Loading...
HRA Agenda 03-05-2003 . AGENDA MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AlJTHORlTY Wednesday, March 5,2003 - 6:00 p.m. 505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room Comm issioncrs: Chair Brad Barger, Vice Chair Steve Andrews, Darrin Lahr, Dan Frie, and Bill Fair. Council Liaison: Roger Carlson. Staff: Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Lori Kraemer. I. Call to Order. 2. Consideration to approve the February 5, 2003 HRA minutes. 3. Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda. 4. Consent ^genda. A. Consideration to 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.) 5. . 6. 7. 8. Consideration to review Phase I and" design concepts for a portion of Rlock 52. Consideration to hear financial feasibility analysis for redevelopment of a portion of Rlock 51. Consideration to hear an update for redevelopment of Block 36, Phase". Consideration to authorize HRA legal firm to draft a Legislative bill to extend the five-year rule for TIF District No. 1-22. 9. Consideration to review the 2003 projects/goals submitted by the commissioners of the I IRA for ranking and submission to the City Council. 10. Consideration to authorize payment of HRA bills. I). Consideration of Executive Director's Report. /2. Com In ittee Reports. /3. Other Business. 14. Adjournment. . . . . MINUTES MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, February 5,2003 - 6:00 p.m. 505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room Commissioners Present: Chair Brad Barger, Vice Chair Steve Andrews, Dan Frie, Bill Fair and Council Liaison Roger Carlson Darrin Lahr Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Lori Kraemer Absent: Staff: 1. Call to Order. Chair Barger called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed Roger Carlson. City Council Liaison 2. Consideration to approve the January 8, 2003 HRA minutes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BARGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 8, 2003 HRA MEETING. STEVE ANDREWS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ') .J. Consideration of adding or removin!l items from the a!lenda. Koropchak added item 13 to the agenda asking the HRA to consider authorization of TIF reimbursement to Central Minnesota Housing Program. 4. Consent Agenda. A. Consideration to adopt a resolution decertifying TIF District No. ] -15. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BILL FAIR TO APPROVE TI IE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRrrTEN. STEVE ANDREWS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 5. Continued - Consideration to hear an update on the progress for redevelopment of a !Jortion of Block 52. Ollie Koropchak advised that Fred Katter was present and 'v\'ould be Llpdating the HRA on the project. Katter stated that they had a previous meeting with City staff and engineers. advising that it went smoothly and he feels they have good working relations with staff. Katter added that they 'vvould be hiring a builder and hoping to have someone under contract by next week. He added that they would be ready to begin negotiating the Contract for Private Redevelopment by February 17. stating that in that time they will have a better handle on costs and issues, especially those eligible for TIF funding. Katter HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 provided the proposed layout of the building, looking at approx. 60,000 sq. ft., 3 stories, . which includes both phases with the first floor to be retail. Katter stated there are several issues to be aware of such as working on a zero lot line basis, and due to utilities in Broadway and Highway 25, they will be putting in steel shoring serving as a form for concrete. He stated they have completed about 50% of soil tests and found ground water 13 ft. below the surface, and it appears that construction can be done without substantial de-watering expense. They will look at environmental engineering later in the week and will be drilling test holes, etc., and have that information by the next week. They will also do more soil testings after that. Katter advised they are estimating that eligible costs will rise from preliminary numbers previously stated several months ago. He further noted 43 parking spaces underneath the building as proposed and provided a drawing of a ramp to the lower level parking, although they are proposing to modify the plan due to the steep slope. Katter asked the HRA. to consider if the acquisition of the building in the center of the proposed project should be acquired in Phase L as Koropchak had suggested a possible long term parking deck off Walnut St. or Hwy. 25, and that building would interfere. They do not know the cost of acquisition at this time, as they have not yet spoken to the owner. They discussed what the building had previously sold for. as well as the actual value of the building per the County Assessor. Bill Fair suggested that possibly the City could get involved in relocation at some point noting the business doesn't really fit in that area and may be better served in the Industrial area. They added that the building was primarily for storage. Koropchak asked Katter if the contract ~ould be for both phases and he stated it 'vvould. She thel} asked how this would work with having more than one owner and Katter stated be had spoken with Mr. Heaton and feels there may be a potential for him to become involved in Phase II as a willing participant. Fair asked if at some point they would need a letter of intent and Katter informed that it should be a commitment with them. . Korpehak also discussed parking issues and to look at deck parking if there was ample space. Katter stated deck parking would be $7,000 to $12,000 per stall, depending on the specifications, but also could divide that cost in half as there would be 2 stalls with deck parking. Brad Barger asked about parking requirements and how close they were in comparison, and Katter stated with both phases he felt they were close to 5 stalls per 1.000 sq. ft. He again stated that a parking analysis they used determined that the normal usage is 2.8 per thousand in downtown areas, but they are recommending 3.5, which is still below the 5 stall requirement. Barger had parking concerns for other business owners in the area and Katter noted that they are encompassing Walnut St. Steve Andrews questioned if there was enough parking on Phase I without shared parking being counted and Steve Johnson stated there would be if 3.5 parking spots per thousand was used, but Andrews asked if that included . shared parking. It was clarified that some of the 3.5 would include shared parking. 