EDA Agenda 11-08-2017
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, November 8th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Steve Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew,
Jim Davidson, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Jim Thares, Angela Schumann, and Jacob Thunander
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Consideration of additional agenda items
4. Consent Agenda
a. Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – October 11th, 2017
b. Consideration of approving payment of bills
c. Consideration of Resolution #2017-05 regarding Fifth Amendment to Contract for
Private Redevelopment with Master’s Fifth Avenue as it relates to TIF District
1-35
d. Consideration of Resolution #2017-06 Designating a Building in Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (Fred’s Auto Building located at 349 West Broadway) as
Structurally Substandard
e. Consideration of Quotes for development of Downtown Site Marketing Materials
Regular Agenda
5. Director’s Report
6. Adjourn
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, October 11th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Steve Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jim
Davidson, and Lloyd Hilgart
Commissioners Absent: Jon Morphew
Staff Present: Jim Thares and Angela Schumann
1. Call to Order
Bill Demeules called the regular meeting of the EDA to order at 6:00 P.M.
2. Roll Call
3. Consideration of additional agenda items
None.
4. Consent Agenda
a. Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2017
LLOYD HILGART MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2017. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0-1 WITH BILL TAPPER ABSTAINING.
b. Consideration of Workshop Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2017
LLOYD HILGART MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MEETING
MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2017. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0-1 WITH BILL TAPPER ABSTAINING.
c. Consideration of approving payment of bills
LLOYD HILGART MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS
THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 2017. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration of 5th Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment with
Master’s Fifth Avenue for property in TIF District 1-35
Jim Thares stated that a request was made by Barry Fluth to consider extending the
performance timeline identified in the 4th Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment. Thares stated that the Fourth Amendment to the contract stated that
construction needed to commence by December 31st, 2017, with project completion to be
the end of 2018. Thares stated that Fluth has been working with interested developers on
a potential project. Fluth has asked to extend the time frame to start construction by
December 31st, 2018 with final completion by the end of 2019. If the extension is
approved, the EDA’s Attorney will draft an amendment document which the EDA would
2
need to approve at its next meeting.
Bill Demueles asked if the proposed development would be similar to the past. Thares
confirmed, stating it would be a 23-unit market rate apartment with detached garages.
Lloyd Hilgart asked if the contract remained the same (no change to the performance
dates), would the TIF assistance would be forfeited. Angela Schumann stated that staff
would need to consult with the EDA’s Attorney.
Hilgart also asked if the TIF assistance has been declining as it was in the past years or if
the same amount is still available. Schumann explained that that the developer removed
the buildings on the property and must provide evidence of the activities and costs as a
part of the completion of the contract for TIF eligibility. The documents related to the
district specify the amount of eligible TIF, but the land value hasn’t risen to a point that
any increment is being generated. Hilgart inquired if the developer had(s) a three-year
time period for removal of the buildings. Schumann stated that this district is somewhat
unique.
Tammy Omdal, Northland Securities, said that the redevelopment TIF District had
buildings that were determined to be substandard and then removed. No increment has
been generated at this point. The district is set up for twenty-six years but the collection
calendar has not started. The three year rule is applicable if findings are made for the
establishment of districts and is not applicable in this case. The five year rule is
applicable to either commit or spend the tax increment dollars within that timeframe.
Under the terms of the development agreement, as long as it is valid, and the developer is
not in default, all of the increment collected can be used to assist with the project per the
agreed upon amount. If the EDA decides not to grant an additional extension of the
performance dates, the developer may end up in default. The district would not go away,
but in the future, the EDA would only be able to use 25 percent of the tax increment to
assist any project. Decertification of the district is another option for the EDA at this
time.
Tracy Hinz asked where the EDA was at with the five-year period. Omdal stated that the
five-year timeline is long past. She further added that the contract is still valid and the
performance dates could be amended, but, if the dates are not extended the agreement
would go away.
Jim Davidson confirmed that this project was the only one that could be fully funded
using the increment dollars. Omdal confirmed that is correct with the current agreement.
Hilgart asked if there was a financial benefit for the City to not extend the contract.
Omdal stated that there were findings made and assistance agreed to for this project. If
the EDA determined that the proposed project was no longer consistent with the EDA or
the City’s objectives, than it may be a reason to not extend it. Whether or not the project
could continue would be up to the developer as public financial assistance would not be
3
available if the contract was not amended.
Hilgart asked how many years the buildings have been removed. Omdal stated that this
would be the Fifth Amendment to the agreement. Schumann stated that the district was
established in late 2005.
STEVE JOHNSON MOVED TO DIRECT PREPARATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN MASTERS 5TH
AVENUE AND THE CITY OF MONTICELLO EDA AS IT RELATES TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT 1- 35. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
6. Consideration of entering into contract with displacement relocation consultant for
services for dislocated properties in downtown
Jim Thares stated that the displacement assistance as required under the Uniform
Relocation and Assistance Act (URAA) was determined to be useful and necessary as the
EDA possibly becomes involved with downtown redevelopment projects. Thares noted
the challenges that relocation activities can bring in an effort to comply with the Act.
Two proposals were received; from Wilson Development and also from SB &
Associates. Wilson Development quoted the work at $53,500 while WSB & Associates’
quote was $30,768. The difference was mainly in the amount of hours expected to spend
providing technical assistance to the displaced. They actually charge similar hourly rates.
Staff recommended working with Wilson Development. Thares noted that the City has
worked with Mr. Wilson on previous projects and that any hours not utilized would not
be charged to the EDA.
Bill Demueles asked how many years WSB has been providing these services. Jim
Davidson commented that their main contact has 17 years’ experience.
Tracy Hinz asked if the project was a retainer to pay upfront for projects. Thares noted
that is specifically for one potential project where a significant amount of displacement
may occur.
Steve Johnson asked what Wilson Development would be offering for the larger contract
compared to WSB. Thares explained that Wilson Development has a lot of experience
working in Monticello and within the State. Angela Schumann also added that WSB is
estimating their cost at a reduced number of hours compared to Wilson Development.
She also said that in the proposal from WSB the hours state “Not to Exceed”, and that it
was important to understand that if the hours were to exceed, the costs would be
increased. Jim Gromberg, WSB explained that any hours outside of the contract would be
consumed by WSB.
Johnson asked if Wilson Development would overall save the City of Monticello more
money. Schumann stated that the EDA needed to look at references and past experiences.
4
Hinz asked if the EDA should be concerned that the majority of projects that WSB has
worked on involve road right-of-ways. Demueles explained that there wasn’t much
differentiation as the URAA prescribes the activities and tasks that need to be undertaken.
Lloyd Hilgart asked on what other Monticello projects Wilson Development has worked
on….other than Block 34. Schumann stated that her personal experience has only been
with Block 34, in particular the Montgomery Farms acquisitions, but that the relationship
dates farther back.
Tracy Hinz and Bill Tapperboth appreciated the prior work that Wilson Development has
completed within and for the City of Monticello.
Johnson asked if there were any differences in outcomes from the two proposals. Thares
stated that both matched up the services requested under a proposed scope of work.
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO A DISPLACEMENT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WILSON
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,500. EXPENSES OVER THIS
AMOUNT ARE TO BE AUTHORIZED BY SEPARATE APPROVAL OF THE EDA.
TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF
MAJORITY VOTE, 2-4 WITH STEVE JOHNSON, JIM DAVIDSON, LLOYD
HILGART, AND BILL DEMEULES VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Johnson asked if there was a starting point for this project. Schumann stated the starting
point would be defined by the project itself. She also added that in consulting with the
EDA’s attorney there is a certain amount of latitude in selecting a contractor for
professional services. She also said that the question could be posed to Wilson
Development to enter into a “Not to Exceed” contract. Johnson stated if no project
happened at all, neither contract would be employed. Schumann confirmed.
