06/18/1996 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
I.
II.
TV.
V.
VI.
TUESDAY
JUNE 18, 1996
5:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
WESCOTT ROAD EXTENSION
PROPOSED ORDINANCE -- ON-SITE INDIVIDUAL
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
REDEVELOPMENT OF WESCOTT TRAIL
RENTAL HOUSING UNITS
UPDATE/ RICHARD HOLZ PROPERTY/ROAD
ACCESS NEGOTIATIONS
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JUNE 14, 1996
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/JUNE 1S, 1996
A special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. in the
Municipal Center Lunch Room. A light dinner will be served.
WESCOTT ROAD EXTENSION
Mr. Rollie Crawford, attorney for Jim Horne, has requested time of the City Council to address
the financial responsibilities associated with upgrading the current entrance to the Fire
Administration Buil mg to a full public street intersection with Pilot Knob Road. Enclosed on
pages 3 and is a letter from Mr. Crawford along with the petition submitted by Jim
Horne requesting this public improvement. Also enclosed on pages -.5- through �? is a report
from the Engineering Division providing background information regarding this request. After
the City Council provides some direction as to how this project should be financed, staff will
complete the feasibility report and proceed with the public hearing process which must be
completed prior to final plat approval.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/ON-SITE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The Metropolitan Council is mandating inspection/pumping of all on-site sewage treatment
systems. The City, under the direction and coordination of Chief Building Official Reid, has
.collaborated with other communities, mainly Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, Farmington, Apple
Valley, Mendota Heights and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department to work
on an ordinance that will meet the intent of the mandatory inspection/pumping regulations set
forth by the Met Council.
Enclosed on pages l� througl> � is a copy of a memo from Chief Building Official Reid
that provides background on the proposed ordinance design, installation and maintenance of on-
site individual sewage treatment systems along with a copy of the ordinance prepared by the six
communities and the Dakota County Environmental Management Department. The reason for
discussing this item at a workshop is to allow the proper direction to staff and scheduling of
neighborhood meetings and eventually a public hearing before the City Council that would
formally adopt the proposed ordinance. Staff is not proposing any presentation on this item at
the work session; the ordinance does meet requirements mandated and set forth by the Met
Council.
Direction: To provide staff the necessary direction for scheduling a neighborhood meeting and
public hearing before the City Council to provide public input on the proposed ordinance.
REDEVELOPMENT OF WESCOTT TRAIL RENTAL HOUSING UNITS
Several months ago the City Council gave consideration to the Youth Coordinator position and
more specifically whether the City should continue renting or acquire the 949 Wescott Trail
housing unit to be used for the program activities. There was also discussion by the City Council
about the feasibility of the Dakota County HRA redeveloping the Wescott Trail rental units as
an option to new construction such as the project located on Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The City
Administrator, Director of Parks and Recreation, Director of Finance, and Senior Planner Freese
have been meeting with Mark Ulfers and his staff to consider various options.
Attached on pages 2tthrough is a copy of a memo prepared by Senior Planner Freese
which outlines the policy issues and other related information for the Council to consider if the
City is to pursue the redevelopment of Wescott Trail rental housing units with the Dakota County
HRA.
The purpose for considering this item at a workshop session is to provide both the HRA and
City staff some direction on this matter. If the staff is to continue working with the Dakota
County HRA, this item would be placed on a regular City Council meeting to allow public input
at a later date.
UPDATEIRICHARD HOLZ PROPERTY
The Director of Parks and Recreation has met with Richard Holz and is attempting to negotiate
acquisition of or to swap land for the purpose of providing an adequate right-of-way for a road
access from Cliff Road to the Richard Holz Farm. The Director of Parks and Recreationy�rill
provide a brief verbal update at the meeting on Tuesday. r7Urno .tAc,ws,cd an P A& �'
OTHER BUSINESS
There are no additional items to be considered under Other Business.
City Administrator
TLHfJeh
N
ATTORNE}"S AT LAK
LEVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER, P.A.
633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET SUITE 400 P.U. BOX 298
SOUTH SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55015
612—+51.1831 FA.X 512.450-73�-;
June 5, 1996 ;''N 6
Mayor and City Council .
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Wescott Road West of Pilot Knob Improvement
Dear Mayor of Eagan and Members of the City Council:
ROGER C MILLER
TIMOTM J. Kuhn
DANIEL J. BEESON
ROLLIN H. CRAIWORD
KENNETH J. ROHLF
TONETIA E. TOLLEFSO
STEPHEN H. FOCHLER
THWAS R. LEH%'W%N
J --%5'P KARL011CH'
ANGELA 11. LU"."Z
KORINE L. LARSEN
HAROLD UVALN DER
1910-5992
ARTHLR GILLE%
RETIRED
• MW admitted In North Dakota
VIA FACSIMILE
AND U. S. MAIL
Horne Development Corporation has submitted a petition to the City Council for consideration
of the improvement of a segment of Wescott Road, west of Pilot Knob. The improvement of that
segment of Wescott will be of significant importance to the ultimate access to the recently
approved subdivision known as Kingswood Ponds.
In filling out the petition, Horne Development Corporation excised language from the standard
petition form which would have required Horne Development Corporation to guaranty the costs
of feasibility studies on the project. The reason for excising that language was simply that the
project is completely and entirely abutted by city property, and it was our position that this should
be a city responsibility.
It is our understanding that the staff is awaiting further direction from the City Council before
proceeding with this matter, and we are requesting that the matter be on the agenda for your next
meeting in order to have the matter discussed, and further direction be given to the staff.
I intend to be present to discuss this matter.
Very trul yours,
Rollin H. Crawford
RHC:cj
cc: James B. Horne
3
PErrioN
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Mtflon # baa
oate RWXWW"i ;.. • ;
premed to uncll 314 1 14e.
LOCATION/SUBDMSION Wescott Extended west of Pilot Knob
I/We. the undersigned, owers of #a real property @4e0eni to Wescott (Street) or
within ronosed Kingswood Ponds NUEMAsion,
hereby peat M for. .
Street Improvements
Sanitary Sewer
'water Supply
Storm Sewer (Check requested Items)
Streetlights
Other (Explain) Grading and Landccaping of Boulevard
areas
1/We understand that this petition does not in Itself request the Installation of these improvements, but
rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report in which the estimated costs of these improvements
will be tabulated. I/We understand that upon reoeipt of this petition and the preparetion of the
requested feasibility report, a public hearing will be held at which time we may vane our support or
Opposition based on the costs as prepared in said feasibility report.
1.
Z
F -.Nf- ' i*• �,:. •.IW i Jd`10.' ,!� %- y. �. '1 er'i.r ' .. a. f.. ��. yl'f• '4.n
Kingswood Ponds
11/W9 hereby waive our rights to the public hearing and request that detail plans end spectlicetions be
Inpared simultaneously j
its* I fts day.hn
4l
i
—city of eagan
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TOM COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JUNE 13,1996
SUBJECT: PROJECT 708, WESCOTT ROAD EXTENSION (KPtiiGSWOOD PONDS)
ISSLTE
MENTO
The development of the Kingswood Ponds Addition requires the upgrading of the current entrance
to the Fire Administration Building to a full public street, reconstructing its signalized intersection
with Pilot Knob Road and a modification to the existing Fire Administration parking lot.
In order to accommodate the upgrade of this driveway access to a full public street with public right-
of-way dedication and setbacks, it is necessary to eliminate one row of parking stalls and the easterly
most entrance to the Fire Administration parking lot. This project would present an opportunity to
replace/relocate those parking stalls to the south side of Wescott Road extended, which would also
provide convenient parking access for the Eagan Town Hall Museum. The primary issue is to
determine an equitable allocation of the costs associated with these modifications.
BACKGROUND
The development of the proposed Kingswood Ponds Addition was originally proposed in 1988 as
a 30 -lot single-family subdivision, Oak Meadow Addition. In 1989, Mr. Jim Horne acquired this
development and combined it with some existing land and subsequently received preliminary plat
approval for the Kingswood 3rd Addition (49 single-family lots) on 4-18-89.
The Kingswood 3rd Addition preliminary subdivision was reapproved on September 7, 1993.
All previously proposed preliminary plat layouts propose to take direct public access to Pilot Knob
Road in the extreme northeast corner near the current private driveway access point. With the replat
of the Kingswood Ponds proposal, this location, being the only access to a 49 -lot subdivision, was
re-evaluated based on the long-term (20 -year) traffic projections for Pilot Knob Road, speed, sight
distance, etc. It was subsequently determined to be in the long-term best interests of this new
residential neighborhood and traveling public to have this subdivision access Pilot Knob Road at the
signalized Wescott Road intersection_
Subsequently, Mr. Horne petitioned the City Council on March 4, 1996, to have the extension of
Wescott Road from Pilot Knob Road to the Kingswood Ponds development performed under a public
contract. On the petition, Mr. Horne deleted the standard condition of the petitioner guaranteeing
the costs of the feasibility report if the project should not be approved.
CURRENT INFORMATION
Mr. Horne has submitted an application for final plat approval for the Kingswood Ponds Addition.
The improvement of the extension of Wescott Road must be approved as a public improvement
through Council action or committed and paid for by the developer under the terms of the
development agreement. A preliminary estimate of $108,455 has been identified. However, some
of this cost ($14,600) is associated with relocating the impacted parking stalls from the Fire
Administration Building into a new parking lot for the Town Hall Museum. There is also
approximately $57,200 of improvement costs associated with relocating the signal pole, control
cabinet and loop detectors.
OPTIONS
Staff is requesting Council direction in determining benefit and financial responsibility so that a
feasibility report and public hearing process can be completed. The following are options for Council
consideration:
1. All costs associated with providing access to the new development would be the
responsibility of that development. This would include replacing/restoring the impact to the
Fire Administration parking lot according to the preliminary design or another alternative
acceptable to the Council. The City would convey public right-of-way providing this
access.
2. Same as No. I except the City's Major Street Fund would assume all costs associated with
relocating and upgrading the signal system.
3. Same as No. 2 except the City would further assume all costs associated with the new
parking lot construction on the south side of Wescott Road extended.
4. The City would be responsible for all costs.
5. Other?
SUMMARY
Representatives of the developer and City staff will be available to discuss various options in helping
the Council provide direction to a fair and equitable financing plan.
