The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 25, 1996 PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: Blair Tremere, Assistant City Manager July 1, 1996 Meeting Agenda Items June 25, 1996 This Report addresses each of the business items on the Economic Development Authority agenda. 1. Call to Order: 5 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve April 11, 1996 Minutes 4. New Business A) Consideration of Reauests By Kev-Land Homes - Mr. Gary Horkey of Key Land Homes has asked for two considerations from the City. 1) First, in his letter of May 10, 1996, he asks that a pending delinquency payment for the existing facility be spread over the balance of the Tax Increment Financing Term which is approximately six years. The amount now due the City is $23,129.00; it is set forth in the Development Agreement for the Key Land project. Mr. Horkey does not dispute that the money is owed; he cites his business circumstances and his understanding of the tax assessment process the basis for the request. The City's economic development consultant, Mr. Roger Guenette reviewed the request and addresses it in his June 6 memorandum (Item 2). 2)Second, in his letter of May 31, 1996, Mr. Horkey discusses two matters: his desire to acquire additional land for future expansion, with a down payment of $1,000 now and with the balance paid at the end of this year; the other matter relates to the issue cited above with the delinquent payment request. Mr. Horkey states that he would not be able to purchase the additional land if he is not allowed to spread the 1995 tax EDAR0701.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER payment over the years remaining for this district. Mr. Guenette also reviewed this matter in his June 6 memorandum (Item 1). The issues to be discussed are: a) Should the City / EDA consider an amendment to the Development Contract and Agreements for a business whose circumstances render the payment of assessed taxes difficult? Arguably, if the County had included in the 1995 Key Land tax statement all the taxes due, per the Development Contract and Assessment Agreement which had been filed and recorded in a timely manner, Key Land could and would have paid them. The Assessment Agreement nevertheless provides for the payment of the taxes when due, and it does not provide for spreading them over time. Staff consideration has included the precedent this could set which among other things puts the City in an even more complex situation than that created by development activities using tax increment financing. It creates a banking and lending situation which requires monitoring and administrative services by the City. Currently, for example, the proposed arrangement does not address interest on the unpaid taxes. It is not clear that there is a uniqueness to this case which would bar its application in other cases in the Business-Office Park. The policy implications are significant; the City/EDA of course can consider this as another tool for development. b)Should the EDA authorize the sale of land per the terms requested? The sale price is consistent with the sales made in the Park to other businesses. The buyer would be required to make full commitments for the tax increments and all other residual payments to the City at the time of the down payment. The buyer would be required to enter into revised agreements per the Development Contractu at the down payment time-- that would ensure that the tax increment benefits would be realized, notwithstanding the buyer's timing for construction or subsequent business needs. Clearly, the potential benefits are thereuemployment opportunities and expanded tax base. The City has had several discussions with Mr. Horkey as to possible lot configurations that would allow the desired future expansion. It is not clear at this time however whether Key Land is prepared to make the necessary commitments per the Development Contract and Agreements at the time of the down payment. c)Should the issues of the tax payment and land purchase be co-mingled1 This is without precedent. It represents a complication that is neither required or generally found in tax increment development situations. The tax payment is due and payable. That obligation is not and has not been EDAR0701.DOC 2 .~--_.