HomeMy WebLinkAbout9G - Jeffers Waterfront
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AUGUST 7,2006
9G
PAUL SNOOK, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED
FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING
AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
Introduction
The City Council is being asked to approve a resolution authorizing an
application for grant funding in the amount of $1.9 million from the Metropolitan
Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). The grant
funding would support commercial development at the Jeffers Waterfront
development at the corner of County Roads 21 and 42 including a 60 space
park and ride structure, transit station, two bus shelters, and a public parking
structure to serve the development. The total project development cost is
estimated at $74 million. There is no City funding match required for this grant.
Histo~
The Livable Communities Demonstration Account was established by the
Livable Communities Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.25 (b). The funds
and program are administered by the Metropolitan Council. The Demonstration
Account provides funds to development or redevelopment projects that
connect development with transit, intensify land uses, connect housing and
employment, provide a mix of housing affordability, and provide infrastructure
to connect communities and attract investment.
This is the second consecutive year that the City has applied for LCDA
funding. Staff worked with Carolyn Krall, AlA of Landform, and Wensmann to
complete the application (see attachment) which was submitted July 17, 2006.
Ms. Krall submitted the grant application last year, and has submitted
applications for numerous projects under the Livable Communities Program.
She has also designed several similar projects that received funding from the
program.
Current Circumstances
The local resolution of support is due to the Metropolitan Council August 17,
2006. After the resolution is submitted, the Metropolitan Council will do the
following:
July-August: Metropolitan Council staff will receive applications and conduct
technical reviews of proposals and Step 1 evaluation process.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
..Mfuh~%2:'447~42'3(Ff) .ft~~52.44 7.4245
ISSUES:
,,\
f";:,
August-November: The Livable Communities Advisory Committee
conducts the Step 2 evaluation process and selection process and
recommends funding awards.
November 20, 2006: Funding recommendations presented to Community
Development Committee.
December 4, 2006: The Committee recommends grant awards.
December 28, 2006: Metropolitan Council awards grants.
Conclusion
The proposed project at Jeffers Waterfront and grant application appear to
meet many of the funding requirements of the grant program. If approved the
grant would provide needed funds to the project to achieve a transit-oriented,
compact and pedestrian friendly urban village at the corner of County Roads
21 and 42.
The resolution approving the grant application is a "boilerplate" document
supplied by the Metropolitan Council. The resolution states, in part, that the
funding is sought because "the project will not occur solely through private or
other public investment in the reasonably foreseeable future and will not occur
within two years after the grant award unless LCDA funding is made available
for the project at this time". According to the grant request prepared by the
developer "without the funding to act as an incentive, public structured parking
will not be feasible". Since the staff has no way to verify this statement, we are
relying upon the veracity of the developer and their consultant who also
assisted with the application.
If all or a portion of this grant is actually awarded, the City Council would need
to authorize acceptance of the funds on behalf of Wensmann. The grant funds
would actually be approved for the City of Prior Lake and the City would need
to transfer the funds to Wensmann Development in accordance with the grant
program requirements and in accordance with the City's Business Subsidy
Policy. Wensmann has indicated it will want the City to resubmit the application
in 2007 if unfunded in 2006. The City will need to weigh the needs of
Wensmann as well as its own plans for downtown parking structures.
However, the submission of this grant in future years will not jeopardize the
City's ability to obtain additional funds from the LCDA program for city parking
structures in the downtown area.
Competition for this program is high and there are limited funds. Historically,
one in three project applications are funded, and in most instances
applications are submitted multiple times (2-3 consecutive years) before being
funded. There is $8.8 million available under this program for 2006
applications.
If funding is not approved the application can be resubmitted again in 2007.
The attached resolution of authorization is the process required by the
Metropolitan Council. The resolution sets forth findings that the City Council
should concur with before they consider adoption. The grant application
'Of; .'-
prepared by the developer and consultant addresses these findings.
Support of the grant application and project is consistent with the City s
Comprehensive Plan and 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The financial impact to the City is minimal. If the grant were approved it would
be transferred to Wensmann in accordance with the grant program
requirements and Business Subsidy Policy. The City would be responsible for
assuring proper administration reporting and legal compliance with any
applicable laws and regulations which apply to this grant.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution 06 xx authorizing the grant application as described
herein.
2. Deny Resolution 06 xx and withdraw the application.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Alternative 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 06 xx
2. Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Application
Reviewed by:
\tJ.
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 06-xx
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, the City of Prior Lake is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2006 as determined by the Metropolitan
Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the
Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and
promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and
the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan
development guide; and
WHEREAS, the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure
adequate project administration; and
WHEREAS, the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations
as stated in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the
grant application submitted on July 17, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account
grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve
as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment
projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the
proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be
replicated in other metropolitan-area communities; and
WHEREAS, only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan
Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding
cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to
allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not
occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
'iNWW.Qityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
2. The City finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and
priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this
particular time.
3. Finds that the project component(s} for which Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is sought:
a. will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future; and
b. will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable
Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this
project at this time.
4. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to
procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from
other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within
two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons
and supporting facts:
a. The City has researched potential funding sources, and finds no grant
programs that are applicable to the requested funding components of
structured parking, transit stations and bus shelter. Use of local taxes or
revenue bonds is not likely to be supportable, politically or fiscally given
the public projects already underway (new Police Station and City Hall);
and
b. The City has researched potential funding sources, and find no other
County, regional or State funding programs that are applicable to the
requested funding components of structured parking, transit stations and
bus shelter.
5. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to submit on behalf of the City an
application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account
grant funds for the project component(s} identified in the application, and to
execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on
behalf of the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2006.
YES
NO
I Haueen
I Dornbush
I Erickson
I LeMair
I Millar
Haueen
Dornbush
Erickson
LeMair
Millar
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Office Use
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2006
Instructions: Submit form and attachments by 4:30 D.m. on Julv 17.2006 Use font size 11. Use ofbulleted lists is
encouraged. Do not attach a coversheet or use any graphic images on top of the application. Limit application to 19 pages
plus attachments, for a total of no more than 31 pages. Strictly follow the format or the application will be returned for
revision.
I Project Name:
Applicant city, county or development
authority
Project Location (city):
Address (street boundaries or
Major intersection):
Primary Project Contact:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Authorized city, county or
development authority
official for contract execution
Name:
Title:
The Jeffers Waterfront Villa2e
The City of Prior Lake
Prior Lake
CSAH 42 and Ea2le Creek Ave. CSAH 21
Paul Snook
Community Development Director
16776 Fish Point Road SEe
952-447-9805
952-447-4245
Dsnook@cityofpriorlake.com
Frank Boyles
City Manager
A. Funding Proposal
Describe goals and features of the element, building, or phase(s) that will go forward to construction within one
year, if this funding request is granted, and be completed or substantially completed within two years of the
grant award.
(Limit 20 lines)
The primary goal for this project is to support the creation of a unique place -- a village community in Prior
Lake. Our funding request is for structured parking, a transit station with Park and Ride, and Village bus
shelters to support transit-oriented development.
The Jeffers Waterfront Village will:
. Create a unique community at the gateway into City from the north;
· Improve links to downtown Prior Lake with transit connections, trails and pedestrian amenities on CSAH 21;
. Offer a mixed use, walkable, neighborhood center to serve this growing area of the City;
. Provide a family friendly destination, with hotel, waterpark, and a variety of restaurants;
. Blend the trails and natural style of Jeffers Pond with a more traditional Main Street shopping area;
. Attract smaller, more unique retailers and restaurants to Prior Lake;
· Focus housing and retail around a Town Square leading to a Village green, with a campanile or bell tower;
. Provide for public and civic uses including a new fIre station, performance and event space, and central
structured public parking with a Transit StationlPark & Ride facility, and transitlbus shelters.
The Jeffers Waterfront Village is part of the Jeffers Pond development, a 336 acre site currently being built out. The
overall Jeffer's Pond Master Plan provides for almost 700 housing units, while preserving 174 acres for public uses
including neighborhood parks, an elementary school, a new fIre station, a nature center, and a network of wetlands,
ponds and open space with 5 miles of public trails and walks.
1
B. Funding Request and Timeline (limit one page, landscape layout)
List requested project elements in priority order, e.g. street, structured parking, stormwater pond. Under Task/Eligible Use, provide as much detail as you can about
items for which you are requesting funds. Examples: If the project element is underground parking, the details should include the number and location of parking structure(s),
number of stalls and the cost per stall. If the project element is acquisition, the details might include number, type and location of buildings, or size of parcel; and demolition and
relocation costs.
Priority Project Element TasklEli2ible Use - itemize detail for each $ Request Start Date End Date
I Public Parking Structure 60 spaces in a ramp structure at $12,000/space less $3,000/space $ 540,000 July 2007 March 2008
w/Park & Ride for developer's anticipated cost to provide surface parking;
2 Transit Station and Two Bus Shelters Transit Station, Park and Ride, and two bus shelters in the Village $ 76.000 Oct 2007 April 2008
3 Town Square Public Parking Structure 125 spaces in a ramp structure at $ 12,000/space less $3,000/space $ 1,350,000 March 2008 Nov 2008
for developer's anticipated cost to provide surface parking
Total dollars requested and the start and completion date for the entire project or phase:
!could the pro.iect components be phased to move forward with a smaller lrant award? If so, please list element(s) and itemize the elements.
This is our minimum request. H a smaller award or partial grant was provided, the ramp would have to
be reduced in size. which would result in a correspondin2 reduction in second floor commercial space
Public Parking Structure w/Park & Ride 60 spaces in a ramp structure at $12,000/space less $3,000/space $ 540,000 July 2007
for developer's anticipated cost to provide surface parking;
March 2008
List components of the proposed project previously funded with an LCDA grant, if applicable, indicating the amount of grant award, start date and completion date
for antici !)ated completion date) of that component.
Previously Funded LCDA Components $ Awarded Start Date End Date
List future phases of the proiect, if applicable, or write "none," and estimated start and completion dates.
I Future Phases
I
I NONE
I
I
Start Date
End Date
2
c. Other Project Information
1. In this section, provide information about the larger development project of which the funding proposal (described in
Section A on page 1) is a part, if applicable, that will be developed beyond two years from the grant award
(beginning Jan. 2007). This would apply if a project will be developed in phases over a period of years. Describe
phasing plan and include details of phases, e.g. anticipated number and type of housing units, other proposed project
components. (Limit 20 lines)
Jeffers Pond, named for the original property owner, is a beautiful place with a lake long referred to as Jeffer's
pond. The 336 acre site is being developed to respect the natural environment. The master plan provides for
almost 700 housing units, while preserving 174 acres for public uses including neighborhood parks, a new
elementary school, fire station, and nature center, within a network of wetlands, ponds and open space which
includes 5 miles of public trails and walks.