RespectUly submitted,
Awe
Director of Public Works
TACfj
cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer
Rollie Crawford, Attorney
Attachments: Subdivision Layout
Intersection Site Plan & Cost Estimate
W
Q
W
i
a
`�lnit,SwOo, 1�'0►a�s
a
101----- �-
3LCCK A 0
< tiCsS
J^—C= 4C,4C
<L
67.0
i
1 �
020-80 '
I,
FIRE I
ADMINISTRATION !
! r
{ I ! I
I p PRK�NG I I
I i L I I
CONST UCTI I
ly I I I I I BOWAE ARD)
I
I ELIMINATE ENTRANCE SIGNAjL POLE
fl
32'F -F
1py I
I
I
ELEC. BOX ON 6- — — —
CONC. SLA 24'
l i I I Imo' 0�
N
I I f
I I TdLE. MH �AD1J)I
( s
N SI ALI PO4E I I 1 1 1
LEC. BOX
ISI
RELOCATE SOUTH OF 1 I I I
NEW CURB I I - POOPOSED
l 5'1 SIDEWALK
II I I I i
CITY OF EAGAN II
I I I
0 2 O_ Q 1 EX. 5' SIDEWALK I
LNJ I
I SCALE 1" = 50'1
I I l i
PILOT KNOB RD./W SbOTT RD. I
INTERSECTION LAY,- UT -+ KINGSWOODS PONDS
PREPARED BY CITY STAFF 7/95
II 1
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
WESCOTT ROAD & PILOT KNOB ROAD
SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM
UNIT QTY
UNIT PRICE
OTY TOTAL
Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter
545 LF @
$3.00
$1,635.00
Remove Bit. Pvmt.
1030 SY C
$3.00
$3,090.00
Remove & Relocate Control Panel
1 EA C
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
& Signal Pole
Remove Concrete Sidewalk
25 SY
$13.00
$325.00
Adjust Manhole
1 EA
$100.00
$100.00
Salvage & Transplant Ex. Trees
3 EA
$200.00
$600.00
B618 Cone. Curb & Gutter
710 LF
$8.00
$5,680.00
(419 LF P. Lot)
(3,280.00)
7" Cone. Valley Gutter
140 SY
$30.00
$4,200.00
4" Cone. Sidewalk
270 SF @
$2.00
$540.00
CI.5 Agg. Base (Street P. Lot & Sdwk.)
475 TN @
$10.00
$4,750.00
(200 Ton P. Lot)
(2,000.00)
Type 31 Bit. Base Course (2")
165 TN C
$20.00
$3,300.00
(69 Ton P. Lot)
(1380.00)
Type 41 Bit. Wear Course (1")
82 TN C
$22.00
$1,805.00
(34 Ton P. Lot)
(748.00)
Bit. Mat9 For Mixture
12.5 TN C
$150.00
$1,875.00
(4 Ton P. Lot)
(600.00)
Sod w/4" Topsoil
680 SY a
$4.00
$2,600.00
4" Solid White Expoxy
220 LF
$1.00
$220.00
(110 P. Lot)
(110.00)
4" Dbl. Solid Yellow Expoxy
110 LF
$2.00
$220.00
Common Excavation
700 CY
$7.00
$4,900.00
(300 CY P. Lot)
(2100.00)
Subtotal
$75,840.00
+ 10% Contingencies
$7,585.00
$83,425.00
+ 30% Indirect Costs
$25,030.00
*TOTAL
$108,455.00
Note: Breakdown of Total
1) Street & Signal - $93,840.00
LaWsGen'MES&PIL19
2) Parking Lot -314,815.00
03/15/96
— city of eagan
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DOUG REID, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
DATE: MARCH 20,1996
MEMO
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF ON-SITE INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
In order to accommodate the request of the Met Council for mandatory inspection/pumping of all
on-site sewage treatment systems, we are suggesting an amendment to Chapter 4 of the Eagan
City Code and are asking that this item be scheduled for a City Council workshop to discuss the
intent, requirements, responsibilities, and workings of private disposal systems and the current City
policy regarding hook-up to public utilities when a system fails. We will also explain what we
believe will be a very firm estimate of costs involved to implement and support this program
Dates for a neighborhood meeting and public hearing should be scheduled at this meeting.
Representatives from the townships and cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount.
Farmington, Apple Valley, Mendota Heights, and the Dakota County Environmental Management
Department, have met several times to discuss and review the Met Council's mandatory
inspection/pumping policy to be implemented in 1996. We also met with representatives of the Met
Council to discuss our findings and to ensure that they were in accordance with their requirements.
Cities, townships, and Met Council representatives recognize that the most efficient and practical
way to design, manage, implement, and maintain a policy/ordinance is through adoption of one
procedure to be followed by all government agencies in Dakota County. A minimum amount of
staff time would then be spent and the transition for residents, businesses, contractors and staff
would be easier and smoother.
The On -Site Septic System Ordinance for the City of Eagan has been written under the guidelines
that each individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) would be inspected to insure that it has not
failed and is not leaking on the ground surface. Sludge in the septic tank will be measured and
pumped as required by a certified pumper, or private inspector, and documentation will be provided
to Dakota County within 30 days. Cities would then obtain this information from the County at a
cost of $1.00 per address. Every two years, cities will notify owners of the need to have their
system inspected and/or pumped by a certified pumper, or private inspector. Any failed systems
will need to be repaired and brought up to current standards or hook up to public utilities if
available.
If a system fails in an area where public utilities are unavailable, a property owner may request.
through Council action, permission to operate that failed system for a period of not more than one
year with the stipulation that the system be pumped more often during this time. To date, we have
not experienced any requests of this nature.
Subd. 10 - Public Sewer System Connection of the draft ordinance states: "Notwithstanding any
provision herein to the contrary, the owner of any property served by an individual sewage
treatment system shall discontinue use of the system and shall connect to the public sanitary sewer
available to the property no later than 24 months immediately following the public sanitary sewer
connection to the metropolitan disposal system. Upon connection to the public sewer system, the
property owner shall abandon the individual sewage treatment system in a safe and reasonable
manner." It is also a condition of the Met Council that "within 24 months after a public sewer
connected to the MDS becomes available to a property served by a private sewage disposal
system or treatment works, a connection shall be made to the public sewer in accordance with
these rules. The private disposal facilities shall be abandoned in a safe and suitable manner."
Because of the financial burden imposed on a property owner when utilities are installed, the Met
Council does not enforce this condition, but leaves it up to the discretion of each local authority
enforce as they see appropriate. The current policy of the City has been to allow property owners
to use their existing system until they need to expand or repair and then they are required to hook
up to public utilities if available.
Inver Grove Heights currently has 1,600 private on-site sewage systems and anticipates 2.000
when fully developed; Rosemount has 800 systems and anticipates over 1,600 when fully
developed; and Eagan has approximately 290 systems with an anticipated decline in systems as
utilities become available throughout the city. The cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights; and
Rosemount have obtained approval of this proposed ordinance from the Met Council.
Implementation of this policy may lead to the need for an additional dumping station in the vicinity
of Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, and the east Eagan area. There are presently two dumping
stations, one in Farmington and another in St. Paul. Most pumpers in Dakota County charge
property owners to dump in Farmington. An additional pumping station for property owners in this
area would help to maintain costs to property owners.
Costs to the affected property owners are estimated at:
Inspection only - $50.00
Inspection and pumping - $80.00-$100.00
Certified pumpers/inspectors must submit to Dakota County, within 30 days. a certificate identifying
the size tank, cesspool or drain field, manhole, etc. The City could then acquire this information
from the County for $1.00 per address.
If approved, an informational meeting will be scheduled to inform affected property owners of these
new requirements.
Costs to the City to activate this program will be budgeted and are anticipated at:
First year - $800 - $1,200
Second year - $600
Third and consecutive years: $600 - $800
Chief B ding Official
DRrs
mayor -mord
ORDLtiAI CE NO. 21r'D SERIES
kN1 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, XIINNESOTA, A- ENDING EAGAN
CITY CODE CHAPTER FOLK ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION LICENSING
INCLUDING SIGNS. EXCAVATIO' AND MOBILE HOINIE PARKS" BY A'\IENDING
SECTION 4.11 REGARDING ON-SITE E DIN IDUAL SE\VAGE TREAT%-1EN"I*
SYSTE,\-IS: AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER i
AN TD SECTION 4.99.
The City Council of the Cite of Eaean does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 4 is hereby amended by adding Section 4.11. to read as
follo\\ s:
Sec. 4.11. Design, Installation and Maintenance of On -Site Individual Seri age
Treatment Svstems.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terns in this Section shall have the
followinz meanings:
A. "Aerobic Tani:." shall mean any seg;age tank: which utilizes the
principle of oxidation in the decomposition of se-,vage by the inn-oduction of air into,
the sewaLe.
B. "Baffle' shall mean a device installed in a septic tank for pwp;i
operation of the tank and to proNide maxirtiwn retention of solids. and includes vented
sanitary tees and submerged pipes in addition to those deNices that are normally called
baffles.
C. "Commercial and Industrial" shall mean any use of a building or
property other than a single family residential d«-elhng unit.
D. "Failed Indi\idual Sewage Treatment System" shall mean a sell
treatment system that is allowing se-vage, sewage tank: effluent, or seepage from the
soil treatment system to be discharged to the ground surface. abandoned wells. or
bodies of surface water, or into anv rock or soil formation of the structure ofwm.h
not conducive to purification of water by filtration, or into any well or other
excavation in the ground. Failed indi\idual sev. age treatment system also means an,
indi\idual sewage treatment system that uses cesspools, leaching pits, or seepage pits,
115
or systems with less than three feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution
device and the limiting soil characteristics.
E. "Individual Sewage Treatment System" shall mean a sewage
treatment system or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or p-oup
thereof, which uses sub -surface soil treatment and disposal, including approved
holding tanks.
F. "Mound System" shall mean a system where the soil treatment
area is built above the ground to overcome limits imposed by proximity to water table
or bedrock. or by rapidly or slowly permeable soils.
G. "Owner" shall mean all persons having possession of, control
over, or title to an individual sewage treatment system.
H. "Private Inspector" shall mean a person or company that has
been licensed by Dakota County or the State of Minnesota qualified to inspect existing
individual sewage treatment systems.
I. "Pump or Pumped" shall mean the removal and sanitary disposal
of seepage from the septic tank. Removal of seepage also includes complete removal
of scum and sludge.
J. "Pumper or Certified Pumper' shall mean a person or company
that has been licensed by Dakota County or the State of Minnesota as qualified to
service a septic system.
