HRA Minutes 08-02-1995
.
.
.
MTNUTES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVEI,OPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, August 2, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Everett,,! Ellison
and Roger Carlson.
Ch.airperson Al
(hu'dy), Tom St.
Larson,
Hilajr:.::"
ME~1BERS ABSENT:
Vice-Chairperson Brad Barger.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ollie Koropchak.
CITY STAFF:
Jeff O'Neill.
GUEST.
<TiJmc~s Harwood, Partner,
Inc.
S t e v 1= G r i. t: t ma n , C i t Y
Associates.
Vc"'!ctor TonI & Mfg.
Planner,
Nnrthweat
1
-' .
CALL TO ORDER.
, ",.. "., .
Chairperson Larsun called the HRA meeting to order at 7:00
1J. m.
..,
.(" .,
CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 6, 1995,HRA MINUTES.
Tom St. Hilaire made a motion to approve the June 6, 1995, HRA
minutes. Roger Carlson SeC(lrH~h:~d the mot ion and wi th no
corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as
writtc'l1.
3.
CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THE DECLARATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT
OF INTEREST SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER. BRAD BARGER.
HRA commit~~3ionet's consirif-!t'ed the declaration dated .July 1,
1995 from Commissioner Rargpr. The HRA did not consider th8
declaration in July as r8quested because no ARA meeting wQa
held during the month of July, 1995. Mr. Barger submits the
declaration of potential conflict of interest as he is one of
the three partners of Vector TonI & Manufacturing, a business
under conaideration to develop in the City of Monticello.
Turn st. Hilaire made a motion to accept the Doclaratjon of
Potential Conflict of Interest from HRA Commb.3c::;ioner BrR.d.
Barger. AI Larson s(>conded the mot.ion and wi th no further
discussion, the motion passed. Yeas: Hiloire, Laraon,
Ellison, and Carlson. Nays; Nono. Absent: Brad Rarger.
Page 1
.
.
.
HRA MINUTES
AUGUST 2, 1995
4. CONSIDER,ATION TO NF.GOTIA'I'E.'I'HE1'Fi:~MSAND CONDITIONS OF THE
PUR.CHASE AC3~EEMENT FOR LOT fl. BLOCK a,.,9IJ?l' AND qAI:,L FOR. A
PUBT.JIC IiEARING ON THE ACQrJTSITIOrl ANDDISPOSITI9N OF RAW LAND.
Chairperaon Larson welcomed Jim Harwood of Vector Tool & Mfg,
Inc,
Koropchak reviewed the three options for land write-down hased
on the assumptions as outlined in th~ agenda, informod the HRA
th,~t the IDC Prospect Team had toured Vector I sexist ing
facility in Maple Grove, and that Mr. Harwood and she met with
Attorney Buhul on July 26 to determine the terma and
conditions of the purchase agr2oment. At the July 26 meeting,
Mr. Harwood requested the consideration of $30,000 as the land
purchase pr j ce j n order for th(~ project Find proposed buyou t to
occur.
Mr. Harwood indicated the developers are proposing to
construct a 15,000 sq ft metal/steel office/manufacturing
facility, 60 X 120 ft manu,facturing and 28 K 64 ft office
space, on the most easterly portion of Lot 5. Consideration
of the developers to subdivide the lot for a second business
was discussed. With the three partnors buyout in 1988, the
company had bOl'der-l ine prof i ts, the next two-y(~ar~.:? were
prc1f i tabl e, mO:3t rec:.:mt] y the company has incurrnd 1 ong-- term
debt with the purchase of computers and equipment, ar~ the
company's net worth book-value is approximately $1.4 million
reported Mr. Harwood. Additionally, two of the three partners
of Vector arc considering the buyout of the third partnor.
Groundhreaking anticipated October 1, 1995.