The Jeffers Waterfront Village is located in the northeastern comer of the site, where CSAH 42 and CSAH 21
connect. The mix of uses is intended to create an urban village on one edge of the waterfront and a destination
that will be unique in the outlying suburbs. The Village is divided by the Prior Lake outlet channel and
wetlands, into a west and east side:
· The Westside will be developed with a more traditional, Main Street and town square, leading to a
central Village green; uses will include 2 and 3 story retail-office buildings (closer to CR 42), and four
story buildings with street level retail and condominiums above; resident parking is all provide below the
buildings, and public parking is on the street or in central parking structures.
· The Eastside will be developed more organically, with a boardwalk along the edge of the wetlands
connecting to the lakefront; uses will include a hotel with conference facilities and an indoor/outdoor
waterpark, restaurants, and retail; parking is below the buildings and in parking structures;
Prior Lake is a quaint lakefront town on the southern edge of one of the fastest growing residential areas of the
metro region. Downtown Prior Lake is thriving, and Wensmann Homes has already completed a mixed-use
development combining affordable Senior condominiums with first floor commercial uses facing Main Street.
But downtown doesn't have land for development of this size. Wensmann sees this transit-oriented Village
offering life-cycle housing options and amenities for the larger Jeffers Pond development.
2. Describe buildings or development phases already constructed, if applicable, or other existing development
adjacent to the area described in Section A on page 1, "Funding Proposal." (Limit 20 lines)
The Jeffers Pond development, a 336 acre site, is about 40% completed. The master plan provides for almost 700
housing units when fully built-out, including 122 units in the waterfront Village. Immediately adjacent to the
Village is park open space and Jeffer's Pond. At the south end of the site, the elementary school is completed and
much of the wetlands restoration and public trails and walks.
Most of the surrounding area is lower density residential and recreational open space. CSAH 42 is primarily a
commercial road, with conventional small shopping centers, and service commercial. A planned extension of
CSAH 21 south, to connect Shakopee with CSAH 42 (planned for 2009) will bring significant pressure for
increased retail and commercial development. This new connection can contribute to the financial success of the
Village as a destination. But if the Village is not established by that time, potential tenants may be more attracted
to more conventional, new strip malls and "big box" anchored commercial comers - which is not the vision Prior
Lake has for it's future.
3. Benefits of LeDA funding. Address all that apply of the following: How will LCDA funding overcome
obstacles, provide a catalyst, or increase the value of the project to the community?
(Limit 20 lines)
Livable Communities funding can act as an incentive to the developer and potential commercial tenants or sub-
developers, to buy-into the concept of central, shared, public parking. This structured parking will:
· conserve land and preserve natural open space;
· significantly reduce permeable surface and stormwater run-off;
· encourage walking to and from multiple destinations within the Village;
· reduce non-point pollution impact on water, soils and air quality;
· attract transit-oriented development by including significant Park and Ride spaces and a comfortable,
convenient transit station.
The Village plan needs central, public, structured parking to support the planned, high density, mixed-use
development envisioned for the Waterfront project. But this project must compete in an environment where
surface parking is plentiful and structured parking is expensive.
A Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant can help to overcome this economic challenge, and
by demonstrating the success of this type of concentrated development, act as a model for better, more
sustainable development even in a developine: suburb.
4. Available Resources Assessment. Describe in reasonable detail why this project element(s) will not occur
within two years after this grant cycle unless LCDA funding is made available for this project at this time.
(Limit 20 lines)
Without funding to act as an incentive, public structured parking will not be feasible.
The Village plan needs central, public, structured parking to support the planned, high density, mixed-use
development envisioned for the Waterfront Village development. But this project must compete in an
environment where surface parking is plentiful and structured parking is expensive.
Especially in the outlying suburban areas, it is difficult to convince leasing agents, commercial tenants and their
lenders, and even the general public, of the value of structured parking. While it can be difficult to convince
people to consider structured parking, it is impossible to convince them to pay for public parking, much less pay
more for structured parking.
This site has not been developed and will not be able to quality as a TIF district. To the best of our knowledge,
there are no other grants programs, such as TOD grants, which would be available to support this project.
4
5 Sources and Uses - For Requested Elements(s) -
As described in the table, Section B on page 2.
Fill out completely, ensuring that the numbers properly total. Incomplete sources and uses may be interpreted
as a lack of funding readiness. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee cannot evaluate the financial
readiness of a project without complete information.
I Sources $ Amount
I Private Sources: $ 660,000
I 60 Parking Spaces $ 180,000
150 Parking Spaces 450,000
$ Portion from $ Other Public
Uses $ Amount LCDA Source Sources
I Hard Costs:
I Parking Ramp (60 spaces) $ 720,000 540,000
I
I Transit Station 60,000 60,000
I Bus Shelters (2) 16,000 16,000
Parking Ramp (150 spaces) 1,800,000 1,350,000
Total Hard Costs: $ 2.596.000
Soft Costs:
legal, planning fees $30,000
I planning, grant app fees
I Public Sources:
Park & Ride Structure
Transit Station
Transit shelters (2)
Town Square Public
Parking Structure
30,000
$ 1.966.000
540,000
60,000
16,000
1,350,000
TOTAL: $ 2.626.000
Total Soft Costs:
$ 30.000
OVERALL TOTAL
$ 2.629.000
Status
Approval Anticipated by:
committed by developer
committed by developer,
pending LCDA funding
committed by developer
Dec 2006
LCDA Grant applied for
LCDA Grant applied for
LCDA Grant applied for
LCDA Grant applied for
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
$ Other Private
Sources
$ 180,000
I
450,000 I
I
I
I
I
$ 30,000 I
I
5
6. Sources and Uses - For Funding Proposal, as described in Section A on page 1, including
Requested Element(s) described in Sources and Uses, Dl (if applicable).
