HRA Agenda 11-14-2001
.
1.
2.
. .,
_J.
4.
5.
AGE DA
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND R __DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November ]4,200] - Meet ng - 7:00 p.m. Workshop - 8:1S p.m.
SOS Walnut Stree - Bridge Room
Commissioners:
Chair Dan Frie, Vice Chair Brad Barger, Steve Andrews, Darrin Lahr, and
Bob Murray.
Council Liaison:
Brian Stumpf
Staff: Rick Wolf5teller, Ollie Koropchak, and L ri Kraemer.
Guests:
Jim McComb, McComb Group, I J C; Steve Johnson; and Susie Wojchouski,
Chamber Director.
Mike Cyr. MLC Building & RCll10 eling
Mark Run~ Ehlers & Associates, Ii c.
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the Septem ber 5, 2001 11 RA minutes.
Consideration of adding or renlOving item -. fi'OI11 the agenda.
Consent Agenda.
Consideration to approve endorsement and or financial support tl)[ a Commercial Markct
Analysis and Development Potential Evalu ftion. Jim McComb
6. Consideration to approve requested amoun of TI F and reduction of initial deposit
associated with the approved prel iminary c ncept tl)[ establ ishment of a Housing District.
Mike Cyr, Applicant.
7. Consideration to award demolition and clc;. nup agreement for 8 Locust, 220 Front, 218
Front. and 3 Walnut Strect.
8. Consideration to review costs associated wi, h site preparation and to consider extending
the cfTective date of the Preliminary Agreel ent betwcen the I IRA and I Ians Hagen
Homes.
9. Consideration or authorizing paynlent or Sc tember and October HRA bills.
.
10. Consideration of Executive Director's Report.
11.
Committec Reports: Marketing - Barger
. 12. Other Business.
13. Adjournment.
8:15 P.M. WORKSHOP - DISCUSSION WHETIIERITO PROCEED WITH A PLAN FOR
IU=DI~VELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN OR BLOC 52.
.
.
.
.
.
WORKS .JOP
8:00 P.
DOES THE BRA WANT TO PROCEED ITH REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
DOWNTOWN 0 BLOCK 52?
1. Review of current activities within TIFdistrict 1-22. Koropchak
2. Recap tax increment available to procee and impact of 5-year rule and 2 million
dollar bond sold. Present a preliminary ime schedule in order to complete a project
given the 5-year rule and 2 million dolla~ bond issuance. Mark Ruff
3. Are there other funding options for us to consider? Mark Ruff
4. Direction given by the City Council for r development of Block 52. Work with
interested sellers and no use of eminent domain.
HOW DOES THE ECONOMY AND DEMAN FOR SPACE IMIlACT OUR DECISION?
]. Is there merit in a marketing study by Ji McComb and how will it differ from the
Hoisington and MCP study'? Of the 22, 00 sq ft under construction by Vaugh Veit,
70'X, is leased or 7,000 sq ft remain accor ing to Ken Barthel.
~. ARE WE BETTER OFF GOING OUT F R A REQUEST FqR PROtQ~AI :?Io^ ~ "a9A- '?
~ ~ '\Y'- to .... c..-v- c:..... ;~...- '\
1. Who are the interested sellers? What is he size or seope of the project? Is there a
targeted use desired? How will the proje t connect with Walnut Street, the park,
and the river? Uo~ w"U ~ ~,,~ \."...&- v....o--.u.......f)"?
2. How or what will encourage more peopl to the downtown area?
IS THE HRA IN AGREEMENT TO ROCEED WITH A PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMEN OF BLOCK 52?
WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN CARRYING OUT A PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPME T OF BLOCK 52?
.
.
.
