HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 3, 1996
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT OF
ENABLING RESOLUTION AND FORMAT OF PRIOR LAKE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Prior Lake Minnesota has
scheduled a Public Hearing for 7:45 p.m. for Monday, October 7, 1996 at the Fire
Station City Council Chambers 16776 Fish Point Road. The purpose of the Public
Hearing is to receive Public input with respect to amendment of City Council
Resolution 89-17, which is the enabling resolution for the Prior Lake Economic
Development Authority and amendment of the Economic Development Authority
Bylaws. Copies of the amendments to the enabling resolution and Economic
Development Authority bylaws are available for public review commencing Friday,
October 4, 1996 at Prior Lake City Hall 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue. Questions may
be directed to Frank Boyles, City Manager at 447-4230.
16200 El?~IOO~ S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
September 3, 1996
5:30 P.M.
Fire Station City Council Chambers
I. Call to Order ...................................................................5:30 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III.Approval of 333 1996 Meeting
IV.Old Business:
A. Presentation from County Regarding Annexation.
Impetus-Townships putting together 2010 Comprehensive
Plan which, Questions whether Urban Svc will be extended to
those areas. Third element is City Council, which desires to deal
with this issue on a conclusive basis. Brad Larsen and Kathy
Bongard, asking that the City appoint one member to the 3 person
committee which has 1 member County, 1 member township, 1
member City. Kathy and Brad will speak on this. Because this
matter is becoming more complex and gerater information may be
needed. It may be helpful to hear their presentation and have the
City Council form a subcommittee to deal with this. (?) spoke on
the issue of the 3 person Associate Administrator Public Lands in
Scott County. Gave an overview. Overall, in 1972 there was an agt
SPT and Prior Lake to enter into an annexation agreement lands
bordering PL. Agt for 24 years. Orderly annexation board. Original
members were planning director-county and city, township official.
Rule on issues involving zoning, etc. The governing bodies decided
they would rather have that board make recommendations, to
recommend to Scott County Board of Adjustment. One of the
concerns is that the informal agreement was never amended to the
agreement. 1994 an issue went through the process OAR, Board of
Adjustment denied request for variance. The applicant's attorney
16200 rn~(COOQ\ve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
took this to court. OAB is only Board who can make final decision
on the issue. We now have another request, the Board of
Adjustment denied it. The OAB should make the decision according
to the decision in 197 4. We have been put on notice for a 60 day
period. In lieu of making a decision (SEPT 10), ....Action needs to be
taken for long-term determination of how the Board should be
structured.
The other issue is "mini-comp" plan for townships. Each township
also has to have a map approved from the County Board. Until they
have this, there is a moratorium for development. The question the
Met Council asks is this still a valid orderly annexation area. The
guideline was all maps would be in within a year. The areas
around the townships bordered by Shakopee, Prior Lake and
Savage were encouraged to get their maps approved earlier. 8 of 11
townships approved. Spring Lake, Credit River, New Market
Township. Frank has met with Credit River township, want to
know about annexation.
Pete Schenck question about bodiesnRegulatory to Recommending
Board, used Scott County planning process. Nothing ever amended.
Was not until Court Case that informal agreement was challenged.
Based Board of Adjustment not regulatory over. Says one person
from each area. Questions.
Mayor clarified whether they wanted Prior Lake to appoint
someone. The bigger issue is the area for possible annexation, if so,
what kind of zoning, etc. One option is PL is not interested in
annexing now or in future. Perhaps they need to study further.
Scott County has received a petition that they want the Board to
rule on an issue. 4 acre lot of record, asking for setback for one 4
acre tract, 2 other developers none conditional use permit, one
industrial area. One is formal application, other 2 are pending. For
short term, need board and additional sixty days.
Should the three continue the board? Authority for decision
making? Restructure, elimination, or replacement of the Board.
Each body would have equal representation.
All along official duty, chose another process, it was not challenged.
Time sensitive issues, nature of establishment, Have City Attorney.
