Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-04-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COM(1I MION
Tuesday, Manch 4, 1897 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 4, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
b. Public Hearing -.Consideration of a preliminary plat request for phase VI,
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
6. Consideration to adopt a resolution finding the modification of Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of TIF District No.
1-17, and the establishmentofTlF District No. 1-22 conforms with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
7. Consideration of calling a public hearing on radio and cell phone
communication towers ordinance amendment (Jeff report).
8. Multi -family zoning (Steve Grittman report).
9. Consideration of public hearing on ordinance amendments regulating pole
buildings (Fred Patch report).
10. Quarterly meeting - all commissions (Jeff report).
11. Consideration of discussing staff report format including provision of staff
recommendation.
12. Updates:
A. Vacate Locust Street
B. Street widths
C. National Guard Training Center
D. MCP Workshop - March 12, 1997, 7 p.m., High School Board Room
13. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 4, 1997. 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
Members Absent: Jon Bogart
Council Liaison: Clint Herbst
Staff : Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer
1. Sall to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order.
EMEWT-77MMW-ii =,r1 I 11 1• I{yT 1 r
COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY
7, 1997 MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. (Bogart absent.)
3. ConRideration of ad inr, Items to the n, nda,
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, added an update on a request by Orrin
Thompson and Art Anderson to amend the MOAA.
Commissioner Carlson requested on informal discussion on the staff
recommendation section of the agenda item.
4. Cqfizem co m nts.
There were no citizens comments.
7kl'
1 1 : 1 v 1 1 1 I • I l It \ 1 1 1 11 I 11
11 1 11 11 1 1•t l.II t t 11 I t 1,111 11 1 '�• 1 1
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant administrator, reported the City was informed that according
to state statue the DNR should be notified of any requests in regards to the wild and
scenic act. He noted that representatives from the DNR will be reviewing our
ordinance for consistency with the state statues.
Steve Grittnurn, City Planner, reported E & K Development has requested
preliminary plat approvnl of a 132 lot single family residential subdivision entitled
Klein Farms 3rd Addition. Tho proposed subdivision overlays a 81.2 acre trnct of
land south of School Boulevard between Oakwood Drive and Fallon Avenue. The
Pago 1 'AD
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
site is zoned R-1, single family residential. The park area is in excess 16 acres and
is populated by mature trees. The developer should be required to preserve the
trees on the private side of the property. A landscaping plan should be provided to
show coordinated screening along School Boulevard rather than a hedge podge of
individual homeowners plans.
The design of the streets was slightly modified to simply shift Street F
approximately 250 feet to the south to align with Street B. If such alternative street
alignment is pursued, it is suggested that a 30 foot wide pedestrian park
access/outlot be located near the intersection of Street F and Farmstead Drive. This
alternative also solves the lot width issues adjacent to the UPA easement by re-
orienting lots so the power lines are in the rear yards. It further reduces the
number of cul-de-sacs in the plat.
The construction of sidewalks on both sides of County Lane and Farmstead Drive
represents a preferred, more equitable option by accommodating pedestrian
circulation on both sides of the street. A 20 foot wide pathway easement be
established along the southern boundary of Block 1 (within UPA easement). Future
pathway construction would occur within the adjacent southerly property upon
development. A 30 foot wide outlot is established along the southern boundary of
Block 3 to accommodate future pathway construction.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, added there will be a very wide trunk sanitary
sewer easement that would be an ideal place for a pathway to the park. The Park's
Commission will have the farm site buildings on the site inspected for safety and
worth. The development agreement will state how the buildings will be removed if
they are not going to be kept for storage.
Chairman Frio opened the public hearing.
Larry Olson, Midwest Surveyors, stated the plat could be redesigned as suggested.
Tony Emmerich, developer, was concerned over the amount of sidewalks being
requested. He was in agreement with the street design change but would need to
have the grading and drainage reviewed first. A coordinated landscaping plan
along School Blvd. could work if there was someone available to water the new
plantings. Emmerich would work with staff on the details.
Ted Holker, township resident, inquired about the pathway setbacks that bordered
the township land and also if there would be a parking lot in the park.
Tony Emmerich stated that the pathway along the township boarder will just be an
easement until the land is developed in that direction.
O'Neill stated that the park will be designed by the Parks Commission. It is likely
that parking will be provided with access on the Fallon Ave site of the park.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 2✓4/97
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing
The Commissioners discussed the street widths and asked the developer for his
comments on this subject.
Emmerich was not opposed to narrower street widths but was concerned about the
cost to provide the sidewalks being requested on both sides of Country Lane and
Farmstead Drive.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MARTIE TO APPROVE THE KLEIN FARMS 3111)
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. A 30 FOOT PEDESTRIAN PARK ACCESSIOUTLOT IS PROVIDED
BETWEEN LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 7. IF, HOWEVER, A REVISED
STREET PLAN IS PURSUED (AS ILLUSTRATED ON EXHIBIT C), AN
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS LOCATION UPON THE UPA EASEMENT BE
PROVIDED.
B. CONSIDERATION ISGIVEN TO SHIFTING STREET B SOUTHWARD IN
A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT ILLUSTRATED ON EXHIBIT E.
C. FIVE FOOT WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ARE PROVIDED ALONG
BOTH SIDES OF COUNTRY LANE AND FARMSTEAD DRIVE.
D. 81 DEWALKS ARE PROVIDED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SCHOOL
BOULEVARD.
E. THE POND WHICH LIES WITHIN THE PARK IS DESIGNED AND
CONFIGURED TO ALLOW PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE BETWEEN SUCH
POND AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHICH LIE TO T HE
WEST.
F. THE PARKS COMMISSION PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE
REMOVAL OR ADAPTATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES WHICH LIE
WITH IN TH E DESIGNATED PARK AREA.
G. A 20 FOOT PATHWAY EASEMENT IS PROVIDED ALONG THE
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF BLOCK 1.
H. A 30 FOOT WIDE OUTLOT IS ESTABLISHED ALONG THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF BLACK 3 TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE PATHWAY
CONSTRUCTION.
1. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, ALL SIGNIFICANT TREES (AS
DETERMINED BY THE CITY ) ARE PRESERVED.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 2!4/97
J. WORK ON A LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH CITY STAFF WHICH SPECIFIES
REAR YARD LANDSCAPING SCREENING METHODS ALONG SCHOOL
BOULEVARD AND OAKWOOD DRIVE.
K. THE SUBMITTED GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN IS
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
L. THE SUBMITTED UTILITY PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
N. WORK ON PATHWAY ROUTES AND CONNECTIONS TO PARK WITH
CITY STAFF.
Motion passed unanimously. ( Bogart absent.)
Consideration of an update to tht% 7.oniner ordinance which would in ludP. mora uarnas
agapermitted usr in a B-4 zone.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported after reviewing the zoning ordinance
in its entirety, it was found that mortuaries are not identified anywhere in the
zoning code as a permitted use. Other uses that are similar to a mortuary such as a
chapel are allowed in the publictsemi-public zoning district. According to Steve
Grittman, a mortuary is similar to a chapel type of use; however, there are some
significant differences. Therefore, typically mortuaries are identified specifically as
a separate and unique use. Obviously, this question came up in conjunction with a
request by the Peterson-Grimsmo Funeral Home to develop a mortuary in the B-4
district on Block 14 of the Original Plat of the city. According to Steve Grittman,
mortuaries are typically found in or near commercial areas. The type of impacts
that a mortuary presents for an area are more akin to commercial impacts;
therefore, this type of use is best located near a commercial area.
Chairman Frio opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Chairman Frio closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carlson stated he would abstain from the discussion because of a
conflict of interest.
Chairman Frio replied it would only be a conflict of interest if there would be a
financial gain by Commissioner Carlson.
The Commissioners discussed briefly if tho use will fit into the B4 zone in the
redevelopment area.
Page 4 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
O'Neill informed the commissioners that a B4 area is for civic uses which would
include city hall, fire hall, police, and activities that will bridge the downtown area.
A mortuary is an institution and would fit into this overall plan.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCLUDING
MORTUARIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE 84 ZONE. Motion passed with
Martie, Dragsten, Frie - yes, Carlson abstaining, Bogart absent.
Cnnsidera ion of a variance to curb cut location and parking lot setback s an ardc
as requested by City Staff, which wo +Id allow a mortuary facility to follow a
proposed Monticelln Community Partners redevelopment design cmidelines.
Applicant .i y of Monticello Planning and Zoning 1pp rl� meat.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the Peterson-Grimsmo Mortuary
site plan was developed jointly by the architects representing Peterson-Grimsmo
and City staff with the goal of developing a plan that meets the needs of a modern
funeral home and fits with the proposed design guidelines being developed by the
HRA through the Monticello Community Partners (MCP). Ironically, the existing
ordinance limits the site plan design in a fashion that results in the need for
variances in order to achieve the goals of the proposed redevelopment design
guidelines.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Council Liaison Herbst inquired as to the option of vacating Locust Street.
TheCommissioners discussed the option of vacating Locust instead of granting the
variances. O'Neill noted that the unique circumstances associated with maintaining
MCP standards serve to minimize the precedent.
The concept of head -in -parking was also discussed. O'Neill used Duluth as an
example of an active business area where this type of parking has worked very well.
The timing of the installation of the sidewalks has not been resolved at this time.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE
REQUEST ALLOWING ACURB CUT INSIDE OF THE 40 -FT MINIMUM
STANDARD AT 5TH STREET BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DOES NOT IMPAIR THE INTENT OF TH R
ZONING ORDINANCE, RESULTS INA SAFER AND MORE CONVENIENT
ACCESS, AND ALSO ENHANCES PEDESTRIAN USE OF THE WALNUT
STILE ET RIGHT-OF-WAY. The motion passed with Frie, Martin, Dragsten-
approval, Carlson abstaining, Bogart absent.
Pago 5 0
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4197
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reports that the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
which changes the zoning variance process by redesignating the Zoning Board of
Adjustments and Appeals from the Planning Commission to the City Council.
Under the proposed process, the Planning Commission would act in an advisory
role, conducting the public hearing on zoning variances, but recommending action to
the City Council. The City Council's decision would be final on a zoning variance.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Chairman Frie wanted to stress that Mayor Fair had stated the Planning
Commission was still to be considered the expert on zoning matters.
Council Liaison Herbst added the Planning Commission is more hard nose than the
Council and that helps the council, he preferred the process to stay the same.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, this process will streamline the procedure. A
variance that was not appealed has always been in the council agenda packets as an
update; under the proposed procedure a variance would be on the consent agenda.
This would allow discussion if needed but would not require it.
Although the Planning Commission preferred approval, O'Neill was asked to portray
a neutral stance by the Planning Commission on this matter.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CHANGING THE
DESIGNATION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROCESS PROVIDES A CLEARER AND SMOOTHER
PATH FOR BOTH APPLICANTS, THE CITY, AND INTERESTED THIRD
PARTIES IN TRACKING VARIANCE REQUESTS. Motion passed unanimously
(Bogart absent.)
There was no discussion on this item.
Pago 6 G)
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/4/97
11. Consideration of review and prioritazation of planning department projects nd
activities.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported City staff is currently working with
the City Council and all of the departments and commissions on development of a
list of projects that need to be completed in the near future. O'Neill requested the
Commissioners note the number of planning items and the amount of work to be
done. City staff had requested the planning commissioners rate the list of planning
projects for the level of importance and to list any other projects that are important.
The list does not include day-to-day work.
The questions was asked if there would be a meeting with all the Commissions in
the near future. O'Neill informed everyone that the Council would meet in March
and go over the entire list and then schedule a joint commissions meeting after that.
The Commissioners had the items rated and gave them to O'Neill to compile for the
City Council.
: . r, , , , •4h, n u , , : . • , .... 14 11 c fr. WWI'. rUs r-trMT-111.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported during the review of the lQein Farms
III preliminary plat, the Park Commission voiced concerns regarding street widths
and current policy to incorporate the pedestrian way into the 36 -ft, street section.
They also had general concerns regarding excessive street width, which comes at the
expense of green space and often results in a greater loss of trees. In light of this
concern, the Parks commission requested that City staff and Planning Commission
revisit this topic, which was discussed at length in 1994. The last time the design
standards were reviewed the planning commission voted unanimously for narrower
streets. O'Neill noted that changes were made in 1994 to the manner in which we
catagorize streets which has resulted in streets moved from Win 32'.
