Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 07-09-1984AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1 Monday, July 9, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, Jack Maxwell 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held June 25, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Pet it tons, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 4. Consideration of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Meadow Oak. 5. Consideration of Bids for City Seal Coating. Now Business G. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment Altering the Titles. 7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Roaring for Key Tool 6 Plastics Tax Increment Financing Plan. 8. Consideration of Finance Alternatives for the Construction of Broadway. 9. Consideration of Establishing a Date for a Work Session on the Revision of the Comprehensive Plan and to Discuss the 1985 Budget and Coale and Objectives. 10. Adjournment. kE 3 MINUTES \, REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL June 25, 1964 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Members Absent: Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold June 11, 1984. voting in favor was Grimemo, Fair, Maxwell, with Ken Maus abstaining due to his absence at the last meeting. 3. Citizens Commenta/Pe tit ions, Requests and Complaints. Mr. Lon Olson of 825 west Third Street appeared before the Council to express his concerns over the American Legion Club ■ customers not parking in their parking lot but causing traffic hazards by parking on Third Street and Elm Street. Mr. Olson requested that the City Council possibly should consider a ban on on -street parking between possibly 4:00 and 8:00 P.M. when it appears the Legion Club In most active. The City Council will look into the complaint to see whether the Legion Club is utilizing their own parking lots and whether a possible ban on on -street parking should be initiated. 4. Consideration of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for County Road 75, Hart Boulevard, and Cedar Street. Mr. Chuck Lepak, the Project Engineer from the City's Consulting Engineering Firm of OSM, presented to the Council the plans and specifications for the proposed improvements to County Road 75, Hart Boulevard, and Cedar Street. Mr. Lepak noted that the original estimate of approximately $500,000.00 for all three projects is still an acceptable estimate. Mr. Lepak recommended that the bids be opened no earlier than July 20, 1964, to allow for the required three weeks published notice in the Construction Bulletin. In addition, Mr. Lepak noted that the State of Minnesota must review and approve the plans and specifications, as the County Road 75 improvement is a State Aid Road. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorising advertisement for bids returnable July 20, 1984, for the County Road 7S, Hart Boulevard, and Cedar Street improvements. sae Resolution 1984 #26 . Council Minutes - 6/25/84 5. Consideration oP a Resolution Declaring Hart Boulevard and Cedar Street Proiecta to be AaGoosed and Ordering the Preparation of Assessment Roll. and 6. Consideration of a Resolution Setting Assessment Hearing. On a motion by Maus, seconded by Maxwell, and unaimously carried, the above two items concerning preparation of assessment roll and the assessment hearing was postponed until the July 9, 1984, meeting. 7. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Build a 4-plex in an R-2 Zone, Applicant - Tom Chock. Mr. Tom Chock requested a Conditional Use Permit to build a 4-plex apartment building near Third and 81m Street. The 4-plax in an R-2 Zone is only allowed as a Conditional Use. The Planning Commission recently reviewed and approved the Conditional Use Request with the condition that the setback on the westerly side of the proposed 4-plax be a 15 -foot sideyard setback instead of the normal 10 -foot requirement. This additional 5 -foot setback was rocommendad to provide additional room between the proposed 4-plax and the existing single family house to the west. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the Conditional Use Permit request to allow a 4-plex apartment building for Mr. Tom Chock in an R-2 Zone provided the setback on the west side of the property is 15 feet. 8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Req_uast to Allow Outdoor Sales and Outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone, Applicant - Hartle's Farm Service. Mr. Russ Martie, as part of his Farm Service business, requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales activities ror Lha purpose of selling white cedar fence foto and also requested outdoor storage of liquid protein from a 6,000 gallon tank. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both Conditional Use Requests provided screening be installed on the west, north, and south ends of the sales lot and with the understanding that the entire •also area will be fenced in when and if Marvin Road becomes paved in the future. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve both Conditional Use Permit requests as noted above with the understanding that the sales lot will be screened per Planning Commission recommendations. 9. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorizinq Advertisement for Bids for saaicoating Project. As pert of the City's annual street maintenance program, the Public Works Director, John 8lmola, requested approval of plans and specifications Council Minutes - 6/25/84 for sealcoating approximately 24,000 square yards of streets during 1984. The four general areas recommended for sealcoating ware the } Lauring Hillside area, Kampa Circle off of County Road 39, Riverside Circle near Riverside Cemetery, and the Walnut Street parking lots behind Johnson's Department Store, etc. In addition, the Public Works Director recommended that granite chips be used to achieve a better wearing course rather than send and gravel as used in the past. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the plans and specifications for sealcoating approximately 24,000 square yards of street surface with a granite chip type aggregate and to authorize the advertisement for bids returnable July 9, 1984. 10. Consideration of a Purchase for a Gas Drive Engine for Well No. 2. As part of the construction addition to Pump House No. 2, an engine room has been added to alleviate the necessity of getting a tractor to the well to be used during emergencies. The Public Works Director has obtained two quotes for 6 -cylinder engines that can be used with LP or natural gas as follows: Northarn Ford Power Jeffeo Power Systems Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis, MN 6 -cylinder Ford Engine 6-cylindar Waukesha Engine Delivery: 2 weeks Delivery: 2-3 weeks Price: $4,206.00 Price: S10,500.00 Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to purchase the 6 -cylinder engine from Northern Ford Power in the amount of 84,206.00, and to also authorize the purchase of additional equipment as necessary for a complete installation. 11. Consideration of a Resolution Adoptinq a Punch Card Voting System Plan. Previously, the City Council authorized the purchase of equipment for punch card voting and automated counting for elections. Before this new equipment can be used by the City, the Secretary of State requires that the City Council adopt a resolution stating that a conversion Lo electronic voting systems has been approved. Motion was made by Bair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt Ranolution 1984 Nal authorizing the use of electronic voting systems and adopting a Pun(:h Card voting System Plan. 12. Considerstion of the 1983 Audit Report. Mr. Rick Borden and Kis Lillehaug of Gruys Johnson G Associates were present at the Council meeting and briefly reviewed the 1983 Audited Financial Statement Report for the City. Council Minutes - 6/25/84 Motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to accept the Audit Report as presented. ••i' 13. Consideration of Bills for the Month of June. Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of June as presented. See Exhibit Ni. Review of Dutch Elm Disease Program. It was the consensus of the City Council that the City maintenance department should continue providing a Dutcu Elm Disease Program for 1984 with the homeowner being charged $120.00 for any trees removed by City personnel and allowing the homeowner to recuive one-half up to $30.00 credit for a replacement free they may purchase. Rick wolfstcller (% Assistant Administrator J 8 Council Agenda - 7/9/84 `►. 4. Consideration of the Environmental Assessment worksheet for Meadow Oak. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The determination of adequacy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet has to do solely with whether or not the environmental concerns in the area have been adequately addressed. A finding of adequacy means simply that the environmental issues have been raised, have been addressed, and have been found to either have minimal impact or to have mitigative measures provided. A finding of adequacy does not state that there are no environmental impacts. The environmental report that I have prepared based on all of the commentary and testimony becomes the formal record of the Environmental Review. The report consists of a project description, findings of fact, conclusions based on those findings of fact, and recommendations. Also, as part of the permanent record for the Environmental Review, is included all of the comments that have been submitted throughout the entire process. Without question, the overwhelming concern has been over surface water. Meadow Oak has proposed that their ponds would serve as drainage retention basins adequately. OSM concurred with that. Township people were still concerned over Ditch R33. Consequently, at the direction of the Council, we retained a r, third independent engineering firm that specializes in hydrology (Barr Engineering) to investigate the hydrological study and the findings of the EAW. Briefly. Barr Engineering found that the ponds are adequate to hold all proposed drainage. However, they note that as the pond begins to seal itself in the long-term future, an outlet may be necessary. As a result of discussions with Barr Engineering, I have shown a recommendation in the EAW report that suggests the City moot and confer with the developer to attempt to arrive at a time that is appropriate to install an outlet from the ponds. Basically, flooding will not be a problem in the short-term future, short-term being 20 years or as. We may, however, son progresaivaly increasing elevations after that time. Somewhere during the development stage, I think it would be wise to require the davolopars to install an outfall line. Again, I wish to emphasize, that declaring the EAW to be adequate is not a declaration that there aro no environmental impacts. It to simply a statement that the environmental issues have boon identified adequately and have been addrossod adequately. If the Council, indeed, makes the finding that the EAW in adequate and that an Environmental Impact Statement shall not be required, then all parts of the record will be submitted to the original mailing list. If one of the parties involved In the comment a Council Agenda - 7/9/84 period feels that the finding is wrong, they have the privilege of appealing to the EQB or to the courts. While it may be the case that the persons residing in the Township along Ditch 033 will still not be satisfied with the findings of the EAW, I think that we have received conclusive proof that Meadow Oak drainage will not cause difficulty to the residents along Ditch 033. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Make a finding that the EAW is found to be adequate and state that an EIS shall not be required - this will prompt a mailing of the review report to all affected agencies and will allow the developers to commence their development project. 2. Find that the EAW does not adequately address the environmental issues and order the preparation of an Environmental impact Statement - the developers may contest this finding just as the other parties could contest the opposite finding. Should you find that an Environmental Impact Statement is required, we would order the preparation of a scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet much as was done last January and February. Upon the review of that scoping worksheet, the EIS would then be stipulated and ordered prepared. This would halt all developmentin Meadow Oak for at least 280 days. 3. Postpone any decision until the completion of a more thorough review - this should occur only if you find specific questions that have not been addressed to your satisfaction or points of contention with respect to certain parte of the EAW. Postponement could also occur if you fool that you, individually, have not had enough opportunity to review all of the information. A postponement for the latter reason should simply delay action until the July 23 meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is included in thu Environmental Report and suggests a finding of adequacy for the EAW. As part of the report, it also includes recommendations with respect to monitoring the development, protecting habitat and wildlife, and issues surrounding the outfall line. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the entire Environmental Review process and all documentation. p - 2 MEADOW OAK ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS 6 DECISION OF THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ADDRESSING THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL KNOWN AS MEADOW OAK. INTRODUCTION The proposed Meadow Oaks is a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) combining single family detached executive homesites, manufactured oingle family detached homesites, manufactured single family attached homeeites and public park. On March 16, 1983, the City Council gave final approval to the platting of two residential subdivisions known as Meadow Oak Estates and Meadow Oak Second Addition and fourteen outlets. The developer's Intent was clearly stated that the outlets would be replotted into residential subdivisions as phased actions. As the City prepared to install public facilities to servo the subdivision, a question arose concerning the drainage of surface water into County Ditch 033. During the discussions on surface water drainage, an inquiry dated July 18, 1983, vas submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board by Marjorie Goatzke, said Inquiry addressing the need for an Environmental Impact Statement covering the Meadow Oak proposal. On July 22, 1983, Mr. Gregg Downing of the EQB responded to me. Goetzko's Inquiry and provided copies of his correspondence to the Monticello City Administrator. Mr. Downing also contacted the City Administrator by telephone to diocuno the environmental review process. After a series of conversations, the following was concluded: a) Muodow Oak was clearly a phased action and, as such, should be considerod as a single project for purposes of the datormination of need for an Environmental Impact Statement (G MCAR S 3.028 F. 1.). b) Meadow Oak, by propooing in oxcoas of 100 iuuidential units, full into the category of Mandatory r.AW (G fICAR S 3.030 R.I.b). On November 10, 1983, the Monticello City Council adopted a r000lution (03-09) ordering the preparation of an Environmental Asscoomant Wnrkohuot for Meadow Oak. McCombs-Knutoon Engineering was ordered to prepare the EAW. 8 Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Page 2 On January 12, 1984, the final draft of the EAW was submitted to the City Administrator in order to be presented to the City Council on January 23, 1984. One copy was submitted to the EQB in advance of Council action in order to meet publication deadlines of the EPB Monitor. On January 20, 1984, the EQ8 advised the City that because Meadow Oak proposed a total of 536 units, the project fell into the Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement category (6 MCAR S 3.039 M.1.b) and, consequently, the EAW that had been submitted was to be considered a "scoping" EAW. At the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council held on January 23, 1984, the Council officially received the scoping EAW and set a public hearing for February 16, 1984. A press releaso and a legal notice of public hearing appeared in the January 26, 1984, Monticello Times. The scoping EAW was