STEVE JOHNSON MOVED AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO A DISPLACEMENT
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WSB & ASSOCIATES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,768. EXPENSES OVER THIS AMOUNT ARE TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY SEPARATE APPROVAL OF THE EDA. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-1 WITH TRACY HINZ VOTING
IN OPPOSITION.
7. Consideration of WSB Economic Development Assistance Contract for 2018
Jim Thares stated that the WSB Economic Development Assistance Contract from 2017
is coming to a close at the end of the year. Staff proposed to renew the contract for
another 12 months. The four principal tasks areas include: market engagement, marketing
plan implementation, financial packaging and site review/presentation technical
assistance, and communication. Per the WSB proposal, the amount is $50 higher per
month than last year at $750 per month. The same work would be completed with a small
5
enhancement with Task 3 (financial packaging and site review/presentation technical
assistance). Thares introduced Jim Gromberg.
Bill Demeules recalled from last year when the EDA entered into the contact, the costs of
individually being members of different associations would exceed the costs of the
contract with WSB to be involved. Gromberg confirmed, explaining that the services help
to get Monticello’s name out there.
Lloyd Hilgart asked if Jim Thares also attended some of the meetings and events with
WSB. Gromberg confirmed.
Steve Johnson asked for examples of specific items that have benefited the City of
Monticello and the EDA through the contract. Gromberg referred to a site location
planning. He also added that they are working on identification of companies that can fill
niches that the City for or to match up with the workforce. Johnson asked if these
examples have brought any type of development to Monticello. Gromberg stated that a
couple projects have come from the State and he has helped to put together proposals for
specific sites. He also added that WSB has been involved with Thares at various meetings
to discuss State programs as a potential assistance package for several prospects.
Johnson asked if WSB has worked with Thares on prospect projects included in the
Director’s Report. Gromberg confirmed stating they have worked with him on Project
Novus, Project #6580, Project Kodiak, and Project Ajjax.
Bill Tapper asked Thares for his recommendation. Thares confirmed it would be helpful
to continue working with WSB.
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2018 WSB ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE SERVICES PROPOSAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$9,000. JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 6-0.
8. Consideration of TIF Financial Management Plan Policy and Guidance Statements
Jim Thares stated that various TIF Districts are generating extra TIF dollars for allocation
to various redevelopment or affordable housing projects. Nearly $1.7 million is estimated
to be available by 2025 for redevelopment projects as well as another $1.4 million for
affordable housing developments. Thares stated that the staff report includes a policy
statement that reflects the comments of the EDA workshop that was held in September.
Thares introduced Tammy Omdal, Northland Securities.
Omdal stated that the policies were meant to be general and not restrictive. In the future,
the policies could be changed to reflect the EDA’s direction. Omdal stated that there may
be projects that come along that are not listed in the policy statements. This would allow
staff to bring these projects forward to the EDA.
Bill Tapper stated that he did not understand the reason for doing this and felt limitations
would be in place for what the EDA could do or bring forth. Omdal provided an example
6
that if the EDA felt that staff shouldn’t be looking at available TIF dollars for land
acquisition, this would be a time to give that direction to staff so that they are not putting
time or effort into considering that. At the workshop, the EDA did not indicate an interest
in returning any net available dollars not committed to current obligations back to the
County for distribution to the County, School, and City. Omdal stated that these policy
statements are guidelines so staff has a sense of the EDA’s intent is for using these funds.
Tapper asked why there were three statements in the redevelopment policy as they
seemed redundant. Thares answered saying at the workshop they were trying to be more
specific with identifying Block 34 and Block 52. Tapper also asked why Master’s Fifth
Avenue was singled out. Angela Schumann explained that sometimes it is important to be
specific to provide staff with direction that’s needed and to provide continuity with the
planning efforts. She explained that it was not meant to limit the opportunities, but rather
to highlight specific areas. Tapper explained that “policy” seemed more directive rather
than suggestive.
Johnson stated that it was redundant to have comment three and five from the staff report.
Tracy Hinz stated she did not recall calling out Master’s Fifth Avenue at the workshop.
Johnson asked if this could be changed at any time. Thares confirmed. Schumann added
that it is important to have direction to be able to focus time and effort. The policy
statements provide that guidance.
Hinz echoed concerns with specifying a specific project.
Demueles stated that these policy statements drive the EDA’s vision and support.
Hinz did not recall conversations about financing the underground parking for Master’s
Fifth Avenue.
Demueles added that the policy statements does not strictly prohibit or force the EDA to
do anything.
TRACY HINZ MOVED TO ADOPT THE 2016 TIF MANAGEMENT PLAN
AVAILABLE FUNDS POLICY STATEMENT. JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-1 WITH BILL TAPPER IN OPPOSITION.
Steve Johnson suggested removing Item 3 in the Affordable Housing section.
Lloyd Hilgart commented that he would not be in favor of returning dollars to the County
for redistribution. He asked if the money that was available as of 2016 was spent, if it
would be deducted from the 2025 value. Omdal stated that it affects the 2025 amount
because it projects the accrual of the interest income. She also added that those balances
as of fiscal year 2016, is cash available at the end of 2016. There is also the ability to
capitalize or use the future projected increment to issue a bond obligation to fund a
7
project today, but the EDA would assume the risk that the future tax increment will be at
the levels estimated to cover any debt obligation. Lloyd Hilgart prefers to call out
specific projects.
9. Consideration of Appointing Member to Downtown Zoning Committee
Bill Demueles noted that the request was for the EDA select a member to the Downtown
Zoning Committee. Angela Schumann stated the City Council authorized a work group
for a revision of the zoning ordinance to support the Downtown Small Area Study that
was adopted by the City Council. It was expected that the group of seven to eight
members would begin meeting in early November and wrapping up the beginning of the
year. Schumann stated that a member from the City Council, Planning Commission, and
EDA would be represented on the committee. An invitation to interested downtown
community members would also be sent by staff. Schumann noted that the meetings
would be public and that any zoning ordinance amendments would occur with a Public
Hearing.
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF EDA
MEMBER STEVE JOHNSON TO SERVE. TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
10. Director’s Report
Jim Thares stated that Industry of the Year was held on Wednesday, October 4th, 2017 to
present the award to UMC. The keynote speaker was regional economist, Joseph D.
Mahon, from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.
Thares also stated that he was continuing to work with the person interested in relocating
the Fred’s Auto building to Hastings, MN. Tracy Hinz asked if the building transfer was
closed. Thares explained that a Development Agreement would be presented to the EDA
with the specifics of the proposed relocate project. It will include an escrow fund to
ensure the individual actually completes the work that is agreed to in the Performance
Agreement. He did reiterate that the interested party is not going to pay for the building,
but would pay to clean up the site.
Thares added that the Wright County broker event was held on September 19th. He
continues to follow up with individual contacts from that event.
Thares also followed up regarding the sign at Otter Creek Business Park. The City’s
Public Works Department would be picking it up and would try to rebuild it. Jim
Davidson asked if the sign was effective marketing approach. Bill Demueles commented
that having a sign out there may be beneficial to people visiting Monticello. Angela
Schumann added that the EDA should make sure that the sign has the most current
available information and that it is visible from a distance. She also added that long term
the EDA could think about an entrance monument to Otter Creek Business Park.
Thares provided an update on the active prospects in Monticello. Thares noted that
8
Project Kodiak had a site tour yesterday and received a call that Monticello was not
accepted. Hinz asked if staff received any feedback. Thares responded with location
concerns. Project Ajjax would also be removed from the list because of the desire to have
outdoor storage which exceeds the amount allowed by ordinance.
Steve Johnson asked about Project Basil. Thares explained that they are working with
another community, but they may be interested in Monticello again.
Thares added that Shred-n-Go has moved on due to the cost of land in Otter Creek
Business Park.
