Street north of 82nd Lane NE and Interstate Highway 35W south of 82nd Lane NE, on the south and southwest U.S. Highway 10, and on the west the western boundary of Outlot A, Sysco, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (As Modified February 13, 2006) The boundaries of the District are not being changed by this modification. APPENDIX D-1 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-07 Local Tax Rate - Frozen 122.827% Pay 2006 TNT Fiscal Disparities Election (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 estimated (adjusted for new construction) Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 121.802% Pay 2006 Local Tax Rate - Current 122.827% Pay 2006 TNT Commercial Industrial Class Rate 1.5%-2.0% Pay 2006 First 1.50% Over 2.00% Class Rate After Total Class Original After Conversion Date PID Address Market Value Rate Tax Capacity Conversion Tax Capacity Payable 05-30-23-13-0001 Jackson Dr 3,755,700 1.5%/2.00% Tax Exempt 0.00% 74,364 2006 05-30-23-21-0005 Coral Sea Street 2,976,900 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 59,538 2006 05-30-23-21-0006 Unassigned 1,037,600 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 20,752 2006 05-30-23-24-0059 Jackson Dr 982,700 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 19,654 2006 05-30-23-24-0060 Edgewood Dr 385,500 2.00% Tax Exempt 2.00% 7,710 2006 Totals 9,138,400 0 182,018 PROJECT INFORMATION Total Market Value Market Class New Year Date Phase Use Sq. Ft./Units Sq. Ft./Units Value Rate Tax Capacity Constructed Payable 1 Office 0 80.00 0 1.5%-2.0% 0 2005 2007 1 Office 720,000 80.00 57,600,000 1.5%-2.0% 1,151,250 2006 2008 1 Office 480,000 80.00 38,400,000 2.00% 768,000 2007 2009 TOTAL 1,200,000 96,000,000 1,919,250 Note: 1. Sq. Ft. values are based upon developer's estimates 2. Project estimated to be 60% completed year 1 and completed year 2 based upon developer's estimates APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT APPENDIX D-2 Base Project Fiscal Captured Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual Tax Tax Disparities Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present Capacity Capacity Reduction Capacity Increment 0.36% 5.00% Increment Value Mth. Yr. 000 08-01 2006 000 02-01 2007 182,018 182,018 0 Present Value Date - 8-01-07 08-01 2007 182,018 182,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-01 2008 182,018 1,151,250 384,499 584,733 359,105 (1,293) (17,891) 339,922 323,542 08-01 2008 182,018 1,151,250 384,499 584,733 359,105 (1,293) (17,891) 339,922 639,193 02-01 2009 182,018 1,919,250 689,169 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,191,160 08-01 2009 182,018 1,919,250 689,169 1,048,063 643,652 (2,317) (32,067) 609,268 1,729,665 02-01 2010 182,018 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,800 664,985 (2,394) (33,130) 629,462 2,272,447 08-01 2010 182,018 1,976,828 712,010 1,082,800 664,985 (2,394) (33,130) 629,462 2,801,992 02-01 2011 182,018 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,578 686,958 (2,473) (34,224) 650,261 3,335,691 08-01 2011 182,018 2,036,132 735,536 1,118,578 686,958 (2,473) (34,224) 650,261 3,856,373 02-01 2012 182,018 2,097,216 759,769 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 4,381,091 08-01 2012 182,018 2,097,216 759,769 1,155,429 709,590 (2,555) (35,352) 671,683 4,893,011 02-01 2013 182,018 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,387 732,901 (2,638) (36,513) 693,749 5,408,852 08-01 2013 182,018 2,160,133 784,728 1,193,387 732,901 (2,638) (36,513) 693,749 5,912,112 02-01 2014 182,018 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,483 756,911 (2,725) (37,709) 716,477 6,419,182 08-01 2014 182,018 2,224,937 810,436 1,232,483 756,911 (2,725) (37,709) 716,477 6,913,884 02-01 2015 182,018 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,752 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 7,412,290 08-01 2015 182,018 2,291,685 836,915 1,272,752 781,641 (2,814) (38,941) 739,886 7,898,540 02-01 2016 182,018 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,228 807,114 (2,906) (40,210) 763,998 8,388,389 08-01 2016 182,018 2,360,435 864,189 1,314,228 807,114 (2,906) (40,210) 763,998 8,866,291 02-01 2017 182,018 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,949 833,350 (3,000) (41,518) 788,833 9,347,692 08-01 2017 182,018 2,431,248 892,281 1,356,949 833,350 (3,000) (41,518) 788,833 9,817,352 02-01 2018 182,018 2,504,186 921,216 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 10,290,416 08-01 2018 182,018 2,504,186 921,216 1,400,952 860,374 (3,097) (42,864) 814,412 10,751,941 02-01 2019 182,018 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,276 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 11,216,777 08-01 2019 182,018 2,579,312 951,018 1,446,276 888,208 (3,198) (44,251) 840,760 11,670,275 02-01 2020 182,018 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,958 916,878 (3,301) (45,679) 867,898 12,126,993 08-01 2020 182,018 2,656,691 981,715 1,492,958 916,878 (3,301) (45,679) 867,898 12,572,572 02-01 2021 182,018 2,736,392 1,013,333 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,021,283 08-01 2021 182,018 2,736,392 1,013,333 1,541,041 946,407 (3,407) (47,150) 895,850 13,459,050 02-01 2022 182,018 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,566 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,641 13,899,866 08-01 2022 182,018 2,818,483 1,045,899 1,590,566 976,822 (3,517) (48,665) 924,641 14,329,930 02-01 2023 182,018 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,578 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,295 14,762,961 08-01 2023 182,018 2,903,038 1,079,442 1,641,578 1,008,150 (3,629) (50,226) 954,295 15,185,430 02-01 2024 182,018 2,990,129 1,113,992 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 15,610,787 08-01 2024 182,018 2,990,129 1,113,992 1,694,119 1,040,418 (3,746) (51,834) 984,839 16,025,769 02-01 2025 182,018 3,079,833 1,149,578 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 16,443,564 08-01 2025 182,018 3,079,833 1,149,578 1,748,237 1,073,653 (3,865) (53,489) 1,016,299 16,851,168 02-01 2026 182,018 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,979 1,107,887 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,261,509 08-01 2026 182,018 3,172,228 1,186,231 1,803,979 1,107,887 (3,988) (55,195) 1,048,703 17,661,843 02-01 2027 182,018 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,393 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,064,842 08-01 2027 182,018 3,267,395 1,223,984 1,861,393 1,143,146 (4,115) (56,952) 1,082,079 18,458,013 02-01 2028 182,018 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,528 1,179,464 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,457 18,853,780 08-01 2028 182,018 3,365,416 1,262,870 1,920,528 1,179,464 (4,246) (58,761) 1,116,457 19,239,894 02-01 2029 182,018 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,439 1,216,871 (4,381) (60,625) 1,151,866 19,628,538 08-01 2029 182,018 3,466,379 1,302,922 1,981,439 1,216,871 (4,381) (60,625) 1,151,866 20,007,702 02-01 2030 182,018 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,176 