HRA Minutes 03-05-2003
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 5,2003 - 6:00 p.m.
505 Walnut Street - Bridg;e Room
Commissioners:
Chair Brad Barger. Vicc Chair Steve Andrews, Darrin Lahr. Dan Frie. Bill
Fair
and Council Liaison Rogcr Carlson
Staff:
Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Lori Kraemer.
1. Call to Order. Chair Brad Barger called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve thc Fcbruarv 5, 2003 HRA minutes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL FAIR TO APPROVE TI IE MINUTES OF THE
FEBRUARY 5, 2003 HRA MEETING. STEVE ANDREWS SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Considcration of adding or removin!2: items from the agenda.
HILL FAIR ASKED FOR CLARIFlCA TION OF TI IE DISPOSITION OF RA W
LANDS, ITEM 4B ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. KOROPCHAK ADVISED.
4.
Consent Agenda.
^- Consideration to authorize issuance of the Certificate of Completion for 501, 503.
and 505 Minnesota Street. RECOMMENDATION: AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE
OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR 501,503, AND 505
MINNESOTA STREET.
B. Consideration to call for a public hearing date for disposition of raw lands (Outlot
A, Country Club Manor.) RECOMMENDATION: CALL FOR A PUBLIC
I-TEARING DATE OF WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2003 FOR DISPOSITION OF
RA W LANDS KNOWN AS OUTLOT A, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL FAIR TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS WRITTEN. STEVE ANDREWS SECONDED 'ITIE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED.
5. Consideration to review Phase I and II design concepts for a nortion of Block 52.
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director, provided a brief summary of a previous meeting
with staff and Fred Katter and provided the members with a revised plan submitted by
Mr. Katter. Katter stated the plan submitted included a third phase consisting of more
under deck and deck parking, adding that they realize that parking will be a major issue
I-lRA M inutcs - 03/05/03
.
with this project. With under-grade parking proposed this would bring the total number
of parking spaces to 292, adding that for the 60,000 sq. ft. proposed in phase I and II, at
3.5 stalls per thousand, the required number by ordinance would be 195. KaUer advised
that they figured 1.5 cars per dwelling unit which leaves approx. 50 spaces on Walnut
Street for uses by other properties. Steve Andrews asked if the 1.5 spaces would be
dedicated to residential and KaUer advised that there would be 33 spaces underground
dedicated exclusively for the dwellers of the building. He also advised that the parking
could be accessed by stairways up and down on the River Street side. Katter further
advised that their preliminary thought would bc senior housing or for sale housing, with
about 70% two bedrooms, 1100 sq. ft., and the balance slightly over 800 sq. ft. They
propose approx. 33 housing units and are not considering rental at this time.
Katter also stated there is an elevation issue to deal with on the River Street side. Their
proposed plan will work with current utilities and they have not done a housing survcy at
this time, but asked if the City would be interested in them providing an analysis on
affordable housing, questioning if some units should be built at specs allowing people to
buy at lower costs. Lahr notcd they had done a housing study through the County not too
long ago and they did not feci they needed to have another study.
.
Katter provided estimated development costs for the thrce phases as welL advising that
project costs arc up to about the $12 million dollar range, which is double the initial
projected cost of the project. He added that deek parking would require additional money
from the I IRA, and they would also prefer to negotiate the contract for private
redevelopmcnt. Bargcr asked about investors and Katter noted that Heaton has shown an
interest in selling his property, and they are looking at Steve Johnson and one other
partner who would also partner in the rctail/office portion, as well as the residential.
Koropchak asked if they had approached other property owners and Katter stated they
preferred to wait until after they met with the HRA.
Steve Johnson advised that Heaton is contemplating options such as becoming a partner
or selling his property. Andrews added that he appreciated seeing that they had taken the
HRA's comments from the previous meeting and worked with them to make the project
consistent with the downtown redevclopment plan. Katter stated they would now need to
negotiate with investors and see what numbers they come up with. Koropchak added that
staff felt good about the project. still working on traffic circulation, but at the first
mceting they were pleased with the concept plan. Bill Fair asked about till1e table with
adding the third phase and Kauer stated it should be the same as with Phase 1 and 2,
stating that phases 2 and 3 would be concurrent.
.
Koropchak asked Kattcr to advise who would be part of their team and he stated Wilkus
Architects, Radar Engineer. McGoff Builders, and advised that the partner in Phase 3 is a
large housing builder with smaller capability in office and retail. He will also provide
photos at a later date of the work done by these builders and architects. Koropchak added
that she had cautioned Katter to keep conversations/communications open with the
current owners downtown. Roger Carlson added that this was a concept that the City had
2
.
