HRA Agenda 10-05-2005
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wcdncsday, Octobcr 5, 2005 - 6:00 p.m.
Bridge Room - Community Centcr
Commissioners:
Chair Darrin Lahr, Vice Chair Dan Frie, Steve Andrews, Brad Barger, and Bill
Fair.
Council Liaison:
Wayne Mayer.
Staff: Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Angela Shumann.
Guests: Chuck Van Heel and Mike Van Heel, Allied Properties & Management LLC (APM)
Steve Mosberg, Suntide Commercial Realty, Inc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
7.
8.
.
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the Septembcr 7, 2005, ,md September 26, 2005, HRA minutes.
Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
Consideration to hear a concept presentation for potential redevelopment of Block 53 and
consideration to approve entering into a Preliminary Development Agreement with APM.
Consideration of a notice, update, and discussion relative to the request to re-zone a portion of
Otter Creek Crossing from I-I A (Light Industrial) to 1-2 (Heavy Industrial).
Consideration to authorize payment of HRA bills.
Consideration of HRA Executivc Report.
Committce Reports:
Marketing
riber Optic
9. Next lIRA meeting - Wednesday, November 2,2005.
10. Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7th, 2005
505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room
Commissioners Present:
Steve Andrews, Brad Harger, Hill Fair, Darrin Lahr, and
Dan Fric
Council Liaison Absent:
Wayne Mayer
Staff Present:
Rick Wolfsteller, Ollie Koropchak, and Angela Schumann.
1. Call to Order.
Chairman Lahr called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum.
2. Consideration to approve the August 16th, 2005 special BRA meeting minutes.
MOTlON BY COMMlSSIONER BARGER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES or
THE SPEClAL HRA MEETlNG or AUGUST 1611\ 2005.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMlSSIONER FAIR. MOTiON CARRIED.
MOTiON BY COMMISSIONER BARGER TO APPROVE TlIE MINUTES OF
TIIE SPECIAL lIRA MEETING OF AUGUST 29th,2005.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS.
MOTrON CARRIED 4-1, WlTH FAIR ABSTAlNING DUE TO ABSENCE.
3. Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
Koropehak added as other business, the following:
a. Preparation and feedback for proposal to interested business
b. Update on Rocky Mountain Group, LLC project
4. Consideration to ado t a resolution a., rovin r the elimination of arce\s from TlF
District No. 1-22, located within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect
No.1 in the City of Monticello.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAlR TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVlNG THE ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM TIF DISTRICT NO.
HRA Minutes 9/7/2005
.
1-22, LOCATED WlTHIN THE CENTRAL MONTICELLO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.l IN TlIE CITY OF MONTICELLO.
MOTlON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONERANDREWS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANlMOUSL Y.
5. Consideration of approve a resolution adopting the modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and
establishment of Redevelopment TlF District No. 1-35 and its Plan thereto.
Koropchak provided the liRA with the condensed version of the inspector's
report. Koropchak revicwed the inspector's report briefly, including the
conclusion, which is that the proposed TIC District qualifies as a TIF
Redevelopment District. The project also qualities under the substandard
conditions and coverage test. Koropchak reported that the findings are included
for both items, along with narrative for each parcels and photo review.
Koropchak statcd that the developer had also submitted a revised copy of the but-
for information. Lahr asked if it met requirements. Koropchak commented that it
appears that their rate of return on equity went down slightly.
.
Koropchak stated that the resolution also changed slightly in terms of the
language regarding findings.
Brad Johnson, developer, discussed the cost to buy, move and rcnovate the home
located on the parcel to be removed from the district. Johnson noted the home
will bc owner occupied and is bcing purchase by current renters.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE MODIFICATlON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT TlF DISTRICT NO. 1-35 AND
ITS PLAN THERETO.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMlSSlONER ANDREWS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Consideration to adopt a resolution approving the Contract for Private
Redevelo _ mcnt band amon -, Masters 5th A venue Inc. and the IIousin rand
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello.
.
Koropchak reviewed the contract rcport, noting the biggest change related to the
$20,000 the H RA had previously approved for the purchase of the Koppy garage.
2
HRA Minutes 9/7/2005
.
Koropehak noted the resolution had cited the funds as a loan. In fact, the funding
approved by the HRA was as an up-front grant from district 1-22. Lahr clarified
that it had been changed in the new document. Koropchak confirmed.
Koropehak explained that Johnson wanted to discuss the utility pole situation on
the site and the options for relocation. Koropchak noted elevations were included
ilW reference.
Johnson stated that there had been a parking deficiency with Landmark 1. With
this project, the developer will be improving the circulation and creating more
overall parking. Johnson noted that the restaurant and retail uses will need to
work together. In their calculations, about 53 spots arc needed for the site.
Johnson stated that they are at slightly less than that. Counting the on-street
parking, Johnson indicated they have 61. The original project was short and
money was put into parking fund to pay ll)r the deficiency.
.
Johnson reviewed building plan and indicated that two confirmed tenants are
Nexus Financial and .lam 'n Joes. In terms of the utility pole, there are three
alternatives for pole. The project architect is working with the issues. Johnson
stated that Xcel Energy is backlogged and cannot deal with this issuc currcntly.
Johnson indicated that they have budgeted $20,000 to deal with this issue, but it
may cost up to $50,000. Johnson indicated that Masters 5th Avenue has a fixed
budget with Nelson Development, which requires that anything extra cost comes
out of the building. Johnson commented that they don't want to do this; the
alternative is to come back to HRA.
Koropchak reported that she drove back to view the situation. It is a major site
constraint. There is also a pole by the carriage garage next to Locust. Johnson
reported that there arc lines that connect to this pole. They will put in a new
transformer and that one will be removed.
Koropchak reported that this was also a new resolution identifying the $20,000 as
grant and notes that the HRA Chair or Executive Director can make minor
changes to the contract. Johnson stated that the attorney has no problems with the
contract.
Koropehak noted the pole cost is not currently included.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY
AND AMONG MASTERS Srll AVENUE, INC. AND THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER.
.
3
BRA Minutes 9/7/2005
.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Consideration to authorize payment ofHRA bills.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FAIR TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF HRA
BIU ,S.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARGER.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Consideration of the Executive Director's Report.
Koropchak reported that she had written a letter of support for Twin City Die
Cast, who will be submitting a grant application for about $250,000 to train 260
employees over 3 years.
.
Koropchak asked Lahr to provide an update on the potential merger of City
organizations. Lahr reported that Wolfstller, O'Neill, Koropchak, HRA attorney
and Ehlers representative had been in attendance at the meeting. He stated that
Bubul didn't have a formal recommendation as thcre did not appear to be an
overwhelming ef1iciency reason tlW one body instcad of two. Lahr noted that
there is a diffcrence in that the HRA does not have a Council membcr as a voting
member. However, the EDA can own and lease buildings and has loan powcrs.
Lahr stated that it came up that the EDA could fold into the Council since the
[.;DA only meets quarterly and includes two voting Council members. In that
case, the EDA would meet adjaccnt to Council. The HRA would do thc review
work and make a recommendation. Lahr stated that O'Neill is to report to
personnel committee on this discussion.
Koropchak stated that her conclusion was slightly different. Koropchak stated
that Bubul had indicated he felt there was a uniqueness about Monticello in that
many citizcns want to be involved. She felt that Bubul and Ruff encouraged
separate organizations. Koropchak also noted the discussion regarding the IDC
and potential audits in non-City related cxpenses. I3ubul had recommended that
perhaps the IDC should become advisory to the Chamber or HRA. Lahr stated
that it was made clear it was a personal, not legal opinion.
9. Committee Reports:
.
Koropchak reported that Lynne Dahl had gotten an invoice for the billboard.
Bargcr asked it hits have changed since web site moved. Koropchak stated that
phone calls have incrcased. Bargcr asked whcre most leads are coming from.
4
HRA Minutes 9/7/2005
.
Koropchak reported that she had received 2-3 from the trade show, and the others
from billboard or brokers.
10. Other Business
A. Preparation and feedback for proposal to interested business
Koropchak noted that there had been some questions on how proposals are
prepared for potential industrial/business park buyers. In response, she indicated
that she will be on a site visit in late September. Koropchak asked for a volunteer
to attend. Frie stated he would try to attend.
Koropchak had also spoke with Bubul and Ruff, who had recommended not
putting any information relative to park fees in the marketing materials, as
ordinance does not call for industrial park fees.
In terms of the site visit, Koropchak stated that she had initial concerns about the
nature of the business in terms of wastewater treatment. Public Works Director
John Simola will he attending to assist in that analysis.
