IDC Agenda 07-18-1985
.
AGE DA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, July 18 1985 - 7:00 A.M.
Monticello City Hall
Members: Tom Eidem, Bruce Gagneli s, Arve Grimsmo, Ron Hoglund,
Shelly Johnson, Harvey ~ ndall, Dale Lungwitz, Chair
Jay Morrell, Bud schrupp, Don Smith, Co-Chair Gary
Wieber, and Allen Pelvit.
1. Open Meeting.
2. Approval of the June 20, 1985, minutes.
3. Review of the 1985 Annual Banq et.
.
4. Consideration of Annual Busine s Appreciation Day.
5. Review of Developers survey.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
.
.
MI
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
June 20, 198
Monticell
TES
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
- 7:00 A.M.
City Hall
Members Present: Tom Eidem, Arve Grimsmo, Shelly Johnson, Harvey
Kendall, Dale L ngwitz, Chair Jay Morrell,
Bud Schrupp, Do Smith, Vice-Chair Gary Wieber,
and Allen Pelvi .
Chair Morrell opened the meeting sking for approval of the 5/16/85
minutes. Dale Lungwitz moved to pprove said minutes, was seconded
by Shelly Johnson, and passed 10- .
The first item on the agenda was
and Gay Veit of Veit Construction
to the Committee. Allen explaine
trying to erect a spec building.
property in this proposed project
very briefly stated that the buil
35,000 sq. ft. Allen stated that
taken and was informational only.
to Tom Godlewski.
.
oved back to allow Tom Godlewski
to make their presentation
his past attempts with Veits
He went on to describe the
as Lots 1-10, Block 15, and
ing would be approximately
this item needed no action
He then turned the floor over
Mr. Godlewski is a project manage for Veit Construction of Rogers,
Minnesota. He explained how over the previous 30-60 days they
have been negotiating with Mr. Ec on his property. The proposal
would be contingent upon obtainin the properties, correcting
the soils, obtaining the use of t x increment financing, and
so forth. Mr. Godlewski ran thro gh the properties costs, both
raw land and soil correction cost.
Chair Morrell asked for clarification on a few questions and
then stated that the Industrial De elopment Committee does not
have any authority in the process. He added that the Committee
did, however, have members on othe committees, councils, etc.,
and that might be beneficial for aiding their cause. Morrell
stated that we could help find ten nts, etc.
Shelly Johnson asked if the tenant
were compatible with the property
Mr. Godlewski assured him that it
on whether the 35,000 sq. ft. buil
tenant or more. Mr. Godlewski sta
would be leased by one tenant, wit
for speculative purposes. He also
building was more workable than a
and nature of the business
nd the appropriate zoning.
as. Chair Morrell commented
ing would be leased by one
ed that approximately 25,000 sq.
the remaining 10,000 sq. ft.
stated that a 35,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft. building.
ft.
.
Arve Grimsmo stated that he felt a little uncomfortable with
lessoning the value of a centrally located piece of property
.
IDC Minutes - 6/20/85
by deducting the soil correction mounts. He stated that the
Oakwood property sold for $3.00/s . ft., while others in the
nearby area went for around $2.75 sq. ft. He encouraged the
proposal but indicated to be care ul on how it's handled. Chair
Morrell cautioned the developer a out MN/DOT's plans for improving
Highway 25 in 1986. Tom Eidem ex lained that since MN/DOT has
completed their plans for channel'zation and left turn lanes,
they would allow access to the pr perty from the 5~ Street point.
If 6th Street is constructed, MN/ OT will only allow access/egress
from 6th Street. Morrell then em hasized the necessity to plan
their entrances/exits from the pr posed 6th Street. Eidem explained
that staff felt the first tax inc ements should be applied toward
the construction of 6th Street wi h additional increments possibly
to cover sewer improvements and finally land write down.
Mr. Godlewski asked about the possibility of obtaining a small
Cities Development Grant/Loan that might be up to $250,000.00.