11. Adjourn
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:12 P.M. STEVE
JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: November 8th, 2017
Attest: ____________________________________________
Jim Thares, Economic Development Director
EDA Agenda: 11/08/17
1
4. Consideration of Adopting Resolution No. 2017-05 Approving the Fifth Amendment
to the Contract for Private Development between Masters Fifth Avenue and the City
of Monticello EDA as it relates to TIF District 1-35.(JT)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The EDA is being asked to consider adopting Resolution No. 2017-05 approving the Fifth
Amendment to the Contract for Private Development between Masters Fifth Avenue and
the City of Monticello EDA. Mr. Fluth recently provided a letter asking to extend the
development performance timeline under the Contract for an additional 12 months. As a
reminder, the Fourth Amendment to the Contract was approved by the EDA at its regular
September 14th, 2016 Meeting. When the Fourth Amendment was approved, performance
language specifying project commencement and completion dates was added to the
contract. The specific dates are: project commencement by December 31, 2017 and full
development completion by December 31, 2018.
After considerable discussion at the October 11, 2017 meeting, the EDA authorized staff to
prepare a Resolution ratifying approval of the Fifth Amendment at the November EDA
meeting. Attached is Resolution #2017-05 for the EDA’s consideration.
A1. Budget Impact:Per the Contract language, the developer will be required to cover
all costs associated with the Amendment. The EDA Attorney drafted Resolution
#2017-05, so the charge of approximately $230.00 will be passed onto to the
developer.
A2. Staff Workload Impact:An estimate of two hours of staff time has been spent to-
date in reviewing and responding to the most recent request (including drafting
reports).
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to adopt Resolution #2017-05 approving the Fifth Amendment to the Contract
for Private Development between Masters 5th Avenue and the City of Monticello EDA
as it relates to TIF District 1-35.
2.Motion to deny adoption of Resolution #2017-05 regarding the Fifth Amendment to
the Contract for Private Development between Masters 5th Avenue and the City of
Monticello EDA as it relates to TIF District 1-35.
3.Motion to table this item for additional research and/or information.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The EDA authorized staff to draft the Resolution of Approval for the Fifth Amendment at
EDA Agenda: 11/08/17
2
the October 11, 2017 meeting. This follow on step is somewhat of a technical procedure
wherein Resolution #2017-05 is presented for ratification by the EDA.
It should be noted that when the TIF district was created, it was intended to spur and
support private commercial redevelopment. The EDA’s approval of Resolution 2017-05
regarding the Fifth Amendment of the Contract for Private Development between Masters
5th Avenue and the City of Monticello EDA as it relates to TIF District 1-35, will allow the
developer the additional time to pull together a team to complete the residential or mixed
use project by the end of 2019 (start date of 12-31-2018 and completion date of 12-31-
2019). With that background information, staff hereby recommends Alternative #1.
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.Letter from Master Fifth Avenue requesting extension of timeline
B.TIF Plan 1-35, excerpt
C.Fourth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
D.Staff Report from the October 11, 2017 EDA Meeting Agenda
509040v1 MNI MN190-115
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 2017-05
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIFTH AMENDMENT OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND MASTERS FIFTH
AVENUE, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the City of Monticello
Economic Development Authority, Monticello, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City, and administers Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35 (the “TIF District”)
within the Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794.
1.02. The Authority and Masters Fifth Avenue, Inc. (the “Developer”) executed a certain
Contract for Private Development, dated as of September 7, 2005, as amended by a First
Amendment thereto dated as of June 7, 2006, a Second Amendment thereto dated as of December
18, 2007, a Third Amendment thereto dated as of December 9, 2015, and a Fourth Amendment
thereto dated as of September 14, 2016 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), whereunder the
Authority pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) to pay or reimburse certain
land acquisition costs incurred by the Developer in connection with the development of an
approximately 11,000 square foot retail, housing, or mixed-use facility, with associated parking, to
be known as Landmark Square II (the “Minimum Improvements”) on certain property in the TIF
District.
1.03. The Developer has requested and the Authority has agreed to extend the schedule
of construction of the Minimum Improvements, and to that end, the parties propose to execute a
Fifth Amendment to the Agreement (the “Fifth Amendment”) in the form presented to the
Authority.
Section 2. Fifth Amendment Approved.
2.01. The Fifth Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the documents by
such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. The President and Executive Director
are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Authority, the Fifth Amendment.
509040v1 MNI MN190-115
Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Monticello Economic
Development Authority this 8th day of November, 2017.
_____________________________
President
ATTEST:
Executive Director
Master's Fifth Avenue, Inc.
19577 180th Ave NW
Big Lake, MN 55309
763-390-0393
September 20, 2017
TO:
Monticello Economic Development Authority
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Attention: EDA members
We request consideration at your meeting of October 11th to consider
modification of TIF District 1-35 agreement and amending the contract for private
redevelopment to modify the date to commence construction of the minimum
improvements to read "December 31, 2018". Sufficient progress has been made
with interested developers to make this change a credible reality. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Master's Fifth Avenue, Inc.
Barry D. Fluth, president
EDA Agenda: 10/11/17
1
5. Consideration to direct preparation of an Amendment to the Contract for Private
Development between Masters Fifth Avenue and the Monticello EDA and
modification of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
1-35. (JT)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Consideration of this item is to determine the EDA’s willingness to amend the Contract for
Private Development between Masters Fifth Avenue and the Monticello EDA. Mr. Fluth
provided a letter indicating that he would like to extend the development performance
timeline for an additional 12 months. As you will recall, the most recent amendment to the
Contract (4th Amendment) was approved by the EDA at its regular September 14th, 2016
Meeting. When the 4th Amendment was approved, performance language specifying a
timeline to commence construction on a project by December 31, 2017 and fully complete
the development by December 31, 2018 was added to the document.
In the attached letter, the developer states that he is making progress in discussions with
interested parties in completing a development on the site located at the northeast corner of
Locust and 3rd Street. He is asking for a reset of the commencement of development to be
December 31, 2018.
It should be noted that the Developer is not asking for additional tax increment for this
project.
Additional background information is provided for your benefit. TIF District 1-35 was
certified in 2006, and was created to fund $170,000 in costs associated with the
development of a proposed 11,000 square foot retail commercial project known as
“Landmark Square II”. The tax increment generated in the district was intended to
reimburse the developer for land acquisition through “pay-as-you-go” TIF assistance.
The EDA approved the third amendment of the contract in October 2015. At that time, the
developer indicated there was the potential for an exclusively residential project. The
developer then submitted the all residential proposal to the City Council for review of a
Development Stage PUD in the spring of 2016. That proposal was a 23 unit residential
development. That plan was presented to the EDA as part of the 4th Contract amendment
as well.
If the EDA is willing to consider the amendment and potential modification of the district
again, staff will have the EDA’s attorney prepare the required documents for EDA decision
at the November meeting.
A1. Budget Impact: Per the contract with the developer, the developer will be required
to cover all costs associated with the modification.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: An estimate of one hour of staff time has been spent to-
EDA Agenda: 10/11/17
2
date in reviewing and responding to the most recent request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to direct preparation of an Amendment to the Contract for Private
Development between Masters 5th Avenue and the Monticello EDA and potential
modification of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District 1-
35.