.
Using the information provided, the proposed use is planning on a 20,000 square
foot office, production and storage facility. If using liRA criteria, they would be
allowed 1.&3 acres of land at a reduced rate. Koropchak reported that the building
would have a market value of approximately $1 million, and create 20 full time
jobs, which would allow 2.5 acres at $1 per square foot. They have 16 jobs with
an average wage of $21.37 without benefit. The user would plan to hire 4 more
employees in two years at over $18 per hour.
Koropchak stated that they are not asking for a large amount of property. They
would pay approximately $&0,000 for 1.83 acres. Koropchak asked whether the
lIRA is set on a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Koropchak stated that it was her
impression that jobs and wages were more important. The BRA Commissioners
indicated that they had no problem with not doing 2.5 acres.
Barger asked how the user heard about us. Koropchak reported that they had
been visiting with other communities and had heard that way.
Fair asked how things were going on the park site. Koropchak stated that sand
and curbing would be put in this week, with the first layer of asphalt in two
weeks. The intersection at 90th and Chelsea would be going through this month.
b. Update on Rocky Mountain Group, LtC project
.
Koropchak noted all contracts are signed and she has authorized the dirt pile to be
moved. The closing is scheduled to be on the 20lh of September.
5
HRA Minutes 9/7/2005
.
Koropchak gave the H RA members a copy of the changes agreed to after the last
contract the HRA reccivcd. Lahr statcd that thc minor changes included changing
gcneral grading to iinal grading and allowing the buycr to keep 40,000 cubic
yards of sand. Lahr stated that in the end, thc BRA will not spend more than
$45,000.
Koropchak stated that RulTre-ran TIF cash-flow numbers for the project. The
preliminary numbers had a valuation of $64 per square foot and a market value at
$3.2 million. Koropchak stated that Rocky Mountain had agreed to the $2.9
million. After increasing the amount of assistance, the assessments were re-
calculated, and the tax increment over the lifc is $415,000 at net present value.
Koropchak stated that the HRA can hope that thc valuc goes up and that the
$440,000 in assistance can bc covered. Koropchak reported that based on today's
valuc, the liRA is short in tcrms of dollars.
11. Adjournment
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO ADJOURN AT 7:45 PM.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDREWS.
.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
-,-"'-"_.--,-,_._,_.,_.,-'--'-'~~-_.-
Secretary
.
6
.
.
.
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
MONTICI<:LLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.
City Hall- 505 Walnut Street
Commissioners Present:
Vice Chair Dan Fric, Brad Barger, and Bill Fair.
Commissioners Absent:
Chair Darrin Lahr and Steve Andrews.
Council) jaison Present:
Wayne Mayer (tardy).
Staff Present: Ollie Koropchak.
I. Call to Order.
Vice Chair Frie called the special HRA meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. declaring a quorum.
2.
Consideration to approve enterin2: into a License Agreement between the HRA, the Citv. and
Rockv Mtn Group LLC.
Koropchak noted the License Agreement grants right-or-entry to Rocky Mtn Group LLC to
commence construction prior to conveyance of the property (closing date) described as Lot I,
Block 1, Otter Creek Crossing 1 st Addition, and after completion of the liRA grading. The
closing date was delayed when the legal description was found inaccurate on the Otter Creek
Crossing plat and the annexation order. Instead of "abstract" land, the parcel is "torrens" land.
The process takes longer as it goes before a judge and a certificate is issued rather than an
updated abstract. It is an anticipated the conveyance of the property will take place on or berore
October 14,2005.
The License Agreement includes the indemnification of the HRA and certificates of insurance.
The City, Rocky Mtn Group LLC, and an intermediary are parties to the Agreement. The
building permit is under preparation with plans approved and permit rees collected, the permit
issuance date is anticipated for September 27,2005.
Koropchak noted the stockpile had been removed by Larson Excavating for a total amount of
$25,637.50. She has not heard irthe HRA grading is complete.
BILL FAIR MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO THE LICENSE
ACiREEMENT' BE'rWEEN THE liRA, THE CITY, AND ROCKY MTN GROUP LLC.
BRAD BARGER SECONDED '1'1 IE MOTION AND WITH NO FURTIIER DISCUSSION,
THL.:: MOTION CARRIED.
3.
Other Business:
Koropchak noted the next HRA meeting will be Wednesday, October 5, 2005, 6:00 p.m. The
commissioners will hear a presentation t(W redevelopment of the old theater block. Barger said
he would be out-of-town.
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 10/05/05
4.
Consideration to hear a preliminary concept presentation for potential redevelopment
of Block 53 and consideration to approve enterinl! into a Preliminary Development
A~reement with AMP.
A. Reference and backl!round:
In December 2004, Jeff O'Neill and Koropchak met with Chuck Van Heel and Mike Van
Heel, Allied Properties & Management, and Steve Mosberg, Suntide Commercial Realty to
discuss a potential redevelopment project. We have met a number of times since and on
occasions the meetings included Steve Grittman, NAC, and Kathy Anderson, an architect.
Allied Prope11ies is the current owner of the previously known Wright County Bank Building
and parking lot at the corner of Pine and Broadway. The redevelopers have been in contact
with all the owners of the block.
The redevelopers will make a presentation to the BRA based on a preliminary concept plan
discussed with staff. The redeveloper is looking for TIF assistance to fill the financial gap.
Our general process for TIF assistance is to accept a concept and enter into a Preliminary
Development Agreement with the redeveloper including the deposit of $7,500. I have
contacted I J-lB relative to time frame to inspect the structures and to complete a written report
for the purpose to satisfy the qualifications ofa redevelopment district. We are on LHB's list
for inspections to begin mid-November for a written report to the HRA in January 4, 2006.
Upon execution ofthe preliminary agreement, a request for a proposal will be requested from
LHB. Ehlers & Associations and Kennedy & Graven have been advised of the proposed
project, it is Steve Bubul's suggestion we sit down with the redevelopers to discuss purchase
agreement options and potential relocation costs. There are 11 parcels on Block 53, 7 parcels
arc occupied by buildings, and all buildings but the old theater are occupied.
The redevelopers will make their presentation.
B. Alternative Action:
1. A motion to accept the preliminary concept for redevelopment of Block 53 and
approve entering into the Preliminary Development Agreement with APM,
2. A motion to accept the preliminary concept for redevelopment of Block 53 and
recommend meeting with the HRA consultants prior to entering into a Preliminary
Development Agreement.
.
HRA Agenda - 10/05/05
3.
A motion to not accept the preliminary concept for redevelopment of Block 53.
4. A motion to continue further discussions.
C. Recommendation:
City Administrator and Executive Director recommend Alternative 1,2, or 4 to encourage the
proposed redevelopment project move forward. This is a complex redevelopment project flJr
the Monticello HRA and City, and the suggestion to meet with the HRA consultants up-front
would be beneficial. The question is: Does the liRA want the Preliminary Agreement and
deposit prior to expending more dollars. Ehlers has run preliminary TIF estimates for me.
D. Supportinl! Data:
Aerial of proposed project area, example of a Suntide project, proposed time schedule, and
latest staff site review comments.
.
.
2
.
.
.
.
August9,2005
September 5, 2005
September 6, 2005
September 20, 2005
October 4, 2005
October 24, 2005
November 7, 2005
November 22, 2005
.
December 6, 2005
January 9, 2005
January 23, 2005
February 1, 2006
February 3, 2006
February 6, 2005
February 6, 2005
February 13, 2006
February 14, 2006
.
February 20,2005
Planning & HRA Schedule
The Times Redevelopment
City of Monticello 1 APM Companies
09/14/05
Pre-Design Meeting.
Application for Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development -
Concept Stage PUD.
Design Advisory Team Review.
Application Recommendation Review Meeting.
Planning Commission Review of Concept Stage PUD.
City Council Review of Concept Stage CUP/PUD.
Application for CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat
. Development Stage PUD
- Preliminary Plat
Application Recommendation Review Meeting.
Planning Commission Review of CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat.
City Council Review of CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat.
Deadline for Submission of Const. Docs.
HRA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing on the
proposed Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No.1 and the proposed establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-37.
Project information (property identification numbers and legal
descriptions, detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, list of
sources and uses of funds, and estimated fiscal impacts of the project
public improvements and on fire and police protection) for drafting
necessary documentation sent to Ehlers & Associates.
Application for Building Permit.
Application for Final Plat.
City Council calls for public hearing on the proposed Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-37.