LIST OF ACTIVITIES WITH N TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-22
I. Community Center/City Hall Development
2. Cub Store Redevelopment
3. Sunny Fresh Expansion
4. Locust Street Development
5. First Minnesota Bank Redevelopment
6. Marquette Bank Redevelopment
7. Grimsmo Chapel Redevelopment
8. Town Centre Development
9. Liquor Store Renovation
10. Amoco Redevelopment
I I. Front Street Redevelopment
12. Broadway Street Improvement
13. Walnut Street Sidewalk Improvement to 4th St'eet
14. West Bridge Park Improvements Landscaping Playground Equip
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
In Progress
Pc Il d in g 'I; '" ~ (l Y...t.4.o
In Progress
In Progress
Summer 2002
In Progress
In Progress
HOUSING ADDED OR REPLA EMENT IN THE CORE AREA
1. Front Street
2. Amoco Site
3. Scattered Housing
4. Anderson
5. Cyr)lh and Elm
6. CYI' 6th and Vine
7. Veit E 7 St
8. S1. Henry's
owner-occupied
rental
11m owner-occupied
owner-occupied
owner-occupied
ownerwoccupied
Rental
Rental
10 units
8 units
10 units
4 units
2 units
33 units
35 units
32 units
In Progress
In Progress
Pending
In Progress
In Progress
Proposed
Pending
Proposed
.
MINU ES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND RE EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3,2001 - Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Workshop - 8:00 p.m.
505 Walnut Street Bridge Room
Commissioners Present:
Vice Chair Brad Bar er. Darrin Lahr and Council Liaison Brian
Stumpf
Absent:
Chair Dan Frie Stev Andrews Bob Murray
Staff Present:
Rick Wolfsteller, 01 ie Koropchak and Lori Kraemer.
Guests:
1.
. 2.
.,
:>.
4.
5.
.
Bill Grassl, Domino's Pizza
Mark Ruff. Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Vice Chair Brad Barger declared no quorum prese t so the regularly scheduled meeting of the
HRA was not held.
Call to Order.
Consideration to approve the September 5, 2001 HRA minutes.
Consideration of adding or removing items from the agenda.
Consent Agenda.
Consideration to discuss for approval the a quisition of the Grassl lot located on West
Broadway.
6. Consideration to approve extending the ef ctive date of the Preliminary Agreement
between the HRA and Hans Hagen Homes and an update on projects within TIF District
No. 1-22.
7. Consideration of authorizing payment of onthly HRA bills.
8. Consideration of Executive Director's Rep rt.
9. Committee Reports: Marketing - Barger
10. Other Business.
11.
Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINU ES
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, Septcmbe 5,2001 - 7:00 p.m.
505 Walnut Street - Bridge Room
Members Present:
Chair Dan Frie, Vice Chair rad Barger and Darrin Lahr
Members Absent:
Steve Andrews. Bob Murra and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf
Staff Present:
Rick Wolfsteller. Ollie Kor pchak and Lori Kraemer.
Guests:
Paul Steinmen and Jerry Sh nnon. Springsted, Inc.
Mike Cyr. MLC Building a d Remodeling
1. Call to Order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 M.
2.
Consideration to a rove the Julv 11. ')00 and Auoust 1. ')001 HRA minutes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BA GER AND SECONDED BY DAN FRIE TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JU Y 11. 2001 AND AUGUST 1, 2001 HRA
MEETINGS. Motion carried.
..,
.J.
Consideration of addin!! or removin item from the a )"enda. None.
4.
Consent A~enda. None.
5.
Consideration to hear a resentation bv l blic finance advisors S rin sted. Inc.
Ollie Koropchak. Executive Director. adv sed that representatives from Sprinsted, Inc.
were in attendance to provide a brief pres ntation to the HRA members regarding their
company. Paul Steinmen and Jerry Shan on introduced themselves and re-familiarized
the members with their company who pr viously worked with the City of Monticello as
financial advisors. They noted there are f ur people in their company who specialize in
housing and economic development and hat Jerry works in the financial end of their
company. Steinmen noted that they are a multi-faceted firm specializing in public
finance and that they are known for their pecialty in bond issuance.