2. Motion of no action.
3. Motion to table this item for additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The amendment of the contract and modification of the TIF District is a policy question for
the EDA. When the TIF district was created, it was intended to spur and support private
commercial redevelopment. If the EDA supports the proposed amendment and potential
modification, Alternative #1 is recommended. If the EDA wishes to proceed under the 4th
Contract Amendment, approved on September 14, 2016, the developer would be required
to begin construction by December 31, 2017. This timeline may not be realistic given the
work tasks required to be completed before that date.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Letter from Master Fifth Avenue requesting extension of timeline
B. TIF Plan 1-35, excerpt
C. Fourth Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
EDA: 11/08/17
1
4d. Consideration of Resolution No. #2017-06 designating a Building (located at 349
West Broadway) in Redevelopment Project No. 1 as Structurally Substandard (JT)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item is follow up step to the EDA’s approval of LHB Architects, Inc. to complete a
TIF Qualification building inspection of Fred’s Auto Building located at 349 West
Broadway. As noted at the September EDA meeting, the benefit of completing the
inspection is that it will document the substandard and blighted conditions of the building
and, in the future, allow the EDA to establish this parcel as a single or multi-parcel TIF
District for redevelopment purposes.
Acceptance of LHB’s inspection report is required in order to complete the process. It is
attached as part of the staff report.
A1. STAFF IMPACT:There is a limited staff impact in considering entering into a TIF
Qualification Inspection Services Contract with LHB, Inc. to qualify the Fred’s property
for a future TIF Redevelopment District.To date, staff time involves reviewing possible
steps to ensure that the EDA can retain flexible options in moving forward with potential
future redevelopment of the Fred’s site. A small amount of additional time involved
reviewing service offerings of LHB, Inc. and asking them to submit a proposal as well as
drafting the staff report.
A2. BUDGET IMPACT:The cost for LHB’s to perform the inspection work and write up
report is $3,200, as per the contract approved by the EDA at the September 13, 2017 EDA
meeting.The 2017 EDA budget includes a line item for miscellaneous professional
services, which will be the source of funding for the service invoice when it is received.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to adopt Resolution #2017-06 designating a Building (located at 349 West
Broadway Street) within Redevelopment Project No.1 as Structurally Substandard
2.Motion to deny adoption of Resolution #2017-06 designating a Building (located
at 349 West Broadway Street) within Redevelopment Project No.1 as Structurally
Substandard.
3. Motion to table consideration of Resolution #2017-06 for further research of
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1. By completing the TIF qualifying inspection process,
the EDA preserves it’s options for the future redevelopment of this site. If the EDA
chooses to use a redevelopment TIF district to redevelop the site, documentation of the
blighted and substandard conditions of the structures on the parcel is required. This
action will give the EDA the most flexibility for this parcel in the near future.
EDA: 11/08/17
2
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
a. LHB, Inc. TIF Qualification Inspection Report for Fred’s Auto Building located at 349
West Broadway
e. Aerial Photo of Property
510196v1 MN325-31
CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-06
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A BUILDING WITHIN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AS STRUCTURALLY
SUBSTANDARD
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the City of Monticello
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10(d), the Authority is authorized
to deem parcels as occupied by structurally substandard buildings for the purposes of creating a
redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, despite prior demolition
or removal of the buildings, subject to certain terms and conditions as described in this resolution.
1.02. The Authority intends to cause demolition of the building located on the property
described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Designated Property”), and may in the future include the
Designated Property in a redevelopment or renewal and renovation tax increment financing district
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174, subd. 10.
Section 2. Building Designated Substandard; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Authority finds that the building on the Designated Property as described in
Exhibit A is structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance,
based upon the analysis of such building by LHB, Inc. entitled “TIF Analysis Findings for 349
Broadway West, Monticello, Minnesota,” dated October 20, 2017, on file in City Hall.
2.02. After the date of approval of this resolution, the building on the Designated Property
may be demolished or removed by the Authority, or such demolition or removal may be financed
by the Authority, or may be undertaken by a developer under a development agreement with the
Authority.
2.03. The Authority intends to include the Designated Property in a redevelopment or
renewal and renovation tax increment financing district, and to file the request for certification of
such district with the Wright County auditor within three years after the date of building demolition
on the Designated Property.
2.04. Upon filing the request for certification of the new tax increment financing district,
the Authority will notify the Wright County auditor that the original tax capacity of the Designated
Property must be adjusted to reflect the greater of (a) the current net tax capacity of the parcel, or
(b) the estimated market value of the parcel for the year in which the building was demolished or
removed, but applying class rates for the current year, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, subd. 10(d).
510196v1 MN325-31 2
2.05. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry
out the intent of this resolution.
Approved by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Monticello Economic
Development Authority this 8th day of November, 2017.
President
ATTEST:
Secretary
510196v1 MN325-31 3
EXHIBIT A
Description of Designated Property
The South ½ of Lots 1, 2, and 3, in Block 50, Townsite of Monticello, according to the plat on
file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Wright County, Minnesota;
Said South ½ of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 50, can also be described as follows: Beginning at the
mid-point on the common line between Lots 3 and 4, in said Block; thence Southerly along said
common line 82.5 feet to the Southerly line of said Block (being the Southeast corner of said Lot
3); thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lots 3, 2 and 1 for a distance of 99 feet to the
Southwest corner of Lot 1; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of Lot 1 for a distance of
82.5 feet; thence straight Easterly 99 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating.
Subject to existing easements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any.
October 20, 2017
Jim Thares, Economic Development Manager
City of Monticello EDA
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
TIF ANALYSIS FINDINGS FOR 349 BROADWAY WEST, MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
LHB was hired to inspect Fred’s Gas Station at 349 Broadway West in Monticello, Minnesota, in
order to determine if it meets the definition of “Substandard” as defined by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, subdivision 10. The building parcel may potentially be part of a future
Redevelopment TIF District, so will need to be compliant with all of the statutes pertaining to a
Redevelopment District.
The parcel is located at the East corner of Linn Street and Broadway West (see Diagram 1).
Diagram 1
TIF Analysis for 349 Broadway West Page: 2
Date: October 20, 2017
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the building on October 6, 2017 and applying current statutory criteria for a
Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that
the building qualifies as substandard.
The remainder of this letter and attachments describe our process and findings in detail.
MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS
The property was inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
Interior Inspection
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally substandard] without
an interior inspection of the property...”
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to
obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
Documentation
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not conducted must be
made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied parcels:
1. Coverage Test
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots”
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied
by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures unless 15 percent of
the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar
structures.”
The LHB team reviewed parcel 155-010-050011 (349 Broadway West):
• The parcel is approximately 8,291 square feet and is approximately 97 percent covered by
buildings, parking lots or other improvements.
Findings:
The parcel is covered by buildings, parking lots or other improvements, exceeding the 15 percent parcel
requirement.
2. Condition of Buildings Test
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a) states, “…and more than 50 percent of the
buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance;”
TIF Analysis for 349 Broadway West Page: 3
Date: October 20, 2017
a. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b),
which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally substandard’ shall mean containing
defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities,
light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior
partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to
justify substantial renovation or clearance.”
i. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally substandard”, due to
concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of Appeals in the Walser Auto
Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November 13, 2001.
Findings:
The gas station at 349 Broadway West exceeds the criteria required to be determined a
substandard building (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context
Analysis Report).
b. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet certain
additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or
other similar reliable evidence.”
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not disqualified] include
recent fire or police inspections, on-site property tax appraisals or housing inspections, exterior
evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by the
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum construction
standards are required by law.
• Chapter 13 of the 2015 Minnesota Building Code states, “Buildings shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.” Furthermore,
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305.0021 Subpart 9 states, “References to the International
Energy Conservation Code in this code mean the Minnesota Energy Code…”
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and Licensing
Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry confirmed that the
Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the State of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management Analysis
Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed that the
construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota Energy Code is
higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of a new
building built under current code standards with the repairs that would be necessary
to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In order for an equal
comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should be applied to both
scenarios. Since current construction estimating software automatically applies the
TIF Analysis for 349 Broadway West Page: 4
Date: October 20, 2017
construction cost of complying with the Minnesota Energy Code, energy code
deficiencies should also be identified in the existing structures.
