Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-12-1987AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 12, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Barbara Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway. 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held April 14, 1987. 7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow minor auto repair In a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. Applicant. James Eisele. 7:54 p.m. 4. Consideration of Adopting Tax Increment District V. 7:59 p.m. 5. A request for open discussion on a proposed sketch plan for unplatted property. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation. Additional Information Items 8:14 p.m. 1. A request for a partial subdivision of a residential outlet, Outlot H. Meadow Oak Addition, to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Applicant, Dickman Knutson. Mr. Knutson's request will come before the Monticello City Council at their May 11, 1987, meeting. 8:16 p.m. 2. A request for open discussion on a proposed concept plan for unplatted property. Applicant, James Boyle. Mr. Boyle has not pursued to the City Council his proposed concept plan. 8:18 p.m. 3. Public hearing for annexation of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area will be held on May 21, 1987, beginning at 1:30 p.m., in the Monticello City Council Chambers. 8:20 p.m. 4. Acknowledge receipt of latter from Monticello Times, Editor and Publisher, Donald Q. Smith. 8:25 p.m. S. Set the next tontativo date for the Monticello Planning Commission for June 9, 1987. 7:30 p.m. 8:27 p.m. 6. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Barbara Koropchak, Richard Martie. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Gary Anderson. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:30 p.m. 2. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 10, 1987. 3. A request for a partial subdivision of a residential outlet, Outlot H, Meadow Oak Additions to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Applicant, Dickman Knutson. Mr. Dickman Knutson wan present and gave a brief history of the Meadow Oak Dovolopmont from its initial concept to what it Is today. Meadow Oak was originally owned by three partnere with 40 percent Dickman Knutson, 30 percent Jim Boyle, and 30 percent Robert Semboom. Mr. Knutson bought out the other two partnere on the Meadow Oak Second Addition to be platted Outlet G, Meadow Oak Third Addition to be platted Meadow Oak Fourth Addition Outlot H. and the Meadow Oak Estates, and the Meadow Oak Estates Second Addition Outlot C. and Meadow Oak Estates Third Addition Outlet D around June 1, 1985. In doing so, Mr. Knutson became the fee title owner to the existing platted subdivisions and the four remaining outlets. In this process, Mr. Knutson, through his mortgage holder, Midwest Federal, will aooume the financial reoponsibility for these two platted subdivisions and the four unplatted outlots. Mr. Knutson explained his request for the partial subdivision of Outlot H to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Mr. Knutson explained that as part of development he has only eight Iota remaining in the Meadow Oak Second Addition, and the Meadow Oak Third Addition is currently Outlet G and has 13 of the 15 lots sold. Conceivably, he would like to start with the partial platting of the Outlet H, to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition by platting only 14 of the proposed 29 lots total. Mr. Knutson used the rationale for his request in that as part of the development it would coat only approximately 570,000 to put in the utilities and the hard surfacing of the street and curb and gutter for these 14 lots in comparison to approximately $225,000 to put in the entire water and sewer utilities, curb and gutter, and hard surfaced street into the whole 29 lots in Outlet H to be known ae the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. With an already outstanding balance of $750,000 owed to Midwest Redaral, Mr. Knutson would have to go out and borrow additional money to put In the entire Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. In doing so, the mortgage company -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/87 would look more favorably at lending Mr. Knutson $70.000 than they would at lending to him the entire 5225,000. Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting for comments from the public. Ms. Lynn Clark, representing Mr. Jim Boyle as an owner of Wayzata Realty, was present to explain her standpoint at representing her client, Mr. Boyle. Ms. Clark indicated they were not in objection to the proposed 15 lots that Mr. Boyle was presenting, but they were in objection to not being able to market the adjoining outlot, which is Outlot I, without any utilities extended to the edge of their outlot between Outlot I and Outlot H. She eluded to the outstanding assessments that were put on Outlet I. Those being substantial, and with the market that we are in, no time would be better than now to try and market the property if water and sever utilities were stubbed in to the property line between Outlot H and outlot I. Ms. Clark vent on further to explain that the City Attorney, Mr. Gary Pringle, has had planning development experience in a previous project in which he was involved. She would like to have the Planning Commission consider extending Services to Outlot H and assess them to Mr. Knutson. If not, they hoped there could be a possible compromise to this project. Mr. Knutson would like to show for the record that Ms. Lynn Clark does not represent his company anymore after tonight -a Planning Commission meeting, as she was also representing Mr. Knutson in a one-time total land liquidation of all properties owned by Mr. Knutson and Mr. Boyle. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the meeting for comments from the public and asked for comments from Planning Commission -a- are. Hearing no comments, he then asked for a motion. Motion by Richard Martia, seconded by Jim Ridgeway, to approve the request for a partial subdivision of a residential outlot, Outlet H, Meadow Oak Addition, to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition with the following conditions. 