Ehlers & Associates confirms with the City whether building permits have
been issued on the property to be included in TIF District No. 1-37.
Draft of Development Agreement/Finance Plan Available
.
February 28, 2006
March 8, 2006
March 10,2006
March 13,2005
March 15,2005
March 16,2005
March 24, 2006
March 30, 2006
April 4, 2006
.
April 5, 2006
April 10, 2006
June 30, 2006
........,-
2
Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential
redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to
publication of public hearing notice.) [Ehlers & Associates will fax and
mail on February 27, 2006.J
provides report on redevelopment qualifications.
Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates
will fax & mail on March 9 or 10, 2006.]
City Council Review of Final Plat/DA.
Execution of DAlFinal Plat Signatures.
Pre-Construction Meeting.
Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of Plans.
Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not
more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Monticello Times publication
deadline, March 27, 2006 - Ehlers & Associates to submit notice and
map to newspaper via email on March 24, 2006.]
Planning Commission reviews Plans.
HRA considers the Plans and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
City Council holds public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-37 and
passes resolution approving the Plans. [Ehlers & Associates to email
Council packet information to the City on March 31, 2006.]
Ehlers & Associates files Plans with the MN Department of Revenue and
the Office of the State Auditor, and requests certification of the TIF
District with Wright County.
Angela Shumann
Subject:
Jeff O'Neill
Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1 :33 PM
Steven Mosborg (E-mail)
Ollie Koropchak; Steve Grittman (E-mail); Bret Weiss (E-mail); John Simola; Angela
Shumann; Clint Herbst (E-mail)
The Times
.From:
ent:
To:
Cc:
Steve
Just a quick note on topics you asked me to follow-up on.
Regarding utilities in River Street The presence of the utilities should not impact or constrain parking design. However, It
is likely that a the sanitary sewer system in the vicinity will need to be replaced with the project which is OK because we
were planning on reconstruction of the line at some point in the near future.
Regarding parking on River Street Staff recently reviewed the concept of developing head-in parking along both sides of
River Street between Cedar and HEY 25 and was in general support of the concept as long as it is designed well including
sidewalk on the park side and retaining wall/landscaping if needed. Please note however that our Public Works Director
was not present at the meeting when this topic was discussed. Out of respect for his opinion, I would like to delay final
staff input on that topic until we get a chance to review it with him.
Regarding Parking. Steve Grittman analyzed the parking demand/supply and found that the site is significantly
underparked even without a restaurant He will be putting together a summary outlining his analysis for me which I will
forward to you It appeared to us that the best option for solving this problem is through construction of a larger
underground parking facility that would house both residential and business operation relation parking. We recognize that
this adds cost to the project but it might be necessary given the size of the project Purchase of the Garden Center was
not considered to be great option for relieving the parking problem though it might eventually be considered giving the
. potential cost of additional underground parking We think that the Underground parking will add more value to the overall
. facility then development of a nearby overflow parking lot Your thoughts?
Last of all. The site concept layout looked fine except for concerns regarding Bank drive-thru stacking spilling onto
Broadway, the width of the drive through exit access to Cedar Street and close proximity to the corner of Cedar/Broadway..
Jeff
.
1
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 10/05/05
5.
Consideration of notice. update, and discussion relative to request to re-zone a portion
of Otter Creek Crossin!! from I-IA (Lieht Industrial) to 1-2 (Heavv Industrial).
A. Reference and back!!round:
The Chief Zoning Official has requested a public hearing for consideration to re-zone an
industrial property from 1-1 A (Light Industrial) to 1-2 (Ileavy Industry). The location under
consideration is a portion of Outlot B, Otter Creek Crossing, City of Monticello, with final
property lines to be determined. The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing on
Tuesday, October 4,2005,6:00 p.m. and the City Council will consider the item on Monday,
October 10,2005, 7:00 p.m. Attached is the public hearing notice, map, and a copy of
Chapter 16, "1-2" Heavy Industrial District, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, stating its purpose.
Also attached is a Monticello Long Range Land Use Map noting the Rl and RI-A Land Use
directly to the south and southwest, the Open Space (YMCA) Land Use directly to the west of
the proposed re-zone, and the futurc boundary lines of the City of Monticello.
The Council did authorize the City Attorney to ofTer a site within the 120-acre Otter Creek
Crossing property under Contract for Deed as part of the A VR eminent domain package.
There has heen no response from A VR of interest in the Otter Creek site. The suggested
approximate 12-acre parcel is locatedi n the southwest corner of the 120-acre site.
Ilere are some planning questions for the Planning Commission to answer:
1. Is the long-range planning for the City of Monticello, progressive or regressive
planning?
2. I-Ias the City of Monticello not learned that a Heavy Industrial Zone abutting a Single-
family Residential Zone is non-compatible, non-productive and poor planning?
3. Does the City of Monticello base planning decisions on reactions to immediate situation
(short-term planning) or actions of economic benefit (long-term planning)?
TI-IE HRA CONTRIBUTED ONE-HALF OF TIlE DOLLARS FOR 'fIlE ACQUIRED 35-
ACRES, RECORDED COVENANTS, ESTABLISHED A CRITERIA FOR JOB/W AGE-
I,I::VELS AND NUMBER OF ACRES, AND HAS AN OVERALL INTEREST IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF TIIE BUSINESS CENTER; therefore, the liRA may have an interest
in the proposed IT-zone to 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) at the Planning Commission puhlic hearing,
Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 6:00 p.m.
.
.
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on October 4th. 2005 at 6:00 D.m.. in the Monticello City BalI to consider the following matter:
PUBLIC MEETING:
Consideration of request to rezone an industrial property from j_
lA (Light Industrial) to 1-2 (Heavy Industrial).
LOCATION:
That portion of Outlot B, Otter Creek Crossings, City of Monticello,
with. final property lines to be detennined.
APPLICANT:
City of Monticello
Fred Patch, Chief Zoning Official
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
Note: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be suq,ject to the approval or denial of the City
Council and will be considered on Monday, October 10th, 2005 at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City
Hall.
CROSSING
~
~
~
=,......~r...
y
~~~~t!;,;~~~'~'
I
1/2
MI L~.._
f'
~
'.-"
RLI<-K...._W.LI<l.
~,...EEr i or .I 'I1En~
'\
SITE
/)
~ I
(\ '
\
\
. )
I
/ ..-~.
,j
.
"/
~"
~
.
.
.
CHAPTER 16
"1<2" III~;\ Vy INDUSTRI;\L DISTRICT
SeCTION:
16-1 : Purpose
16-2: Permitted Uses
1 ()-~: Permitted .I\ccl'ssnn' I fsl's
16-4: Conditional Uses
16~5: Interim IJses
16-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "1-2," heavy industrial, district is to provide for the
establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of
the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or
commercial use.
16-2: PERMITlI::O USES: The follovving are permitted uses in an "1~2" district:
[A) Any use permitted in the "I-I." iight industrial. district.
[BI
The manubcturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, treatment, or storage of
products or materials including: Bre\veries. cement. stone cutting, brick. glass,
batteries (\vet ceii). ceramic procucts, mill \vorking. metal polishing and platting,
paint (pigment mfg.). vinegar v\orks, rubber products, plastics, meat packing. nour.
feed grain milling. milling. coal or tar asphalt distillation. rendering \yorks, distillation
of bones. savvmilL lime, gypsum. pIaster of paris. glue. size. cloth. and similar uses.
[Cj Automobile asselnbly and major repair.
[D] Creamery and bottling plant.
rEI
Adult Use/Principal.
(#217,1/13/92)
[F] Foundry.
16-3: ACCESSORY LJSES:
[AI Pennittcd I\ccessory Uses: The following arc pennitted accessory uses in an
"[-2" district:
I. i\lllll'rmittcd accessory uses allowed in an I-I (light Industrial) district.
ivlONTICtLLO ZONING ORDIN.\NC'E
16/1
......-..-...........,...---.--.....-.....-.-.-....,..
. =i' ..-.,
..-., Ol
..... ..... '"
I I J::
~ ~ -g
(ii (ii -C ~
~ :g 0 ca
ca -0
OJ OJ :t:: ca <.::
-0 -0 ~ .lo:: ~ :::J
'00 '00 OJ m 0
OJ CI) :?:- '" <( (Q
a::: n:: '00 :::> CL -C
U J::
:?:- :?:- c: OJ OJ ~ ~
OJ OJ m E 0
'00 '00 0 X 'u 0 ca c'5
c c: E ~ Q; I Q. m (j
CI) OJ (J) 'C
0 0 :::J C E ~ c: ~ en c:
:: ~ is ca E :.0 OJ :::J :::J ca
OJ -'J 0 0 a. 'S -0 -'J
..3 '- :s
...J :E :::> () :E 0 LL -5
"'-l
z+~
a::
() ()
') lit / -')
:I','~, (
\',:: \
,''::' ',i
..' - '-
(), I
~
~
. ~
~
~
c~
~~
tj~
~~
~S
~
~~ ~
-() <.) \')..