mailed to all parties on the required mailing list and to all individual parties who requested a copy (entire list attached in appendix). The scoping period began on January 30, 1984, upon publication in the F.QB Monitor. The scoping period closed February 29, 1984. The scoping meeting/public hearing was duly held on February 16, 1984, (transcript attached in appendix). Upon discovery that the project size would mandato an EIS, the developers indicated that they may wish to reduce the total number of units so that the project would no longer be in the mandatory EIS Category. A January 23, 1984, latter from Gregg Downing of the EQU to the City Administrator addressed this proposition and outlined the procedure for a modified project. After reviewing all of thu comments generated during the scoping period, the developers notified the City by latter dated March 5, 1904, that they wished to reduce their project by 66 units, thus removing the project from the mandatory EIS category, but not from the mandatory EAW category. Consequently, a revised EAW was required. The City Council officially received the revised EAW at their regular meeting of May 14, 1984, and ordered distribution. The 30 -day comment period began Juno 4, 1904, upon publication in the EQ8 Monitor, and closed on July 5, 1984. Pursuant to 6 MCAR S 3.027D, a press rolonso appeared in the Monticello Times on Juno 7, 1984. in order to facilitate public comment, a second public meeting wao hold on Juno 28, 1904, (transcript attached in appendix). Upon the cloning of tho 30 -day commont period and recoipt of all agency and individual comments, tho following findingo of fact and conclusions were made. Based upon those findingo and conclusions, the City Council, as the Responsible Govornnental Unit, issuod thoic decision. J Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Pago 3 FINDINGS OF FACT I. DESCRIPTION A. Project Site Meadow Oak is located in the southeast corner of the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota, specifically in NW% SW% Section 18, Township 121, Range 24 and part of NW11, Section 19, Township 121, Range 24. The site lies south of Interstate 94, south and alightly westerly of the Burlington Northern Railroad, east of Wright County Road 118. B. Site Description The entire Meadow Oak parcel, including the original 72 lots excluded from the EAW, totals 177 acres of undeveloped land. Site was used as pasture. Approximately 35% of the area i■ wooded, 551 is grassland, 1B is usable cropland, and 91 is ponding area. Some areas have low rolling hills. C. Project Description The project as originally presented consisted of development of 177 acre■ into 536 residential units. On March 14, 1983, the final plats of Medow Oak Estates and Meadow Oak Second Addition, consisting of a total of 72 lots, were approved. Sewer, water, streets, curb and gutter, and other appurtenant work was completed in 1983. Those 72 lots, for which all work was complete, were exempted from the EAW. The scope of the remainder of the project was reduced in March of 1984 to the following: Executive Homesites 43 Manufactured Single Family Attached 150 Manufactured Single Family Detached 205 TOTAL 398 The project is a residential Planned Unit Development featuring primarily manufactured homes in an affordable price range. The PUD strategy wee used in order to prepare lot configurations intended to preserve natural assets. Development will occur in stages as various outlets are replotted into residential lots. while the project will develop in stages the EAW addressed to completed project rather than each individual phase. Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Page 4 The City Council has placed certain restrictions on the development such as park dedications totaling 27 acres plus trails, preservation of tree cover, erosion control, underground utility lines, property must have garages or other suitable storage facilities, and that construction of public facilities will be at the developer's expense. Original projections anticipate completion of all stages within ten years. II. TYPE, EXTENT AND REVERSABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Topography, Soils, and Geology - Construction of sewer and water lines, installation of power and phone lines, etc., all will temporarily disturb the surface condition of coils as well as create a permanent subsurface structure. Construction erosion could produce an adverse affect if not addressed. There do exist low wet areas having poor drainage. The following indicates the proposed change. B. waters - Pond surface shall incroaso by 1%. Storm soworo will be installed carrying waters to ponds. Existing wetlands will be retained no storm water baoins. No excavation will occur. Ono large pond will lie in a City Park. Flood waters from a 100 and 500 year storm will encroach into several lots, but the panda have sufficient storage for a 100 year 24 event. Thoru In no known adverse effects on the quantity of ground and surface waters. Potable water will be supplied by municipal distribution lines and wells, thus usual water reduction through residential use will occur. Because of the poor quality of Wright County Ditch #33, no surface water shell be allowed to outlof into the Ditch and then the Mississippi. lianco, tho project does not affect or encroach upon any other water -related district. Before After Wooded 356 15-203 Grassland 556 0 Cropland 16 0 Urban Vacant 0% 45-503 Impervious 06 253 Ponds 96 10% B. waters - Pond surface shall incroaso by 1%. Storm soworo will be installed carrying waters to ponds. Existing wetlands will be retained no storm water baoins. No excavation will occur. Ono large pond will lie in a City Park. Flood waters from a 100 and 500 year storm will encroach into several lots, but the panda have sufficient storage for a 100 year 24 event. Thoru In no known adverse effects on the quantity of ground and surface waters. Potable water will be supplied by municipal distribution lines and wells, thus usual water reduction through residential use will occur. Because of the poor quality of Wright County Ditch #33, no surface water shell be allowed to outlof into the Ditch and then the Mississippi. lianco, tho project does not affect or encroach upon any other water -related district. Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Pago 5 C. Water Quality - Ground water will not be affected. Surface water will contain common residential contaminants such as litter, road salt, motor oil, lawn fertilizer, etc. The increased area of impervious surface will carry these contaminants to the ponds. All wastewater will be collected in municipal lines and treated at the municipal treatment facility. Full development estimated flow 141,000 9-p.d. At total development, Meadow Oak would comprise approximately 254 of the City's single family homes and will generate 154 of treatment facility's design capacity. Erosion will be minimal. Some construction erosion will occur. An erosion control plan has been submitted. D. Air Quality and Noise - Construction will generate air pollution, dust, noise, and odors. These will be minimal and of short duration. After construction, pollution, dust, nolse and odor will be those associated with residential development. Increased vehicle traffic will not have a substantial impact on carbon monoxide pollution. Freeway noise will not exceed federal guidelines. E. Solid and Hazardous Wastes - There will be no hazardous wastes generated at this development. Solid waste at total development is computed to be 5094 pounds per day. Solid waste is collected by private haulers under municipal contract. Waste is disposed of at approved landfills. F. Fish, Wildlife, Plants - Loss of habitat means loss of wildlife. Some songbirds, gophers, door and other common wildlife forms may be able to relocate to adjoining undeveloped area. Thera are no known spacial or endangered species /n the area. As agricultural .land the area in not considu:oJ ecologically sensitive, though it was relatively untouched. Grassland and cropland will be substantially reduced. Some wooded areas will be reduced. An extended duration of increases in pond elevations can destroy fringe vegetation and treas. G. Archeological and Historical - There are no known