Steinmen added that some of the surroun ing communities they work with included
Albertville. St. Cloud. Maple Grove, Cor oran and St. Michael. as well as a number of
school districts in the area and the Monti ello - Big Lake Hospital.
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 09!05/O1
The members asked for an approximate fee 0 establish a TI F district and Steinmen stated
that it would depend on the level of involve ent but that it could be anywhere from
$2.500 to $4.000 stating that they deal with these on a project by project basis.
One of their primary assets that set them ap rt from the City's current advisor is that they
arc independent and do no work for private developers. Also noted was their public
sector experience. Steinmen noted that he t pically runs the numbers on projects, but
added that they have 65 people in their St P ul office who could run numbers as well.
Also noted was that they get paid by the pr ject and they bill on a not-to-exceed basis.
The members asked the average time frame for a new TIF district to be created and it was
stated they take approximately 45 days, ad ing that they could be done in 30 days
depending on the timing in regard to notification dates.
6.
Consideration to a
of twin homes.
t of use ofTIF for develo. ment of 30 units
Koropchak provided the report stating Cyr nformed the commissioners of his interest to
develop approximately 2.5 to 3 acres of Ian in the vicinity to the south of 6 Street and
Vine St. He asked the HRA of their intere t in the concept and for TIf assistance in the
amount of $1 00.000.
It was suggested by the HRA to check if th proposed scattered housing TIF District and
Cyr's project could be combined as one TI District and Koropchak stated that from a
TIF standpoint it could work as long as the 95% criteria is met; however. timing may be
an issue. The second round of awards for I-IF A funding is scheduled for September 27
and if awarded, thereafter will Sheri begin he process of acquiring parcels. The scattered
housing project was planned with a differe t builder than Cyr but could still work.
Koropchak also stated that it appears deve! pers approach the HRA for interest of TIF
and request assistance without completion l' an application and having talked to their
lenders, no sketch plan of the proposed de elopment is submitted either. In this case.
Koropchak added that she has yet to see a ap of the proposed boundaries nor received a
completed application. Although the H wants to encourage development!
redevelopment. she suggested the commis ioners remind developers to complete the
preliminary application form prior to appe. ring at an HRA meeting. Also the concept
goes to the City Council prior to determini g a level of TIf assistance.
Cyr provided a brief description of his pro
Ron Ruff that he is interested in acquiring
project if he were to only develop Lots 8,
vacated street. Lots 6 and 7 are owned by
the Grups, who were in attendance as well
osal stating that there are 2 Y2 acres owned by
swell. Cyr asked if the board would fund the
and 10, and ei ther all or part 0 f the proposed
ne person and are for sale. Lot 8 is owned by
and Cyr has a purchase agreement with them
2
H RA Minutes - 09/05/01
.
which he stated he needed to act on within he next 30 days. Cyr's request is for up to
$100,000 for purchase and demolition, and his proposal is to build 6 to 8 units of twin
homes in four structures.
Cyr then proposed a larger project stating a owner of some parcels in that area is willing
to sell as well. Cyr is to arrive at a purchas amount. If this worked. based on the square
footage. Lots 1-5 along with the aforement oned lots would have enough square footage
to allow for a PUD for 20 to 22 dwellings. If the City would vacate their street right-of-
ways and a triangular section as welL alon with the square footage stated, this would
support up to 36 market rate units of 1300 0 1400 sq. ft. with basements at a selling price
01'$159.900 to $169,900.
The members questioned how this density orked within that area and it was stated that
the area is in the PZM district. Rick Wolfs eller stated it \vas very likely the City would
choose to vacate those streets as they do not lead anywhere and there are probably no
utilities in place, or the need for any to be laced there.
.
Frie stated he liked the concept of replacin older housing with newer and higher density.
