1996-04-15 CC Agenda Special 7:00 p.m.ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
April 15, 1996
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/ADOPT AGENDA
(Mayor/Clerk/Council)
2. SPECIAL ORDER (City Attorney/Developer)
a. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1) Roman & Donna Becker Annexation Petition - 59.6
acres
ORDINANCE #1996-6 (AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE
CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY ( 60 ) ACRES OR LESS
OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN FRANKFORT
TOWNSHIP, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA)
(2) Michael & Heidi Potter Annexation Petition - 16+
acres
- ORDINANCE #1996-7 (AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE
CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY ( 60 ) ACRES OR LESS
OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN FRANKFORT
TOWNSHIP, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA)
7:30 PM
(3) Northwest Drainage Improvement Project
b.
Offer on water tower lot (Jim Krystosek)
C.
Approve Liquor Licenses
(1) KD's Family Restaurant (On Sale, Sunday)
(2) 152 Club (On & Off Sale, Sunday)
d.
WWTF Equipment Purchases (PSG)
e.
City Engineer - Authorization to transfer office to
Minnetonka (Scott Harri, P. E.)
f .
Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Plan Review (City Planner)
g.
Comprehensive Park & Trail System Plan & Contract (CMIF)
h.
Consider recommendation from Planning Commission to deny
preliminary plat approval for the Summerfield Addition
because of failure to submit necessary documentation
i.
RESOLUTION #1996-39 (ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR A
SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURE)
j.
Census Data - Annexation Petition
k.
Mowing Contracting Bids - Discussion & Award (PW Comnittee)
1.
Typist/File Clerk (Personnel Committee)
M.
RESOLUTION #1996-40 (DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE TO HAVE MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION
272.162 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERS OF SPECIFIC
PARCELS OF PROPERTY ENFORCED BY WRIGHT COUNTY)
n .
Economic Development (City Attorney)
(1) Local Tax Assistance
(2) Local Tax Assistance/School District Participation
3. ADJ (Counci 1)
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
April 15, 1996
Albertville City Hall 7:00 PM
PRESENT: Mayor Michael Potter, Councilmembers Duane Berning,
John Vetsch, Curt Muyres and Sharon Anderson (10:00 PM), City
Attorney Mike Couri, City Engineer Peter Carlson, City
Administrator Garrison Hale and City Clerk -Treasurer Linda Houghton
Mayor Potter called the special meeting of the Albertville
City Council to order.
The agenda was amended by adding the following:
1996 Item 20 - Request from JMJ Properties - Letter dated April 12,
Item 2P - Discuss letter and request for direction from Peter
Schmitz of Schmits & Ophaug, special legal cousel, regarding
annexation proceedings
Item22 - Approve bid on crack sealing materials
Berning made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Muyres
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Mayor Potter removed himself from the Council and turned the
meeting over to Acting Mayor Berning.
Berning explained the Becker property and the Potter property
individually petitioned by the property owners to be annexed to the
City of Albertville lie within the portion of Frankfort Township
that the City initiated for annexation. Attorney Schmitz has
informed the City, that in accordance with M.S. 414.033
subd. 6, the actions presently under the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Board stops the Council from taking any action on either
the Becker or Potter annexation requests at this time.
Muyres made a motion to continue the Public hearings for the
Roman & Donna Becker and Michael & Heidi Potter in accordance with
M.S. 414.033 Subd. 6 for annexation until final disposition of
other boundary adjustments have been decided for the same land.
Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Mayor Potter returned to the Council to continue the meeting
at 7:10 PM.
Because the public hearing on the Northwest Drainage
Improvement Project was not scheduled to begin until 7:30 PM, the
Council continued on with the remaining agenda items.
Jim Krystosek presented an offer for the purchase of the water
tower site. The offer written by an Edina Realty representative is
for $24,000. There are two miscellaneous contingencies--(1) the
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 2 of 7
lot is guaranteed buildable and (2) no toxic or hazardous waste is
buried on the site. Mayor Potter stated the Council needed time to
review the offer before making a decision to accept, reject or
counter offer.
Vetsch made a motion to approve the following liquor licenses:
152 Club - On & Off Sale, Sunday
KD's Family Restaurant - On Sale and Sunday
Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Preston Van Schepen reviewed the list of equipment PSG
recommends for purchase for the wastewater treatment facility.
Operational equipment includes a Dissolved Oxygen Meter and a pH
meter with miscellaneous attachments. Total cost of the
operational equipment is $2,782.15. Van Schepen provided
recommendation for the purchase of safety equipment, including a
Personal Gas meter, fall restraint system for Lift Station and a
harness for the fall restraint system. Total cost for the safety
equipment is $2,144.10.
Councilmember Muyres questioned whether the items Schepen
recommended for purchase by the City should actually be provided by
the contractor. Schepen stated that the City will own the
equipment and should the City decide not to renew the contract, the
City would have the necessary equipment.
Potter made a motion to approve purchasing the operational
equipment and the safety equipment as recommended by PSG at a not
to exceed cost of $4,926.25. Vetsch seconded the motion. All
voted aye.
At 7:30 PM, Mayor Potter convened the public hearing on the
Northwest Drainage Improvement Project.
City Engineer Pete Carlson explained the project consists of
installing storm sewer pipe, a new culvert under County Road 19, a
detention pond and a culvert under the railroad tracks. The
project will benefit property owners who will not be required to
engineer detention ponds on their property, will allow Don Barthel
to fill some wetland areas to give 200' depth south of 60th Street,
and will give Andy Savitski's property more room for ,parking and
vehicle movement.
Construction cost for the project is estimated at $195,000.
If the project were assessed 100% to the benefitting 19+ acres of
land, the assessment would be around $10,000 per acre.
Mayor Potter asked for comment from the audience.
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 3 of 7
Albert Barthel questioned why the Marx property was not
included as a benefitting property. Carlson explained that the
Marx property will drain to the north through storm sewers and he
could therefore not show a direct benefit.
