EDA Agenda Packet 02-10-2010ANNUAL EDA MEETING
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room - 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN
Commissioners: President Bill Demeules; Vice President Dan Frie, Treasurer Bill Tapper, Bill Fair, Bob
Viering, and Council members Tom Perrault and Brian Stumpf
Staff: Executive Director Megan Barnett, Finance Director Tom Kelly
Call to Order
2. Approve January 13, 2009 Meeting Minutes
3. Consideration of additional agenda items
4. Approval of EDA Invoices
5. Elect Officers for 2010
6. Review EDA Fund Balances
7. Follow up discussion regarding TIF Districts 2, 5, 6
8. Director Report
9. Marketing Update
a. BR &E
b. Initiate a City Market Analysis
c. Monticello Business Center
10. Adjournment
MINUTES
CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
6:00pm
1. Call to Order:
Chainnan Demeules called the meeting to order and declared a quorum at 6:00pm.
Roll Call:
The following Commissioners were present:
President Bill Demeules
Commissioner Bill Fair
Vice President Dan Frie
Commissioner Bill Tapper
Council Member Tom Perrault
Council member Brian Stumpf
Absent:
Commissioner Bob Viering
Also present Executive Director Megan Barnett and Finance Director Tom Kelly
2. Approve minutes:
MOTION BY BILL FAIR SECONDED BY BILL TAPPER TO APPROVE THE JANUARY
13, 2010 MEETING MINUTES WITH CORRECTIONS TO ITEM 6 TO STATE "WOULD
LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL." MOTION CARRIED. 6 -0.
3. Consideration of additional agenda items:
No additional items were added.
4 Approval of EDA invoices:
MOTION BY BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED BY TOM PERRAULT TO APPROVE
INVOICES. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. ABSTAINED BILL TAPPER
7. Marketing Update:
Economic Development Director Barnett provided a brief update on current marketing initiatives
by staff and Wayne Elam.
5. Presentation by the I -94 West Corridor Coalition:
Director Barnett stated representatives from the I -94 West Corridor Coalition along with Bret
Weis are present tonight to inform the EDA about the Coalition and their initiatives. Leonard
Kirsh briefly reviewed their history and current partners.
Bret Weis from WSB reviewed various lobbying efforts and identified transportation funding
sources. The Coalition is trying to lobby for funds to move up the expansion of I -94 on MNDot's
priority list. Bret also reviewed efforts the Coalition has made to continue lobbying at the State
and Federal levels, including submitting a TIGER grant.
Bret Weis and Leonard Kirsh both stated how important it is to begin planning now for any
expansion along I -94 to occur. Even if it is projected the expansion will not likely occur within 5
— 10 years. If communities do not get in front of decision makers now and identify needs,
nothing will happen beyond 20 years. Continued traffic issues will occur. Transportation money
will go somewhere and it would seem appropriate to begin planning now for needed
infrastructure from Maple Grove to Monticello. In order for this to occur it is vital to get in front
of the decision makers to allot money for this needed I -94 expansion project.
Brian Stumpf is opposed to joining the membership due to the fact Monticello will not see a
direct benefit for at least 20 years.
Director Barnett stated joining the Coalition will provide a direct economic benefit to
Monticello. The more we are in front of businesses, investors, communities the more we could
gain in economic development efforts.
Bill Tapper stated he sees I -94 as the life blood and feels that the EDA should join the Coalition.
Bill Fair stated he is in favor of the Coalition, it is a regional issue and Monticello will see a
direct benefit.
MOTION BY BILL TAPPER SECONDED BY DAN FRIE TO APPROVE SUPPORTING
AND JOINING THE I -94 WEST CORRIDOR COALITION. MOTION CARRIED. 4 -2. TOM
PERRAULT AND BILL STUMPT OPPOSED.
7. Adjourn
MOTION BY TAPPER SECONDED BY FRIE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED. 6 -0.
Bill Deraeules, President
Megan Barnett, Executive Director
4. Approval of EDA Invoices.
a. Ehlers & Associates Annual Ehler's Conference
b. TIF Payments Pay as you go notes
5. NOMINATE OFFICERS FOR 2010:
Reference and Background:
The Bylaws for the EDA states appointment of officers shall be elected at the Annual
Meeting.
Currently Bill Demeules is serving as President, Dan Frie is serving as Vice - president,
and Bill Tapper is serving as Treasurer.
Alternate Actions:
1. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 President.
2. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 Vice - President.
3. Motion to elect: to serve as the 2010 Treasurer.
EDA Agenda: 2/10/2010
6. Acceptance of EDA Fund Balance Report. (TK)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached are the annual estimated fund balance report of all the tax increment districts within
the City and the balance of the general EDA fund. This report is the unaudited balances and
once the City's annual audit is completed in June staff will prepare a final status report of the
districts and the EDA Fund.
The report reflects the early decertification of TIF Districts 1 -26, 1 -28, and 1 -33, which all
obligations were paid off in 2009. Also District 1 -22 (Downtown) provides the funding
source for the 2004 Taxable TIF Bond. This bond fund had more cash in it then will be
needed to pay off the obligation. Therefore in 2009 staff is proposing to transfer $890;000
back into TIF District 1 -22 as required'. The 2004 Taxable TIF Bond is callable in August of
2010 and since we have the fund to call the bond, staff recommends doing so.
Another transfer staff is recommending and reflected in this report is for the Otter Creek
Business Park land purchases. The funds for the purchase of the land came from the EDA
general account however when land was sold the funds received were recorded in other City
Funds for some reason. Since staff can not find any explanation for this staff recommends
transferring into the FDA general account the $1,365,000 in land sales, which is reflected in
this report.
Finally, all the TIF Districts were set up as pay -as- you -go obligations, which if the district
does not generate enough increment to pay off the pay -as- you -go obligation the loss is to the
developer /property owner and not the EDA or City. The exceptions are Districts 1 -36
(Dahlheimer), 1 -37 (Karlburger Foods), and 1 -38 (Walker -In- Store) which were provided
upfront assistance in the form of reduced land acquisition costs of the EDA's Otter Creek
Business Park land. For these Districts the EDA sold the land at a price below market value
and as increment comes in from the district we are paying the EDA back for this discounted
land price. However, with the increment generated from Districts 1 -36 and 1 -38 the FDA will
not recoup their land costs. This would mean the FDA sold the land at something less than
$1.00 a square foot. ,
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Accept the 2009 FDA Fund Balance Report.
2. Do not accept the 2009 EDA Fund Balance Report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the City Staff for alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
2009 EDA Fund Balance Report.
7. TIF FOLLOW UP STEPS FOR DISTRICTS 2, 5, 6(By: Megan Barnett &
Tom Kelly)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Council and EDA recently held a workshop to discuss various projects or means
to utilize surplus TIF in Districts 2, 5, and 6. Staff provided improvement projects and
various studies as potential options. During the workshop the EDA and City Council
directed staff to research options for purchasing buildings downtown from willing sellers
(only).
