Loading...
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