Fill out completely, ensuring that the numbers properly total. Incomplete sources and uses may be
interpreted as a lack of funding readiness. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee cannot
evaluate the financial readiness of a project without complete information.
Sources $ Amount Status Approval Anticipated by:
Private Sources: $ 72,000,000
Sales, Est. Market Value 72,000,000 in development process Final PUD/P1at by June 2008
Public Sources:
Park & Ride Structure
Transit Station
Transit shelters (2)
Town Square Public
Parking Structure
$ 1,966,000
540,000 LCDA Grant applied for
60,000 LCDA Grant applied for
16,000 LCDA Grant applied for
1,350,000 LCDA Grant applied for
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
Dec 2006
TOTAL:
$73,966,000
$ Portion from $ Other Public $ Other Private
Uses $ Amount LCDA Source Sources Sources
I Hard Costs:
Mixed-Use Development
(construction, AlE) $ 71,100,000 $ 71,100,000
Parking Ramp (60 spaces) 720,000 540,000 180,000
I
Transit Station 60,000 60,000 I
Bus Shelters (2) 16,000 16,000 I
I
Parking Ramp (150 spaces) 1,800,000 1,350,000 450,000 I
I
I
Total Hard Costs: $73,696,000 $ 71,730,000 I
Soft Costs:
planning & dev costs 170,000 170,000
financing & legal fees 100,000 100,000
Total Soft Costs:
$ 270,000
270,000
OVERALL TOTAL
$ 73,966,000
1,966,000
$ 72,000,000
6
7. Other Resource Documentation. Identify other sources the applicant has considered but will not us
to fund this LCDA request.
a. Describe the local funding sources the applicant has considered but will not use to fund the project
component for which the applicant is requesting LCDA funds. Include local taxes, use oflocal bonding
authority, other local sources. Identify why these sources cannot be used within the next two years to fund
the requested project component.
(Limit 10 lines)
We have researched potential funding sources, and find no grant programs that are applicable to the requested
funding component - structured parking, transit stations and bus shelter. Use of local taxes or revenue bonds is
not likely to be supportable, politically or fiscally given the public projects already in the works (library
expansion, new Police Station and City Hall, planned downtown parking ramp).
We do intend to apply to the Watershed District to fund innovative approaches to stormwater management,
reducing run-off and filtering pollutants to improve water quality.
b. Describe non-local sources of funding the applicant has pursued to fund this project component within the
next two years. Identify why these sources cannot be used. Provide information (e.g. letters, other
documentation) to substantiate unsuccessful efforts to secure such funding.
(Limit 10 lines)
We have not applied for other non-local sources of funding. We have researched potential funding sources, and
find no other County, regional or State funding programs that are applicable to the requested funding
component - structured parking, transit stations and bus shelter.
Weare not aware of applicable sources of federal funding, but also have not researched federal sources
extensively. Since this is a newly growing area, with no currently planned investment in rail, BRT or other
FTA eligible projects, we don't believe that federal funding for TOD is available.
8. Regulatory Status: Mark (X) whether the following will be needed, is underway or is completed, or if
not a Jplicable, place 'NA' in the box. Briefly provide additional information as noted.
I Will be
Needed Underway Completed
X Comprehensive plan amendment. If needed, please describe:
X Environmental Reviews - EA W, EIS, AUAR. Ifneeded, please describe:
EA W was completed in 2004
X Zoning changes and variances. If needed, please list and include change
to/from:
7
D. Step One Evaluation Criteria (Begin new page)
Include information in Sections D. 1. through D. 6 for the "Funding Proposal," as described in Section A on page
1.
1. Uses Land Efficiently
Proposed land use changes: Mark (X) appropriate box
Yes I No
X Will buildings be rehabilitated or adapted for reuse? If yes, briefly describe:
X
Will buildings be demolished? If yes, indicate the number of and type of buildings:
X
Will new buildings be constructed? If yes, list the percent mix of commercial, residential, public
or other uses:
45 Commercial
20 Residential
1!L Public
25 Other Uses -list: Hospitalitv. wateroark. hotel
X Will new streets or other infrastructure be added?
X Will any park land be converted? Briefly describe: over 174 acres of new open space and
parkland will be created in the Jeffers Pond Development
2. Develops land uses linked to the local and regional transportation system.
Describe how the following will link to transit or improve connections to the local and regional transportation
system - new streets (or extensions, realignments) sidewalks, trails, bike paths, or improvements to existing
pedestrian infrastructure.
Limit 10 lines
The Village is planned to become a regular stop on Prior Lake's circulator transit service, the Laker Link. The
Link connects Lakefront Park, Sand Point Beach, and downtown Prior Lake.
The Village will have sidewalks on all the streets and connections to the five miles of trails and bike paths that
cover the site. Two transit shelters are planned, on the main square and near the hotel, as well as the Transit
Station at the Park & Ride lot, to encourage residents and visitors to use transit.
The plan also proposes the Eastside Public Parking Structure include a Park and Ride lot on the top deck level
serving commuters who use the Laker Lines express bus service to downtown Minneapolis. Laker Lines also
offers express bus service to local tourist destinations like Mystic Lake Casino and Valley Fair.
8
3. Connects housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses.
a.
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Will new pedestrian infrastructure be added? If yes, check type:
~ Sidewalks
~ Bike paths
X Trails
X
Will existing pedestrian infrastructure be improved? If yes, check type:
Sidewalks
~ Bike paths
~ Trails
How will the additions or improvements provide or improve connections within the site or with adjacent
neighborhoods?