Tom Eidem explained that this was ruei however, each city is
allowed only one application per year, and our present proposed
application will be used for anoth r project. Allen added that
these programs are on a competitiv basis and stress the following:
- type of business
- number of new jobs cre. ted
- addition to the City's tax base
- private to public fina cial ratio
- number of jobs created dollar, etc.
.
He stated that industrial/manufact
more favorablei and in a competiti
proposal has not done well in the
if the project falls through, then
Vice-Chair Wieber asked Mr. Godlew
Tom Godlewski stated that perhaps
front end red tape with perhaps a
Chairman Morrell summarized the pr
appreciates getting involved in th
proceed with meeting with the HRA
that the Committee could assist th
tenant for the speculative space a
.
Mr. Godlewski asked if the City ha
with proposals for the property, b
and perhaps asked if tax increment
Tom Eidem explained that in the la
been the first to actually propose
increment financing. Others have
declined to pursue because of the
An additional property owner may a
ing businesses are considered
e situation, this type of
ast. Eidem explained that
Veits could ask for assistance.
ki what their time frame was.
o days could complete the
eptember construction date.
ject and stated that the IDC
proposali however, they must
nd City staff. He also stated
developers in locating a
d additional financing alternatives.
previously been approached
en made an offer on the property,
financing could be utilized.
t three years, Veits have
a project and request tax
xpressed interest but have
xtraordinary expenses involved.
so have complicated the situation.
-2
.
At this point, Veits met with Tom
and the Committee proceeded with t
took the next few minutes to discu
There was some concern about the n
City's property would produce a gr
and with soil corrections $35,900.
by the City is, is an unproductive
Allen stated that this entire prop
of tax increment financing. Becau
of the property and the extensive
would be eligible for a 25-year Ta
that it was staff's feeling, as w
tax increment not be used for land
use for the increment would be to
such as 6th Street construction an
is tax increment remaining, then p
toward the land cost. To apply in
write down would be contrary to ta
.
The rest of the discussion concern
in the construction areas, parking
Highway 25, and drainage. Mr. She
of ISD #882, discussed the school
tax increment finanCing and stated
he felt that tax increment financi
advantage of the City. In establi
District, we must meet certain cri
etc., and will attempt to tie in 0
Olson's for future redevelopment.
In other business, Chair Morrell s
a thank you letter to all banquet
that we send letters next year pre
Harvey Kendall so moved, was secon
unanimously. A discussion was hel
from the banquet. Allen stated th
$7,100.00 this year. It was the c
have Committee members sell the re
sales people sell those who were s
This should be on the July agenda
The next meeting is scheduled for
River Inn. There being no further
adjourned.
.
(r~r~ '-
~~,,\.&~
Allen L. Pelvit
Director of Economic Development
IDC Minutes - 6/20/85
idem, City Administrator,
eir meeting. The Committee
s the proposal and its impact.
bers that were used. The
ss revenue of $95,900.00,
O. The question to be answered
piece of swamp worth $36,000.00.
sal is dependent on the use
e of the unproductive state
mprovements needed, the area
Increment District. He added
11 as the HRA's, that the
write down. The appropriate
over the cost of improvements
sewer construction. If there
rhaps it could be applied
rement initially to the land
increment laws.
d itself with problem areas
lot, street construction,
ly JOhnson, Superintendent
istrict's concerns on uSing
that in this particular case,
g would be to the overall
hing this Tax Increment Financing
eria pertaining to blight,
her properties like Clifford
ggested Allen and Jay prepare
ontributors. He also suggested
aring them for the 1986 banquet.
ed by Dale Lungwitz, and passed
concerning the net income
t we netted approximately
ncensus of the Committee to
ulars, but to have Don Smith's
ubborn or never bought before.
or further discussion.
uly 16, 12:00 noon, at the
business, the meeting was
-3
.
.
.
IDC Agenda - 7/18/85
3. Review of the 1985 Annual Banquet. A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Last month's meeting was cut short
proposed project on Block 15. It w
to bring this up again as an agenda
y the presentation of Veit's
s the Committee's consensus
item.