- a contingency for or of any aspect of the development of Key Land or any other use in the Park.. The question is whether the City should become involved in the private business affairs of Key Land in order to ensure a land sale. It is likely that the land will be available to Key Land at a later date, based upon current activity, expressions of development interest by others, and upon the configuration of the remaining land. Mr. Horkey has indicated he can and will pay the taxes that are due. His request to spread that over several years should be deliberated on its merits. It is not clear that these matters need to be commingled to ensure proper administration of existing agreements and the planned development of this Park. We recommend that the request to spread the delinquent payment be denied. Staff appreciates the desire of existing business owners to grow and expand; the benefits of the development of the Park which is nearing completion, are apparent. The need to administer Development Contracts and Agreements in a businesslike manner without undue complication and modification is paramount. Here, the two requests can stand on their own. We are prepared to work with the owner to assemble a purchase of additional land anytime he can proceed. If the EDA determines that the payment should be spread over time as requested, the City Attorney should first be directed to review the proposal and to prepare the necessary amendments to the Development Contract. The land sale, with the suggested payment schedule, must be based upon up-front commitments via appropriate amendments to the Development Contract and Agreements to ensure the future increments and other payments. Mr. Horkey has been advised that the EDA will be reviewing this. Roger Guenette plans to be at the meeting also. B. Review New Concept Plan for Wensmann Homes Parcel The City has reviewed several development proposals and concept plans for this property and the developer has attempted to respond to direction within the physical constraints of the property and the economic considerations that both the developer and City have regarding infrastructure. The Wensmann representatives have prepared a concept plan for non-residential development which is designed to respond to the mutual limitations. EDA response and comments are solicited at this time, before we proceed to the next step which involves the calculations and analysis to determine economic feasibility. EDAR0701.DOC 3 Wensmann Homes will have a representative at the meeting to present the revised concept and staff will be prepared to answer questions. 5. Old Business A. Annexation-Further pursue or drop? The EDA has considered the possible annexation of several areas. At the March 4 meeting, staff presented a graphic showing three potential areas for annexation into the City. The preliminary staff evaluation suggested that these would be the most appropriate areas for annexation on the basis of the following: All three are within Spring Lake Township with whom we have an orderly annexation agreement. The proposed areas for annexation are consistent with the township board's request the City not "cherry pick" the best parcels and leave less desirable parcels to the township. Each of the parcels have or will have sewer and water stubbed to its boundaries. The land contemplated for annexation fulfills City needs including extension of business park, additional properties for educational facilities, or a logical addition to the city from the perspective of roadway access or storm water drainage. The Planning and Engineering Departments developed data to assist the Council with evaluation of the annexation decision. Staff developed tentative land use and zoning scenarios for each area. This is from the analysis presented to the EDA on April 11: LAND USE DATA: Area 1 - This area is located south of the Business Park and east of The Ponds Athletic Complex and has an area of approximately 300 acres. The proposed land use for this area is an extension of the business park on the northeasterly portion of this property (approximately 100 acres) while the remainder is designated as low density residential. (The last communication from the school district suggests that this property on the west of the parcel is unsuitable for their school building needs.) This land use pattern builds on existing development in the vicinity. The roads in the business park were stubbed out to the south property line with the intent of serving this area at some future date. Fish Point Road currently is the division between low density housing in Wilderness Ponds and the business park and this division is simply carried further to the south. Also, the easterly portion of this area is flatter than the westerly portion and would lend itself better to heavy commercial and industrial use. EDAR0701.DOC 4 The EDA should make a decision regarding this area so that we can take the appropriate steps with the