IDC Minutes 12-21-2000 (2)MINUTES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, December 21, 2000 - 7:00 a.m.
City Hall - 505 Walnut Street -Academy Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Ollib, Vice Chair Kevin Doty, Don Smith, Tom Lindquist,
Bill Tapper, Dick Van Allen, Don Roberts, Mike Benedetto, and Susie
Wojchouski.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Mosford and Dan Carlson.
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Wolfsteller, Jeff O'Neill, and Ollie Koropchak.
1. Call to Order.
Chair Ollig called the IDC meeting to order at 7:00 a.m.
2. Consideration to approve the November 16. 2000 IDC minutes.
Don Roberts made a motion to approve the November 16, 2000 IDC minutes. Seconded by Dick
Van Allen and with no additions o-- corrections, the minutes were approved as written.
Continued -Follow-up discussion to the November IDC meeting relative to su~ested strategies
for development to improve public~erception.
Chair Ollig gave a brief backbround of IDC discussions leading up to the November motion "The
December agenda to consist of one item only: Discussion of styles and structures for
improvement of public perception." Members inquired as to whether the City has a Flow Chart
listing time frames and accountability for development in Monticello. Upon requesting a copy of
the Flow Chart, O'Neill noted accountability is within the job descriptions. O'Neill informed
members the first draft of the Design Manual is scheduled for completion the end of December
2000. This being drafted by the City Engineer Consultant will include a planning and design
flow chart. O"Neill continued stating the financing process, policies, and application forms are in
place. IDC members concluded that it appears at the completion of the marketing process
(technical side) the prospect has a good feeling about Monticello and suggested afollow-up
format. 1. A prospect be assigned a key contact person, IDC and/or Council member. The
suggestion to include an IDC member is to assure the IDC hears both positive and negative
feedback. 2. If problem is perceived, the problem is identified at site review by the key contact.
At that point, it is decided whether project management and/or city bet involved. 3. Develop a
discipline flow chart (not flow calendar) for the Planning, Site. and Building Review Process.
Staff needs to educate the prospect as to the process. IDC members asked, "For example, if a
disagreement relative to design occurs who within city staff has the final word?" Wolfsteller was
identified as the "hammer man".
O'Neill informed IDC members that Mayor Belsaas, Koropchak, and himself met with Charlie
Pfeffer for insights into development trends and suggestions for positioning Monticello for
IDC Minutes - 12/21/00
development. O'Neill noted from Charlie's perceptive, the City of Monticello has more
committees than most and wondered if they serve a purpose. Koropchak added Charlie also
talked about the importance of an "entrepreneurial spirit" attitude and the need for a development
process with consistency. He suggested marketing Monticello's amenities rather than financial
incentives. Other issues: Affordable housing, annexation, wages and benefits, and infrastructu--e
development.
Tapper spoke of the development process from the prospective of a small industrial business
owner. You must seek financing, you're under stress, additional revenues are yet to come in,
you're nervous about commitments. [f a delay or problem arises, it adds dollars and additional
stress. It's important to speak with a person of "clout", the Mayor or Council member.
Certainly a linkage to the IDC is good added Tapper; however, you need a person with "clout."
Doty added even a week delay in development causes increase in development costs. Business
owners seek financing based on estimates, including estimates of city fees and development
information received. Changes or surprises increase development costs. If increased
development costs exceed the approved loan amount, this is a major issue for the mom/pop shop
unlike a Sunny Fresh backed by a large corporation. Doty noted he was aware of four
individuals who will not develop in Monticello. The IDC's desire is for a final outcome of
"Happy to be in Monticello."
IDC members requested Wolfsteller and O'Neill draft a development process flow chart
(blueprint) for prospects including time-line range, staff contact with phone numbers, and key
contact person with phone numbe-- for review at the January IDC meeting.
~' 4. Other Business.
With the unknown time-line of Barb Schwientek's recovery and noting the November IDC
minutes, Chair Ollig suggested appointing Mary Barger to the IDC. Koropchak noted the
membership solicitation procedure of which a committee reviews the list of prospective
candidates for recommendation. Kevin Doty made a motion to appoint Mary Barger to the IDC.
Dick Van Allen seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed
UnanlnlOUS~y.
Smith reported the Marketing Committee met on December 15 with Van Allen, Barger,
Koropchak and himself in attendance. He noted the brochure inserts were updated and
disbursement of brochures will increase from 25 to 100 per month. The committee will revisit
the brochure in a year to consider a redo. It appears we have sufficient funds in the Marketing
Account. The web site has been updated. The committee will look for a new activity replacing
the Bus Tour/Golf Outing.
BRE and Prospect Report See Attachment.
• 2
IDC Minutes - 12/21/00
5. Adjournment.
The IDC meeting adjourned by a consensus of its members.
Ollie Koro~chak. Recorder
•