2 . . . HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 Johnson added that Phase II would go to 3 stories and that this had been discussed with city staff as well, and they appear to have adequate parking. Fair added that he would rather see high density use of the property rather than vacant parking. fair added that he feels one of the goals of the city should be to re-evaluate parking requirements by ordinance. Koropchak asked if a public hearing was still premature and Katter felt it was at this time. She also added that she had spoken to Heaton who had asked her how things were progressing, stating at that time he did not feel it would be a good fit for him. He also stated that he had heard that the HRA was looking to condemn his property. Koropchak advised Heaton that they had not stated that and encouraged him to consider bringing a project to the HRA. She advised that this was the reason she had asked Katter and Johnson of their intent for Phase I r. The HRA asked Attorney Bubul if there could be a contract if they did not own all of the property and Bubul stated that could be negotiated with the developer. He advised this decision should be made soon so that the developer is aware, up front in regard to whether the HRA would be willing to condemn a building. Fair questioned if the developer could do Phase I without II, adding that they need some assurance from the developer. Dan Frie stated that he would prefer to go ahead with Phase I and let them, or someone else, move forward with Phase II, not condemning any property. Koropchak advised Bubu.1 that when the HRA holds their public hearing they wo~dd use the appraisal that the developer obtains. B ubul asked about the source of TIF and it was noted it would be from bond proceeds. There was no furtber discussion. 6. Continued ~ Consideration to hear an uDdate on the DrOQress f(Jr redeveloDment of a portion of Block 51. Koropchak stated she did not have further information regarding the proposed redevelopment of a portion of Block 51, although she did speak with Sawatzke earlier in the week and he advised he was in the process of putting information together for his performa. Koropchak stated he sounded serious about moving forward, although he had not had conversations yet with the property owner on the corner as he was still out of tmvn. Koropchak statcd that Savvatzke would possibly be ready to address the HRA in March. 7. Continued - Consideration to hcar an updatc for redevelopment of Block 36. Phase Il. Koropchak stated she had spoken with Ban'y Fluth and his project seems to be moving forward as well, and they have been in negotiations with property owners as well. That proposal is for housing in Phase U. 3 HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 Fair asked Koropchak if the City would be recognizing and/or \velcoming Crostini' s Grille since the project was a joint venture with the City. She advised that she would look into possibly a plaque. Fair felt there should be better PR with new businesses in the City. Koropchak added that she could provide before and after pictures to the restaurant to be displayed. It was discussed that the Monticello Times should also be involved and Koropchak added that she would be putting this information on the website as well. . 8. Consideration to diseuss the resillnation of ERA Attornev Dan GreensweiQ from Kennedy & Graven. Koropchak advised that she had been notified that Attorney Dan Greensweig would be resigning. She advised that Steve Bubul was present to discuss this with the I-IRA. adding that she had asked him if he would be interested in serving the HRA and if so, what his rates would be. Steve Bubul advised that Greenwsweig would be going to work for the State Auditor's office. He introduced Beth Taylor who works with them on TIF projects and in municipal law. He stated that both of the 111 would be happy to assist the HRA. Bubul advised that rates are different depending on experience, his being higher and Beth's lower. which would actually even out the rate for the I-IRA. Koropchak asked if they generally had contracts with HRA' sand Bubul stated generally not. Steve Andrews asked about a discounted rate if they are held on retainer and Bubul stated not typically as it is more an hourly rate when \vorking on redevelopment projects. . Koropchak asked if the c0111mission~rs would like to continue working with Kennedy & Graven and it was their consensus to continue with them. 9. Consideration of a reCluest bv City Council to review Citv Vision & Governinll Policies for input and to develop a list of goals. Koropchak advised that this requcst was based on Council direction at a special meeting on 1/27/03, and that each commission was to come up with goals/projects and prioritize them. She asked that by the March slh meeting these bc submitted and they could sort and prioritize them at that meeting. Roger Carlson stated this had not been looked at for several years and needed to be updated. Bill Fair asked what is the priority and it was noted both long term and short term projects. It was also noted that this information needs to be ready for the second meeting in March of the City Council. Koropchak advised she would provide the HRA with information from previous years. Fair stated he preferred they submit these ahead of time, asking for several items from each member, and then submit all at the March meeting so work could be done prior to the meeting. 