The trails and improvements which connect the Village to the neighborhoods within the Jeffers Pond
development, will link the surrounding developing residential areas with the trails and parks to the south, which
then connect to the downtown and Prior Lake regional trails.
b.
I Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Will new streets be constructed? Include street realignments and connections.
If yes, how will they enable connections within the site or to adjacent neighborhoods?
A new parkway provides public access to the waterfrontfrom either CSAH 42 or CSAH 21. Then a new "Main
Street" is the primary shopping street providing access to the public parking structures. This new "grid" of
streets is vital to the connectivity that will make this are successful.
c. Mix and Type of Uses: List the number and types of existing or planned uses for the project site.
Number Square Number of Square Mark (X) if planned uses are new
Type of Use of Footage or Planned Uses Footage or construction, rehab/renovation or
Existing Acreage Acreage adaptive reuse
Uses
Rehabl Adaptive
New Renovation Reuse
I Commercial 16,000 X
I Retail 50,000 X
I Restaurant 4-5 20,000 X
I Office 18-12 36,300 X
Government/Civic Fire station 8,000 X
Public Parking 210 cars
Transit station
I Arts/Cultural
I Entertainment 1 waterpark 15,000 X
Open SpacelPublic 4-7 acres X
Space
Other (list) 1 hotel 86,000 X
Hotel, hospitality
9
d. Employment proximity: Estimate the number of jobs within 2 miles of the project site and list major
employers.
Number of Jobs
I More than 5,000
I 3,000-5,000
I 1,000-3,000
I 500-1,000
I Less than 500
I
I
I
Mark (X)
appropriate
number rane:e
5,020
Major employers within 2 miles
Mystic Lake
1,400
1,200
575
500
424
415
ADC Telecommunications
Valleyfair
Prior Lake Independent School District #719
Scott County Government
K-Mart Distribution
Shakopee Valley Printinll;
Yes
X
Number
100-150
95-180
100-180
5-10
300-520
Creation of new jobs:
No Mark (X) appropriate box
Will this project create any new jobs? If yes, how many and what type?
Job Tvpe
Service, retail - store clerks, sales staff
Office - admin, professional, mana$!erial
Hospitality - hotel, restaurant, food service
Residential Management: admin, mana$!ement, maintenance/cleanin$!
Total est. new .iobs created
e.
4. Develop a range of housing densities, types and costs.
a. Type and Tenure of Housing: List the number of housing units by type and tenure (owner/renter) currently in
the proiect site area (correspo Iding to the site plan, Attachment #3) and planned.
Distinguishing Features: (#
of stories, architectural
desie:n)
Total # of Units
# Units
Owner
# Units
Rental
Existine: Housine::
Single-family
Townhouse
Apartments or Condominiums
Duplexes
Other (list):
Planned Housine::
Single-family
Townhouse
Apartments or Condominiums
Duplexes
Other (list):
122 in Village 122
3-4 stories, mostly above 1 st
floor commercial; all resident
parking below the buildings
b. Housine: Density:
I Current Overall Density (net units per acre)
Planned overall density (net units per acre)
13 units/acre in the Village
3 units/acre in Jeff'er's Pond development overall
1/336 acres on original Jeffer's property
10
c. Housing Affordability: List estimated affordability levels for existing and planned housing in the following
format: (Area median income - $78,500)
Number of Units up
to 50% of Area
Median Income
I Existing housing 0
I Planned housing 0
I Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
I X Are there mechanisms to ensure lone-term affordability?
I Mark (X) any that apply
I Land trust
I Resale price indexing
I Other (describe):
Number of Units at
50-80% of Area
Median Income
o
o
Number of
Units at
Market Rate
o
122
CurrentlProposed Price
Rangesof~arketRate
Units
$ 220,000 - 500,000
If yes. what type?
5. Conserve, protect and enhance natural resources.
a.
Yes No Mark (X) app.vp.:ate box
X Does the project consider the site's relationship to nearby park and open space amenities?
If yes, please describe.
The Village plan is oriented to the lake, the waterfront park, the new parkway and the trails. All of
the residential units have great views over the open space. Much of the commercial, including the
hotel and water park, is planned to be along the "waterfront" (wetlands and lake) lining an old-
fashioned boardwalk.
b. Describe specific runoff water quality improvement techniques, extent of use, and any community amenity
benefits for marked items.
I Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
I X Connects to the existing; storm sewer system without any water quality improvements.
If yes, please describe:
X Provides conventional project-specific runoff treatment facilities; e.g. retention basins, detention
basins, infiltration basins.
If yes, please describe:
There will be some use of more conventional storm water run-off and filtration approaches, but NURP ponds use
too much land area to be viable in the Village area, so where traditional storm water elements are used they will
be more vertical with sub-surface chambers where possible. In the site plan you can see one of the vertical pond
in the formal circular pond at the south end of the main square.
X Incorporates project-specific Low Impact Development (LID) runoff reduction measures: e.g.
porous pavers, rain gardens, green roofs.
If yes, please describe:
Project plans include rain gardens and alternative paving surfaces; the architect may also investigate a
green roof option
11
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Provides constructed or restored natural methods of runoff treatment: e.g. restoration of buried
creeks, wetlands, bio-infiltration areas.
If yes, please describe:
The Village plan shows a restored wetland reaching into the site, with new vegetative buffers. The plan also
shows proposed dry creeks, raingardens/bio-filtration areas, and small ponds using natural approaches reducing
surface run-off and improving water quality with natural filtration.