\ ~r'
\ 0
Ub\~
c- 1,
cY
r\
'I
,I ~ 1['
I'G I
..J /i
:; (A
:!:---------
Q.i
a..
"
Of'.
.
1\
I')
\
.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RE-ZONED 12 ACRE SITE
Assumptions from meetiU1! of December 2. 2004 with Attornev .Jerry Duffv.
Desire twelve acres
$2.5-$3. million investmcnt
20 jobs (5 in office and 15 drivers)at $43 plh with benefits.
150 trunks daily (cement,belli, etc.)
6 days a week, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., sometimes longer.
3 to 4 silos, approximate 80 ft high.
Proposed Proiect
20jobs
Wages $30 p/h wlo bcnefits
Value = 20 x 2080 x $30 \0 $1,248,000 annually
Preferred Measures
96 jobs required
$16. ph wlo benefits minimum average
Value = 96 x 2080 x $16 = $3,194,880 annually
Annual loss in wages = $1,946,880
~uilding size? = 12 acres
Value of investment $3 million
Estimated assessed market valuc, $1,500,000
, -
Estimated Local Tax = $32,970*
Estimated State Tax = $14,953
Estimated Market Tax = $ 816
TOTAL ANNUAL TAX= $48,739
130,680 sq ft building minimum - 12 acres
Assessed market value of building, $6,534,000
Estimated Local Tax =
Estimated State Tax =
Estimated Market Tax =
TOTAL ANNUAL TAX=
$158,658*
$ 66,294
$ 3,554
$228,506
Annual loss in assessed market value = $5,334,000
* Annual estimated loss in local taxes = $125,688
Current Site Taxes - 2 1.8344 acres
Land value - $469,100
B uildi ng value - $ I 61 ,900
Total Local Tax = $15,844*
Cost To Acquire City Property
Land (ZiJ $2.65 per square foot = $1,385,208
.ncludes trunk fees @ 2004 fee of $11,331 per acre 'co $135,972
IMPACT ON 12-ACRES OF RE-ZONE TO 1-2 (Heavy Industrial)
.
Annual loss in wages - $1,946,880 x 15 years = $29,203,200
Annual loss in local taxes - $125,688 x15 years = $1,885,020
Value of improved land and trunk fees, 12 acres - $1,385,208
TIF District No. 1-34 to reduce high cost to acquire - $5,394,581 over 15 years.
Not to mention impact to surrounding area.
.
.
-\~y
f\)o
\ c?J( ,
.V~
\ _ '?J L\
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Monticello is coordinating a large public improvement project which involves the State of
Minnesota, Wright County, and private parties in the constmction of a new freeway interchange with 1-94.
As a part of the estimated $16,000,000 project, the City is responsible for acquiring key pieces of property
for right-of.way purposes. The City's estimated share of the project is over $6,000,000, but could be much
higher. The reason for the increased costs would be for an unknown payment for land on a piece of property
for which the Ci ty has commenced condemnation and has also commenced annexation proceedings. TIF will
assist in covering a portion of the City's cost and to minimize the impact of a higher than expected payment
for land associated with the public improvements.
Without the interchange and right-of-way acquisition, development in the TIF district of similar size and
scope would not occur. Development of the area would take longer and would not be expected to result in
a market value as high as expected with the new commercial in the TIT District and commercial and
industrial development adjacent to the interchange. Because the property to be included in the District
contain buildings which meet the qualifications ofTIF' with substandard and inefficient buildings and land
uses, the timeframe for improving the area would also be extended substantially.
The property to be included in the TIF includes the parcel under condemnation and a portion of the new
development, limited to the Target store and adjacent retail of approximately 35,000 s.f. Therefore, a
substantial public benefit will be realized immediately from the City's efforts from new development.
.
The private developers will be responsible for their own land acquisition and are being assessed or traded
for land at over $5 AM.
.
APPENDIX
A-I
. Invoice
Wright County
10 2nd Street NW
Buffalo Mn 55313
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
URL:
763 682 7588
763 682 7873
INVOICE NO 1
INVOICE DATE 09/26/2005
OUR ORDER NO,
CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
TERMS
SALES REP.
SHIPPED VIA
F,O.B.
PREPAID/COLLECT
SOLD TO:
City of Monticello
SHIPPED TO:
QUANTITY
1
UNIT DESCRIPTION
Plat set up fee
Otter Creek Crossing 1 st Add
155 171 002010
213141 002010
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
$75.00
SUBTOTAL
TAX
$75.00
.
FREIGHT
TOTAL
$75.00
Questions concerning this Invoice?
Call: Mary Palmquist
763682 7588
MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
Wright County Auditor Treasurer
. L\~ S "~~ , ,.~-\ \ c( Ct
.')\ ~ . C'. ..' ".
~'
\\' \ 0.....,
\' ,\'.. <~3
tL ..
" . ~-!~;).
'.r' LU"\. ...:'::.J .
'f\9- _ '. ' _ .,,~ \(7
\~\- \
" C\
~:y
r:\ C
(\ .--. U l_-'--:~
r I'} ! '\
.
~~P-21-2005 16:11
P.02/02
'\ 1- \;- \ - ?:,~+ .0 sio(jj~'t.
---;. Qv_ '0 CLA.. ~~.4IVn60~h
S L \ e~, \ \ .><....J
'" ' ~-:2.. ( I' f I.?:,'?J lrJ , l/:~ 1 C(
.J- l ',-) '( \,p 1
.
Jp/
c-'
.~ ~ 0 -- :::::>
CJ -~'-r"
\ v)- "'"
2255 12th S1. SE
Sf. Cloud, MN 56304~9705
Bus: (320) 654..()709
Fax: (320) 654-102'
City of Monticello
Re: Chelsea Road
Moving of Black Dirt
Below is a recap for moving black dirt stockpiled south of Chelsea Road to
new site. Dirt was mOved under the direction of WSB.
Total Estimated Cost $27,300.00
Actucal Cost
. September 6. 2005 3 - 627 Scrapers 6.0 hours
1 ~ OaR DOler 3.0 hours
September 7.2005 3 - 627 Scrapers 33.0, hours
1 ~ OaR Dozer 13.5 hours
September 10,2005 3 . 627 Scrapers 38.0 hours
1 - OSR Dozer 13.0 hours
September 12. 2005 4 . 627 Scrapers 8.0 hours
1 - OaR Dozer 2.0 hours
September 15, 2005 4 . 627 Scrapers 24.0 hours
1 - OaR Dozer 6.0 hours
Total Scraper Hours
Total Dozer Hours
109 Hrs @$175.00
37.5 Hrs @ 175.00
Grand Total
$19,075.00
$6.562.50
$25,637.50
.
An EquBf Opponuf/ity employer
TOTRL P.02
.
.
.
..
'.
. .
, ,
........ ..... ..:i
, ~"
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leaders in Public Finance
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 697.8500
Summary Statement
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello. MN 55362-8822
Statement Date: September 13, 2005
Proiect
v-ou. Ii""
General _
Heritage Development ~
TIF District No. 1.36 - Economic Development \-l.1?-~
Total for this statement
Amou nt
$62.50
$481 .25
$2,250.00
$2,793.75
C"1 o.SU ~
~ \. <:;.
\"""
Invoice #
331310
331311
331312
.
.
.
..
.. ,
. .. .. ... ..
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leaders in Public Finance
3060 Centre Pointe QriVe
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 697.8500 .
Invoice
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello. MN 55362-8822
Invoice #:
Invoice Date:
331310
September 13, 2005
Project: General
Date Worked lh'...
Description of Services
Hours
Amount
08-03.2005 MTR Industrial park discussions with Steve Bubul
--2Q
.50
62.50
'"J:7 \ C\. C\
"-\ \,./'? e\ '
')., \ "Q ,
G-'''~_..._._n___._..__..".._,..._-_.__._----_......_.].
Amount Due This Invoice $62.50
~~,.,-"--~-_.,~-"'--''''-'',..,--,."._...__._''''_...__.
(Detach at perforation and return lower portion to Ehlers & Associates, Inc.)