.
.
liRA Minutes - 03/05/03
been looking at and agrees with addressing the parking.
fair fclt this project fit with the downtown concept and wouldn't want to see the City
stand in the way of this development, adding that he feels it will be challenging and could
be a catalyst for other potential projects. frie felt the project fits with the intent of the
North Anchor. Lahr agreed and added that he is interested in the costs, but also likes the
deck parking. Andrews was happy with the changes made to the plan and likes the idea.
I3arger added that he was happy to see that they are proposing the project as a whole.
Katter felt that the HRA was t~lVorablc and that they eould move forward. Barger added
most importantly they need to talk to the property owners and negotiate, and they all
agreed. Johnson added that they took into consideration what the HRA had directed them
to do as hu as deck parking and enlarging the project. He added that he felt that
Sawatzke would be able to do his project as well and that also there is the possibility of
adding deck parking on Walnut Street down to the River, which would help Sawatzke as
well.
Sawatzke stated he was disappointed with the proposaL just as he was several years ago
when Cyr proposed his project at this site, and felt that the parking should be kept public
and not private. Again he stated he felt that the project would obstruct the views of the
River. He is concerned that they are stepping backward. He felt that underground
parking would not be desirable, people would park in the upper levels and then in his
current spots before going below. Kalter added that he felt Sawatzke had good points on
the parking. lie felt there was a solution to his parking concern such as valet parking
services for the underground or deck parking, they are open to solutions. Fair added that
with redevelopment there is limited space and he would like to get the density downtown,
stating they need to take advantage of opportunities that are proposed.
Kjellberg asked about liability with underground parking and they stated it would be up
to the property owners and developers, as well as their insurance companies. Kalter
stated that they have to build to the me standard which is more stringent. Kalter added
that he had not taken the time to count the spaces on the public lot. This proposal adds
about 100+ additional spaces. I3arger asked about current market value and Koropchak
advised that the total block was $1,075,000. Sawatzke commented on the assessor's
values, noting that the value would be about Yz of what the costs might be. Andrews
noted that they would have an assessment agreement. There was no further discussion.
'The consensus ofthe commissioners was to move forward with the Phase I, II and III
concept design for Block 52.
6.
Consideration to hear financial feasibility analvsis for redevclopment of a portion of
Block 51.
Pat Sawatzke stated he had talked to Koropchak about a month ago regarding his project,
noting a recent setback and that he was not as far along as he had hoped to be at this time.
..,
-,
HR^ Minutes - 03/05/03
.
He provided information regarding contractors and builders he would be working with.
He added that this would include approx. 8000 sq. ft. on each level, on two properties,
one he is current owner of, the other he is not. lIe provided current market values and
taxes. He stated this would be an L-shaped building with fronts on Walnut and River
Street, and the main tloor would be commercial and retail, the second and third noors
residential and would be rental units. He also provided development costs stating
construction estimated at $3,240,000, noting that this would be a premium building,
brick or stone, steel rooC and extensive streetscaping. Costs of land acquisitions and soft
costs are estimates, adding that he felt there was room to come down from the estimated
cost and that he was conservative on revenues at this time. He had not yet considered
TIF, noting that the largest cost would be building costs. He stated he wanted to see what
interest the liRA had in this project to see if he should proceed.
Harger advised Sawatzkc on debt service and commercial lenders. Sawatzke added that
his performa was for the project without TIF, and perhaps wouldn't have to have that
high of a mOligage. Relocation is for his current business as he would necd to find
temporary space bcfl:He going into new facility. Sawatzke added that he would like to
meet with Koropchak within the next sevcral weeks.
.
Sawatzke noted there arc 3 structures currently on the property. Koropchak stated that
she would need to work with him on numbers and advised that one of the parcels is
outside TIF District No. 1-22. She advised that thcrc are older districts that they have the
option to take money from, creating a new district, and felt it could be worked out if the
HRA was interested in working with both projects. If all property owners arc willing to
work together, the HRA could make it work.
Barger stated that they have a concern with developers including their own land that they
are in possession of as an acquisition cost. Koropchak advised that it would be allocation
for eligible costs that they would look at f()f the levcl of assistance and would abide by
their policy. Koropchak suggested that they meet with Steve Bubul. Sawatzke asked
how that would be any diffcrent if someone who did not own the property could gct the
advantage of the land cost, felt it wasn't fair.
.