county and property owners to protect the City's interests. Area 2 - This area is east of Highway 13 and south of 170th Street. The proposed land uses include low and medium density housing, commercial and agricultural/residential. The commercial is at the corner of Highway 13 and 170th Street and relates to the future commercial development adjacent to County Market. The medium density housing better utilizes the high amenity area on the north side of Crystal Lake. The low density housing occupies much of the remainder of the area except for the agricultural/residential area along County Road 23. This area is proposed to remain in large lot zoning because of the difficulty in providing sewer and water to this area in an economical fashion. Area 3 - This area is located west of Northwood Road, adjacent to Spring Lake Regional Park. The entire area is shown as low density housing, consistent with the type of development in the surrounding area. Given the road access, this is the only reasonable designation for this area. ENGINEERING DATA Attached are narratives entitled Annexation Study, Annexation Area 1, 2 and 3. This information provides basic development data on each property together with the estimated infrastructure costs to serve each area. The sheet entitled "Annexation Study" summarizes the assumptions used. The bottom line with respect to each annexation area is that the cost of infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.) can be borne by assessments assuming the intensity of development shown. We have tried to estimate high on the infrastructure costs and low on development densities so that the estimates are conservative. The estimated costs do not include year to year maintenance and operating costs and their impact upon the general fund budget. For the sake of this preliminary evaluation we have assumed that the tax base added will pay such costs. STATUS The Council tabled this issue at their last meeting after it reviewed each area and concluded that there were problems and concerns with annexation of each. A two step approach is recommended. At the July 1 meeting, the EDA should determine if any annexation should be pursued based upon the merits of bringing additional property into the City's long term control. If the answer to the above is yes then the EDA should identify concerns that need to be addressed before the actual annexation of specific land areas is undertaken. EDAR070l.DOC 5 MINUTES OF THE PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY April 11,1996 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Mader. Members present: Commissioners Andren, Greenfield, Kedrowski, Mader, and Schenck. Also present: City Manager Boyles, Planning Director Rye, Public Works Director Anderson, and Assistant City Manager Tremere. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was not made at this time. III. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. IV. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business brought up for discussion. V. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Mader announced that per the Authority's By- laws and the meeting notification requirements, this was a workshop wherein agenda items may be studied and discussed, but not acted upon. A. Annexation Issues The City Manager introduced the item and referred to the information provided with the agendas. He reviewed earlier Council and EDA discussions. Area 1. Director Rye and Director Anderson reviewed the graphic and narrative information. Commissioners Kedrowski and Schenck inquired about the land use planning and the provision for utilities. Commissioner Andren said the position of the school district on future use of land in this area is important. She observed that there could be growth related problems if this area as described were annexed prematurely without firm 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -~ Minutes of the Prior Lake EDA April 11, 1996 plans in place by both the city and the school district. She suggested the size for initial annexation could be reduced to about 50 acres. Further discussion ensued. The City Manager summarized the key points: the City needs information about the School District's plans; Scott County officials should be consulted about plans and conditions; and, it should be determined if the land can be given an urban zoning classification concurrently with annexation to ensure appropriate land uses will be established. Area 2. Directors Rye and Anderson reviewed the data, focusing on the land values and the high costs and liability risks given the county roads and the lake