We have to restructure agreement. 1972 v. 1996.
Mayor suggestion of two member subcommittee for short term and
look into long term. MAYOR Ked and Doug Larsonbe the
subcommittee long term appointed to address the annexation issue
and make recommendations to the EDA and the City Council. All
9396.DOC
9396.DOC
ayes, motion carried. Mayor-discuss urgency of meeting. May also
work with City Attorney and with Planner.
Greenfield concern with validity of 1972 draft of document. See
where it is in place of our existing government body.If court says it
is valid, what needs to be addressed. Executed version of the Joint
Res. CC and PC or. The County would have to waive their rights
for jurisdiciton in the area. It should be reviewed to bring it up to
date. If you do, modernize so it addresses your concerns. Allen
question-Don Rye Joint Resolution formally establishes Statute
clear to what options are.
Frank-first meeting is in October... If we can expedite response by
firs Monday in October, it would work. Subcommittee. More than
60 days to look at overall. Could have interim. PS take action
tonight to provide them with a member. We have talked about
annexation issues. We have not sat down and given this high
priority. We need to get a real good look at this. Andren
uncomfortable with immediate reaction. Pete now we're putting
County in bind. Don Rye can work with them. 3 member board.
Would be ok. Tom KED move, second Statute amendedin 80's that
deals with regulatory structure Original 72 agt. says rep from each
org. amended to read from member of governing bodies (must be
CC). Suggest County board.
Motion withdrawn based on staff recommendation. Moratorium
extended for six months.
Motion Lee Andren Second PS to appoint TK.
B. Status Report on Park Nicollet Project.
. Consider Recommendation to City Council to conduct Public
Hearing to Modify Tax Increment Financing District
Boundaries.
Frank has outlined in report to EDA the current situation with
that development. Consensus that it would be useful for EDA to
recommend to CC to modify tax increment structure we have. As a
question, the EDA should determine whether or not the Park
Nicollet Clinic itself should be placed in... Do you want CC to
conduct PH to consider redoing tax increment stuff for Park
Nicollet.
President Mader setting up tax incrementucreates oppty to capture
revenue otherwise lost to City, appears we don't have well-defined
project. If those things don't happen, what is the down-side oftha?
Roger Guenette Frank indicated that we have 3 84/85, 88. 94
districtsuinclude amoco station. Those three districts
aregenerating64 k. Those were pledged to retirement of General
Obligation Bonds. If those funds are not targeted, the County
Auditor (indicate since bonds are paid off, should recertify the
districts immediately) redefine redevelopment activities. Dollar will
be dist between. Presentation on the increment revenues.City,
County, State. Schedule 1.2 million net present value. Could be
allocated for various redevelopment activities. Not mandated to do
it. Dist. established for purpsoe of redevelopment . When is it likely
to happen. If we take no action, likely that Auditor will say
decertify the districts. City gets 25%. President says no penalty for
setting up district. No down side financially. No penalty for setting
up tax increment district. Potential to act, expand include. other 10
acres May make more difficult. If P dvlp. Blighted conditions of
properties. If they are removed, lose ability to qualify as
redeveloping. It will remain as commercial, then cannot qualify for
tax increment financing. If redevelopment is priority, I would
encourage you to maintain--call hearing, develop legitimate plan,
maintain income screen, etc.
President Mader, said there isn't negative effect (Guen-political)of
setting up the district. There should be a positive reaction from the
County. If it is legitimate, County still has ability to reclaim the
issues. Current $64,000. With clinic, 109. Without financial
participation, funds should be remitted back. This has a potential
effect of reducing levy's next year.
The County Administrator, everyone briefed on this. Request CB to
acknowledge. 10 days for Public Hearing, must have a red. plan a
vail to discuss. RG-take all little docs, turn into big doc.
TK-do we want to talk about this now, give PN oppty to make most
of project.