10. Consideration to authorize pavmcnt of HRA bills. . 4 ~'l . . . 13. HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 A MOTION WAS MADE BY DAN FRIE TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THE HRA BILLS. STEVE ANDREWS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 11. Consideration of Executive Director's Report. There were no additions. Brad Barger asked which building was going to be the Production Stamping building and it was noted it was the Wright Choice building. Koropchak did add that duc to issues, the sale of the H Window building was not complete. 12. Committee Reports - MarketinlZ. Brad Barger advised of their first marketing meeting in the last six months and that thcre were new representativcs from the IDe. They reviewed moving forward with targeting new businesses, and made a commitment toward the Chamber Golf outing on May Is'h. They are also targeting getting costs of advertising for signage to market businesses for Monticello. Something to draw businesses as well as business retention, adding that perhaps existing businesses could utilize the sign as well. Bill Fair asked if it could be a joint venture bctween City and Chamber and vvould it be beneficial in asking the City Council to approach the Chamber to see if they \vOLdd be a willing participant. Also discussed advertising at the new athletic complex, if that came through. Fair questioned how this information would be forwarded on to City Council and Barger stated this \vas just a starting point. Koropchak added that they would bc giving gratis tickets for golf to some of the businesses/developers. This will be put on the web site as well. Barger advised that Elk River provides new businesses \vith a brochure including all steps, contacts, etc" making it easier for new businesses up~front. Again Fair asked how this information would bc brought forward and Koropchak advised that she had not received specific direction on some of thc discussions, there is a budget, and they are moving forward on smaller projects at this time. Barger asked for ideas that he could share as well. Consideration to authorize issuance of a Celiificatc of Completion for 50 I, 503, and 505 Walnut Street and to authorize the first TIF reimbursement pavment to Central Minnesota Single Family Housing, LLC . Koropchak advised that C!'vIHP is asking for thcir TIF reimbursement, advising that typically she does not ask the HRA to authorize if the applicant follows the contract, but 5 HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 in this case she had been previously forewarned that CMHP would be asking for the first payment. The contract states that they needed to have 3 houses complete by 12/02 and they are in default of the contract in that regard. She also noted a tax deficiency clause in the contract and the square footage was reduced and basements added, by approval of the Planning Commission. . It was discussed that they are more concerned with that what is proposed and what is built is not always the same. She also reminded them that they increased their TIF assistance. Koropchak added that there were no shutters on the houses and the columns were actually 2 x 4's. She advised that staff is concerned as there have been quite a few concerns from the public as well. Koropchak stated she did receive a letter from Sheri Harris, CMHP, advising that the shutters are on order, and staff is still insisting on the columns. They are asking for disbursement of the $53.000. They did provide documentation of purchase agreements and checks for the sale of 3 lots. She advised the City purchased 2 lots, then sold them to CMHP, and there was an agreement that the City would not get the $95,000 until the 11 tl1 hOLlse was sold. City Administrator W olfsteller suggested that there be a copy provided by the title company that they have the $95,000. Koropchak advised she did ask Harris for this but that Harris stated they do not have the money to pay the City until the units are sold. . CMHP does own the property and the City has not been paid at this point. Wolfsteller . advised that they agreed to wait until the end, but they were under the assLlmption that the title company was holding the money in escrow, therefore not getting the money until the end of the project. He would like some guarantee from the title company stating they have the money. lie also added possibly getting a lien against the last unit as the City did state they would wait until the end to collect. A MOTION WAS MADE BY STEVE ANDREWS TO TABLE UNTIL THE MARCH 5,2003 MEETING, REQUESTING STAFF PROVIDE A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT CMHP COMPL Y WITH ALL CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PER THE CONTRACT. DAN FlUE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Barger asked Koropchak to clarify the ownership of the land where the proposed ice arena is to be located. adding that he had heard that the HRA was the owner of the land. Koropchak advised that this site had come back as a tax forfeiture and that it came back to the HRA. There was an agreement with the City and the HRA at that time. Wolfsteller advised that if the land is in the l-lRA's name and the project goes forvvard. they would have to look into how to proceed. He also advised of a change in the financing of the project and that they are now looking for the City to guarantee several . 6 HRA Minutes - 02/05/03 . thousand dollars per year in debt service for the next 7 years to make the project work. Wolfsteller stated they wanted the City to guarantee half of their loan. Steve Bubul added that the City would not have the authority to authorize the loan. Koropchak asked if the HRA could forego the public hearing and Bubul advised not if the property would go to the City and then to another party. If it was just to the City it would be okay. If the HRA held the public hearing they could sell it to whoever and for whatever price they chose. 