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
Invoice #: 331310
Invoice Date: September 13, 2005
IA~~~~.t D-;eThis_I~~Oi~~~-=--~~-=-== $6~~5U
[.. PI~aseremit payment to ~~~e~~~:~~::~~~~~:--- -Due Upon Receipt -- ]
3060 Centre POinte Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
- -- -- - -- - --- ------- --~-- - - -- --~ ,--"~ --- ---- --- -- --~-
.
.
.
e
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leaders in Public Finance
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 697w8500
Invoice
NA-"~~I~R~e~
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362~8822
Invoice #:
Invoice Date:
331311
September 13, 2005
Project: Heritage Development
Date Worked lh'... Description of Services
Hours
Amount
08~01~2005 TJH Attended Meeting: Attended Meeting with City Staff and
Engineer on Financing Options. Consult with MR. Telephone
Jeff O'Neil.
2.75
481.25
2.75
~"---'"'.'-"'----_._'''--''--'-'-''--''-_.''--J...
Amount Due This Invoice $481.25
_._.__.."-"~_.~--"'-""_.,,--"'-_.,._..,-_.._,._-~..---,-
(Detach at perforation and return lower portion to Ehlers & Associates, Inc.)
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
Invoice #: 331311
Invoice Date: September 13, 2005
[A'mo_~nt Due T~iSI~voi~e '-=====~481..._25-'-]
I" --~-.- - --,,- --- - - ---- - --- -- --- '---- --- - -]
Please remit payment to: Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Accounts Receivable Due Upon Receipt
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
------ ------~----~ ------ --"---~-- ------ ---------_w_~__
.
..................................'
. .
". ,<
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Leaders in Public Finance
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 697-8500
Invoice
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362-8822
Invoice #:
Invoice Date:
331312
September 13, 2005
Project: TIF District No. 1-36 - Economic Development
Date Worked Jh.
Description of Services
08-22-2005
MTR
Flat Fee: Establishment of TIF District No. 1-36
'? \<\ Cl\
c~ '?J \()
\.4..\j
Hours
Amount
2,250.00
[--A-mo~nt DLI~ This In~~i~e =~_
$2:250-~OOJ
.Y)-\~'
.
~,- .07
~' L\-
C\ r \
(Detach at perforation and return lower portion to Ehlers & Associates, Inc.)
Monticello Housing And Redevelopment Authority
I~A;~unt Du!..,.his In~~'i~~
Please remit payment to: Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Accounts Receivable
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Invoice #:
Invoice Date:
Due Upon Receipt
331312
September 13, 2005
--~~"-'-~;'-~~-l
$2,25~
.
lHB, Inc.
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
Duluth, MN 55802
Phone: 218-727-8446
C I"J.... \ q 0
'l--\ \; c;/3..:7 i J \ 1
g.\'D
C7 '"
o 'lJ..-.-- -,/
q ro \L\ - eJ /--
City of Monticello
Attn: Olive Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite #1
Monticello, MN 55362
September 13, 2005
Project No: 050341.10
Invoice No: 0000001
Project 050341.10 Monticello TIF District 1-351~pecti~
Hourly Not to Exceed $5,400.00 plus Reimbursable Expenses
Professl.Qmt1 Services from AUQust 1. 2005 to Auaust 31. 2005,
Professional Personnel
Hours Rate Amount
Principal
Fischer, Michael 3.00 171.00 513.00
Putnam, Jerry 9.50 105.00 997.50
Administration
Kurki, Terza 1.00 61.00 61.00
. Totals 13.50 1,571.50
T otallabor 1,571.50
Reimbursable Expenses
Mailings/Deliveries
Total Reimbursables
60.08
60.08
60.08
Unit Billing
In-House Printing - Mpls
Total Units
90.0 Copies @ 0.15
13.50
13.50
13.50
Total this Invoice
$1,645.08
Billings to Date
Current Prior Total
Labor 1,571.50 0.00 1,571.50
Expense 60.08 0.00 60.08
Unit 13.50 0.00 13.50
Totals 1,645.08 0.00 1,645.08
. Approved By: ~~.
.
LHB, Inc.
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
Duluth, MN 55802
Phone: 218-727~8446
REMITTANCE
r- --,
\I...:.illlo I Il-"..-.vL.:
City of Monticello
Attn: Olive Koropchak
505 Walnut Street
Suite #1
Monticello, MN 55362
September 13, 2005
Project No: 050341.10
Invoice No: 0000001
Project 050341.10 Monticello TIF District 1-35 Inspection
Hourly Not to Exceed $5,400.00 plus Reimbursable Expenses
Professional Services from AUClust 1. 2005 to AUClust 31. 2005
Professional Personnel
Hours Rate Amount
Principal
Fischer, Michael 3.00 171.00 513.00
Putnam, Jerry 9.50 105.00 997.50
Administration
Kurki, Terza 1.00 61.00 61.00
. Totals 13.50 1,571.50
Total Labor 1,571.50
Reimbursable Expenses
Mailings/Deliveries
Total Reimbursables
60.08
60.08
60.08
Unit Billing
In-House Printing - Mpls
Total Units
90.0 Copies @ 0.15
13.50
13.50
13.50
Total this Invoice
$1,645.08
Billings to Date
Current Prior Total
Labor 1,571.50 0.00 1,571.50
Expense 60.08 0.00 60.08
Unit 13.50 0.00 13.50
Totals 1,645.08 0.00 1,645.08
. ApprovedBy MM1~'
.
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Tax ID No. 41-1225694
August31,2005
Throuah Julv 31. 2005
MN190-00101 General HRA Matters
MN190w00115 Landmark Square (Commercial Development)
MN 190-00119 TIF District 1-34 (Interchange Project)
MN190-00121 Economic Development TIF (Dahlheimer Distributing)
.
I declare, under penalty of law, that this
account, claim or demand is just d correct
and that n of it has been pa"
/'"V_ ~
~''\l''''-..l~'
\
.
OK TO P,AY? O\\,~
,
Code:
Initial ~
-....-.,."......_..".......................-_,'~...<"'"-,
~,')~,..o~S
45.00
126.00
45.00
685.00
Total Current Billing:
901.00
:"~~:-1~"-~....--...~--_._,..,-_.~ IE', If:" 1
i' ;~,:, : ,,",_'m._'" ".- '1111 \ '1
, ' , 1 c' ""'r)r' ". J ! I
~ E' ~., I~' il}\:.l -~:j'
\: . '~"- I
"""" --- "--''''''''''''.'-;-:''', I
'. ,:.' . .j, t\l .r.}'l \ 1\ n II
' , 1 '.: 1.", ~_, ~'_'" .............
!.~.," ,~..,~~.,..~_.,-,_.",',~ ,..'...,'". ,.,"-,.,---,-~ .,.-~~.^---~~..
.
.
.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337w9300
41.1225694
August31,2005
Invoice # 67716
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
MN190-00101 General HRA Matters
'7 c"L.\ 0
- .~() \ I
L\ l; ,.
~\3.
~,
Through July 31,2005
For All Legal Services As Follows:
7/1/2005 SJS Email from/to O. Koropchak re: appraisals; research data
practice questions
Total Services:
<:'"
P ,') <b rO ,~
q .'
Hours
0.25
Amount
45.00
$
45.00
Total Services and Disbursements:$
45.00
.
.
.
Page: 2
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
.,' '"?:> 0 "l <D
~\~ <:?~0c-J \ ". <.'
'd \'~ ~ <i> ,~/"7'
~ --- C\"'?
City of Monticello
July 31, 2005
MN 190-00 115 Landmark Square (Commercial Development)
Through July 31,2005
For All Legal Services As Follows:
7/25/2005 SJS Review Pope proposal for substandard study; Phone call
with Koropchak regarding same.
7/26/2005
SJS Phone conference with G. Konpela regarding Pope
substandard study.
SJS Emails with O. Koropchak.
Total Services:
7/29/2005
Hours
0.25
0,20
0,25
$
Total Services and Disbursements:$
Amount
45.00
36.00
45,00
126.00
126.00
.
.
.
Page: 3
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Monticello
?oLlV
~;7
'"
. C!..7~L\\
l..\L,~
~.
~.
'-J..-
Q....
July 31,2005
'?-\~.