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,337 20,389,332 08-01 2030 182,018 3,570,370 1,344,176 2,044,176 1,255,400 (4,519) (62,544) 1,188,337 20,761,653 02-01 2031 182,018 3,677,481 1,386,668 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,136,376 08-01 2031 182,018 3,677,481 1,386,668 2,108,795 1,295,085 (4,662) (64,521) 1,225,902 21,501,959 02-01 2032 182,018 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,354 1,335,961 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,594 21,869,883 08-01 2032 182,018 3,787,806 1,430,434 2,175,354 1,335,961 (4,809) (66,558) 1,264,594 22,228,833 02-01 2033 182,018 3,901,440 1,475,513 2,243,909 1,378,063 (4,961) (68,655) 1,304,447 22,590,064 08-01 2033 182,018 3,901,440 1,475,513 2,243,909 1,378,063 (4,961) (68,655) 1,304,447 22,942,485 02-01 2034 Totals 49,197,989 (177,113) (2,451,044) 46,569,832 Present Value Date - 8-01-07 24,237,238 (87,254) (1,207,499) 22,942,485 PAYMENT DATE PERIOD ENDING TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT APPENDIX E-1 APPENDIX E MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) Please fill in date agreement signed (same as question 21) Minnesota Business Assistance Form  The Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) is used to report each business subsidy (including Job Opportunity Zone (JOBZ) tax exemptions/credit) and financial assistance agreement signed from August 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004 unless goals have been achieved and reported on a MBAF per Minn. Stat. § 116J.993 to § 116J.995.  Businesses receiving JOBZone Benefits must report through 2015 even if goals have been achieved.  The following government agencies must submit a MBAF: 1) any local government/agency that signed a business subsidy agreement since January 1, 1999, or represents a population of more than 2,500; 2) all state government agencies authorized to provide business subsidies.  DEED will contact any local or state government agency that is required to report but has not done so by April 1. Business assistance may not be awarded after June 1 of each year until a report has been submitted.  Questions? Call (651) 296-0580. Information on where to mail or fax your completed MBAF(s) is on page 5. An online version of this form is available at www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm Section 1: (Grantor Information) 1. Name of grantor (funding entity) 2. Name of person completing this form 3. Street address 4. City 5. Zip Code 6. County 7. Phone number 8. Fax number 9. E-mail address 10. Please indicate who in your organization should receive the MBAF if different from the person in Question 2. ________________________________ _____________ ________________________________ _________________ _________ Name/Title Phone number Street address City Zip Code 11. Classification of grantor (Mark one. If grantor is entity created by gov’t agency, please indicate affiliation. For example, a city EDA would check “City government.”) ‰ City government ‰ County government ‰ Regional government ‰ State government ‰ Other (Please specify)_______________________________ 12. Has your organization held a public hearing on and adopted criteria for awarding business subsidies in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 116J.994? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes, in 2005 (attach criteria) ‰ Yes, in 2005 but have not yet adopted criteria ‰ Yes, prior to 2005 If Yes: Hearing Date: _________ Year Criteria Submitted: _________ ‰ No ‰ Other (Please attach explanation.) 13. Has your organization signed any agreements to award a business subsidy or financial assistance from August 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004 unless goals have been achieved and reported in a previously filed MBAF? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Complete the remainder of the form unless goals have been achieved and ‰ No(Stop here, go to section 5 on page 4.) reported in a previously filed MBAF per Minn. Stat. §116J.993 and §116J.994.) Section 2: Recipient Information 14. Name of business or organization receiving subsidy or financial assistance 15. Address where business subsidy or financial assistance will be used _______________________________________________________ Street address City State ZIP Code 16. Does the recipient have a parent corporation? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Indicate name and address of parent corporation below. If more than one, indicate ultimate owner.) ‰ No _______________________________________ ________________________ _________________ ___________ _______ Name of parent corporation Street address City State ZIP Code Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 1 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development 17. Industry of recipient’s facility (Mark one.): ‰ Manufacturing ‰ Services ‰ Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ‰ Retail Trade ‰ Wholesale Trade ‰ Construction ‰ Other (please specify) ___________________ 18. Did the recipient relocate as a result of signing this agreement? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Indicate city and state of previous address and reason recipient did not complete this project at that address.) ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ City/State of previous address Reason project not completed at previous address ‰ No (Go to Question 19.) 19. What would recipient have done without business subsidy or financial assistance? (Mark one): ‰ Remain at previous location, but not expand ‰ Remain at previous location but expand ‰ Relocate to different Minnesota location ‰ Relocated outside Minnesota ‰ Other__________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 3: Agreement Information 20. Total dollar value of business subsidy or financial assistance (Please separate value by type in Questions 24 and 25.) (Enter zero for JOBZ, Biozone and Agzone projects.) 21. Date agreement signed (In addition to the agreement date, indicate any dates the agreement was amended.) 22. Benefit date (Indicate the date the recipient receives the business subsidy or improvements were finished, equipment was placed into service, or the recipient occupied the property, whichever is earlier.) 