Keith Kjellberg stated his views have not changed, the parking lot was public and should
stay public. They should consider the parking lot for the Park. He also stated he was not
in favor of the 3-story building blocking the view of the River. Fair added that this
proposal is actually adding parking, not taking away public parking. Andrews added that
this is good business as it adds tax revenues. He also added that the only thing that has a
view of the river at this time is the backs of the buildings. Lahr stated that redevelopment
downtown has already been establ ished and he rei t that if the two properties could work
together to make it work, it would be beneficial. Sawatzke added that he is in favor as
well, but not with Johnson's 3,,1 phase as he feels it cuts the view line of his project. He
also does not reel the underground parking is desirable. Fair added that at this time it
needs to go to statT and see if it works f<Jr them. The HRA' s consensus was in f~lVor of
Sawatzke's project and he should move forward. Koropchak added that there are ways of
4
.
.
.
1-1RA Minutes - 03/05/03
working the TIF, but it does affect time frame. Fair recommended that Sawatzke sit
down with staff and come back with a timctable to make it workable and at that time the
lIRA would know the deadlines, ctc. Koropchak will run numhers and talk with the
liRA Attorncy and see what is the best way to procecd.
7.
Consideration to hear an update for redcvelopment of Block 36, Phase II.
Koropchak noted she heard from Brad Johnson and they had approached some of the
property owners, advising that they will definitely be back to thc HRA but that they arc
not far enough along at this time. Koropchak advised of relocation and had providcd that
information to one of the property owners as well. She addcd that shc informcd that
property owncr that the City was not looking at purchasing any of those properties.
Koropchak stated she will be contacting Katter with a potential lead fIX the Springborg
relocation as well. She advised that the HRA needed to makc a decision on
condemnation if thcy were intcrested in moving forward on this project. Thcy discussed
the time frame as well again and that it was June/July of2004. They discussed their
willingness to proceed with condemnation if need be. They wcre unanimous in that they
would do what thcy need to do to make the project move forward.
Steve Andrews was cxcused at 7:30 p.m.
8.
Considcration to authorize liRA legal firm to draft a Legislative bill to extend the fivc-
year rulc for TIF District No. 1-22.
Koropchak stated that Steve Bubul had advised her that thcy might want to look at
extcnding the five year rule for thc downtown district. The advantagc would bc that they
could provide pay as you go, the disadvantage would be utilizing up-front financing and
kecp projects moving forward. Currently the HRA has to reimburse the developers by
July 2004. Granting an extcnsion would allow the HRA to extend pay as you go method
anothcr five years. The lIRA would need to demonstrate planned redcvelopmcnt projects
beyond those pending.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DARRIN LAHR TO DENY EXTENDING TilE FIVE-
YEAR RULE FOR TIF DIST. NO. 1-22. DAN FRIE SECONDED TIlE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 1 WITH HILL FAIR VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
9.
Consideration to revicw the 2003 proiectshwals suhmittcd hv the commissioners ofthc
HRA for ranking and submission to the City Council.
Koropchak summarized thc outcomc of the goals submitted by cach mcmher. Shc noted
that the downtown parking was the highcst priority hy 4 out of 5. They did discuss that
they wcre not sure that parking was an issuc for the I IRA or that they necessarily had a
prohlenl with downtown parking. Barger addcd that maybe thc City nccds to re-Iook at
their parking requirements. Fair added that he would like to see inf(mnation on parking
5
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 03/05/03
and have that available for them when developers approach the HRA.
Koropchak summarized the priorities submitted by the members as follows:
I. Block 52
2. Secure industrial land.
3. City Council continue to monitor/review parking requirements.
4. Proceed with redevelopment of Block 51 and 36.
The BRA directed Koropchak to summarize the information and submit it to the City
Council. She asked if they were still interested in some type of scattered housing
program. They felt they would wait on this.
10. Consideration to authorize payment of liRA bills.
There were no bills 1()f February.
II. Bill Fair and the other HRA members congratulated Koropchak on hcr recent
achievement which was acknowledged at the Women of Today banquet. They also
discussed putting together information on projects completed by the HRA as part of their
marketing information.
12.
Consideration of Executive Director's Rcport.
Koropchak provided the report and added that she had lunch with Don Tomman, UMC,
and noted that they are very pleased to be locating in Monticello, their targct completion
datc is July.
13. Committce Reports. None.
Koropchak asked if they felt she should include some small trinket in the bags for the
Chamber golf outing. They did not feel that was necessary.
14. Other Business. None
15. Adiournment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL FAIR TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:50
P.M. DARRIN LAHR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
~~~
;t~A-
Recorder
6