K. "Secondary Discharge" shall mean those solids and liquids
discharged intermittently which are not part of the businesses commercial and'or
industrial process, including, but not limited to, floor drains and oveiflov,- from
containment areas.
L. "Septage" shall mean those solids and liquids removed during=
periodic maintenance of a septic or aerobic tank or those solids and liquids which are
removed fi-om a holding tank.
M. "Sewage" shall mean any water carrying domestic waste.
exclusive of foundation and roof drainage, from any industrial, agricultural, or
commercial establishment, or any dwelling or any other structure. Domestic waste
includes liquid waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry, culinary operations. and
the floor drains associated with these sources, and specifically excludes animal waste
and commercial and industrial waste water.
N. "Sewage Tank" shall mean a water tight tank used in, thl-
treatment of sewage and includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks and aerobic tanks.
O. "Septic Tank" shall mean an} water tight, covered recepm Ae
designed and constructed to receive the discharge of sewage from a building sexN er-
separate solids fi-om liquid, digest orgaruc matter, and store liquids throwalr a period of
detention. and allow the clarified liquids to discharge to a soil treatment SN -stern.
P. "Soil Treatment System" shall mean a system where se" -age tarfk
effluent is treated and disposed of below the ground surface by filtration and
percolation through the soil, and includes those s}stems commonly knoxNm as seepage
bed. trench. drain field, disposal field and mounds.
Subd. ?. Adoption of Munnesota Pollution Control Agency Rule 7080 b\
Reference. Chapter 7080 of the Minnesota Rules of the 'Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency- Water Quality Dixision for Individual Se\t-age Treatment S\stems (NIPCA
Rule 7080) and Appendix A found in Rule 7080.0? l0 and am subsequec,t
amendments thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and shall be a part of this
ordinance as if set forth full- herein. A cope of NIPCA Rule 7080 and Appendix A ar-e
on file in the office of th Citi Clerk. An indi\lduai sewage treatment system shall
onl• be used for the discha-ac of sewage as that teen is defused herein.
Subd. 3. Folding Tanks. Holding tanks conforming to the requirements of
MPCA Rule 7080 are limited to the followina installations:
A. Tanks with a capacity not exceeding 2000 gallons ma\ be used
for collection of secondary discharge not suitable for on-site rreatment.
B. Replacement of failed individual sewage treatment systems on
existine uses when no other means of treatment is possible.
Subd. 4. Design of Individual Sewage Treatment S\ -stems. In addition to the
requu•ements contained within INIPCA Rule 7080, all new. rebuilt or other\\Ise
modified indiN idual se«•age treatment systems located in the City shall conform to the
following:
A. The s} -stem is designed by a person licensed by Dakota Courm
or the State of Minnesota as a site evaluator and qualified to design such system. proof
of which shall be prodded to the Cin- at the time the design of the indixidual se\\a,-,
treatment system is submitted to the City's protective inspection diN ision for approval:
l�
B. The system design shall be submitted to and approved by the
City's protective inspection division prior to issuance of any building permits for the
subject site; and
C. The system design shall include a site plan indicating priman,
and alternate treatment areas and the results of percolation tests for the primary
treatment area.
Subd. 5. Installation of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. The installation
of anv individual sewage treatment system shall be installed only at the location
approved by the City's protective -inspection division. The system shall only be
installed by a person or company licensed by Dakota Count,! or the State of 1'%'Jinnesota
as qualified to install such a system.
Subd. 6. Testing for System Location. Whenever a landowner applies to the
Cite for a subdi-Osion of land as to require platting or a ,%vaiver of platting and sanitaFY
sewer is not available to the proposed subdivided lots, the landowner shall submit to
the City a soil boring and analysis report prepared by a licensed site evaluator or
engineer trained in individual sewage treatment systems. The report shall evaluate the
soils and soil borings and shoNv the existence of an adequate land area of suitable soils
that will accommodate at least two (2) sites for a soil treatment system on each lot.
taking in account depth to water table. soil types and mandatory setback requirements.
as dictated by City ordinance and an}' applicable State and Federal regulations. The
report of the soils and the soil borings and the two (2) potential locations of the on-site
indi,6dual sewage treatment systems shall be submitted to the City for review and shall
be approved prior to any preliminary or final plat approval or wm ier of platting, for the
subject property. Failure to pronde the report required under this provision or failure
to have at least two (2) potential sites for a soil treatment system on each lot shall be
grounds for denial of the plat or grounds for the denial of the Nvaiver of platting.
Subd. 7. Operational Permit Requu-ed. The owner of any individual se,.vage
treatment system shall obtain an operational permit from the City in accordance \vith
the provisions of this Subdivision. It shall be unlawful for any owner to use or operate
an indlMdual sewage treatment system without first obtaining an operational permit
from the City in accordance with tNs SubdMsion.
A. Residential Operational Permit. The owner of every single
family residential sewage tank, septic tank or holding tank is required to have an
individual sewage treatment system operational permit issued by the City's protective
inspection division. No operational permit shall be issued by the protective inspection
division unless the owner has met the folloNving requirements:
/G
1. The septage from the sewage tank or septic tank has been
removed and sanitarily disposed of; including but not limited to, the complete removal
and sanitary disposal of scum and sludge, in accordance with the requirements of
MPCA 7080; and
2. A certificate of pumping maintenance is completed by a
certified pumper or private inspector and submitted to Dakota County or the Cin
within thirty (30) days of the pumping maintenance.
B. Commercial and Industrial Operational Permit. The owner of
even! commercial and industrial property serviced by an individual sewage treatment
system is required to have an individual sewage treatment system operation permit for
each systern on the property issued by the City's protective inspection dixision. No
operational permit shall be issued bythe protective inspection di\ision unless the
owner- has met the following requirements:
1. The septage fi-om the sewage tank or septic tank has been
remo%ed and sanitarily disposed of, including but not limited to the complete rento\al
and sanitary disposal of scum and sludge, in accordance -with the requirements of
MPCA 7080;
2. The City's protective inspection division completed an
inspection of and approved the water use, effluent quality for on-site t•eannent. and
discharae rate capability';
3. The o«rler of the individual sev,•age treatment s,, stem
pays the required permit fee as set forth by Council resolution or Cin Code; and
4. A certificate of pumping maintenance is completed b� a
certified pumper or private inspector and submitted to Dakota County or the Cine
within thirty (30) days of the pumping maintenance; and Y
5. For puiposes of any increase in discharge rate due to a
change of use or building addition, the owner will be responsible to complete and
submit an individual seNvage treatment system evaluation to determine capacity of
existing system.
C. The certificate to be completed and submitted by the certified
pumper hereunder shall state the following:
1. The sewage tank or septic tank has been thoroughly
pumped to remove all solids and scum in accordance with the requirements of MPGA
(7
7080 or, in the alternative, pumping was not required because the accumulated sludge
and scum layers did not exceed the levels required for pumping per MPCA 7080;
2. The date of the inspection and/or pumping:
3. The name and license number of the pumper and or
private inspector;
4. The baffles and tank have been inspected by the pumper
and/or private inspector and are in working condition; and
5. The presence of any evidence of surface discharge from
the drain field.
D. Duration. The operational permits required hereunder shall be
effective for a period of two (2) years and shall be renewed prior to its expiration by
obtaining a new- permit pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision. If an owner does
not renew the operational permit as required herein within thirty ('30) days followving
expiration of the operational permit. a late renewal fee as provided by the Code shall
be paid before an operational permit is issued. The operational pennit shall be revoked
if the system becomes a failed individual sewage treatment systern.
E. Schedule for Initial Permits. The owners of individual sew-aue
treatment systems shall obtain an operational permit as required herein no later than
t vo (2) years fi-om the effective date of this ordinance.
F. Relation to Zoning Code. Operational permits will not be issued
if the building or property use is not in conformance with the City Zoning Code.
G. CommerciaL'Industrial Change of Use, For purposes of
commercial and industrial operational permits, the owner shall be required to have
completed an individual sewage treatment system evaluation to determine capacity of
existing system or systems whenever a change of use or building addition or expansion
occurs which may result in an increase in discharge rate. A new operational pen -nit
shall be obtained whenever a change of ownership, building use or building addition
or expansion occurs.
Subd. 8. Limits on Commercial and Industrial Discharge. 1\o animal waste or
commercial waste water or industrial waste water shall be discharged on the surface or
into the sub -surface unless the person allowing or causing the discharge first obtains a
State Disposal System Permit fi•om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agencv. Such
discharges must comply with the terms and requirements of the State Disposal System
�8
Permit in order to continue. An inditiidual sewage treatment system that on the
effective date of this ordinance is used for the discharge of animal waste or
commercial waste water or industrial waste water may continue to be used for such
purposes until such system becomes a failed individual sewage treatment system or the
:Minnesota Pollution Control Agency orders discontinuance, whichever occurs first;
then, in such case the new installed systems must comply with this Section.
Subd. 9. Failed IndiNidual Sewage Treatment System. No failed indi%idual
sewage treatment system shall be used in the City. The owner of a failed indixidual
sewage treatment s}•stem shall replace, modify or reconstruct the failed s} -stem in order
that the system complies with N-1PCA 7080 or. if approved by the protective inspection
diNision, to comply with Appendix A to MPCA 7080. unless connection to the public
sewer system is required under this Section or any other Section in the Code. Upon
application by the owner, the City Cowicil may allow the failed system to be used. nL-)
longer than one (1 ) year fi•om Council approval of the application, only. if the Cowlcil
finds the following'
A. The failed system is not causing an imminent dangler to the
public health. safet\- and vicelfare; and
B. By reason of exceptional circumstances. the strict enforcement
of this subdivision:
1. Would cause undue hardship; or
2. is impractical or not feasible under the circumstances.
Subd. 10. Public Sewer System Connecrion. Notwithstanding am proxision
herein to the eontrar-v. the owner of any property served by an individual sew a�_e
treatment system shall discontinue use of the system and shall connect to the public
sanitary sewer available to the property no later than 24 months immediately following
the public sanitar}' sewer connection to the metropolitan disposal system. Upon
connection to the public sewer system, the propem• owvner shall abandon the
indiNidual sewage treatment sN'stem in a safe and reasonable manner.