Subsequent to the meeting, staff contacted Kennedy & Graven to complete an in depth
review of the adopted budgets for TIF Districts 2, 5, and 6. Please see attached memo
from Martha Ingrain and Steve Bubul.
It appears the EDA can utilize TIF surplus funds for purchasing buildings downtown.
However, we would have to ,amend budgets and if any of the buildings have current
leases we would have to account for lease revenue as TIF, not EDA or City revenue. The
Attorney did state we should weigh carefully the idea of modifying TIF District 2. This
action may spark an Audit by the State Auditor, which is a very cumbersome. This
process could also result in the funds being required to be sent back to the County if a
violation is identified. Bottom line, TIF audits are not a desirable event and can open up
for a complete audit of all TIF districts.
Included in the packet is a map of land currently owned by the City along with
buildings /land listed on the MNCAR database. These buildings are either for sale or
lease.
At the point deemed necessary, the EDA should weigh carefully how they would like to
establish a general policy for purchasing buildings from willing sellers. The following
questions should be considered (not limited to): which block is most important, should
buildings that are contiguous to city own land be set as a higher priority, should the City
only purchase vacant buildings, should there be a cap on purchase price.
hl the interim of finalizing a general policy or strategy, the EDA should review the
proposed letter to property owners within the downtown to determine if this meets the
intent of the EDA's direction.
*Please note the Monticello Downtown Association submitted a letter for the EDA to
consider. This letter was submitted minutes prior to printing the agenda. Staff will
provide comments at the meeting.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend surplus TIF in District 2 be allocated for downtown
improvements, downtown community signs, preliminary design concept for Fallon
Avenue, and Hwy 25 improvement design layout. The surplus will need to be spent this
year in order to capture the most value. It is Staffs opinion that utilizing funds in District
2, while allocating dollars in Districts 5, & 6 for future purchases will provide a balance
of achieving immediate needs along with planning for the future redevelopment of
downtown.
Furthermore, Staff would recommend the EDA approve sending the enclosed letter and
submission form included in this report to property owners within the downtown (area
included from 3'd Street, to Cedar Street to River Street to Locust Street, see attached
map).
C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve /decry sending a letter and submission form to property owners
within downtown.
2. Motion to direct staff to begin working with the EDA/CC to determine the best
TIF eligible projects for District 2 surplus TIF.
3. Motion to table action on this item and direct staff accordingly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Memo from Kennedy & Graven
2. Downtown block map
3. Proposed letter /submission form to property owners
4. Letter from the Monticello Downtown Association
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
bttp://www.kennedy-graven.coiii
CHARTERED
MEMORANDUM
To: Megan Barnett
From: Martha Ingram and Steve Bubul
Re: TIF Districts No. 2, 5, and 6
Date: February 2, 2010
You have requested guidance on four tax increment financing ( "TIF ") districts in the City
of Monticello (the "City ") administered by the City of Monticello Economic Development
Authority (the "Authority "). Specifically, the Authority is interested in using tax increments
collected from these districts to acquire buildings in the downtown area of the City for lease
and/or future redevelopment purposes. As a general rule, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174
to 469.1799, as amended (the "TIF Act ") allows the use of tax increment from a given TIF
district for activities outside that TIF District, as long as the activities take place within a
designated development or redevelopment project area (a "Project"). Three of the TIF districts,
TIF District No. 2, TIF District No. 5, and TIF District No. 6 (collectively the "TIF Districts "),
date from the mid- 1980's, before the Minnesota legislature adopted changes in the TIF Act that
greatly restrict such use of tax increments for activities taking place outside a given TIF district
but within the Project. The downtown area of the City is located within the Project in which all
three TIF Districts are located. Therefore, the Authority may use tax increments from these three
districts for downtown redevelopment with relatively little restriction (the fourth district, TIF
District No. 1 -22, is subject to stricter regulation and will be the subject of a separate memo).
Following is a summary of the steps required for the Authority to be able to use tax increments
from each of the TIF districts for activities within the Project.
TIF District No. 2
The Tax Increment Financing Plan ( "TIF Plan ") for TIF District No. 2 was adopted in
1983 and has been amended several times, most recently on June 12, 2006. TIF District No. 2 is
a redevelopment district. Pursuant to the TIF Plan as modified, the Authority may receive tax
increments from the TIF District through the end of 2010. According to the TIF Analysis and
Management Plan for Tax Increment Financing Districts, Monticello Economic Development
Authority dated June 2009 (the "TIF Analysis ") prepared by Northland Securities, TIF District
No. 2 will have a fund balance of approximately $181,000 at the end of 2010.
As noted in the TIF Analysis, tax increments from this District may be spent on activities
within the Project area as long as such activities are authorized in the TIF Plan. This
authorization takes two forms: the TIF Plan must contain a statement of objectives that
authorizes the use of increments for activities consistent with these objectives, and the TIF Plan
must include a budget that allocates a specified amount for each authorized activity. The most
recent version of the TIF Plan contains a statement of objectives including the following:
"1) Provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business...3) Eliminate blight
or deterioration with [sic] an area." These objectives are broad enough that no additional
modification of this section is necessary for downtown redevelopment activities.
The most recent modification to the TIF Plan increased the amount authorized for land
and building acquisition to $346,515. A total of $294,058 has been used for land and building
acquisition, leaving $52,457 in additional budgetary authority. In order to ensure that the budget
contains sufficient authority to use the entire fund balance for acquisition, the TIF Plan would
need to be amended to increase the budgetary authority for acquisition purposes. The amended
budget should be analyzed to make sure the cost of planned activities does not exceed the
projected increment. Projected increment should be revised to include estimates of land sale
proceeds and lease revenues (discussed below).
In addition to the budget, the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2 will need modifications to
authorize property acquisition outside the TIF District but within the Project. The TIF Plan will
need to indicate the parameters of the area in which the Authority intends to acquire properties
and the purpose of the acquisitions. For example, if the goal is to target the downtown area, the
TIF Plan might include an "acquisition boundary" with well - defined borders.
These modifications of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2 will require the same 30 -day
notice and public hearing that would be required for approval of an original plan.
TIF District No. 5
The TIF Plan for TIF District No. 5 was adopted in March of 1985. According to the TIF
Analysis, the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 5 has been amended on more than one occasion,
including modifications increasing the budgetary authority for land and building acquisition from
$0 to $1,400,000. TIF District No. 5 is a redevelopment district. The TIF Plan currently
provides that the TIF District is scheduled for decertification at the end of 2011, but the
Authority could extend the term to its statutory limit, gaining an additional year's increment.
According to the TIF Analysis, the Authority may receive tax increments from the TIF District
through the end of 2012 (if it modifies the TIF Plan to extend the duration by one year), and the
estimated fund balance at that time will be approximately $489,000. I have not been able to
locate the most recent modifications to the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 5, but analysis of the
TIF Plan as most recently modified will likely show a need for modifications similar to those
listed above for TIF District No. 2. In particular, if the Authority intends to use tax increments
363499v1 NM h N190 -101 2
from TIF District No. 5 to acquire property or buildings in the downtown area of the City, the
TIF Plan will need new language authorizing the Authority to acquire such property and
indicating the geographic area in which this activity will take place.