Potential activities and costs, public facilities, as a redevelopment
anchor, legitimate costs for tax increment assistance. Put into
document. TK question on how PN will be devleoped. Ring Road
could be accomodated by thier site. They will have to put between
Velishek and Hollywood. Velishek would have moved property over.
9396.DOC
Five types ec. deve. , devel. , 11 redev25, housing 25, hazardous
sub., renewal 15. As we relocate is that going to stockpile
redevelopment requests. Redevelopment scheme that has. Mr.
Velishek would not move until he thinks it makes sense
economically. 1.2 million dollars.
Risk of contamination on sites. Problem to deal with short term.
Velishek has had benefit of utilizing more property than he owns.
When he must deal with limitations of own property, may be
different. Proceeds .
President Mader, only question is whether we want to schedule
public hearing. Could conduct a public hearing. Originally
proposed.
Roger Guenette, in last year since they put in special forces to
monitor tax increment. Since we don't have contiguous, may get
called into question.
FB-tryto hold PH-talk to county and School District. Can't have PH
unless have waiver. President Mader, if waiver, when have PH?
Draft doc, dist, run notice. Last week in September or first week in
October.
MOTIN CC conduct PH asap in consisten wi statutes. MOT"IN mod
existing tax increment financing on October 7 subject to second.
v. New Business:
A. Mid-Year EDA Status Report
President Mader, we are not operating in accordance with the
bylaws. We shall meet monthly. Maintain the books. Prepare
annual report, financial statements, file financial statements with
state auditor. President Mader does the EDA have any authority
other than that of the City Council. Question on whether we should
have an EDA. What does EDA do that CC does not. Not w/in
authority of Commissioners to discontinue body that has authority.
Is there a meaningful purpose that could not be served by Council.
Commissioner Andren-Embryonic subcommittee of EDC 1983
businessmen in the community was lack of business opportunity
and lack of business inf Prior Lake. EDC evolved into Business
Park, etc. The reason was diversification of tax base and bus dev
was number one priority of people since 1983. The EDC turned into
BDC after business office park. One or two parcels to sell, and it
would be full. BDC felt after those many years had fulfilled
mission. One thing CC told them is that we would maintain a
9396.DOC
9396.DOC
committee wI additional power than BDC would resurrect on EDA.
Up to us to maintain for community. We are not here for short
term. This body has powers. Someday it will not be members of the
CC who run this committee. I would oppose abolishing EDA
because in the future, what are you leaving them? We have started
to diversify, encourage business development.
Tom Kedrowski, yes we want business here. EDA is tool want
business here, tax diversification. The
Lee Andren comment on Bylaws, use to keep within guidelines of
purpose. Eventually all would be used and followed. Look at spirit
instead of letter.
Allen Greenfield-look at EDA as subcommittee of CC. Addressing
concern of complying with bylaws. There for us to work with, it is
within our authority to change the bylaws. Simple majority.
Pete Schenck-should recommend to Council that they do thisn
maybe time for Business leaders to become part of committee.
Commissioner Andren, time to appoint two business leaders of the
community, would recommend two members and three business
people on it. Andren willing not to be here.
Mader was pointing out we don't meet regularly, it appears that
every authority that EDA has is in Council. While it is viewed that
bylaws is insignificnt. That is not a good reflection of effectivebes
Same five people, redundant. Ask EDA to consider, we ca LA
motion that we go under state statute, Mayor TK second appoint 3
members of community at large to act on the EDA to replace three
City Councilmembers and two Councilmembers. In terms of span
of last two or three months, did not require filing reports.
Statute re: appointments and number of members. If we are
appointing three members, we are deappointing members
469.095 2b EDA by Mayor, pedn app CC, 2 CC, 3 Bus from Coumm.
Ayes by all except Mader.
There was discussion on
Blair recommends City Attorney come back to plan to adopt to next
meeting.
VI. Other Business.
VII.Adj ourn ............... ........... ........ ........ ...... ........ ............. .... 7 :00 p.m.
9396.DOC