Don Barthel stated he feels the concept is good but more
properties should be assessed.
Albert Barthel asked if the City could contribute to the cost
of the project by using funds collected through storm sewer
quarterly billings. Councilmember Berning indicated he would not
be opposed to the City using storm sewer funds to pay for the cost
of the culvert under the railroad tracks.
Andy Savitski believes the City Park will benefit from
improved drainage and the City should be responsible for some
additional costs.
Although representatives from John -George, Inc. were not
present, Attorney Couri reported they have indicated to him that
they would be willing to pay assessments of $5,000 per acre. If
all other property owners agree, John -George Inc. would pay up to
^ $6,000 per acre assessment.
Diane Vinge, owner of L & D Trucking, does not believe her
property benefits from the improvement and therefore should not be
assessed. City Engineer Carlson stated that her parcel was not
included in the assessable acreage.
Mayor Potter asked the property owners to state what amount
per acre they would agree to be assessed.
Don Barthel believes more outlying acreage also benefits from
the proposed improvement and should be assessed as well. He would
not be opposed to an assessment of $5,000 per acre.
Andy Savitski would agree to be assessed in the $5,000 per
acre range.
Mayor Potter asked for any other public comment. There was
none.
Muyres made a motion to close the public hearing. Berning
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
City Attorney Couri advised the Council to either have the
landowners sign an assessment agreement before proceeding with the
project or hire an appraiser to evaluate the properties before the
improvement is made.
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 4 of 7
City Engineer Carlson was asked if the project could be
revised to eliminate some of the estimated costs. Carlson
explained that approximately 300 feet of 24" storm sewer pipe along
County Road 19 could be eliminated by ditching and possibly some
piping from Lachman Avenue to 60th Street may be excluded if the
elevation of the storm sewer on 61st Street is adequate. Carlson
further explained that the cost savings from eliminating the piping
would not exceed $30,000, leaving approximately $65,000-$70,000 of
the project unassessed.
Muyres made a motion to table the Northwest Drainage Project
indefinitely. Berning seconded the motion. All voted aye.
City Engineer Carlson explained to the Council that he will
not be leaving SEH, Inc. as he reported at the last meeting.
Carlson suggested the Council table action on appointing Scott
Harri as city engineer until after Carlson and Harri meet with the
administrator and the council to discuss his job performance and
the City's expectations.
Potter made a motion to table the transfer of the city
engineer's office from St. Cloud to Minnetonka at this time.
f Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Potter made a motion directing the Council and staff to review
Carlson's work as City Engineer and make comments in writing to the
City Administrator prior to meeting with Carlson. Muyres seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
City Planner David Licht reviewed the proposed Land Use Plan
portion of the Comp Plan with the Council. The Land Use Plan will
be revised as discussed and presented at the Planning Commission
meeting on April 30.
Licht reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Park and Trail
System proposal. The Planning Commission has recommended that the
Council approve using the $10,000 CMIF grant to proceed with the
project without the optional Community Recreation Survey.
Potter made a motion to approve a contract with NAC, Inc. to
proceed with a Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan without the
Community Recreation Survey and detailed design at a cost of
$10,265. Further, to approve the Community Recreation Survey at an
additional cost of $2,327.00 if the service organizations agree to
donate the cost of the survey. Vetsch seconded the motion. All
voted aye.
As recommended by the Planning Commission at their April 9,
1996, meeting, Potter made a motion to deny the preliminary plat of
Summerfield Addition because complete plans have not been
OALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 5 of 7
submitted. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Potter made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #1996-39 titled
ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR A SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURE. Berning
seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The Council discussed methodology for gathering census data
pertinent to the Frankfort Township annexation issues. City
Attorney Couri told the Council that the state demographer provides
the Municipal Board with population figures for annexed properties.
The demographer may do so for a petitioning party as well. Berning
made a motion to continue the census data issue to the May 6, 1996,
meeting and to direct the administrator to contact the
demographer's office to determine if census data can be obtained
through the department. Potter seconded the motion. All voted
aye.
Mayor Potter explained that the bids for contracted mowing
have been reviewed by the Public Works Committee. The ad for bids
called for prices on a per hour basis. Due to the variety of
equipment provided, it is impossible to compare bids. Muyres made
a motion rejecting all bids submitted for contracted mowing and
directing staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
contracted mowing service. Vetsch seconded the motion. All voted
aye.
The Personnel Committee is recommending the City advertise for
a part-time typist/file clerk aide position. Funds to cover the
part-time position for 16 hours per week have been included in the
1996 budget. Anderson made a motion to advertise for the position
of typist/file clerk aide on a 16 week per hour basis (Tuesdays and
Thursday from 8:00 - 4:30). Potter seconded the motion. All voted
aye.
Potter made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #1996-40 titled
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE TO HAVE
MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 272.162 RELATING TO RESTRICTION ON
TRANSFERS OF SPECIFIC PARCELS OF PROPERTY ENFORCED BY WRIGHT
COUNTY. Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Attorney Couri reviewed the two letters from Steven J. Bubul
of Kennedy & Graven regarding Local Tax Assistance and Local Tax
Assistance/School District Participation. Couri recommended that
a concept of how local tax assistance could encourage business to
locate in the City and benefit the city, the school district and
the county. Councilmember Vetsch is opposed to using tax dollars
to bring businesses into the City. Berning made a motion to
appoint Councilmember Muyres and Administrator Hale to take the
Local Tax Assistance concept to both the school district and Wright
County for their input. Anderson seconded the motion. Berning,
ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 6 of 7
Potter, Muyres and Anderson voted aye. Vetsch voted no. The
motion carried.
Mayor Potter removed himself from the Council at 10:45 PM.
Acting Mayor Berning conducted the meeting.