23. Does the agreement provide a business subsidy or one of the four types of financial assistance (see Question 25) required to be reported? (Mark one.) ‰ business subsidy ‰ financial assistance 24. If the agreement provided a business subsidy, please indicate the type(s) and total dollar value for each type. ‰ not applicable, agreement provided financial assistance ‰ loan (only principal) $_______ ‰ grant (i.e., forgivable loan) $_______ ‰ tax abatement $_______ ‰ TIF or other tax reduction or deferral $_______ ‰ guarantee or payment $_______ ‰ contribution of property or infrastructure $_______ ‰ preferential use of governmental facilities $_______ ‰ land contribution $_______ ‰ Biozone $ 0 ‰ JOBZ (state tax exemptions/credits and sales tax) $ 0 ‰ JOBZ - Agzone $ 0 ‰ other (Specify subsidy type.) _________________ $_______ (Note: no dollar value for zone projects) 25. If the assistance was one of the four types of financial assistance, please indicate the type(s). ‰ not applicable, agreement provided a business subsidy ‰ assistance for property by contaminants $________ ‰ assistance for renovating building stock or bringing it up to code, and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, when 50 percent or less of total cost $________ ‰ assistance for pollution control or abatement $________ ‰ assistance for a TIF soils condition district $________ 26. If the assistance included tax increment financing, please indicate the type of TIF district? (Mark one.) ‰ not applicable, assistance was not in the form of TIF ‰ redevelopment ‰ renewal and renovation ‰ soils condition ‰ economic development ‰ mined underground space ‰ hazardous substance subdistrict 27. Are any other grantors providing a business subsidy or financial assistance to the same project? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Specify each grantor and the value of their assistance below; attach an additional sheet if necessary. ______________________________ _____________________ Grantor Value ($) ______________________________ _____________________ Grantor Value ($) ‰ No Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 2 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development Section JZ: JOZ Information Complete Questions 28-31 if the financial assistance was awarded to a JOBZ qualified business recipient receiving JOBZ benefits. (If not, go directly to Question 32.) JZ1. What was the amount of private capital investment of the business in the JOBZ zone prior to December 31, 2004? Real (land and buildings) $________________ Personal (equipment) $________________ JZ2. What was the property tax assessment which was not collected for the property where the JOBZ qualified business was operating during the period of January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004? (Please specify each additional parcel identification number and the value of the property tax assessment that was not collected during the period of January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004; attach an additional sheet if necessary – obtain information from county tax assessor's office.) $____________________ for Parcel Identification Number: ____________________ JZ3. What was the value of Wind Energy Production Tax, if any, for the JOBZ qualified business that was operating during the period of January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004? $_____________________ Section 4: Goals and Public Purpose Identified in the Agreement 28. Minn. Stat. §116J.994 requires that business subsidy and financial assistance agreements state a public purpose. Which of the following public purposes were stated in the agreement? (Mark all that apply.) ‰ Enhancing economic diversity ‰ Increasing tax base (cannot be only purpose) ‰ Creating high-quality job growth ‰ Job retention ‰ Other (please specify) ________________________________________ ‰ Stabilizing the community 29. Indicate whether the agreement included the following types of goals, and whether the recipient had attained those goals at the time of this report. (Fill in the boxes and attainment date(s) for each goal.) Goals Target attainment All goals established? dates (month & year) attained? A) Specific wage and job goals to be attained within 2 years ‰ Yes ‰ No _________________ ‰ Yes ‰ No B) Other job-creation and/or retention goals ‰ Yes ‰ No _________________ ‰ Yes ‰ No C) Other wage goals ‰ Yes ‰ No _________________ ‰ Yes ‰ No D) Goals other than wage and job goals ‰ Yes ‰ No _________________ ‰ Yes ‰ No (Please attach description of goals and progress toward attainment (if not documented in Questions 30 and 31.) 30. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the job creation and/or retention goals stated in the agreement and the average hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance goals for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation goals in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate goals by full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if unable to Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Job Retention Health Insurance no hourly wage-level goal ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ less than $7.00 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $7.00 to $8.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $9.00 to $10.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $11.00 to $12.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $13.00 to $14.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $15.00 and higher ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 3 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development 31. For each of the following wage categories, indicate the number of actual jobs created and/or retained since the benefit date and the actual hourly value of any employer-provided health insurance for those jobs. (Only indicate job creation in full-time equivalents if you are unable to separate job creation into full- and part-time positions.) Full-time Part-time/ FTE (only if unable to Hourly Wage Job Seasonal/Temp. stated as FT/PT) Hourly Value of (excluding benefits) Creation Job Creation Job Creation Job Retention Health Insurance less than $7.00 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $7.00 to $8.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $9.00 to $10.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $11.00 to $12.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $13.00 to $14.99 ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ $15.00 and higher ________ ________ ________ ________ $________ 32. Has the recipient achieved all goals (see Question 33, 34 and 35) and fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the agreement (Mark one.) ‰ Yes ‰ No Section 5: Recipients Failing to Fulfill Obligations (Do not complete this section if you completed it on another MBAF submitted to DEED.) 33. During the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, did your organization have any recipients who failed to report as required by Minn. Stat. §116J.993 and §116J.994? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Indicate the name of each recipient failing to report and the value of subsidy or financial assistance awarded to that recipient. Attach additional pages if necessary.) _____________________________________ ____________________________________________ _________________________ Name of recipient Type of subsidy or assistance (See Questions 24 & 25.) Value of subsidy or assistance ‰ No 34. Did your organization have any recipients who failed to achieve any goals or fulfill any other obligations under an agreement signed on or after January 1, 2004, that were required to be fulfilled by the time of this report? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes (Complete the remainder of this section.) ‰ No (Stop here and submit form to DEED.) For questions 35-39: Provide the following information for each recipient failing to fulfill goals or any other terms of an agreement that were to be attained by the time of reporting. (Attach additional pages if necessary.) 