Next, O'Neill discussed the road widths in the proposed Klein Farms Ill. The
recommendation from Park Commission was to keep the major collector roads at 32
feet with sidewalks or pathway on both sides. Monticello has 89% wider streets
than other cities in this area, 9`h are about same, and 214- are wider.
A video was shown by O'Neill demonstrating the visual affect of both narrow and
wide streets, and also pointing out how the width of the street affects the size of the
snow banks.
Chairman Frio had checked with developers on their thoughts of narrow streets
with sidewalk and they were strongly in favor of narrow streets with sidewalks.
Steve Crittman, City Planner, did state that the cost of wider roads verses narrow
roads with sidewalks are not a cost savings for installation but will offer larger lots
and less road maintenance.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
There were questions on the responsibility of snow removal on the sidewalks.
O'Neill stated that usually it is the homeowners responsibility to clear the sidewalks
in front of their property. O'Neill also noted that he had requested input by the
public works department of the meeting. John Simola, Public Works Director, was
unable to attend.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 23 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE VARIANCE PROCESS. Motion
passed unanimously. ( Bogart absent.)
13. Review of Cardinal Pon a sk tch plan.
Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported John Leerssen has requested that the
Planning Commission conduct a sketch plan review of his site proposal prior to
preparation of the preliminary plat. The lot and street configuration proposed is
simple and straightforward. The only item of any controversy is whether or not to
allow the street to extend through the development. Currently, the sketch shows a
cul-de-sac. Staff strongly recommends that the plan be designed to enable the street
to be connected to the south and that the cul-de-sac be removed. There will be a
study on the best method for serving the site with sanitary sewer. New information
regarding utility service has some potential to impact the design. Also, we
recommend that a pathway easement be granted along the power line easement.
John I"rssen, developer, passed out a sketch that would use a portion of the
current driveway for a trail. The driveway is lined with large trees and Lersseen
thought this would make a beautiful trail . Leerssen was concerned about the street
being designed to enable the street to be connect to the south and the cul-de-sac be
removed. Until this street was completed there would need to be a turn around of
some kind and this turn around would be in or next to is neighbors cow pasture.
Dave Nelson, property owner next to Leerssen, stated he was in favor of Leerssen's
land being developed but he had no intention of selling his land so it would be a very
long time until this property was developed and the street would go through.
It was suggested Mr. Learssen work with staff to complete the utility studies and
submit the preliminary plat.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administration, reported the council has responded to
requests from Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson to expand the urban service area
and annex the properties. Tho Council tabled action until the Planning Commission
could review the request. The 80 -acro site for Orrin Thompson development is
located in a position adjacent to the location of city utilities. Sanitary sewer could
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
easily be extended to this area. In addition, the Meadow Oak trunk storm sewer
system was sized to handle this are, however, special efforts will need to be made in
order to divert flow from the Orrin Thompson development area to ditch 33. It is not
known that this time what exact method or cost is involved in diverting the flow. In
addition, half of the development site is located within the planning area for the
city and township know as the Orderly Annexation Area. The other half is located
entirely in the township and outside of the planning area. The planning area was
established in the early boundaries of the city. This is a very clear and distinct line
for planning purposes, which the City, Township, and County manage cooperatively.
There is no rule, however, that says that the City cannot annex land outside of its
Orderly Annexation Area.
Also there is a request for the Art Anderson property to be in the City. When the
Urban Service Area boundaries were established in 1990, the Art Anderson property
was not eligible for inclusion in the Urban Service Area because sewer and water
service was nowhere near the property. As a result of the development of the Oak
Ridge subdivision and due to Meadow Oak storm sewer improvements, the Art
Anderson property now meets the criteria for placement in the Urbanization Area.
N fact, it has the advantage of being located entirely within the City's Meadow Oak
storm sewer watershed. The Anderson property is also entirely within the Orderly
Annexation Area.
Ken Scadden and Ted Holker, Monticello Township, stated they read about the
council action in the paper and thought the township should have been made aware
of the annexation requests. The township and the city have an agreement as to what
parcels can be annexed. The current requests are not in this area and there is still
available land that has not been annexed.
Steve Grittnwn, City Planner, stated he did not think that anyone could expect that
the I ines of the agreement will never change but the City is not trying to exclude the
township.
O'Neill stated that the big picture needs to be reviewed because there is only sewer
capacity for n set amount of land to be developed.
Bruce 1'ankonin, Orrin Thompson Homes, stated he had met with the City staff in
1994 and identified potential areas of growth, petitioned in 1995 to the council and
township, and had to wait until the now wastewater treatment plant IWWTP 1 was
started. The WWTP has now been started and Orrin Thompson can see a need for
.move -up" homes. Pankonin stated they have been patiently waiting and would like
to move forward on this development.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
�. DRAGSTEN TO SUPPORT AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY BY INCLUDING THE ORRIN THOMPSON AND ART ANDERSON
Page 9 (i)
Planning Commission Minutes - 214/97
PROPERTY. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT SUCH ACTION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion passed
unanimously. (Bogart absent.)
15. LOW=:
A. National Guard Training Center - Jeff O'Neill reported a meeting with
General LeBlonc, the school, MCP, and the city was held on the possibility of
a National Guard Training Center being built in Monticello. Under the
National Guard policy for development, the City is responsible for providing
land. An area identified in the preliminary MCP plan, close to the downtown
area, is being proposed. This building could be used during the week for civic
activities. ECFE is interested in investing a $200,000 grant they received for
a building.
B. Parking on Broadway by the Pinewood Elementary School. - Jeff O'Neill
stated he will be scheduling a meeting with Shelly Johnson, superintendent,
for discussion.
C. Highway 25/Chelsea realignment project - Jeff O'Neill reported that Option 2
was selected and the next step will be to acquire the land needed for the
project.
D. Bridge View plat. Jeff O'Neill reported at a recent meeting of the City
Council, staff was authorized to prepare information for the Council to assist
Council in determining to what extent it would like to be involved in
determining the feasibility of urbanization and annexation of the Bridge View
plat. This is an item that was discussed at length at previous Planning
Commission meetings. In December, it was determined by the Planning
Commission earlier that there is support for annexation of the property and
associated connection of the site to city services. The City Council has not
adopted a formal position on this matter.
14. E. Commissioner Carlson's request will be discussed at the March meeting.
15. Adtatrn.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN. Motion passed unanimously.
Respect(lilly submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Develoment Services Technician
Page 10
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4197
A REFERFISIVE AND BACKGROUND:
The preliminary plat of phase VI of the Cardinal Hills subdivision represents
the final phase of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. The plat
consists of 36 lots located on the easterly boundary of the property. There do
not appear to be any unresolved land use or subdivision design issues
associated with this preliminary plat; therefore, consideration of this matter
is virtually a housekeeping matter.
Worth noting with this phase is the platting of a small park which will
feature tot lot playground equipment. Improvements to this park are not
planned for 1997 and will likely be included in the 1998 or 1999 park
budgets.
This plat also features double -fronting lots on Fenning Avenue and School
Boulevard. Following the Klein Farms III precedent, a landscaping plan
should be developed for the back sides of double -fronting lots. With regard
to the Klein Farms 111 precedent, at the City Council meeting on
February 24, 1997, the City Council approved the Klein Farms 111
preliminary plat. One of the contingencies of the approval was a
requirement to develop a coordinated developer/City landscaping plan for the
rear yards and boulevards of double -fronting lots. The coordinated
landscaping plan would incorporate the tree requirement for the individual
lots with a boulevard tree planting program administered by the Parks
Commission.
Planning Commission may also wish to consider requiring special seeding of
native grasses along the School Boulevard and Fenning Avenue side of the
ponds developed with phase VI. Under this concept, low growing native
grass and flower species would be planted in areas that are difficult to mow
due to poor access and steep slopes. The requirement should include a three-
year maintenance contract by the developer with a landscaping rim. This
idea is proposed in light of a similar ongoing problem along the School
Boulevard side of the pond system extending along the north side of the
Cardinal Hills subdivision. If the Planning Commission likes the idea of
requiring special seeding, this practice would be applied to Klein Farms 111
also.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/97
Motion to approve the preliminary plat of Cardinals Hills Phase VI
contingent on development of a coordinated landscaping plan and
contingent on special seeding plan for the street side of ponds.
Motion to deny the preliminary plat.
C. STAFF RFA MF.NDATION:
I reonmmend alternative N1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of plat.
CABDZZVAL "ILLS
ADDITION
C/4 "4"
7 L1.•7. S
aw.,R.
ILA,
S4
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/97
few,
The Planning Commission is requested to adopt the enclosed resolution. The
resolution states the Commission finds the proposed two modifications and
the establishment of a new TIF District to be consistent with the general
plans for development and redevelopment of the city.
Modification of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1
Each time the City modifies a district or establishes a new TIF District,
Project No. 1 must be modified to include the changes.
Modification of TIF District No. 1.17
TIF District No. 1-17 was approved in 1994 and certified in 1995 for Fay -Mar
Tube & Metal Fabricators. Phase I included the construction of a 15,000 sq ft
manufacturing/office facility at a minimum estimated market value IEMVI of
$400,000. Projected employment is 30 now jobs. In 1996 the company
employed 35.
The modification for Phase 11 includes a proposed expansion of 20,000 sq ft of
manufacturing space and will create an additional 20 now jobs within 2
years. Average wage is $8.50. EMV is $500,000. The exterior of the facility
is tip -up panel.
District No. 1-17 is an economic district. Established for a manufacturing
business, the project increases the tax base and employment base of the city
and state. The project is located within the Business Campus zone;
therefore, the modification of the TIF Plan for District, No. 1.17 appears
consistent with the general plans for the development of the city as described
in the comprehensive plan.
Establishment of TIF District No. 1.22
TIF District No. 1-22 is a redevelopment district and is proposed for
establishment to support the Downtown/ Riverfront Revitalization Plan. The
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/97
revitalization plan is under study and scheduled for completion March 12,
and I assume thereafter to be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan for
the City.
You will note by the enclosed map the proposed district boundary
encompasses a core area of the downtown, bounded on the southerly end by
the mall and the northerly end by the river and approximately two blocks on
either side of Walnut Street. As development or redevelopment occurs within
the district, the net tax capacity or tax increment is available for eligible TIF
expenditures. The first net tax capacity to be captured will be from the
proposed funeral home project, along Walnut Street.
TIF District 1.22, a redevelopment district, is being proposed to remove
blighted buildings or improve marginal land to induce redevelopment. The
life duration of a redevelopment district is 25 years. The Chief Building
Official has made findings which satisfy the blight criteria of a
redevelopment district. Therefore, the establishment of the TIF Plan for
District No. 1-22 appears consistent with the development and
redevelopment of the proposed revitalization plan and the comprehensive
plan for the City.
$ ALTERNATNFACTIONS;
1. A motion to adopt the resolution finding the modification of Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of TIF
District No. 1.17, and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-22
conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment
of the city.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the resolution.
3. A motion to table any action.
STAFF F F..OMMFNDATION;
Recommendation is alternative 01. The modifications are consistent with the
general pians of the comprehensive plan, and alternative #I allows for the
issuance of a building permit for the proposed funeral home project after
approval by the City Council on March 10.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Resolution for adoption; Map of proposed District No. 1.22: TIF Plans for
Dletrict Nos. 1.17 and 1.22.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING
THATTHE MODIFICATION OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1.17, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello has proposed to adopt a Modified Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17, and a Tax Incmn=t Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-22 (collectively, the 'Plans') and have submitted the Plans to the Monticello
Planning Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their consistency with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for
the City.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the Plans are consistent with
the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Monticello.
Adopted this _ day of 1997.
ATTEST:
Secretary
M WOOOOriwowncEL%im-L-#L%Pxomm xrx
0
\ " ; .�•�`•'-•". �--..�, `.,,,, • _ � ��. `t. 1` by ,r _. ..._Il,* •.I _ /.aw ��''._..: �� � ° !'' j*I��__� i ..
s.`r.,,+?�' �:• �.....x.� � � ��� ti 21�: `.' 1�+T i•w, �, `r .ry ? r, 1. d r` -.i
i{ -.moi` � r tl :-�.'1:t. "tCr`'z�..?a,tit�y�; r ra_.'a...t'_�,.wy'�'�.._ ,—•r�\-_:. .