MN190-00119 TIF District 1-34 (Interchange Project)
Through July 31,2005
For All Legal Services As Follows:
7/20/2005 SJB Phone with O. Koropchak re: July 25 hearing, resolution
Total Services:
Hours
0.25
$
Amount
45.00
45.00
Total Services and Disbursements:$ 45.00
Through July 31, 2005
For All Legal Services As Follows:
7/6/2005 . SJB Phone with O. Koropchak re: transaction; phone with p,
~~",. Zisla re: same
7/7/2005 SJB Revise PDA per Zisla email; phone with 0, Koropchak re:
same
.
City of Monticello
July 31, 2005
MN190-00121
7/11/2005
7/12/2005
.
7/12/2005
7/14/2005
7/18/2005
7/19/2005
7/20/2005
.
Page: 4
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis~ MN 55402 ''1 V
L{ ~ S v::> \.0 ./~t. c
'J,\'?J. '07
I C\ .- "'). ~ '
Economic Development TIF (Dahlheimer Distributing)
Hours
0.75
Amount
135.00
0.75
135.00
SJB
SJB
Phone with O. Koropcha~:.I~tr~~..l
Emails re: 1031 exchange; revise f!DA; research 1031
mechanics
0.20
1.00
36.00
180.00
CHT Conference with S Bubul re role of qualified intermediary in 0.20 37.00
1031 exchange
SJB Review Ehlers schedule 0.20 36.00
SJB Phone with O. Koropchak re: schedule; review of TIF doc 0.25 45.00
for Ehlers
SJB Phone message from/to P. Zisla re: TIF school 0.20 36.00
SJB Phone with Zisla, Koropchak re: new schedule 0.25 45.00
Total Services:
$
685.00
Total Services and Disbursements:$
685.00
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 10/05/05
7.
Executive Director's Report.
a) Landmark Square ll- HRA Contract amended to read: As a condition of the Authority
approving the provision of A vai lable Tax Increment to the Developer to assist in defraying the
Land Acquisition Costs, the three residential properties on the Development Property shall not
be relocated to any site within the city. Parking requirements satisfied by "Proof of Parking"
and additionally there was a miscalculation of parking stalls.
b) Rocky Mtn Group LLC (Dahlheimer) - Due to an incorrect legal description on the
annexation order and the re-plat, the property is treated as "torrens" land. This caused a delay
in recording of the plat and the closing date. In order to allow the developer to begin
construction prior to closing, a Liccnse Agreement was executed. I believe all documents are
signed, plans approved, and fees collected for issuance of a building permit on September 27,
2005. Closing or conveyance of property is anticipated on or before Octobcr 14, 2005.
c) Twin City Die Castings - TCDC 1St. Cloud Tcchnical College arc applying to the Minnesota
Job Skills Partnership for an approximate $250,000 Training Grant. The grant would be used
to support advanced automated manuhlcturing training for the 260 Monticello and Minneapolis
employces. The training would take place at the Monticello facility over an expanded time
period. ADDITIONALLY - It is my understanding TCDC applied for a variance for a 5,000
sq. ft. metal accessory structure. After denial of the variance and a meeting with city staf:t~ it
was rcported TCDC agreed to expand their existing 36,000 sq ft: facility. At the Outdoor
Storage meeting, a TCDC representative rcported an expansion to thc existing building was not
economical and they may look to leasc space in Buffalo. In speaking to the owner, Doug
Harmon, thereafter, TCDC plans to and has approval to construct outdoor storage: concrete
slab, fcncing and l,mdscaping. TCDC contributed $100 cash prize for the Rotary Golf Outing.
d) Manufacturer of lood bases, sauces, and seasonings - Paul Kleinwachter, John Simola, and
Koropchak visited this company locatcd in Dayton on Septembcr 21. Thc 1956 family-owned
business is looking to construct a 20,000 sq It facility on approximately 2-acres spring 2006.
With no adverse impact to the Waste Water Treatment Plant, a proposal and cover Icttcr was
mailed to the company. Paul, thanks for your nice letter. Total of twenty full-time permanent
jobs at an average wage-level of at least $20.70 ph without benefits. Sixteen jobs out of the
MN facility. Received email and now have begun to work with their contractor.
e) Attended the ribbon cutting for Pinnacle financial, Thomas Circle, September 16. Dragon
Fly Open House and Loch's Retirement Celebration on September 22. Electro Industries'
Open I-Iousc, September 28.
t) UMC $290,000 Minnesota Investment Fund Loan final report to be submitted, see job
report. Mortgage Subordination Agreements executed by City and EDA for refinancing TCF
loans.
g) Tapper's Ilolding Company - Expected to close on the GMEr Loan of $200,000 mid-
October for the Emundson building expansion.
.
HRA Agenda - 10/05/05
h) Soon to close on a Transformation Home L,oan.
i) Piber Optic Task Force will begin to devclop a request for proposal (RFP) on Septembcr 29
and will continue meeting until completion of final draft. lor consideration hy Council on
Novembcr 14th.
j) Lettcr from Office of State Auditors regarding questions on the 2003/2004 nF reports.
Must respond by mid-October, most irrclevant questions. See attached.
k) Survey by League of Minnesota Cities - Compiling data from communities who have used
cminent domain for purpose other than public improvements. (I IRA-O'Connor parcel in
2001).
1) Follow-ups - 200,000 sq ft manufacturer - United Properties (no response)
Great River Energy Headquarter Building - Looking for 60 acres. Elk River offered 60
acres for $1 but not interested. New President wants Maple Grove area fl.)!" image
purpose.
30,000 sq ft machine shop (gave offer/not intcrested) I'm OK with this.
60,000 sq ft builder of dump bodies, grain bodies, and trunk hoists. Respondcd with
first preliminary information and talked via phone. Needs outdoor storage.
m) Blue Chip Development - Harger 25,000 sq 11. expansion.
.
.
2
,,2)
September 7, 2005
MONTICELLO
Board of Directors
Minnesota Job Skills Partnership
1 sl National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street, Suite E 200
St. Paul, MN 55101-1351
Dcar Mcmbers of the Board,
On behalf of the City of Monticello, I would like to request your full support [or the St. Cloud Technical
Collegc/Twin City Die Castings Company grant application to support Advanced Automated
Manufacturing training for the Monticello and Minneapolis employees.
.
It is important to provide the tcchnical and process improvement training needed by current and
cxpected employces to enhance the company's ability to cxpand and compcte in a worldwide busincss
market. S1. Cloud Technical Collcge is well positioncd to assist these efforts in helping to maintain
Twin City Dic Castings Company as a strong and viable Minnesota manufacture and employcr.
I urge your favorable consideration of this application. Plcase feel free to contact me at 763-271-
3208, if I can providc further information.
Sinccrely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
a~ \S<<f' u ,_:~)
/---~
'\ ,.
............~/,.~.-~
Ollie Koropchak
Economic Development Director
c: Mayor Clint Hcrbst
File
.
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public.: Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 · (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272
(i,)
~ c--j
rHE L./\hID SF)E.CIAI._ISTS()
July 29,2005
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362-8831
RE: Metal Building Variance
For: Twin City Die Casting, Inc.
Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition,
Monticello, Minnesota
Dear Jeff:
.
On behalf of Monticello Industrial Park, Inc., we strongly oppose a variance that
would allow the construction of a metal exterior building or addition on subject
property. Not only would it violate the zoning provisions of 1-1A, it would violate
the character of the existing Twin City Die Casting building and the exceptional
quality of the UMC building.
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. owns the vacant lot contiguous to the west
boundary of subject property. Any metal exterior building will impact on the
salability of that property. In addition, there will be, in the near future, significant
development across the street from subject property between Chelsea Road and
1-94 that will be impacted also.
Very truly yours,
~
Charles C. Pfeffer, Jr.
cc: Angela Schumann
Shawn Weinand
.
I'!i:/fi'r COIll!!any, Inc, noo !/"lIllo"k /,ane. Suile 101 . Maplc (Jmve. IV/IV 553M-5587
703.4.?5,.?'J30. F'i.Y 703.475.J823 . d,/li'l',,()(a!aol.t'I)I/! . WWH'p/ij/<"'('II.I'()/)/
www/'hel,(lIld,)f!<'<.'/al/sls,CO/ll
*
ai' t
~ X f
}J
j
J)
-
~~
0-
C'l
.
.
"'--.
~^
o
WWOOOOOOO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OD~~~~~~~
5" 5" 3; 3; 3; 3; 3; 3; 3i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ffi lfl, lO lfl. In In In In
UU@@@@@@@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" w
L L ~' ~. ~. ~' ~. ~' ~. ~. ~. ~' ~. ~' ~' ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~. ~' ~. > > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~u ----------------------Inln ~~~~
~ouo In In 0000
C L CD CD ro CD
~~ ~~ ~~~~
~ ~ L L L C
@ @ , ~ , ~
'\ <:;)
......