Subd. 11. Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this Section or
who presents to the City am- false or intentionally misleadine statements; certificates
or application, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 12. Inconsistence. If any proNision of this Section is inconsistent with
1PCA 7080. then that proNision which is more demanding or proNides a greater level
of requirements or restrictions or provides an earlier date of compliance shall prevail
and be controlling. If any provision of this Section is inconsistent with City Code
then that provision which is more demanding or provides a greater le -,,-el
of requirements or restrictions or provides an earlier date of compliance shall prevail
and be controlling.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' and Section 4.99.
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to lax,,-.
ATTEST:
By: E.J. VanOverbeke
Its: Clerk
Date Ordinance Adopted:
CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
By: Thomas A. Egan
Its: Mayor
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper:
CZP
_ city of eagan MEMO
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: Lisa Freese, Senior Planner
DATE: June 14, 1996
SUBJECT: Wescott Townhomes
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Alternatives
BACKGROUND
The 120 unit Wescott Townhome development was developed in 1984 and 1985 by FMI,
Inc. and Kendall, Inc. as for sale investment property. The thirty 4 plex buildings on 36
separate lots were sold to individual investors and investment groups by the initial
developers. The project is zoned R-4 multiple family residential, designated as D -IV
mixed residential (12+ units per acre), and as developed has a gross density of 14 units
per acre.
The 2 story buildings are wood frame construction with masonite siding on top of a one -
car tuck under garage for each unit. Each 4-plex has an internal stairway from the
garage level to the units. There are two units on each level. The common area corridor
from the garages has coin operated laundry facilities. Each unit has individual
mechanicals (water heater, furnace, air conditioner unit). There are 84 units with 3
bedrooms, 1-3/4 baths and 36 units with 3 bedrooms, 1 bath.
In 1987 several buildings went through foreclosure as a result unfavorable market
conditions resulting from the 1986 tax law changes which significantly altered the tax
consequences for multi -family investors and an over supply of multi -family housing in the
metropolitan area. In 1988, 4 buildings were restructured as a tax credit project. Today,
the project is has 18 different owners and 5 different management structures: J.A.
Management, 48 units; Steven Scott Management, 36 units; Dan Waldon, 16 units and
one property owner independently manages one 4-plex.
CITY EFFORTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
In response to increased police calls to the development in the early 1990's and ongoing
tenant complaints regarding property maintenance, the City has undertaken several
efforts. In 1993, CDBG funds were utilized to acquire and develop a park on Lots 20-24,
Block 1, Wescott Hills Revised 3rd Addition. In 1994, CDBG funds were also allocated
to conduct a management study to analyze potential restructuring options leading to a
unified management structure for the development.
At the time that study was contemplated, the management structure was even more
splintered than it is today. The Dakota County HRA and Community Development
Department staff met with owners/management representatives on a couple of occasions
to review the situation. It was determined that the management structure while not ideal
was not as large of issue as the lack of a capital maintenance fund for the development.
Therefore, this year the money allocated for that activity was reprogrammed in the Youth
Development program.
In 1994, the youth development program was started and was operated by the Parks and
Recreation Department in one unit of building 949 Wescott Trail. The city has operated
Its youth development program and other agencies and the school have provided services
and programs to the neighborhood out of this facility. Initially, the City was able to obtain
this unit at half of the rental rate from the building owners. In December 1995 the
building owner notified the City that they were no longer willing to cut the rental rate in
half and the full rent would be required in 1996.
CURRENT STATUS/ISSUES
Wescott Service Center
In response to the increased rent, the City Council directed staff to explore the possibility
of acquiring that unit. In January 1996, the City Council also allocated $30,000 of the
1997 FY CDBG funding to be used for this purchase. In addition, a preliminary letter of
commitment has been received for the Tri -Max Foundation for financial assistance for this
unit. Staff reviewed the possibility of acquiring, one unit or 1/4 of the building, but this
was not feasible. The owner, however, is willing to sell the entire building for its existing
mortgage which is approximately $160,000. Staff contacted the Dakota County HRA to
see if they would be willing to participate with the City in a cooperative project to acquire
and rehabilitate the structure. After analyzing the project, the units cannot generate
sufficient cash flow based on market rates to make it feasible for the HRA to acquire the
other 3 units without further city subsidy.
The HRA has identified the Family Housing Fund as a potential source to assist with the
buy down of the acquisition/rehabilitation costs. This funding source is restricted to the
development of transitional housing for up to 24 months for persons who are homeless
or victims of crimes or abuse. If this funding is used, the units must remain as transitional
housing for 20 years. The HRA does not manage these types projects, but other
agencies can be identified if this option is pursued by the City.
Public Buyout of Entire Development
In addition, Jeff Johnson of JA Development has approached the City and the Dakota
County HRA regarding the possibility of a publicly assisted ownership restructuring/buyout
and rehabilitation of the project. He represented, in a letter dated February 26, that most
owners of Wescott townhomes were interested in exploring a restructuring/buyout. His
preliminary financial analysis indicated a lack a feasibility for refinancing except as a
6?-
federal low income housing tax credit project. The tax credit project as proposed by Mr.
Johnson still would require significant public subsidy to put together. As presented
initially to the city and HRA staff, it would require nearly $2.4 million in public funds in
order to make the restructuring work.
The City Council in the development of the Livable Communities goals and action plan,
has indicated a desire to have the HRA explore the acquisition of existing housing as an
option to construction of new assisted family housing projects in the City. Based on this
direction and given the current discussion on the acquisition of 949 Wescott Trail for the
Parks and Recreation Department program, staff felt this would be an appropriate time
to also discuss whether or not the City Council would be interested in pursuing with the
HRA the acquisition of all 120 units.
The City and HRA staff met with Mr. Johnson to discuss his proposal and agreed to put
together financial pro fora alternatives to determine the level of public funding
participation necessary to facilitate such a buyout to consolidate ownership and
substantially rehabilitate the project. The HRA, while willing to look at the financial
feasibility of this buyout, indicated that the project as presented does not meet the HRA
guidelines rental housing regarding concentration (income mix, bedroom mix, density) and
construction standards. The HRA also indicated that the proposal presented by Mr.
Johnson using tax credits for the entire project also exceeded the HRA criteria for
consideration of low income tax credits. (The guidelines and criteria are attached to this
memorandum). Therefore, if the HRA were to facilitate this type of project in Eagan,
significant City support and financial participation would be necessary.
Rehabilitation would be required if a public buyout is considered. Rehabilitation needs
identified by the City and HRA include landscaping, siding, roofing, window maintenance,
mechanical system replacement, carpeting, and appliance replacement. In addition to
rehabilitation, an other objective of public financial participation would be thinning out the
density. City and HRA staff assumed in the financial analysis the removal of 4 buildings
and conversion 25 of the units to 2 bedroom units. These concentration standards would
still exceed the HRA standards for new construction.
ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER
Five alternatives have been identified for the Council's review and consideration. Detailed
assumptions and a pro forma prepared by Dakota County HRA staff are included in your
packet for each buyout option summarized below (except 5).
Scenario 1. HRA Ownership with Essential Function Bond Financing,
The HRA would issues tax exempt bonds to finance the purchase of 104 units. The
existing 16 units/4 buildings using tax credits would continue under JA Management's
ownership. Units must be available for families at or below 110% of the median income
and it was assumed that rents would be market rate. Therefore, this option would not
preserve units as affordable as defined by the Livable Communities program. This 01
scenario would reduce the density and number of 3 bedroom units. The purchase price
is estimated at $192,000 per building; rehabilitation costs estimated at $88,000; total
building cost of $280,000. The equity gap is $3.9 million. It is estimated that
approximately 25% or $975,000 of this gap financing would need to come from the City
of Eagan in this scenario.
Scenario 2. Private Partnership Ownership, Taxable Financing with 9% rehab tax credit
The project would remain in private ownership and obtain a conventional mortgage to
purchase 104 units in the project. Tax credits could only be allowed on 34 of the 104
units. Those units would qualify as affordable for the Livable Communities program. This
scenario would also reduce density and the number of 3 bedroom units. The same
acquisition and rehabilitation costs as in Scenario one are assumed. The equity gap is
$4.8 million. It is estimated that approximately 25% or $1.2 million of this gap financing
would need to come from the City of Eagan under this scenario.
Scenario 3. Private Partnership ownership taxable financing with 9% rehab tax credit
The scenario most closely estimates the project proposed by JA Management in their
original inquiry. Rents are maximized under the tax credit program and as many units
are subsidized with tax credits as possible. Rehabilitation is more modest at $65,600 per
building rather than $88,000/per unit recommended by the HRA. No units are eliminated
or converted to 2 bedroom units under this scenario. The equity gap is $2.5 million. It
is estimated that approximately 25% or $623,000 of this gap financing would need to
come from the City of Eagan.
Scenario 4. HRA Ownership with City General Obligation Bonds
HRA would issue tax exempt bonds through its Common Bond Fund for the purchase of
104 units and would retain ownership. Approximately 39% of the bonds would be backed
by the City's general obligation pledge. Units would not qualify as affordable for the
Livable Communities program. This scenario would reduce density and the number of
3 bedroom units. The same acquisition and rehabilitation costs as in Scenario one are
assumed. The equity gap is $4.3 million. It is estimated that approximately 25% or
nearly $1.1 million of this gap financing would need to come from the City of Eagan.
Scenario 5. Purchase one building.
To purchase one building for the purpose of continuing the programs in the Wescott
neighborhood. The purchase price for the building is estimated at $160,000; rehabilitation
costs estimated at $57,000 (excluding ADA requirement); total project cost of $217,000.
An additional $182,000 is needed to accomplished the purchase and rehabilitation of this
building. Rents generated the units will not cover the financing costs, so an extra
$21,000 of direct public subsidy is needed cover the purchase. The possibly of using
the Family Housing Fund could eliminate this subsidy, but it would require that the three
units be restricted to transitional housing for 20 years.
FOR DISCUSSION
1. Should the City continue to work with the HRA in pursuing the acquisition of the
entire four unit building versus the initial objective of acquiring only one unit?
2. Should the City consider using the Family Housing Fund with the intent that the
3 units in the 949 building would be used for transitional housing?
3. Would the City be willing to "buy down" a portion of the acquisition cost of the 949
building to allow the HRA to offer the units at the market rate?
4. Would the City be interested in participating financially in a total
buyout/rehabilitation of the Wescott townhomes either structured as a private
buyout to a single ownership or as a public HRA buyout? If so, what would be the
City's criteria for participation?