---
�, Sim ..,,:.
C, 4% 1 1 t �' Rt tNpx i } Poulioti ' R4.Mi
Y.i
f-=i, .r+�..i.. »,tt. ? I+i'�'f�• � �. .. .. ` ; -f A. j :...,.: R#. .i..a+4i,n.4.ur..u.w.l
i •.'+;'i AO 1• {i�• \♦w . ( �r r R+ - YIt Rsw•ef l
i i `•. �'`� � t �t R•rW R. ININ ►IIM.1 IIw1i 0•.Ib 1
V. ai •«• \ \`� to .•w.w
-Lx * 7 ` >+; �r R. \ i , ` ,-•--F•.•a:. .TR�m'ri417*x•:1 rti4..R.•I..wil.l
-..r.j rt-d rs pss =i—loo..•
4• ...........
n•1 �•• #Ii1N•n
/� .. ... „ 1 �lltctOl4+°'0`Rt `"tea.,; ,tea •`n •t l�ii.*�•{
i f . ,� At 1 • • I/nw�.� : • �r � W�F'11J4 I..11 ^ .
w�.L'L:.r�i4►r:il�r ° .\.'��' N. If.H4 R.•M N4�tw.ii `u
;` "1.n
fi i tl1{• . ltyt�,.�'Iryl
� � 1. � /,..a �,. • A3 ,l _.. �.«. �•a•c/t.J• aaa�ir B( .lua
CA
77
F , } ...... }i.,q-/,w'„• ;:+ t`,l`� y I � h 1 �—_—.�4 w�L�`Q'" �i i�, Rii.` wiit a••..Fw
•i. �.•rts �,.+ •• * _.I�a.��L a !1 j.
Annexation Study '��:�'. i• :f ,. .t..� rd
City
*:.• ,;:;�r'^
City of Monticello
•• aYA>SrrCaay � ♦tYWt#o10 �., Vit.....: • 1 i � - •r �" � � ,7 0.� RS': i �' •
:x i •.:9 + ! i 1 !`,. Ixl I y �.Iyr: fl.. i'
�lcI>flln totiln f.. L t . u
slr`dris•sId
alr�l�r,<�.#,r;.1 �R•r.lsrr 17;
i .# .•I• �r' . _ • r 1 it '`� "}• ...� •�f3 'wVL 1 .t r+4 tieu'. It
ell® OIC. fM.N•NIM IIr�4.. 3 �. i vi..`•'•
...R City limits
Redevelopment •f#&
r
I
BOUNDARY MAP OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DLSTRICT No. 1-17
L
4c";
0" of Movkf"Cal°
t VE R
Dr4o as of February 27, 1997
Draft for HRA and Planning Commission Review
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-22
(a redevelopment tax increment financing district)
located Within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
►Rxvrr<txu
Public Hearing: March 10, 1997
Adopted:
Prepared by:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
2950 Norwest Building
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.0100
Phone: (6 1 2) 339-8291
Fax: (612)339-0854
E-mail: info0ehlers4ric.com
Web Site: www.chim-irtc.com
(o E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vor ref-- Purposes only)
SECTION XXIII
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 .............................
23-1
Subsection 23-I. Forward ....................................................
23-1
Subsection 23-2. Statutory Authority ............................................
23-1
Subsection 23-3. Statement of Objectives ........................................
23-1
Subsection 234. Redevelopment Plan Overview ...................................
23-1
Subsection 23-5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 23-2
Subsection 23-6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 ............
23-2
Subsection 23-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ..............................
23-3
Subsection 23.8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment ...............
23-3
Subsection 23-9. Property To Be Acquired .......................................
23-4
Subsection 23.10. Uses of Funds ................................................
234
Subsection 23-11. Sources of Revenue/Boded Indebtedness ..........................
23-5
Subsection 23.12. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 ................
23-5
Subsection 23-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .....................
23-6
Subsection 23-14. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 ............
23-6
Subsection 23-15. Administrative Expenses .......................................
23-7
Subsection 23.16. Limitation of Increment ........................................
23-7
Subsection 23.17. Use of Tax Increment ..........................................
23.8
Subsection 23.18. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ........................
23-9
Subsection 23.19. Excess Tax Increments .........................................
23-9
Subsection 23.20. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ...................
23.10
Subsection 23.21. Assessment Agreements .......................................
23.10
Subsection 23-22. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 ..........
23-10
Subsection 23-23. Financial Reporting Requirements ...............................
23.10
Subsection 23.24. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ..........................
23-12
Subsection 23.25. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment .....................
23-13
Subsection 23.26. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ..............................
23.14
Subsection 23.27. County Road Costs ...........................................
23.14
Subsection 23.28. Economic Development and Job Creation .........................
23.14
Subsection 23-29. Summary ...................................................
23.15
APPENDIX A - BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. I AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 ...................
A-1
APPENDIX B - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 ..............................
B-1
APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 ..............................
C-1
APPENDIX D - MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
....... D-1
APPENDIX E - REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.22 ..............................
E-1
6F
SECTION XXIII
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PIAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-12
Subsection 23-1.
The City of Monticello ("City"), the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the'HRA"), staffand
consultants have prepared the following information for the expedition and establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-22 ("District No. 1-22"). a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located
in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The City of Monticello, the Monticello HRA, and various community groups have focused attention upon the
redevelopment of the downtown area in the pact two years. Specifically, the Monticello Community Partners
commissioned a study of the downtown by a planning firm, Hoisington Koegler Group (HKG), in 1996. The
HKG study, which has included input from a variety of sources within the community, is nearing completion.
The first step in the implementation of the HKG study is the establishment of District No. 1-22.
The reasons for the size and scope of District No. 1-22 is derived from the HKG study. The four main areas
of focus of the study inchrde redevelopment of property adjacent to the Mississippi River, which may include
a hotel/conference center or other tourism destination; redirection of downtown Monticello to Walnut Street
rather than Broadway and the establishment of a retail base and public corridor along Walnut; revitalization
of existing structures along Broadway, and the redevelopment of the Monticello Mall. Other smaller
redevelopment opportunities exist within the proposed boundaries of District No. 1-22.
Subsectlon 23-23 Statutory Authority
Within the City of Monticello, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development
or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 through
469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or'TIF Act"). to assist in financing public
costs related to this project.
This Section contains the Tat Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan') for District No. 1-22. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1.
e
District No. 1-22 currently consists of many parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way, as
illustrated on the reap in Appendix A. District No. 1.22 is created to facilitate Monticellos downtown
revitalization plan in the City of Monticello. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined
in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Centml Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
The activities contemplated in the present Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Tax increment Financing
Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These
activities ore anticipated to occur over the life of District No. 1-22 and Centrad Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Suhserllon 23.4. Rcdevelooment Plan Mtrvkw
I. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District No. 1.22 may be
CRY of Mmuceao Tu tanemam Roam• X Pro for Tu IRawwtol mato No. 132 23.1
6G
acquired by the City or HRA and is further described this Plan.
Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to Mimtesota Statutes,
Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
Upon approval of the developers plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to the developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 1-22 or may lease land or facilities to
the developer.
The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within
District No. 1-22.
$ubsmtllon 23-5., L.eeal Descrlotion of Protiniv in Tax Incmmerd UB2nebla Dictrki No. 1.4
District No. 1.22 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels as illustrated
on the map in Appendix A.
Subsection 23-6, Cindfication of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22
The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a lax increment financing district in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, rand that Tax increment Financing
District No. 1-22, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174, Subdivision 10(a)( 1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district' means a type of m.c increment financing district consisting of
a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one
of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district. exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by
bulldings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than SO percent of the
buildings. not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or
(2) The property consists of vacant. unused underused, inappropriately used, or
iroequently used railyards, mil storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad
rights-of-way.
(b) For purposes of chis subdivision. 'structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
stnwwral elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation.fireprotection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or dejidencies are of stffiklent total signocance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
A building is not structurally substandard lf it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modifled to satisf4 the building code at a cat of less than IS
percent of rhe cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and npe on the
site. 77remunicipality may fled that a building is not disqualjfledas structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size.
City of Mawk'& Tu Inaemona RAW44 Plena for Tat txmmmn PWachy Main No 1.23 2J•3
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical• or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. /f the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the
building is not disqualified as structurally substandard the municipality may make such a
determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of
repair and rehabilitation of the building...
(c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets• utilities or other
improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements.
In streeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings:
An inventory of the parcels shows that at least 70 percent of the parcels in District No. 1-22 are
occupied as defined in the TIF Aa. An inspection of the buildings located within District No. 1-22
finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard as defined in the Tff Act
(See Appendix E).
Subsection 23-7. 42donal Tax Capacity and Tax Rate
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174. Subdivision 7 and Sections 469.177, Subdivision I, the
Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for District No. 1-22 is based on the market values placed on
the property by the assessor in 19% for taxes payable 1997. Pursuant to Sections 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2.
of the TIF Act, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 1999) the amount
by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of a change in tax-exempt property within
District No. 1-22, reduction or enlargement of District No. 1.22 or changes in connection with previously
issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District No. 1-22 declines
below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HNA.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the ONTC was certified (beginning in payment
year 1999), the amount the OMC has increased ordecreased as a result of:
I. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements:
4. change in the use of the property and classification; or
S. change in state law governing class noes.
The original local tax rate for District No. 1.22 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1997.
The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District No. 1-22 appear in the table below.
OrtghW Tax Capacity Value NA
Percent Retained by Authority 100%
Orwrid Tax Rate 1.10581
Subwdlon 22& Frstlmated Cautumd Net Tax Caritsclty Value/lna ment
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 Subdivision 4 and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177,
Subdivision 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1.22, within Central
Cur d Maiketlo Tu mne+eer. stns Ptm fix Tu maenreu Flmrcws DWZM No. 1.22 2313
4X
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax
increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available
increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year
payable 1999. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
F.stim rted Tax Ce y upon
ro
Completion of P $4525,000
Original Estimated Tax Capacity Vj A
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity $1425,000
Estimated Annual Tax Itacrement
(CTC is Local Tax Rate $106vm
Subsection 23-9. Property To Rt Acaulred
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1-22 including interior and adjacent street rights
of way.
1. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public
streets, utilities and facilities; tarty out land acquisition, site improvements. clearance and/or
development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired
The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from
willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax increment financing plan. Such acquisitions
will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Subuoion 23 -LO, Vws of Fund
Currently under consideration for District No. 1-22 is a proposal to facilitate Monticello's downtown
revitalization plan. The City and HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
project for certain costs. The HRA has conducted a feasibility study for the development or redevelopment
of property in and around District No, 1.22. To facilitate the establishment and devekgntent or redevelopment
of District No. 1-22, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain
eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with District No. 1.22 is outlined
in the following table.
Uses of Funds Total
Land Acquisition
$4,275,000
Site Impmvernents
4,273.000
Public Improvements
4,273.000
Public Utilities
4,273.000
Other Public Improvements
Interest
20,000,000
Q) d Mocni Tu locremea Pmm 4 Pto ran Tu toomwesi Pmaclq Mmia No I -U r!a
Costs of Local Contribution 950,000
AdministrativeCosts (up to10%) 1,900,000
TOTAL $39,950,000
Estimated costs associated with Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 are subject to change. The cost
of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the
budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. No more than 25 percent of the tax increment
paid by property within District No. 1-22 will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment
outside of District No. 1-22 but within the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1,
(including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of District No. 1-22) subject to the
limitations as described in this Plan.
Subsection 23-1 IL Sources of Revenuc/Ronded Indebtedness
Public improvements costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the
Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA
reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modified Redevelopment Plan and
the Tax Increment Financing Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes,
state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the
developer and investment income, to pay for the Estimated Public Costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness as a result of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance cher autheri7ed activities. The total amount of
bonded indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed 39,000,000 without an
amendment to the Tax Increment Financing Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt The City or HRA will issue bonds only upon
the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the
activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan through loans from fonds of the City
or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible activities paid for by the
developer.