frontage. Extensive discussion ensued. Chairman Mader recognized the various cost and problem factors, but he said he would be willing to consider additional information and to expand the discussion. Commissioner Kedrowski observed that when county formulas for road turn-back and other programs change, the economics of annexation can change dramatically. Commissioner Andren said that annexing only a part of the lake frontage could be problematical. Commissioner Schenck agreed; he said that the City might end up providing sewer service whether there is an annexation or not. Commissioner Andren stated it was inappropriate for Prior Lake taxpayers to subsidize the infrastructure of other communities; they should not be expected to bear additional tax burdens due to annexation. The consensus of the Authority was that the possible annexation of this area is not a high City priority. Area 3. Director Anderson reviewed the data and the various assumptions about this area. Director Rye answered questions about the proposed land use and whether it could be left in a rural classification. Commissioner Andren stated that it was unlikely six different owners would all concur that annexation and urbanization was in their best interest. It was the consensus of the Authority that the possible annexation of this area would hinge on it remaining in the Rural Service Area classification. Chairman Mader said that there was a great deal of information to consider and the policy implications were significant. Further discussion ensued about advantages and disadvantages of annexation. Director Rye commented that many things have changed regarding land planning and infrastructure requirements since City annexation policies were adopted many years ago; thus, annexation may not be a feasible urbanization tool. Chairman Mader suggested that this subject be pursued at a future formal Authority meeting. EDA41196.DOC 2 Minutes of the Prior Lake EDA April 11, 1996 ADJOURNMENT p.m. Chairman Mader adjourned the work session at 6:28 Wes Mader, President Recording Secretary EDA41196.DOC 3 ,. ..' QAJc.:..... / \\1- A May 6, 1996 Mr. Gary Horkey Keyland Homes 17021 Fish Point Road SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Horkey: I have recently learned that, pursuant to the "Development Agreement By and Between the City of Prior Lake and A & H Enterprises, L.L.C.", there is a cumulative delinquency of approximately $23,129.00 in guaranteed payments which were due to the City of Prior Lake on July 15, 1995 and December 15, 1995. I understand you have discussed this with Mr. Roger Guenette. I respectfully request that you promptly address this and remit payment to the City of Prior Lake. If you have questions regarding this information, please refer to the development agreement and contact either me or Roger Guenette. ~ Blair Tremere Assistant City Manager cc: Roger Guenette Frank Boyles HORKEY.DOC 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY E:'v1PLOYER ~~ KEY lAND ~L-iIIII ft 0 M ( S ~A , , . "unlock your dream," Ma y 10, 1996 Blair Tremere City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Tremere, In response to your letter dated May 6, 1996, I agree with the delinquency deficit of $23,129.00 after reviewing the Development Agreement as explained by Roger Guenette. I did not realize there was a set starting and stopping time on the tax increment. I was under the impression it started ~ in the regular full tax statement and stopped when a set number of years were reached. I would appreciate it if the $23,129.00 was divided evenly vi between the number of years left in the tax increment. A tax bite of approximately $50,000.00 in one year would put an additional burden on our business. I hope the City can understand my position and will help me out over the next few years. $;~ Gary F. Horkey KEY-LAND HOMES 17021 Fish Point Road S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 GFH:rmh ~~ KEY lAND ~--tIII i+ 0 M E: S :ITA- , , ,"unlock your dream," May 31, 1996 Blair Tremere City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Tremere, Per my discussion and letter from Roger Guenette, H & S Enterprises wishes to purchase another 110 x 228 feet on the east end of our building. I would propose to sign a purchase agreement with a $1000.00 ~ down payment now and an additional down payment of $24,080.00 on December 31,1996. If the Council wishes, I can appear at the next Council meeting. I also need to explain that I would not be able to purchase this from the City if I cannot spread the 1995 taxes over the balance of the tax increment years. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. have any further questions, please contact me. If you ~i?~~ Gary F. Horkey KEY-LAND HOMES 17021 Fish Point Road S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 --~ GFH:rmh ./(/\/\ \ " 4 L( 0 yL/OQ I "'------,-",-- - ~ / --_.,-~ )V A DVANCE DATE: June 6, 1996 TO: Prior Lake City Council & EDA FROM: Roger Guenette RE: Proposed Expansion and TIF Payment By Keyland Homes Recently Gary Horkey of Keyland Homes has presented the City with two separate but related requests. The requests are as follows: 1) Keyland is seeking to purchase an additional 25,080 SF of land on the east border of their present site in WaterFront Passage Business Park at a cost of $60,663 ($2.04/SF). This property would allow the company to build up to 15,000 SF of expansion unto the existing facility. In discussing this possibility with Mr. Horkey it was suggested that he would pay an initial amount of $25,080 by 12/31/96 and the City would utilize tax increment revenues from the expansion to fund the balance of the acquisition costs. The tax increment revenues would be guaranteed by Mr. Horkey via a revised development agreement. The benefits of this arrangement to the City include improving development density, tax base enhancement, increased employment opportunities and reduction of a large, irregular shaped parcel that is positioned east of Keyland Homes. 2) Mr. Horkey's second request relates to his financial obligation for the original development project. Mr. Horkey executed a development agreement, assessment agreement and guarantee of payment with the City in September 1993, regarding the initial development project. It was the intention to construct the production facility in 1993 and begin paying tax increments of $25,000/year in 1995. Due to delays in material shipments and weather conditions, the facility was not completed until 1994. This delay in construction postponed the generation of increment despite the existence of an assessment agreement. Mr. Horkey was informed of this situation in May, and requested to remit $23,129 in guaranteed payments due from 1995. The City has the right to demand payment as required in the original agreement and the developer is prepared to abide by the terms of that document. The tax increment payments due in 1996 would total $48,129; the developer is concerned that the tax increment obligation in conjunction with the land down payment of $25,080 will create a cash now issue. Consequently, he has proposed that the City revise his existing development agreement and allow the delinquent 1995 payment of $23,129 to be amortized with interest over the balance of the term of the development agreement (through 2003). If this arrangement is unacceptable to the City he will not be able to purchase additional property at this time. Development and Finance Specialists .:: '::RPORATE OFFIUS PO. Box 48269 Mpls.. MN 55448-0269 Phone (612) 755-7741 Fox: (612) 755-5393 PO Box 3027 Monkoto. MN :6002-3027 Phone: (507) 387-7117 Fox: (507) 387 -6115 )vf1 Page 2 June 6, 1996 I have checked with Ralph Teschner to verify the City's cash position relative to the WaterFront Passage Business Park. The cash budget is substantially ahead of the projection for the overall development and thus, amortizing the delinquent payment over the term of the development agreement would not have an adverse impact on overall cash flow. )(,t.,,\ \~ L~ rv..~e.~'- 'f~l)'''\ t, \~ ~ . /-wr o on "" _ l f\ r r. . ...!lOO-" " - " . CITY b "ET'l(lP(\I_IT~H SEWER ~ BOARe. 5(....0 .- !l14.61. .-, f 'fl~~ ~ HALL I.. ... -.. ---- "':'R466 ..... <:a .. ~ _.t.O ... '\"2:' L.l VI PPII.R I..A.~E 9APTIST CHURCH 4 I.l' ;; ~..J ..... - J ~ . -' It ~ III j J 4: : ~ 0 SCOT i-RICE T III ~ CO. & ~ .....--- ---- -- - C. . . i~'.' . IL~ .,. :t NG'" 4,'HS'A --- ~~1O.00'J 10. A'& H-.g : -2 ~. '" '" E TERPRISl:~"t J,O.oo . - ~. ., i _ 00 \ . :\ ---.' ~'t LAM -Pr,p'~.J e )C~"$I (9- l -.. PRIOR LAKE CITY liMIT ---:.... - ~ '- .