Koropchak again noted that she had not ye received an application or fee from Cyr. Frie
also stated that he feels it is hard for the H to make a decision without that information
and Koropchak added they really need to k ow the number of units. Cyr asked if he were
to state he needed $100.000 to make this p oject work. and the HRA could provide only
$60.000. where then would the shortfall co 1e from.
Lahr states he feels the HRA is interested ut they do need to see some numbers. As for
the shortfalL the City could possibly vacat the street. Koropchak states the application
needs to be submitted, then if the Council pproves, they would enter into a private
redevelopment contract and Cyr would need to pay $5,000. The HRA likes the concept
but cannot commit to a dollar amount. Cy asked for a letter of intent that they would
approve the funding if the numbers worke . Koropchak noted that the motion stated
much the same without a dollar amount. F ie stated that the other key would be if the
Council would approve to vacate. It was c arified that Cyr is asking for the City to vacate
the street in lieu of a portion of TIF assista ceo
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DARRIN L HR AND SECONDED BY BRAD
BARGER TO APPROVE THE PRELIMl ARY CONCEPT FOR ESTABLISHMENT
OF A HOUSING TIF DISTRICT WITH HE FINDING THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE
REQUEST IN THAT THERE IS CURRE TL Y A HOUSE IN PLACE THAT WOULD
NEED TO BE PURCHASED AND DEM LISHED: FOR WARDING THE CONCEPT
TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL; D SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL
AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A RELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT. Motion carried unanimou ly.
.
3
.
.
.
HRA Minutes - 09/05/01
6.
the area along Front Street.
Koropchak advised that at a previous HRA meeting the BRA. authorized going out for
bids for demolition and cleanup of the Bos ie, Schliefand Reed properties. However,
after a meeting with Hans Hagen, it was de 'ided to wait until the HRA gained possession
of the O'Connor parcel. Completing the cl an up as one project appeared to save money
in the long run and would provide a finishe pad site at a pre-detennined grade level and
at 100% compaction. This is to be adjuste in the land price to Hagen. Koropchak added
that after the "test burn" and with the Building Department issuing bl ight notices, the
Building Department received complaints f the remaining concrete foundation and
garages in the said area and therefore the d cision to solicit RFP's.
The RFP's were mailed to Schluender. Gut ing and Fyle and were due back at noon on
September 4, 2001 with work to be compltited no later than September 21. 2001.
Koropchak noted that only one bid was retlrned. that being from Fyle and asked the HRA.
if they preferred to resubmit or award to Fie.
Lahr asked if the HRA could reject and sta t over. The members suggested that possibly
Fred Patch could state that on a certain dat in October. all properties would be cleaned
up including the O'Connor propel1y which the City will then have possession of. Lahr
stated that he is still concerned that Hans agen will want something other than what the
!-IRA plans for the properties. Dan Frie st ted that the HRA should demolish the
properties in October and then resume talk' with Hagen over the \vinter months to
determine exactly what Hagen is expectin< .
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BA GER AND SECONDED BY DARRIN
LAHR TO REJECT THE SOLE BID AN FOLLOWING THE CLOSING ON THE
O'CONNOR PROPERTY ON OCTOBE 3.2001, RESEND RFP'S ON ENTIRE SITE
AS A CLEAN SITE. Motion carried unani 10usly.
7.
Koropchak provided an update on the proj cts within TIF District No. 1-22, adding that
regarding the Amoco Site. Mr. Bjorklund as in to City Hall earlier that day regarding
assessments and stated Barry Fluth was re dy to move forward on the project.
8.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BA GER AND SECONDED BY DARRIN
LAHR TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THE MONTHL Y HRA BILLS. Motion
carried unanimously.
4
.
.
.
9.
I'IRA Minutes - 09/05/0 I
Consideration of Executive Director's Re
Koropchak provided the report adding that egarding Fay-Mar, the company is in default
with no production left, and also asked the embers if they wished for her to question
Mr. Musich regarding the number of jobs f om January of 2001 to August of 2001. They
agreed to not ask for accountability of the j bs. Koropchak also added that the plan to re-
instate the business retention/expansion vis ts through the IDC would begin in October.