15. Adjournment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BARGER TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. HRA Chair Recorder . . 7 . . . HRA Agend~1 - 3/5/03 4A. Consideration to authorize issuance of the Certificate of Completion for 501. 503. 505 Minnesota Street. A. Reference and backeround: At the February mceting, the commissioners tabled any action rclative to issuancc of certi ficatcs of completion or reimbursement of first payment, unti I proof of evidencc was satisfactory to the Authority per the Contract. First, a Mortgage and Rcpayment Agreemcnt betwcen the City and thc Central Minnesota Single Family I lousing, LLC has been exccutcd and suhmittcd to the County for recording to satisfy the land acquisition costs of $95,000. Secondly, to ensure completion of the non-completed work pcr thc Certificate of Occupancy, executed Work Completion Escrow Agreements for 501,503, and 505 Minnesota havc becn submitted. Amount of escrow for each home is $28,457.10. Lastly, ] O-inch round columns are on order for replacemcnt and to conform with approved front elevations. Having reccivcd thc above satisfactory proof of evidence, thc first reimbursement check in the amount of$53,000 was requested from the Financc Department. B. Alternative Action: 1. Motion to authorize issuance of the Certificate of Complction tl1r 50 I, 503, and 505 Minnesota Street. 2. Motion to deny authorization to issue the Certificate of Completion for 50 I. 503, and 505 Minnesota Strect. 3. Motion to table any action. c. Recommendation: Having reccived thc satisfactory proof of cvidence for issuance of the certificates, the recommendation is alternativc no. 1. D. Supportine Data. Example of Ccrtificate of Completion. . . . CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION (House) The undersigned hereby certifies that Central Minnesota Single Family Housing, LLC (the "Developer") has fully complied with its obligations under Articles III and IV of that document titled "Contract for Private Development," dated June 25 ,2002 among the City of Monticello, Minnesota, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota and the Developer, with respect to construction of a House on the property described in Exhibit A thereto in accordance with the Construction Plans, and that the Developer is released and forever discharged from its obligations to construct of the House thereon, provided that any other covenants and agreements between the Authority and the Developer shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: ,200_. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA By Its Chair By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. ) COUNTY OF WRIGHT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,20 by and .the Chair and Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chaltered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis. l'vlinnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 0)G.216337\5 MN 190-<,)<) 4ft . . . EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION (HOUSE) That property located within the city of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota and legally described as follows: NEED LEGAL HERE DJ(i-21 hJJ 7\5 I\. IN 1 <IIJ.99 I I I LJ . . . HRA Agenda - 3/5/03 48. Considenttion to call for a public hearinl! date for disposition of raw lands (Outlot A, Country Club Manor.) A. Reference and backl!round: As you are aware, the City Council on February 24, agreed to give Outlot A, Country Club Manor, to the Monticello I loekey Association and Soccer Association for $250,000 (16+ acres) contingent upon legal review and subject to certain conditions (See draft copy of Council minutes.) The association plans to construct a hockey arena and soccer dome on 9.2 acres with the intent to sell-offthe remaining 7-+ acres to a developer ft)r commercial development. The profit Jrom the re-sale is necessary to help finance the construction of the arena and dome. The association representative stated ice time has been committed for fall of 2003, the association needs to be in the ground by April 26, 2003 and financing in place by April 17. The association has raised $420,000 and have additional commitments of $200,000. Since the HRA has title to the property and the Law requires the HRA to hold a public hearing upon disposition of raw lands, the commissioners are requested to call for a public hearing date of April 2, 2003. Although calling for a public hearing may be premature, it does no harm. The public hearing notice would appear in the local newspaper to meet the statutory requirements. It is not mandatory for the HRA to obtain an appraisal. Legal advise is being sought relative to public purpose. 8. Alternative Action: 1. A motion calling Jor a public hearing date of Wednesday, April 2, 2003, Jor disposition of raw lands known as Outlot A, Country Club Manor. 2. A motion to deny calling for a public hearing date for disposition of raw lands known as Outlot A, Country Club Manor. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: As there appears no harm to call for a public hearing date, the recommendation of the City Administrator is alternative no. I. D. Supf)ortin~ Data: Draft copy of Counci I minutes, February 24, 2003. . . 8 . Council Minutes - 2/24/03 APPROVAL OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND THAT THE DESIGN OF THE PUD RESULTS IN A PROJECT THAT IS SUPERIOR TO THAT WHICH WOULD HA VE OTHER WISE BEEN DEVELOPED VIA THE STANDARD PROCESS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z IN THE FEBRUARY 4, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. ROGER CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. In further discussion staff was asked if there was dialogue with the developer concerning the design issues. Steve Grittman that a number of different plans had been discussed. The statl's concern with the units were the view for the residents of the units and the proximity of the units to each other. The developer felt that the landscaping and architecture of the units overcame these Concerns. Jeff O'Neill stated that the difference is 8 unit structures versus 4 unit structures. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN BRIAN STUMPF AND ROGER CARLSON VOTING IN FA VOR THEREOF AND BRUCE THIELEN AND ROBBIE SMITH VOTING AGAINST. MOTION FAILED. Steve Grittman stated if the Council was going to deny the PUD they should deny it with a finding of facts. Since thcre was not a full Council present, Steve Grittman felt that this itcm should be held OVer. ROGER CARLSON MOVED TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK FOR CONSIDERA nON WHEN THE FULL COUNCIL WAS PRESENT. BRUCE THIELEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Mario Cuccurelli asked for verification that the Council's action approved the preliminary plat but tabled the PUD. Bruce Thielen noted his concerns were with design and density. Robbie Smith indicatcd he was okay with the density but had concerns with the design. Consideration of ro osal b Monticello Youth Hockev and Soccer Associ<ltions to ae uire the City propertv for facility construction. Mayor Thielen stated that this items goes back a long time and the group had a number of discussions with the City regarding the use of Outlot A of Country Club Manor for an ice arena. The question to be rcsolved was the land exchange. The POinte Group represcnting the hockey and soccer associations had submitted a proposal which \>vould provide that the City: 1) give the 17 acre parccl of land (Outlot A, Country Club Manor) to the associations at a cost of $250,000 with 9.22 acres of the parcel to be used by a non-profit. tax exempt group for the purpose of constructing an athletic complex for use as a soccer dome and ice arena and the remaining land will become taxable when no longer owned by the associations. The $250,000 payment is contingent on the sale of the residual land and the land will be turned over to the associations upon completion of their financing. Brian Stumpf stated that in previous communications the $250,00 payment \vas never contingent 9 LtB Council Minutes - 2/24/03 . upon the sale of the residual land. Rob LaRue from the Pointe Group reviewed the proposal submitted. He confirmed the points of the proposal as noted above. Their intent is to market and sell the residual land to help in the financing of the arena. The residual land when sold will be taxable. The associations are asking for right of ownership of the full parcel so that can market and sell the land not needed for the ice facility. They are requesting that the payment of the $250,000 be made at such time as the residual land is sold. It was felt that there should be a time limit on how long the residual property could be held by the associations. The consensus was one year. . Initially when this came to the Council the association was looking at 3-5 acres which the Council indicated they would provide as their contribution to the project. Later they came back to the Council with a proposal for a private developer to finance the project. If it was to be a private contractor and a tax paying entity then the entire parcel would be needed. The Council indicated they would consider providing the entire parcel because the group would be paying taxes and all building permit and hookup fees. The problem for the association was that they couldn't afford being a tax paying operation. To make it feasible for the associations it would have to be tax exempt. If it was tax exempt, would the City still be willing donate the entire parcel. The associations were sceking determination of what the Council would provide. The Council could consider a number of options: 1) Provide just enough land for the ice arena/soccer facility; 2) donate the entire parcel of land or 3) provide the land with SOme kind of payment to the City for the property. Brian Stumpf stated he did not want to see the project tall through but he did feel if the City gave the up the entire parcel, the $250,000 should be paid up front and there should be time limit imposed for selling of the residual property and that upon sale of the residual land it would be tax paying property. Brian Stumpf stated he did not want a venture where the City \-vas a partner in the development and he wanted something that was risk free for the City. . Bruce Thielen stated that proposal has changed significantly from what was initially proposed and the question was what was the Council's comfort level on what they were willing to contribute to the project. Roger Carlson agreed that wanted to see the development take place but at what cost. He stated that it was unfortunate that this issue comes up now with state budget deficits and the loss of local government aid for the City which makes the decision much more difficult to make. Bruce Thielen suggested the City keep the excess property and sell it to the association for $100,000 with the first payment deferred for five years. This would allow the City to retain part of the property which could be sold and those funds used for 71h Street extension. Brian Stumpf asked if the association was givcn the land needed for the complex would they still need the excess land in order to make the project work. City Administrator Rick WolfstelIer stated the Council needs to make the determination of how much land they want to give. Robbie Smith questioned whether the City could legally donate the land. Bruce Thielen stated any action the City would take would bc contingent upon recommendation of the City Attorney. The Council discussed the $150,000 figure and that was approximately what the City had invested in the land some 24 years ago. Bruce Thielen felt detcring the payment on the land would allow the facility to get established. 