35. Information on recipient and agreement: __________________________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ Name of recipient in default Type of subsidy or assistance Initial value of subsidy or assistance __________________________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ Street address of recipient City/Zip code of recipient Outstanding value of subsidy or assistance 36. Reason(s) for default (Mark all that apply.): ‰ recipient ceased operation ‰ recipient relocated to a different community ‰ recipient was unable to fill vacant positions ‰ other (Specify reason.) ___________________________________________ Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 4 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development 37. To date, has the recipient fulfilled its repayment obligation? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes ‰ No, recipient has begun to repay the assistance. ‰ No, recipient has not begun to repay the assistance. 38. Has the agreement been amended to extend the recipient’s deadline for fulfilling its obligations? (Mark one.) ‰ Yes ‰ No 39. Describe the steps being taken to bring recipient into compliance or recoup the subsidy: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Return your completed MBAF(s) by April 1, 2005 EITHER Mail To: Minnesota Business Assistance Report Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development – Analysis and Evaluation 1st National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1351 OR Fax To: (651) 215-3841 (Next year, please use the online version of this form. It can be found at www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm.) Minnesota Business Assistance Form (02/01/05) Page 5 of 5 Dept. of Employment and Economic Development APPENDIX F-1 But-For Analysis Current Market Value 0 New Market Value 65,600,000 Difference 65,600,000 Present Value of Tax Increment 15,708,780 Difference 49,891,220 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 49,891,220 APPENDIX F BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS The proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 permitted by the TIF Plan. Several issues are impediments to private development of the site including lack of access, existing wetlands and inadequate roadway infrastructure. The transportation improvements that have to be constructed alone for this development (or any other type of development constructed here) total over $20 million. But for Medtronic being viewed as a major asset to Minnesota's biotech initiatives and large employer within the State, the additional roadway funding that was approved for this project would never have been available to this site, thus not making any other type of development (housing or commercial) financially feasible. In addition, site constraints require the developer to acquire adjacent land to preserve existing wetlands and green space which adds additional costs. Based upon analysis of the developer's proforma the City has determined that a gap needs to be filled through tax increment in order to make the proposed development financially feasible. The City therefore does not believe the proposed corporate office facility is likely to occur without the assistance described in this TIF Plan. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: While the property could be sold to another developer for some other use, these scenarios are not feasible in the market due to various constraints mentioned above along with others. First, industrial uses could not meet the market valuation due to the fact that they are single story in nature (can't get to the same density as office), lack the amenities in design and construction and are traditionally valued at ½ the market value of commercial and office uses. Second, commercial retail uses have the same restraint in that the market does not allow for vertical commercial/retail development. Although retail can on occasion have a higher per sq/ft value, the lack of the ability to develop vertically limits the overall value developed on the site. Third, the office market is still soft in the metropolitan area and the ability to develop this entire site for office use is unlikely as it is unlikely that the office sites developed would be of similar square footage. Fourth the site could be developed for housing or mixed use, but the site would need to be built at nearly 100 percent high density APPENDIX F-2 in order to create the same value, which is unlikely from a City policy perspective. Ehlers & Associates completed an analysis of the development proforma based upon this information and research and the proposed development costs provided by the developer. It was determined that a gap existed to make the project financially not feasible for the developer. Even if the developer received the land for free, there would still be a gap in the traditional sense. Given that the City had an appraisal completed that showed a value of nearly $10 million for the land, it is unlikely that the land cost will be lowered in the near future for this proposed development or another type of development. It should be noted that any alternative redevelopment scenario faces the same high land, utility and roadway infrastructure costs faced by the proposed developer, and in the City's experience such properties have not been redeveloped in Mounds View without significant public assistance. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $65,600,000 (see table on previous page). c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $15,708,780. (see table on previous page) d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $49,891,220 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Council finds that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as a whole based upon the following: The conclusion and recommendation of City staff is that the TIF Plan is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan based upon the following information and City actions. The development contemplated for the District consists of an approximately 820,000 square foot office campus for Medtronic. On January 10, 2005, both the City and EDA authorized work associated with the preparation of a comprehensive plan amendment for the development site in the District. On February 2, 2005, the Planning Commission for the City approved a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment revising the land use designation for the development site in the District from Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO) and Passive Open Space (OSP) to Office (OFC). On May 9, 2005, the City Council established the date of May 23, 2005 for a public hearing to consider approval of the comprehensive land use amendment for the development site in the District (the public hearing was held on May 23, 2005, but adoption of the amendment was deferred to a later date). On July 11, 2005, the City Council approved the amendment