Throughout the Jeffers Pond site there are high quality wetlands which have been restored and protected with the
construction of wetlands for filtration purposes, use of filtration buffers, bio-filtration plant materials, etc.
X I I Provides green spaces for increased infiltration, recreation and scenic value.
If yes, please describe:
The Village plan shows a wide range of green spaces, including a central square, Village green, wide green
buffers along the busy commercial roads (CSAH 42 and 21), the lake with surrounding parkland, and restored
wetland with extensive green buffers.
The Jeffers Pond master plan preserves 174 acres of open space for views, passive recreation via trails, as well
as for it's scenic, habitat and environmental value,
Other ( describe):
12
6. Tools and Processes to Ensure Successful Outcomes (Begin new page)
a. City review/regulatory process: Describe city review or regulatory processes or procedures used or
developed for this project, such as zoning codes, design standards, or development standards.
(limit 6 lines)
The master plan for the project was reviewed as a PUD, working with the City and the existing zoning
codes. The preliminary plat and the preliminary PUD plan have been approved by the Planning commission
and City Council. The next step is approval of the Final PUD plan and Final Plat, which will require a
public hearing.
The developer does intend to create design standards as part of the Final PUD plan submittal, in order to
assure that the Village development maintains a high standard of design and quality.
b. Planning and Implementation Partnerships: List and briefly describe the type and nature of partnerships
in the project among government, private, for-profit and non-profit sectors.
Name ofPartner(s)
Wensmann Homes
Spring Lake Watershed District
Type of Partnership or Role of Partner
Private developer, investing over $70 M in the Village,
and over $250 M in the overall development
Stormwater Management Plan, support for innovative filtration for
water quality improvements
EA W review, Wetland Mitigation permits
Sewer extension permit, NPDES construction permits, EA W review
Access and road way improvements
Water main extension
Corp of Engineers
MPCA
Scott Count
MDH
c. Community's role: Describe any public participation processes involving residents, businesspersons and
others used to develop the proposal. Describe plans for future community involvement in project
implementation.
Limit 10 lines
The City included this project in the scope of its goals and framework in the newly completed 2030 Vision
and Strategic Plan, which included numerous public hearings, planning and visioning meetings with the
public and local developers in the spring of2005.
Wensmann Homes sought City input during the planning for this project. If LCDA funding is awarded, the
developer will hold another community open house, focused on the public parking, transit station and
shelters, to encourage additional participation. The local Chamber of Commerce has also been actively
following the project and many local businesses have expressed a desire to be included in the development.
d. City's role: How have elected officials, city council initiatives or actions supported the project?
Limit 10 lines
The City included this project in the scope of its goals and framework in the newly completed 2030 Vision
and Strategic Plan. The City Council passed a Local resolution of Support last year for the LCDA grant
application and will do so again later this month.
13
E. Step Two Evaluation Criteria
Include information in Section E.l through E.6 for the Funding Proposal, as described in Section
A on page 1, and for any future development as described in Section C.l, page 3.
1. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will make more efficient use of land
in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region.
Limit 10 lines
Structured parking is a much more efficient use of land than surface parking. Transit is a much more efficient
use of resources (public investment in transit, roads, energy) than individual cars, and efficiency is further
enhanced by concentrating the Park & Ride in a parking ramp, and locating it where these same spaces will be
used on weekends and evenings. The Village plan also concentrates significant new, mixed-use, high density
development close to CR 42, making cost-effective use of existing County and City infrastructure.
The Jeffers Pond plan concentrates land use in a high density plan that preserves open space and facilitates
groundwater recharge to protect the region's water supply. At the same time the plan meets Prior Lake's growth
forecasts, and provides the life-cycle housing options and commercial development that community needs.
This transit-oriented Village should be a model for developing communities throughout the Metro area.
2. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will connect land use to the local or
regional transportation system in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region.
Limit 10 lines
This proposal for transit-oriented development; structured public parking; and transit station/shelters will:
. attract transit-oriented commercial uses near the Park &Ride spaces and convenient transit stations;
. make the Village a regular stop on the Laker Link, Prior Lake's circulator transit service.
· serve commuters who use the Laker Lines express bus service to downtown Minneapolis and local tourist
destinations like Mystic Lake Casino and Valley Fair;
· concentrate destination uses (restaurants, hotel, waterpark, waterfront recreation) where transit is available;
. encourage walking to and from multiple destinations within the Village;
This is an approach readily duplicated in Metro suburban communities, and by demonstrating the success
of this type of concentrated development, act as a model for sustainable development..
3. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will connect housing and centers of
employment, education, retail and recreation uses, in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the
region.
Limit 10 lines
The Village will have sidewalks on all the streets and connections to the five miles of trails and bike paths that
cover the site. So children will be able to walk or ride a bike to the new elementary school when weather
permits. Two transit shelters are planned, on the main square and near the hotel, in addition to the Transit
Station at the Park & Ride lot, to encourage use of both the local circulator transit service and regional
commuter bus service.
The Village will be a regular stop on the Laker Link, Prior Lake's circulator transit service. These routes offer
connections to Lakefront Park, Sand Point Beach, downtown Prior Lake, as well as Laker Lines express bus
service to downtown Minneapolis, Mystic Lake Casino, Canterbury Park and Valley Fair.
14
4. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will provide a range of housing
densities, types and costs in ways that are innovative and replicable elsewhere in the region.
Limit 10 lines
The Village plan offers single level condominium units in an active location, with shopping, employment and
entertainment options immediately available. The overall Jeffer's Pond plan includes several neighborhoods,
offering a range of housing densities, types, and prices to meet Prior Lake's housing goals:
. Single family, larger and smaller lots;
. Duplex and triplexes;
. Townhomes and Senior townhomes;
. Senior condominiums and senior rental apartments.