-- '--,. - ~. . . SPRING lAKE TOWNSHIP BOUNOA~ ~ - ~ VA ANNEXATION STUDY Streets and Utilities are available to serve all three potential annexation areas. The sewer and water lines have been over-sized to accommodate these areas. The City would assess trunk sewer and water area charges to all new areas that would be developed in the annexation areas. The trunk area charges should cover all City expenses and help to pay for previous City expenses. The construction of local streets to serve the future developments would be fully assessed to the proposed development. The estimated costs are based on 1996 prices. The costs do not include prices for grading of the lots and streets because the developer would be responsible for grading expenses. The Street layouts are conceptual only. The layouts try to avoid wetlands. The street layouts try to avoid existing houses, but some new houses have been built since the contour maps were prepared and we did not field locate the new houses. If more detailed analysis and cost estimates are needed, then more field visits would be required. Also, soil borings might be needed to determine more accurate cost estimates. The cost estimates were based on average prices per foot to construct similar previous streets. If the City would like to add a landscaped center median to the . streets similar to Fish Point Road south of CSAH 44, then this would add to the . cost of the street projects. .-\REASI. DOC - 1 . v p. ANNEXATION AREA 1 ASSUMPTIONS 1. Annexation of the area south of CSAR 21 will increase the City's frontage along CSAR 21. CSAR 21 improvements will require the City of Prior Lake to be responsible for and an additional cost for 700 feet of road way of an approximate cost of$70,000. 2. County Road 87 will be improved to a two lane rural roadway with bituminous surfacing for 600' south of CSAR 21. The city cost is estimated to be $80,000 for the complete extension of County Road 87 from CSAR 21 to the south limits of annexation. 3. Trunk sewer and water lines have been extended to the site. Approximately l5.Q acres of net buildable area will yield $525.000 to repay for previous trunk expenditures. We anticipate $150,000 of expenditures for trunk sewer and water lines to serve Area 1. 4. Collector streets to serve the area are CSAH 21, County Road 87 and Fish Point Road. With.JiQ net buildable acres the collector street fund will generate $225.000 which can be put towards County Road 87 and CSAR 21 improvements. 5. Internal roadways will be 100% assessed or paid for by the developers. 6. Storm water fees based upon previous development projects yield a small surplus and based upon Area l' s site conditions this assumption should also be valid. COST SUMMARY CITY COSTS CSAR 21 County Road 87 Trunk Sewer & Water $70,000 80,000 150.000 $300,000 FEES COLLECTED Street Collector Trunk. Sewer & Water $225,000 525.000 $750,000 G;IANNEXA 1'.AREAS3.DOCAREASJ.DOC 'f \ -! ~~ ~ ~ \\~ \; v A- ',.-_.cV j" _ ~ ~~\\J"..._".~:: (/ , '... "':"il \ """ . I r '. ' . _'- ~ II ~l ~" I , '. \ \1.,,\\ :-0- 1'1 ;-["'1"' ~...... '. '".. \',:: \ --I-IIn--:-r~.I. '" l- i r i'!:'\I'j'i'~iTI'~j-~~j--T)~~\""'\';"'r;:i~'< ~ \\: _~17~1~1 ' . (" PI h. . - I" t '\ I a 7 ! : ". , -~- \ \-'''~'''~II \ , I! s>/ . 2:>-"' .... :, \~\ - "\'?r~'I!ll' .' ~I <-;' ....;<.lj;' '.. :'; ''/is\'' ,. 1 . o'..' ''<it!/: i ,; -:' ..' ~~""_. ,,~;'k'\~/ ,,::,,!...Z ~i ) / '\ " 1..\ \'1 .' .J ~~ ,/ I \, I . ~"-. < 'i,.\ 5> -~ -" I' '" '~': 1-, \ _ ." I ,;-: ....II " /Iu\ -" 1 . "j;tmii"/lh"url~ --:-\." I ", ': 1:~J'0JJ,;) II \\/11(:111, ,'~.. ; I._,~_ \ ///'~~~~!~($(((< )'~ I' ~ [ljl-i III, l --- '; J; ! ; : !j /.;}I',~'>>\ Ij iii U IIYi\ ! ,",~A 1!~Jn' ii' II , Jr'\><~>~\ 1-",I:I'I~II.I,'nl)1 \/' r):)1J'~' ~ll- J - If I : I ..~___ I diP ) ~"~/I. J !~U.l.{ I' )(1 '-,"rrh \Y_)..\. \ .1., \~. .ii . U 1"-I~t1>11 : J ..fi .. <!.LJ, ,I I 1.1.1,\ . . (\ \ I /r~tl" .. _n~_.j/' 1\\'l'\'\'\'II(./j!7/1~(.~I:)~ . /, / , . , / I \\ \ -) .. /'i ,!; : ','..II '. ,;\ \\\>) ;; ..;/ ;~ !'l , , \\'. \ \ ~ r )~ \ \:\ \ ,\ / , " , . \' " , ,'. ".. ;/ .; I,' :>>.(\ 'I \'i '\' ( j'. .. ..;/ \ : I ("..' , II 'I . ./.. , J ~ ,',\. _ c... _. ... \W -/. //.' .... ~\ / "l~:~r- \~~- )\J\] ~~~'(' \1 '~'\\~~//) ". . ....j Ii "\ "', .\ ~ ~ ~; ;; ~ ~ ~. / I.(/\~S\! . i ~:'~'. ' U\oc\ ~V' , \l\',o1:\' . I ri""" ,. t' I - jf t .. / / -_',I I //1 "l "./ II .l ' 1/ / ' I >, / '7: :. '~l \...-...... -. 1:) I '; i I I /, ". -'1'" i 1/ ..j" '-;:... I <(- //;.; i ~, /iI I i . l~'I-~~--' :' ! I 1111 .1 :1 I I I I ,/ '. \ : I "t ,/ . J "I' '.. --'r~ .,/'/1 ~I- -- - ! i _ u .....,_! ;7$.. '--'1 i". . I '''' .' 'I ;r II / ~ il .' ., . \, t I ~". __ _ ,,__ _ _: __ ~,'AU"" ~ - "'-w.-='i.., ~"'L= ---=-- _ _ 'I' ,..c::::....:..~"' __ _ _ " ! . n., j ----~ ~ , J . ; 1; ~! 't= ~ , ~-- - - _0'_ ~, ... _I' __ . ~ \ 1"1.. _ . j . _ i '" I' !j ~ " , '0, d i !( I i ,I " ;1 1\ ,! II ~ r '. .~ '" ~ ............... ?; ~ .... \0 \0 Q\ z -~+ :i! ""'-'....., , i-f ;! ij -trl ~~ or.n ~~ >C'l --l...., -t"" 0> 2:--l --l - 2: C'l ,i '! i i~ ,,(. .J e~ ' ~~ , ,\ :~ ?; ;--J /, ti"j ~ ~ ~ .-.