1. That prior to recording of the partial final plat for Outlot H to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition, an approved grading/drainage plan be submitted to the City. 2. Prior to recording of the final plat for part of Outlot H to be known as Meadow Oak Fourth Addition, an agreement be signed between the developer and the City that no proposed platted Iota in the remaining part of Outlet H to be known as Outlet A be sold to any individual until that part of Outlet H to be known as Outlet A has all utilities installed, curb and gutter installed, and the recording of this part of Outlet H to be known as Outlet A with the completion of the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 4. A request for open discussion on a proposed concept plan for unplatted property. Applicant. Jim Boyle. Ms. Lynn Clark, owner of Wayzata Realty, representing Mr. Jim Boyle, was present to ask for input from Planning Commission members on -2- �� 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/87 the proposed platting of unplatted industrial property just to the east of Fallon Avenue across the road from the currently existing Oakwood Industrial Park. Her initial request stemmed from previous conversations with City staff on proposed platting of portions of approximately 50 acres within this park of unplatted property. She indicated on her proposed drawing the different types of ways to subdivide parts of the unplatted property into blocks with separate lots on them. She indicated she had discussions with our Consulting Planner, John Uban, in regards to the proposed designs which did show up on the proposed subdivided site plan layout map. Planning Commission members, at this early stage, did not approve or deny her proposed platting of this unplatted property into industrial lots and blocks. The general consensus of the Planning Commission members present was that the concept for it was of good planning and further planning was needed to put it into a preliminary form for them to review at a later data. Commission members did recognize the merits of good quality development for thin to be done at all. Ms. Clark indicated that the high priority on her list is to get into a good, sound development project for part or parts of this unplatted industrial property. Additional Information Items 1. Conditional use request, Tom Holthaus. Request approved with conditions. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members there were a couple other conditions which were added as part of the original six which were recommended from the Planning Commission members. They ware as follows: 1. The developer has to pay the full coat of putting in a right-hand turn lane. 2. The developer will share on a 50/50 basis with the City a re -alignment of Otter Creak Road from Sandy Lane to West County Road 39 or West Broadway. 2. Public hearing for annexation of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area will be held on April 21, beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the Monticello Township Hall Chambers. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission mombera that there wan no further input on this other than when the dates wore and if there is any additional information on this and was of interest to Planning Commission members, it would be submitted to them prior to the public hearing date. 3. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for May 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/87 4. Zoning Administrator Anderson asked Chairperson Richard Carlson if ` he could explain a couple other requests which will be forthcoming and would be aubmitted just as information. They are as follows: 1. Amending the Monticello City Ordinance to not allow barbecue grille to be used on balconies of apartment buildings. This request was brought up to Zoning Administrator Anderson from Mcnticello Fire Chief, Willard Farnick, for their information at the suggestion of Zoning Administrator Anderson for the Planning Commission members just to acknowledge receipt of this, and he would establish further information on this proposed ordinance amendment to be presented to them for the next Planning Cammission meeting for their review, May 12, 1967, 7:30 p.m. 2. The other topic brought up was a proposed ordinance amendment that would require all plumbers in the City of Monticello to be licensed to do plumbing work. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that a petition for this ordinance amendment request is being formulated and will be before them at the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting May 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m. The whole intent of it is that plumbers that are licensed within the City of Monticello are paying the dues to the state of Minnesota for being licensed. They are training the people that work for them to became licensed in the plumbing field, and they would like anyone also that works with it to do the same. it 5. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'ooy"K 1 Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator •4 - LI) Planning Commiesion Agenda - 5/12/87 3. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. Applicant, James Eisele. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. James Eisele is proposing to purchase the old metal building on the next lot near the northwest corner of our new Monticello Fire station lot. The type of use Mr. Eisele is proposing for this building once it is completely resided and reroofed to make it look similar to the new Monticello Fire Station and also be more conforming to the residential properties around it is to park and store old vehicles which he plane to restore. In the current zoning which exists on this parcel of land, B-4 (Regional Business), the only way this type of activity could be allowed would be as a conditional use. A copy of the conditions for this type of activity is submitted with this supplement. The use of this building for Mr. Eisole-s minor auto repair use will be very incidental in nature in that Mr. Eisele will only be there working when he has the time to work on it, and it won't be a full-fledged business that he will be operating there at this time. Mr. Eisele might, sometime in the future, establish a small business here refurbishing and restoring vehicles. When and if it does come to this point, Mr. Eisele would like to not run into any problems if he did go to a full-fledged small business at this location. Mr. Eisele fully intends to clean up the site and make it more similar In appearance to what is existing there, our now Monticello Piro Station and existing residences. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair In a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. Mr. Eisele will be cleaning up a blighted area; and with the typo of use that Mr. Eisele is proposing for this property, it would be a lesser density type use in that it would blend more with the residential type use which is adjacent to this. D. SUPPORTING DATA: copy of the location of conditional use requests Copy of site plan. of P�� •'N Cham L k y P L 7 Par w 6 � _ n �r N .� ct� 't'� LI j@.�'L � ihlhOr C�v1 � ��,• �:� �/ J P����.a��•� ov Pit-�,c� �L L10 a r 3�•� pJYhncrI .ioc�rr f 1 ,.,► i• ,� QQM,ppe, TNn� � 1.'Pt !Wolf r o 4 S' y� Aad �Irru ��+I•..,o�.ls �'• 1�r a r�r�,..e � � �o k0•111Y ) Planning Commission Agenda - 5/12/87 4. Consideration of Adopting Tax Increment District V. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In February of 1986, I met the Board of Directors for Det Scandinaviske Vinduscompaniet A/S; Odd Jorgensen, Erik Fjerdingstad, and Roald Starheim. The DSV is the Norwegian holding company for the incorporated North American Window Company, of which NAWCO Minnesota, Inc., is a subsidiary. The Board of Directors traveled to Minnesota and Monticello on several occasions this past year. Their product being windows and doors designed with the H -window concept has been tested positively with the Twin City Testing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, and has undergone a marketing research study by C. J. Olson Marketing/Research Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The company specializes in an aluminum clad, high energy efficient window which features the H -window concept of a 180• turn for easy cleaning from within. In Norway, the window is produced in 45 different colors. Their initial market area will be Minnesota for new construction and renovations. Their legal counsel firm is Faegre and Benson, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The twelve shareholders visited Monticello in October of 1986 and made their final decision to locate in Monticello and to proceed with plane for a U.S. expansion in December. City staff has worked with Erik Fjordingstad and Roald Starhaim to secure raw materials, business formation information, and financing. The Minnesota Trade Office and Minnesota DEED have also been a part of the project. At this time, NAWCO Minnesota, Inc., has officially received a positive response from the Norwegian Industrial Fund to complete the finance package. The City of Monticello has always intended to use Tax Increment Financing for the purpose of writing down the land coot. Also, the City will apply for a Minnesota Small City Economic Grant through Minnesota DEED for $250,000. Of the total estimated project coat 03.2 million), the shareholders will finance ono -half the project ($1.6 million plus an additional $800,000 for market backup). The proposed project includes a 25,000 eq ft manufacturing facility with an attached 7,400 eq ft office, showcase, conference facility for a total of 28,400 sq ft. The proposed site is Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of Monticello. Plans call for the construction of the facility on Lot 12 with Lot 11 for future expansion. Plano call for the facility to be operational the beginning of 1988, with an initial employment of 21. Erik, hie wife, and their throe children will move to Monticello this July. The Fjordingstadle are building a home in the Meadow Oak Addition. Erik and Roald have met with Volt Construction, Winkelman Building Corporation, and Peterson Construction. I hand-carriod the buildors' proposals to Norway. Tharsafter, NAWCO Minnesota, Inc., will accept one of the proposals. At this time, Ilm unable to present building and site plane because this decision hasn't boon made. Plans are for construction to begin June 1, 1987, with completion of building October 1, 1987. -2- Planning Commission Agenda - 5/12/87 The estimated annual tax increment to be generated from this district is sufficient to retire a bond indebtedness of $155,000. District life is eight years at Sh percent interest. The difference between the bond indebtedness ($155,000) and the estimated budget ($170,000) is $15,000. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve Tax Increment District V. 2. Do not approve Tax Increment District V. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval thereby allowing staff the ability to proceed with the prospect to insure meeting a time schedule. The City has on record their finance plan and business plan which includes projections, financia-1 statements, and marketing strategies. The City staff recognises the competition of large window producing companies in Minnesota but feel the specialized features of the N -window concept and the commitment of the parent Norwegian companies to invest their monies in the United States emphasizes the confidence they have in their product. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed site location; Copy of TIP Plan; Copy of Resolution for adoption. -3- CITY of MONTICELL•O WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA i t, TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 7 CITY OF MONTICELLO 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Page A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1 B. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 1 C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE PROTECT 1 D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1 E. CLASSIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 2 F. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 2 G. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOAN/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 2 H. SOURCES OF REVENUE 3 I. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 3 J. ESTIMATED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE 6 K. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT C ` L. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS C M. MODIFICATIONS OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT OR PLAN 6 N. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 6 O. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 6 P. LIMITATION ON QUALIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NOT SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT 7 Q. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT 7 R. NOTIFICATION OF PRIOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS S S. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS S T. REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEVELOPER B U. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS S V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNT 9 W. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 9 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PIAN A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") and the City of Monticello are authorized to create and establish a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 through 273.78. B. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 1. To provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business; 2. To provide employment opportunities through the creation of new jobs; 3. To provide opportunities for growth in the tax base; 4. To provide redevelopment sites of such size and character to asaure the redevelopment of the area. C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT 1. Proporty to be Acquired by tho Authority: Lot 11 and Lot 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, City of Monticello, has been identified for acquisition by the Authority for this Tax Increment Plan. 2. Description of the Development Activities: NAWCO Minnesota, Inc., (the "Developer") plans to construct a 28,400 aq ft office/manufacturing facility. The office, showcase, and conference room will include approximately 3,400 aq ft and the manufacturing area 25,000 sq ft. The developer will be assisted with the dovelopmont facility through three sources of revenue described on Section H. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Project: The development program may include future expansion of the original office/manufacturing facility located in the Tax Increment Economic District. The geographical boundaries of the district are not expected to change due to this development. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Legal Description District. Plat i Parcel Number Oakwood Industrial Park 155-018-002110 Block 2, Lot 11 Oakwood Industrial Park 155-018-002120 Block 2, Lot 12 A map revealing the location of the two parcels within the project is provided on the following page. E. CLASSIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The tax increment financing district to be established in the City of Monticello within the project designated as the Redevelopment Project may be classified an an economic development district. The property to be included in the proposed tax increment financing district consists of two vacant parcels upon which a new structure will be constructed. The proposal does not involve the substantial renovation or clearance of blighted buildings or land as is required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10, and the proposal does not involve the construction or substantial renovation of housing for low to moderate income persons as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 11. However, the proposal has been found to be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state, it will result in Increased employment in the municipality, and it will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. The construction of the office/manufacturing facility will add approximately 49 jobs and increase the assessed value of the City by $344,710. Therefore, the tax increment financing district will be classified as a tax increment financing economic development district. P. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing economic development district are outlined in the following line item budget. Budget Land $104,000.00 Current Assessment 6,600.00 Future Assessment 11,600.00 Plan/Agreement 9,000.00 City Contig. 8,200.00 Discount 2,000.00 Pin/Bond Counsel 12,100.00 Cap. Interest 20,900.00 Total $170,000.00 0. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOWDONDED INDEBTEDNESS An estimate of the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be 8199,000. The maximum term of the issue is 8 years, and the interest rate is expected to be 6% percent. The capitalised interest amount for approximately 10 months is estimated to be $20,900. The difference between the project cost ($170,000) and the indebtedness (8199,000) is $19,000. -2- H. SOURCES OF REVENUE The three sources of revenue used to finance public costa associated 'L with the public development projects in the redevelopment project are a 9250,000 Small Cities Economic Development Grant, a $15,000 Land sale, and the tax increment generated as a rgsult of the taxation of the land and building expansion in the tax increment financing economic development district. Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes attributed to now development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development costa. The improvements to the land acquired by NAWCO Minnesota, Inc., are expected to generate an average annual tax increment of $30,900 beginning in 1989. I. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.76, Subdivision 1, and Section 273.76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed value (OAv) for the City of Monticello tax increment financing economic development district is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor in 1987. This assessed value is $18,240. Each year, with the exception of 1988 (the new assessed value in 1988 will be "passed through" to the taxing jurisdictions when payable in 1989), the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment economic development district to calculate the tax increment payable to the Monticello economic development district fund. Each year the County Auditor shall also add to the original assessed value of the economic development district an amount equal to the original assessed value for the preceding year multiplied by the average increase in the assessed valuation of all property included in the economic development district during the five years prior to certification of the district. The estimated percentage of average increase for this economic development district Is to be determined each year. In any year in which there is an increase In total assessed valuation in the tax increment economic development district above the annual percentage of annual increase, a tax Increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment financing economic development district declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV 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 stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. J. ESTIMATED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE i � Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 1, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment financing economic development district will annually approximate $346,710. This amount will be captured for up to eight years. The Authority requests 100 percent of the available increase in assessed value commencing in 1988 for taxes payable in 1989 as well as seven subsequent years for repayment of debt and current expenditures. K. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax increment district within the Redevelopment Project must be indicated within the finance plan. The duration of the tax increment district will be eight years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment or tan years from approval of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is leas. Thus, the City requests the available tax increment for the maximum term possible, and requests the Wright County Auditor and Treasurer to take such steps as may be necessary to pees through the possible tax increments which may otherwise be received by the City in 1988 and distribute the 1988 tax increment to all taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their respective tax levies for taxes payable in 1988. Based on discussions with the County assessor, it is expected that there will be $18,240 of new assessed value in 1987 payable 1988. It is this assessed value that will be "passed through" to the taxing jurisdictions. This action will delay by one year the collection of any tax increment to 1989 and thus will permit the City to collect eight annual increments from the time the development In the project is first paying taxes. The collection of the eight Increments is required to fully fund the development costa which will be financed with the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds. L. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for sash taxing jurisdiction. This estimate In based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development, mill changes, or inflation factors. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/86 Total 818,240 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: of District to Total Wright County $398,556,135 .005 School District 1882 $128,901,301 .014 City of Monticello $106,712,013 .017 Other $144,501,538 .013 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school, city, and county districts will have over 99% of each L respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1987 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the e3timated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below assuming development would occur without public assistance. The finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Estimated Tax Valuation Increment Received Tax Increment Finance District $344,710 $30,900 Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: Mills percent Tax Increment City 15.715 17.53 S 5,417 County 21.332 23.80 7,354 School District 0882 48.148 53.72 16,600 Other 4.438 4.95 1,529 Total 89.633 100.00% $30,900 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the lose of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax Increments derived from the MAWCO Minnesota, Inc., facility alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the increases in assessed value duo to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrosse. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented an tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of tho tax increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the City. 5 � J Adjusted- Required Tax Assessed Value Mills Increment School District $128,883,061 .13 S 16,600 County 4398,537,895 .02 $ 7,354 City $106,703,773 .05 $ 5,417 •Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted M. MODIFICATIONS OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT OR PIAN In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the Authority, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original acoccood value by the county auditor. The tax increment financing economic development district may therefore be expanded until 1992. N. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdiviaion 13, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or 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 district, relocation bonefito paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or call at a discount bonds issuod pursuant to Section 273.77. Adminictrativo expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultanto, and planning of economic development consultanto. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceeds ton percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorised by the tax increment financing pian or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is lees. O. LIMITATION ON DURATION Of TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Rection 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three-year period (1) bonds have been issued pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the Act; or (2) the authority has acquired property within the district; or (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the district..." The Authority must therefore issue bonds, or acquire property, or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by 1990 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. P. LIMITATION ON QUALIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NOT SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district..., no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of parcel or other site preparation including improvement of a street adjacent to a property but not installation of utility service including sever 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 that parcel and the original assessed value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of other site preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcol, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure report that the activity has commenced. The county auditor shall certify the accessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add to it the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district-' Q. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public redevelopment costo pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No rovonues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of the municipality; this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality. -7- li R. NOTIFICATION OF PRIOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 4, the City has reviewed and searched the properties to be included in the tax increment financing economic development district and found no properties for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the county. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the city, the county auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, excluding the assessed valuation of improvements for which a building permit was issued during the three month period immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan, as certified by the assessor. S. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costa authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to; 1, prepay the outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing Jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate. T. REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEVELOPER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more than 10 percent by acreage of the property to be acquired by the City In the economic development district shall be owned by the city as a result of acquisition with the proceado of bondo issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the Authority having prior to acquLaition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the Authority should the development not be completed. U. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant (J to Minnesota Statutes, Section 277.75, Subdivision 5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the tax increment economic development district. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor who shall review the plane and specifications for the improvements 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 assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNT Administration of the tax increment financing economic development district will be handled by the Executive Director of the Authority and the Office of the City Administrator. The tax increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment financing economic development district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts and Authority accounts and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan as amanded. N. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74. Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax Increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board, and the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. The report shall include the following information; 1. The amount and source of revenue in the account; 2. The amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; ]. The amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest on any outstanding bonded indebtedness; C. The original assessed value of the districts 5. The captured assessed value retained by the authority: 6. The captured aeeeaoad value shared with other taxing districts; 7. The tax increment received. The annual disclosure report is designed to be a two-way medium of information dissemination for both the Office of the County Auditor Z C and the Authority. Should the auditor vent additional information from the city regarding its tax increment financing activities, such information should be requested prior to submission of the annual disclosure report by the city. Similarly, the city council may utilize the annual disclosure report as a means for requesting information from the Office of the County Auditor. Additionally, the authority must annually publish a statement in a nevapaper of general circulation in the municipality shoving the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original assessed value, the captured assessed value, amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness, and any additional information the authority deems necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION I,1 \ RESOLUTION 87 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN WITH MODIFICATION NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PIAN WHEREAS, the Monticello Rousing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a resolution approving Modification No. 1 dated April 3, 1987, to the Monticello Redevelopment Plan and the accompanying Tax Increment Financing Plan pursuant to M.S. Sections 462.611, at sag.. and WHEREAS, said Modification No. 1 and Tax Increment Finance Plan have bean submitted to the Planning Commission an required by M.S. 462, NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA THAT: 1) The Redevelopment Project Plan in found to carry out the purpose and policy of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, and is hereby in all respects approved. 2) Copies of this resolution be forwarded to the City Council of I the City of Monticello. Adopted this 12th day of May, 1987. Chair ATTEST: C*) Planning Commiesion Agenda - 5/12/87 4- 5. A request for open discussion on a proposed sketch plan for unplatted property. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. George Rivera, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation, will be present at the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting to ask for your input and/or comments on the proposed rezoning of unplatted B-3 (Highway Business) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. You will note on the enclosed site plan the location for Mr. Rivera -s discussion. Mr. Rivera will also be submitting to you at the meeting an overall proposed development of the area as it goes out of the city limits into the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. I have stressed to him some of the concerns I have as a staff member in regards to rezoning this project. The other major concern is residential property right up next to highway business uses. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Depending on the information presented and how it reaches your acceptability, you may want him to consider going on further with developing of his plane into a formal sketch plan layout. 2. Deny the proposed concept of the sketch plan for the proposed development of this unplatted land. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss in a short length of time with Mr. Rivera soma of the possibilities for development of this unplatted land into residential lots and blocks. Staff fully recognizes that this is very preliminary at beet for a site plan for this proposed subdivision plat. Staff urges any indications you may give to Mr. Rivera be of the nature that everything discussed and to be implemented into a sketch plan will be looked at in its entirety, with the entirety moaning everything is in on time and recognized by City staff, consulting ongineor, consulting planner, and that it is ready to go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed site plan; Copy of the proposed lots and blocks of the unplatted property. 41 -4- P snrr toll err 0