These modifications of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 5 will require the same 30 -day
notice and public hearing that would be required for approval of an original plan.
TIF District No. 6
The Tax Increment Financing Plan ( "TIF Plan ") for TIF District No. 6 was adopted in
1985 and has been amended several times, most recently on February 13, 2006. TIF District No.
6 is a redevelopment district. Pursuant to the TIF Plan as modified, the Authority may receive
tax increments from the TIF District through the end of 2013. According to the TIF Analysis,
TIF District No. 6 will have a fund balance of approximately $560,000 at the end of 2013.
The most recent version of the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 6 contains a statement of
objectives including the following: "1) Provide opportunities for development and expansion of
new jobs ... 4) To assist with street construction, sanitary sewer, [ ... ] and other public
improvements to encourage redevelopment in the area; 5) To encourage the development of
additional commercial enterprise in the City." These objectives are likely not broad enough to
encompass the acquisition of buildings in the downtown area for redevelopment; therefore,
additional modification of this section is necessary for downtown redevelopment activities.
The most recent modification to the TIF Plan increased the amount authorized for land
and building acquisition from $229,000 to $235,000. A total of $232,076 has been used for land
and building acquisition, leaving a minimal amount of additional budgetary authority. In order to
ensure that the budget contains sufficient authority to use the entire fund balance for acquisition,
the TIF Plan would need to be amended to increase the budgetary authority for acquisition
purposes. The amended budget should be analyzed to make sure the cost of planned activities
does not exceed the projected increment. Any amendment to the TIF Plan's budget should also
more specifically account for the categories currently designated as "Other Fees" and "Other
Project Costs."
As is the case for the other two TIF Districts, the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 6 will
require modifications to authorize property acquisition outside the TIF District but within the
Project. The Plan will need to indicate the parameters of the area in which the Authority intends
to acquire properties and the purpose of the acquisitions.
As for TIF District No. 2 and TIF District No. 5, these modifications of the TIF Plan for
TIF District No. 6 will require the same 30 -day notice and public hearing that would be required
for approval of an original plan.
Restrictions and Other Considerations
Any tax increment from the TIF Districts used to acquire buildings in the downtown area
of the City is subject to certain rules. Any revenues received by the Authority either from leasing
363499vi W AW190 -101 3
buildings it acquires with tax increments from a given TIF District, or from the sale of properties
acquired with such tax increments, will be considered increment from the original TIF district.
This is true even for revenues that are received after the original TIF district is decertified. These
revenues may be spent after decertification of the original TIF district, but will still be subject to
use in accordance with the TIF plan that was in place when the original TIF district was
decertified. For this reason, it is important to make sure the TIF Plan modifications for the TIF
Districts include provisions stating the Authority's intent to use tax increments to acquire
buildings that may eventually generate additional tax increment revenues, to be sure that these
additional projected revenues are reflected in the TIF Plan budget, and to make sure that the
statement of objectives in each TIF Plan is broad enough that the Authority can use these
additional revenues to accomplish its long -term economic development goals.
Finally, it should be noted that both Kennedy & Graven and the City's designated
financial adviser would charge for services rendered in connection with modifications to the TIF
Plans. For legal review of modifications drafted by a financial adviser, Kennedy & Graven's fee
would likely be in the range of $3,000 to $5,000. If more were required, our fee would increase
accordingly.
Please give either of us a call if you have any questions. We would be happy to work
with you and with your financial adviser to carry out any modifications the Authority requires.
363499v1 MNI M190- 101 4
February 16, 2010
Dear XXX,
I am writing this letter to inform you about recent discussions by the Economic Development
Authority regarding downtown Monticello. As you may or may not be aware, the EDA currently
has limited funds available for potential real estate purchases. The EDA and City Council are
considering utilizing these funds for the purchase of buildings or properties located in downtown
Monticello.
The first step of this process is to reach out to current property/building owners within
downtown. The goal of the EDA and City Council is to obtain a specific idea of who is interested
in selling their property /building. It should be noted the EDA and City Council are NOT looking
to purchase any real estate from any party unless they are a WILLING seller. Details regarding
this opportunity are still in the process of being finalized. However, in the mean time the EDA
and City Council desire to inform downtown property owners of this potential opportunity. The
City would be willing to explore the continuation of leasing property purchased to current
businesses /tenants.
In the event you have been considering selling your property or have your property currently
listed and would like to explore the option of selling to the EDA, please fill out the enclosed
form. Inquiry forms are due by March 12, 2010. If you do not respond by March 12, 2010, we
will assume this opportunity is not of interest or does not pertain to your situation.
If you have any additional questions regarding this opportunity, I would be more than happy to
meet with you. I can be reached at 763.271.3208 or Megan, Barnett rni ci.m_onticello,mn.us.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this opportunity
Megan Barnett
Economic Development Director
M0NTICELI_0
Property /Building Owner Name:
Subject Property
REQUEST FOR
CONSIDERATION TO
PUCHASE PROPERTY
DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO
Willing Seller: = YES (please check yes to ensure you are a WILLING seller)
Additional Information:
Size of property:
Size of building:
Is building currently being leased: YES _ NO
feet)
(dimensions / square feet)
If YES, how many leases currently exist and what are the terms (dollar amount & length of lease)
Asking Sale Price:
Recent Appraised Value:
(include copy if applicable)
DEADLINE: FRIDAY MARCH 12, 2010
Submit Form to:
Megan Barnett
505 Walnut Street, Monticello MN 55362
Please refer any questions to Megan at:
763.271.3208 or Megan. Barnett @ci.monticello.mn. us
MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDATION for EDA USE of TIF MONEY
From: Monticello Downtown Business Association
Today's Date: February 3, 2010
Background
The City of Monticello recently completed its Comprehensive Plan to guide future
development. This plan, however, is incomplete because it does not include land use and
transportation plans for the downtown area. Members of the Monticello Downtown
Business Association are concerned that this failure to plan for the downtown area creates
the following problems.
• Without a finished plan addressing downtown issues it is difficult to establish a strategy
for any possible purchase of land/property by the city for future development. The plan
should be developed first and then decisions for land acquisition by the FDA wil have
guidelines or criteria for which parcels should be looked at.
• Past plans have not succeeded in providing sufficient development to occur in the core
downtown areas. The best approach is to forget about the past plans and start with a clean
slate of ideas based on current economic conditions and what could work for downtown
not only today but for the next 20 years.
• A downtown plan should include development friendly criteria and guidelines for retail
and commercial growth so that when the economic good times return there is a strategy
in place so that development can occur easily. The plan needs to have the tenant's needs
in mind. The downtown plan needs to develop an attraction for a mixed use of retail and
professional.
• Making use of a consultant for the plan who has specific long term experience and
successful track record of private retail and commercial development should be
considered. This includes a proactive approach to attracting this type of development for
the downtown area. This type of consultant should lead the process and work together to
bring the Comprehensive and Transportation plan issues into the downtown plan itself.