Scenario 4, HRA Ownership with City General Obligation Bonds
The HRA would issue tax exempt bonds through is Common Bond Fund. Approximately
39% of the bonds would be backed by the City's general obligation pledge. It was
assumed that rents would be market rate so this option would not preserve units as
affordable per the definition used by the Livable Communities program. This scenario
would also reduce density and the number of 3 bedroom units. The same acquisition and
rehabilitation costs as in Scenario one are assumed. The equity gap is $4.3 million. It
is estimated that approximately 25% or $1.1 million of this gap financing would need to
come from the City of Eagan under this scenario.
Lisa J. Freese, Senior Planner
TTA HMENT
1. Letter from Jeff Johnson
2. Map of ownership
3. HRA Housing policy for rental housing
4 HRA Tax Credit Criteria
5. Inspection report for 949 Wescott Trail
5. Detailed Assumptions & Pro Forma, Scenarios 1-4
J. A. Management, Inc.
1380 Duckwood Dr. #156 MAR ' 1996
Eagan, MN 55123
Mark Ulfers February 26, 1995
Dakota County HRA
2496 145th Street West
Rosemount MN 55068
Re: Wescott Hills
Dear Mr. Ulfers,
Because Yvette I thought I should direct this letter to you. I have
had some conversations with Yvette in the past year about the
problems at Wescott Hills. I have asked if the HRA had any interest
in purchasing all the buildings or if she had any other ideas or
plans. Her only response was that the City of Eagan had not
formally requested that the HRA get involved and until they did
there was little she was planning to do. I am interested in moving
the process forward. Either the HRA or the owners of Wescott should
inquire of the City if the City is interested in being involved in
Wescott Hills redevelopment or if the HRA is interested in
facilitating an positive redevelopment but not being an owner I am
willing to lead a development team.
I bring this up now because there has been some movement by most of
the owners of Wescott Hills towards a willingness to explore a
refinance or sale. (How about that for qualification.) I have been
asked to make a development proposal involving a refinance of
Wescott so that it would have but one owner. I have done so. My
preliminary analysis reflects a lack of feasibility of a
refinancing except at a much higher rent, and the possible
feasibility of a sale and total restructuring of Wescott as a
federal low income housing tax credit project, retaining the
affordability of the units but greatly improving the property and
management. There would be numerous challenges to redeveloping
Wescott but I believe that the timing is appropriate to consider
such an effort fc:- several reasons as follows:
1. Of the 26 building involved. One group of owners of nine
buildings have been experiencing very poor operating results and
are very willing to sell or refinance. Another owner of six
buildings has expressed a desire to sell and has been talking to a
real estate agent. I have minority interest in three buildings and
think my partners would sell. I believe most if not all the owners
are emotionally prepared to sell.
2. The property is ten years old. Except for buildings that have
gone through foreclosure (and Hudson Place, the existing tax credit
project) the buildings will qualify for acquisition credit in 1996.
3. Rents are escalating and there is a shortage of affordable three
bedroom -housing in Dakota County. Preserving Wescott as affordable
housing is arguably a priority for the affordable housing sector.
The refinance alternative would result in the loss of Wescott as
affordable housing with rents being increased to over $800.
`�
r
4. A number of funding sources exist for suburban housing
proposals: the Family Housing Fund, the Federal Home Bank Board,
MHFA, even the Homen settlement moneys could be considered, Dakota
County HOME, and the City of Eagan resources. Furthermore, Livable
Communities adds a new funding source and by making Wescott Hills
affordable Under the Livable Communities affordable definition the
City of Eagan would move closer to its goals. The City of Eagan
should also be interested as Wescott is one mile east of their
proposed downtown development and other improvement projects.
5. Interest rates are relatively low and the trend is lower. HUD is
in the proper frame of mind to assist in affordable rental housing.
6. Tax credits may be sunsetted and a significant tool would no
longer be available.
I have prepared and provided to you proformas for two of the
various alternative scenarios: the market rate and the tax credit
refinance. Note the substantial amount of public sector
participation that would be required to make these 104 units
feasible as affordable units. Also note the rent level that would
make the market rate alternative feasible. There are many
alternative scenarios that are unnecessary to provide at this time
but that I would be willing to discuss at another time.
Ideally we would spend 1996 gathering the necessary approvals for
a 1997 tax credit application. However, I don't believe the
existing owners will be that patient. It is possible that if we
begin immediately we would be able to make enough progress to point
high enough to get an allocation of 1996 tax credits in the second
or later rounds.
I would look to the Dakota County HRA to play a number of roles. I
would step aside as developer if you wanted to do this. Or would
look to you to possibly provide: the tax credits, HOME or other
public subsidy, and underwriting and project feasibility advice to
the City of Eagan and other parties as needed. I would expect the
City of Eagan and other parties to be concerned about the size of
this project, the subsidies required, and it's financial viability,
especially in light of its history. And thus would expect that the
Dakota HRA could provide some expertise in reviewing the
development plan's feasibility.
I will give you a call in the next few days to discuss this or feel
free to call me at your convenience at 783-4732 or 688-9887.
Since ly
on
dW
-1
o 3 n Aa
i 21
, ti�
wcc
j
i
10
MA
Is
N
s
J
rl
o
in o
4 p
n
3
10
MA
Is
N
s
SUMMARY OF DAKOTA COUNTY BRA'S HOUSING POLICY
FOR RENTAL HOUSING
June 11, 1996
The Dakota County HRA has established a policy which specifies the
minimum project criteria for the HRA to have an ownership interest
in a family housing development.
CONCENTRATION: It is the HRA's policy to encourage the
distribution of affordable housing throughout the County and to
avoid the concentration of such housing in any one city or section
of a city. The HRA uses the following guidelines:
Income mix: The maximum number of assisted units per project is
50. Assisted units are defined as housing with
project based subsidies where housing units must be
leased to families at or below 60% of median income
as adjusted by family size (currently $32,760 for a
family of four)
Bedroom, mix: Family housing should have two and three bedroom
units. At least 25* of the units must contain 3
bedrooms, but no more than 50% of the units may be
3 bedroom units.
Density: No more than 14 units per acre for new
construction. As a practical matter, the HRA has
not developed a project with a density higher than
S units per acre and Oakridge Townhomes is just
five units per acre. However, the HRA would be
open to increasing density in a project in order to
meet Liveable Community Act objectives.
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS:
* Concrete curb and gutter for drives and concrete sidewalk to
parking, individual unit entries and major amenities on site.
* On site parking (paved either with bituminous or cement
concrete). This may be forgiven for rehabilitation of
existing building, only if the site is not large enough.
* Townhome style for new construction. Rehabilitation projects
may be stacked units as long as three bedroom and larger
dwelling units are not be placed higher than the second floor
of the building.
* For new construction, three bedroom and larger units must have
a minimum of one and one-half bath.
* Tot lot must be provided.
91
FOR
op
LOW " MEF HOUSING TAX ICRED TI REQUESTS
Adopted August 16, 1988
Requests for Low Income Housing Tax Credit shall be considered by
the City of Eagan for eligible projects on the basis of their
relationship to the criteria which follow.
ct be required to conform with all criteria but iso unlikely nto
receive endorsement if it compares unfavorably to a majority of
the criteria.
3• Low income housing tax credits may be used only for
rehabilitation or upgrade of existing projects or to
enhance subsequent phases of existing projects. (This
criteria reserves the credit for improvements in areas of
identified problems rather than for now projects.)
2• Applicants for low income housing credits should
demonstrate that the credits will servo to reduce the
density of multi -family developments. (This criteria
reenfozees the Council direction to reduce
bring about down -zoning.) density and
3. applicants' projects should A exterior finish
requirements. (This criteria supports the Council
direction concerning finish material and lends added
impetus to the use of quality finish materials.)
4• applicants, projects should ctld landscape requirements
and/or open space requirements. (again, this criteria
reenforces the reduction of density and addition of
amenities to subject projects.)
5. Low income housing credits gay be used only for two to
three bedroom homes/units to provide low income housing
opportunities for families. (This criteria promotes the
City policy of lower density, scattered site, low income
housing as multiple bedroom units are more frequently
Present in lower density developments.)
6. No more than 45% of units occupied must be occupied by
low and moderate income persons/families. (This criteria
encourages a mix of low and moderate income persons with
other income categories.)
INSPECTION REPORT - 949 WESCOTT TRAIL
MAY 6, 1996
I. Summary:
Certificate of Occupancy dated 5-31-85.
Exterior of building is in poor condition. Siding is
deteriorated, cantilevered decks are improperly flashed
at joists. Landscaping, roofs, and asphalt are original.
Unit interiors require flooring replacement, some appliances,
water heaters and furnaces are original, general repairs
required.
Rabat Cost =stiimate Total $70,600
II. Exteriors All cost figures are based on stated work items
being required within five years. Unit #104
Community Center included.
A. Landscaping and Asphalt $3,000
Based on apportioned per unit cost
for sealcoating and minimal land-
scaping improvements.
B• Siding, roofing, window naintensnce $37,200
Replace siding, decks, roof, paint
windows & replace some screens,
replace patio doors, new garage doors.
III. Unit Interiors:
A. Mechanical systems
$11,200
Replace 4 furnaces, 3 water heaters,
replace bath fans & redo venting,
misc. electrical and ductwork repairs,
replace thru wall air conditioners.
B. Walls, Ceilings, Floors
$12,600
Replace carpeting and vinyl flooring,
including lower level laundry and all
stairs and hallways.
C. miscellaneous Repairs
$2,400
D. Appliances
$4,000
Replace some stoves, refrigerators,
and dishwashers.
WESCOTT HILLS ACQUISITION AND REHAB
ASSUMPTIONS
SCENARIO ONE
HRA OWNERSHIP WITH ESSENTIAL FUNCTION BOND FINANCING
1. FINANCING
HRA would issue tax exempt bonds through its Common Bond Fund
with BBB+ rating. Common Bond Fund requirements would apply,
such as reserve requirements, debt coverage, etc.
Term: 30 years
Rate: 8.13%
Debt Coverage: 115%
Reserve Requirements
2. RM
Units must be available for families at or below 110% of
median income ($59,400). Assumed all units would be at
market.
2 bedroom rent: $750
3 bedroom rent: $800
These rents are not considered affordable for purposes of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA). The maximum rent
which would meet LCA goals, as established by the Met Council,
is $683. To achieve these rents for the whole project, the
equity requirement would increase by $1,650,000.
The operating pro -forma assumes 8k vacancy rate which includes
rent collection loss.
Assumes that rents of $750 per three bedroom unit are
collected duting the ten month construction period.