The Council reviewed the letter dated April 12, 1996, from Jim
Morse of JMJ Properties Inc. requesting that the City guarantee
35,000 gallons per day sanitary sewer capacity in 1997 for his
proposed development and that a state permit to cross the creek
with a sewer line be secured by mid-1996. Muyres made a motion
directing the administrator to contact Morse and inform him of the
costs of connection to the sanitary sewer system and of the fact
that the City is having our engineer look into sewer extension to
service his property. Further, the City cannot guarantee a state
permit to cross the creek, as it is questionable whether a permit
is necessary, but the City can give a conditional guarantee of
35,000 gallon per day sewer capacity for a limited time period.
Anderson seconded the motion. All voted aye.
The Council reviewed the letter from Attorney Peter Schmitz
concerning the annexation issues. Schmitz recommends that the
Council authorize him to meet with attorneys from St. Michael,
Frankfort, and Otsego prior to the Municipal Board's hearing on May
9 in an attempt to work out a possible solution. Schmitz also
requested the use of City resources (engineer, planner, etc.) to
prepare the City's position at the annexation hearings.
Councilmember Muyres stated there would be no benefit to
having the attorneys meet at this point as he believes the
Municipal Board will require a minimum of three meetings between
all parties prior to making their decision.
Anderson made a motion to schedule a closed meeting with
Special Attorney Schmitz to discuss the City's options on
annexation and the possibility of litigation related therein on
April 25, 1996, at 6:30 PM. Muyres seconded the motion. All voted
aye.
Mayor Potter explained that the Public Works Department has a
quote on crack sealing material at $.30 per pound. The amount of
material needed will exceed $1000.00. Muyres made a motion to
approve the Public Works Department's purchase of crack sealing
material at a approximate cost of $2000. Berning seconded the
motion. All voted aye.
�..� ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
April 15, 1996
Page 6 of 7
Berning made a motion to adjourn at 11:25 PM. Muyres seconded
the motion. All voted aye.
Michael Potter, Mayor
L 00� 7,
Li da Houghton, Cler
.''N
aV4 t F,*) # k 0,#
April 10, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: G.L. Hale, City Administrators
SUBJ: Annexation Petitions 60 Acre Law By Ordinance
In light of the actions by the Town of Frankfort
City of St. Michael and Albertville, you are
recommended to continue the public hearings.
Special Counsel Schmitz informed me that in
accordance with M.S. 414.033 Subd. 6 the actions
presently under the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Board stops you from taking any action at this time.
RECOMMEND:
Moved by (Name), supported by (Name), to continue
the Public Hearing(s) for Kenco Co. and Michael
and Heidi Potter in accordance with M.S. 414.033
Subd. 6 for annexation until final disposition
of other boundary adjustments proceedings have
been decided for the same land. Motion ???
'96 08:21 SCHMITZ AND OPHAUG 904 P01
ETC. § 4141.033
oF Subd. 4. Repealed by Laws 1978, c. 705, § 33, eff. March 29, 1978.
Subd. 5. If the land is platted, or, if unplatted, does not exceed 200 acres,
the property owner or a majority of the property owners in number may
petition the municipal council to have such land included within the abutting
municipality and, within ten days thereafter, shall file copies of the petition
with the board, the town board, the county board and the municipal council
of any other municipality which borders the land to be annexed. Within 90
days from the date of service, the town board or the municipal council of
such abutting municipality may submit written objections to the annexation
to the board and the annexing municipality. Upon receipt of such objections,
the board shall proceed to hold a hearing and issue its order in accordance
with section 414.031, subdivisions 3, 4, and 5. If written objections are not
submitted within the time specified hereunder and if the municipal council
determines that property proposed for the annexation is now or is about to
become urban or suburban in character, it may by ordinance declare such
land annexed to the municipality. If the petition is not signed by all the
property owners of the land proposed to be annexed, the ordinance shall not
be enacted until the municipal council has held a hearing on the proposed
annexation after at least 30 days mailed notice to all property owners withi
the area to be annexed.
Subd. 6. Whenever a proceeding for annexation is initiated under this
section and all or any part of the land is included in another boundary
adjustment proceeding pending before the board, no action thereon shall be
taken by the municipality, unless otherwise provided by an order of the
board, until final disposition has been made of the petition pending before the
board. Under this section the board will accept a waiver from all Oarties
having a right to object, stating they have no objections to the proposed
annexation and waiving the 90 day period before an annexation ordinance
may be adopted.
u ny annexation or inance provided for in this section must be
filed with the board, the township, the county auditor and the secretary of
state and is final on the date the ordinance is approved by the board.
Subd. S. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 487, § 23.
Subd. 9. The municipal board in its approval letter may state the popula-
tion of the area annexed by ordinance. The stated population shall be
effective on the date of the letter or at a later date set in the letter. If
population information is not contained in the petition or notice of intent for
annexation and the annexation ordinance, the board shall not state the
population.
Subd. 10. The municipal board may, at its discretion, require the city or
property owners to furnish additional information concerning an annexation
by ordinance to inform the board about the extent to which the proposed
annexation conforms to the statutory criteria set forth in sections 414.01,
subdivision 1 and 414,031, subdivision 4.
Laws 1969, c. 1146, § 12, eff. June 10, 1969. Amended by Laws 1975, c. 271, § 6;
Laws 1978, c. 705, §§ 15 to 21, eff. March 29, 1978; Laws 1979. C. 50, § 52, Laws 1985,
c. 30, §§ 2, 3.
295
aaC.i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HERRING
City of Albertville, Minnesota
To Whom It May Concern:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of
Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, will meet in the Council
Chambers of the Albertville City Hall, 5975 Main Avenue NE,
Albertville, MN, the 15th day of April, 1996, at 7:00 PM to
consider the following:
(1) Roman and Donna Becker's petition for annexation of the
following legally described property:
The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2,
Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except
therefrom that part lying south of the centerline of
Wright County Highway Number 118. (59.6 acres)
(2) The adoption of Ordinance #1996-6 titled AN ORDINANCE
EXTENDING THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY (60) ACRES OR LESS OF
UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP, WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA.