• The Transportation Study needs to look at the core downtown area not as an isolated
traffic issue area but rather as a part of the entire City's transportation system. What is
done to correct or adjust traffic issues located downtown will also have an affect in other
areas of the City and need to be considered as a part of the downtown plan.
Failure to properly plan land use and transportation systems for Downtown Monticello
will impede future development.
Recommendation
The Monticello Downtown Business Association requests that the City Council and /or
Economic Development Commission take the steps necessary to complete the land use
plan and transportation plan for downtown in the Comprehensive Plan.
We recommend that this plan define the future role of downtown as a part of
Monticello's larger business and economic base. Comprehensive Plan for downtown
should address the following objectives.
♦ Identify the types of business establishments suitable for downtown, including
gross leasable area that is supportable by five -year periods through 2030. The
demand analysis should include retail, food service, services, offices, multi - family
residential, and other likely downtown uses.
♦ The land use plan should address how and where to accommodate these uses in
Downtown Monticello over the next 20 years.
♦ Transportation planning should determine how to accommodate the present and
future local service needs of Monticello residents and businesses in the downtown
area, and also accommodate the through traffic needs of Highway 25 and County
75.
♦ The plan should be focused on stimulating new development and redevelopment
in downtown that is consistent market demand and site criteria for the feasible
uses.
This planning effort should be focused on creating an implementable development plan
for downtown Monticello.
Economic Development Director Updates:
a. General:
1. IEDC: At their February meeting, the IEDC discussed methods the City
could further research to help initiate existing building expansions. See
attached Staff Report. Staff was directed to look at recent expansions to
determine any applicable fees that could be reduced to help a business
determine this is a good time to expand. Staff was also directed to be more
proactive in marketing current programs and gap financing contacts to the
business community.
2. CC: See attached agendas.
3. Planning Commission: See attached agenda.
4. Networks: Staff recently attended the Economic Development Association
of MN conference. The conference had good topics and speakers. Special
focus was on Nanotechnology. Green Energy, and Social Media.
Staff will be attending a NIOP event on February 16, 2010 to hear about
Opportunities in Chaos. This will be a great opportunity to network with
brokers.
5. Wright County Economic Development Partnership: Please see attached
email from Noel LaBine. St. Cloud Area Economic Development
Partnership is spearheading the initiative to develop and implement a
regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). City
Staff will be participating. If any EDA member is interested please let the
Economic Development Director know which date would work best to host
the first meeting.
6. 2010 Street Reconstruction Project: Public meetings were held for the
proposed West River Street reconstruction project. The City Engineer is
working on compiling comments. There appears to be some debate as to
whether sidewalks should be included.
b. Business Retention:
1. Business Newsletter: The Winter Business Newsletter was mailed the week of
January 25, 2010.
2. First Business E -News was distributed the week of January 25, 2010.
3. BR &E: The Leadership Team of the BR &E met on January 28, 2010. The
Leadership Team will be meeting twice a month in order to accomplish necessary
tasks. The next meeting of the Leadership Team will consist of finalizing the
survey and determining what businesses will be surveyed. It is anticipated the
Taskforce will meet in March to receive training on how to survey the businesses,
determine survey pairs, assign businesses to each pair, and set site survey
schedules for individual businesses. The Leadership Team is very excited and
dedicated to this initiative. It should also be noted letters to ten various businesses
were sent out the week of January 25t" requesting financial participation. The City
and Chamber still needs to obtain $8,000 to cover the required administration fee.
4. Related newsletters /articles: Positively MN article included
c. Marketing Update:
d. Future Meeting Dates:
1. Next Meeting: March 10, 2010.
2. Chamber Lunch: The State of the City event will be held at the February 16t"
Chamber Lunch. Staff is requesting as many EDA members attend this event.
It is important that the business community get to know their local leaders.
Please RSVP to the Chamber at 763.295.2700 or monticellocci.com.
EDA 2. 10.10
7. Discuss Potential Business Expansion Incentive ProEram:
Background:
The City Council directed staff to review options /ideas for the establishment of a business expansion
incentive program. Attached is the staff report presented to the City Council. It outlines good
information pertaining to what options currently exist related to payment of required fees along with
various potential options.
Staff would like to point out additional financing programs the City currently has available to the
business community:
TIF
Qualified new and existing businesses can request TIF if their proposed project meets TIF laws and
City policies. This would allow the write down of land purchases, development fees, and construction
costs.
GMEF
The EDA administers the City's revolving loan fund (Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund). A pool of
money is available for qualified businesses looking to locate, expand, or relocate in the City. The
funds can be utilized for purchasing real estate, purchasing equipment, and /or assisting with
development fees. The fund does require the business to secure a first loan. The attraction to this fund
is the low interest rate (2% below prime or a minimum rate of 3 %).
Small Cities Loan
This pool of money is a revolving loan fund for business start ups, expansions, and initiatives to
retain jobs. This fund is regulated by Federal guidelines. It does allow businesses to use the funds for
working capital.
Financial Consultant
The City has the ability to offer Ehlers (the Cities financial /TIF consultant) as a consultant to
businesses to help secure and structure financing for new or expanding business plans.
Grants
The City has access to State and Federal grants.
Recommendation:
Please read the attached staff report. If the IEDC sees value in establishing a business expansion
incentive program, staff would offer the following suggestions:
1. Keep the program simple
2. Structure program to allow for customized decisions (i.e. case by case basis)
3. Do not offer SAC /WAC & Building Permit reductions (these nurnbers are established for a
justified reason and could cause a reduction in the ability to pay for infrastructure in the long
run). Currently SAC /WAC fees can be assessed.
4. Offer a reduction in City Development Fees (trunk sewer /water, etc.) and City Application
Fees
5. Base reduction on percentage of proposed expansion: examples (just examples, numbers can
be structured however is determined best approach)
a. Increasing building size by 50 %, would equal a potential reduction in City
Development/Applicationfees by 25%
b, Increasing building size by 25 %, could equal fee reduction of 10%
c. Must create 2 -3 jobs or show retaining jobs by expansion
6. If receiving TIF — no reduction
7. If receiving GMEF — only reduce application fees, keep development fees same
S. Reductions should require City Council approval in all situations
Staff recommends the IEDC look at all data included in Staff report. The IEDC is also asked to
generate new ideas in order to continue to market Monticello has a competitive community for new
and expanding businesses. Recommendations by the IEDC will be taken forward to the City Council
as part of an overall strategy.
2
12. Consideration of policy recommendations as related to City fees and special assessments.
(JO, TIC, AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In September of 2009, the City Council appointed a small task force to review current
building and development charges for the purpose of providing recommendations for possible
adjustments. The review was to be completed in anticipation of setting the 2010 fee schedule
and is in response to feedback from the City Council and the development community.
Mayor Herbst and Council member Wojchouski were appointed to the task force. The task
force has met twice since that time of appointment. Council member Posusta served in
Council member Wojehouski's place during the first meeting.
During its first meetings, the task force discussed the current timing and application of overall
development charges, including:
• Building permit inspection and plan review fees
• Sewer & Water Access charges
• Trunk Area charges
• Special Assessments
• Development Incentives
• Storm Water Fees
In this report, staff has outlined the general direction of the task force, and provided
recommendations resulting from that direction. The recommendations focus on the policy
for payment of these charges and do not analyze potential rate increases or decreases for
2010.