All of the new housing on the Jeffers site is planned as market rate housing. This development will be marketed
largely to active seniors and empty-nesters, with greater economic freedom. There are already several affordable
developments in this area, including the 440 senior rental (affordable) apartments being built directly across
CSAH 42 from this site.
5. Describe how the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will conserve, protect and enhance
natural resources in innovative ways that are replicable elsewhere in the region.
Limit 10 lines
The Jeffers site development is very progressive in conservation development, using innovative design and
engineering to conserve, protect and enhance this site's natural resources.
. Extensive wetlands have been preserved or restored, with buffers to reduce pollutants from runoff;
. Groundwater recharge is maximized through surface water infiltration, including;
o Dry creek beds for filtration and directing runoff;
o Rain gardens and bio- filtration swales for stormwater storage and filtration;
o Recreated or restored wetlands in critical buffer areas;
o Ponds, with naturalized edges, stormwater holding capacity and sub-surface filtration chambers.
. Green open space is preserved to benefit the development, with over 174 acres preserved;
. The lake shore is ringed in green, with higher density development located across the parkway.
6. Describe ways the funding proposal and future development (if applicable) will be innovative and replicable
elsewhere in the region, other than those described in E.I through E.5.
Limit 10 lines
Wensmann Homes is taking the lead is demonstrating how new development of a larger, green-field site can be
done in a way that is a significant improvement over conventional housing development.
Jeffer's Pond combines sustainable, conservation development, which preserves and enhances the natural
environment, with a concentrated, mixed-use, transit-oriented urban Village located appropriately close to major
roads and transit access. The result is a model for new development that is unique in the metro area. Even more
refreshing, is the fact that the developer had the vision to pursue this approach and work with the City to mesh his
vision with the City's planning goals.
The developer is committed to providing the Park & Ride facility, even without funding, although it may be in a
more conventional surface parking lot. This project is only seeking limited public assistance - specifically this
grant to build the transit station and shelters, and to assist with the significant cost of structured public parking
and Park & Ride.
More Metro-area developers take this lead, including TOD Villages in all major new residential developments.
15
F. Selection Criteria - Readiness Assessment (Begin new page)
1. Indicate the status of land use regulatory changes, design or development standards:
Will be
Needed
Underway
City has
Adopted
X
Mark (X) appropriate box
Zonine; codeslland use ree;ulatory chane;es
Desie;n standards
Development standards
X
X
2. Indicate the status of market and feasibility studies:
Will be City has
Needed Underway Completed
I X
undergoing
revisions
If completed, briefly state the conclusions of the studies: (limit 4 lines)
Mark (X) appropriate box
Market studies
Feasibility studies
The uses and type of development being proposed appear to be well supported by the demand and demographics,
even though there are no "comps" for this unique project within the in the market area.
3. Developer's role:
Yes No
X
Name of Developer(s)
Wensmann Homes
Mark (X) appropriate box
Is a developer(s) committed to the project? If yes -
Type of contract or commitment
Owns the site, PUD concept plan approved;
Preliminary plat approved for !!!.ofthe site
4.
I Yes
X
No Mark (X) appropriate box
Is the development site as represented currently within a designated development district,
or an approved development (Le. PUD)?
5. Mark (X) status of applicant control of the site, or sites represented in the proposal.
Under option
X Own
Condemnation
Within a TIF District
Other (list):
16
6. If the site is not under the applicant's control, state the steps that will be needed to gain control.
Limit 5 lines
7.
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Are market studies or a.........a.isals available for all some or all components of the project?
If yes, which components (e.g. retail, office, ownership housing, rental housing)?
8.
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Is the developer acquiring the development site from the city?
If yes, is the site being sold at fair-market value?
9.
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Has an architect/engineer been selected for the project?
10.
Yes No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Is site plan final?
If not final, describe status: (limit 4 lines)
The Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan has been approved. Final Plat and Final PUD plan
will need to be submitted for fmal site approvals.
11. How have costs been determined? Mark (X) as many as appropriate. (If more than 1 box checked, explain
which .)roject element or elements.)
I Bidding
I Contracting estimates
I X Developer estimates
I City estimates
X Other (list): Architect and Engineer estimates
12. If commercial is proposed, provide as much specificity as possible regarding the type of tenants and projected
rents.
I Type of Tenant
I Hotel, restaurants, conference and banquetfacilities
I Retail, destination commercial
I Professional offices
I Service commercial
I
Pro.iected Rents
$16-26 psfnet
$18-24 psf net
$15-24 psfnet
$14-22 psfnet
17
13.
14.
I Yes
Yes
X
No Mark (X) appropriate box
Does the applicant intend to apply for LCDA funds for this project in future years for
additional phases or components?
If yes, briefly describe future phase(s) or components:
Only for elements not funded with this request
No Mark (X) appropriate box
X Has the applicant applied this year for the same funds, as detailed in this request, from
another source(s)?
If yes, state source(s):
18
G. Required Attachments
Maps and graphic images in 11" x 17" format
Attached in the order listed:
1. Aerial Photo with project site boundaries marked
2. Vicinity Map showing project location; planned land use; transit locations, and adjacent land uses.
3. A Jeffers Pond overall development site plan showing:
. adjacent land uses and connections (roads, sidewalks, or other)
. the location of existing and planned buildings (marked)
. existing and planned streets
. transit stops within or adjacent to the development
. sidewalk and trail routes
. open space, public spaces
· proposed phases, if applicable, clearly distinguishing between existing and proposed phases
. 'l4 mile and Yz mile radius.