10 Council Minutes - 2/24/03 . Todd Banek spoke for Monticello Youth Hockey. He stated that they have been working on this project for somc time and with the expansion of the project to include the soccer dome, they would necd thc entire parcel. The problem has been getting the financing for the project and they have becn looking at every possible angle. Todd Banek stated that because there is a small percentaage of kids and parents involved in the sport of hockey they didn't want to place the burden for this projcct on others. He stated that they have been working on selling ice time and are hoping that evcrything will be in place so that they can break ground in April. He stated that they want to acquirc the entire parcel so that they can market the residual land without approval of the City. The rcvcnuc generated from the sale of the residual is figured into the pay down of the debt load. It was thc intcnt of the associations that the residual land would be sold before April as they do have some prospcctivc buycrs. Todd Banek stated approximately $420,000 has been accumulated in fund raising and there is scveral hundred thousand in additional financial commitments from donors but will not be reccived until the associations have possession of the land. Todd Banek estimated they would rcceive $4.50-$5.00 sq. ft. for the residual land. Although they are exploring other financial options, thcy arc dcadlocked without having the land. It was noted that based on $5/sq. ft. the 7 acre residual parcel would generate $1,500,000. It was also pointed out that the City had never activcly markctcd the property tor development. Thcn: was discussion on the extension of Th Street and when that would take place. Although the City would pay thc street cost up front thcy would be collecting assessments to recoup their funds. . Gn:g Engk. Prcsident of the Monticello Youth Hockey Aassocation asked if the Council would give them a proposal that thcy could consider and they could reconvene with the Council after the last agenda item. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED THAT THE CITY GlVE THE ENTIRE 17 ACRE PARCEL TO TI IE ASSOCIATION FOR AN UP FRONT PA YMENT OF $250.000; THE RESIDUAL LAND WILL BE TAXABLE WHEN NO LONGER OWNEDBY THE ASSOCIA TlONS WITII A TIME UMrr OF ONE YEAR FOR HOLDlNG OF THE RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND THE LAND WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE ASSOCIATIONS UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR FlNANClNG. Motion dicd f()r a lack of a second. Robbie Smith stated the issue he has is giving prime land away f(lI' $250.000 when it could be worth $1.500.000. Bruce Thielen stated he has gone both ways on this noting thc property has not brought in any taxes so if it can become a tax generating parcel it would bc a positive. Robbie Smith asked if the property is sold would the City still have some say as Llr as what would go in. Roger Carlson asked about the cost of the 7th Street extension. Brett Weiss statl'd a very preliminary estimate would be about $500.000 depending on the amount of utility' \voll. . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO REINTRODUCED BRlAN STUMPF'S MOTlON ON THE ICE FACILITY \VI-IERE IN THE CIT'{ GIVES THE ENTIRE 17 ACRE PARCEL TO THE II L\b . . 5K. . Council Minutes - 2/24103 ASSOCIATIONS FOR AN UP FRONT PA YMENT OF $250,000; THE RESIDUAL LAND WILL BE TAXABLE WHEN NO LONGER OWNED BY THE ASSOCIATIONS WITH A TIME LIMIT OF ONE YEAR FOR HOLDING OF THE RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND THE LAND WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE ASSOCIATIONS UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR FINANCING. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. Roger Carlson asked what the scenario would be if they could not sell it by their finaneing time. Brian Stumpf stated that was why he had put a one year time limit as part of his motion so that if the property was not sold within that one year period it would revert back to the City. City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller pointed out that there is a lease agreement for the billboard signs that are on the property and that would be an issue that would need to be resolved. Bruce Thielen stated that the billboard signs would remain at least through the end of the year. Rick WolfstelIer also noted that there should a provision in the agreement that ensures that the project is actually getting built on the land that is not being sold and, as noted earlier. all provisions and procedures in the land acquisition would be approved the city attorney. Rick Wolfsteller informed the Council that the property was in the name of the HRA and that there may be some statutory requirement to conduct a public hearing prior to disposing of the land. The Council also discussed some kind of clause in the agreement that would require that it is operated as a recreational facility f()r at least 15 years. ROBBIE SMITH AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS; I) RESOLUTION OF THE LEASES FOR THE BILLBOARD SIGNS; 2) WRITTEN ASSURANCES THAT THE PROPOSED FACILITY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE; 3) THAT THE FACILITY IS REQUIRED TO BE OPERATED AS A RECREATIONAL FACILITY FOR 15 YEARS; 4) THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW AND APPROVE ALL PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR TIlE LAND TRANSFER INCLUDING ANY STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE AMENDED l'vIOTION. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN ALL VOTED IN FA VOR THEREOF. 