Findings:
The building has code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent building code deficiency criteria
required to be determined substandard (see the attached Building Code, Condition Deficiency
and Context Analysis Report).
TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA, LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has 29 years of experience as project principal, project manager, project designer and project
architect on planning, urban design, educational, commercial and governmental projects. He has become
an expert on Tax Increment Finance District analysis assisting over 100 cities with strategic planning for
TIF Districts. He is an Architectural Principal at LHB and currently leads the Minneapolis office.
Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship, studying at MIT and Harvard in 1999, earning Masters
degrees in City Planning and Real Estate Development from MIT. He has served on more than 50
committees, boards and community task forces, including a term as a City Council President and as Chair
of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, he served as Chair of the Edina, Minnesota
planning commission and is currently a member of the Edina city council. Michael has also managed and
designed several award-winning architectural projects, and was one of four architects in the Country to
receive the AIA Young Architects Citation in 1997.
Philip Waugh – Project Manager/TIF Analyst
Philip is a project manager with 13 years of experience in historic preservation, building investigations,
material research, and construction methods. He previously worked as a historic preservationist and also
served as the preservation specialist at the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Currently, Philip sits
on the Board of Directors for the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. His current responsibilities include
project management of historic preservation projects, performing building condition surveys and analysis,
TIF analysis, writing preservation specifications, historic design reviews, writing Historic Preservation Tax
Credit applications, preservation planning, and grant writing.
Phil Fisher – Inspector
For 35 years, Phil Fisher worked in the field of Building Operations in Minnesota including White Bear Lake
Area Schools. At the University of Minnesota he earned his Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology.
He is a Certified Playground Safety Inspector, Certified Plant Engineer, and is trained in Minnesota Enterprise
Real Properties (MERP) Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). His FCA training was recently applied to the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Facilities Condition Assessment project involving over 2,000
buildings.
Attachments
We have attached a Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report, Replacement
Cost Report, Code Deficiency Report, and thumbnail photo sheets of the building. Please contact me
at (612) 752-6920 if you have any questions.
LHB INC.
MICHAEL A. FISCHER, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
O:\17Proj\170668\400 Design\406 Reports\Letter of Finding\170668 20171020 Fred's Gas Station Redevelopment TIF Letter of
Finding.docx
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis Page 1 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 170668 Fred’s Gas Station – 349 Broadway West
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Building Code, Condition Deficiency and Context Analysis Report
October 19, 2017
Building Name: Fred’s Gas Station
Address: 349 Broadway West, Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Parcel ID: 155-010-050011
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): October 6, 2017 10:00 am
Inspection Type: Interior and Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard
because:
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of
replacement cost, NOT including energy code deficiencies.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $200,240
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $67,347
Percentage of Replacement Cost for Building Code Deficiencies: 33.63%
Defects in Structural Elements
1. None observed.
Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. There is no accessible route into all areas of the building.
b. There is no ADA compliant restroom.
c. There is no code required drinking fountain in the building.
d. Door hardware is not ADA code compliant.
e. The glass entry door does not have a code required 10-inch kick plate.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. The interior lighting does not comply with code for minimum light levels.
b. The HVAC system does not comply with mechanical/building code.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Vinyl floor covering is damaged creating an impediment for emergency egress, contrary to
code.
b. Electric circuit box is not protected per code.
c. There are no code required smoke detectors in the building.
d. There is no code required emergency lighting in the building.
e. There is no code required emergency notification system in the building.
f. There is no code required building sprinkler system installed.
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis Page 2 of 2 Building Report
LHB Project No. 170668 Fred’s Gas Station – 349 Broadway West
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Interior windows show signs of water intrusion, contrary to code.
b. Interior acoustical ceiling tile is damaged/missing.
c. Interior ceiling surfaces are damaged from water intrusion, contrary to code.
d. Interior walls should be repainted.
e. Interior ceilings should be repainted.
f. There is no code required hazardous waste collection system.
g. Garage door motors are not properly guarded per code.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Exterior block work is damaged, allowing for water intrusion, contrary to code.
b. Exterior metal surfaces need to be repainted.
c. Exterior block surfaces should be repainted.
d. Exterior wood surfaces should be repainted.
e. Exterior glass block is damaged and should be replaced.
f. Exterior downspouts are missing, causing staining to exterior block.
g. It is apparent from visible roof leaks that the roofing system has failed to prevent water
intrusion.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. An accessible route into all areas of the building needs to be created per code.
2. An ADA code compliant restroom should be created.
3. A code required drinking fountain should be installed.
4. ADA code compliant door hardware should be installed.
5. A code required 10-inch kick plate should be installed on both sides of the glass entrance door.
6. Interior lighting should be upgraded to comply with code.
7. The HVAC system should be replaced to comply with mechanical/building code.
8. Vinyl floor covering should be replaced to create a code required unimpeded means of egress.
9. The electrical circuit box should be fully protected per code.
10. Code required smoke detectors should be installed.
11. Code required emergency lighting should be installed.
12. Code required emergency notification system should be installed.
13. Code required building sprinkler system should be installed.
14. Windows should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
15. A code required hazardous waste collection system should be installed.
16. Exposed gears and belts on overhead garage doors should be protected per code.
17. Damaged/cracked exterior block work should be repaired to prevent water intrusion per code.
18. Roofing material should be replaced to prevent water intrusion per code.
Overview of Deficiencies
This former gas station/service garage has been vacant for several years. Heat and water have been turned
off to the building and as a result, the interior surfaces are failing. The exterior walls need repair and the roof
needs to be replaced. There is no accessible route to all areas of the interior building. There are also other
numerous accessibility issues.
O:\17Proj\170668\400 Design\406 Reports\Building Reports\170668 Gas Station Building Report.docx
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
Replacement Cost Report
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report Date:10/18/2017
Fred's Gas Station
City of Monticello
349 Broadway West, Monticello, Minnesota,
55362
Building Type:
Garage, Repair with Concrete Block / Wood
Joists
Location:MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Story Count:1
Story Height (L.F.):14
Floor Area (S.F.):1700
Labor Type:OPN
Basement Included:No
Data Release:Year 2017 Quarter 3
Cost Per Square Foot:$117.80
Building Cost:$200,240.74
% of Total Cost Per S.F. Cost
20.93% 22.41 38,100.05
A1010 Standard Foundations 13.60 23,119.11
8.79 14,945.85
4.81 8,173.26
A1030 Slab on Grade 8.47 14,394.95
8.47 14,394.95
A2010 Basement Excavation 0.34 585.99
0.34 585.99
32.17% 34.45 58,561.37
B1020 Roof Construction 8.06 13,699.87
8.06 13,699.87
B2010 Exterior Walls 17.00 28,906.01
17.00 28,906.01
B2020 Exterior Windows 2.70 4,583.80
2.70 4,583.80
B2030 Exterior Doors 4.52 7,686.11
0.61 1,044.86
3.91 6,641.25
B3010 Roof Coverings 2.17 3,685.58
1.69 2,873.00
0.42 715.66
Concrete block (CMU) wall, regular weight, 75% solid, 8 x 8 x 16, 4500 PSI,
reinforced, vertical #5@32", grouted
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components.