Prpviously, the HRA estimated the rrurchase price of tho land
at $96,000 ($15,000 X 6.4 acres) and considered a purchase
pr ice of $40,000 for the land based on the cont:;t t'nct ion of a
15,000 sq [t concrete fa.cility vJith high :3kill, high ~'Jagf:
employment ($12.00 ph). Chairperson Larson r(:;,p(lrtf~rl Vector's
exj:~ting rental f8.cility hi dated, cramped, and employs at
least five Monticello people.
In order to attract a good company with a high skill, high
wago o.ll1ployment base and to generFlte tax revenues from FI tax--
exompt property, the HRA memhers discussed and agreed to the
fo]lo~\ling tE"l'mS and conditions: Purchas!"'" Price for Lot 5,
Block 3, $33,000 (6.4 acres) i retroa.ct i ve we ightcd--avcragc
wage/benefits of $12.00 per hour: total employment of 30,
accountable in 2 years; for a period of fivc-yearA sell-off of
Lot 5 to oth:;:'l:' than el th,,'r partner or both :r'equirl;"s HRA
approval; $33,000 purchase price good for 30 days, request
Pag~} 2
.
.
.
HRA J'.I!J NUTES
AUGUST 2. 199!i
$5,000 earnest muney: 811 lcg;:_~l and (.locu\ncnt
p:r;:'paration/c]osing/r;:,cording foes .r';::::;po:nsibility of th;'
buyer, special assessments responsibility of the buyer,
t~ubmittFll of ;:"viderice of corlC::ltruction financ::lng: howev8:r', not-
limitc(l-to t1:'1I';1 i,bovl';~, Tom St. Hil;::;,ire made a motion to accept:
tho above torms and conditions 8S the terms and conditinns of
the Purchase and Development Contract between thE; HHA and
Vector Tnol & Mfg, Inc., authorized the HRA Chairpersnn and
Executive Director to execute said contract, and called for a
public hearing date of September 6, 1995, for the acquisition
and disposition of raw lands. Al Larson seconded tha motion
and requested the HRA review the buiJding aNl site plans.
Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
5.
(";9r-JSIDERATION OF, A COM?~;EH.'E;J:1~Iyg..PJ~t>N UPPl\TE/REDEV:F.~,OI)MENT
CONCEPT I)ISCUS~ION BY STF.VRQ~r'I''I'~A)!.
City Planner Stevo GrittmFln gave an overview of the completed
process to date (Attachment 1) and outlined activities
remaining (Attachment 3) prior to Comprohensive Plan Update
;::~pprov<:Jl. Since the Ci ty CommiGsioners meet ing, two
ne:ighborhood meetings were held at: th;:- high school.
Att:<')chmf'H\t 2 lh.;t th~! is~:nl(~fj (liscus!'icd and the priorities
which rer:;ulted from the nl':dghborhood discul'isjon:'i. The planner
and Mr. O'Neill were comfortable with the att~ndance of tho
nEdghborhood meeting:-:::;. ChaJrpE'rson I,arson sFlid, "He wa:,:-.;
surprised that in addition to city staff and commissioners,
only, two other per::'ions attond(!d the s;~8sion he 8ttendpd."
"Wh<';,t efforts a.t'f:~ being donE- to con:3ul t with area churchc:;; <'HHl
other org;~n j 2ati ons?" W8r:; a quest ion posed. Di sell s::.:; j on::.:; were
held with Pastor Russet of the Ministerial Association, other
comndr.;:::;ions continue to meet, and a fl1.lhlic heFlring will be'
held prior to approval of the Comprehensive Plan.
Grittman said, "He W88 m(Jr.~t surpri:::;ed by the' issuf~ y'aised
re Ie t i ng to th(, shortage of the l;::~bor supp 1 y wi thin the <H'(1a. "
A fiscal impact repcJrt .L;; under preparation~ cost of ,::;ervic1:'
in relationship to value of property. Grittman then reviewed
the land use map which proposed Jnclustrial land to the west
and south of I--94 and commfH'cial land to the !;;outh along
Highway 25. Grittman responsed that an approved Comprehensive
Plan is a general phHl u.sed by management 81;; ,~ guide for
enforcement of policy. The land use lines may not he exact
but are transitional. Grittman agreed with HRA members that
the discussed outlet mall dot:"'s not meet or E'ndo:t'fH~ the
objectives as determined by the results of the commissioners
voting at the city commissioners meeting.