11. Authorize the re anltion of lans and s ecific~ltions for the extension of Chelsea Road West at 90lh Street. Proiect No. 2002-01C. Included with consent agenda. re ort for the \Vild Memfow sanitarv sewer and w~ltermain studv Pro 'ect At the request of the City Engineer this item was rell1(wed frolll the consent agenda f()r discussion. He noted that were several issues relating to the costs and that approval of the Wild Meadow developn1('nt was contingent upon acceptanee of the feasibi I i ty report. Bret Weiss reviewed the location of existing utilities f(J[ that area and the amount of capacity in the lines. He stated that there 11 . . . HRA A~enda - 3/5/03 5. Consideration to review Phase I and II deshm concept for a portion of Block 52. A, Reference and background: On Wednesday, February 26, Fred Katter met with the City Engineer and Planner Consultant and City Staff O'Neill, Pateh, and Koropehak to review a revised design concept fc)r a portion of Block 52. You will note a Phase III (3-story condominiums ancl underground parking have been added to the redevelopment of the block.) The immediate reaetion to the eoncept from the eity consultants and staff was favorable; however, number of parking stalls. trat1ic-flow, etc. needs further study. The city planner felt the proposed housing project was eonsistent with the rcvitalization plan and was a trade-offtor the proposed 3-story offiee building. Mr. Katter has a mceting with Kevin and Cindy lIeaton on March 5. It is important for the HRA to know ifMr. Heaton is committed or a partner in Phase I and II. Otherwise, in order to proeeed with Phase I and II as proposed, the liRA will nced to make a decision of its willingness to condemn. In the plans distributed at the february I IRA meeting, the design concept (plan), as presented, could not be completed without the Heaton parcel. Phase III assumes the aequisition of the eity parking lot, Kjellberg and previous known Springborg buildings. Acquisition/construction numbers are being prepared for Phase III. How does this fit with the ability to assist or with Sawatzke's project? Mr. Katter informed us they have a builder and architect on board and a leasing firm to be signed this week. It is my understanding, outside investors may become partners in the proposed project. The project's mass was increased in order to attract developers/builders/consultants and to make the over-all project fcasible. Based on diseussions at the lIRA meeting, the fc)lIowing are potential motions. B. Alternative Actions: I. If neeessary to proceed with Phase I and II, a motion stating the HRA' s willingness to exereise its power of eminent domain. 2. A motion calling a public hearing for disposition of raw lands (HRA Lot). 3. A motion to approve the revised preliminary design coneept for Block 52 including the addition of Phase III. HRA A~enda - 3/5/03 . c. Rccommcndation: Staff and consultants are supportive of the revised preliminary design concept as it meets the objectives of the Revitalization Plan. I lowever, at what cost to acquire the 3 properties from the three owners and how does this work with Sawatzkc's proposed project. Given thc time constraints, the HRA may again need to make a decision whether to exercise its powcr of eminent domain relative to Phase III. D. Supporting Data: Revised preliminary concept for Block 52. . . 2 .J .. - .f>.....lJ N!"C "'C CXl C'" [.- W....= ~......() _.(f) lJ ',_ ::;:l..... w I to ...,-, (f) c. ~ c5 (j) lJ- =r w (f) (t) ,- -.-----'1'.---...- I '- ,- .f>.N(j) CXl_.... (t) 1il ~ g -I' ~.f>.(il :r!!l. a- - to 0- rtl ::2l I - rr - - I ,.I - 1-' i-i - - l - I i JuJ I - . - OlNlJl <op>c. "'CNC'"I ~g~1 _.(f) lJ ::J .....w to ..., ~ 5-1 _ to (j) lJ -: =r w (f) (t) I i , ,- : i - . ,-: Ii I.! , I i-I [' : I II I' - : I . . "..-- - . ! i - Ii ! i ~ i i i :-: .r- II II i I i I ,I ~: II i i ,.1 ~ I II ~ i '" i I l : ,I: ~;:~:'.~'; .i~~r,: ": j~,' ;. I": I :,;'~:~ .~::: ; ;:i.\'~{~ '. \ ".:. ',.,', ~,.\II:':~ .oJ: ','; :-~'~I\. \: ...... ,.... ,.1' I, , ':'. ~ . "I ::.::r ~ II '- . - · jiB I I I ~ i I :. tJ.l........(j) .f>. _.f>. (t) _ "'C CXl (') W NC ~CXl(il :i"!!l. a- to () (f) 0 .... ::J W a- (j) o. 3 :;- c' 3 lJ W ~' -. - ::J to --. . I I i I ".. i_....; II I. I, ",\ ";.",..., ?~~~}?~ ": ':,': t..,.., ~ I ~ \ . ;. I .. f I .\"',' ..-'" .. I, ~ ,- . ;:' . .'~: 'I,,;~':< ';: :'i.X:/ ':ti";-;;"!; () Q I I Ii L__ -~-I [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 1- -...J o ---- 6 ----... . [] [] [] [] [] I [] [] [] "'. q L_. t [] 10'-0" 15'-0" .._..cb........._____ _. 12'-0" tv ::J 0- :::!J o o .., w .., 0- :::!J o o .., \.' ..;. I, - ~ 10'-0" 12'-0" 12'~0" '" :J 0.. :::b o o .., to) a :::!:l o o .., . . H RA Agenda - 3/5103 6. Consideration to hear financial feasibilitv analvsis for redevelopment of a portion of Block 51 (Sawatzke ). Pat Sawatzke will present a financial feasibility analysis for his proposed project on Block 51. Because Pat plans to negotiate with the property owner upon return from his winter residency in April/May, no action is necessary at this time. However, Block 52 and Block 51 must Jlow together and support the Downtown/Riverfront Revitalization Plan. Walnut Street, river and parking connection are important, The HRA would establish a new Renovation District for his, Gustafson, and Kjellberg parcels. This hecause the Gustafson parcel currently lies within TI r: District No. 1-2. . . . HRA Agenda - 3/5103 7. Consideration to hear an update for redevelopment of Bloek 36. Phase II. Left voice mail with 8rad Johnson, Dale Sonnichsen, and Barry Pluth relative to progress and update of Phase II, Block 36. No response at time of agenda printing. . . . HRA Agenda - 3/5/03 8. Consideration to authorize BRA lel!al firm to draft a Lel!islative bill to extend the fivc-vear rule for TI.F District No. 1-22. A. Reference and backl!round: As you recall, TlF District No. 1-22 was eertiJied in June 1997. The five-year rule qualification states activity financed must take place within five years of certification. Activities paid f()r alter the five-year point (regardless of the location) count as expenditures made outside the TIF District. For the purpose of pooling limits, tax increment revenues can be considered expended within the TIF district if one of the following occurs: Paid to a third party, bonds sold to a third party, spent under binding contract, or reimbursement for costs incurred hy a party for the activity, including interest. The life of the district expires on December 3 1,2024. The HRA sold a $2, I 50,000 Taxable Temporary Tax Increment Bond, July 30, 200], extending the five-year rule for another three years or through July 30, 2004 (Up-front financing except f()r 25% pooling dollars.) Attorney Bubul has suggested the HRA consider lobbying the State Legislators to extend the five-year rule for TIP District No. ]_ 22 allowing the HRA time to complete pending or other projects. Mr. Bubul suggests cxtcnding the fivc-year rule by five years or through June 30, 2007. The pay-as-you-go financing method would then be applicable providcd all expenditures arc complcted by June 30. 