As you will remember, I included Ex ibits I (proposed budget)
and Exhibit II (actual budget) for he 1985 Annual Banquet in
last month's agenda supplement. We projected to gross $11,250.00
and net $8,278.00. We, in fact, h ve grossed $9,310.00 and netted
$7,101.48 as of July 1, 1985. This accounting reflects the $1,425.00
amount expected to be received. I am sending a final request
for payment and/or plea for their ontribution before making
a final accounting, which will be vailable for the August meeting.
Of the $900.00 total to be request d, I feel that perhaps another
$675.00 could be expected to be re eived. This would push the
1985 Banquet profit to $7,776.48.
Other areas to be discussed are as follows:
- 1986 guest speaker
- banquet location
- date/times for banquet
- ticket sales
- commissions
- other suggestions
There are no alternative actions/r commendations for this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Revised Actual 1985 Banquet Budget
.
1985 REVISED ANNO
BANQUET BUDGET
Revenues:
Tickets and Contributions
Expenditures:
Monte Club (food)
Monte Club (gratuity)
Monticello Office Products
(name tags)
Monticello Printing
(tickets, letters)
wood-type Montage
$1,852.00
185.00
4.34
69.18
98.00
Net Profit Before Adjustment
Adjustment (possible additional billings)
Adjusted Net Profit
.
.
$9,310.00
$2,208.52
$ 7 , 1 0 1 . 48
$ 675.00
$7,776.48
IDC Agenda - 7/18/85
.
4. Consideration of Annual Business
preciation Day. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the October 18, 1984, meeting, "t was the consensus of the
Committee to return the Annual Bus"ness Appreciation Day event
back to the afternoon/evening casu I type affair and have it
at the golf course. The Committee's feelings were that the Country
Club could handle the 50-75 people expected to attend. It was
also agreed upon to have the event one week earlier than the
past on September 4, 1985, with go f during the afternoon, social
hour at 5:30 p.m., and dinner at 6:30 p.m. This could possibly
be a very casual picnic affair.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Decide on picnic/casual affair or dinner/informal affair,
along with dates, meals, etc.
2. Go with the past events and ha e it more planned and formal.
ever, my feelings are that
erred by most Committee members.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
.
I have no firm recommendation.
a casual picnic type affair is
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None needed.
.
.
.
.
5. Review of Developers Survey. (A.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Sometime ago the Committee, under
and Planning Subcommittee, began p
concentrated on the development pr
of inaccurate records beyond the p
past two years were selected for t
remember, the proposed survey was
as a whole and approval was receiv
sent to each developer/contractor
permit of substantial size during
the winter and spring months when
pace, I followed up on those surve
were sent with 26 completed. The
without any bias on my part. When
each developer/contractor, I numbe
it on a control sheet. This was d
results completely autonomous and
aside.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
IDC Agenda - 7/18/85
he leadership of the Research
eparing a questionnaire which
cess in Monticello. Because
st 24-36 months, only the
e survey group. As you will
rought back to the Committee
d. Individual letters were
ho had been issued a building
he previous 24 months. Over
ther duties were at a slower
s. A total of 30 surveys
nclosed tabulation was completed
I interviewed or met with
ed each fact sheet and coded
ne in order to keep the survey
et any prejudice feelings
1. No action necessary - for info mational purposes only.
2. No action necessary. but a gen ral discussion of the results
can take place.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit I.
3-
CODE
.
1 . Wendy's
2. Bondhus ion
3 . Tom Thumb
4. Monticello-Big ake Community Hospital
5. FSI
6. Olson & Son's E ectric
7. Burger King
8. Charlie's West
9. Silver Fox Inn
10. Wrightco
11. Best in Webb
12. RJ Ryan Constru tion Company
13. Kentucky Fried hicken
14. Winkelman Enter rises
15. Sam Peraro (Car Wash)
16. IXI
17 . NSP
18. Mel Wolters
19. Metcalf & Larso
20. Jones Manufactu ing
21. Jim Powers
22. Hoglund Bus
23. Hoglund Motel
24. Moon Motors
25. Dahlheimer Dist ibuting
26. First National ank of Monticello
.
.
.
CODE
.