mites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the area. Thera are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and, therefore, none which may be affected by this project. t Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Pago 6 H. Parka and Recreational Resources - The proposal has no effect on parks or recreational resources. Due to subdivision requirements, the City will gain 27 acres of dedicated park land plus trail. I. Community Services, Transportation, and Energy - Increased traffic flow is estimated at 2820 trips per day. These trips will generate some carbon monoxide pollution, as well as noise, dust and odor as discussed earlier. Northern States Power has available service - The development will not create a special demand on these services. J. Other - The primary concern raised by individuals related to surface water run-off and Ditch 033. Other issues raised at the public hearing had to do with traffic safety, tax base, demands on schools, and storm sewer construction and assessment policies. III. FUTURE PROJECT EFFORTS While this is a phased action, the EAW has been prepared to address the cumulative effects of total completion rather than only a particular phase. The project area lies in the southeasterly most area of the City. The project boundary is also the corporate limits. Only through annexation, controlled by an Orderly Annexation Board, might other urban development occur in the vicinity. While ■aver and water lines were ovarsizad to accommodate future expansion, no such expansion is currently proposed or even in the forsaeable future. Meadow Oak street system is not being designed to accommodate outlying lands or other potential subdivisions. IV. ON-GOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY Each individual stage, both in rapist and construction, in regulated by the agencies cited in 011 of the EAW. Municipal plat approval entails erosion control, public facility review, surface water drainage plans, density controls, are., in addition to State and Federal agency permits and approvals. V. No other studies have been prepared that address this specific area. Certainly soil saps, watershed studies, flood plain utudiss that cover this entire area of Wright County may provide significant data. I Meadow Oak Environmental Review Mcnticallo, Minnesota Pago 7 CONCLUSIONS A. Type of Effects 1. 70-75% of existing land will change from wooded and grassland to urban vacant and impervious surface. 2. There will be some lose of habitat and, consequently, some lose of wildlife. T 3. Sanitary newer use and treatment will increase. d. Municipal water use will increase. 5. Pond olovation■ will increase due to storm run-off and snow malt. 6. There will be increased traffic, and its associated noise, pollution and odor. 7. Construction erosion will occur, but can be cubotantially controlled through proper erosion control motheds. 8. There will be air pollution, dust, noise and odors as a result of construction. 9. No water will be put into Ditch #33 either directly or indirectly. D. Revorsability of Effects 1. Land surface changes will be permanent, although new vegetation will likely be planted as part of residential development. These changes are inherent in this type of development and are not considered adverse. 2. Loss of wildlife will be permanent. As a PUD, a conscious effort has been made to save trees and other heavy vegetation areas to preserve as such wildlife habitat ae possible. It Is conceivable that, after completion, some wildlife may ra-establish areas of habitat. The loss of habitat and wildlife is found to be minimal. 3. Sewer and water shall be installed according to all required and accepted standards. Current treatment facilities meet NPDES permit. Construction will bd temporary and of minimal impact. T Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Pago a 4. Changes in pond elevation are likely to be permanent. The installation of an outlet may be required as elevations may increase. Such an outlet is not required at present. Natural processes of seepage and evaporation will help maintain acceptable levels. Using ponds as retention basins is acceptable, but may require the outlet before the final stage is complete. 5. Increased population and its associated effects will be permanent and substantial in size. Other than the usual residential effects and those stated herein, the population will not create a substantial adverse effect on the resources. 6. All construction effects (erosion, air pollution, dust, noise, odors) will be of short duration and Of minimal impact. All reasonable methods of controlling construction practices shall be instituted by the developer. 7. The ponding solution and eventual outlet will alleviate any added drainage stress on Ditch 033. This can be considered a positive affect since Ditch 033 has deteriorated to a level that it cannot accommodate its own design area. a. It is unlikely that Meadow Oak will over be restored to its original condition. C. Response to EQD Suggested Questions: DOES THE PROPOSED ACTION HAVE POTENTIAL POR: 1. A oubstantial adverse change in existing air quality or noise levels? NO 2. A substantial increase in solid or hazardous :ante production? NO 3. A substantial increase in potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? NO 4. A substantial adverse effect on surface or ground water quality or on wetlands? NO 5. The removal or destruction of substantial quantities of vejetation or fauna, substantial Interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, substantial adverse effect on a significant habitat area. )r substantial adverse effects on a t� eatened or en- danyered species or the habitat o, .he species NO Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Page 9 6. The creation of a hazard to human health or safety? NO 7. inconsistency or incompatibility with adopted land use plans, transportation plans, community goals, or state or federal environmental statutes, regulations or rules? 140 8. The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? NO 9. The impairment or destruction of unique geographic areas such as park lands, prima or unique farm lands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas? NO 10. A substantial increase in the amount of energy used or a major change in the typo of energy used? NO IL .i 41 -11 Meadow Oak Environmental Review Monticello, Minnesota Page 10 RECOMMENDATIONS Upon reviewing all information in the EAW, all comments submitted by various agencies and individuals, it seems that all environmental concerns have been addressed. There is clearly a concern with surface water run-off and ponding. The EAW addressed this matter and Barr Engineering commented. Preparation of an EIS would not likely reveal new information, but would probably re -present existing data. It is recommended that the City Council declare the EAW to be adequate, and find that an EIS not be required. It is further recommendsd that the City require the preservation of as much natural habitat as is feasible, especially at the perimeter of the ponds. It is further recommended that the City meet with the Developer to determine a point in the development at which time the City Will require the installation of an outlet from the ponding system. It is further recommended that the City exercise extreme care in monitoring the development, and, at all stages, require the developer to attend to any and all environmental concern■ that have either J been presently addressed or which may arise. Council Agenda - 7/9/84 �V. 5. Consideration of Bids for City Seal Coating. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Information on this particular item is limited. The bids will not be opened until Monday, the 9th, the same day of the meeting. John Simola will be bringing those bide to the meeting for your review. There was some discussion that it might be in our beet interest to lower the per unit cost by enlarging the scope of the project. This can be done by amending the size of the project after the bids are in. The plans and specifications that you approved were submitted for the bidders. As always, this sealcoating project has been budgeted for as part of the annual maintenance program. P1 Q M 3 Council Agenda - 7/9/84 6. Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment Altering the Titles. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Approximately a year ago, the City adopted an Ordinance on inventory and property management control. This Ordinance was given Title No. 10. In going through our Ordinances and reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, I discovered that the Zoning Ordinance also is labeled Title 10. I think what may have happened was that in our Ordinance Code Books all of the specific titles are shown by Title number, except the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, which are shown by name. I suspect that when the inventory ordinance was adopted, we adopted it right in sequence to become Title 10 without checking the other Ordinances. The amendment that is up now in no way changes the text of any Ordinance but simply changes the title number. It is absolutely essential that we make this change so that we do not have two Ordinances with the same number. There are no alternative actions or staff recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Ordinance Amendment as it will be published. - 4 - tORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 137 H THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DO HEREBY ORDAIN: The ordinance code for the City of Monticello is hereby amended to eliminate a duplication in the numbering of Titles of the Code. That Ordinance Amendment adopted the 9th day of May, 1983, numbored as Ordinance No. 125 for City files, and titled "Property and Equipment Control" wa■ labeled Title 10 of the City Code. Said Ordinance Amendment No. 125 is hereby amended to become Title 14 in the Code of City Ordinances. This amendment shall take full effect upon the date of publication. Thomas A. Eidsm City Administrator Arve A. Grimmmo, Mayor Council Agenda - 7/9/84 7. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for Key Tool 6 Plastics Tax Increment Financing Plan. (A. P.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you will recall, we have been working with Key Tool 6 Plastics for approximately the last 10-12 months. Key Tool is located in Big Lake and manufactures plastic widgets, etc. In December of 1983, the Council approved Key Tool's application for Industrial Revenue Bonds in the amount of 5650,000.00. The Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) also gave its approval. Then Congress virtually stopped all development utilizing IRB -s, and it wasn't until the end of June that we were informed that all IRB projects acted on and approved prior to June 19, 1984, would be given the go-ahead for issue and sale of bonds. - 5 - Key Tool has been waiting to see how this IRB legislation would turn out since January. At the same time, they were trying to improve sales and make the prospectus look better. Now that the IRB's are available and sales have resulted beyond their projected amounts, Kay Tool 6 Plastics desperately needs to expand to facilitate their sales orders. At this point, the HRA will have already mot on Thursday, July 5, 1984, and acted on Key Tool's proposal. If the HRA adopts a " resolution approving the Tax Increment Finance Plan, they would send it to the Planning Commiosion, City Council, Wright County and the School District. Before the Council can formally adopt the Plan and request certification at the County level, a public hearing must be held. The only action that is required of the Council at this time is to adopt the resolution setting the public hearing for the July 23 meeting. On July 23, after the hearing is closed, then the Council will adopt the Plan, with certification by the County following shortly thereafter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution setting the hearing - this enables the project to progress. 2. Do not adopt the resolution setting the hearing - this could moan a much smaller building or even death of the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the Tax Increment Finance Plan; Copy of the resolution adopted by the HRA approving the Plan; Copy of resolution for 41 adoption. - 5 - A RESOLUTION BY THE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVING C TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT R5 PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES„ SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78 ssvt,s.Uaivt AND A tm,NCE PLAN FOR SAID TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "Authority") is carrying out the Monticello Redevelopment Project Modification 41 (the "Project") and Redevelopment Plan Modification 91 (the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that it is necessary to create a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the existing project, created and modified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et M,, the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the project be undertaken as rapidly as possible and be financed with local funds including tax Increment financing as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 through 273.78; and WHEREAS, there was presented to this meeting of the governing body of the Authority for Its consideration and approval, a copy of a tax increment plan for the project area described in said plan dated July 1, 1984 which plan Is entitled Economic Development District q5; and WHEREAS, the Authority has submitted the tnx increment financing plan to the City Planning Commission of the City of Monticello (the "Planning Commission") for Its review and opinion; and NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RI -SOLVED by the governing body of the ijossing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello: (I) That the tax increment district to be established Is nn economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12 and will result in increasdii employment in the tatty and In the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City. (2) ThRt the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax Increment financing Is deemed necessary. (3) That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax Increment financing plan and It conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. (4) That the proposed economic development Involves a substantial commitment of private investment and In conjunction with tax Increments as Identified in the tax Increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the City for the economic development of the � project by private enterprise. ''" 0 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Monticello, Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan and the creation of a tax increment financing district as described in said tax increment financing plan and does hereby transmit to the City Council the plan for their adoption. Adopted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority this :gfiday of July, 1984. ATTEST: DQ6n -I— �C�--� IN �L�-- U, Chairman 2 v j 1.0 TRE MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORrrY 11 TAR INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78) r« THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 05 Prepared by: HOLMES do GRAVEN, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (812) 338-1177 0 Date: July 1, 1984 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN - DISTRICT /5 Page A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY I B. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES i C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT I D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1 E. CLASSIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT 2 F. MUNICIPAL FINDINGS 2 G.. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 3 It. ESTIMATE OF LOAN/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 3 1. SOURCE OF REVENUE 3 J. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 3 K. ESTIMATED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE 4 L. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT 4 M. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS S N. MODIFICATIONS OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT OR PLAN G O. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 7 P. LIMITATION ON DURATION OFTAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 7 Q. [.IMITATION ON QUALIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT DISTHIC'P NOT SUBJECT TO IMPROVFMEN'C 7 R. LIMITATION ON Tilt: USE OF TAX INCREMENT 8 S. NOTIFICATION OF PRIOR PLANNFI) IMPROVEMENTS 8 Page T. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS U. REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEVELOPER V. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS W. ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNT X. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN v - 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. D. 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 assure the redevelopment of the area. C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT I. Property to be Acquired by the Authority: The Authority will acquire the East 1/2 of Lot 10 and all of Lauring Hillside Terrace. 2. Description of the Development Activities: Key Properties (the "Developer") plans to construct one - 23,000 sq. ft., industrial building. The Developer will be assisted with a suitable site for the facility through tax increment revenues. This building represents the second building to be constructed in the Industrial Park as part of an overall comprehensive economic development strategy. 3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected to Occur in the Project: The development program expects the 4th, 5th and 6th Buildings of the Industrial development to be constructed in 1984 and 1985 as a part of the overall Phase D comprehensive economic development plan for the Oakwood Industrial Park. D. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Legal Description F.astono-half of Lot 10 and all of Lot 11, Block 2, Lauring ' 11E1side Terrace, Monticello, Minnesota 14 11 E. CLASSIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Tax increment financing district A5 to be established within the existing jy Redevelopment Project may be classified as an economic development `s district. 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 property to be included in the proposed tax increment financing district A5 consists of two vacant parcels upon which a new structure will be constructed. The construction of the industrial facility will add jobs and increase the assessed value of the City. Therefore, the tax increment financing district will be classified as a tax increment financing economic development district. F. MUNICIPAL FINDINGS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and supporting facts for each determination: (1) The proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since Key Properties could not corstrurt the present facility without the acquisition of a suitable site and without the use of tax Increments to finance this land acquisition, the Developer would not i have located in the industrial park; and (2) The tax Increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterpise as It will enable the City to provide a suitable site for the construction of the industrial facilities; thereby encouraging economic development by private enterprise in the area. (3) The tax increment finnneing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole as it will result In the inducement of private industrial development for an expanded tnx base and expanded employment npportamity. (4) The tax increment district to he established b an economic development district pursuant to Minota Stntutev, Section 273.73, Subdivision 12 in which the eonditsom descr I)a Section V of this plan exist. G. ESTIMATE OF COSTS �y The estimate of public costs associated with the tax increment financing economic development district are outlined in the following line item budget. Budget Land acquisition $ 85,000 Less Land Proceeds 16,275 Sub -total $ 68,725 Interest (cap) 19,275 Legal, Administrative 5,000 Contingency 3,000 $ 96,000 The total cost for the land acquisition and other budget items are to be financed through a combination of tax increments and land sale;. ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LOAN/BONDED INDEBTEDNESS No bond 6sue is anticipated at the time. Instead, the Authority will use annual tax increments to pay for the cost of land acquisition necessary to repay a loan to the City or Bank in the amount of $96,000 including eapitalized interest, legal, adminstration and contingency costs. Any additional increments generated in excess of the budget will be used toward 7 the "Land Bank" budget. This plan does not preclude the use of bonds If the other alternatives are not available. SOURCES OF REVENUE The only sources of revenue to be used to finance public costs associated with the public development projects in the redevelopment project are land sales and the tax increment generated as o result of the taxation of the land and building construction 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 costs. The improvements to the land acquired by Key Properties are expected to generate on nnnunl tax increment of npproximately $18,000 beginning in 1980. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.74, Subdivision I and Section 273.70, Subdiveyr�' on 1, the Original Assr_:vcd Value (OAV) for the City of Monlicello tax increment financing economic development district Y5 is based on the value placed on the property by the County Assessor In 1985. This asvesscd value is approximately $4,800. (3200 for Lot 11 and 1800 for 1/2 of Lot 10) Ench year, with the exception of 1984 (the now assessed value in 1984 will be "passed through" to the taxing jurisdictions when payable in 1985), 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: change in tax exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, ndjustmenLs, negotiated or court-ordered abatements. K. ESTIMATED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, 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 $220,000. This amount will be captured for up to eight years. The Authority requests 100 percent of the available Increase in assessed value commencing in 1985 for taxes payable in 1986 as well as 7 subsequent years for repayment of debt and current expenditures. L. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT Pursuant to Minneiota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, the duration of the tax Increment district within the Redevelopment Project must be Indicated within the finance plan. The durntion of the tax increment district will be P years from the date of receipt of the first tax Increment or 10 years from approval of the lax Increment financing plan, whichever is less. 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 pass through the possible tax Increments which may otherwise be received by the City in 1985 and distribute the 1985 tax increment to all taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their respective tax levies for taxa payable in 1985. Based on discussions with the County assessor, it is expected that there will be new assessed value in 1984 payable 1985 based on inflationary growth in the land value. 1t 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 1986 and thus will permit the City to collect 8 annual increments from the time the development in the project is tint paying taxa. The collection of the 8 increments is required to fully fund the development costs which will he financed with the proceeds of the Tax Increment Hands. M. ESTIMATED IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the possible tax increments derived from any other future development. mill changes, or inflation fneton. Total Assessed Value Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/83 Total $4,800 (E 1/2 of Lot 10) All of Lot I1 Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body: % of District to Total Wright County $ 346,089,695 .001 School District #882 $ 91.744, 177 .003 City of Monticello $ 77,077,966 .003 Other $ 106,336,211 .002 Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school, city and county districts will have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth or lax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill rate in 1984 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate'nnd the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction as listed in the table below tusuming development would occur without puhlic assistance. The