2007. The estimated costs to draft and submit the hill plus lobbying is between $3,000 to $6,000. Perhaps, the HRA would like to set a not-to-exceed amount. The lIRA would need to huild a case via maps, demonstrating planned redevelopment projccts within the TI r District in addition to Blocks 52, 5], and 36. Questions for the lIRA: I. Within your goal setting, did the lIRA/City list additional targeted areas for redevelopment within TIF District No. 1-22 such as along the Front Street, Walnut Street, Block 35. etc? 2. Is the HRA better off sticking to the July 30, 2004, dale hoping this deadline date motivates developers to expend eligible TIF dollars on current pending projects? The process: Ruhul drafts a bill, local legislators informed for endorsement, bill introduced, becomes part of Tax Bill or in Tax Committee, Tax Rill generally last hill passed so may go into special session. HRA Agenda - 3/5/03 . H. Alternative Action: 1. A motion to authorize HRA legal firm to draft a Legislative bill to extend the five- year rule for TIF District No. 1-22 through__. at a cost not-to- exceed 2. A motion to deny extending the five-year rule fl)r TlF District No. ] -22. 3. A motion to table any action. C. Recommendation: No recommendation as this time. D. Supporting Data: Summary of Legislative action. . . 2 . . . Special Legislation to Extend 5- Year Rule Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, subdivision 3 1997, Chapter 231, Art. 10 Seetion 14: Brooklyn Center; extended to 10 years for an existing district. 1998, Chapter 389, Art. 11 Section 20: West St. Paul/Dakota County HRA; extended to 9 years for existing district. Section 24: New Brighton; extcnded to <) years for existing district. 1999, Chapter 243, Art. 10 Section 18: Onamia; cxtended to ] 0 years fix a "qual i fied portion" of an existing district. 200 I, First Special Session, Ch. 5 Section 37: Park Rapids; extended to 6 years for existing district. 2002, eh. 377, Art. 7 Section 7: Alhert Lea; extended to ] 0 ycars for a special new district. 2003 (hills introduced) SF 306: Authorizes special TIF district fIx City of New Hope with extension to <) ycars. SJIl-227lJ7lJv I MNI00-IOI D . . 9. HRA Agenda - 3/5/03 Consideration to review the 2003 ro "ects/ ~oaJs submitted h the commissioners of the HRA for rankin!! and submission to the City Council. A. Reference and hack!!round. Per the direction of the HRA, each commissioner received in the mail a copy of the City Vi sion & Governing Po I ic ics. C Oonc i I reg uestcd inpu t, suggestions, or com ments of the Policies. The HRA a/so requested a copy of the /997 Prioritization Worksheet. Everything was mailed to the commissioners on February 19,2003. With the commissioners decision to submit their 2003-2008 goals/projects to the lIRA Office by March 3, the information will be assembled for discussion aud ranking at the meeting. . . . HRA Agenda - 3/5/03 11. Executive Director's Report. a) LIMC Loan Closings - The State/City and EDA real estate loans closed Fehruary 20. The company expects to have the building enclosed by February 28 with an occupancy date in July. Don Tomann and I plan to havc lunch this week. b) Kaltec of Minnesota, Inc. - In talking with Jason Kallevig, Plant Manager, thc company has relocated their entire operations and headquartcrs to the Monticello facility. Previously, they leased in Plymouth. They currently lease a major portion of the Fay- Mar building. I have arranged for the [DC and Chamber Board to tour the t~lCility at 307 Chelsea Road on Friday, March 14,3:00 p.m. Does this work for you? c) Production Stamping, Inc. - No news from Les Wurm on final decision to purchase or build. d) Attendcd the breakfast, January 30, at Sunny Fresh honoring Congressman Mark Kennedy who received an award from the National Association of Manuf~lcturing. e) About 65 people attendcd the first seminar sponsored by the Wright County Economic Developmcnt Partnership entitled "Development Issues & Solutions". Four individuals were on the panel representing the following areas: Developer, Planner Consultant, Builder, and City Administrator. 1. Suggest cities update and simplify (clarify) ordinances/rules to support comp plan. 2. Consistent application of city ordinances/rules. 3. Don't waste devcloper's time with revisions. Be up front, state ifnot intercsted. Developers appreciate this, saves time and money. 4. Provide developers, up-front, estimated city fees. [n order to provide community amenities, cities must increase fees. 5. Inform developers of City Vision and/or Comp Plan. Cities stick to adopted Comp Plan or Vision. 6. Because of the high cost and importance of redevelopment, cities need to look f(Jr ways to crcate public/privatc partnerships. 7. Developmcnt in Wright County is expected to change within the next 3-5 years due thc shift in demographics. Investors/dcvelopers now see an exist (resale potential). 8. Most harmful to a eity is the indecision of whether or not to develop/own industrial land. Either way works, private or public. Next series, Wednesday, March 19, 11:30 a.m., at Silver Springs Golf Course. 1) Koropchak was one of four "Outstanding Women in Government" honored at the State Women of Today Banquet held at the Double Tree Park Place I [otel on February 22. Other honoree were MN Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, Anoka Mayor Lonni McCauley, State Senator Sheila Kiscaden of Rochester. Kiffmeyer was selected Outstanding Woman in Government fc.lr 2003. Was a very special event.