to the City’s comprehensive plan amending the designated land use for the development site in the District from SRO and OSP to OFC. In conjunction with the comprehensive plan amendment referenced herein, APPENDIX F-3 But-For Analysis Current Market Value 9,138,400 New Market Value 96,000,000 Difference 86,861,600 Present Value of Tax Increment 24,237,238 Difference 62,624,362 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 62,624,362 the City also worked on and approved the final draft of the Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) document on July 11, 2005, of which the comprehensive plan amendment discussed herein was a required component. On July 20, 2005, the Planning Commission confirmed that the proposed sale of the development site in the District to Medtronic was consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. On August 3, 2005, the Planning Commission did not approve a resolution finding that the TIF Plan for the District conformed to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. However, consistent with the previous actions of both the Planning Commission and City Council as to the comprehensive plan amendment referenced herein, the adoption of the AUAR referenced herein, and the conclusions and recommendations of City staff, the Council finds that the TIF Plan and the office development contemplated therein conforms to the general development plan for the City as a whole as the designated land use for the development site within the District is now properly that of Office (OFC), which is consistent with the office complex development proposed to be constructed by Medtronic at the development site within the District. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Mounds View Economic Development Project by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high quality development to the City. (As Modified February 13, 2006) Modified to include Phases I and II. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the entire District will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0. b. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $96,000,000 (see table on previous page). APPENDIX F-4 c. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $24,237,238. (see table on previous page) d. Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $62,624,362 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Council finds that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as a whole based upon the following: The conclusion and recommendation of City staff is that the TIF Plan is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan based upon the following information and City actions. The development contemplated for the District consists of an approximately 1,200,000 square foot office campus for Medtronic. On January 10, 2005, both the City and EDA authorized work associated with the preparation of a comprehensive plan amendment for the development site in the District. On February 2, 2005, the Planning Commission for the City approved a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment revising the land use designation for the development site in the District from Outdoor Sport Recreation (SRO) and Passive Open Space (OSP) to Office (OFC). On May 9, 2005, the City Council established the date of May 23, 2005 for a public hearing to consider approval of the comprehensive land use amendment for the development site in the District (the public hearing was held on May 23, 2005, but adoption of the amendment was deferred to a later date). On July 11, 2005, the City Council approved the amendment to the City’s comprehensive plan amending the designated land use for the development site in the District from SRO and OSP to OFC. In conjunction with the comprehensive plan amendment referenced herein, the City also worked on and approved the final draft of the Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) document on July 11, 2005, of which the comprehensive plan amendment discussed herein was a required component. On July 20, 2005, the Planning Commission confirmed that the proposed sale of the development site in the District to Medtronic was consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. On August 3, 2005, the Planning Commission did not approve a resolution finding that the TIF Plan for the District conformed to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. However, consistent with the previous actions of both the Planning Commission and City Council as to the comprehensive plan amendment referenced herein, the adoption of the AUAR referenced herein, and the conclusions and recommendations of City staff, the Council finds that the TIF Plan and the office development contemplated therein conforms to the general development plan for the City as a whole as the designated land use for the development site within the District is now properly that of Office (OFC), which is consistent with the office complex development proposed to be constructed by Medtronic at the development site within the District. APPENDIX G-1 APPENDIX G SPECIAL LEGISLATION H.F. No. 2498, 4th Engrossment - 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on May 25, 2005 ARTICLE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 62.1 Sec. 26. [CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 62.2 DISTRICT.] 62.3 Subdivision 1. [ESTABLISHMENT.] (a) The city of Mounds 62.4 View may establish within the corporate boundaries of the city 62.5 one or more economic development tax increment financing 62.6 districts subject to the special rules under subdivision 2. The 62.7 districts must be located on property that is exempt from 62.8 taxation for property taxes payable in 2005 and within the area 62.9 defined in paragraph (b). 62.10 (b) For purposes of this section, "area" is bounded by, and 62.11 including, on the north County Road J west of Coral Sea Street 62.12 and 82nd Lane NE east of Coral Sea Street, on the east Coral Sea 62.13 Street north of 82nd Lane NE and Interstate Highway 35W south of 62.14 82nd Lane NE, on the south and southwest U.S. Highway 10, and on 62.15 the west the western boundary of Outlot A, Sysco, according to 62.16 the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Ramsey County, 62.17 Minnesota. 62.18 Subd. 2. [SPECIAL RULES.] (a) If the city elects upon the 62.19 adoption of the tax increment financing plan for the district, 62.20 the rules under this section apply to the district. 62.21 (b) The duration limit under Minnesota Statutes, section 62.22 469.176, subdivision 1b, clause (3), is extended to 25 years 62.23 after receipt of the first increment. 62.24 (c) The five-year rule under Minnesota Statutes, section 62.25 469.1763, subdivision 3, is extended to a ten-year period. 