All persons desiring to be heard in connection with the
consideration of the above -mentioned actions are hereby requested
to be present at said meeting to make their objections, if any.
Linda Houghton
City Clerk
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1996-6
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS
OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY (60) ACRES OR LESS
OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. A petition for annexation under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 414.033, Subd. 2(3) has been filed with the governing body
of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, by all of the owners of the
land contained in said petition, requesting that the following
described land be annexed to the City of Albertville, Minnesota,
to -wit:
The West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2,
Township 120, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, except
therefrom that part lying south of the centerline of
Wright County Highway Number 118. (59.6 acres)
Section 2. The area petitioned for annexation is sixty (60) acres
or less unplatted, abuts on the city limits of Albertville, is
located in the Township of Frankfort, and is not included within
any other municipality.
Section 3. All of the tract of land proposed for annexation is
owned by Petitioner.
Section 4. All of the annexation area is or is about to become
urban or suburban in character. None of the annexation area is
presently served by public sewer facilities.
Section 5. The area proposed for annexation is not included in any
area that has already been designated for orderly annexation
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.0325.
Section 6. The annexation is in the best interests of the City of
Albertville, Minnesota.
Section 7. The petition for annexation was filed on March 4, 1996.
An affidavit has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk stating
that thirty (30) days written notice of the public hearing on the
annexation petition was given by certified mail upon the Town Board
of Frankfort Township and all adjacent landowners contiguous to the
area to be annexed. A public hearing on the petition and this
proposed ordinance was held on April 15, 1996, at Albertville City
Hall.
Section 8. The corporate limits of the City of Albertville,
Minnesota, are hereby extended to include the property described in
Section 1, and the same is hereby annexed to and included within
the City of Albertville, Minnesota, as effectively as if it had
been originally a part thereof.
Section 9. The City Clerk is directed to file certified copies of
this Ordinance with the Minnesota Municipal Board, the Secretary of
State, the Wright County Auditor and the Frankfort Township Clerk,
and to publish a copy of the same in the North Crow River News, the
legal newspaper of the City of Albertville.
Section 10. The Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage, publication and filing certified copies hereof as set
forth in Section 9 above and upon formal approval by the State of
Minnesota Municipal Board.
ADOPTED BY THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL,
1996.
Michael Potter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
�6C.)
DICE OF PUBLIC BEARING
City of Albertville, Minnesota
To Whom It May Concern:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of
Albertville, Wright County, Minnesota, will meet in the Council
Chambers of the Albertville City Hall, 5975 Main Avenue NE,
Albertville, MN, the 15th day of April, 1996, at 7:00 PM to
consider the following:
(1) Michael & Heidi Potter's petition for annexation of the
following legally described property:
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 120, Range 23
except therefrom the West 16 rods of the South 30 rods of the North 32 rods thereof
and aI:so except therefrom the East 460 feet thereof.
also except:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 6, Township 120, Range 23 and running
South on the section line 33 feet; thence continuing South on the section line 30 rods;
thence East at right angles 16 rods to the point of beginning; thence continue East
on the same line 11 feet; thence northerly to a point 16 rods and 18 feet East of
a point, which is 33 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section 6; thence
West 18 feet to a point 16 rods East of a point 33 feet South from the Northwest
corner of said Section 6; thence South 16 rods to the point of beginning of the lands
to be herein described.
(2) The adoption of Ordinance #1996-7 titled AN ORDINANCE
EXTENDING THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY (60) ACRES OR LESS OF
UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP, WRIGHT COUNTY,
MINNESOTA.
All persons desiring to be heard in connection with the
consideration of the above -mentioned actions are hereby requested
to be present at said meeting to make their objections, if any.
Linda Houghton
City Clerk
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
WRIGHT COUNTY, MT11H ESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1996-7
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS
OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE TO INCLUDE SIXTY (60) ACRES OR LESS
OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. A petition for annexation under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 414.033, Subd. 2(3) has been filed with the governing body
of the City of Albertville, Minnesota, by all of the owners of the
land contained in said petition, requesting that the following
described land be annexed to the City of Albertville, Minnesota,
to -wit:
The Ncrthwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 120, Range 23
except therefrom the West 16 rods of the South 30 rods of the North 32 rods thereof
and aI-so except therefrom the East 460 feet thereof.
also except:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 6, Township 120, Range 23 and running
South on the section line 33 feet; thence continuing South on the section line 30 rods;
thence East at right angles 16 rods to the point of beginning; thence continue East
on the same line 11 feet; thence northerly to a point 16 rods and 18 feet East of
a point, which is 33 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section 6; thence
West 18 feet to a point 16 rods East of a point 33 feet South from the Northwest
corner of said Section 6; thence South 16 rods to the point of beginning of the lands
to be herein described.
Section 2. The area petitioned for annexation is sixty (60) acres
or less unplatted, abuts on the city limits of Albertville, is
located in the Township of Frankfort, and is not included within
any other municipality.
Section 3. All of the tract of land proposed for annexation is
owned by Petitioner.
Section 4. All of the annexation area is or is about to become
urban or suburban in character. None of the annexation area is
presently served by public sewer facilities.
Section 5. The area proposed for annexation is not included in any
area that has already been designated for orderly annexation
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.0325.
Section 6. The annexation is in the best interests of the City of
Albertville, Minnesota.
Section 7. The petition for annexation was filed on March 4, 1996.
An affidavit has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk stating
that thirty (30) days written notice of the public hearing on the
annexation petition was given by certified mail upon the Town Board
of Frankfort Township and all adjacent landowners contiguous to the
area to be annexed. A public hearing on the petition and this
Proposed ordinance was held on April 15, 1996, at Albertville City
Hall.