Scope differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
A Substructure
Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12"
thick
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF,
12" deep x 24" wide
Slab on grade, 6" thick, light industrial, reinforced
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site
storage
B Shell
Wood roof, truss, 4/12 slope, 24" O.C., 30' to 43' span
Windows, aluminum, sliding, standard glass, 5' x 3'
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'‐0" x 7'‐0"
opening
Door, steel 24 gauge, overhead, sectional, manual operation, 12'‐0" x 12'‐0"
opening
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 45 mils, mechanically fastened, batten
strps
Gutters, box, steel, galvanized, 28 ga thick, 5", enameled finish
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
LHB Project No. 170668 Page 1 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Fred's Gas Station - 349 Broadway West
0.06 96.92
12.87% 13.78 23,426.68
C1010 Partitions 5.11 8,689.32
1.75 2,975.41
3.36 5,713.91
C1020 Interior Doors 0.41 694.09
0.41 694.09
C1030 Fittings 0.93 1,580.86
0.93 1,580.86
C3010 Wall Finishes 5.52 9,389.74
4.13 7,021.41
0.77 1,316.24
0.62 1,052.09
C3020 Floor Finishes 1.37 2,322.42
1.12 1,903.58
0.25 418.84
C3030 Ceiling Finishes 0.44 750.25
0.44 750.25
34.03% 36.45 61,948.94
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures 3.25 5,518.20
1.11 1,880.48
0.23 396.46
0.58 984.94
0.58 990.29
0.42 720.38
0.32 545.65
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution 0.74 1,262.70
0.74 1,262.70
D3050 Terminal & Package Units 9.95 16,907.78
9.95 16,907.78
D4010 Sprinklers 4.73 8,048.34
4.73 8,048.34
D4020 Standpipes 1.04 1,765.19
0.95 1,614.95
0.09 150.24
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 4.43 7,527.89
1.76 2,987.80
0.84 1,421.94
1.83 3,118.15
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring 8.52 14,475.90
2.18 3,708.31
0.30 511.63
0.62 1,060.39
5.41 9,195.57
2 coats paint on masonry with block filler
Downspout, steel, rectangular, corrugated, 3" x 4", galvanized, 28 ga thick
C Interiors
Lightweight block 4" thick
Concrete block (CMU) partition, light weight, solid, 8" thick, no finish
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'‐
0" x 7'‐0" x 1‐3/8"
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, stainless steel
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, wheelchair type, 7.5 GPH
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, primer & 2 coats
Painting, masonry or concrete, latex, brushwork, addition for block filler
Concrete topping, hardeners, metallic additive, minimum
Vinyl, composition tile, minimum
Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" fiberglass board, 24" x 48" tile, tee grid, suspended
support
D Services
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, wall hung, PE on CI, 19" x 17"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Shower, stall, baked enamel, molded stone receptor, 30" square
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10
fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
Gas fired water heater, residential, 100< F rise, 30 gal tank, 32 GPH
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, factories, 10,000 SF, 33.33 ton
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, ordinary hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
floors
Overhead service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit &
wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 200 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 200 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 120/208
V, 3 phase, 400 A
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 4 per 1000 SF, .5 watts per SF
Miscellaneous power, 1 watt
Central air conditioning power, 3 watts
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
LHB Project No. 170668 Page 2 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Fred's Gas Station - 349 Broadway West
D5030 Communications and Security 3.69 6,275.58
2.15 3,651.92
1.31 2,222.95
0.24 400.71
D5090 Other Electrical Systems 0.10 167.36
0.10 167.36
0% 0 0
E1090 Other Equipment 0 0
0% 0 0
0% 0 0
100% $107.09 $182,037.04
10.00% $10.71 $18,203.70
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
0.00% $0.00 $0.00
$117.80 $200,240.74 Total Building Cost
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors,
includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
Internet wiring, 4 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline
operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 15 kW
E Equipment & Furnishings
F Special Construction
G Building Sitework
SubTotal
Contractor Fees (General Conditions,Overhead,Profit)
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
LHB Project No. 170668 Page 3 of 3
Replacement Cost Report
Fred's Gas Station - 349 Broadway West
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
Code Deficiency Cost Report
349 Broadway West, Monticello, MN 55362 - Parcel 155-010-050011
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Accessibility Items
Accessible Route
Create an accessible route to all areas within the building 1,500.00$ Lump 1 1,500.00$
Restroom
Install ADA code compliant restroom 3.86$ SF 1700 6,562.00$
Drinking Fountain
Install code required drinking fountain 0.32$ SF 1700 544.00$
Door Hardware
Install code compliant door hardware 250.00$ EA 4 1,000.00$
Install code required 10-inch kick plates on glass doors 200.00$ EA 1 200.00$
Structural Elements
-$
Exiting
Vinyl Flooring
Replace damaged vinyl flooring to create an unimpeded means
for emergency egress 0.25$ SF 1700 425.00$
Fire Protection
Smoke Detectors
Install code compliant smoke detectors 2.15$ SF 1700 3,655.00$
Emergency Lighting
Install code compliant emergency lighting 500.00$ Ea 3 1,500.00$
Emergency Notification System
Install code compliant emergency notification system 1.31$ SF 1700 2,227.00$
Building Sprinkler System
Install code required building sprinkler system 5.77$ SF 1700 9,809.00$
Hazardous Waste Collection
Install code required hazardous waste collection system 2,500.00$ Lump 1 2,500.00$
Exterior Construction
Windows
Replace windows to prevent water intrusion per code 2.70$ SF 1700 4,590.00$
Concrete Blocks
Repair/replace damaged concrete blocks to prevent water
intrusion per code 1.27$ SF 1700 2,159.00$
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
LHB Project No. 170688 Page 1 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Fred's Gas Station - 349 Broadway West
Code Related Cost Items Unit Cost Units
Unit
Quantity Total
Roof Construction
Roofing Material
Remove existing damaged roofing material 0.25$ SF 1700 425.00$
Replace damaged roofing material to prevent water intrusion per
code 2.17$ SF 1700 3,689.00$
Mechanical- Electrical
Mechanical
Install code compliant HVAC system 9.95$ SF 1700 16,915.00$
Electrical
Install code compliant interior lighting.5.41$ SF 1700 9,197.00$
Protect electrical circuit box per code 150.00$ Lump 1 150.00$
Protect garage door opener moving parts per code 150.00$ Lump 2 300.00$
Total Code Improvements 67,347$
Fred's Gas Station TIF Analysis
LHB Project No. 170688 Page 2 of 2
Code Deficiency Cost Report
Fred's Gas Station - 349 Broadway West
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 1 of 6
P1150752.JPG P1150753.JPG P1150754.JPG
P1150755.JPG P1150756.JPG P1150757.JPG
P1150758.JPG P1150759.JPG P1150760.JPG
P1150761.JPG P1150762.JPG P1150763.JPG
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 2 of 6
P1150764.JPG P1150765.JPG P1150766.JPG
P1150767.JPG P1150768.JPG P1150769.JPG
P1150770.JPG P1150771.JPG P1150772.JPG
P1150773.JPG P1150774.JPG P1150775.JPG
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 3 of 6
P1150776.JPG P1150777.JPG P1150778.JPG
P1150779.JPG P1150780.JPG P1150781.JPG
P1150782.JPG P1150783.JPG P1150784.JPG
P1150785.JPG P1150786.JPG P1150787.JPG
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 4 of 6
P1150788.JPG P1150789.JPG P1150790.JPG
P1150791.JPG P1150792.JPG P1150793.JPG
P1150794.JPG P1150795.JPG P1150796.JPG
P1150797.JPG P1150798.JPG P1150799.JPG
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 5 of 6
P1150800.JPG P1150801.JPG P1150802.JPG
P1150803.JPG P1150804.JPG P1150805.JPG
P1150806.JPG P1150807.JPG P1150808.JPG
P1150809.JPG P1150810.JPG P1150811.JPG
Fred’s Gas Station TIF Analysis
Photos: 349 Broadway West
Page 6 of 6
P1150812.JPG P1150813.JPG P1150814.JPG
P1150815.JPG P1150816.JPG P1150817.JPG
Wright County, MN
Developed by
The Schneider Corporation
Par cel ID 155010050011
Sec/T wp/Rng 11-121-025
Pr oper ty Address 349 BROADWAY W
MONTIC ELL O
Alternate ID n/a
Class 958 - MUNIC IPAL PUBL IC SERVIC E-OTHER
Acreag e n/a
Ow ner Addr ess C ITY OF MONTIC ELL O EDA
%A/P
505 WALNUT ST STE 1
MONTIC EL LO, MN 55362
Distr ict 1101 C ITY OF MONTIC ELL O 882 H
Br ief T ax Descr iption Sect-11 Twp-121 Rang e-025 ORIGINAL PLAT MONTIC EL L O L ot-001 Block-050 S1/2 OF LTS 1,2&3
(Note: Not to be used on leg a l documents)
Date created: 9/6/2017
Last Data Uploa ded: 9/6/2017 3:07:21 AM
105 ft
Overvi ew
Legend
Roads
C SAHC L
C TYC L
MUNIC L
PRIVATEC L
TWPC L
Highw ays
Intersta te
State Hwy
US Hwy
City/T ow nship Limits
c
t
Parcels
EDA: 11/08/17
1
4e. Consideration of Downtown Plan Marketing Flyers (JT)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This agenda item is to ask the EDA to consider approving the proposed downtown
marketing flyers to help market the development sites and opportunities in the core are of
the City and therein take an important step in implementing the Small Area Plan. Staff
sought three quotes and received the same number for this creative and design work. The
“opportunities flyers marketing pieces” are included as a work component in the 2017-18
Marketing Plan. The EDA approved the Plan at its September 13, 2017 meeting.