87 units x $750 x 3 months - 195,750
62 units x $750 x 7 months - 325.500
Subtotal 521,250
Less 10% vacancy 152.125)
Net rent collections 469,125
during construction
6124238180
JUN -13-96 THU 12:26 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX N0, 6124238180 F,02
3. PROJECT
* 104 units acquired (excludes existing 16 units still in tax
credit compliance period).
* 16 units (4 buildings) demolished.
* 25 units would be converted to 2 bedrooms.
* One unit would be converted to a service center/office. It
is assumed that no rent is collected on this unit.
* Average rehab costs assumed to be $22,000 per unit.
4. RELOCATION
* Assumed all tenants in demolished and converted units will
be entitled to relocation benefits of, on average, $9,000 each
plus $1,000 per tenant fam, iIy for the relocation
consultant.
* Assumed there would be no temporary relocation costs. This
means that all of the rehab would have tc occur whsle the
units are occupied.
5. ACQUISTTMN PRICE
Assumed average price of $46,000 per unit ($192,000 per
building)
6. PROPERTY TAXE'S
Assumed a Payment Ir. Lieu of Tax of 5% of net shelter rents
during operations.
Development costs assumes the units are purchased by July 1.
In that event, the first half taxes are paid in full, and the
second half are paid at the PILOT rate.
7. OPERATTNO COSTS
Operating costs, excluding property taxes, are assumed to be
$250 per unit per month. This figure is based on the
operating information provided by Jeff Joimson, and is similar
to the RRA's experience with its tax credit townhome
properties.
EQUITY REQUIR"MENT c $3,944,000
33
U
Z
w
a
O
LUw
O
O
00000
O C O�O
O
O O O O C000000
C
0 0 0 0 0O
1, --
CD
O
0 0 0 0 tC
O O O N O O Ln
000000
I�N
CCOLf) 0cn
LI) IoL6C ce uf
C
r �`NMtj
��CCI�
M
C) V
N
l
r
CA
a1 N
c°0o N g 0_ o ^�
x x
r C tm 2 CD •r
x
p._O ti �c No
EE
C +� ao CU � � O �oc E o►�'
coOO MO N"CD m
0
a�c (D (D O
L o•c E=c tiZ
U
•a Cn -
V�9
i C.)o 0 ='C
U. LU
zZ Z m Q n
F-
a c u Z
co m�UU ts U 0•�2 o m 2 U �.�'�cn �� O
QO�p fn > c.c c > pmc Z a� N cca.0 a).= w
CJ xmo_i c ri � c a0 " 0 (D 0 <=.2 .s a= �
UJoLU�v 0QwQva0� zi=uU.Oo o
ESTIMATED REHAB COST
312 windows @ #300 each
Remove and dispose old windows 0 150 each
Install new windows 0 #50 each
104 sliding doors @ 4850 each
104 air eonsditioners 0 $300 each
Disposal of air conditioners 0 #50 each
150,800 sf steel siding Installed 0 42.50/sf
150,800 sf steel siding removed 0 $1.00/sf
104 refrigerators 0 4600 each
104 stoves 0 #500 each
104 dlswashers 0 4300 each
Dispose refrig, stove, & dishwashers @ #50 each
104 garbage disposals 0 #100 each
104 garage doors installed @ #375 each
104 deck and guard rails 0 #400 each
8,377 yards of carpet @ # 12.00/yard
2,889 yards of vinyl @ 812.00/yard
Remove & dispose of old carpet 0 #2.00/yard
Remove & dispose of old vinyl 0 #2.00/yard
416 Smoke alarms @ $35
104 kitchen cabinets & counter tops 0 81,500
104 bathroom cabinets & counter tops @ #600
104 bathtubs and showers Q $500
104 water heaters & furnaces 0 # 1,600
108,000 sq. yards of new asphalt @ #.90
Landscaping
26 new front entry steps
Sub Total
IS % Contingency
8% Arch/Engineering Fee
TOTAL
PER UNIT (104 units)
does not include building permits
93,600
15,600
15,600
88,400
31,200
5,200
377,000
150,800
62,400
5'2,000
31,200
15,+600
10,400
39,000
41,600
100,524
34,668
16,754
5,778
14,560
156,000
62,400
52,000
166,400
97,200
50,000
75,000
1,860,884
279,133
148,871
2,288,887
22,009
if o I
ig
i rq
9
3�
g m s
C
3W lid
3r
WH
C
1 SI
II
f
m 11
V !
ii
S
Mla
MW
Mr
M O
M W
M r
O
81
AJW
M W
Mr
Mm
MW
Mr
M W
I♦7 m
Pj r
G
g m s
C
3W lid
3r
WH
C
1 SI
II
f
m 11
V !
ii
m■
|�
2
�.
�In
■q
a2°
&
§�
I
Q@
■
§�
�■�
K�
K
k§
01
k�
n
k
gr
§k|§
§E°
R�
|
�
2
�s
■
�,
�g
K�
k
§�
§
,
�s
■
&
A�
■�
�
E'
§§
■§
■
§•
AV
Q-
■
t§
�09)
i
|
§
��.
��2
� &K
Q
IQ
.
• ■k
�'�§
km
g,4
Ld
�
§
|
N§
§
-s
&
§%
�~
K
§§
§
'
.
e$
■
91,
/K
&®
�~
�
°
§k
■f�
k
■
k|
p;
�§
K%
�
§H
e§
-§
§
■
\ ,
,
|
|
|
�
|
�
�,■
�
@§
§
_
12 I
7
I
7
�n
�
to
§
I
WESCOTT HILLS ACQUISITION AND REHAB
ASSUMPTIONS
SCENARIO TWO
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP
TAXABLE FINANCING WITH 9% REHAB TAX CREDIT
1. FINANCING
Project would obtain a conventional mortgage or issue taxable
bonds. Assumes same reserve requirements as common bond fund.
Term: 30 years
Rate: 8.63%
Debt Coverage: 125%
Debt Service Reserve: None required. Added a small
working capital reserve so that the
reserves initially total $2,000 per
unit.
Project would obtain an allocation of Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (4% for acquisition and 9% for rehab) for the 34
restricted units.
2. BENTS
The HRA's policay allows a maximum of 50 tax credit units in
one project. Because 16 units are already restricte, only 34
of 104 units to be acquired could receive credits. Assumed
all other units would be at market.
2 bedroom
rent:
MARKET
$750
TAX CREDIT
$500
3 bedroom
rent:
$800
$550
The operating pro -forma assumes 8% vacancy rate which includes
rent collection loss.
Assumes that rents of $750 per three bedroom unit are
collected duting the ten month construction period. Tax
credit rents would be reduced when the project is placed in
service.
q0
87 units x $750 x 3 months = 195,750
62 units x $750 x 7 months = 325.500
Subtotal 521,250
Less 10$ vacancy (52.125)
Net rent collections 469,125
during construction
3. PROJECT
* 104 units acquired (excludes existing 16 units still in tax
credit compliance period).
* 16 units (4 buildings) demolished.
* 25 units would be converted to 2 bedrooms.
* One unit would be converted to a service center/office. It
is assumed that no rent is collected on this unit.
* Average rehab costs assumed to be $22,000 per unit.
4. RELOCATION
* Assumed all tenants in demolished and converted units will
be entitled to relocation benefits of, on average, $9,000 each
plus $1,000 per tenant family for the relocation
consultant.
* Assumed there would be no temporary relocation costs. This
means that all of the rehab would have to occur while the
units are occupied.
5. ACOUTSTTTON PRTC'F
Assumed average price of $48,000 per unit ($192,000 per
building).
6. REAL ESTATE TAXES
Assumed the project is established as a cooperative with a
1.5% tax capacity rate and a 1.36 tax rate.
7. OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs, excluding property taxes, are assumed to be
$250 per unit per month. This figure is based on the
operating information provided by Jeff Johnson, and is similar
to the HRA's experience with its tax credit townhome
properties.
EQUITY REQUIREMENT $4,633,000
OOOCD NOONt OMO Oo00o0 a 0 N to
CO W) N CIDcc cc v IDD M f-- 0 O
cl N
LU
L�
J
Q
M
0 0 0 0 Q O O Q Q O Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0
N M N�N NSOggCMLK OggOgg
N
QCO et r N N
r
C0
Q
w
I
c/yv 00000 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND (D N
N OD O V- !CY) N M co M
0o U') N N 000 O N P-
P-
C o) 0 V
LU r
M
J
v
$ 00000 00000 0 000000
Q N U-) LCA LO LO
Im O
O
U
Q
C) o$oo;co §0v0 00 oggS o
0 000C'M c;LdL6 l hOtnQ tn00tncd 1:
U M(D1-V-IN et OOMvv 0Cf) wN 00
CY) N r ►�
Q r CO
h-
0
H
p�
.0 E
OD } N _O N
x x xj .-. 0cx
69
2 :0 2 x aQ _ .� � �? a E
c $�$c 8 E
Cy'�M2 C �v� C CZ F- e0
U Z CD 0 0 10
wi C; C ¢ 0 Q co� La Cl) o to � � U Q� a)
42
w z azWZU �w o_,LL c U s yli CL 0 w a s
c�
a 0 �o�� o c~i�°� E � �" `1° U�U rnU o� L a�
O _y _,~w¢ 0 c cn 2 to m Z� c c ay a a� U a
J O��UU 2 U= ec`o v, U cca c c
QU�Oy r'>ac�>�°c z4) m45L�o c x
�i 2 c ao Q m
U wwww o O¢w¢Ua 3U Z Uii3o c
Q 0:0xxU (0 � w p
ESTIMATED REHAB COST
812 windows @ 4300 each
Remove and dispose old windows @ 450 each
Install now windows @ 450 each
104 sliding doors @ 4850 each
104 air conditioners @ 4300 each
Disposal of air conditioners @ 450 each
150,800 of steel siding Installed @ 42.50/sf
150,800 If steel siding fornoved @ 41.00/sf
104 refrigerators @ 4600 each
104 stoves @ 4500 each
104 dlswashers @ $300 each
Dispose refrig, stove, & dishwashers @ 450 each
104 garbage disposals @ 4100 each
104 garage doors Installed @ 4375 each
104 deck and guard rails @ 4400 each
8,377 yards Of carpet @ 412.00/yard
2,889 yards of vinyl @ 412.00/yard
Remove & dispose of old carpet @ 12.00/yard
Remove & dispose of old vinyl @ 42.00/yArd
416 Smoke alarms @ $ 35
104 kitchen cabinets & counter tops @ 41,500
104 bathroom cabinets & counter tops @ 4600
104 bathtubs and showers @ $ 500
104 waiter heaters & furnaces @ 41,600
108,000 sq. yards of new asphalt @ 4.90
Landscaping
26 new front entry steps
Sub Total
IS% Contingency
9% Arch/Engineering Fre
TOTAL
PER UNIT (104 units)
This does not Include building permits
�43
93,600
15,600
15,600
68,400
31,200
5,200
377,000
150,800
62,400
52,000
31,200
15,600
10,400
39,000
41,600
100,524
34,668
16,754
5,778
14,560
156,000
$2,400
52,000
166,400
97,200
50,000
75,000
1,860,884
279,133
148,871
2,288,887
22,009
R
MEE I
O
w
v
N
a
OPDO
fD it R',
C4
1I1I
O
O II
'1 I
O
11I
�
tt1
�I
Mf �sNN o�i� w in +��
N
I 1! Nm EF AMNraN p�y A rO 1t nmm �eAp9 lA��f♦7jj 0 r�p�1 A�► I1I1
M Leff
N ='
�NI
I
n
II, Von
II
�
lN7rN� �� p It+i iADM N� pNp O�fe � A11
oAf� �p � f0 f II �N R4N N A It
j r !9 ffffOOOO M A 1''� Pl � N 11
�I pp 11
�NNy��N W r1� f� NNO N tf7 ;f
toot11 N it f�J ' N �y III
1
g
e p p u
I 11
1jMr�j O o 11
app �O � N O 10 2 {ap1
p . 1 O p� �
C N pAp�� M r r 1 P f 10 r fD 11
rON- ^M h ON 11 NO �N N N11
•NM 1�
Q s Q Q Q
oee o I
i5 i5e5 iG u °�, 250
i3 •Nr' o e a Iwa � i� � 18 � ii
w ii r ii
1
i
ii
u
W
i
IIi
�I
1
I
1
1
N W 11
rNPf II
cm 0 cm m
Y $ II
W
131
X N
PJ
A
f
@
r
r
II
II
It
jl
t
p
II
l
11
I
O
PJ
1�7
r
II
Ql
11
�
I
I�
II
N
I
FA.
