IDC Agenda 10-17-1985
.
AGEN A
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL D VELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Thursday, Octoberi 17, 7: 00 A.M.
Monticello ity Hall
Members:
i
Co-Chairman Jay Morrell,l Co-Chairman Gary Wieber,
John Bondhus, Tom Eidem,l Bruce Gagnelius,Arve Grimsmo,
Ron Hoglund, Shelly John on, Harvey Kendall, Dale
Lungwitz, Bud Schrupp, D n Smith, and Olive Koropchak.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of September 12, 1985 Minutes.
3. Evaluation of Appreciation Day, i September 4, 1985.
4. Update of Industrial Developme t Activities and Proposals.
5. Reviewal of the VCR, "Monticel 0: A century Old City
With a Nuclear Age View."
6. Update of Vacant Buildings in he Industrial Parks, and
Within the City.
.
7. Reviewal of Developers survey.
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
.
.
.
.
MINU
INDUSTRIAL DEVELO
Thursday, September 1
Monticello
Members Present: Bud SChrupp,
Ron Hoglund,
Members Absent: Shelly Johnson,
Gary Wieber.
7:00 a.m.
Grimsmo, Dale Lungwitz,
ld Smith, Tom Eidem.
arvey Kendall, Jay Morrell,
The meeting convened by consensus f members, there being
no presiding officer present. It as agreed that an informal
discussion should be held to evalu' te the need for filling
the vacancy created by the exit of, Allen Pelvit. Schrupp
noted that at the most recent meet ng of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, a motion was dUly adopt d that encouraged the replacement
of Mr. Pelvit in a shared fashion ith the City and the Industrial
Development Committee as had been rranged for the past two
years. Mr. Grimsmo noted that he ad talked to Mr. Kirscht
to gage his interest, and was info med that Mr. Kirscht had
made a two year committment to the United Way in the Metropolitan
area, and hence would be unable to devote such kind of time.
Grimsmo noted that Mr. Kirscht ind cated that he would be
more than willing to assist the co ittee in their business
development efforts. Lungwitz ask d Eidem if there would
be a City Hall staff need that wou d have to be filled, regardless
of whether or not the committee hi ed an individual to fulfill
this role. Eidem responded that h thought that the economic development
activity had increased substantial y as a result of Allen's
efforts, and that added staff woul be essential to maintaining
the level of service that was bein provided. He agreed that
if a shared individual were again ired, the job description
and dedication of time and hours w uld have to be redefined
so as to allow more prospecting an a little less office hour
time. Eidem did stress that he co sidered it important that
the individual who was out "prospe ting" was also able to
take a prospect through the prelim'nary phases of packaging
a deal. Eidem stated that he thou ht that would be more effective
than an individual who exclusively called on potential businesses
and then turned them over to some ther City staff. Eidem
noted that he had received informa ion on some local individuals
who seem to be extremely qualified for this kind of a position.
Mr. Smith felt that it would be beneficial to have a local
person fill this role, and who also could organize time and
effort such that less time was spen in the office without
compromising service and more time d voted to prospecting.
All members present were in general agreement that we should
pursue a full-time person to replac Allen Pelvit, but perhaps
the scope of the duties would need 0 be redefined to some
degree. Eidem indicated that befor the search began he would
like to take it to the City Council to receive their confirmation
of retaining this position.
-1-
/ _on.
IDC Minutes - 9/12/85
Grimsmo added that since the posit'on was already approved,
he felt it would be more benefici~ to simply report to the
City Council at the next regular C uncil meeting that the
HRA and the Committee were in agreement on the issue of retaining
the position and that the search f r a candidate had begun.
Grimsmo noted that he would rathe~ approach the issue on a
positive note indicating that we ere taking action rather
than delay the matter for it to b debated further. Eidem
agreed that that was the best way 0 go and indicated he would
begin review of acceptable local ndidates. A motion by
Lungwitz, seconded by Schrupp and arried unanimously to direct
Eidem to do a preliminary with li ely local candidates for
the position of Economic Developm t Director, and further,
to authorize the chair, or Don Sm"th or Shelly Johnson to
represent the Committee with the q air of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and the Ma or of the City in conducting
final interviews and arriving at a recommendation for final
hiring.
.
In a second item of business Grim 0 raised a question with
respect to the effectiveness of t e recent Industrial Appreciation
Day. All members present concurre that the intended effect
of Appreciation Day did not seem to be accomplished. It was
fully agreed that the value of Ap reciation Day needed to
come under close scrutiny, and pehaps a new method of indicating
industry appreciation could be cr ated.