62.26 (d) The limitations on spending increment outside of the 62.27 district under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 62.28 2, and on spending increment for developments more than 15 62.29 percent of the square footage of which is used for purposes 62.30 other than those listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.176, 62.31 subdivision 4c, do not apply. Except as provided in paragraph 62.32 (e), increments may only be expended within the area defined in 62.33 subdivision 1, paragraph (b), and related to development 62.34 occurring within the area defined in subdivision 1, paragraph 62.35 (b), whether or not included in a tax increment financing 62.36 district. Increments may only be spent on one or more of the 63.1 following costs, improvements, or activities: 63.2 (1) acquisition and removal of existing billboards; 63.3 (2) acquisition of land and easements, if the parcel is 63.4 occupied by a building constructed before 1990; 63.5 (3) sanitary sewer, sewer, and water improvements; 63.6 (4) road improvements; APPENDIX G-2 63.7 (5) parking, including structured parking; 63.8 (6) administrative expenses; 63.9 (7) wetland mitigation; 63.10 (8) soils correction; and 63.11 (9) environmental cleanup. 63.12 (e) Increments may be expended on costs, improvements, or 63.13 activities outside the area defined in subdivision 1, paragraph 63.14 (b), wherever located, whether or not included in a tax 63.15 increment financing district, for sanitary sewer, sewer, and 63.16 water improvements and improvements to Coral Sea Street, Airport 63.17 Road, 82nd Lane NE, County Road J, U.S. Highway 10, and 63.18 Interstate Highway 35W so long as the improvements are related 63.19 to development within the area defined in subdivision 1, 63.20 paragraph (b). 63.21 (f) The limitation on the ability to elect the method of 63.22 computation under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.177, 63.23 subdivision 3, for an economic development district does not 63.24 apply and the city or authority may elect the method of 63.25 computation under paragraph (a) or (b) of section 469.177, 63.26 subdivision 3. 63.27 Subd. 3. [EXPIRATION.] The authority to approve tax 63.28 increment financing plans to establish a tax increment financing 63.29 district under this section expires on December 31, 2015. 63.30 [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective upon approval 63.31 by the governing body of the city of Mounds View and upon 63.32 compliance by the city with Minnesota Statutes, sections 63.33 469.1782, subdivision 2, and 645.021, subdivision 3. 63.34 Sec. 27. [CONVEYANCE OF STATE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY TO 63.35 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW.] 63.36 (a) Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 16B.281, 64.1 16B.282, 92.45, or any other law to the contrary, the 64.2 commissioner of transportation shall convey to the city of 64.3 Mounds View all right, title, and interest of the state of 64.4 Minnesota created by corrective deed dated March 16, 1989, in 64.5 the land located in Ramsey County, described as: 64.6 The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, 64.7 Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; 64.8 which lies northerly and westerly of the following 64.9 described line: Commencing at the center of said Section 64.10 5; thence north on an azimuth of 359 degrees 23 minutes 10 64.11 seconds (azimuth oriented to Minnesota State Plane 64.12 Coordinate System) along the north and south quarter line 64.13 of said Section 5 for 781.42 feet to the point of beginning 64.14 of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 108 64.15 degrees 12 minutes 41 seconds, 231.14 feet; thence on an 64.16 azimuth of 98 degrees 27 minutes 03 seconds, 1486.78 feet; 64.17 thence run northeasterly for 447.16 feet on a nontangential 64.18 curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 720 64.19 feet, a delta angle of 35 degrees 35 minutes 02 seconds and 64.20 a chord azimuth of 76 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds; thence APPENDIX G-3 64.21 on an azimuth of 59 degrees 07 minutes 40 seconds, 192.89 64.22 feet; thence run northerly 398.14 feet on a nontangential 64.23 curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 850 64.24 feet, a delta angle of 26 degrees 50 minutes 15 seconds and 64.25 a chord azimuth of 29 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds; thence 64.26 on an azimuth of 16 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds, 303.65 64.27 feet to the north line of said Tract A and there 64.28 terminating; 64.29 Containing 40.41 acres, more or less. 64.30 (b) The conveyance shall be for consideration according to 64.31 paragraph (d) in a form approved by the attorney general. 64.32 (c) This property was acquired by the Department of 64.33 Transportation for construction of a new portion of Trunk 64.34 Highway 10 west of Interstate Highway 35W. The property was not 64.35 needed for highway purposes. In 1988, the commissioner of 64.36 transportation deeded the property to the city of Mounds View 64.37 subject to a right of reverter. 64.38 (d) If the city of Mounds View enters into a fully executed 64.39 development agreement to redevelop the land described in 64.40 paragraph (a) by January 1, 2007, the city shall pay the 64.41 commissioner of transportation $1,000,000 for deposit in the 64.42 trunk highway fund. If the city of Mounds View does not enter 64.43 into a fully executed development agreement to redevelop the 64.44 land described in paragraph (a) by January 1, 2007, all right, 64.45 title, and interest in the land shall revert back to the 64.46 Department of Transportation unless the land is still used for a 64.47 public purpose. If the land is not subject to a fully executed 65.1 development agreement and is still used for a public purpose on 65.2 or after January 1, 2007, the land may continue to be used for 65.3 such public purpose by the city of Mounds View, subject to a 65.4 right of reverter if the land ceases to be used for a public 65.5 purpose. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 824-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT 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 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Mounds View, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Project Plan for Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project Plan Modification") and adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (the "TIF Plan Modification") therefore (the Project Plan Modification and the TIF Plan Modification are referred to collectively herein at the "Modifications") and has submitted the Modifications to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and, WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modifications to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modifications conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Adopted this 1st day of February, 2006 ______________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Dev. Director (SEAL) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 825-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE “HIDDEN HOLLOW SOUTH” PRELIMINARY PLAT MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-001 WHEREAS, Dan Saplis, Inc. (Dan Saplis) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the “Hidden Hollow South” major subdivision on land