Also regarding a recent discussion Koropc ak had with a land owner in Monticello, she
asked the members how they would feel ab ut providing TIF to relocate a warehouse
business to the industrial park. She added his would not be creating any new jobs. The
members stated they did not have enough i formation to make a decision at this time.
10. Committee Reports:
Marketing - Barger reported that the marke ing committee had reviewed the main
brochure and there is a need to update it fo more current information. Xee\ Energy will
contribute approximately one half of the c st to update. Lahr stated this would be
approximately $4,000. Total cost to upda e and print is approximately $14,000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRAD BA GER AND SECONDED BY DARRIN
LAHR TO ACCEPT THE MARKETING OMMITTEE REPORT TO UPDATE
BROCHURES WITH XCEL CONTRIBU ING A PORTION OF $4.000. Motion
carried unanimously.
11.
Other Business. None
12.
Adiournment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DARRIN AHR AND SECONDED BY BRAD
BARGER TO ADJOURN THE MEETIN AT 9: 15 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
HRA Chair
Recorder
5
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
5. Consideration to a rove endorsement a d/or financial su ort for a Commercial
Market Anal sis and Develo ment Poten ial Evaluation.
A. Reference and hack1!round:
As you recall something ago, Darrin Lahl, c teve .lohnson, and myself met with First
National Bank of Elk River to discuss inter st in redevelopment of a portion of Block 52.
first National was not interested in being aI owner or developer. In preparation of a plan
to redevelopment Block 52 the following c mponents must come together: Demand for
space (market), interested developer, intere ted sellers, parking requirements, acceptable
mixed-use, and financing (both private and ublic). For the sake of Block 52, is a market
study necessary or do we contact suggested developers to solicit hids based on a
determined mixed~use and boundary?
Attached is the summary of the 1996 mark t study conducted by Maxfield as part of the
JIoisington Study or the Downtown Revita1'zation Plan. As you recall, the lIRA paid
$80,000 for the Iloisington Study. The Mep were the managers/administers of the
Downtown Revitalization Plan and the Hand EDA Commissioners provided the
financial tools to carry out the redevelopmc 1t and development activities. The MCP
conducted a second market study which will he available at the meeting. Lastly, attached
is a draft copy orthe Monticello Commerci I Market Analysis and Development
Potential Evaluation as prepared by MeCOI h. The cost of the analysis is between
$30,000 to $38,000.
Mr. MeComh was contacted by Steve .lohn on and previously they Inet with Susie
Wojouchski and .leffC),Ncill. It is my und rstanding the Chamber Board endorsed the
concept only. Some IDC memhers felt con mercial is driven by population and others
stated the attached analysis was not about r JOr-tops but addressed whether the city was
prepared for commercial development. Th IDC suggested the liRA and Planning
Commission address the analysis.
The liRA is heing asked to endorse and/or 0 contribute financial support. Here are some
questions to ask.
I. Does the analysis apply to the role oftl e liRA: redevelopment, housing, and
economic development?
2. How does this study differ from the 1I0i 'ington market study? Is the 1996 study
outdated?
3. Will the analysis be useful to the HRA r City? Or will it he placed on the shelf?
.
liRA Agenda - 11/14/01
4. Is the cost negotiable?
B. Alternative Action:
I. 'fable and discuss at workshop.
2.
Endorse and support in the amount f $
fronl the City Council, Chamber, a d MCP.
__._u____, requesting dollars
3. Endorse concept only with no fundi 19.
4. Other.
C. Rccommendation:
ReCOmll1endation is alternative no. 1. To t bIe and discuss at the workshop.
D. Supporting Data:
.
Summary of 1996 Maxfield study and draft copy of McComb analysis.
.
2
...;" :. >.':~l.. '.'. \0 't
..:..: ,r'-.~:7:,:::.."~': ~L.:.;'..~ : \.~.,.