Section S. The corporate limits of the City of Albertville,
Minnesota, are hereby extended to include the property described in
Section 1, and the same is hereby annexed to and included within
the City of Albertville, Minnesota, as effectively as if it had
been originally a part thereof.
Section 9. The City Clerk is directed to file certified copies of
this Ordinance with the Minnesota Municipal Board, the Secretary of
State, the Wright County Auditor and the Frankfort Township Clerk,
and to publish a copy of the same in the North Crow River News, the
legal newspaper of the City of Albertville.
Section 10, The Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage, publication and filing certified copies hereof as set
forth in Section 9 above and upon formal approval by the State of
Minnesota Municipal Board.
ADOPTED BY THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL,
1996.
Michael Potter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Albertville will rrtect in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at 7:30 p.m. on April 15, 1996, to consider the making of drainage improvements pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.11. The area Proposed to be assessed for Such
improvement is all of Barthel Commercial Park, all of Sutirise Commercial Park, and all of the
following described property:
1. All that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 121, Range 24, lying
south of the railroad right-of-way, east of the east line of the plat of Westwind,
according to the recorded plat thereof and west of Wright County State Aid Highway
No. 19.
2. Also the north 169 feet of that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 1, Township
120, Range 24, lying west of Wright County State Aid Highway No. 19.
3. Also that part of the north 35 acres of the Northeast Quarter of Section2, Township
120, Range 24, lying east of the east line of the plat of Wcstwind, according to the
recorded plat thereof and north of the following described line: commencing at the
northeast corner of said north 35 acres; thence south along the east line of said north
35 acres, a distance of 169.00 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence South 89'
42' 05" West a distance of 626.98 feet, more or less, to the southeaster comer of the
plat of Westwind, and there terminating.
4. Subject, however, to right-of-way of County State Aid Highway 37 and 19.
The estimated cost of the improvement is $195,180. Such persons as desire to he heard with
reference to the project improvement will be heard at this meeting.
Linda Houghton
City Clerk
LIQUOR 0ON71M DIVISION
414 CEDAR ST-SUITE 100 L Safety
J _ ST. UL M1 55101-2156 ION
PiA
fN 55101
(612)296-6430 TTY(612)282-6555
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR, WINE, OR CLUB LICENSE
No Ilcaue wilt be approved or released mrtll the S20 Retailer ID Card fee is receive by MN Liquor ComhoII
Licensee: Please verify your license information contained below. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City
Clerk/County Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liability for the new
license period. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S. 3 to report any license
cancellation.
License Code CM B N Li P od Ending0 4/ 15 / 9 6 ID# 1627
City/County where license approved
ertv�i e
Licensee Name 1 5 2 Club Inc.
Trade Name 1 5 2 Club
Licensed Location address 5794 Main Ave NE/Box 107
City, State, Zip Code Albertville, MN 55301
Business Phone (61 2) 4 9 7 - 4101
LICENSE FEES: Off Sale S 100.00 On Sale S 2,500.00 Sunday S 200.00
By signing this renewal application, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership, corporate officers,
partners, home addresses, or telephone numbers. If changes have occurred during the past 12 months, please give details
on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
ADDlicant's signature on this renewal confirms the following: Failure to rennet env of ti.o f 14.0:......:n v -..0 e_
fines.
1. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by'any city/township/county in the state of
Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
2. Licensee confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation
(state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
3. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal
liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign below.
4. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law
(Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. If yes, attach a copy of the summons, then sign below.
5. Licensee confirms that Workers Compensation insurance is in effect for the full license period.
Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period in city/county
where license is issued. S100,000 in cash or securities or $100,000 surety bond may be submitted in lieu of liquor
liability.
(Signature certifies all above information to be
license has been approved by city/county.
City Clerk/County Auditor Signature v Date
(Signature certifies that an on -sale intoxicating liquor license has been approved by the city/county as stated above).
County Attorney Signature Date
County Board issued licenses only (Signature certifies licensee is eligible for license)
(Signature certifies licensee or associates h e not b n cited during the past five years for any state al liqu law
violations (criminaUcivil). Report violations on back, then sign here. PS 9093-94
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/YY)
X 3 26 96
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND
CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE
,HOMES INSURANCE AGENCY DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE
100 CENTRAL AVENUE POLICIES BELOW.
PO BOX 339 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
BUFFALO, MN 55313
COMPANY LETTER A JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY
COMPANY B
INSURED LETTER
152-CLUB, INC. COMPANY
�ER Y C
JOHN WOOD & MIKE ZACHMAN
PO BOX 107 LNY D
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
COMPANY E
LETTER
COVERAGES
I
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
`"O
VTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (MWDO/YY) DATE (MM/DD/YY) LIMITS
GENERAL LIABILITY
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG. b
CLAIMS MADE OCCUR. PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY $ j
OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT.
EACH OCCURRENCE $ I
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $
MED. EXPENSE (Any one person) $
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
GARAGE LIABILITY
EXCESS LIABILITY
UMBRELLA FORM
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
COMBINED SINGLE $
LIMIT
BODILY INJURY $
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY $
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
STATUTORY LIMITS
AND
EACH ACCIDENT $
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
DISEASE —POLICY LIMIT $
OTHER
DISEASE —EACH EMPLOYEE $
X LIQUOR LIABILITY
JLL200196 4/15/96 4/15/97 $300,000 ANNUAL AGGREGATE
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS $50, 000 BODILY INJURY -EACH PERSON, $100, 000 BODILY INJURY
EACH COMMON CAUSE, $10,000
EACH
PROPERTY DAMAGE -EACH COMMON CAUSE, $50,000 LOSS MEANS OF SUPPORT -
PERSON; $100,000 LOSS
MEANS OF SUPPORT -EACH COMMON CAUSE.