The three quotes are from:
Cuningham Group, Inc. $3,000
WSB & Associates, Inc. $3,250
Majirs, Inc. $ 720
A1. STAFF IMPACT: Staff impacts in considering the Marketing Plan work
components such as creating downtown opportunities marketing flyers has been
minimal. The primary work task has been to contact the three firms to provide them the
scope of work and timeline and ask for the quotes.
A2. BUDGET IMPACT: The budgetary impact for the proposed downtown
opportunities marketing flyers is approximately $3,250. The 2017-18 Marketing Plan
included $2,000 in the budget for the downtown effort. Exhibit D is attached showing
the Marketing Plan. Consistent with the previous statements made to the EDA, staff will
review any items that cost more than $1,000 with the EDA. This threshold is consistent
with the City Council policy for expenditures from the General Fund as well.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the preferred and most qualified quote for creating and
designing the downtown opportunities marketing flyers. In this case, staff believes
WSB & Associates is the most qualified and cost effective quote due to their
Community Development Department having a strong understanding of the
ultimate goals of the EDA and also due to their intimate and intuitive
understanding of the view of developers and their decision making process.
2. Motion to deny approval of WSB & Associates downtown opportunities
marketing flyers quote of $3,250.
3. Motion to table consideration of approval of the downtown marketing flyers quote
for further review and discussion.
4. Motion of other.
EDA: 11/08/17
2
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1. By approving WSB & Associates as the vendor for the
creation and design of the downtown opportunities marketing flyers, the EDA can be
assured of receiving a quality product that will carry a strong message to the audience of
developers. The message involves more than just the information about the downtown
sites that feature significant public ownership. It also involves highlighting information
regarding the City of Monticello’s many assets and the development opportunities that
exist in the community. WSB & Associates is positioned to understand this and
effectively utilize that knowledge in this effort.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
a. Cuningham Group, Inc. quote
b. WSB & Associates quote
c. Majirs, Inc. quote
d. Adopted 2017-18 Marketing Plan
Page 1 of 4
October 18, 2017
Jim Thares
City of Monticello
Department of Community development
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Subject: PROPOSAL AND AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Site Marketing for Downtown Monticello
Dear Angela:
Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. (Architect) presents to the City of Monticello (Client)
this Proposal and Agreement for professional services to assist you in the Walnut Street
Corridor Project (Project).
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
We understand that the City of Monticello is in the process of marketing several publicly
owned sites for redevelopment in accordance to the recently approved Small Area Plan. Part
of this process is attracting developers to invest in Downtown Monticello. The City needs
individual sheets or brochures that can be shared with potential developers for the purpose of
piquing their interest in Downtown Monticello in general, and three publicly owned sites in
particular.
APPROACH/SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on our conversations with you to date, we anticipate providing to you the following
scope of services:
Marketing sheets for the following sites
Block 52,
Block 34,
City owned property at Walnut and 3rd Street.
Three individual sheets / packets will contain the following:
Aspirational illustration of each site.
Aerial photograph identifying the site and context, including public and privately
owned properties
Market information from the Small Area Plan
Other relevant material necessary to assist a potential developer with due diligence,
such as proposed uses, surrounding features.
PROJECT TEAM
Andrew Dresdner, AICP
Jena Stanton
FEES
Page 2 of 4
Compensation for Basic Services as described herein shall be a stipulated sum of $3,000
SCHEDULE
Draft #1: Late October
Final Draft: Early November
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the above fees. They include all normal expenses
incurred by Architect for the benefit of the Project, including out-of-town travel (if any and if
authorized), mileage, long-distance telephone calls, messenger service, printing, etc. These
expenses will be billed at 1.15 times their direct cost to Architect.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Services you may request such as physical models, 3-D computer modeling, additional
drawings or any renderings, engineering or special consultants, or other special services not
specifically included in the above scope of services shall be invoiced at Architect’s current
hourly rates or at 1.15 times the direct cost of consultant’s charges to Architect. In addition,
any changes in the scope will also be billed at an hourly rate. Architect’s hourly rates will be
per Cuningham Group Hourly Rates, attached as Exhibit A. Additional Services will be
performed only upon your written authorization.
INVOICING
Billings will be issued at 30-day intervals. Payment is due and payable upon invoice receipt.
Interest of 1.0% per month will be due on the unpaid balance beginning 30 days after invoice
date. Client agrees to reimburse Architect for all costs of collection including attorney fees,
costs, and expenses.
USE OF SUPPLIED INFORMATION
Client agrees to provide and/or obtain all required licenses, including copyright license, to
allow Architect to reproduce, use and incorporate all Client-supplied Project-related drawing
or other information and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold Architect and its consultants
harmless from or against any and all claims arising out of or relating to Architect’s or its
consultants’ Project-related reproduction, use, or incorporation of such information.
Client will provide Architect with base map information that accurately indicates existing
conditions.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Except as otherwise modified herein, the terms and conditions of an unmodified AIA
Document B101, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, 2007 edition
[B727 "Special Services" or B101 "Standard Form" may also be used in appropriate circumstances]
(attached as Exhibit B), where Client acts as Owner for purposes of the Agreement, shall
apply to all services provided under this Proposal and Agreement. The Client and Architect
Page 3 of 4
agree that arbitration, as described in the attached AIA Document, shall be the selected
method of adjudicated dispute resolution.
Client shall furnish the services of a contractor or cost consultant that shall be responsible for
preparing all estimates of the Cost of the Work. If Client does not have such a consultant,
Architect can provide a list of qualified contractors or cost consultants for Client’s use. If the
Client’s budget at 50% completion of Design Development Phase Services or later is exceeded
by Client’s cost estimate or the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, and modifications
to the Design Development or Construction Documents are required to reduce the actual or
estimated Cost of the Work to comply with Client’s budget, Architect will provide such
modifications as an Additional Service, except to the extent Architect failed to incorporate
Client’s or Client’s cost estimator’s previously issued specific cost control directives.
Client agrees to provide to Architect utility bills or other utility usage data on an annual basis
for the [two to five, as appropriate] years following Substantial Completion. This information
would be used to understand the metered performance of the building compared against
industry benchmarks and for internal assessment of the design. The summary of associated
analysis will be shared with Client upon request. Architect expressly disclaims all express or
implied warranties and guarantees with respect to energy performance, and Client agrees to
release, hold harmless, and indemnify Architect from any liability or claims related to the
energy performance of the building.