finance pinn indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows: Captured Assessed Rstimsted Tax Valuation Increment Received Tax Increment Finance District $ 220,000 $ I8,000 El D Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies: M r1b City 17.734 County 23.580 School District #882 37.335 Other 3.307 Percent Tax Increment 21.64 $ 3,895 28.77 5,179 45.55 8,199 4.04 727 Total 81.956 100.00% $ 18,000 The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the Key Properties 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 due 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 n mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing jurisdiction, the non -receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would have to be Increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in ench taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projccLs occurred without the assistance of the City. Adjusted* Required Tax Affiessed Value Mats Increment School District $ 91,741,777 .09 $ 8,199 County $ 346,087,295 .02 $ 5,179 City $ 77,075,566 .05 $ 3,895 *Tax increment District assessed valuation subtracted N. MODIFICATIONS OF THE 'rAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT OR PIAN In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement o 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 enlnrgcd after five years following the date of certification of the original assessed value by the county auditor. The 0 tax increment financing economic development district may therefore be expanded until 1989. O. [.IMITATION ON ADMiNISTRATWE EXPENSES in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 13 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 3, administrative expense 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 benefits 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 sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 273.77. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures uuthorh• ,d by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less. P. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 1, "no tax increment shell be paid a to en uthority 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 1987 or the Office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment financing district. Q. LIMITATION ON QUALIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NOTSUIiJECPTOIMPROVEMENT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 8, "if, after four yss ears froin the date of certificntion 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 sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment flnoneing 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 assured value of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site [rciviratlon on that parcel Including Improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, 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 1 assessed value thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of J revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax Increment financing district." 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 costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues 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 commors area used as it public park or a facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the husiness of the municipality. S. 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. T. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, SutWi1VISi0a 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan including the amount necessary to cancel any inx levy as provided In Rlinnesota Statutes. Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City shall use the excess amount to: 1, prepay the outstanding bond;; 2. discharge the pledge of tnx Increment therefore; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; 4. repay any loans including interest on these loam; or 5. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their mill rate. 4 U. 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 proceed; of bones Issued pursuant to Section 273.77 without the Authority having prior to acquisition 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. V. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS Pursuant to Minnesota Statute; Section 273.78, Subdivision 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, enter Into an agreement nn 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 plans 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 Ilk certify the minimum market value agreement. W. ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX 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 amended. X. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Mlnne�ota Statutes, Section 273.74, Subdivision 5, an authority must file an annum fflseTwauo report for all tax Increment financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board and the Minnesota Depnrtment of Energy and Economic i)evelopment. The report shall include the following Informatiom 1. The amount and source of revenue In the account; 2. The amount and purpose of expenditures from the account; J 3. The amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest on any outstanding bonded indebtedness; 4. The original assessed value of the district; 5. The captured assessed value retained by the authority; 6. The captured assessed 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 and the Authority. Should the auditor want 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 newspaper of general circulation in the municipality showing 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. 10 RESOLUTION 1984 M_ RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 TO 273.78 INCLUSIVE, THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT. WHEREAS, the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority has adopted a resolution approving a plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District 85 dated July 5, 1984, pursuant to the provisions of M.S. Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, and WHEREAS, said resolution requests the City Council to set a public hearing on said Tax Increment Financing Plan 45. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA, THAT: 11 A public hearing shall be hold at 7:30 P.M. on Monday. July 23, 1984, in the City Council Chambers. 2) The City Administrator shall cause proper notice to be given in the official newspaper. Adopted this 9th day of July, 1984. Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator 70 Council Agenda - 7/9/84 8. Consideration of Finance Alternatives for the Construction of Broadway. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In the last agenda, I attached an addendum which spent a little time discussing the sequence of events that eliminated the reconstruction of County Road 75 from the proposed bond issue for street construction. Briefly, the Councils election to not assess any of Broadway prompted me not to publish notice about the project; and consequently, the project, without holding the proper public hearings, cannot be included in the bond proposal. Because of the delay in the preparations of plane and specifications and the fact that the Council will not formally act on the contracts until August 13, there is now time to hold a public improvement hearing. It has been explained to me by our Fiscal Consultants that in order to bond for it, we, of course, must assess 204 of the overall project (City expense only), and we must hold the required hearings. In a case where we do ,not plan to assess the property owners, we must still hold the hearing and inform the abutting property owners that their proposed assessment is zero dollars. By holding this hearing, the Broadway reconstruction could be included in the bond issue that we will sell to cover Hart and Cedar. By issuing the bonds, we could avoid going into reserve funds. - 6 - The difficulty that I noted in the last addendum is that 204 of the project must be assessed. Rick and I fool this can be accomplished in the following manner. If we use the catimatea of the feasibility study, the combined total of all three projects (City oxpenoo only) oqualo $300,000.00. Twenty percent of that amount is 