-- 0-- Z ~ _u_ [Tj >- i ii )oooo-l ....... ......... - ~. ;; . '.............. I' ". \ J. .. (:> . "~'1. d' '~';">'" "", . , :~'" t u I I ,.." ... ,.," \j A- . Al'iNEXATION AREA 2 ASSUMPTIONS 1. ROADWAY SYSTEMS A. Mushtown Road The City is required to make improvements to Mushtown Road as part of an annexation agreement for the Woodridge development. The City cost is approximately $220,000. If direct access is allowed to Mushtown road the City cost could be reduced by $50,000. Direct access is not as desirable as providing access from within the development. B. 170th Street is a County Road (east ofT.R. 13) which will be turned back to the City. Annexation would allow 170th Street to be realigned and to provide a new intersection with T.R. 13 south of the existing intersection. The area north of the new 170th Street would be commercial and could be combined with the parcel west of County Nlarket. The area to the south would be multi-family. The area northwest of T.H. 13 commonly known as the Triangle Car Wash parcel could be redeveloped and 170th Street realigned. It is assumed that redevelopment would occur on this parcel and the developer would participate in providing right-of-way for this project. The approximate project cost is $700,000, which includes signal improvements. The following is a method of funding: MnDot Scott Co. Assessments MSA/Street Collector Fund $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 2. TRUNK SEWER A1~D WATER The area has approximately 80 acres of net developable land, which will generate $280,000. The City Trunk costs are anticipated to be $150,000. It is anticipated that the City may lose approximately $100,000 in assessment in the areas which currently are on septic systems and wells. Fees generated City costs $280,000 $250,000 3. STREET COLLECTOR FUND The street collector fund will generate $120,000 based upon 80 acres net buildable area. yA 4. STORM WATER FEES Storm water fees based upon previous development projects yield a small surplus. 5. OTHER ASSUMPTIONS . If no annexation occurs the City cost for improving 170th Street would probably be similar to that with the annexation. . The internal roadways with the exception of l70th Street would be paid for by developers. . Costs for relocating CSAH 23 to align with Five Hawks Avenue and ring road improvements will be similar whether or not annexation occurs. . CSAH 23 south of l70th Street is not in the Counties 5-year CIP. The roadway probably will remain a two lane facility. The City does not know if the County will choose to use an urban section or a rural section. The City costs substantially changes if an urban section is used. Approximate C it)' Costs: Rural Urban $80.000 $250,000 These costs are based upon today's cost participation agreement with the County. COST SUMMARY City Costs Mushtown Road l70th Street CSAH 23 Trunk Sewer & Water $220.000 $200,000 $80,000 to $250,000 $150.000 TOTAL = $650,000 to $820,000 Area Charges Street Collector Trunk Sewer & Water $120,000 $280.000 TOTAL = $400,000 J - ,i: I ..II i I., \.. J .~, :. \ , ' I I , I ~, . , ' , , : I I . ~ , , ' ';;tr" : I II ~1 :: ~g ~ .. J- . ; ~ ; ',' 3 l" ~"''"\ ""',' ,,' , ,/ ,. I ~,~: ,f "'ilt , ,I .,' 0;,/ , . n . f :.u ~ ::: ;u n '" :' I " /.. I j I.;;r~ . //1Y r.; .1<- ~~ 'to. o , i r .. " '" ( (,,~ ;i I =i I o , 'l. ; , . ~ -~-~ -1 I ~E ~ ~~ M ~~ ~ ...", ,.., Ot'" ~ z> 0 ~ 2 "~ ~ ~> ~N r- .." > ", ~ t'" z -i+ :i! - \C \C 01 I ' I I -"'___\: ~a "~ ' . ' , : i J I i: ..~ -" r :\ r-AMA-~'\' \-.-'-....:; ___l=-j----J- ~=M-r- \ - tI_ r~~' I , .n \ ~ \ \~; J \, ,;{ .'\~ ..(" ~ ',~ 1/ \ :j \ _:('7 ~ I . ! ~:\~\~ , '.; ,,-;Lc::c ,.., \ " 1 >~ ~~ \,\:'f...\ , i:.', r" )#~ ~ . . '~; "\<~~\\~~ \,,\; " ! 1 i J' -" " .. \\\ \\ I ... 0 '~~ \ '?Po . ~i)t. . ,~ '~" ..\', , / , ' ' "~'~Il -., ;( : \ ' ~)" / '. 0~ lIUJUnl1:'tt1lJJ11.r , ' \ I Aii, I.' " ' : ),1 } ' )'. - ,'1:\;:'i'V ~ I / ,," i \ ~ l'(~" 1</'111//\ ~ \ !}\':H1IJi'. ~ I . ,) " f . \,', . . \f>lill.!, I \' 'Ull '1 I ,I I I I /' ,; -I: \~/.' .:I'li;~f'I.:~{:(I~'.~I;I:.'.;.1-. ; r LL.,.~".~;_..Jt'J ~T(~ ,; II '\~\~;c'~l:l~IJ~ l ;~\ ",\; \ 1 T'.'" ,'\.' .. "i ~~.T\;\\l~{\\\ -~ :l[[8'o,/ ~ r & ~ j ;fJ: 1~\\. i I . I i", "<." ~1~\\M I "'''''':;1!1li I \\;". 0 p~ L~~,i ~!:\""i"T'~ f "~~' "~fl li\! 'I /,./'.~ ; '" ~ 'j. ~ ~~J~'.)~\~tiffi>; / // I~: ' ~~.~ .~ / h- ; I \ ~/:~ " " - . ( il , ;, ~ 2J ~~ \ \ ~C~/\~-':-.' '\"'~ y' - ~ ~ "'~, ~ ~ ~ ~ \... ' ,"'~ \ "\ .:~ r, '~'" ~ ~ vA- /'\ ':"l~ I ,"! ; \ .1 --~\ I' -I -'-. -~.. -t % .. 3: .. . m'.. ~; ~c[ -- . r- \ \ \ 2t"'l ~~ OCfl ~~ """'tl -r'" 0;.- 2..., ..., 2 C"l ~ t!j ~ ~ ~ o z ~ ~ ~ > :I: > N r- ." ~"'.1-'" ~- (/1 ". \ , j; ~r. :i~ .1 I I. I - I I I I I I I , :a :~~ , I I , , I I , I I , ~j:'-" )' ~ '0, ,/ ," ~ -Y' i ~ "~~. -\~'\ ~ \~ \~ ~ ~~ ~ \ \ \ , 1.... :u n '" ~... ~ f! i/ :/ .A 'fl,'rj~) '. ,/'/"" ~~ ., ::..