The estimated sources of funds for District No. 1.22 am contained in the table below
Sources of Funds Total
Tax Increment $39,000,1100
tntetest
Local Contribution 950,000
TOTAL 539,95000
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision I, and Saxons 469.176. Subd. 1, the duration
of District No. 1-22 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176,
city of Mmkeao Tu IactemW Ruft-hq P1m fn Ta be m n{min No 1.27 273
eK
subdivision I(b), the duration of District No. 1-22 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first
increment by the City or HRA. The date of receipt by the City of Monticello of the first tau increment will be
approximately 1999. Thus. it is estimated that District No. 1-22, including any modifications of the Plan for
subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or
HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No. 1-22 prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2UJ FAmated Impact on Other TAW turfsdktiom
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without
the creation of District No. 1-22 If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to
other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the
fact that the construction would nes have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following
estimated impact of District No. 1-22 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
QNPACT ON TAX RATES
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Percent
1996!1997
Estimated Captured
Extension Rates
of Twl
Total Net
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Percent of CTC
.29499
Tax Capacity
lfion Proiect Comgk1jo
to Entity Total
Wright County
53,630.869
1,525,000
2.8435%
I.S.D. No. 882
19,237,501
1,525,000
7.9272%
City of Monticello
15.792.922
1,525,000
9.6562%
Other
26.334.087
1,525.000
5.7910%
QNPACT ON TAX RATES
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction it completed. The rax rate
used for calculations is the estimated 1996/Pay 1997 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above
are based on estimated Pay 1997 figures. District No. 1.22 will be certified under the actual 1996/Pay 1997
rates which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
!l,:t1 1 !.! I I i`!!.r 1 ! . 714Nl! i—iR :1 ! 1.1
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the
City our Moatk00o Tax, RNWiy Ron fn Tu I!xtnaem Rnmciry aimtn N0. tat 234
4L
I
199611997
Percent
Pdrntial
Extension Rates
of Twl
SZC
IUM
Wright County
.29499
26.69%
1.525,000
449,860
I.S.D. No. 882
.60110
54.36%
1,525,000
916,678
City of Monticello
.18509
16.74%
1,525.000
282,262
Other
.02463
2,23%
1-525.000
37.561
Total
1.1058
100.00%
1.686,360
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction it completed. The rax rate
used for calculations is the estimated 1996/Pay 1997 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above
are based on estimated Pay 1997 figures. District No. 1.22 will be certified under the actual 1996/Pay 1997
rates which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
!l,:t1 1 !.! I I i`!!.r 1 ! . 714Nl! i—iR :1 ! 1.1
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the
City our Moatk00o Tax, RNWiy Ron fn Tu I!xtnaem Rnmciry aimtn N0. tat 234
4L
I
geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I or District No. 1-22; 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 tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA;
increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or designation of additional property to be acquired by
the City or HRA 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 District No. 1-22 may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged. the reasons and supporting fans for the determination that the
addition to the district meets the criteria of Sections 469.174, subdivision 10. paragraph (a). clauses (1) to (5),
must be documented. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the project or district and (2) (A) the current tax capacity of the parcel(s)
eliminated from the district equals or exceeds the tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the district's original tax
capacity or (B) the authority agrees that. notwithstanding Sections 469.177, subdivision 1. the original tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from District No.
1-22. The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the
geographic area of District No. 1-22 or Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Modifications to
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the
boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
Subcectlon 23-I SL AdmIght tive Exoenut
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.174, Subdivision 14. and Minnesota Statutes. Sections
469.176. 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 benefits paid to or smites 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 Sections 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by
bond counsel. fiscal consultants. and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be
used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for District No. 1-22 up to but not to
exceed 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or
the total tax increment expenditures for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. whichever is less.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.176. Subdivision 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the
county's wtual administrative expenses incurred in connection with District No. 1-22. The county may require
payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469. 177. Subdivision 11. the county treasurer shall deduct an amount
equal to 0.1 percent of any increment distributed to the City or HRA and the county treasurer shall pay the
amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund.
Subsectlon 23 -IC JAmitatlon of Increment
Pursuant to Sections 469.176. Subd. I (a). of the TIF Act, no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA
for District No. 1-22 after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value
of the taxable property in District No. 1.22 by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) years period:
(a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Sections 469.178. or in aid of a project pursuant to
any other low. except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Sections 469.152 to 469.163. or
City of Ma rw T", Rmaq Prat f v Tent Mcmnem Raecly Dart No 1.22 23.7
(o M
(b) the City or HRA has acquired property within District No. 1.22, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within
District No. 1-22
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately March, 2000.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be
terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account
held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176, Subdivision 6:
if, after four yearsfrom the date of cerrif cation of the original tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.!77, no demolition.
rehabilitation or renovation of proprny or other site preparation, including qualified
improvementof a street adjacent to a parcel but wt installation of utility service Including sewer
or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing
district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment
financing plan, no additional tar increment may be taken from that parcel and the original rax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the tax increment
financing disrriet. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences
demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including
improvement of a street adjacent to that pared. 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 cemfv the tax.capaciry thereof as most
recently cen(fited by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original tax capacity of rhe
tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision... For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements are limited to (1)
construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial
reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within District No. 1.22 by approximately Murch,
2001.
The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in District No. 1.22 for the following purposes:
to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project:
to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration tour of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to the Development District Act:
to pay for project costs as identified in the budget:
to finance. or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in Sections 469.176, Subd. 4, of
the TIP Act:
to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or
HRA or for the benellt of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by the developer,
to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or
C.ry of Momkeuo Tu haemem Ruixino Pin for To Pre 4 Ouina Na 1.22 23.1
6N
otter security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment
bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan or pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or
both: and
7. to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and
interest on the tax increment bands or bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462C and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or both.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by Sections 469.176, subd. 4, of the TIF Act.
Tax increments generated in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 will be paid by Wright County to the
City of Monticello for the Tax Increment Fund of said District No. 1.22. The City or HRA will pay to the
developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse
the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and
administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for City or HRA administration (up to 10 percent)
and the costs of public improvement activities outside District No. 1.22.
Subsection 23-I8. Notification of War Planned Improvements
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County
Auditor or its notice of District No. 1.22 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District No. 1-22
or arca of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (I8) months
immediately preceding approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan by the municipality pursuant to Sections
469.175. Subd. 3, of the TIF Act The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District No. 1-22
by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City or HRA has reviewed the area to
be included in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 and found no parcels for which building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA. If
the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the plan by the City and
HRA, the county auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of the district by the valuation of the
improvements for which the building permit was issued.
Sphseclfon 23.19. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment
exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, including the
amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Sections 473.61. Subdivision 3.
the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following:
. prepay the outstanding bonds:
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor,
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond; or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions
in proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176,
Subd. 2.
In addition, the City or HRA may, subject to the limitation set forth herein, choose to modify the tax increment
financing plan in order to finance additional public costs of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
Cay of m mkAo Tax to m eta R-- Ptao for Toa L.n m Ranocing; Duma No 1.22 23.9
fo 0
Subsection 23-20. Requirements tHAgmi nests with the Develooet
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Modified Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort,
the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan. construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to Sections 469.176, Subd. 5, of the TIF Act, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property
to be acquired in District No. 1-22 as set forth in the Tax increment Rimming Plan shall at any time be owned
by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Sections 469.178,
of the TIF Act, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage.
concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides
recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 23-71L Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City or HRA may enter into an
agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within District No. 1-22 which establishes a
minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1.22. The
assessment agreement shall be presented to the 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 appear, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 23.2tj. Administration of jgx Increment Financing M&A No, 1-22
Administration of District No. 1.22 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of Monticello.
Subsection 23.21 Financial Rmnrilrre Reavirrmerim
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivisions 5.6, and 6(a); the City or HRA must file an
annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts with the State Auditor, the County Board, the
School Board. and the County Auditor.
Pursuant to Sections 469.175, Subd. 5. of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the City or HRA must file an
annual disclosure report for District No. 1.22. The report shall be filed with the County Board. County
Auditor, School Board. and the State Auditor on or before July I of each year. The repon to be ruled by the
City or HRA shall include the following information:
I. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account;
3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest on any outstanding
bond indebtedness;
4. the original net tax capacity of District No. 1.22;
Cat of Mordwdb T"' flmcka Ptai fm Tea roues Fi m np Main No 1 •L' 23.10
�P
the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA;
the captured net tax capacity sham with other taxing districts:
the tax increment received; and
any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment
financing plan.
Sections 469.175, Subd. 5, of the TIF Act also provides that an annual statement showing the tax increment
received and expended in that year, the original value, captured net tax capacity, amount of outstanding bonded
indebtedness, the amount of the district's increment paid to other governmental bodies, the amount paid for
administrative costs, the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located
outside of the district. and any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary shall be published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subd. 6, of the TIF Act, the City or HRA must annually
submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1, a financial report which shall:
provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in District No. 1-22;
permit comparison and reco:tciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial reports;
permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of District No. 1-22 or that is funded in pan
or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increment from other tax
increment districts or with public money; and
be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
the original net tax capacity of District No. 1.22;
the captured net tax capacity of District No. 1-22, including the amount of any captured net
tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
the amount budgeted under the Tax Increment Financing Plan, and the actual amount
expended for. at least, the following categories: (for the reporting period and for the duration
of District No. 1-22)
a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase;
b. site improvements or preparation costs;
C. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads. sidewalkb, or other
similar public improvements;
d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city;
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational. or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements; and
the total costs of the property to the authority and the price paid the developers (for properties
sold to developers);
the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3).
that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1-22.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, subdivision 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report
to the State Auditor before or on July I of each year the following amounts for the entire City or HRA:
the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year, and
the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current
COY of htmkodlo Tu hxmlcm Ren mip Pt= 1. Tn metamer R�N Dnaw No. 1.12 23.11
to Q
calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax
increment financing bonds; and
for each tax increment financing district within the City:
the type of tax increment financing district;
the date on which the district is required to be decertified;
the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvernents
and the used of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and
are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding
calendar year.
the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year,
whether the Tax Increment Financing Plan or other governing document permits increment
revenues to be expended outside of District No. 1-22;
any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards.
Subsecilon 23-24. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose
The reasons and facts supporting the finds for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District
No. 1-22 as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 3 ars as follows:
Finding that the District No. /-22 is a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes.
Sections 469.174, Subdivision I0(a)(1).
District No. 1.22 is a redevelopment district and qualifies by having more than 70% of the arca of its
parcels occupied and more than 50% of the buildings on those parcels structurally substandard
(Subdivision(aM 1).
Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, Mould not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market
value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax incrementfinancing
Mould be less than the increase in the market value estimated to resulf from the proposed development
after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of
District No. 1.22 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Due to the high cost of development or redevelopment on the parcels and the cost of financing the
proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in pan, from tax increment
financing.
A comparative analysis of estirnmed market values both with and without establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1.22 and the use of tax increments has been perforated as described
above. Such analysis is included in the Tax Increment Financing Plan and shows that the estimated
market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) after discounting by the
present value of the tax increment is significantly greater than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from any other development that could be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment after subtracting the przsent value of the projected tax increments for the maximum durwion
of District No. 1-22 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan. (See Cashflow in Appendix C).
chy of xtomumuo T", Rnamvj PL= ax Toa t me w t}AQ1Km1J Dizm No 1.22 11.11
61Q
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-22 conforms to the general plan
for the development or redevelopment of the municipalin• as a whole.
The Tac Increment Financing Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 4. 1997.
The Planning Commission found that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general
development plan of the City.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. I-22 will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole. for the development or
redevelopment of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 will result in increased
employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties.
increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City.
Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
Subsection 23.25. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
General Limitations. All revenue 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 capital and
administration costs pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.124 through 469.134. These
revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax
increment shall be used for the construction, renovation, operation or maintenance of a building to be
used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or
any other local unit of government or the suite or federal government; 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.
Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from District No. 1-22 must be expended
on activities in District No. 1-22 or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were
used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit
enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of saia tax increments may be expended, through a
development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of District No. 1-22 except to pay, or secure
payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all
administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of District No. I-
22.
Five Ye, ,-imitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax Increments derived from District No.