560,000.00. The total estimated cost of Hart and Cedar in $150,000.00. If we were to access $60,000.00 against the property owners involved on Cedar and Hart, we would be assessing those property owners 404 of their project coat, but 204 of the total project, thereby making this a legitimate bond fsouo. The difficult question you aro faced with is assessing the affected property owners 404 instead of the 204 that they requested. Again, Rick and I think that the Council can legitimately do that, and they would still be addressing the request of the property owners to reduce the assessment. The property owners were originally proposed to be assessed 1004, requested to be assessed only 204, and could now be offered to be assessed 404. If you wish to proceed in this manner, the Council should adopt a resolution Batting a hearing to discuss the public improvements. This hearing may legally be hold as an administrative hearing rather than as a part of a regular City Council meeting. we can accomplish all of the requirements for mailings and postings by the Auguat 13 data. August 13 would then become the night wherein you will determine the assessment roll and whether or not to award the contract and do the job, and authorize the bond sale. - 6 - Council Agenda - 7/9/84 This is a difficult item to prepare a recommendation for. Financially, it is more desirable to issue the bonds to accommodate the construction project. Politically, to assess a higher number against the affected property owners on [fart and Cedar in order to roach the 20% threshold might be problematical. However, there is still the notion that 40% of their own project is a substantial reduction over the originally proposud 100%. Rick also ensures me that the expenditure right from the Capital lmprovamant Revolving Fund in not going to croatu a financial hardship on the City. It does, however, l0000n the aurplun that we intantially built In in the preparation of the 1984 budget. It dean not eliminate ♦ that surplus. It simply cute into St. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolution setting a hearing on public improvement. - 7 - If you elect not to assess 408 of the Hart/Cedar project to the affected property owners, then we cannot meet the 20% threshold on the overall project and, consequently, will have to use surplus funds to finance the County Road 75 reconstruction. Also, as I noted in the earlier addendum, this will not put a financial hardship on the City. We did levy $100,000.00 plus in the Capital Improvement Revolving Fund but did not stipulate a proposed allocation. We have no encumbrances against those monies as of this date. Thus, should we use these funds for County Road 75 reconstruction, we will not really be draining on our pre-existing surplus, but we will not be increasing that surplus in 1984. We would simply have to address increasing that amount in 1985. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Take no action - This will keep us on the road that we are currently following. We will plan to issue bonds to cover the construction of Hart and Cedar, we will assess a certain portion of Hart and Cedar to the affected property owners, we will hold the assessment hearing on August 13, and we will pay for our share of the reconstruction of County Road 75 out of reserve funds. 2. Adopt the resolution setting a hearing on a proposed public improvement - this will generate a published notice of a hearing to be hold on the project and a mailing of said notice to ovary property owner along County Road 75. we will conduct a hearing after 14 days notice and inform all the persons that their assessments will be zero dollars. Such hearing will make the project eligible for bonding providing that at least 201 of the combined total of all three projects is assessed back to the affected property owners on [fart and Cedar. We will still anticipate holding the assessment hearing on August 13. With all statutory requirements mot, we would then issue bonds for the combined total of all three projects rather than utilize fund surpluses. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a difficult item to prepare a recommendation for. Financially, it is more desirable to issue the bonds to accommodate the construction project. Politically, to assess a higher number against the affected property owners on [fart and Cedar in order to roach the 20% threshold might be problematical. However, there is still the notion that 40% of their own project is a substantial reduction over the originally proposud 100%. Rick also ensures me that the expenditure right from the Capital lmprovamant Revolving Fund in not going to croatu a financial hardship on the City. It does, however, l0000n the aurplun that we intantially built In in the preparation of the 1984 budget. It dean not eliminate ♦ that surplus. It simply cute into St. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Resolution setting a hearing on public improvement. - 7 - RESOLUTION 1984 N_ RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Council adopted 1984, a report was prepared by OSM with reference to the improvement of County Road 75 between the turn off of County Road 39 on the east and Otter Creek Road on the west by reconstruction of road surface and repair and replacement of damaged curb and gutter and other appurtenant structures, and this report was received by the Council on the day of , 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of Duch street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the Cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of S 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on Lila day of , 1984, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at P.M., and the Administrator shall give mailod and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 9th day of July, 1984. Arvo A. Grimsmo, Mayor Thomas A. Eidom City Adminiatrator C Council Agenda - 7/9/84 9. Consideration of Establishing a Date for a Work Session on the Revision of the Comprehensive Plan and to Discuss the 1985 Budget and Goals and Objectives. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With respect to the Comprehensive Plan revision, we anticipate completing Chapter 3, Land Use Guide Plan, by July 20. Sometime before July 23, we are attempting to hold work sessions with the HRA, Planning Commission, and City Council. Likewise, we will again be holding public informational meetings on the 17th and 18th of July. The Land Use Guide Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan is shorter, but slightly more detailed than the Goals and Policies section which we just recently worked our way through. The Land Use Guide Plan generally provides some standards for development in particular rather than generalized goals and policies. Staff currently is in the process of assembling the suggested revisions for everyone's review. With respect to a work session on the 1985 goals and budget, this is a new proposal. In the previous two years that I have prepared the budget, the Council has mat in a special work session to discuss the preliminary budget. Usually, at that time we have discovered that the Council perhaps has different goals for the upcoming year and the budget has to be adjusted accordingly. lthink it would be beneficial to meet in a discussion session that we could highlight what you would like to sea ac complishod in 1985 and then the Department Heads and I can go to our preliminary budget workoheots and start developing the financial end of those goals. This work session will not eliminate the later work oossions on preliminary and final budget documents. This session is being requested solely to provide direction and guidance to staff in constructing the municipal budget for 1985. Thoso two sessions can be hold at the same time. We would simply give notico of a special Council meeting, and there would be two agenda items. We would devote soma time to the Comprehensive Plan and some time to the 1985 goals. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind torribly if you didn't select a Saturday morning again. 1 would, however, hope to hold this meeting no later than the 27th of July. There aro no sections on alternative actions, staff rocommondation, or supporting data for this item. - 8 -