The purpose of this report is to gain a direction from the full Council on the policy statements
outlined by the task force.
ANALYSIS & STRATEGIES
For commercial, industrial and institutional projects, the majority of fees are paid at the time
of building permit. These charges can generally be classified into two categories: building
costs and development costs.
Building-cos include the building plan review fee, the building inspection fee, Sewer Access
Charges (SAC), and Water Access charges (WAC). Building permits also include other
charges, but these items relate directly to fees paid to other entities for service or materials
(such as State surcharge, or the charge for a water meter).
Development costs include trunk utility charges for watermain, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer, and may also include road improvement costs, including streetlights and
pathway /sidewalk.
In the case of larger coordinated developments (such as Union Crossings or Walmart),
building costs are paid up front, while some or all of the development- related charges may be
assessed by a development agreement. In many cases, the charges for street improvements
have been assessed on a development -wide basis and are not paid with the building permit.
For residential projects, Monticello's practice has been to calculate trunk utility charges with
the development agreement at time of final platting. They are then assessed on a per unit
basis and paid off at the time a developer sells a lot to a builder. SAC and WAC fees are paid
at the time of building pen-nit.
Building /Development Fee Strategies
In discussing both building costs and development cost items included in the overall building
permit fee, the Council task force members reviewed and provided direction on the items as
discussed below.
a) Review building permit cost and development cost calculation practices with the
goal of keeping costs and services equivalent.
The Chief Building Official has the authority to approve plan review and inspection
costs based on the actual construction costs provided by the applicant, versus those
per recommended State schedule. This is true for any building whether it is residential
or commercial /industrial.
For the majority of large commercial /industrial /institutional buildings, Monticello's
permit costs are already being calculated using actual cost estimates provided by the
applicant rather than using the State Schedule (which is based on a calculation of
square footage and construction type).
In residential construction, actual construction cost estimates are very comparable to
the estimated State schedule cost. This is due to the fact that the State schedule is
based on actual construction rates for particular building types. Therefore, most
contractors actually defer to the State schedule.
In discussing the application of SAC /WAC fees, the task force did express some
concern regarding the existing formulas for calculation, given changes in use and
operation of properties over time. Currently, Monticello uses the Metropolitan
Council's system for assigning SAC and WAC units. It was recognized, however,
that it is the best available structure we have and that developing an alternative
program would require an extensive and detailed study, which would be time
consuming and perhaps cost - prohibitive at this time. Therefore, the consensus of the
task force was to continue to review each application thoroughly to determine the most
accurate application of SAC/WAC charges.
b) Continue to allow assessment of development costs and adopt a policy for
assessment terms based on a cost scale.
Based on previous Council action, it has been the practice of the City to allow for
special assessment agreements for SAC, WAC and trunk utility charges at the time of
building permit for commercial /industrial /institutional projects. These did not require
individual Council approval and are executed at the time a building permit was issued.
The terns of the assessment are determined by the Finance Director and are based on
the amount to be assessed.
In addition to this existing policy, Council could also adopt a policy allowing these
types of assessments to be deferred. By allowing for the deferred assessment of fees,
the City has the advantage of providing an incentive for construction of a building, and
in turn additional tax base. The business gains the advantage of having a significant
cost deferred until they are finely established. The task force has presented this option
for the full Council's consideration. It would be recommended that if an assessment
were going to be deferred, it would require the approval of the City Council. This is
consistent with past practice as related to deferral of street and trunk utility costs
through development agreement.
Under the program above, the applicant would continue to have the ability to elect to
pay some of their costs upfront and assess others. For example, they could still pay
the SAC/WAC fee with the building permit, but defer trunk charges.
For consistency related to the possible assessment and deferral of these charges, it
would also be recommended that Council adopt a scale based on the costs to be
assessed. The proposed scale could be modified from that suggested below:
Building and /or
Development Costs
Assessment Term
Deferral
Allowable
Interest
Rate 2010
$5,000 - $10,000
3 years
No
6%
$10,000 - $20,000
5 years
No
6%
$20,000 - $250,000
10 years
Yes — 3 years
6%
$250,000+
1 15 years
Yes — 5 years
6%
Levied Special Assessment Strategies
The City Council will most likely receive additional requests for reapportionment or deferral
of levied special assessments. Special assessments already in place relate mostly to major
street and utility improvements projects,
Due to the complexity related to each individual assessment, as well as statutory public
hearing requirements, the task force recommendation is to allow Council to consider the
reapportionment and /or deferral of previously levied special assessments on an individual
request basis only,
Similar to the recent request made for the reapportionment of special assessments for Outlot
D of Otter Creek Crossings, a property owner could request that the City reapportion or even
defer levied special assessments. Adopting a deferral does present risk, as there are a
considerable number of special assessment projects which have been levied over the past ten
years. Each represents a substantial cost to the City in terms of bond repayment. It is
estimated that the City has special assessments totaling around $14,107,859.69 that could be
subject to requests for deferrals or reapportiomnent.
However, as noted previously, the inability of the property owner to pay the levied
assessments also has a negative impact on the City's ability to make the bond payment. If by
extending the assessment out, it allows the property owner to continue to pay the property
taxes and keep them current, the City is better off receiving a partial (reapportioned) payment
as compared to receiving no payment.
In surveying the policies of a limited number of surrounding communities on some of these
strategies, the following information is presented for reference and comparison purposes.
City' ` r
tAssess SAC/W1
Assesszunl�%Ari�
Defexr l of
t a
y5 .r .t y"�i • F� -�--
t �. �-rs '' - _ W7 ti
ny .r
Ass�ssmenfs ,
Becker
No — Payable at permit
No — Payable at permit
Request Basis
(including residential
projects. ALL trunk due
prior to first permit)
Big Lake
No - Payable at building
No - trunk fees are due at
Request Basis
permit.
time of development
agreement (or building
The City has approved
permit if no development
assessment of these
agreement on a project)
charges over limited
duration (usually 3
years) in certain
circumstances where
the fees are fairly high.
Developer has to
request this from the
City.
Monticello
Yes
Yes
Request Basis
(currently by
development
agreement only)
St. Michael
No — but provide a 50%
Limited — if allowed,
Request Basis
reduction in charges for
assessed with short terms
commercial/industrial
(less than 7 years)
projects (new and
expansions)
6
Incentive Program Strategies
The following strategies represent new programs that could be adopted by the Council to
further support efforts to spur development.
a.) Develop a business expansion incentive program.
The task force also requested that staff review the possibility of an incentive program
for the expansion or the relocation with expansion for existing Monticello businesses.
In recommending this program, the task force cited goals of encouraging the growth
and vitality of local businesses, building tax base, and developing employment
opportunities.
The idea would be to customize a reduction in development costs (and possibly
SAC /WAC) for each project based on a sliding scale, which could include one or a
combination of the following factors:
Cost of the expansion project
Number of jobs created
Adaptive re -use of vacant and /or blighted property
Each project would be reviewed and approved individually by the City Council, as the
application of incentives will vary based on the project specifics.