1.22 shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the
five year rule set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1763. subdivision 3, has been satisfied:
and beginning with the sixth year following certification of District No. 1.22, 75 percent of said tax
increments that remain idler expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay
previously commitment expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set faith in Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.1763, subdivision 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must he used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under Sections 469.174. These costs include
Cuy d Momkeao To batmen FLmcinj Plan to To tacrums Raining aumi No. 1.22 23-1.1
6S
acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent
parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures,
clearing of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site.
The allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 23.26. State TRx Increment Finartcln¢ Aid
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification
was requested atter April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid
(RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and. Homestead and Agricultural
Aid (RACA) second, in an amount equal to a formula baud upon the equalized qualifying captured ax
capacity (QCTC) of the tax increment financing district.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 273.1399, Subdivision 6, the City or HRA may choose an option to
the LGA-HACA penalty. District No. 1.22 is exempt from the LGA-HACA reduction if the City or HRA
elects to make a qualifying local contribution at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan. To
qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the
project of a certain percentage. The local contribution for a redevelopment district is 5 percent. The maximum
Ioca1 contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax capacity,
after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent
of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the City or HRA, such as the
general fund, a property tax levy, or a federal or state grand -in -aid which may be spent for general government
purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer
payments. The local contribution must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general govemmcnt
Purposes.
The HRA elects to make the annual local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-HACA
penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to 10
percent of annual tax increment for District No. 1.22, subject to the limitations described above, in any year
in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in form of
either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment paymems) towards costs identified in this
Plan or other costs related to that development or redevelopment. The contribution may also be made in the
forrn of public improvements financed by the City or HRA or other unit of government with immsuicted funds.
SuhsMlon 23-7jl Coanty Road Cato
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision I a the county board may require the authority
to pay for all or pan of the cost of county toad improvements if, the proposed development to be assisted by
tax increment will in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring
construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the Toad improvements are not scheduled within
the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
In the opinion of the City and NRA and consultants, the proposed development will have little or no impact
upon countyroads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City or
HRA within thirty days of receipt of this plan.
NOTOW10111 33�its. Gt4tarrltc UeylHlDmertl aha Jnn l:realllm
Cay d Momkeao Ta Wivai m Ruwi" Ptm f4 Tu twmo[m RL W miam K. 1.22 t1.14
!Io T
To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 1161.991, which
states that a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development orjob growth
purposes, including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in
Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix D).
Subsection 23-M Summary
The City of Monticello is establishing Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-22 to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.22 was prepared by Ehlen and Associates. Inc.,
2950 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4100, telephone (612) 339-
8291.
city of MaareOo Tu b=ow Rnacint Rat far To tocremm Rnmclq Dlmin No 1.32 23.13
4 ul
c
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-22
A/MDIDIX
DrO as of February 27, 1997
Draft for HRA and Planning Commission Review
MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the modification of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-17
(an economic development tax increment financing district)
located within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
MONnCELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IwMttWl
Public Hearing: March 10, 1997
Adopted:
Prepared by:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2950 Norwest Building
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402.4100
Phare: (6121339.8291
j Fax: (612)339-0854
E-mail: info®ehkrs-inc.com
Web Site: www.chka-inc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for nferenee ptrrpo- only)
SECTION XVIII
MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. I-17 .............................
18.1
Subsectionig-1. Forward....................................................18-1
Subsection I8-2. Statutory Authority ............................................
18.1
Subsection 18-3. Statement of Objectives ........................................
18.1
Subsection 184. Redevelopment Plan Overview ...................................
18-1
Subsection I8-5. Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1- 17 18-2
Subsection I8-6. Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.17 ............
18-2
Subsection 18-7. Original Tax Capacity and Tux Rate ..............................
18.2
Subsection 18-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Valuenncrement ...............
18-3
Subsection I8-9. Property To Be Acquired .......................................
I8-4
Subsection 18-10. Uses of Funds ................................................
18.4
Subsection I9-11. Sources of RevenwSonded Indebtedness ..........................
18.5
Subsection 18-12. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 ................
18.6
Subsection 18-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .....................
18.6
Subsection 18-I4. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.17 ............
18-7
Subsection I8-15. Administrative Expenses .......................................
18.8
Subsection I8-16. Limitation of Increment ........................................
18.8
Subsection I8-17. Use of Tax Increment ..........................................
18.9
Subsection I8-18. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .......................
18-10
Subsection I8-19. Excess Tax Increments ........................................
18.10
Subsection 18-20. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ...................
18.10
Subsection I8-21. Assessment Agreements .......................................
18.11
Subsection I8-22. Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 ..........
18.11
Subsection 18-23. Financial Reporting Requirements ...............................
18.11
Subsection 18-24. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ..........................
18.13
Subsection 18-25. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment .....................
18-14
Subsection 18-26. State Tax Increment Financing Aid ..............................
18.14
Subsection 18-27. County Road Costs ...........................................
18.14
Subsection 18-28. Economic Development and Job Creation .........................
18.14
Subsection 18-29. Summary ...................................................18.15
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.17 .........................
A-1
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.17 .............................. B -I
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
1.17....................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)....... D-1
40k
SECTION XVIII
MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1-17
Subsection 18-IL Forward
The City of Monticello ("City"), the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and
consultants have prepared the following information for the expedition of the modification of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-17 ("District No. 1-17'), an economic development tax increment financing district.
located in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. The original Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 was adopted on August 8, 1994. This modification is intended to
facilitate the 20.000 square foot expansion of Fay-Mar's existing 13,000 square foot facility.
SubRectlon 18-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City of Monticello. there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development
or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have amain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and Sections 469.174 through
469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or'TlF Ad), to assist in financing public
costs related to this project.
This Section contains the Modified Tax increment Financing Plan (the "Plan') for District No. 1-17. Other
relevant information is contained in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. 1.
Subsection 18.3. Statement of Ohiectiyes
District No. 1-17 currently consists of I parcel of land and adjacent and intemal rights-of-way. District No.
1-17 was created to facilitate the construction of o 15.000 squame foot office/manufacturing facility in the City
of Monticello. This modification is intended to facilitate the 20,000 square foot expansion of Fay-Mar's
existing 13,000 square foot facility. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the
Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the present Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Modified Tax Increment
Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities.
These activities ate anticipated to occur over the life of District No. 1-17 and Central Monticello
Redevelopment Projec: No. I.
Suhmollon 184. Redevelopment Plan Overview.
I. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District No. 1-17 may be
acquired by the City or HRA and is funherdescribed in this Plan.
2. Relocation -Complete relocation services are available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
Chapter 117 and other relevant slate and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of the developers plan relating to the project and completion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to the developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 1.17 or may lease land or facilities to
the developer.
Cuy of Momkelb Mo6rod Tu Wrcnxm Rnedq Rat to Tax' Pl wj Mona No 1.17 12.1
The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within
District No. 1.17.
Subsection 18.5, Legal Desolation of Properly In Tnx Increment Financing Dtctrict No. 1.17
District No. 1.17 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcel listed below.
Please see the map in Appendix A for further infomtation on the location of District No. 1-17.
Parcel Numbers
135-083-001010 (previously a part of PIN ISS -011-000101)
Subsection lM. Clam fi ation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17
The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax incremcnt financing district in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1.17, to be established, is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174, Subdivision 12 as defined below:
"Economic Development District" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of
any project, or portion of a project, not meeting the requirements found in the definition of
redevelopment district. renewal and renovation district, soils condition district. mined underground
space development district, or housing district, but which the authority finds to be in the public interest
because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their
operadum to another cute or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tux base of the state.
District No. 1.17 is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirernent from clause 1 and 2.
Revenue derived from tax increment from an economic development district may not be used to provide
improvements, loans, subsidies, grunts, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments
consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities, if more than IS percent of the buildings and facilities
(determined on the basis of square footage) are used for a purpose other than:
(1) the manufacturing or production of tangible personal property, including processing resulting in
the change in condition of the property;
(2) warehousing. storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail sales;
(3) research and development related to the activities limed in items 0 ) or (2);
(4) telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of Use property;
(5) tourism facilities: or
(6) space necessary for and mimed to the activities listed in items (1) and (3).
District No. 1.17 qualifies, as it will have facilities under Purposes 1, 2, and 6.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, Subdivision 7 and Sections 469.177, Subdivision I, the
Original Net Tax Capacity (ONT)C) as certified for District No. 1.17 is based on the market values placed on
City of MaarceOO MoMed Tu Nnanru famcuV Pts rn Tax actmer nnneaq IWtrkl No. 1.17 1 m:
l 2.
the property by the assessor in 1994 for taxes payable 1995.
There is not an economic development adjustment factor associated with District No. 1-17
Pursuant to Sections 469.177, Subds. I and 2, of the TIF Act, the County Auditor shall certify in each year
(beginning in the payment year 1996) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as
a result of a change in tax-exempt property within District No. 1-17, reduction or enlargement of District No.
1.17, or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net
Tax Capacity value of District No. 1-17 declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax
increment will be payable to the City or HRA.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the ONTC was certified (beginning in payment
year 1996), the amount the OINTC has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. change in the use of the property and classification; or
S. change in state law governing class rates.
The original local tax rate for District No. 1.17 is the local tax rate for taxes payable 1995.
The Original Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District No. 1.17 appear in the table below.
Original Tax Capacity Value S46
Percent Retained by Authority 100%
Original Tex Rate 112.873
Subsection 18-8, j stlmnted Caotured Net Talc Capacity Valuelincrement
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 Subdivision 4 and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177.
Subdivision 1, 2. and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1-17, within Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax
increment revenues as shown in the table below. The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available
increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year
payable 1996. The project tax capacity listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Original (Adopted August 8. 1994)
Cammpkm otP,ro10ttyupna $17,233
Original Fatlmated Tax Capacity 41
Waisted Captured 07
TaIncrement Capacity $17,2
(CTC x I Deal Tax Ratelacremeat 5190422
City d Momreso MaNlkd Tor tacm on Remcmr PtW b To maaem FlrrcW DizW No. 1.17 19.3
604
Please note that tau increment was not received in 1996 on the original project as expected in the original plan.
Increment on the original project is expected in 1997. The additional increment from the modification
described below is expected to begin in 1999. All increment will be received through 2005.
As modOW March 10, 1997
Estimated Tax Capacity upon
Completion of Project $35,000
Original Estimated Tax Capacity Q
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity $35,000
Estimated Annual Tax Increment
(CTC x Local Tax Rate $39,5%
The total project tax capacity for the property is the combination of the above two charts.
Subsection 18-9. Proverty To Re Acaulred
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1-17 including interior and adjacent street rights
of way.
Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public
streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition. site improvements, clearance and/or
development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
2. The following are conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired:
The City or HRA may acquire property by gill, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from
willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this tax inctemenl financing plan. Such acquisitions
will be undertaken only when three is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Sub4Mlon 18-10. I1m of Funds
Currently under consideration for District No. 1.17 is a proposal to expand an existing facility. The City and
HRA have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for attain coos. The HRA
has conducted o feasibility study for the development or redevelopment of property in and around District No.
1.17. To facilitate the modification and development or redevelopment of District No. 1.17. this Plan
authorizes the use of mx increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of
public costs and uses of funds associated with District No. 1.17 is outlined in the following table.
City d fdaoucdlo Modified Tu tnermmm Rnmeuy Nm for Tu lemma Room Dnnkr No. 1.17 18-4
Uses of Funds Original Modified Total
818194 3/10197 Combined
Land Acquisition
$50.000
50,000
Public Improvements
40,000
67,500
107,500
Site improvements
0
67.500
67.500
Contingency
13.500
13,500
Administrative/Professional
Services Costs (up to 10%)
12,000
15.000
27,000
Interest
16,632
125.000
141.632
Discount
2.868
2.868
TOTAL
$135.000
275,000
410.000
Estimated costs associated with Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.17 are subject to change. The cost
of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the
budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. No more than 20 percent of the tax increment
paid by property within District No. 1-17 will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment
outside of District No. 1.17 but within the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
(including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of District No. 1-17) subject to the
limitations as described in this Plan.