located on the western boundary of the city limits and north of Woodale Drive legally-described as follows: Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lots 47 and 48. WHEREAS, The above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Dan Saplis has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 6 buildable lots, dedicating the proposed public street right of way as “Pleasant View Drive”; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff, the city engineer and the city attorney have all reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the project land area, which been determined to be $20,160; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is within a Rice Creek Watershed District designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the grading and drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer subject to minor revisions and subject to Rice Creek watershed District approval; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Plan 6. Utility Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Hidden Hollow South preliminary Plat submitted by Dan Saplis subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat shall be revised by widening Pleasant View Drive to the minimum width required in order to allow parking on one side of the street. 2. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 3. Dan Saplis shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the Mounds View City Council. 4. Dan Saplis shall enter into various agreements with the City and/or the EDA including (but not limited to) the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement, the Developers Agreement and the Petition and Waiver Agreement. 5. Dan Saplis shall take all steps to save any trees possible during the construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees planted in each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas. 6. Dan Saplis shall obtain approval from Rice Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 7. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 8. Dan Saplis shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than July 5, 2006 or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of February, 2006. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Resolution 825-06 Page 2 Item No: 5A Meeting Date: February 1, 2006 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for a proposed Major Subdivision at 3049 Woodale Drive; Planning Case MA2006-001 Introduction: Dan Saplis has submitted an application for a major subdivision of 3049 Woodale Drive. These parcels abut the western boundary of the city limits, and are directly south of the Hidden Hollow development. The proposed development for the site is being called “Hidden Hollow South.” The proposed 2.71 acre subdivision would create 6 buildable lots from the existing two lots. Dan Saplis, Inc. is the land owner. Discussion: The area identified as 3049 Woodale is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. All of the lots shown on the preliminary plat satisfy the minimum requirements of 75 feet lot width and 11,000 square foot lot area. The smallest lot proposed is 12,883 square feet while the largest is 44,342 square feet. The corner lot also complies with the 12,500 square feet and 100 feet wide minimum size. The average lot size in the subdivision is 19,675 square feet. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates 3049 Woodale and the surrounding area as single family detached. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with that designation and consistent with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would also be consistent with specific housing goals and policies articulated in the Comp Plan. Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management. The project is located in the Spring Creek 4 sub-watershed. The minimum recommended building elevation for this sub-watershed is set at 878.9. While not identified explicitly, it appears that the homes will be at the 893 elevation, well above the minimum. While a few minor changes were suggested and agreed to, the majority of the proposed plan does meet with public works approval. Drainage Plan: The grading plan illustrates in detail the grading, drainage and erosion control of the development. Lot 1 will be graded so that runoff flows northeast towards the wetland area. The other lots are shown to be graded in such a way as to allow swaled stormwater with runoff collecting in the newly created pond along the eastern boundary of the site. Because the street will have curb and gutter, there are stormsewer catch basins that would accept all runoff from streets and driveways, and whatever stormwater that does not infiltrate into the ground, piping the runoff to the pond on the site. The combination of the wetland, ponds and swales will capture all of the runoff generated from the site. Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and utility easements for each lot in the subdivision, and dedicate easements for all wetlands, stormwater holding ponds and interior drainageways associated with the development. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter, ponding and wetland easements Streets: The Public Works Director and his staff have reviewed the street plan (as well as all aspects of the utilities and infrastructure) and have concluded that the proposed dedicated right of way is adequate to suit the City’s needs. The right of way would be sixty feet wide and the street width (the paved area) is currently planned to be approximately 24 feet from curb to curb with the cul-de-sac being 90 feet in diameter from curb to curb. Due to the narrow street, no parking will be posted on this section of Pleasant View Drive. A wider street could be required in order to have some street parking, at least on one side of the street. The desire to keep the right of way is to protect the utilities that are already present in this area and to preserve the City’s ability to maintain the utilities without worry of fences, delineating landscaping, sheds, fences and other impediments to future access. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. In this case, the fee should be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for dedication computation. The development area comprises 118,047.6 square feet (2.71 acres). The 2006 Ramsey County total land value is $201,600. The dedication amount then would be $20,160. This amount has been communicated to the developer. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer lines are already present in the right of way. The utility plan shows the storm sewer piping that would be constructed on the site. One new fire hydrant is shown on the plan consistent with Fire Department spacing recommendations. The utilities and the street would be installed as a public project paid by special assessment levied against each of the six parcels or paid in full by the developer. Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will be minimal since only six homes are proposed. Access to the site is from Woodale Drive and Silver Lake Road, or County Road H, then north on Pleasant View Drive. On average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 60 movements along Pleasant View Drive or Woodale or as a result of this subdivision. Vegetation: The 2.71 acre site has some tree cover mostly along the western boundary, much of which would be removed in conjunction with construction of the new cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that upon each lot’s completion (after the house has been constructed) the yard area shall be sodded and a minimum of two trees planted in each front yard. The tree species shall be from a list provided by the City Forester. Wetlands: Even though the National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map do not identify a wetland within the property boundary, the Rice Creek Watershed District has determined that there is one wetland on the site located at the northern end of the property, on proposed Lot 1. In order to build on Lot 1 and have the proper 30 foot front setback and sufficient wetland buffer, it may become necessary to alter a portion of the wetland. The impacted wetland area may be small enough that it falls below the Rice Creek Watershed District guidelines and some of it could be filled without mitigation. The wetland 3049 Woodale Subdivision Staff Report Page 2 extends north of the development area onto the back of a few of the Hidden Hollow (north) lots. Rice Creek Watershed District is the authority having jurisdiction over wetlands in Mounds View and the applicant will need to submit an application to them for general grading, stormwater management and the potential alteration of the wetland. Soils: A total of five soil test borings were put down on the site on December 11, 2003. (see below for specific boring locations.) Fill was encountered at the surface of all borings. The fill thickness varied from 5’ at B1 to 10” at B5. The fill soils included surficial organic silty sand, and a mixture of silty sand, sand and clayey sand. Based on the penetration values, the fill had low to moderate density. Topsoil was encountered below the fill at boring B1. The topsoil consisted of organic silty sand and was 1 ½” thick. Coarse alluvium was encountered in all test holes. This included sand with silt and sand. Fine alluvium was encountered between coarse alluvial sand layers in boring B3. This was a 2 ½ ‘ thick layer of silt. Groundwater was detected in all borings at depths ranging from 9.7’ to 13.8’. Recommendations include removing old fill and topsoil and any very fine alluvium if encountered within 3’ of basement or footing grade, and replacing with engineered fill to attain final grades. 3049 Woodale Subdivision Staff Report Page 3 Public Input: While a public hearing is not required for the planning commission’s action, staff did send notices to property owners within 350 feet of the project area. Two residents have contacted staff – one by email and one phone call. Brian Amundsen lives directly to the south of the project area, and the Hansens live two houses to the east of the project. A copy of Mr. Amundsen’s email and the comments from the Hansens are included in this report. Recommendation: Review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Additional public input could be asked for at this time since notices were sent out. Staff review and the engineer’s review revealed no deficiencies and thus Resolution 825-06 recommending approval of the preliminary plat has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Hidden Hollow South Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Email from Brian Amundsen and comments from the Hansens 8. Planning Commission Resolution 825-06 3049 Woodale Subdivision Staff Report Page 4 Zoning Map Aerial View Hidden Hollow South Development Site View from site looking North – toward Hidden Hollow (north) homes Photographic Documentation View from site looking East at neighboring home 3033 Woodale Photographic Documentation View from site looking South at the 2 homes across Woodale View from site looking West towards the business Onan in Fridley MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 825-06 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE “HIDDEN HOLLOW SOUTH” PRELIMINARY PLAT MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2006-001 WHEREAS, Dan Saplis, Inc. (Dan Saplis) has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the “Hidden Hollow South” major subdivision on land located on the western boundary of the city limits and north of Woodale Drive legally-described as follows: Knollwood Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Lots 47 and 48. WHEREAS, The above-described lands are zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and are designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Dan Saplis has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 6 buildable lots, dedicating the proposed public street right of way as “Pleasant View Drive”; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff, the city engineer and the city attorney have all reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee which would be equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the project land area, which been determined to be $20,160; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is within a Rice Creek Watershed District designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the grading and drainage plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer subject to minor revisions and subject to Rice Creek watershed District approval; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Site Plan 6. Utility Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Staff Report NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the Hidden Hollow preliminary Plat submitted by Dan Saplis subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat shall be revised by widening Pleasant View Drive to the minimum width required in order to allow parking on one side of the street. 2. The applicant shall arrange to have an acceptable title commitment provided to the City Attorney for review prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. 3. Dan Saplis shall pay a park dedication fee in an amount to be determined by the Mounds View City Council. 4. Dan Saplis shall enter into various agreements with the City and/or the EDA including (but not limited to) the Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement, the Developers Agreement and the Petition and Waiver Agreement. 5. Dan Saplis shall take all steps to save any trees possible during the construction and shall make arrangements to have a minimum of two trees planted in each front yard upon project completion and sod all yard areas. 6. Dan Saplis shall obtain approval from Rice Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 7. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 8. Dan Saplis shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than July 5, 2006 or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 1st day of February, 2006. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Resolution 825-06 Page 2