ERICKSON-LARSEN INC.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
_ CANCELLATION,' £?
s _
F
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
= SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
MAIN STREET
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR
OF ANY KIND UPON THE C NY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.
>1 LIA!MIZEDREPRESENTA
ACORD 25-S (7/90)
— ._,,,—• _ ,,. :. _._ `�sz��- "- �-
�_ CACARn cnAPnAATlnN 10041111
LIQUOR CONTROL DIVISION
444 CELLAR ST-SUITE 100 L
Oty
ST. PAUL MH 55101-2156 N
�y N SS 10 I
(612)296-6430 TTY(612)282-6555
(. •ii
RENEWAL OF LIQUOR, WINE, OR CLUB LICENSE
No Hcom wffl be approved or pleased wW9 the S20 Reldkr M Card fee is received by MN Liquor CmU I
Licensee: Please verify your license information contained below. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City
Clerk/county Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liability for the new
license period. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S. 3 to report any license
cancellation.
License Code O N S S License Period Ending 0 4/ 14 / 9 6 ID# 4913
City/County where license approved A l b e r t v i l l e
Licensee Name Corwin, Karen D .
Trade Name K D ' s Family Rest.
Licensed Location address 5772 Main Ave NE/Box 136
City, State, Zip Code Albertville, MN 5 5 3 0 1- 9 71 1
Business Phone (612) 4 9 7- 4 6 6 0
LICENSE FEES: Off Sale $
On Sale $ 2 ,� 00. 00 Sunday $ 200.00
By signing this renewal application, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership, corporate officers,
partners, home addresses, or telephone numbers. If changes have occurred during the past 12 months, please give details
on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
gj1011cant�9 91�natUre On thin renewal confirms the fminwinn•
fines.
1. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by'any city/township/county in the state of
Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
2. Licensee confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation
(state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below.
3. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal
liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign below.
4. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law
(Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. If yes, attach a copy of the summons, then sign below.
5. Licensee confirms that Workers Compensation insurance is in effect for the full license period.
Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period in city/county
where license is issued. 5100,000 in cash or securities or $100,000 surety bond may be submitted in lieu of liquor
liability.
iceSi e �!/ ��/ ;.�1 ate
(Signature certifies all a ve information to be correct and license has been approved by city/county.
City Clerk/County Auditor Signature
Date
(Signature certifies that an on -sale intoxicating liquor license has been approved by the city/county as stated above).
County Attornev Signature Date
County Board issued licenses only (Signature certifies licensee is eligible for license)
(Signature certifies licensee or associates e n n cited during the past five years for any state/local liquor law
violations (criminal/civil). Report violations on back, then sign here. PS 9093-94
� ._� CERTIFICATE QF INSURANCE ' ' Y
THIS CERTIFICATE 13 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
AC Insurance Group, InC. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
3500 West ROth Street HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NnT AMCAIn CV win .,.,
Suite 150
Minneapolis, MN 55431
KD'S FAMILY RESTAURANT
KAREN D. CORWIN
316 ARLANDA AVE.
BUFFALO, MN 55313
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE:
co q►CCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
COMPANY
B
COMPANY
C
COMPANY
D
.--+•c.— rn . .o -rs.. .. .�..,'t•,-. ..., ',t 4;...iJ+i;:iv ♦�y-)c+r �,c ?�w«�� , - .. .. ..� s..... .. -
....,
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED 8Y PAID CLAIMS.
O 'TYPE OF WSURANCE POHJCY NUMBER ITL1CyE
PFEL"fIVE POLICY EXPIRATfON
' - TE (MM/DD/YY) DATE IMM/DD/YY1 L!<1+1R3
GENERAL LLABILRY
LCOMKMERCGENERAL L048ur
CLAIMS MADE❑ OCCUR
I OWNERS & CONT PROT
AUTOMOBILE LSABaM
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
HIRED AUTOS
NON -OWNED AUTOS
GARAGE LJABLITY
ANY AUTO
EXCESS Li483UTY
UMBRELLA FORM
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
I WORKERS OOMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS' UABAJTY
i THE PROPRIETOR/ 1NCL
PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS ARE; EXCL
OTHER
LIQUOR LIABILITY
CQ99900493
04/15/96 1 04/15/97
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
f'RODVCTS•COMP/OP AGG
PERSONAL & AOV INJURY
EACH OCCURRENCE S
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) H
MED EXP (Any one perpon)
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ! $
(Perr person)) S
BODILY INJURY
(Per,oadono S
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
AUTO ONLY . EA ACCIDENT
DTHER THAN AUTO ONLI".
EACH ACCIDENT $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
AGGREGATE $
S
STATUTORY uMrm
EACH ACCIDENT $
DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S
DISEASE • EACH EMPLOYEE S
** SEE BELOW
CRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VROCLWSpECIAL non
=2IxS: BI-$50,000.EACH PERSON/$100,000.EACH OCC.; PD- $10,000. EACH OCC.;
LOSS OF MEANS OF SUPPORT-$50,000. EACH PERSON/$100,000.EACH OCC.; AGGREGATE - $300,00 .
)CATION: 5772 MAIN AVE. NE, ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
CERTIFICATE HOLDER , ';,:ry r::`•• ; �. ; • CANCELLATION.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
5964 MAIN AVE. NE
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES 8E CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL}9Qj=0WMMA1L
--jA, DAYS VyRrrMN NOTICE TO THE CERTIRCATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,
Iiim!& x
REPRE$ENTAp1RE f
SIM
MEMORANDUM
TO: GARY HALE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE COURI, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: RECORDING OF SUBDIVIDED LOTS
DATE: MARCH 29, 1996
Under state law (M.S. §§ 272.162 and 462.358, Subd. 4b), no
residential lot subdivisions under 20 acres are to be recorded at
the County Recorder's office without City approval when a City has
a subdivision ordinance in effect. This law has been in effect for
a number of years, but either 1) has not been enforced by the
Wright County Recorder's office, or 2) Albertville never notified
the County that it elected to be covered by the law (this is a
requirement before the County will enforce the law). Had it been
enforced, the Pouliot situation may have been avoided as the City
would have been notified of the attempted lot splits at the time of
recording in 1989.