!='
t....
o
~
;!
16"
1.---"
t....:::c:l>......
o 0 ~ ......
~L~
Ul ffi
-0-
~
~~~~~~~~......~~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNN~N~NNNNN~ N
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~o
~ro~~rororo~~~rororo~ro~wrowro~w~ro~w~wro~m~wwm~ro~~~
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-.-... .- -- . ""..- - . u u_ -- .,-. 1,_ __. __ ._. __._ "". ....__.
~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~DIP~
~ oo~ WN~OOOO ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~oo~ m ~~~n-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5'C
~rn~rn"""~m~"""~m~rn~"""~W~lO~~N~N~~~OOWNm~ffiNOW~"""~ lO~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~
W~WWO~~~OW~N~WWWW~~~~~MWN~~~~~W~~WWWWNO~
......~~~w~~~o~~m~~~. ......~m~~~m m~~~~mN~mN~N~mo~
omm~~~No~~mwm~~ffi~m~m~~N~~mO~ffiNO~~W~~~NO~
---- '---..~. I. m_._ __._ _ "_1_.
5"
en 0
L (l>
~ ~
~ 1[
CD
5"
In
<:: r
-, -.
~CD'
n
CD
5"
In :::c
L CD
~ ~
~ -
@ ~
;;u
!!!.
~.
3
CD
~
o
5'
~
m<......
CD W ~
~ -.
CD L :::c
""CD 0
(i)g,~
-<
~:::C"""
w 0 ~
~ AN~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~N~~N~~~~M~~N~~MNMN~~~~ ~~
~~~NffiWffi~wm"""rn~~N~~ON"""OO~N~~NOWOWWO~N~mNOW CD~
N~~~ON~~O~ON~ONON~~6~~~6~6~~. ~N6. ~. mo~~~
ffiffiwmO~ffiOOOOOooooooooornoornooooomO~NNffiOOOffi
.. ... ---. --.- -. --..-- .- --.. ...- - .--... .........- --- ~- ,-.. 1--" -- .....
~O:rm
./>. 0 0 .
u3S;0
<::16-<;;1
en ~ _
~./>.N"""N...... ............NNNNN~NNN~N~NNNNNN NN......~N~W..............................1n ~
m~mffi~rnm~W~N~oornN~NrnN............NffiNO~......~Wm~Nro~~~ffiO~~~
wwm~womm6m~mm~w w~~~mm~"""W~Wffi~o~~mmw~. ~~w 5
ffi......~~~......~o~NmromN~~~~~~~WNw~mo~~Nw~......~......N......NOW ~
,...
--.
....--.....
--
........
...
.
.....
l"
-
-.....
vl
I)
~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~
'--- -.. -.. -.-- ___ _. u ._____
--- '_1_ -- .. ...- . -- ..--.- 1- !..- --- __ ..__.
-- .__._ u ___ ..+___
~
",
('
{;1
~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~
.... ....---
1-
.--.. .---- - -- --~... --- .- -. -- .-.--.---- .m_..... -.-........ --- _ ___....___1... ._ _
~~~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~
- ----. --- ..- -
1- u_. __ __.
--- - -.. .-.- .-1...,__------... ._ _ ___ __. ___ _..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~
-- --.--.- - .-. ---
1..-
-------1--. -1- --- .-.- _._
_.. u____.__..._._
-- ---'---.
-- . ... --. -- -- _____. ___ u____
-
-.. --- u.__. 1"_ -..-
ti-\\11!.Ul1UDrfJJ:iflJ
~. "'W~!i~r~1_'9"'0;
.~":-'-"'-- -'iW",~
......: '.
._r..i-- :
'0" -r ..z.
~;....~7' - ....7i~r:
01..)(,;;-:-Si~"s''''
IIJ:l:I.rmD(L
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
'\-~
PATRICIA ANDERSON
STATE AUDITOR
SUITE SOO
525 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139
(Ci51) 296-2551 (Voice)
(651) 296-4755 (Fax)
slate.auditor@state.mn.us (E"Mail)
1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service)
TIF Direct Dial: (65I) 296-4716
TIF Fax: (651) 282-5298
September 21,2005
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite I
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. W olfsteller:
.
I reviewed the TIF plans ofthe city's active TIF districts to determine whether the TIF-plan
budgets agree with the budget amounts reported by the city on the 2003/2004 TIF reports. I am
required to do this review on all TIF authorities assigned to me in order to avoid or minimize
potential future problems. A summary of my review is shown below. I also did a cursory review
of the final TIF reports filed for decertified TIF districts. In general, I did not notice any major
problems with these TIF reports.
Accurately Reported TIF-Plan Budgets
Based on my review of original and modified TIF plans of the city's active TIF districts, I
believe the city reported accurate TIF -plan budgets for the following TIF districts. Thank you
for your accurate reporting.
TIF District No. 1-2
TIF District No. 1-5-see below
TIF District No. 1-6-see below
TIF District No. 1-13
TIF District No. 1-15
TIF District No. 1-17
TIF District No. 1-19
TIF District No. 1-20
TIF District No. 1-21
TIF District No. 1-22-see below
TIF District No. 1-25
TIF District No. 1-29
TIF District No. 1-30
TIF District No. 1-31-see below
.
~ R~cycl~J pap~r with a minimum of
D<:" 15% P()st-consum~r wast~
An Equal Opportunity Employer
.
.
;>
~
o?
~.~..
TIF District No. 1-5
The city reported a cumulative modified TIF plan budget that agrees with the sum of the original
budget, and the January 22, 1996 and June 24, 1996 common budget modifications. Please
explain, with page references, how the city arrived at the $4,365,000 cumulative tax increment
amount reported on line 74, column B, of the 2004 TIF report. Is this amount a "plug" figure?
Based on a review of current and previous TIF reports, it appears that tax increment from this
TIP district has been spent in accordance with the original TIF plan. It also appears, however,
that no tax increment has been spent in accordance with the common budget modifications, and
that the city is simply accumulating tax increment. Please explain whether any tax increment
from this TIF district has been spent in accordance with the 1996 common budget modifications,
what the city intends to do with the $500,000 cash/fund balance, whether the city intends to
decertify this district early, and what the city's future intentions are for tax increment generated
from this TIF district.
TIF District No. 1-6
On page 3 of the 2004 TIP report, the city reported a cumulative modified expenditure budget
totalof$I,437,150. That amount includes a large amount for bond interest expense. On pages
3, 4, and 5 of the TIF report, the city reported $172,183 of cash on hand and $70,000 of
outstanding debt. Accordingly, the city has enough cash to pay the remaining costs authorized
by the TIF plan for this TIP district. Please explain why this TIF district is not decertified, and
why the excess increment has not been returned to the county auditor.
TIF District No. 1-22
Page 23-5 of the TIF plan states that up to $39,000,000 of bonds maybe issued. On the 2003
and 2004 TIF reports, the city did not report any budgeted amounts for bond proceeds, bond
principal or bond interest payments. The city did report, however, that bonds were issued. If the
city chooses not to report the $39,000,000 budgeted amount, it should at least report budgeted
amounts up to the actual amount of bonds issued. This will keep a knowledgeable reader of the
TIF reports from believing that the city issued bonds in violation of the TIF Act.
/)
On the 2003 TIP report, the city reported $2,150,000 of bonds issued and outstanding. On the
2004 TIP report, the city reported $2,150,000 of bond principal payments, $945,000 of bond
proceeds, and that no refunding bonds were issued. Is this information accurate?
TIFDistrictNo.I-31
The $395,000 pay-as-you-go obligations should have been reported on lines 74 through 80 of the
2004 TIF report.
Other Active TIF Districts
. It appears that the TIP-plan budgets may have been inaccurately reported on the TIF reports filed
for the following TIF districts:
.
~c~
'i.:~'7
",,60
V
~
.
~
.
TIF District No. 1-14
Based on the information previously provided, I cannot calculate a revenue buaget for this TIF
district. Please provide a TIF plan that shows budgeted tax increment amounts, and that
authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance project costs.
TIF District No. 1-23
Page 24-6 of the TIF plan shows a revenue budget that totals $1,105,000, but includes
$1,000,000 oftax increment, $5,000 of interest and $100,000 oflocal contributions. The
2003/2004 TIF reports show $1,105,000 of tax increment.
TIF District No. lw24
Page 25-5 of the TIF plan shows a revenue budget. If the city reports this information on future
TIF reports, a balanced budget will be reported.