1. Wendy's
2. Bondhu$ Corpora
3. Tom Thumb
4. Monticello-Big ake Community Hospital
5. FSI
6. Olson & Son's
7. Burger King
8. Charlie's West
9. Silver Fox Inn
10. Wrightco
11. Best in Webb
12. RJ Ryan Construction Company
13. Kentucky Fried C icken
14. Winkelman Enterp ises
15. Sam peraro (Car ash)
16 . IXI
17. NSP
18. Mel Wolters
19. Metcalf & Larson
20. Jones Manufactur ng
21. Jim Powers
22. Hoglund Bus
23. Hoglund Motel
24. Moon Motors
25. Dahlheimer Distr"buting
26. First National B nk of Monticello
.
EXHIBIT I
. 1- Excellent Good Fair
8 7 2
4 9
6 10 2
12 7 5
3 4 4
8 8 2
7 6 5
3 2 2
Comments:
1. Building Inspector was extreme
the entire process.
2. Building Inspector was more th
3. The Water and Street Departmen
.
5. Considering the complexity of
and the time constraints and i
for the HUD UDAG, we are very
helpfulness the above individu
6. Paving not installed yet. We
use TIF but could not get it.
7. Community accepted us very wel
8. Everything went good.
9. Overall, good.
12. Very easy to work with on the
13. Very good experience now. It
when I first moved to Monticel
20. Too high of costs for engineer
25. Did not have any major grievan
26. Was treated well by all.
.
Bad
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
y hel
I( rough
was
RBis
forma
lease
Is co
( id re
.
S1 pr
, asn I t
o.
ng fi
I( es.
-1
N/A
7 Mayor
9 City Council
6 City Administrator
0 Building Inspector
13 Assistant Administrator
6 Director of Economic
Development
6 Public Works Director
17 HRA
pful and cooperative throughout
than in the past inspections.
very helpful.
with pending federal legislation
tion requirements to apply
d with the cooperation and
nsistantly demonstrated.
ceive a variance. Tried to
oject. Very helpful.
that cohesive 9 years ago
rms. Too many delays.
. 2. Excellent Good Fair
8 11 5
3 10 6
4 8 8
3 8 6
9 11 2
Comments:
Bad N/A
o
Existing Zoning
Regulations
Ordinances/Covenants
Variances that could
be applied for
6 Correct process to
achieve variances
o
o
o
5
4
o
2
sewer/water/Utility
Availability
2. Too many ordinances - we could apply for them, but it's not worth
the time. Many unnecessary st ps in the variance process. The
City was helpful in trying to ( et us hooked up to City sewer,
even though it was not origina ly available.
7. We would have opened early, bu a large electrical panel was on
back order.
.
9. Did not pursue our last propos I because it lacked sound business
sense. This was independent 0 the motel.
16.
Tom Grue stated that they are
and their sprinkling problems,
results in $.50-$.75/sq. ft. a
systems to meet code.
oncerned about the low water pressure
mainly low pressure. This then
ditional cost in the sprinkler
20. Small job - It was a disadvant ge to expand/relocate. We could
get by with our existing build ng that is debt free, etc., and
not increase our expenses.
21.
Planning Commission and Counci
time and money when staff coul
and zoning? It is difficult 0
the reasons are logical, fine;
states a fact does not mean it
be more open minded.
take staff's word. Why waste
make the decisions on planning
the developer. Suggestion: If
but just because the Ordinance
can't be changed. They should
26. Public Works Director and crew were very helpful in getting sewer
and water hook ups.
.
..J_
.
3. Excellent Good Fair Bad N/A
10 10 3 0 The entire development
process
8 10 4 0 2 The amount of time needed
to get from Building
Permit to Certificate
of occupancy
Comments:
1. There were absolutely no delay whatsoever.
12. Things go rather smoothly in M nticello's process. City staff
really was beneficial in the H D paperwork.
21. PUD was foreign to us - Left a bad taste in our mouth - Too many
demands.
26. The project was on schedule.
.
.
-3
.
.
.
4. Excellent
Good
Fair
10
13
8
8
3
Comments:
ad
N/A
Banking (local)
Sub-contractors (local)
Other:
3. State electrical inspector dema ded and moved some switches.
We did not like it but could no' fight it.