I have talked with the County Auditor's office regarding this
situation. Their office determines whether a deed submitted for
recording will create a new lot. If it does, the Auditor's office
assigns a new PID number to the lot and sends the paperwork back to
the County for recording. If Albertville elects to have the law
apply to lot splits in the City, the Auditor would not assign a new
PID number if the City did not sign off on the lot split first
(i.e. with signatures on a plat or by certification of the zoning
administrator that the parcel was properly subdivided, etc.).
Without a new PID number assigned, the Recorder cannot record the
document.
If the City elects to have this restriction enforced by the
County, the County will inform the City whenever an unauthorized
property split is submitted for recording and will ask the City to
verify whether the property is a valid lot split under the
subdivision ordinance. Under state law, the City will have to
respond to the Auditor's request within 24 hours, or the lot split
will be deemed valid and recorded. The City must also respond to
within 24 hours to a landowner's request to have the City certify
a deed as not subject to the City's subdivision requirements. I
anticipate that these requests will be few and far between.
If the City wants to make this election, the City must file
with the County Auditor and County Recorder a certified copy of a
resolution making that choice.
I recommend that the City choose to have the County Auditor
1
stop all unauthorized lot splits within the City. I have contacted
Brian Asleson of the Wright County Attorney's office and have
confirmed that the County will enforce this law if the City so
requests. Please contact me if you have any questions.
E
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF
ALBERTVILLE TO HAVE MINNESOTA STATUES SECTION
272.162 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFERS OF
SPECIFIC PARCELS OF PROPERTY ENFORCED BY WRIGHT COUNTY
WHEREAS, the city of Albertville ("City") has adopted a
subdivision ordinance which requires City approval of various types
of subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the City desires that the Wright County Auditor and
the Wright County Recorder not process or record. any subdivision of
land which have not received City approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ALBERTVILLE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City hereby declares its intent to have. Minnesota Statutes
Section 272.162, relating to restrictions on transfers of
specific parcels of property enforced by the Wright County
Auditor and Recorder as provided in Section 272.162.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Wright County Auditor and Wright
County Recorder, and to record a certified copy of the City's
subdivision ordinance at the Wright County Recorder's office.
ADOPTED by the City Council this day of April,
1996.
Mayor
ATTEST TO:
City Clerk
C: NffKE\AUERT10RDINAN\SUBRES
STEPHEN J. BUBUL
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9228
April 4, 1996
Garrison Hale
City Administrator
Albertville City Hall
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
RE: Local Tax Assistance/School District Participation
Dear Gary:
KENNEDY &
CHART
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
You have asked us, through your city attorney, Mike Couri, to advise the City regarding the use
of an alternative financing tool for economic development purposes. For want of a better term,
I'll call this tool "local tax assistance" or "LTA."
The concept of LTA is similar to tax increment financing: the increased tax dollars created by
new development are used to pay various costs that make the development possible. Unlike tax
increment, this process is accomplished under existing development statutes, with the voluntary
cooperation of the City and County.
LTA involves the following steps:
An economic development authority (EDA), exercising the powers of a housing
and redevelopment authority, creates a "redevelopment project" as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 14. A redevelopment project is
planning area where public action is needed to remove or prevent the emergence
of the blight. In the case of vacant land, factors such as under -utilization, lack of
public services and the need to prevent inappropriate land uses might allow the
EDA to make the necessary findings to support a redevelopment project
designation.
2. Each year, the City includes as part of its general levy an amount equal to the
City's share of increased taxes created by new development in the redevelopment
project. The increased levy is exactly balanced by the increased tax capacity, so
the levy has no effect on other City taxpayers.
SJB102588
AL141-20
Garrison Hale
Page 2
April 4, 1996
3. The City enters into an agreement with the EDA under which the City agrees to
pay to the EDA, for a specified number of years, the levy amount described above
as a contribution to the "redevelopment project." The City is authorized to make
such contributions and enter such agreements as a "state public body" under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subd. 4 and Section 469.041, clauses (1) and
(g)•
4. The school district is also a "state public body," with the same powers to make
contributions toward a redevelopment project and enter into agreements with the
EDA (acting as an HRX). Therefore, the school district may participate in the
same fashion as the City: the school district levies an amount equal to the school
district's share of increased taxes, and agrees to pay that amount to the EDA each
year for a specified period. (The county is also a "state public body" and may
participate in the same fashion as the school district).
5. The EDA uses the payments received from the City and the school district (and
county, if participating) to pay costs the EDA is otherwise authorized to finance
under the HRA statutes, such as land acquisition, public improvements, and on -site
improvements. (Note that the activities financed by the EDA are the same
whether the revenue source is tax increments or payments from the City and
school district as described above.) The EDA would enter into a development
agreement to reimburse the developer for these qualified costs, with
reimbursements made only from and to the extent of the payments received from
the City and school district. The duration of the agreement would depend on the
amount of taxes generated and the amount of development costs to be financed.
We think that the HRA statutes reasonably support the financing structure described above. At
the same time, we must add that the structure is innovative and untested. Unlike tax increment
financing, which is explicitly authorized (and highly regulated), LTA rests on a combination of
long-standing powers applied in a new context. In our view, the arguments supporting such
powers are compelling, but must be qualified by the fact that authority for LTA is less clearly
articulated in the statutes and has not, to our knowledge, been confirmed by court or
administrative proceedings.
The structure also involves some inherent limitations. The City levies would be subject to any
levy limits imposed by the legislature in the future, which obviously reduces the certainty about
the amount of payments made to the EDA. Also, because of this uncertainty, it would be
difficult if not impossible to issue debt secured by the City and County payments. The system
works best as a "pay as you go" financing, very similar to a typical tax increment deal.