.
There being no further business t
;-;;tC:J
~. (,((LN---T :;' NL----
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
.
was adjouned.
IDC Agenda - 10/17/85
.
3. Eva~uation of Appreciation Day, Se tember 4, 1985. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Annual Business Appreciation 0 y was held September 4, 1985,
at the Montice~~o Country C~ub wit. fifty individuals registered
in the Guest book, of this, approx'mately twenty individua~s
were Industrial Deve~opment Banque Contributors or new deve~opers.
Golf participation was an increase from previous years. Dinner
was served at 6:30 p.m. by Caro~ls Catering. Is Appreciation
Day meeting it's objective? The ojective being an expressed
appreciation by the Industrial Devlopment Committee to Industrial
Devleopment Banquet Contributors ad new developers.
There are no alternative actions 0 staff recommendations
presented for this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit I, which will be presented at the meeting.
.
.
.
.
~J
-.)
~
rD
~J ,~.J.. Q ~
l ~ ',~ "j..... "-.s> Nl
'- \
: . ~. -....:.. n..,;, ~ '~
.~ '0 \ '-l~ Ii- rJ) K
__ \\ QC'~~
.~ I.:; \ l'C\ 0-.. Nl
t ~. r ~
~ I l
\l ~~~
~
"
~
~'
, ~ '7-
~...,...
c- _n
) _\0~~-
J, ........ - -- -.c. a.. -Sl
,~~ ~ ....J \)U LT:\
:)," ~(..,\O
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ %. ~
(/
~ ~
~ l
\'
~ t
~
~ t)
~
~
<--\
:J
.
.
}J y ~'j.J ~
'" '/-' v "t' <f' ?' Y " .." ~ >' y ,,~ J-''''' ~ ~ -
"" 0 "" .s> '" '" ...,. ,,'" "" ~ "}' 'Y '" ~ - ---J>
a" \,J d ,,,,,,,, - (' -...0 (]'. l' -(... )
'" ,....." -\-t.'.>-' r
~ ~tt
i
r ~
E.'5-
~
~ w
o ~
~ \
\? ~
: t~~~~~~tt ~~'
"
-..
~~
-R. Cs.
,
~ Q
L
~ ~'~ ~ \)j ~ -- - :P
t?- c(, '('_ ;v q ~ ~ "1: ~ 6"- '1 ~ --t:. ~ - ~ "-
0-i -..0 0..,,\) ~ 'c; " " ~} ~ ~ -f: ~ f 0 ~ W -J.....j
""' 'V) c. (... t ~\)J (l ~\}.>~ 0' <L~? 0.
'i\ e:! I ~ 6. ' \..j ..::... ,"\ "
C-~W~d.
IDC Agenda - 10/17/85
.
4. U ate of Industria~ Deve~opemnt A tivities and Proposa~s. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
1 .
Raindance partnership - Deve~o
a 33,000 square foot bui~ding
for ~ease to a super market an
feet for specu~ation. The HRA
for the Tax Increment Finance
the City Counci~ to set a pub~
Meeting - October 15, 1985.)
2. IXI - expansion current~y on
3.
Key Too~ P~astics, Inc. -
4.
Northern Insu~ation - unab~e t
current~y non-active.
5.
Snare P~umbing - ~ight to medi
heating firm, possib~e spring
ment of City B~ock 15 for
ith 25,000 square feet
the remaining 8,000 square
approved th reso~ution
TIF) Proposa~ and requested
c hearing. (City Counci~
non-active.
reach the conact person -
commercia~ p~umbing and
onstruction.
6. Wayne LaBeaue - refurbishes bu es - current~y has property
in Montice~~o and Map~e Lake. Unsure of p~an at this
time.
.
7. Nationa~ Bushing - Specu~ating to re~ocate a~ong Highway 25.
New construction or existing s ructures.
8.
Minnesota Farm Bureau - presen
in Woodbury is for sa~e (c~ose
so~d, may bui~d on their remai
however, wi~~ keep in contact
NEW PROSPECTS:
~y their office bui~ding
~isting). If bui~ding
ing property at Woodbury,
ith Montice~~o.
1. American Converters of Minneap ~is - emp~oyees 45, processor
of styrofoam, looking for 40,0 0 square foot building -
a pre~iminary Tax Increment Fi ance Proposa~ mailed.