Architect and its consultants will be using building information modeling for the sole purpose
of preparing and coordinating their Drawings, without an expectation that the model will be
relied upon by other Project participants. If Client, Client’s contractor or consultants, or other
parties as appropriate desire to use the model for any purpose, the Architect, Client, and other
appropriate parties will establish and agree to building information modeling protocols, which
shall address authorship and ownership, level of development, and authorized uses of the
model, processes for exchanging, sharing, and resolving changes to the model, and anticipated
authorized uses for facilities management or others, following completion of the Project.
Preparation of the protocols and operations and services provided thereunder shall be
Additional Services.
This Proposal and Agreement shall be subject to and enforced under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
With your signature below you are indicating your acceptance of the understandings, terms
and conditions of this Proposal and Agreement. This Proposal and Agreement may be
terminated by either party upon seven days’ written notice should either party fail to perform
substantially in accordance with its terms. Failure of Client to make payments to Architect
within 45 days of invoice date shall be considered substantial non-performance and cause for
suspension or termination of Architect’s services. If you instruct us to begin, or allow us to
continue, performing or providing Project services prior to returning a signed copy of this
Proposal and Agreement it will be understood that all of its terms, and the attached or
referenced exhibits, are acceptable and all parties will be bound by the terms of this Proposal
and Agreement.
If this Proposal and Agreement meets with your approval, please sign two copies and return
one copy for our records and we will begin the services.
Page 4 of 4
Thank you again for this opportunity to be of assistance. We look forward to helping you
achieve your goals for Walnut Street and Downtown Monticello.
Sincerely,
Approved By:
CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE, INC. [Replace With CLIENT COMPANY NAME]
[Replace With Signer's Name] [Replace With Client Name]
[Replace With Signer's Title, include lic. # in CA] [Replace With Client Title]
Date: Date:
[Replace With Upper Case Preparer's Initials]/[Replace With Reviewer's Upper Case initials]
:[Replace With Typist's Lower Case initials]
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Cuningham Group Hourly Rates
Exhibit B – AIA Document B101, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and
Architect, 2007 edition
List all attached exhibits
Attach Cuningham Group Hourly Rates on FishNet marked as
“Exhibit ‘A’”
For Exhibit “B” if B102, “Without Predefined Scope of Services” or
B151, “Abbreviated Standard Form” are used as an alternate to
B101, update the text for Exhibit “B”
NOTE: Exhibits are to be identified by letters that are sequential in
order of their reference in the text, e.g. “A” followed by “B”
followed by “C,” etc.
[double-click to remove this tip]
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
November 2, 2017
Jim Thares
Economic Development Manager
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Avenue, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 56069
Re: Marketing Flyer for the City of Monticello
Dear Mr. Thares:
Thank you for providing WSB & Associates the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide the
marketing pieces for the Monticello Downtown project. As we have discussed, the City would like to
create 3 marketing flyers for Block 52, Block 34 and a portion of the block at the corner of Walnut and
Third (City owned parking lot).
The marketing flyers would include a rendering of the proposed development in accordance with the
recently adopted downtown redevelopment plan. The marketing flyers would also include information
concerning Monticello’s level of involvement and demographic information concerning the sites. The City
would provide the graphics from the plan to allow for their incorporation into the marketing flyer. It is
anticipated that the graphic files will be in a format that allows for the information to be transferable for
creation of the rendering. Based upon the parameters listed above is anticipated that the cost of the
three market fliers would be $3,250.
Additionally, if fees for services outside of the above described scope are required they shall be
completed at an additional hourly rate. If you are in agreement with the proposed project scope and fee,
please sign below and return one copy to our office. If you have any questions or comments regarding
the above information, please contact me at (763) 762-2846.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates
Jim Gromberg
Economic Development Coordinator
Approval Signature
By: ______________________________
Title: _____________________________
Date: ____________________________
1
PO Box 681 • Monticello, MN 55362 • 763.295.4393 • www.majirs.com
Estimate for Downtown Marketing Pieces
(Block 52, Block 34 & Walnut and 3rd St.)
763-271-3254 • 11-2-17 • Attn: Jim Thares • Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us
Jim,
Thank you for giving MAJIRS! the opportunity to quote your project.
My creative service rate is $90/hour. Please note that if the project takes less time than
quoted below, we will charge accordingly.
Would you be open to discussing some different formats we might use instead of 8.5x11
flyers or 11x17 flyers?
Downtown Plan Marketing Pieces – full color, 2-sided
Creative Estimate per Flyer
8.5x11, 2 sided, full color: 4-6 hours $360 - $540
11x17, 2 sided, full color: 5-8 hours $450 - $720
Michele Hertwig, MAJIRS! Advertising & Design
*Please note: Creative Service prices reflect average design times. Projects may take a shorter or longer time to complete and will be billed
accordingly. Shipping and Sales Tax are additional.
Please circle Print option and Quantity you would like to order.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Client Signature
After signing, please fax this form to 763-295-8858 or email to: design@majirs.com
Work will begin upon receiving CLIENT’S signed approval of the Policy form and this written estimate
2
ESTIMATE VALID FOR 30 DAYS
TOTAL BUDGET
$22,000
INDUSTRIAL
Amount
Market Matching (separate budget line item)$9,000
Trade show attendance (see list from WSB)
Greater MSP Representation
State incentive program development and facilitation
List purchase: Site selectors, manufacturers, brokers, etc
Annual collateral piece update (wrap and sites), base files
Direct Mail $4,000
Brokers, site selectors, manufacturers
Times Partnership Piece
2018 Digital Update $250
Website
Direct URL buildingbusinessinmonticello to City site $100
Build City pages staff
Work with partners for links to site staff
Business Retention & Expansion
Industry of the Year $1,000
Visits staff
DOWNTOWN (COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL)
Marketing Collateral $2,000
Prep Design of general and site pieces, base files
Media Content
Articles and press release in MSP journals and magazines staff
HOUSING
2018 EDA MARKETING PLAN & BUDGET
Program Marketing Materials $1,000
Develop programs then promotional pieces
Website staff
Developer programs, post to website
Developer/Builder Breakfast $1,000
Focus on step-up builder/developers
GENERAL
Events $7,000
Invitations to larger community events, hosting
Broker events
Promotional Materials $2,000
Unique and recognizable items with quick-read piece
IDEAS: Compass, flash drive, post-its, etc. shove for "shovel-ready"
Other
Case by case evaluation $3,500
TOTAL $21,850
Total does not include Market Matching as it is separate budget item
EDA Agenda: 11/08/17
1
5. Economic Development Report (JT)
A. Small Area Study Implementation Process Update
A joint meeting of the City Council, EDA, Parks Commission and Planning Commission
will be held on November 16, 2017 from 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. to discuss and gain
understanding as to how each committee-commission will be involved in implementing
the Small Area Plan. The public realm improvements are under the authority of the public
bodies and it is important to engage the committee-commission members and further their
understanding in this process.
B. Fred’s (349 West Broadway Street)
Staff is still trying to determine the timeline for the possible removal of the building.
Discussions have been initiated with Mr. (Steve) Bauer, Hasting, MN, the prospective
building remover. When a general timeline for the project is determined, a performance
agreement governing each party’s role and responsibilities will be negotiated and
presented to the EDA for consideration.
C. Greater MSP 2017 Annual Meeting
The Greater MSP Annual Meeting will be held on November 13, 2017 in St. Paul. Staff is
planning on attending the meeting and will bring relevant information back to the EDA.
D. CEDS (Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy) Update
An update will be presented at the meeting.
E. Otter Creek Business Park Sign Update
Staff will provide additional information to the EDA at the regular meeting about the sign.
F. Industrial Land Survey and Results
The survey results are being reviewed and initial analysis is beginning. A report will be
compiled and presented to the EDA at a future meeting.
G. Prospects – See attached
A spread sheet with the active prospects is attached.