SJB102588
AL141-20
Garrison Hale
Page 3
April 4, 1996
Further, while the school district, as a "state public body," has the authority to make contributions
to a redevelopment project, we have not examined other limitations on the district's ability to
levy taxes in order to make this contribution, or the effect such levies would have on the
district's state aid. These matters would require examination by the district and its counsel.
On the positive side, LTA has some distinct advantages over tax increment financing. It is truly
a local effort, in which all parties must voluntarily participate. As such, it avoids the major
criticism levelled against TIF, which is that cities use other jurisdictions' tax dollars without their
consent. Under LTA, the school district and county are consenting parties (or, if these
jursidicions choose not to participate, the City may implement LTA using only its own share of
new taxes).
And, while the uses of LTA payments are the same as for tax increments, LTA is not otherwise
subject to the complex restrictions that apply to TIF. There is no limitation as to the type of
development that may be financed under LTA or the duration of the payments. These are issues
to be determined by mutual negotiation among the participating jurisdictions and the developer.
In sum, with the caveats discussed above, we think LTA could be used in situations where tax
increment financing is either unavailable or undesirable, including the potential for participation
by the school district. If you need further information on this matter, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
Stephe J. Bubul
cc: Mike Couri
David Kennedy
SJB102588
AL141-20
STEPHEN J. BUBUL
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9228
March 29, 1996
Garrison Hale
City Administrator
Albertville City Hall
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
RE: Local Tax Assistance
Dear Gary:
KENNEL
01111
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
You have asked us, through your city attorney, Mike Couri, to advise the City regarding the use
of an alternative financing tool for economic development purposes. For want of a better term,
I'll call this tool "local tax assistance" or "LTA."
The concept of LTA is similar to tax increment financing: the increased tax dollars created by
new development are used to pay various costs that make the development possible. Unlike tax
increment, this process is accomplished under existing development statutes, with the voluntary
cooperation of the City and County.
LTA involves the following steps:
1. An economic development authority (EDA), exercising the powers of a housing
and redevelopment authority, creates a "redevelopment project" as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, Subd. 14. A redevelopment project is
planning area where public action is needed to remove or prevent the emergence
of the blight. In the case of vacant land, factors such as under -utilization, lack of
public services and the need to prevent inappropriate land uses might allow the
EDA to make the necessary findings to support a redevelopment project
designation.
SJB102319
AL141-20
Garrison Hale
Page 2
March 29, 1996
2. Each year, the City includes as part of its general levy an amount equal to the
City's share of increased taxes created by new development in the redevelopment
project. The increased levy is exactly balanced by the increased tax capacity, so
the levy has no effect on other City taxpayers.
3. The City enters into an agreement with the EDA under which the City agrees to
pay to the EDA, for a specified number of years, the levy amount described above
as a contribution to the "redevelopment project." The City is authorized to make
such contributions and enter such agreements as a "state public body" under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subd. 4 and Section 469.041, clauses (1) and
(s).
4. The County is also a "state public body," with the same powers to make
contributions toward a redevelopment project and enter into agreements with the
EDA (acting as an HRA). Therefore, the County may participate in the same
fashion as the City: the County levies an amount equal to the Coun 's share of
increased taxes, and agrees to pay that amount to the EDA each year for a
specified period.
5. The EDA uses the payments received from the City and the County to pay costs
the EDA is otherwise authorized to finance under the HRA statutes, such as land
acquisition, public improvements, and on -site improvements. (Note that the
activities financed by the EDA are the same whether the revenue source is tax
increments or payments from the City and County as described above.) The EDA
would enter into a development agreement to reimburse the developer for these
qualified costs, with reimbursements made only from and to the extent of the
payments received from the City and County. The duration of the agreement
would depend on the amount of taxes generated and the amount of development
costs to be financed.
We think that the HRA statutes reasonably support the financing structure described above. At
the same time, we must add that the structure is innovative and untested. Unlike tax increment
financing, which is explicitly authorized (and highly regulated), LTA rests on a combination of
long-standing powers applied in a new context. In our view, the arguments supporting such
powers are compelling, but must be qualified by the fact that authority for LTA is less clearly
articulated in the statutes and has not, to our knowledge, been confirmed by court or
administrative proceedings.
SJB102319
AL141-20
Garrison Hale
Page 3
March 29, 1996
The structure also involves some inherent limitations. The City and County levies would be
subject to any levy limits imposed by the legislature in the future, which obviously reduces the
certainty about the amount of payments made to the EDA. Also, because of this uncertainty, it
would be difficult if not impossible to issue debt secured by the City and County payments. The
system works best as a "pay as you go" financing, very similar to a typical tax increment deal.
Finally, the total dollars available are obviously less than under TIF, as the school district's share
of the increased taxes are not captured.
On the positive side, LTA has some distinct advantages over tax increment financing. It is truly
a local effort, in which all parties must voluntarily participate. As such, it avoids many of the
criticism levelled against TIF, e.g., that cities use other jurisdictions' tax dollars without their
consent, that TIF costs the state money by increasing school aids. Under LTA, the County is a
consenting party (or, if the County chooses not to participate, the City may implement LTA using
only its own share of new taxes). The state and school district are not affected in any way, as
the new development remains on the school district's tax rolls.
And, while the uses of LTA payments are the same as for tax increments, LTA is not otherwise
subject to the complex restrictions that apply to TIF. There is no limitation as to the type of
development that may be financed under LTA or the duration of the payments. These are issues
to be determined by mutual negotiation among the City, the County and the developer.
In sum, with the caveats discussed above, we think LTA could be used in situations where tax
increment financing is either unavailable or undesirable. If you need further information on this
matter, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
74
S.tephe Bubul
cc: Mike Couri
David Kennedy
SJB102319
AL141-20