Suhsection 18.11. Sources of RevenueBonded IndebtednM
Public improvements costs, acquisition, relocation, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the
Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA
reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modified Redevelopment Plan and
the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general
property taxes, sate aid for road maintenance and construction. proceeds from the sale of land, other contribu-
tions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the Estimated Public Costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness as a result of the Modified Tax Increment
Financing Plan. The total amount of bonded indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will
not exceed $410,000 (including bonded indebtedness of $135,000 as originally adopted and bonded
indebtedness of $275,000 as modified March 10. 1997) without an amendment to the Tax Increment Financing
Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds only upon
the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA may also finance the
activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan through loans from funds
of the City or HRA or to reimburse the developer on a'pay-as-you-go' basis for eligible activities paid for by
the developer.
The estimated sources of funds for District No. 1.17 are contained in the table below
CNy or Mmokenu MO&fW Tu tocmircm Rii=t q Pim rat Tu —..= RWX-kRl Ohcrn No 1.17 11.5
(0Gcoo
As modified March 10, 1997
Sources of Funds Total
Tax Increment 5410.000
Local Contribution
Other Revenue Sources
TOTAL $410.000
Subsection 18-12. Daratlon of Tax Increment Finandtre Mork" No. 1.17
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.173, Subdivision 1, and Sections 469.176, Subd. 1. the duration
of District No. 1.17 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176,
subdivision 1(b), the duration of District No. 1.17 will be 9 years from the date of receipt of the first increment
by the City or HRA or I 1 years from the date of approval of the Plan, whichever is less. The date of receipt
by the City of Monticello of the first tat increment will be approximately 1997 for the original project and
1999 for the additional project Thus, it is estimated that District No. 1-17, including any modifications of the
Plat for subsequent phases or other changes, would last from 1997 to 2005, or when the Plan is satisfied. The
City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No. 1-17 prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 18-I3. Esdmated Impact on Other Taxlna Jurisdictions,
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occuned without
the mrition of District No. I.11. If the censtmetion i•. a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to
other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing jurisdictions is $0 due to the
fact that the construction would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA, the following
estimated impact of District No. 1-17 would be as follows if the'but for' test was not met:
Wright County
I.S.D. No. 882
City of Monticello
Other
city d MamnOo
Orlttml
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
1993/1994
Estimated Captured
Total Net
Toa Capacity (CTC)
Percent of CTC
Tat Cagr city
11pon Proiect Co)naletim
to Entity Totnl
f48,638,744
17,207
0.0354%
15,583,604
17,207
0.1104%
18,344,524
17,207
0.0938%
23.874,025
17,207
0.0721%
As modined Match 10.1997
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
MaMnod Tu tnaemam Rome W Phu ro Tu la a Rnwrlp MOW No. I.17 18-6
to bb
Original
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
1996/1997
Estimated Captured
Potential
Total Net
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Percent of CTC
Tax Canacitv
URm iect Comoletion,
to Entity Total
Wright County
53,630,869
35,000
0.0653%
I.S.D. No. 882
19,237,501
35.000
0.18195E
City of Monticello
15.792,922
35.000
0.2216%
Other
26.334,087
35,000
0.1329%
Original
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
As modified March 10, 1997
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
1994 Extension
Percent
Potential
Rates
of Total
Taxes
Wright County
0.3197
28.07%
17,207
5,500
I.S.D. No. 882
0.6063
53.25%
17,207
10,433
City of Monticello
0.1853
16.27%
17,207
3,188
Hospital District
0.0274
2.41%
17,207
472
Total
1.1387
100.00%
68,828
19,594
As modified March 10, 1997
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
The estimates for the modifications listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is
completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 1995/Pay 1996 rate. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 1996 figures. The expansion of District No. 1-17 will be certified
under the actual 1996/Pay 1997 rates which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the
geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I or District No, 1.17; increase in amount
of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that
City of M=KCUu ModMW Tu bpmrsd Pmw 4 Pt= to To t , Pi p4 Duan No. 1.11 1/•7
(06F
)996Extensioq
Percent
Potential
8=5
of Total
Taxes
Wright County
.29499
26.68%
35,000
10,325
I.S.D. No. 882
.60110
54.36%
35.000
21,039
City of Monticello
.18509
16.74%
35,000
6,478
Other
.02463
2.23%
35,
fig
Total
1.1058
100.00%
38,703
The estimates for the modifications listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is
completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated 1995/Pay 1996 rate. The total net capacity for
the entities listed above are based on Pay 1996 figures. The expansion of District No. 1-17 will be certified
under the actual 1996/Pay 1997 rates which were unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the
geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I or District No, 1.17; increase in amount
of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that
City of M=KCUu ModMW Tu bpmrsd Pmw 4 Pt= to To t , Pi p4 Duan No. 1.11 1/•7
(06F
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 tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA;
increase in total estimated tart increment expenditures; or designation of additional property to be acquired by
the City or HRA 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 District No. 1.17 may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of ccrtification of the original tax capacity by the county
auditor. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if([) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s)
from the project or district and (2) (A) the current tax capacity of the parcels) eliminated from the district
equals or exceeds the tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the district's original tax capacity or (B) the authority
agrees that, notwithstanding Sections 469.177, subdivision 1, the original tax capacity will be reduced by no
more than the current wt capacity of the parcels) eliminated from District No. 1-17. The City or HRA must
notify the County Auditorof any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of District No. 1-17
or Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. Modifications to Tax Ir=rnem Financing District No.
1-17 in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
Subsection 19-15. Administratly
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.174, Subdivision 14, and Minnesota Statutes. Sections
469.176, 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 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 o discount bonds issued
pursuant to Sections 469.178. Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by
bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be
used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for District No. 1.17 up to but not to
exceed 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or
the total tax increment expenditures for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, whichever is less.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176. Subdivision 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the
county's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with District No. 1-17. The county may require
payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the )ear the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469. 177, Subdivision 11, thecounty treasurer shall deduct an amount
equal to 0.1 percent of any increment distributed to the City or HRA and the county treasurer shall pay the
amount deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund.
Subsection I8-16. Prallallon of Inereme"
Pursuant to Sections 469.176, Subd. 1(a), of the TIF Act, no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA
for District No. 1-17 after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value
of the taxable property in District No. 1.17 by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) years period:
(a) bonds have been issued pursuant to Sections 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to
any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or
( b) the City or HRA has acquired property within District No. 1.17, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constricted public improvements within
District No. 1.17.
Ca) d Momrdlu Modlnad Tu Incwzm Rommir Ha b To auarmem FMxuy tkwM No 1.11 It•a
/OFF
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately August, 1997.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be
temtinated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account
held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176, Subdivision 6:
if, after jour years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177, no demolition.
rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified
improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer
or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing
district by the authoriry 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 tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the tar increment
financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences
demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including
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 tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original tar capacity of the
tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision... For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements are limited to (1)
construction or opening of a new street 121 relocation of a street, and 19/ substantial
reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within District No. 1.17 by approximately August.
1998.
Subsection IR -1Z Use of Tax Increment
The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in District No. 1.17 for the following purposes:
to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project:
to finance. or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. I pursuant to the Development District Act;
to pay for project costs as identified in the budget:
to finance, or otherwise pay for alter purposes as provided in Sections 469.176, Subd. 4, of
the TIF Act;
to pay principal and interest on any lams, advances or other payments mode to the City or
HRA or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by the developer.
to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or
other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment
bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan or pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.132 to 469.163, or
both;and
to accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and
Cut of Mmt.0110 Modn ed Tu lwnwzm Rnmcir4 Plan to Tu mnemem Ftumcuq Dmmct No. 1.17 t s-9
(VGG
interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462C and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or bah.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by Sections 469.176, subd. 4, of the TIF Act.
Tax increments generated in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 will be paid by Wright County to the
City of Monticello for the Tax Increment Fund of said District No. 1-17. The City or HRA will pay to the
developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developers agreement to reimburse
the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and
administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for City or HRA admini straton (up to 10 percent)
and the costs of public improvement activities outside District No. 1-17.
Subsn lon 18.18. lJotification of Prior Planned Improvements
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County
Audita or its notice of District No. 1-17 enlargement with a listing of all properties within District No. 1.17
or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months
immediately preceding approval of the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan by the municipality pursuant
to Sections 469.175, Subd. 3, of the TIF Aa. The County Audita shall increase the original value of District
No. 1.17 by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.177, Subdivision 4, the City or HR.A has reviewed the arca to
be included in the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 and found no parcels for which building permits
have been issued during the 18 mouths immediately preceding approval of the Plant by the City and HRA. If
the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the plan by the City and
HRA, the county auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of the district by the valuation of the
improvements for which the building permit was issued.
SuibsMlon 18,19, &SM&Tox Increments
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment
exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan,
including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.61,
Subdivision 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the following:
I . prepay the outstanding bonds:
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor,
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond: or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions
in proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.176,
Subd. 2.
In addition. the City or HRA may, subject to the limitation set forth herein, choose to modify the tax increment
financing plan in order to finance additional public costs of Cenral Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
Suhscetlon 18.20. Renulretrtentx for Aerrements with the Devr•IagE
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
City d M"Wao Madimed Tu mctemetu Rnmcwt Pto rot to tncierrm FWwg* DWW No. I•r 111-10
Modified Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort,
the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction. mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to Sections 469.176. Subd. S, of the TIF Act, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property
to be acquired in District No. 1-17 as set forth in the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan shall at any time
be owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Sections
469.178, of the TIF Act, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the
acreage, concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development not be completed.
Subsection 19-211 Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.177, Subdivision 8, the City or HRA may enter into an
agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within District No. 1.17 which establishes a
minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1.17. The
assessment agreement shall be presented to the 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 appear, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 1&22., AdminMration of l px Increment Flnoncine Dktrict No. 1.17
Administration of District No. 1-17 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of
Monticello.
Subsection ULM Financial Reonrtlnq Reaulrements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175. Subdivisions 3, 6, and 6(a); the City or HRA must file an
annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts with the State Auditor, the County Board, the
School Board, and the County Auditor.
Pursuant to Sections 469.175, Subd. 5, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the City or HRA must file an
annual disclosure report for District No. 1-17. The report shall be filed with the County Board, County
Auditor. School Board, and the State Auditor on or before July 1 of each year. The report to be filed by the
City or HRA shall include the following information:
1. the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
2. the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account;
3. the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest, on any outstanding
bond indebtedness;
4. the original net tax capacity of District No. 1.17;
5. the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA:
6. the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
7. the tax increment received; and
8. any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment
coy of xtm=ao Moaned Tu Wmaicar taaoona{ Pto for To toaoacm Rnancmj Doom No. 1.17 IS -11
(Oi
financing plan.
Sections 469.175, Subd. 5, of the TIF Aa also provides that an annual statement showing the tax increment
received and expended in that year, the original value, captured net tax capacity, amount of outstanding bonded
indebtedness, the amount of the district's increment paid to other governmental bodies, the amount paid for
administrative costs, the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located
outside of the district, and any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary shall be published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subd. 6, of the TIF Act, the City or HRA must annually
submit to the State Auditor, on or before July 1, a financial report which shall:
provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in District No. I -17:
permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial reports:
pemtit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of District No. 1-17 or that is funded in pan
or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increment from other tax
inurement districts or with public money; and
be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
the original net tax capacity of District No. 1.17;
the captured net tax capacity of District No. 1. 17. including the amount of any captured net
tax capacity shared with other taxing districts:
the amount budgeted under the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, and the actual
amount expended for, at least, the following categories: ( for the reporting period and for the
duration of District No. 1-17)
o. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase:
b. site improvements or preparation costs:
C. installation of public utilities, parking facilities, stnctc, roads, sidewalks, or other
similar public improvements:
d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the city,
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements; and
the total costs of the property to the authority and the price paid the developers (for properties
sold to developers);
the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvementsor other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (J),
Ihat were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1.17.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.175, subdivision 6a, the City or HRA must also annually report
to the State Auditor before or on July I of each year the following amounts for the entire City or HRA:
the total principal amount of nondefeascd bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year, and
the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current
calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and (ii) other tax
inurement financing fonds; and
for each tax incrt ment financing district within the City:
coy of Mmlkaw Momod Tu Wacmcs Reoany Phe ra Tu twmeea Rn— Davin No. 1.17 111-12
!to 7 T
the type of tax increment financing district;
the date on which the district is required to be decertified;
the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as physical improvements
and the used of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and
are provided to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding
calendar year.
the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year.
whether the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan or other governing document permits
increment revenues to be expended outside of District No. ]- 17;
any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copies of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards.