t
1
1
1
I pi
I h
I
C
I r
I
A
I
1
I
I
�
I
r
N
04
r
V2
N
M
r
Go
r
�
cc
cc
WESCOTT HILLS ACQUISITION AND REHAB
ASSUMPTIONS
SCENARIO THREE
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP
TAXABLE FINANCING WITH 9% REHAB TAX CREDIT
MAXIMIZES AFFORDABILITY, NO DENSITY REDUCTION
This scenario most closely estimates a project that would be
undertaken by a private developer. Rents are maximized under the
tax credit program, and as many units are subsidized with tax
credits as possible. Rehabilitation is more modest, but still
significant. No units are eliminated or converted to two bedroom
units.
1. FINANCING
Project would obtain a conventional mortgage or issue taxable
bonds. Assumes same reserve requirements as common bond fund.
Term: 30 years
Rate: 8.63%
Debt Coverage: 125%
Debt Service Reserve: None required. Added a small
working capital reserve so that the
reserves initially total $2,000 per
unit.
Project would obtain an allocation of Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (4%- for acquisition and 9%- for rehab) for 71 tax
credit restricted units.
2. RENTS
The rules of the tax credit program would allow 71 of the 104
units to be rent restricted. These are units which have been
owned by the same party for the last ten years.
MARKET TAX CREDIT
3 bedroom rent: $800 $600
The operating pro -forma assumes 8% vacancy rate which includes
rent collection loss.
4
Assumes that rents of $750 per three bedroom unit are
collected duting the ten month construction period. Tax
credit rents would be reduced when the project is placed in
service.
103 units x $750 x 10 months - 772,500
Less 10W vacancy (77_250)
Net rent collections 695,250
during construction
3. PROJECT
* 104 units acquired (excludes existing 16 units still in tax
credit compliance period).
* One unit would be converted to a service center/office. It
is assumed that no rent is collected on this unit.
* Average rehab costs assumed to be $16,400 per unit.
4. ACQUISITION PRICE
Assumed average price of $48,000 per unit ($192,000 per
building).
6. REAL ESTATE TAXED
Assumed the project is established as a cooperative with a
1.5% tax capacity rate and a 1.36 tax rate.
7.
QPERATING COSTS
Operating costs, excluding property taxes, are assumed to be
$250 per unit per month. This figure is based on the
--,erating information provided by Jeff Johnson, and is similar
the HRA's experience with its tax credit townhome
operties.
REQUIRZMFM - $2,493,000
'+7
0 0 0 0 0 `00Q O O OD M N 0 00 000000 P M
O we 00 qt
m GOD rri L6 Cd Lf) m m O m
❑ r r Ln �- co
W r'
LL
J
a
0
go DooQ0O80 0®0000
O M0 '� ��N550N-0
4 r r r N N
� r
WT
(q M 00 059000000 0 000000 LOA W V- cor
fl� 1-V �Go m M N
m !h e+o U) co O O N
�'i
❑ LC! r Gp
W
LL
J
a
D
a
O O 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 000000
Oef 00
mLO Ul) Lr) Ln
N �
5
a
U
Q g
VO r 000o0gNO 0 0 C 8 8�
0 0 OOOO CD
0 N f OLdL� f. O dS L� CO n O LicD
O PNOL7�hcof•M
0
f-
0
i-
E
a� LD
co
.-. GD H t0
x G) 44
r C a 2 x
x o� .. c N 'p
3 Qo aci E
CD N 2 a� E °�$ c �,ZE� � e�'o
F- p ea e ` y v� eo H
g -� 0y �Z c v)..13 vs
U Z C cQ �'� V~2 S i*2 U- ZU 0 a)
O ,§ cvoc H ca
LUUJW Z QGci o eo �Q U� oLL caa� v� W 8 'a a
p _� J 0 = N P- -t ' ce 2 c Im tm tm °7
J m 2 U= Q g y y �o N U c9 C C C ❑ J to
a N H�'> ac > c Z y to co sa W m U
❑ Q �U `pQWQUa❑JU zF— UiL?�p c W❑ U a f—
1 9;:
U5 N ;
E,
P�
F
W 3
:s7/
A N
jl
O
pf {p
N
If1 11 RI
0 t
11
(�1
On
A
m 11
m I
�1
Ib
m
11
A
fA
:s7/
I
�H
Ij
I �
1 Of
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
i
1 p
1
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
� f
I
I
I
I
40
A
�I
O 11 1
it It
O i0
/n�000
N Ah
too O
4
0 li
g
i
i
0 j
1
6
P
'1
Ol
�E
N N R
S3
�
I
k
WESCOTT HILLS ACQUISITION AND REHAB
ASSUMPTIONS
SCENARIO FOUR
HRA OWNERSHIP WITH CITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
1. FTNANCTNG
HRA would issue tax exempt bonds through its Common Bond Fund.
Approximately 39W of the bonds would be backed by the City of
Eagan's general obligation pledge. The remaining bonds would
be revenue bonds and carry the BBB+ rating of the HRA's Common
Bond Fund. Common Bond Fund requirements would apply, such as
reserve requirements, debt coverage, etc.
Term: 30 years
Rate: Blended rate of 7.27% (5.9% for G.O. bonds,
and 8.13% for revenue bonds.)
Debt Coverage: 115V
Reserve: Debt Service Reserve equal to 10* of principal
amount of the bonds.
2. RENTS
Units must be available for families at or below 110 of
median income ($59,400). Assumed all units would be at
market.
2 bedroom rent: $750
3 bedroom rent: $800
These rents are not considered affordable for purposes of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA). The maximum rent
which would meet LCA goals, as established by the Met Council,
is $683. To achieve the rents for the whole project, the
equity requirement would increase by $1,800,000.
The operating pro -forma assumes 8W vacancy rate which includes
rent collection loss.
Assumes that rents of $750 per three bedroom unit are
collected during the ten month construction period.
87 units x $750 x 3 months = 195,750
62 units x $750 x 7 months = 325.9oo
Subtotal 521,250
Less 10% vacancy (52.125)
Net rent collections 469,125
during construction
�s
3. PROJECT
* 104 units acquired (excludes existing 16 units still in tax
credit compliance period).
* 16 units (4 buildings) demolished.
* 25 units would be converted to 2 bedrooms.
* One unit would be converted to a service center/office. It
is assumed that no rent is collected on this unit.
* Average rehab costs assumed to be $22,000 per unit.
4. RELOCATION
* Assumed all tenants in demolished and converted units will
be entitled to relocation benefits of, on average, $9,000 each
plus $1,000 per tenant family for the relocation
consultant.
* Assumed there would be no temporary relocation costs. This
means that all of the rehab would have to occur while the
units are occupied.
S. ACQUISITION PRICE
Assumed average price of $48,000 per unit ($192,000 per
building)
6. PROPERTY TAXES
Assumed a Payment In Lieu of Tax of 5% of net shelter rents
during operations.
Development costs assumes the units are purchased by July 1.
In that event, the first half taxes are paid in full, and the
second half are paid at the PILOT rate.
7. OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs, excluding property taxes, are assumed to be
$250 per unit per month. This figure is based on the
operating information provided by Jeff Johnson, and is similar
to the HRA's experience with its tax credit townhome
properties.
EQUITY REQUIREMENT - $4,292,000
S-(
x
8
3
O
U
0
J
O O O OC O O le
N O O800000 �OfJ O O O C O O
N co 0 Ln O 'r c7 c; Id u cv, 0 0 0 IA �[5 N O t0 0 N
c
a^
OD } CV _D H
c ca., 2 x.r
x 2'°�xcm
to c CL
aQ °
CV 0
ao W� 0 c Q vo, 'o D' H O w L--
Z0�
r r
.-�.�QCc� c H �, �a w v� N
Z QZZ:k w C CjTQ C U$ CD � W
Q HOjzO o 06 m H E -9d fl - (7 ° M' cm S.