6. Did most of the work themselves.
o
o
o
5
2
19
7. Job services office does great job with getting us testing and
training employees.
12. Did not have many subs. but th se we used were good to work with.
14. Good relationship with local b
16. The phone system is only conce
and subcontractors.
not part of metro - more costs.
17. Other - Sewer requirements cos a lot to get it done. They feel
the WWTP is outdated.
20. Did general/subcontracting the selves.
.
5. P~ease ~ist any comments you feel ould benefit the City of Monticel~o
in attracting business.
1. Advertise your cooperative ap oach to developers. There are
many cities that could learn f om your examp~e.
2. The high building permit fees hich are based on cost of the building
are really a tax on business t at is used to pay for inspections
on smaller structures or for C.ty revenue.
3. Doing a fine job.
5. Continue to foster a good work.ng re~ationship between the City
and our local banks to expedit sound financial packages.
6. No comment.
7. Could not think of anything we aren't already doing.
8. Good job.
9. Make it brief, easy to get alo g with. Financing, IRE's, etc.,
yet conscientious about not ab sing IRE's.
12. Doing a good job.
.
13. We have a good system; go get 'em.
17. Continued cooperation - maybe more advertising of City overall
such as in a brochure. When y u want to work on it, let's get
together.
21. More give-aways (tax increment financing, etc.), ~ess red tape
in developing land/site.
23. Be more open minded and help ith business. Do not push it to
the side just because you thin they are rich.
25. Doing a good job.
26. Keep up with the public contact.
.
.
6. Did you contact or receive help fro the Industrial Development Committee
and/or the Director of Economic Dev lopment?
1. No, it wasn't necessary.
3. No.
4. He provides our staff with val able information when we request
it.
5. Allen Pelvit provided a compet nt link between FSI and the Department
of HUD. He kept the project a d associated paperwork moving so
that time tables were maintain d.
6. Contacted Allen, but his hands were tied. Minnesota laws prevented
the HRA from letting us use TI although Allen was helpful in
explaining alternative types 0 financing. Maybe in the future.
7. Indirectly, he provided valuab e demographic information.
8. No .
9. Yes. He was helpful in gettin the information needed. We did
not follow through on the proj ct because we felt it was not a
good business decision.
.
10. No.
11 . No.
12. Yes. Allen Pelvit was extreme y helpful in this project. Rick
Wolfsteller was cooperative as well.
14. Yes, certainly. He's always tying to get us to build in Monticello.
15. Yes.
16. Yes.
17. No.
20. No.
21. Yes. A1 was extremely helpful with everything I requested.
22. No.
23. Yes. They were helpful. All n Pelvit tried hard to help with details.
24. No.
. 25. No.
26. Yes. Although it was only in ormational, it was helpful.
.
.
.
7. Would you consider developing in t e city of Monticello again? (Why
or Why Not)
1. Absolutely. The quality of th people, the above mentioned cooperative
approach and the attitude of t e community. We were able to hire
excellent employees.
2. Yes. We live here.
3. Yes. Another building is bein considered at this time. Construction
during summer of 1985.
5. Yes. Tom Eidem and his staff et the job done.
6. Yes.
7. Yes. Very nice, friendly city
Good for business.
8. Yes. I've lived here for 7 ye rs and would like to stay in Monticello.
9. Same as #5. And there was a m rket need.
10. Yes. But such factors as stat tax situation might have negative
affect.
11. Yes.
12. Definitely.
13. Definitely. Forward looking community - open to ideas, supportive
and helpful in all areas.
14. Yes. Good progressive city.
15. Yes. Monticello is a great c.ty and also a company can grow with
Monticello's growth.
16. Yes.
17. Yes. Good people to work wit. Good help to NSP Plant.
20. Yes. If the location is good and cost is not too high.
21. Yes. I am still proceeding w th the Health Club.
22. Yes. It's home.
23. That's evident in the busines es I have in town.
24. Possibly future expansion.
25. Yes. Monticello is a good se ting for business.
26. Yes. We feel great about the city. We built the building large
enough in order to expand in he future.
7-