~ ./~' r 1> " '" ---., ""', .. "' i~ vA-' ANNEXATION AREA 3 ASSUIvIPTIONS 1. The property is owned by six (6) property owners. 2. The property could stay as is in the Rural Service Area. 3. Development would require all property owners to develop at once to be cost effective. 4. The primary street access is offNorthwood Road. 5. TRUNK SEWER & WATER There are 35 net acres which will generate $122,000 to recoup previous expenditures. There are no trunk sewer and water extension costs. The Dunn parcel will have to develop prior to this area. 6. The collector street ftmd will generate $52,000 which can be used to recoup Northwood Road cost. 7. Trunk storm sewer fees will offset City costs. COST SUMIvfAR Y Area Charges Trunk Sewer & Water Street Collector Total = $122,000 $52.000 $174,000 City Costs $0.00 ~ <i' (" o -' I I l~~ \'" ,,-+~ ~. '" o L. -' ,0 'n c I 2 jj \\ o " .. -I .;, -' /,-) //\~ , ,- />'/ / ' / ' , / / / / /' /' // A-, ----7 ;<--- /y.. , -:i..<1 ~ Cl /C)D . ./ ' /'-~~~/-// //~'jI~ / / /' //// /// I I II / ' // ,./ ' " c z o ~ o " u c --0 ;p ~ ?<. ';; " e> //>/ / // '-., -to/ .,8(' I, .._.~ ,/ -,vo,.-:c, <~ , o o. o i/ /" ~>~ \ ~~ .' ,,' ,0 --Q ;y ='" :A \ \ /--"; -~ ~ ~ . ~ Ow .~ ~: ..! ,//'":'-.--- J,. ~, m )( ~ ~ '0 ~ Z C) z 2J XI i: ~ o z 0,-. ~--~ I ~l uu,,,;o--,, - -------L__ '. , . . ,~.:'~:.' _ t I : I --------., "'0,,-. ..... ..-.:\__~.""."'u. -'-..' , " I I' \ -" Z ' ,/~.- \.... r"TFf'~j!nFif;;'l~~~'-::~'~" Z //',,<:-" \ ~\OI:"i'JI'I" " ",/1 "'II"!"I.,.:. . m f/1 ~ ~\ I ;!J,-r~';ri>IZ:~q:!,;~~/'I)_// /~.>.... \ )( .,' /; . ~ ~ "', \;\ d J Ii ; I i I I I I I I' ) / ~~. (0 ..... ; /, .'" - --. ; _1 J I I f /. " "... -" ~. //..~._ y,~--:=.=.~ -_L~ /. !.';""'0 ......, '" \ /.. "" '" 1/ --- -==::"----=~, / /:;.~ "- 6 'y\ /~(.~;,-' J Ii --""\ '<('/ ~ ' ;)".',:, ZA~-~- .../'.~'7'~. ....1\ / ~ . i .~''\ .. \.... ,,/ 0 I.. ~;~: _ \ \. \ \ $~ ~ . i ~ : \ r:. / - ~- ". ~ ,\ ' ; , ..... ,.' ',';-. , ~ Q",~ If.:g , 'f " ,IJ1' " j7J 0 :.\ :a: '\ ~~rf~~'; . . f\ m.' $ -,;' ~ Z, \ -r-S: ~:. · !j~".'_',.,.,., )> \" _ ,_,_ ~ 0 '\ \" ""A' 3 .- W - - =l~' \, . -5-~ ~ ~ f ;' "'0, J: '\..) f :\ '~.\<. 00 , .~Jl - , ~'_ " '\ . "...... \. \K ___r / VPr " c , 0 ~~ 1" 0' " j.. ".~ /~'" l)\ Area 1 ~A Summary Of Infrastructure Cost And Improvements Needed To Serve Potential Annexation Areas Area Zoning - 100 Acres - Residential (R -I) 220 Acres - Industrial (1-2) 320 Acres Improvements - 7600' Streets And Utilities For Residential 8300' Streets And Utilities For Industrial 15,900' Costs - S 1 ,300,000 Residential S 1 ,800,000 Industrial S 300.000 CSAH 87 53.400 000 Benefiting Property 110 Residential Lots 40 Industrial Lots Average Assessment Per Lot S 1 ,800,000 -i- 40 Lots - S12,000/Lot Residential S45,000/Lot Industrial Net Area After Full Development 10 Acres Of Industrial 50 Acres Of Residential Trunk Sewer And Water Area Charges 150 Acres X S3500/Acre = S525,000 Street Collector Area Charges 150 Acres X S1500/Acre=S225,000 April 11, 1996 Page - 2 Area 2 Area Zoning - Improvements - Costs Benefiting Properties VA 10 Acres Commercial 35 Acres Multi-Family 70 Acres Rural Unsewered 205 Residential 320 Total 2600' . Multi-Family + Commercial 4200' - Residential (West Halt) 3000' - Residential (East Halt) 9800' - Total 5700,000 - 170th Intersection 5700.000 - Residential (West Halt) 5500,000 - Residential (East Halt) 5305.000 - Mushtown Road 53 20" 000 ~ Commerical Lots With Average Size Of 1 Acre Net. .ill Multifamily Lots With Average Size Of 1 Acre Net. 1Q.. Residential (West Halt) 65 Residential (East Halt) Typical Assessments - 512,500/Lot For Commercial Lot SI2,500/Lot For Multifamily Lot S 1 O,OOO/Lot For Residential (West Halt) $ 8,OOO/Lot For Residential (East Halt) This area should be able to contribute towards costs to upgrade Mushtown Road Net Area After Full Development Trunk Sewer And Water Area Charges Commerical Multifamily Single Family Street Collector Area Charge Commercial Multifamily Single Family AR.EAS2.DOC 7 Acres Of Commercial 11 Acres Of Multifamily 62 Acres Of Single Family Resideintial 7 Acres X S3500/Acre = $ 24,000 11 Acres X S3500/Acl'e = 538,000 62 Acres X S3500/Acre = S2I7.000 S279,000 7 Acres X SI500/Acre = $10,000 11 Acres X S 1500/ Acre = 516,000 62 Acres X $I500/Acre = $93,000 $119,000 April 11, 1996 Page - 3 Area 3 AREAS2.DOC ~A \ Area Zoning 80 Acres Residential (RI) Improvements 4700' Costs SI,OOO,OOO Benefiting Properties - 80 Residential Lots Typical Assessment - $12,500 Per Lot Net Area After Full Development = 35 Acres Trunk Sewer And Water Area Charges 35 Acres X S3500/Acre = 5122,000 Street Collector Area Charges 35 Acres X Sl500/Acres =552,000