2. Ehr~ichmann Energy Corporation - Alexander, MN - heavy
industry to manufacture 40 ton incinerators. 50,000 square
foot building - 50-60 employee .
3. Floyd Markling - Po~y-flex, In. Walworth, WI - processor
of 55 gallon plastic durms - 3 ,ODD square foot building -
30 employees.
4. Al Berklund - Buffalo - an e~e tronic firm, 6-10,000 square
foot building - 10-50 employee.
.
.
5.
David Wondra - Frederic, WI -
industrial garments - 15-20
IDC Agneda - 10/17/85
anufactures medical and
loyees.
foot eXisting
6.
St. Cloud firm looking for
building for headquarters.
teve Luck (Min/OOT) to
e the concept of Monticello
a joint arrangement for
l/hard surface runway.
nt out and upon their report
Is for discussion.
No alternative actions, staff reco endations or supporting
data at this time.
.
.
7.
Municipal Airport - contacted .
have Min/OO'!' preliminary appro.
and other communities to enter
a municipal airport and extern
Surveyors from Brainerd were s.
will contact Monticello officii
.
.
.
IDC Agenda - 10/17/85
5.
Reviewal of the VCR, "Monticello: I A Century Old City With
a Nuclear Age View." (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The VCR, "Monticello: A Century 0 d City With a Nuclear Age
View" was updated in early 1985. resently, two areas are
of concern:
1. Video of intersection 1-94 and Highway 25. The driver's
head motions in the automobile may indicate congestion
at this intersection.
2. Audio - quote "a recently expa ded sewage treatment plant
which will accomm<Wte expansi n into the 1990's." Correction
should be year 21e0.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Take no action, and and leave CR as is.
2. Correct concern 1. To edit a CR, River City Video charges
$95.00 per hour. According to Tim Perkins he could
insert a new image for $95.00.
3. Correct concern 2.
Option 1. Correct audio by dr
out the said statem
generation (leaving
$95.00.
Option 2: Correct audio be ed"ting (insert of a new statement)
for $200-300.00. T would require 2-3 hours
of work. Tim does recommend using Dave
Moore, as this beco very expensive.
These are only estimated
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No recommendations at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
VCR
.
.
.
IDC Agenda - 10/17/85
6. Update of Vacant Bui~dings in the I dustria~ Parks, and Within
the City. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
i
Best-In-Webb Building - Oakwood Ind
square foot building asking price #
for sale by Towle Real Estate compa:
Owner prefers to sale over lease.
Clow Stamping Building-Oakwood Indu'
foot bui~ding, asking price $650,001
lease over sale. Everett Clow curr'
agreement between Clow Stamping, ST
Old Ford Garage
in relocating.
Centra Sota Building-South Linn St
by Jack Maxwell of Maxwe~~ Rea~ty.
No alternative actions, staff reco
data at this time.
strial Parks - 21,000
95,000.00. Current~y
y, Steve Larson, 341-4444.
o prospects at this time.
tria~ Park, 30,000 square
.00. Owner prefers to
ntly working on a lease
and Pyro Industries.
Harry's Auto interested
Currently for sale
endations or supporting
.
.
.
7. Reviewal of Develo ers survey.
(O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
IDC Agenda - 10/15/85
The Research and Planning Sub-committee prepared a questionaire
which concentrated on the developm~ t process of Monticello.
A total of 30 surveys were sent wi h 26 completed. the results
were tabulated by Allen Pelvit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. No action necessary - for info mational purposes only.
2. No action. but a general discu sion of the results can
take place.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
None
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit I and Exhibit II.
.
.
.
1 .
Exhibit.!
When contacting the City of Monticello wi,
please rate the following: 1) Cooperatio ;
regard to your development plans I
and 2) Helpfulness.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Bad
Mayor
City
City
ci1
nistrator
Inspector
t Administrator
of Economic Development
orks Director
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Please add additional comments explaining the above:
2.
Please rate the quality of info~tion yo
areas:
received concerning the fOllowing
Excellent . Cood - Fair Bad
zoning Regulations
es/covenants
s that co~d be applied for.
process to achieve variances.
ter/Utility Availability
What, if any, were your reasons for not d veloping in Monticello?
..1..
3.
P~ea8e rate the !o~~owin9:
Exce~~ent
Good
Pair
Bad
.
The entire development process.