TIF District No. lw26
I cannot locate a TIF plan for this TIF district. If possible, please provide one.
TIF District No. 1-28
Page 2-6 ofthe TIP plan shows a balanced budget. I believe the $115,000 land/building
acquisition amount shown on the 2004 TIF report should be $35,000.
Other Information
The city decertified many TIP districts in calendar year 2004, and/or the remaining cash/fund
balances of many TIF districts was returned to the county auditor in calendar year 2004. Please
explain why no 2004 interest income was reported for these TIP districts on the 2004 TIF
reports.
Please provide the requested information by October 15,2005. If you have any questions or
concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at 651-297-3680.
Thank you for your cooperation.
~)j)~
Kurt Mueller-Tax Increment Financing Division
.
. "',"i f~.\1 CTT ;"J'}t:{...
,S,S~\\) IT () l:;<~'c'.'"
,(> ~,,:,.~.,-","",-,.;<~ 6";"
./~~~~ ~~.~~:~'9't.~' ~~!): ,l~i~~,~ ~<I~~\
!,~. ,~,,>. ',1'.1 . ''I. '""
j'~.::/:!:,;~, ',,~A..~i:\
'-'r. ::::il',,", -~,2:, z-'
r,i-:--, ',_ .:.,~~ :_':l
'0' ,,~';I\- I,,<_-"_':~': .~t
\(: :.. ~ - -' " '\~-:?:;7'Z~.:/~i~
"',';", #,-- , --, ','it,,",' - '0,,"-"
\-",~. ~ '""",:,"",",,, "\.~~..;'.. :~.
\:\#i:.. '{{:-lrt, ,~:~ y,<~/
"I,'j.'",~J' .... ." -:-." .,>,..
.v>" '---.:.....:..:..;; ~" s>
,ji.(//;,'u;- ;:;;~~. 'Lf! ~~\;~'..\'"
Septcm h(~r 2005
Tax fucrement Financing Division Newsletter
· WitltllOldinf: rd'Tax Increment For Failure to File 2004 Reports
· Excess Increment Calculation and TIF Plan Mod(fication
· Tip From Authority Recent~)l Audited
Withholding of Tax Increment For
Failure to File 2004 Reports
The deadline for submitting 2004 TIF reports
was August I, 2005. The TI F Division mailed
letters to the mayor and council members of
those cities that still had not submitted their
reports by August 151h The letter advised
those cities that, if their rep0l1s are not
received by November 15, we are required by
state law to mail written notice directing thcir
county auditor to withhold distribution of tax
increment.
We wish to thank the 95% of authorities that
have now submitted their 2004 TIF reports.
We encourage the 5% that have not yet filed to
callus if you need assistance.
We will announce in our October Newsletter
the names of those cities whose reports we
have not received by October I st.
l<~x.ccss Increment Calculation and TIF
Plan Modification
An excess increrilent calculation must be done
as of December 31 st of l:al:h year. This
determination is based on TIF plans and
modifications in place as of Dccember 31 st of
the year for which the calculation is done.
I I' a modi lication to a 'TI F plan budget is
reasonable and necessary pursuant to that TI r
district's individual circumstances, now is the
tirne to initiate the modification process
(modification must be approved on or before
December 3 1st). 'fhe authority must spend or
return the excess increment, pursuant to TIF
Act constraints, within nine months after the
end of the year.
Tip From Authoritv Recently Audited
While a TIF audit is in progress, the existence
of such audit and its elements are confidential
and the State Auditor's Office cannot disclose
any of its elements to third parties. An audited
TIF authority however, may disclose details
regarding the audit to any third parties_
Recently, an authority being audited invited
their county attorney into their deliberations
before an audit was complete and the findings
were made publ ic. The authority discovered
that by apprising the county attorney of the
issues at an early stage of the audit, the
relationship between the city and the county
was less adversarial. Alter the State Auditor
issued its linal non-compliance tindings,
county legal action and a speedy settlement
agreement between the city and the county
was possible, resulting is less negative mlxlia
exposure.
Tom Carlson
65 I - 2 8-1- 3 5 -IJ n/(~/!li!.S. M. ( '( !!:L\(!II'U,lcl:!Jl_i~~c!!.!!.!.c.!!.:'-
Kurt Mueller
(i5 I -297-](i8() 0.!JtL_Muy[/r'/'(ils/i/le, /l/!L.lJ'i '
Lisa McGuire
65/- ]')(,-1)] 5 5 Lh'.!!JV'(;lli!:((!L!i!.!/L<:',W/IIIS
~I.Fou l/(fve any ijuestions please contaef u.\'.'
.\'u/\ Shah
65/- 296-7f}(} I Silk SlwllitCcYLIJ!CUlIll/:'i
Marsha Pattison
65 I -296--/7 I (i Mi.!L0l/1LL'!!!Ji,I'OI!.iI,.\'IUlc,J[l1111:'i
A lex Shlei/itum
65 I - 2 9 7- 8 3 -!2/l!ex., 'l'IIi eijlll! 1IL:~I,:)I(ll!'JI/1l liS
JSINESS JOURNAL I twincities.bizjournals.com
-
September 16, 2005
Developers reveal drivers,
. deterrents in city selection
.
I
.
)U
the
at
Ita
BY ELLEN P. GABLER
STAFF WRITER
Waiting for slow city approvals gives devel-
opers fits.
So do inconsistent regulations, stubborn
city staffers and excessive fees, according to a
survey completed recently by some of the
Twin Cities' top real estate developers.
The Minnesota chapter of the National
Association of Industrial and Office Properties
(NAJOP) this week released results of its 11rst sur-
vey of developers, asking them what they think
about working with local municipalities.
NAlOP Minnesota selected 2/} of its 820
members to participate. The survey charted
developers' general opinions, not their take
on working with specitic cities,
Developers ranked the following factors in
order of importance when deciding on which
city to focus their efforts:
1. Cost of development
2.The city's attitudes toward developers and
development
3. Business subsidies
II. Pre-construction scheduling and the pro"
cessing time involved.
Among development costs, developers are
most irked by overly irrelevant local municipal
fees, especially special charges not associated
with their project such as park-dedication fees.
Developers said good relationships with city
staffers (md a willingness to work together are
helpful; one respondcnt noted that developers
often choose "the path of least resist,mce."
Developers said they favored cities that kept
business subsidies in mind and offered speedy
and fair navigation through plmll1ing phases.
Larry Lee, community development direc-
tor for Bloomington, said he has seen nation-
al studies such as this, but none done locally.
Bloomington has "excellent turnaround"
and good working relationships with develop-
ers, Lee said, adding that the city can't make
everyone happy all the time.
"From time to time, we have to say 'No,' or
more likely, 'Can you modify your plan to do it
this way?' That causes heartburn sometimes,
but it's part of our job of representing public
interest."
Developers responding to the survey on
average had morc than lO years of commcr-
dal-development experience. They work for
firms that have been in business bctwecn lO
and 20 years and average $43 million in new
development each year. Respondents develop
a variety of project types: 88 percent industri-
al. 76 percent oft1ce, 68 percent retail and 48
percent mixed"lIse.
WHERE'S THE ACTION?
egabler@bizjoumals.com I (612) 288-2106
15
Where 24 NAIOP developers say
they are most active
(within the past two years):
,(;
12 '(11 I.!
';
\., i
ill
Ii I
\ 1.'.1"'.
it
H;
In
Lj ~
!I!
HI
;II
iJ...l'.~lO
o. L1:J
If)
+'
C 9
<1J
-0
C
o
0.
If) 6
<1J
L
4 t3 ~
'"<'''< 1
3
Mnple Grove
Minllcnpolis fJlulIInillutlJll
Brnoklyn Park
Eagall
ROlJers
Ruseville
Shakopee
Where they plan to develop in
the next two years:
6 -
If)
+'
C
<1J
-0
C 3
0
0.
If)
<1J
L
0
"l"'''l
II'
ll'..l..!
1. j. ..
~."j
, 3 ... .~
.' I ,~t<~
Erlcn Prairie
Lino I.,lkcs
Monticello
Snvaue
/ Minneapolis Blaine
Brooklyn Park Blnurnington Eden Prairie
Maple Grove EalJan Plymouth
Monticello Rogers
St. Paul Roseville
Shakopee St. Michael
Savage
Woodbury
SQurce: 2005 Developer Survey, eomp'ett~d by tho MirmC~3ota chapter ot f\IA1QP; the complete report i~; ~lVailabl~ online at www.naiopn1l1.ory.