Page :=;
.
HRA MINUTES
AUGUST 2, 1995
HRA members felt the ~ity was being short-sighted as to its
projecte~ growth, 101 housing starts per year for the noxt 20
years, A_B it relAtes to the expansion of the W;::~stc water
treatment plant and developmont of public utilities. Grittman
outlined the proposed traffic patterns including County Road
118 as 4-6 lanes, School Boulevard completion, and Oakwood
Drive/Highway 25 intersection realignment at a point farther
south and extended westerly running parallel to I-94 to
OrchHrd Road. Traffic needs to he disbursed away from the
interchange of 1-94 and Hwy 25 therefore was the rational for
industrial land to the we8t only.
HRA members felt the City needs to vision the city as a major
square box and then to proposc more than one traffic pattern
which disbul"sl'-'s traffjc across and onto I~-94 and to proposu
utility infrastructure 1Jnrh:~r and beyond 1-94 to serve the
~"quare box. Ot}'\l"'r comments: It tak;:,s a Council wi th gut:::; and
futuristic vision. A city does not exist without the supply
of land and infrastructure to attract people (jndustry,
commerCF;, <?Ind, res i(h~n t8), thp. people form a communi ty and
request community services.
.
Planner or i ttman presented four pr"~ I iminary redeve lopmen t
sketch options for consideration of a downtown re~evelopmGnt
project. The sketch options rcsulte~ from ideas of
in(:U\1id1);dL~ in al:tE'lH:la.nce at the neighbc1rhood meeting::;;. HRA
members reactionR were varied. Some members werc encouraged
by a pos::;:d ble rlowntown redevl'"lopment prc1ject whHthe1"; i t b~.:' a
renovation or demolishion project. Others were non-
supportive. Members did agree that the best utilization of
the river front property was for pedestrian/park development
and not for parking lots or an ice arena. Some members saw
the community center as a public building which would generate
additional motor traffic to an already high-density traffic
area. Is the focu:::; of the redE'velopment project for the
development of a community center or to attract
commerce/tourism through the utilization of the river front?
Is a redevelopmc'nt project feasable? One cautioned not to
promote displa~pment of businesses. One member believed the
cart had been placed before the horse and sUggOSt8J
~on(;entl:'8.tion h(~ on infrastructur8/traffic and indllstrii;,l
development: an~ then redevelopment. The cd ty needs th;o,
revenues not mora expenses.
With some HRA members having left: no formaljz:.:d conclusion 01"'
recommendation8 were made.
.
Page 4.
.
.
.
BRA MINUTES
AUGUST 2: 1995
6. CONSIDRRATION TO REVIEW COMMENTS FROM ATTORNEY BUEUL RELATING
, '. .",.,........,.,.,....,',....,..,...........,....~..,...,....... ,........"......,.., ". ".,.. ,," .".. ,."~ ..". n... .,. .'.n ....... ..~.".~.,
TQ___TtIf.B~Q!l~~J;'_1f9J~,_I~'f'()f?JifJ)".'l'I()~ ..... TO. APPJ)"t-J ADD 1: TIQ N AI. CRITERIA
TO THE LOCAL TIF POLICIES.
."...".,,,.,,"',,....... ,....".... ... ..... .......... ......................................... ......".....,..-...
Tabled to the next HRA meeting.
7. ~ONSIDERATION OF PROJECT UPDATES:
,.,',,,,, "....,.,.... ,., .". .... ......... .. ......................................................-.,.---...-.....
Tablud to the n~xt HRA meeting.
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
Tahled to the next RRA meeting.
9. ADJOURNMENT.
......-..,.....................,.,...,....
The HRA meeting adjourned 8.t 11:20 p.m.
Cj ~ \c:. <T\. ~J)~
Ollie Koropchak, Executive Director
Pagf~ 5