4. A Waterfront Village site plan showing:
. adjacent land uses and connections (roads, sidewalks, or other)
. the location of existing and planned buildings (marked)
. existing and planned streets
. transit stops within or adjacent to the development
. sidewalk and trail routes
. open space, public spaces
. proposed phases, if applicable, clearly distinguishing between existing and proposed phases
'l4 mile and Yz mile radius
5. Sketches, elevation/sections and perspective illustrations.
6. Completed Certification of Compliance regarding use of eminent domain.
7. Local Resolution of Support (will be submitted under separate cover).
19
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Regarding Metropolitan Council Policy Restricting LCA Grants
For Projects Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development
Project Name:
Applicant's Name:
The "Applicant" is a statutory or home rule charter city or town that has negotiated affordable and life-
cycle housing goals pursuant to the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and is participating in the
Local Housing Incentives Account program, or is a housing and redevelopment authority, economic
development authority, or port authority. On January 25, 2006, the Metropolitan Council adopted a
"Policy Restricting Metropolitan Council LCA Grants for Projects Using Eminent Domain for Economic
Development." The policy applies to LCA grants awarded after January 25, 2006 and private property that
was acquired through eminent domain proceedings after January 25, 2006.
Please check (D) one of the following as appropriate for the Project. The Project will not be eligible for
LeA grant funding unless the appropriate certifications are made by the Applicant:
o ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT and to the best of my knowledge, I CERTIFY that with
regard to the Project for which LeA funding is requested, no eminent domain authority was
used after Januarv 25. 2006 to acquire any private property associated with the Project and
there are no plans to use eminent domain authority for "economic development" purposes in
connection with the Project.
o Eminent domain authority was used after Januarv 25. 2006 to acquire private property
associated with the Project but, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT and to the best of my
knowledge, I CERTIFY that the eminent domain authority was not exercised for "economic
development" purposes as defined by the Metropolitan Council's policy because one or more
of the following exceptions applies:
Please check (D) the following exceptiones) that applies:
o (a) Private property was acquired for public ownership and public use, such as for a roadway,
park, sanitary sewer, hospital, public school, or similar use;
o (b) Private property was acquired to remediate or clean up pollution or contamination that
threatens or may threaten public health or safety or the environment;
o (c) Private property acquired through eminent domain will be leased to a private person or entity
but the private person or entity only will occupy an incidental part of a public property or
public facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building;
o (d) Eminent domain authority was used to acquire abandoned property or acquire "blighted"
property as the term "blighted" is defined and used in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 469;
20
D (e) Private property was acquired to remove a public nuisance; or
D (f) Eminent domain authority was used to clear defective chains of title.
If eminent domain authority was used to acquire private property to remediate or clean up pollution or
contamination that threatens or may threaten public health or safety or the environment (see exception
(b) above), then ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, and to the best of my knowledge, I FURTHER
CERTIFY that:
(1 ) The property owner was/is unable or unwilling to pay for appropriate remediation or clean up; and
(2) Remediation or clean up must occur expeditiously to eliminate or mitigate the threat to public health
or safety or the environment; and
(3) No Responsible Party has been identified or is financially capable of carrying out the remediation or
clean up.
BUS CERn~lCATION MUST BE SIGNED BY
1.l1.E APPLICANT'S AUTHORIZED O~~lCIAL:
Name:
Title:
Signature:
21
2006 RESOLUTION - SINGLE PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF
, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2006 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore
eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration
Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan
development guide; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
project administration; and
WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in
the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application
submitted on , 2006; and
WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended
to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for
development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the
proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan-
area communities; and
WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's
Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council
has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would
not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration,
the governing body of the City:
1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed
project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time.
22
2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account
funding is sought:
(a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future; and
(b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time.
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for
the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought
but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project
component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the
following reasons and supporting facts:
4. Authorizes its to submit on behalf of the City an application for
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project
component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to
implement the project on behalf of the City.
Adopted this _ day of
,2006.
Mayor
Clerk
23
2006 RESOLUTION - MULTIPLE PROJECTS
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF
, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING TIlli NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND
AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS the City of is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's
Housing Incentives Program for 2006 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore
eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
WHEREAS the City has identified proposed projects within the City that meet the Demonstration
Account's purposes and criteria and are consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan
development guide; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
project administration; and
WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in
the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the projects contained in the grant applications
submitted on , 2006;
WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended
to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for
development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the
proposed projects or key components of the proposed projects can be replicated in other metropolitan-
area communities; and
WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's
Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council
has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would
not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding; and
WHEREAS cities may submit grant applications for up to five projects during each funding cycle but,
using the cities' own internal ranking processes, must rank their projects by priority so the Metropolitan
Council may consider those priority rankings as it reviews applications and makes grant awards.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and consideration, the
governing body of the City:
24
Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed
projects to occur at these particular sites at this particular time.
1. Finds that the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account
funding is sought:
(a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future; and
(b) will not occur within two years after the grant award unless Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for these projects at this time.
2. Ranks the project funding applications, according to the City's own internal priorities, in the
following order:
Priority
Ranking
Project Name
Grant Amount
Required
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for
the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought
but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project
component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the
following reasons and supporting facts:
4. Authorizes its to submit on behalf of the City applications for
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project
components identified in the applications, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to
implement the projects on behalf of the City.
Adopted this
day of
, 2006.
Mayor
Clerk
05/10/06
25