The development of such a program would be in addition to the financial tools already
available through the EDA, which include the Small Cities loan program, the Greater
Monticello Enterprise Fund and the potential use of TIF. Any and all of these
programs could be combined depending on the type of project.
If the full Council is interested in moving this program forward, staff will complete
additional research and develop a set of criteria for Council review in February.
b.) Review and reduce SAC fees for restaurants
On more than one occasion, the City has heard feedback that SAC charges for
restaurants can be prohibitive to the start -up of new enterprises. SAC charges for
restaurants often seem comparatively higher than for other new businesses,
specifically due to the increased strain that restaurants place on the municipal sanitary
sewer system.
If Council is interested in considering a policy for the reduction of SAC fees for
restaurants (whether for a limited time or as a permanent development strategy), staff
will complete additional research and provide a program outline at an upcoming
meeting. It should be noted that if a reduction to restaurant SAC were to be
considered, the reduction would likely shift costs to the balance of system users.
Storm Water Svstem Maintenance Fundin
In addition to development fees, the Committee also included in its discussion the
development of a revenue source for use in funding storm water system maintenance projects.
The storm water system is a critical piece of the City's infrastructure. Good storm water
management protects the quality of Monticello's water supply, mitigates enviromnental
problems, protects the water quality of the Mississippi and other receiving water bodies, and
protects against the loss of life and /or property by preventing localized flooding.
As you know, the City has been building stonn sewer facilities such as outlets, inlets and
ponds necessary for managing storm water. As with any infrastructure, these facilities need
repair and maintenance over tine. However, a funding source for this work has not been
established.
Some months ago, it was suggested that a committee be formed for the purpose of developing
a storm water utility program. This committee was intended to work with the community to
determine the structure for collection of funds. The goal was to create a fee system based on
use. The more storm water generated, the more a property owner would pay into this fund.
In reviewing the situation, the task force compared and contrasted a proposed user fee with an
overall general fund expense. The task force would like Council to consider collecting
revenue for this purpose via general taxes as opposed to development of a utility fee program.
The task force proposes shifting to a funding structure that recognizes storm water
maintenance as a broad infrastructure improvement that benefits the greater community, and
therefore should be paid for by general taxes. For this type of structure, a budget for the
development and maintenance of the system would need to be developed and then
incorporated into the general fund budget each year.
More discussion on a long -tenn user fee could continue at a later time, as the group indicated
that as a major infrastructure component, it is essential that the program consider all impacts
and be as equitable as possible. At aminimum, it is important that a fund get started to be
used in making necessary storm water repairs over time.
CONCLUSION
With the above information in hand, the following policies have been prepared for review and
consideration by the City Council. Included are only those recommendations made by the task force.
In their motion, Council can eliminate or alter each of these based on discussion. Please note that this
not an all- encompassing list as related to other City fees and assessment policies.
2010 BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT FEE & ASSESSMENT POLICIES
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue the practice of calculating building permit costs for commercial /industrial/
institutional plan review and inspection based on actual construction costs at the request of the
applicant.
2. Continue the practice of allowing SAC/WAC and trunk utility charges to be assessed. Council
action on individual requests would not be required.
Adopt a new policy allowing SAC/WAC and trunk utility charges to be deferred for a set time
(versus assessed payable in the following year). Council action on individual requests would
be required.
4. In relationship to policies 1 -3 above, adopt a scale for deferral and assessment. The proposed
scale could be modified from the scale suggested below:
`Building - and/or. ' , '.
Development Costs
Assessment Terim 1�10eferral
-`.
A116wa6
Interest
Rate 2010
$5,000 - $10,000
3 years
No
6%
$10,000 - $20,000
5 years
No
6%
$20,000 - $250,000
10 years
Yes — 3 years
6%
$250,000+
15 years
I Yes — 5 years
6%
Direct staff to research the development and implementation of a Business Expansion and
Relocation Incentive Program.
6. Direct staff to research the possible reduction in SAC fees for restaurant development.
7. Implement a Storm Water Utility & Maintenance program as described, which would require
the development of an annual budget, which would be funded through general taxes.
No retroactive policy would be recommended for any of the above. For example, a 100,000
square foot commercial building already in place could not be refunded their development
fees and then have the costs assessed instead.
9. The reapportionment and /or deferral of previously levied special assessments will be
considered by the City Council on an individual request basis only.
Al. Budget Impact:
These recommendations obviously represent risk and potential cost to the City. The
City takes the risk of having assessments go unpaid with buildings and infiastructure
already in place.
Additionally, with infrastructure such as trunk utility systems and road improvements,
there are a considerable number of special assessment projects which have been levied
over the past ten years.
The City has already assumed a certain level of risk based on the current policy of
special assessment of residential trunk charges for new development, adoption of
various special assessment agreements which defer payment, and by allowing for
special assessment of SAC /WAC and trunk charges with past
conunercial /industrial/institutional projects.
There is the potential for a significant budget impact if the Council elects to fund the
storm water utility and maintenance program through the general fund. An annual
project budget will need to be determined and then included for funding with the
general levy. It will be critical that if the program is funded in this manner, an annual
allocation is funded in order to properly maintain the system.
A2. Staff Workload Impact:
For recommendations 1 -3, staff workload requirements are straightforward and would
require only the modification of assessment agreement templates based on the request.
If Council elects to review special assessments of the various items on a case -by -case
basis this does represent more staff time in preparing analysis and reports.
Recommendations 5 — 7 would require more staff time in preparing the needed
background information for formulation of a program or policy recommendation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the policies as recommended in the staff report of 01 /11 /10.
2. Motion to approve the following policies as recommended and revised by the City
Council:
a. (Council to insert recommendations from above as desired)
Motion to table for further review and discussion by the task force.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendations presented are those of the development fee task force. Staff recognizes
that these are policy decisions for the City Council. Staff will provide additional research and
information as needed by the full City Council to make their final recommendation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
10
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 8, 2010 — 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojchouski
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2A. Approval of Minutes — January 25, 2010 Regular Meeting
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1)
b. Council Updates:
1) Citizen Service Desk (Angela)
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of approving temporary charitable gambling application for a raffle
conducted by Wright County Ducks Unlimited
C. Consideration of approving 2010 regular meeting schedule
D. Consideration of approving 2009 Operating Transfers
E. Consideration of approving 2009 Fund Designations
F. Consideration of approving Request for Proposal for Electrician Repair /Services
and authorize advertisement for bids
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution 92010 - approving final payment to
Knife River and accepting work on School Boulevard from Edrnonson Av to Hwy
25, City Project No. 04C031
Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
Consideration of adopting Resolution #2010 -04 approving Feasibility Report and calling
for a Public Hearing for 2010 Street Reconstruction, City Project No. l 00001
Consideration of authorizing use of Prairie Center office space for Engineering
department and direct staff to proceed with move
9. Approve payment of bills for February 8th
10. Adjournment.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 25, 2010 — 7 p.m.
Mayor: Clint Herbst
Council Members: Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf, Susie Wojehouski
Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2A. Approval of Minutes — January 11, 2010 Regular Meeting
Consideration of adding items to the agenda
4. Citizen comments, public service announcements and Council updates
a. Citizen Comments:
b. Public Service Announcements:
1) Community Gardens
b. Council Updates:
1) Citizen Service Desk .