_N m�Ua 2 V m c V i c Q�-'co
QOM 1-r'> ac EL co c z m N cco� m
a 2�0� c LL � c ao e m ami o <8 c c d a.
w�o�w�V �QwQUaCJU-ZPUii00 CU. 7
co
co
U
Z
w
a
O
l"
ESTIMATED REHAB COST
312 windows 0 $ 300 each
9.3, 600
Remove and dispose old windows 0 $50 each
15.600
• Install new windows @ $50 each
15,600
104 sliding doors 0 $850 each
68,400
104 air consditioners 0 $300 each
31,200
Disposal of air conditioners 0 $50 each
5.200
550,800 sf Steel siding Installed $2.50/sf
377,000
150,800 sf Steel siding removed 1.00/sf
150.800
104 refrigerators 0 $ 600 each
62,400
104 stoves @ $500 each
52,000
104 dywathers 0 $300 each
31.300
Dispose refrig, stove, 6 dishwashers 0 $50 each
15,600
104 garbage disposals 0 5100 each
10.400
104 garage doors installed 0 $375 each
39,000
104 deck and guard rails 0 $400 each
41,600
8,377 yards of carpet 0 $12.00/yard
100,524
2,889 yards of vinyl 0 $12.00/yard
34,668
Remove 6 dispose of old carpet (D $2.00/yard
16,754
Remove A dispose of old vinyl 0 $2.00/yard
5,778
416 Smoke .alarms 0 $35
14.560
104 kitchen cabinets 6 counter tops 0 $1,b00
1561000
104 bathroom cabinets & counter tops 0 $ 600
62,400
104 bathtubs and showers 0 $500
52,000
104 water heaters 5 furnaces 0 51,600
166,400
108,000 sq. yards of new asphalt 0 $.90
97,200
Landscaping
50,000
26 new front entry steps
75,000
Sub Total 1.860,884
15% Contingency 279,133
8% Arch/Englneering Fee 148,871
TOTAL 2,288,887
{ssrsssss
PER UNIT X104 units) 22,009
NOTE -- This does not include building permits
s,-/
FE ° §
I
__I
a
#
.�
ki
§
iƒ � I
IH t: 7
!(
-
��
-`�-
«
�|
2
2|
k
�
�
�
�
a
�
I
f
�
!(
�P0
�i
It C',n�e,
1 t7to
J
p
19m
N^fr
1 f
t
II A
NCh
A
O pp$S'
M
�
I
l pO
11
,� .re
" 8
tl ONNOi
1
� s cn
N9
s
V !� 1>D
a; to
Ne r
T
11 it In m 1
N A
A
N
1
1
t
I
00
GO
` �
11 O r QJ
r
nto
�to
�;_
ej
A O
O
4g
HE
it
Is,��g�
1
roto
veto
Ie�
fO�
A
Of
xj �xj
�Xj
I �O I
��
� �
O A Q OJ
I
gOi
1ff
IfAf
11 GO
veto
II
veto
d
lei
�pmp
j�'=YN1'ji
�e 1
x
11
li CM Ip�f T
Oi
Jai
rj ld
090 -
94 �
; f
I
� �eNry�7J �O�ppI
NND�
�
I
�1
abR
f7�R �bR
abt
aZR�
O�e0+7T I
r
top
I
vi O
Pi r
i� f
{YYj ijgNj
1��
1� O y�
NO
p�
�pp
II
11 O t7 Of
JTf
ff1
N m '
P6
veto
Ne to
44
0
i
10
I
I
1
pp�pNp
1► N �
8
@ O �
� � � 11
11NII
O O RV 01
�
1
1
I
1
1
1
J
J
I
11
�I
II
of
C
�CaS
�
C
11
11
N NJ
�P0
!
cc §
.�|
� §
I�
�
E
�
»>
.
II"
�
Scoo
O fD pO fm0 11 � Y'7
f R g ii N
I T
I
Occ C A II N O
ID m ff00 II m
1
i
$coo
! T T
II coo S N I N
T
I
goCIO$ 1 c t
f 9 f N T T r
I •1!
I
I
I
1p. �Np
0000 tD � �f 1it N 0
li
coo t� v� A ' P. g
n
1
0000 0 [r'i ' 1 t. 1� n
o f0
All it m
I
li
Acoo A
$ 8 A gi
Acoo A A OO OO
8 ONE ONE it T T
� II
I
I
SIM
it
A 11
I ! .
it � �
cc
— city of eagan
DATE: May 16,1996
TO: Eagan City Council
FROM: Det. Doug Matteson
POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Massage License Applicant Chad Matthew Houck
I have conducted a complete criminal background investigation on the
applicant, Chad. Matthew Houck, DOB 06/12/73. Chad Houck has completed
all the necessary forms, reference the application, and has included
transcripts indicating his education in massage therapy.
Record checks were run through the city of Apple Valley, Ramsey County
and Eagan, indicating no criminal activity. Criminal records checks were
also run through NCIC, MN BCA, as well as his driver's record. Each
revealed no problems.
Chad has completed over 200 hours of course work at the Minneapolis School
of Massage and Body Work, all with passing grades. It should be noted that
he is still a student at that school.
Based on the above information I find no reason to deny the applicant license
to practice massage therapy at Lifetime Fitness, 1565 Thomas Center Drive,
Eagan.
DM/me
MEMO
A
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMO
city of eagan
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 11, 1996
TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
LIZ WITT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DET. DOUG MATTESON
MASSAGE THERAPY APPLICANT
MICHAEL PERSING
As you recall, Michael Persing applied for a permit to practice massage
therapy at Wastl Chiropractic and Wellness Clinic, 1340 Duckwood Drive
and it was recommended that his application be denied based on
numerous reasons. I did speak with Michael Persing regarding this and he
has since provided me with documentation clarifying his application.
Included in this case file is a letter from the Florida School of Massage. In
this letter it states that the American Institute of Natural Health merged
their program of message therapy with the Florida School of Massage.
This school is licensed by the State Board of Independent Post Secondary
Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools through the Florida
Education Center in Tallahassee, Florida.
also received a student transcript indicating that Michael Persing has
completed 1150 hours of study at the school.
rage 2
Further, Mr. Persing has provided me with a letter of recommendation from
Grandma's Marathon. Dr. John Kulick, who is the director of Grandma's
Marathon Sports Massage, states "Mike simply is one of the most
knowledgeable, competent, professional therapists I have had the pleasure
to work with".
I did speak with Michael Persing regarding his application for commercial
adult oriented services with the city of Lakeville. He told me he did apply
with the city of Lakeville in 1989 and it was denied. He added that he has
never practiced massage therapy as a business out of his home and he
only performs massage therapy on immediate family members in his own
home.
Based on the new additions to this file, I see no reason to deny the
applicant, Michael John Persing, a permit to practice massage therapy in
the city of Eagan.
C
UY V QV II - Linin LAVA ,iii yr z11Vh14 !U J000jjUU YUUUUA
Fees: -$= inves�igation (non-refundable) City of Eo>gan
1$50 license Soso PSot Kn Rd.
:License Teim: July 1 -June 30 Eag* MN S 122
CITY OF EAGAN as -Isco
APPLICATION FOR MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE Eos: "1-"12
This form, must be filled out by typewriter or by printing in ink by the sole owner, the individual king' a
massage therapist license.
TRUE NAME:
First FullMiddle
j Maide/naAet
RESIDENCE ADDRESS- � � E��r
strwt City ,,�;;
RESIDENCE PHONI,-J: ? / �/— � Z BUSINESS PHONE:
BUSINESS NAME: LA7�' 1�tc.5 5
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
statwzip
S's �2,
Street city State/Zip
1. Is the applicant licensed in arpr other community? Yea__ No. -
If yes, where:
2. Has the applicant been denied a massage therapist license by any licensing authority? Yes No
If yes, describe
S. Each applicant for a massage therapist license shall furnish, with the application, the following:
a. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school approved by the American Massage erap at
Association or other similar reputable massage association; or
b. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school which is either accredited by a g-rd2*d
educational accrediting association or agency, or is licensed by the state or lnml govprnme t agericy
having ,jurisdiction over the school. �
C. A certificate of National Certification for Therapeutic massage and Body Work by the National
Certification Board of Therapeutic Massage and Body Work, an affiliate of American Massa Therapy
Association.
4. If you have ever used or been known by a name or names other than the true name given above list **h
name(s) andinformation concerning dates and places used.
krontandsideviewphotographsmust provided.
S. Address(es) at which you have lived during preceding five years. Wegin with present or most reeen addre�.)
No_ 4t Street City & State Dates
� I
S. Occupation History for preceding five years. (begin with present or most recent.)
Occupation IEmployer or Name of Busi*s
IJI, y /�':c, �rty�d %"n 5,5-/611c? to g I
Address CityBtatelZip Length of E loym nt
UVJ/ VVq
Occupation Employer or Name of ausini
Address city/Statedip Length of 13m1 Ioymet
OccupatignEMPI er or Name of 3sir a
EVVI
Address. : City/State2ip Length of Emji;ymett
*Attach dW*bncd **ets N necessary
7. Har/you ever been convicted of any felony, crime or violation of any ordinance, other than traffic 0 yes
NoV yes, give information as to the time, place and offense for which convictions were had: -
S. List the names, residences, and business addresses of three people, (prefer residents of Dakota Cour* F) of
moral character, not related to the applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, who
be contacted an to the applicant's character.
Name Phone Z go ---z (/ cc/
Address
Business Address
; Date: �' q &
Subscribed end gwor
to before me
this '26' da y Of
Notary Public
-'q
B ER N A r) NIE IM.I. KU'/if
-P
• NOTARY PUBLIC-M;,NNES0TA
DAKOTA COUNTY Y-
MyCommissiori Expires Jan. 31, %000
6.96
Phone
6-6
Signature of Applicant
Occupation Employer or Name of ausini
Address city/Statedip Length of 13m1 Ioymet
OccupatignEMPI er or Name of 3sir a
EVVI
Address. : City/State2ip Length of Emji;ymett
*Attach dW*bncd **ets N necessary
7. Har/you ever been convicted of any felony, crime or violation of any ordinance, other than traffic 0 yes
NoV yes, give information as to the time, place and offense for which convictions were had: -
S. List the names, residences, and business addresses of three people, (prefer residents of Dakota Cour* F) of
moral character, not related to the applicant or financially interested in the premises or business, who
be contacted an to the applicant's character.
Name Phone Z go ---z (/ cc/
Address
Business Address
; Date: �' q &
Subscribed end gwor
to before me
this '26' da y Of
Notary Public
-'q
B ER N A r) NIE IM.I. KU'/if
-P
• NOTARY PUBLIC-M;,NNES0TA
DAKOTA COUNTY Y-
MyCommissiori Expires Jan. 31, %000
6.96
Phone
6-6
Signature of Applicant