The amount of time needed to get from
Bui~din9 Permit to Certificate of
occupancy.
Comments:
4. P~ease rate the following:
Exce~lent
Good
Fair
Bad
Banking (local)
Sub-contractor. (local)
ath.r :
Comments:
.
5. Please list any comments you feel would benefit the City ot Monticello in
attracting business.
6. Did you contact or receive help from the Industrial Development Committee
and/or the Director of Economic Development?
7. Wou.ld yea conaidu deve1opln9 1ft ~ Ci~ of JIonU~llo A9ain? (WIly or lIhy Not)
. '
, .'
",' to"
. '.'il
.. :~:~Jt-. . ..
"" '" ~ ',' 'I'
..... ;
: h, .': t~,.~~~:
.
" ..
.\ '..
.' ~ ;~~ ~~,it;,.
'", ,",",
;'"."
. ~ ,-t.
,';. ~> '.",...' .,;"i".:I~';~<'"
,""J' ~ >>.,~~ltI "'~~'i'1"1~ ~j:n~'
.' t t ~"'::~::.-
r '","
.~ ::,.~(;,j~'t>.::"
.."....
': .;..#(:\
~., ". '. > ,"' '..
: ;('~~;Hr;''''~~<0:''' ;?;.~;\:;.~~.
-2-
. "
'"
EXHIBIT
. 1 . Exce~~ent Good Fair
8 7 2
4 9
6 10 2
12 7 5
3 4 4
8 8 2
7 6 5
3 2 2
Comments:
1. Building Inspector was extreme
the entire process.
2. Building Inspector was more th
3. The Water and Street Departmen
..
5. Considering the complexity of
and the time constraints and i
for the HUD UDAG, we are very
helpfulness the above individu
6. Paving not installed yet. We
use TIF but could not get it.
7. Community accepted us very wel
8. Everything went good.
9. Overall, good.
12. Very easy to work with on the
13. Very good experience now. It
when I first moved to Monticel
20. Too high of costs for engineer
25. Did not have any major grievan
26. Was treated well by all.
.
ad
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1\ hel
Ol ough
t was
IF B's
n orma
p ease
a s co
dOd re
1.
Fe I pr
We snit
lc: .
irg fi
CE s.
-
.... ..
II
-1
N/A
7 Mayor
9 City Council
6 City Administrator
o Building Inspector
13 Assistant Administrator
6 Director of Economic
Development
6 Public Works Director
1 7 HRA
pful and cooperative throughout
than in the past inspections.
very helpful.
with pending federal legislation
tion requirements to apply
d with the cooperation and
nsistantly demonstrated.
ceive a variance. Tried to
oject. Very helpful.
that cohesive 9 years ago
rms. Too many delays.
2. ExceU.ent
Good
Fair
Bad
N/A
.
8
11
5
o
o
Existing Zoning
Regulations
Ordinances/Covenants
Variances that could
be applied for
3
4
10
8
6
8
o
o
5
4
3
8
6
6
Correct process to
achieve variances
9
11
2
o
2
sewer/Water/utility
Availability
Comments:
2. Too many ordinances - we could apply for them, but it's not worth
the time. Many unnecessary steps in the variance process. The
City was helpful in trying to get us hooked up to City sewer,
even though it was not originally available.-
7. We would have opened early, but a large electrical panel was on
back order.
9. Did not pursue our last proposal because it lacked sound business
sense. This was independent of the motel.
.
16. Tom Grue stated that they are concerned about the low water pressure
and their sprinkling problems, mainly low pressure. This then
results in $.50-$.75/sq. ft. additional cost in the sprinkler
systems to meet code.
20. Small job - It was a disadvantage to expand/relocate. We could
get by with our existing building that is debt free, etc., and
not increase our expenses.
21. Planning Commission and Council take staff's word. Why waste
time and money when staff could make the decisions on planning
and zoning? It is difficult on the developer. Suggestion: If
the reasons are logical, fine; but just because the Ordinance
states a fact does not mean it can't be changed. They should
be more open minded.
26. Public Works Director and crew were very helpful in getting sewer
and water hook ups.
.
-2-
. 3. ExceU.ent Good Fair ad N/A
10 10 3 0 The entire development
process
8 10 4 0 2 The amount of time needed
to get from Building
Permit to Certificate
of Occupancy
Comments:
1. There were absOlutely no delays hatsoever.
icello's process. City staff
paperwork.