5. Consent Agenda:
A. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
B. Consideration of adopting Resolution 42010 -03 accepting contribution of $250 from
Tom Perrault to go into the General Fund
C. Consideration of approving lease renewal and amended contract for City biosolids
farmland
D. Consideration of preliminary approval of fire contract with the Township of
Monticello
E. Consideration of renewing contract with Carefree Lawn Service
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
Consideration of authorizing staff to proceed with office reorganization plan
8. Consideration of Junk Amnesty Day service level by: continuing status quo, establishing it as
a bi- annual event (to be held in odd - numbered years), or by discontinuing
9. Approve payment of bills for January 25th
10. Adjournment
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3rd, 2010
5:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojehouski
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman —NAC
Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1st, 2009 and
January 5d', 2010.
Citizen Comments,
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Housing Analysis Update
6. Consideration to review a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development for Kjellberg Estates
Applicant: Ocello, LLC
7. Agenda Cable Posting Update
8. Community Development Director's Report.
Adjourn.
5:45 PM— Monticello Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting
Megan Barnett
From: Noel LaBine, Econ Dev Partnership [nlabine @whe.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Noel LaBine, Econ Dev Partnership
Subject: Townhall meetings for Federal Application for Community Economic Development Strategy
for Region 7W
We would like to invite you to participate in one of several special meetings concerning developing and
implementing a regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the region including
Benton, Sherburne, Stearns and Wright Counties. This process is being carried out by the St. Cloud Area
Economic Development Partnership (The Partnership) in cooperation with the Wright County Economic
Development Partnership, St. Cloud State University, the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University and
the Initiative Foundation.
The meetings in Wright County will all be similar and we encourage you to attend the one most convenient to
you.
Meeting Dates, Times and Locations:
February 171" from 4 to 6 pm at Huikko's Bowling Center, which is located at
1207 N. Hwy. 25 Buffalo MN 55313
March 17" from 4 to 6 pm at Annandale City Hall, which is located at
30 Cedar Street East Annandale, MN 55302
Hareh 31" from 4 to 6 pnr at Albertville City Hall, which is located at
5959 Main Avenue NE Albertville, MN 55301
There will be presentations including the following information:
County and regional economic development profile that will help us understand our present and future
opportunities and challenges.
Workforce, economic and community development strategies that the regional profile and other studies
have led us to suggest.
The presentations will be followed by group breakout discussion:
• Discussion on proposed strategies including additional suggestions from the group.
• Discussion on what community amenities attract people to our area or keep them here if they are long
time residents.
• Discussion on what support or barriers for economic growth you see for the county and region.
There will be a wrap -up or conclusion to the session:
• Explain next steps, build consensus for the plan and implementation.
lease RSVP your attendance by contactine Noel Labine by e -mail or at 763- 477 -3086 by February 12 ".
If you know of others in your area that have an interest in local and regional economic and community development, please share this
information with them and encourage them to attend.
Thanks in advance for your assistance, it is appreciated.
sincerely,
Noel LaBine
Executive Director
Wright County Economic Development Partnership
763 - 477 -3086
www.wrightl)artnership.org
This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney - client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended
only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of the message is not intended to waive any applicable
privileges.
a
s,
NUCRANE
MANIJFACTURING
IN OCTOBER 2009,constructlon
of a 54,000- square -foot facility
for NuCrane Manufacturing
commenced in the city of Hutchinson,
60 miles west of Minneapolis.
NuCrane Manfacturing is a new
company formed by the partnership
of Hutchinson Manufacturing
(Hutchinson, Minn.) and PaR Nuclear
(Shoreview, Minn.) a wholly owned
subsidiary of Westinghouse/
Toshiba Nuclear. The new plant will
manufacture cranes for the nuclear
power plants that Westinghouse
builds. This $7 million development
project will create more than 20
new jobs and is scheduled to
be operational by March 2010.
The project qualified for the Job
Opportunity Building Zones tax -
free development program and a
$500,000 low interest Minnesota
Investment Fund Loan from the
Minnesota Department of Employment
and Economic Development (DEED).
Additional project furders include
Center National Bank (Litchfield,
Minrit, Mid - Minnesota Regional
Development Commission and the
Southwest Initiative Fund.
For information on other Minnesota business
expansions check out the monthly issues of
Employment Review
1
FEATURED BUSINESS- ASSISTANCE
.. ,0, : 1 a
GREATER MINNESOTA'
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
BY INVESTING IN PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE, the Greater
Minnesota Business Development
Infrastructure Grant Program helps
stimulate new economic development,
create new jobs and retain existing
jobs. Eligible project expenses include
publicly owned infrastructure that
supports economic development
projects, including wastewater
collection and treatment, drinking
water, storm sewers, utility extensions
and streets. Eligible applicants are
statutory or home rule cities outside
of the seven- county Twin Cities
metropolitan area. Program criteria
and application can be found at
DEED's Web site.
CONTAMINATION CLEANUP
AND INVESTIGATION
THE CONTAMINATION
CLEANUP and Investigation
Grant Program helps communities
pay for assessing and cleaning up
contaminated sites for private or
public redevelopment Grants pay
LIP to 75 percent of the costs to
4
�1 M'
investigate and clean up polluted sites.
Both publicly and privately owned
sites with known or suspected soil or
groundwater contamination quality.
Cities, porn authorities, housing and
redevelopment authorities, economic
development authorities or counties
are eligible. Applications will be
considered on May 1 and Nov. 1, 2010.
Program criteria and application can
be found at DEED's Web site.
REDEVELOPMENT GRANT
PROGRAM
THE REDEVELOPMENT GRANT
PROGRAM helps communities
with the costs of redeveloping
blighted industrial, residential
or commercial sites and putting
land back into productive use.
Applications are due Feb. 1, 2010.
Funding of $1.7 million is currently
available. Eligible applicants are cities,
counties, port authorities, housing
and redevelopment authorities, and
economic development authorities.
The redevelopment site must be
publicly owned. Program criteria and
applications can be found at DEED's
Web site.
VIEW A LIST OF RECENT
PROGRAM GRANT AWARDS.
VIEW A LIST OF MINNESOTA
JOB SKILLS PARTNERSHIP AWARDS.
,x�
r
FEATURED LINKS
FEATURED FACTS
P;O5ITIVELYMINNESOTA,COM_'
• Minnesota's seasonally adjusted
Have you seen DEED's newly
unemployment rate for November
redesigned Web site? Redesigned
is 74 percent compared with
with you, our customer, in mind,
the national rate of 10 percent.