Subsedlon 11124. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose
The reasons and facts supporting the finds for the adoption of the Modified Tax Increrment Financing Plan for
District No. 1-17 as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the District No. 1-17 is an economic development district as defined in Minnesota
Statutes. Sections 469.174. Subdivision 12.
District No. 1.17 is in the public interest because it will discourage commerce. industry, or
manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality and it will result in
increased employment in the state.
2. Finding that the proposed development. to the opinion of the Council. would not occur solely through
private investment within the reasonablyforeseeable future and therefore the use of tax increment is
deemed neeessan,
Due to the high cost of development or redevelopment on the parcel and the cost of financing the
proposed improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance. in part. from tax increment
financing.
3. Finding that the Modified Tar Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.17 conforms to the
general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March
4. 1997. The Planning Commission found that the Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms
to the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the ModUled Tar Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.17 will q ford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole. for the development of Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.17 will result in increased
employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State, and add a high
quality development to the City.
Additional findings are ret forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
City of Moauceaa Mobnd Tax Kwnvid R tx1q Rae far Tu Ienercs Fin=uV Diana No. 1.17 II•IJ
to KI(
Subsection 19-25, Other Limitations on the Use of Tac Increment
General Limitarions. All revenue 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 capital and
administration costs pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Sections 469.124 through 469.134. These
revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax
increment shall be used for the construction, renovation, operation or maintetwtce of a building to be
used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or
any other local unit of government or the state or federal government; this provision 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.
Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tru Increments. Tax Increments derived from District No.
1-17 shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent tat set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the
five year rule set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.1763, subdivision 3, has been satisfied;
and beginning with the sixth year following certification of District No. 1-17, 80 percent of said tax
increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay
previously commitment expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.1763, subdivision S.
s &W,CTax Increment Financing Aid
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Sections 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification
was requested atter April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid
(RISTIFA) applied to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and. Homestead and Agricultural
Aid (HACA) second, in an amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifying captured tax
capacity (QCfC) of the tax increment financing district.
Subsection 18.27. County Road Costs
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.175, Subdivision I a. the county board may require the authority
to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if, the proposed development to be assisted by
tax increment will in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring
construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within
the next five years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development will have little or no impact
upon county reads. U the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City or
HRA within thirty days of receipt of this plan.
Suhsectlon IWO. Economic Develomnentand JACreation
To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 1161.991, which
slates that a business receiving state or local government assistance for economic development or job growth
purposes, including tax increment financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in
Minnesota within two years of receiving assistance (See Appendix D).
Oy ad Mapaeuo MaNlkd Tax Nnemer F7mwN Ism rot Tu hw w v Fi wW4 nudxi W 1.17 I11•I4
IoLL
R
SnbsectMn 18.29. Summary
The City of Monticello is establishing Tac Increment Financing District No. 1.17 to preserve and enhance the
tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the Ciry. The Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-17 was prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc., 2950 Norwest Center,
90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5SQ2-4100, telephone (612) 339-8291.
City of Mau rano MadHted Tn hKmmm Renctly RIO ex Tn ' PAW.48 mm No. 1.11 11613
IVmAf
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-17
MKMDI% A•1
�N�1
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-17
155-085-001010 (previously a part of PIN 155-011-000101)
AM"DIX 0.1
b 00
I
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1-17
App9m% C-1
6 PP
021VW OH J Nvvlems • To M—wv EsWon - Fey4 tr FPaps 1
T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
eNaaml Rare:
0.0000%
PayAs-rarOo l , Pau:
8.250%
Tax Exterubn Rea:
112.877% Pay M
BASE VALUE INFORMATION
169,072
Dross PerceN
No Pry4ab
Value Liam
VahmYear
Parcel a 155085-001010 0 100.00%
0 <— EarimaU
0O.00%
0
Total Od" Market Valve 0
0
cuss Rate: C0 Prop" ty .9100.000
4.8000%
.11100A00
7.0000%
Ono" Tax Capacity
0
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
Type CO Tax Mttwnm Dlaalct Eccri"
Dsvalopmsm
Type of Dwelopment IWradadurtrw
Nw,bm of SM= Fee-
20.000
Now Estknatad Malkal Value On Jan. 2.1997:
mm Pay M
Feral MarkM VAN of Land wO 81 --Imam Pay M
P ojaa Claes FCA P mmty 4100.000
4.8000%
4100.000
7.0000%
Additional Es6mnad Tax C4ptelty on Jam 2.1997:
75.000 Pay 98
Total P *0 Tax Capatlry, al Canploson:
75.000 Pay 98
Pr*0 Taxes Per LN&Sq mm Foot
61.88
Ausuors Ma" Vanua Per UftS umo Foot
M04
PmJM Total Tum lal Esthnete Purposes:
78.508 Pay 95
Arcual Tax trlalornam Expaoted al Fug V":
0 Pay M
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Grote V.I. Oty CRY Net V.I.
In Pe1 A
mpOmmy Podhg To P owe1
Fuaae Yaws: 276,841 (27.654) 07,878 0
PmsamVsws: 189.072 (16.607) 68.800 O
BUT FOR ANALYSIS
coram maram Vaam • Est.
I
0
Nur Mahal V"m • Eq.
760
0llwarlce
760.876
Pow Vaaw at Tax arasllom
169,072
01101"
591 AM
VWa Lam* to Oma WN1a4 TIF to lata Dien:
691.807
AtOalee M Anoso M6. � Q qC7/•174M44
0=7107 CAV W Moncaae - Tu Ix-xI Ea -Mas • Faylfar Eq -
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
pmgw by P'teb=P a
PERIOD ENDING
Yrs. sAN, Yr,
0.008-01 1994
0,0 02-01 1995
0.008-0 1995,
0002-01
1996
0.0 08-01 1996
0.0 02-01 1997'
0.508-01
1.002-01
1998
1.5 OB -01 19W
2.0 02-0I 1999
2.5 OB -01 1999
3.002-01 20001
3.5 08-01 2000
4.0 02-0I 20011
4.508-01 2001
5.002-01 2002
5.508-01 2002
002-01 2003
8.5 08-01 2009'
7.0 02.0 2004
7.5 08-01 20041
6.0 02-01 2005
9.5 08-01 2005
9.0 02-01 2000
�,` VI./7AWIu
Orly
Prgen
Captured SmN-NwW
Adrmn.
Send-Mnutl
MAW
(PERIOD BEGINNING
Tat
To
Telt
Gro To
atNet
To
Wnety
"rs. MOI.
Yr.
CapacM
CaMWy
Ca achy
Inuamwit
10.00%
IMrerron
35.429%
l002-01
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y 0.0 08-01
1994
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5 02-011995
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
1.0 OB -01
1995
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5 02-0119%
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
2.008.0 1
1898
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.502-0 11997
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
3.0 08-01
1997
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.502-01
1"a
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
4,0 01
8-0
1 M0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.502-01
1999
0
35.000
35,000
19,753
(1.975)
17,778
8,998
5.001
8-0
1999
0
35,000
35,000
19.753
!1.975)
17,774
6,996
51 02-01
2000
0
35,000
35.000
19,753
(1.975)
17.778
6.998
6.001
8-0
20000
35,000
35,000
19,753
(1,975)
17,778
6.998
8.502-01
20010
35,000
35.000
19,753
(1 ,875)
17.76 778
8,9 98
7.008-01
2001
0
35.000
35,000
19.753
(1,875)
17,7766.M
7.5 02-01
2002
0
35,000
35,000
19,753
(1,975)
17,776
6.998
6.008-01
2002
0
35,000
35.000
19.753
(1,975)
17,778
8.998
6.502-01
2003
0
35,000
35,000
19,753
(1.75)
17,776
6.9%
9.008-01
2003
0
35,000
35,000
19,753
(1,975)
17,776
6.998
9.502-01
2004
0
35,000
35,000
19,753
(1,975)
17,774
6.996
10.008-01
2004
0
35,000
35.000
19,753
(1,975)
17,779
8,998
10.502-01
2005
0
35.000
35.000
19,753
(1,975)
17,776
8.98
11,008-01
2005
0
35.000
35.000
19,753
0.9751
17776
6.998
ToUh
276,541
(27.054)
246.687
97,975
Prom! Vakm
169,072
(18.907)
152.165
59.900
pmgw by P'teb=P a
PERIOD ENDING
Yrs. sAN, Yr,
0.008-01 1994
0,0 02-01 1995
0.008-0 1995,
0002-01
1996
0.0 08-01 1996
0.0 02-01 1997'
0.508-01
1.002-01
1998
1.5 OB -01 19W
2.0 02-0I 1999
2.5 OB -01 1999
3.002-01 20001
3.5 08-01 2000
4.0 02-0I 20011
4.508-01 2001
5.002-01 2002
5.508-01 2002
002-01 2003
8.5 08-01 2009'
7.0 02.0 2004
7.5 08-01 20041
6.0 02-01 2005
9.5 08-01 2005
9.0 02-01 2000
�,` VI./7AWIu
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/4/97
C11,
.� •• arc
A. F.FERRNrF AND BACKGROUND:
Attached is a copy of the proposed radio%U phone communication towers
ordinance showing changes and a copy as it will appear after changes are
adopted for your review.
No action is necessary other than to call for a public hearing regarding this
ordinance amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of ordinance changes; Copy of proposed ordinance after changes.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECT -1014 3-12 OFTHE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUC`RRE REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Tn1e III, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item I ECS of the City Ccxle is hereby arnelttled to read as follows:
JECI ESSENTIAL SERVICES: i:_ e:_:: ..... .... .. :..:_..... ...f
l..t... . l ,.. , ..1., Public or private u ililyw.te�m; to gas. elenie'a1
e1ectiicit .steamstwercnn1w: a: rr_ .....�. ........x . ,....
voice- t I v'xiun anti clivital cummunications
systems: {'j r,.5:» .a ,... ,..,...:.:t :... ,.:L.. e. ........ . .1. r .,. ... L.., .....
anal wasfisooc.l� -clings Nk c. Radio f ileueng
tneo nun
and trnu missi in nt na% and s uppim structures %hall not be eun%*dered .n
v.enL�I service.
Title III, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item-, JAI. I 1. I A1.21, I A1.31. ISA.I I and ISP.I I are hereby added
4- to the City Gxle to react as follows:
ur.. r u1 -4e. e u
n l Q vrlTRqe e r u.e r r e "DwnwMill
Antenna Suppiri Grp Any T ole_ telescoping m•a-t uw r_ trill_ ot�nher
structure which sypA arts .n enc nn e
ISP_ 11 Sirudum.Public. A b ilelin`. or ed'fiLy of any kind which is own I ur me 1- and
o reel by a fe a el. stale- or 1 wal `Werk nnxnt yyen`^v_
ANTENDRD FRM 21797 Page 1
Title 10. Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Cock is hereby amended to read as follows:
SF.(TION 3-12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
JAI Permitted Uses. Antennas- oncluchng Satellite satellote dishes of lest than
thirty( 71_ _ 11 sg care feet in surface for ' .:..:.... .. ... ... radio. mlterrnRS
—e ..J.– .—I.rtuowaye_
and television- arid, a -tures for
antennae are permitted
accessory uses within all coning districts provided that they meet the
following conditions:
I. II,.:bL:. .1 �......J ...,.....wJ ..........W.:................., h:bl...l.dl .....
L 1 A"tio Antennas shall be hx t t on existing structures- 'f nsib
The ins :illation of more h• n one 11) sropim structure oiler property
shall regu re the apployal of a • n lint onal use pcnink-
Antennas kx=ed upsm a Fublic stryetu%hall require the prtyz%sine
ullamadministrutive permit issued in compliance with the pnh1.5 ums
n estest rbl�ythe City r un •il
c
ANTENDRD FRM: 2/17417
2. .Yards: 71.., .................:.... ai. ... Anterinw. and .nt n a s.t)pu[Y
structures shall not be located within a front yard, slle yard. or any
side y rd abutting u street. C J.:.... Ane nits shall be
located five (5) feet or trurce from rear lot lines and stall not be
located within a puhfic o utility easement.