12. Things go rather smoothly in
really was beneficial in the
21. PUD was foreign to us - Left
demands.
our mouth - Too many
26. The project was on schedule.
.
.
-3-
4. Excellent Good Fair Bad N/A .
10 8 0 5 Banking (local)
13 8 0 2 Sub-contractors (local)
3 0 19 Other:
Comments:
3. State electrical inspector demanded and moved some switches.
We did not like it but could not fight it.
6. Did most of the work themselves.
7. Job services office does great job with getting us testing and
training employees.
12. Did not have many subs, but those we used were good to work with.
14. Good relationship with local banks and subcontractors.
16. The phone system is only concern - not part of metro - more costs.
17. Other - Sewer requirements cost a lot to get it done. They feel
the WWTP is outdated.
.
20. Did general/subcontracting themselves.
.
-4-
.
.
.
5. Please list any comments you feel w uld benefit the City of Monticello
in attracting business.
1. Advertise your cooperative appr
many cities that could learn fr
developers. There are
example.
2. The high building permit fees w ich are based on cost of the building
are really a tax on business th t is used to pay for inspections
on smaller structures or for ci y revenue.
3. DOing a fine job.
5. Continue to foster a good worki g relationship between the City
and our local banks to expedite sound financial packages.
6. No comment.
7. Could not think of anything we ren't already doing.
8. Good job.
9. Make it brief, easy to get alon with. Financing, IRE's, etc.,
yet conscientious about not abusing IRE's.
12. Doing a good job.
13. We have a good system; go get 'e .
17.
Continued cooperation -
such as in a brochure.
together.
.maybe m re advertising of City overall
When you want to work on it, let's get
21. More give-aways (tax increment f"nancing, etc.), less red tape
in developing land/site.
23.
Be more open minded and help wit
the side just because you think
business. Do not push it to
hey are rich.
25. Doing a good job.
26. Keep up with the public contact.
-5-
6. Did you contact or receive help from the Industrial Development Committee
and/or the Director of Economic Development?
.
1. No, it wasn't necessary.
3. No.
4. He provides our staff with valuable information when we request
it.
5. Allen Pelvit provided a competent link between PSI and the Department
of HUD. He kept the project and associated paperwork moving so
that time tables were maintained.
6. Contacted Allen, but his hands were tied. Minnesota laws prevented
the HRA from letting us use TIP although Allen was helpful in
explaining alternative types of financing. Maybe in the future.
7. Indirectly, he provided valuable demographic information.
8. No.
9.
Yes. He was helpful in getting the information needed.
not follow through on the project because we felt it was
good business decision.
We did
not a
10.
No.
.
11. No.
12. Yes. Allen Pelvlt was extremely helpful in this project. Rick
Wolfsteller was cooperative as well.
14. Yes, certainly. He's always trying to get us to build in Monticello.
15. Yes.
16. Yes.
17. No.
20. No.
21. Yes. Al was extremely helpful with everything I requested.
22. No.
23. Yes. They were helpful. Allen Pelvit tried hard to help with details.
24. No.
25. No. .
26. Yes. Although it was only informational, it was helpful.
-6-
.
.
.
7. Would you consider developing in
or Why Not)
City of MonticellO again? (Why
above mentioned cooperative
We were able to hire
1.
Absolutely. The quality of the people, the
approach and the attitude of th community.
excellent employees. I
2. Yes. We live here.
3. Yes. Another building is being, considered at this time. construction
during summer of 1985.
5. Yes. Tom Eidem and his staff g t the job done.
6. Yes.
7. Yes. Very nice, friendly ci ty . Good for business.
8. Yes. I've lived here for 7 yea sand would like to stay in Monticello.
9. Same as #5. And there was a ma ket need.
10. Yes. But such factors as state tax situation might have negative
affect.
11. Yes.
12. Definitely.
13. Definitely. Forward looking co unity - open to ideas, supportive
and helpful in ail areas.
14. Yes. Good progressive city.
15. Yes. Monticello is a great ci y and also a company can grow with
MonticellO's growth.
16. Yes.
17. Yes. Good people to work with Good help to NSP Plant.
20. Yes. If the location is good nd cost is not too high.
21. Yes. I am still proceeding wi h the Health Club.
22. Yes. It's home.
23. That's evident in the business s I have in town.
24. possibly future expansion.
25. Yes. Monticello is a good set ing for business.
26. Yes. We feel great about the ity. We built the building large
enough in order to expand in t e future.