PositivelyMinnesota.com is all about
The 2.6 percent gap between
assisting job seekers, individuals,
the state and national rates is the
businesses and government agencies
highest since 1994.
to efficiently achieve economic success
• Minnesota's average workweek
Check it out today!
hours have been increasing,
;IRETI
which is a sign that the economy
4.5%
is improving. The average
Minnesota State University Mankato,
workweek in November was 331
the BioBusiness Alliance of Minnesota
hours, compared with 32.6 in
and DEED have sponsored the creation
October and 31.2 in September.
of the International Renewable Energy
An increase of 0.9 hours for an
Technology Institute (IRETI). IRETI
employed workforce of 2.64
provides an independent test center
million adds 2.35 million hours a
to assist renewable- energy industries
week or 9.5 million hours a month
in product research and development.
in increased earnings.
The testing is intended to lead to new
manufacturing in Minnesota and includes
Minnesota and the nation
a working partnership arrangement with
experienced two consecutive
AFAB International, a manufacturer's
quarters of personal income
representative and consulting firm, and
growth in the second and third
Sweden AFAB. IRETI is located on the
quarters of 2009. This growth
campus of Minnesota State University
follows two consecutive quarters
Mankato. Please check out their Web
of decline for Minnesota and
site and make use of this valuable
three consecutive quarters
business development resource.
of decline for the nation. In
2008 personal income growth
BUSINESSCONNECTION
in Minnesota (3.8 percent)
DEED partnered with the Minnesota
exceeded national personal
Chamber of Commerce and its Grow
income growth (2.9 percent).
Minnesota partners to create an
From third quarter 2008 to third
electronic business assistance and
quarter 2009, personal income in
referral network to private and public
Minnesota declined 2.4 percent,
resources. lts called BusinessConnection
compared with a national decline
and you can find It at
of 1.6 percent.
www.mnbizconnect.com
N,d,nnnt of EmV oy ,t and EC,,o cDeve dpmmil
Unemployment Rate Median
November 2009 Household
Seasonally Adjusted lncome2008
U.S.
100% ''
$52,029
Illinois
10.9%
$56,230
Indiana
9.6% '.-
$48,010
Iowa
6.7%
$49,007
Michigan
143%. -
.$48,606 '.
Minnesota
7.4 %
$57,318
Missouri
9.5% _.
$46,847
Nebraska
4.5%
$49,731
North Dakota
4.1% -=
.:$45,996
Ohio
10.6%
$48,011
South Dakota
5.0%
$46,244_ ,
Wisconsin
8.2%
$52,103
Sourre: U.S. Bureau of labor& Sintisfiaand U,S.Census Bureau.'- -:
• Minnesota ranks second
nationwide in the number of
Fortune 500 companies per
capita surpassing states with large
economies such as Illinois (sixth),
Massachusetts (151h) and California
(20th).
• Minnesota ranks sixth in patents
per capita, surpassing other high
tech states such as New York (14th),
Texas (17th) and Illinois (201h).
For more comparative information
on these and other facts visit
Compare Minneso to on DEED' Web site.
nnesota,Street, Suli-e E200
Paul, MN' -55101 1351
8u0.657385ti 11 Y 1 800 657,3973
,iI velyM 1 n nesofa com !;
PROGRAM GRANT AWARDS
Fourth Quarter 2009
CITY
PROGRAM
AWARD
.Minnetonka
Biasdenee Business Development infrastructure'.
;$100;00000
Moorhead
Bioscience Business Development Infrastructure
$158,065.12
Roseville
Blosnenee Business Development lnbastructurei.
$1,500;00000
Moorhead
Bioscience Business Development Infrastructure
$191,934,88
Minnetonka
Bioscence Business Development Infrastructure 7
- 3900,00000
Duluth
Contamination Cleanup Grant
$48,000,00
St Paul
Contamination Cleanup Grant_
$20,25000
St. Paul
Contamination Cleanup Grant
$20,055,00
St Cloud.
Contamination Cleanup Grant
t$608,42200
Nrginia
Contamination Cleanup Grant
591,578,00
Mayer -:
Contamination Cleanup Grant -
$27,367.00
Grand Rapids
Contamination Cleanup Grant
$48,750,00
Hermantown
'' Contamination Cleanup Grant
': $22,12500
Virginia
Contamination Cleanup Grant
5115,984,00
Park Rapids
- $Contamination Cleanup Grant
;$22,27500
Norwood
Contamination Cleanup Grant
$69,610,00
Minneapolis
' Contamination Cleanup Grant
$121,395 Co
Minneapolis
Contamination Cleanup Grant
5303,566,00
Minneapolis
lComamination Clearom Grant
$31,3530o
St. Paul
Contamination Cleanup Grant
$121,503.00
Winthrop
'Minnesota Investment Fund
$240,00000
Hutchinson
Minnesota Investment Fund
5500,000,00
Battle Lake
Military Reservists Economic Injury Loan Program
- $20,000.00
Maple Plain
Military Reservists Economic Injury Loan Program
$20,000.00
Willmar`
Military Reservists Economic Injury Loan Program
= .$20,00000
Bird Island
Minnesota Investment Fund
$195,000.00
North Mankato
'- Minnesota Investment Fund
- $250,00000
Worth Saint Paul
Redevelopment Grant Program
$304,700.00
Roseville
Redevelopment Grant Program
5395,92417 .
St. Paul
Redevelopment Grant Program
$519,018.00
Roseville
Redevelopment Grant Program
$604,075.83
Seaforth
Small Cities Development Prog
$101,000.00
Middle River
Small Cities Development Prog -
$150,000.00
Louisburg
Small Community Wastewater Treatment
S25,000.00
Minneapolis's
Urban Initiative
S5,000.00 -;
Minneapolis
Urban Initiative
$5,000.00
Minneapolis
Urban Initiative
' $25;000,00:
Minneapolis
Urban Initiative
$15,000.00
St. Paul
' Urban Initiative
$8,000.00 -
Minneapolis
Urban Initiative
510,000.00
Brooklyn Park
Urban Initiative-
$135;800.00`-
Fourth Quarter 2009
APPLICANT/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
CONTRIBUTING BUSINESS(ES)
AWARD
Dakota County Technical College
Cardinal Solar Technologies
$49,687
Lake Superior College
Residential Services of Northeast Minnesota, Inc.
537,737
Rochester Community and Technical College
Spring Valley Senior Living and Adams Health Care (enter
$43,096
Northland Community andtechnlcal College
C &M Ford Sales and Roseau County Ford
541,303
Hennepin Technical College
Honeywell Automation and Controls Solutions
$37,800
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Innovent Air Handling Equipment
S230,779
Normandale Community College
H.B. Fuller Co.
$300,000
Enterprise Minnesota
Stratasys
S204,062
Inver Hills Community College
Xcel Energy
$330,000
North Hennepin Community College
Accellent, lnc.
S300,000
Dakota CountyTechnical College
Michael Foods, Inc.
$287,112
Dakota County Technical College
Capital Safety Group
5300,000
Minnesota West Community and Technical College,
Electrolux
$286,150
Anoka - Ramsey Community College
Mince Products, Inc.
5150,000
Alexandria Technical College
Douglas Machine, me.
$276,329