.....f......e !_.Id. b. r... I...bl.. , f ......... ....G ....�.._........
�,.Aw r w ... ...
.L..., . f ...... �' I.... 3t.... .....•. ,.•..,.. J.. � ......'.,.11....,.....1
I•....•Iw}f :
U. u�, , �.I. r. 1. , ..I...... f ........f I ...
..1......,... .......w.. ..J .1._.........._ ... d... d.........
W
...�1 rr. ]E,.L.:::.j&.....:I, ... ...., El r .4...fI–
16
P•O• 2
H i .hen[ nas lax••ate I rpiun exis in` bt iltling% sh•ili m)t t I
mare h m ten (IUl feet ae the hig,best rixif elevation. or rm)rc thall
ten 1101 feet above the hi L+heet part of the structure to which heyacre
attmehed.
Antenna supports rt ar s shall not emeed thirty (301 feet in height
above jmade. ortenll(11feet o ry h maximum allowable building,
heovrht far the mm'nt-, ifistriet 'n whi •h the antenna N I u••a ed.
whichever is less_
In any.ami lig ri •int nna% imed in the • niateur r+ 1i i rvi maw
emml t a maximum of seventX 1701 feet ahave grade,
Se.•arity: Antenna supnon structures shall be cans nu• n1_ feriLe 1 or
se • are 1 in such •a manner as to prcv nt unauthorized climbing- Nn
b•arlral w're. razor ribbon or the like shall be used for this ptua pyse,
5=pia c Trans ming,_ receiving, anti si„� itching e�y p nt s :rll be
housed within an xis ing,str u•t ury a whenever r mssibl or screened
from view from any n abli • street.
F. Ne*vhbogC Property Impact: i.. I._. .... :Al:..r r.....:.:.
. . .I_ ............:. ..,,.. ~Jwll 5c .... \..,.........:...1..
An nn•a% anti ant nna support structures shall be so
luau• ate I that in the event of s rocs and f ail ar . neither th antenna no
theantenna %upllaart %tructure will fall un adjoining property.
FExLep u r s rmX be granted the City Cumvil if a lie sed
and ssi anal n`inmr r if s in wri Ing, ihai anygructunil f ail ore of
the ml w anti jinfenna support gructure will iy • r w*thin a I seer
,floarive under all foreseeable, e*n•ums antwc
2. lksi an, The use of guyed towers is pr rhibited_ The le.i`n—md
installca inn of new antenna suppgrl stmct ar s must uLLLizcaaA=
framework or trnmopgrle, conflg,am i n. Permanent pl alf mms or
s rUct res Lw ss ary it) the antenna s appall s no •l are or antenna thal
increase visbility astir o ihit 1. Nu part of die tower sh 11 Eural
SI_ MIhQaare feet in horizontal area.
!. D,.•f„l:..n Y ....:.. !. '!.:!J:..b r......
ILL..,FW.j...._._.:..:....1.,.....1.:.1...,.:.... ...C:.:•.• Y
•fp::�a:.`.... '. ;'!'I..ti_,.._'a... �_:LI:..er_...::..r.rl:.........l..c:Y
............... .. dl.:._.:...1_1 :...'l..f ..1....:..n. P.. �:.,
1C/
ANTENORD FR►(: ?127,27 Pap
7. all.
--1
E.'e- —d
.....f......
8. Color/Content: dl.;.-. A.Ji . Antennas shall
he c + ru n1 of'a corrosion resistant rnateria I orbe piliale", neutral
color, and shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or
messages which qualify us a sign.
Illumination- Antenna,; shall not be artificually w1himenwed nnle%
xguired by bw or hy a govemmental aveney to protect puhlic health
and safety-
CornplianLe: Antenna%. antenna suppig struvigares_ electrical
cQu4p=nt anti yonneyflons sha, 11 be designed- ins tall ed and i=rated
an conformance with all applicable federal- state jnd local laws.
F_ . E ....... ..........
LW ConditiorLd Use%. Antennas and antenna support structures- notQualify'no as
perm*ttrd accr%suly use% a% provided in IAI atm)ve- 4nelud*noall p=mnj
wirellem curnmunleatkm service antennns, are only pcnniumf
condatinmal use% as provided by Chapter 2" ofthe 7,uning Ordinance- Such
antenna and antenna support structure iniaall ations that are %uhm-ct to
conclitiomd use pertutits, are perinilted in all z.ening d4groaso musts molly with
all mQukerrent-, fig Perniftied Use% a% %Mified in A I above[ and- must mert
the followtvio add*tional cund*1*,m%-
New antenna mipplirt smart ars exceeding thirty 001 feet in height
sliall be de%qvned so a% In accommudoor tither users but not
finfited in tither perm)nal wireless communicjfiun% seDUWL9WIUani
The applicant kUl dernongrate to the %ati-davit )n of the City Council
that opploun*ties will he made available for yo-lucaflng tither
antennas on The %3ructare
-
2- Antenna support structure-, for per%t)nal wireless Lommunivation
%X-.iems Khali beTem itled provided:
p, Minimum spayong between pc=nj vdn&m
nmummhmlMrs senfee antenna suppini %mmum shall be
1/4 mile07
ANTENORD FRM. 212797 Pop 4
F_xceptilms ma be Lrm rd by the Cly Coundl 'f the rjW
Coundidetffnfims that both of the f 1 I iwinp m iti ms ist-
l
L No xis inp b ihliptIx antenna support ctructare
rmtc the beight mquirement and frrqucncy rrt_ 1
spiggt` iv of the personal 'rel cc • nntminil•ntitm
syste n, anti
2— 11m I x:a inn of the proposed new antrnna cappW
.. Ilt Ire is ne s m•Iry as demongrAtcd .1 the
aonlil ne�wh tshall provide a covet" rin erf n
any is and vaadW analysis prep ed bya l�sW
prof ssi mal rnivincer.
II 11 IP 1 1 1 1.H ti. I �'.%q•1
III 11 1 1 1 11 1 I. I I 4 1 1
1111 1.M .1 1 11
1 1 •II 1 f1=417 1
�1 m, bill I111 1.
i li
1�1 II 1 1 1 1� . II
1 1 1
I
This 0rdD ane shall become effective irtarodiately upon its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 117.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By.
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
ANTENORDFRM b27/97
Bill Fair. Mayor
79
pop
ANTENNA ORDINANCE AS IT WILL APPEAR
AFTER CHANGES ARE ADOPTED
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS.
Title IU, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item IECI of the City Cock is hereby amended to read as follows:
IECI ESSENTIAL SERVICES: Public or private utility systems for gas, electricity, steam,
sewer and water: voice, television and digital communications systems. and, waste
disposal and reeling serviucs. Radio frequency reception and transmission antennas
and support structures shall not be considered an essential service.
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Items IAI.I 1, IAI.21, IAI.31, ISA.I I anti ISPA I are hereby added
to the City Code to read as follows:
1A1.11 Antenna. A device consisting of a metal, carbon fiber. or other
electromagnetically conducive rods or elements. usually arranged un an antenna
support structure or building. and used for the transmission and reception of wireless
communications.
IAL21 Antenna, Fbstnal Wireless Comn unimilons Service. An antennu consisting of
a metal. carbo fiber, or other ekt-tnomagnetkally ctionhWive nods or elements, usually
arranged in a circular array on an antenna suppon structure or building, and used for
the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including
cellular, persomalcommunicvtion service (PCS). enhanced specialized mobilized radio
(ESMR ). paging and similar services. and including the support structure thereof.
1A1.31 Antenna Support Structure. Any pole. telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other
structure which supports an antenna.
ISA. I I Attamry Use. A use of lural or of a building that is subordinate to a primary use.
anti not the primary use of the land ur building.
ISP. I I Str inure. PWAk. A building or edif ice of uny kind which is owned or rented, and
operated by a federal. state, or local government agency.
Pepe 1 IF
Title III, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 3.12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
i AI Permitted Use . Antennas, irOuding satellite dishes of less than thirty (30)
square feet in surface area for radar, mimrwave, and televisltm, and antenna
supportstructures for untermas, are pem*W accessory uses within all ziming
districts provided that they meet the following conditions:
l AxNilWa: Antennas shall be located un existing structures. if possible.
The installation of more than tine (I ) support structure per property
shall require the approval of a conditional use permit.
Antennas kowted upon a public structure shall require the processing
of an administrutive permit issued in compliance with the procedures
established by the City Council.
Yawls: Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be located
within a front yard, side yard, or any side yard abutting a street.
Antennas shall be located rive (5) feet or more from rear lot lines anti
shall not be located within a public or util ity easement.
Hcighl: Antennas heated upon existing buildings shall not extend
more than ten ( III) feet above the highest n%of elevation, or more than
ten (111) feel above the highest pan of the structure to which they are
attached.
Antenna support structures shall not exceed thiny (311) feet in height
above grade. or ten (11) feet above the maximum allowable building
height for the zoning district in which the antenna is located.
whichever is less.
In any nrning district, antennas used in the arnateur mdhn service
may extend a maximum orf seventy (70) feet ahbrtve grade.
4. SeLyrit Antenna support structures shat 11 be constructed. fenced cin
secured in swh u manner as to prevent unauthorized climbing. No
barbed wire, ruzor ribbon or the like shall be used for this purpose.
S. Scaening: Trunsmitting. receiving and switching equipment shall be
housed within un existing structure whenever possible or screened
from view from any public street.
Pape 2 .r,
t
h• Neighboring PrypertX Impact: Antennas and antenna support
structures shall be so located that in the event of structural failure,
neither the antenna nor the antenna suppun structure will fall on
adjoining property. Exceptions may be granted by the City Council
if u licensed professional engineer certifies in writing that any
structural failure of the antenna and antenna suppun structure will
occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances.
7. Lksiga: The use of guyed towers is prohibited. The design and
installation of new antenna support structures must utilize an open
framework or monopole configuration. permanent platform or
struo ores accessory to the antenna support structure or antenna that
increase visibility are prohibited. No part of the tower shall exceed
SIN) square feet in horizontal area.
R. .l r went: Antennas shall be constructed of a corrosion resistant
material or be painted a neutral color, art] shall not be painted with
scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign.
9. illumination: Antennas shall not be unifcially illuminated unless
required by Law or by a governmental agency to protect public health
anti safety.
10.Compliance: Antenna.%, antenna support structures. electrical
equipment anti connections shall be designed, installed anti operated
in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local laws.
IBI
Condhional Ilses. Antennas anti antenna support structures, not qualifying as
permitted accessory uses us provided in JAI above, including all persimal
wireless cmmmunicathms service antennas, are only permitted as
conditional uses as provided by Chapter 22 of the "Lining Ordinance. Such
antenna anti antenna support structure installations that are subject to
conditional use perms, are pemittel in all zoning districts: must comply with
all requirements for Pennitted Uses us specified in I A I above: and, must meet
the following additional conditions:
New antenna support structures exceeding thirty (30) feet in height
shall be d csigned so as to accommodate other users including but not
limited to tither personal wireless communications service companies.
The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council
that opportunities will be made available for co -locating tither
antennas an the structure.
Pape 3 *7 4
2. Antenna support structures for personal wireless communication
systems shall be permitted provided:
a. Mininnrm spacing between persunal wireless
cannntnkatims service antenna supptnt structures shall be
1/4 mile.
Exceptioms may be granted by the City Council if the City
Council determines tha NO of the following conditions exist
I. No existing building or antenna support structure
meets the height requirement, frequency reuse, and
spacing meals of the persomal wireless communication
system: and.
2. The beutio n of the proposed new antenna support
structure is necessary as demonstrated by the
applicant, wlao shall provide a crnerage/interferenoe
analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a licensed
professional engineer.
b. All new antenna support structures for personal wireless
communication system antennas shall be u single ground
mounted metal, comate or plastic compcosite (i.e. fiberglass,
( graphite fiber, etc.) pole that shall not exeved seventy-five
(75) feet in height in Agricultural - Open Spam (AO),
Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3. R4. and R-PUM Performance
Zone (PZ -R and PZ -M) and Business (B-1. B-2, B-3, B-4,
and BC) zoning districts. In Industrial (1-I and 1-2) ziming
districts. the pole shall not exceed one hundred sixty-five
(I 65) feet in height
C
Pape 4