. .
P.Ol
""'--t
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
f
f
f
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
Oct-30-96 04:52P APARTMENT SEARCH
612 830 9019
.
MAxFIELD
RESEARCH
GROUP
FACSIMILE TRA SMISSJON
Date I b / 30j~~
NLTM8I:R OF rAGES (Including This Page) h
TO: .rr-tA('~~dD~.
\-\ k ('., I L-'. ')c .
fax No.: 2 D IS - ;:; I l.; 0
.
COfv1l\AENTS.
FROM:W)/U'-1 r~(61i!f1 d
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALl. PAGES, PLEASE CA L (612) 338-0012.
.
612-338.0012
6129338-0659 FAX
_.._.~..
... ....... .. .~
-. . ~-=-on -
620 KICKER ICK... ~30 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
INN.t:.hPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
- ... 1,_...._._.__.... .. '.___n....._
Jct-30-96 04:52P APARTMENT SEARCH
612 b~u StuJ.:>
r- .. "-.1_
.
19961
;:; D,.e
OR At,l'"r
DI CO 0/""\
.,..,)(4...... '-'D
(/("' I ,L".
I '-; '"' ,
2001 ,;)/ r.
,..i~.~, ..
, ;,1
34,300
TABLE ^
DEMAND FOR RET AfL Sf ACE
MONTICELLO DRA W AI EA
(Neighborhood Goods and Se vices)
DEMAND
Population of Draw Area
30,720
Times: Annual Per Capita
Expendilun.:s
$2,969
$:;,125
Total Draw Area Expendirures
$91,207,680
$107,187,500
Net Fstimated Leakage @ 25%
$22,80 1,920
$26,796.875
Tolal Estimated [)emand
$68,405,760
$80,390,625
SUPPLY
Total Competitive Retail Space
. in Draw Area (GLA)
Times: ^ verage Sales/Sq. Fl.
185.000
335,000
$120
S120
Total Estimated Annual Sales
in Draw Area
S22.200,OOO
$40,200,000
NFT MARKI::T SUPPORT
F.xcess Demand (Demand minus Supply)
546.205.760
$40,190.625
SUPPORTABLE RETAIL SPACE
Divided by: Average SalcsiSq. Ft.
$120
$120
Total Amount of Additional
Space Supportable in Draw Area
(Sq. Ft. GLA)
385.048
334,922
Percent Caplunlble by Downtown
t'wm 1996-2001 (35-40%)
from 200] .20 I 0 (20-25%)
) 3S.000-154,OOO
l
l
)
l.
)
.
l
)
.
Jl.
67.000~83, 700
Note!:: Percent capturable by downto.....n Irom 2001 to 2010 assurr e.!l new housing built in M very netlr downtown,
Lf.:akage i~ equal to the estimated amount or retail dollars 1 aving the- draw area.
Source: Urban I.and Institute. Dollar~ and Cems of Relail Shoppi g Centers. 1995
Thompson, John S. Site SeLection. New York: Lebhar-f ricdman. 1 98~,
Mtl;dicld Re:c;earch Group
~-~
Oct-30-96 04:52P APARTMENT SEARCH
.
DEMAND
Popl1lation of" Dr~w Area
Times: Annual Per Capita
Expenditurc-s
TotallJraw Ar<=a Expenditures
N~t Estimated Leakage @ 20%
Total Estimated Demand
.
SUPPLY
Toral Competitive Retail Space
in Draw Area (GLA)
Times: Average Sales/Sq. Ft.
Total Estimated Annual Sales
in Draw Area
NET MARKET SUPPORT
Excess Demand (Demand minus Supply)
SUPPORTABl.E RETAIL SPACE
Divided by: Average Sales/Sq. Ft.
Total Amount of Additional
Space :';upportable in Draw Area
(Sq. Fl. GLA)
Percent Capwrablc by Downtown
from 1996.200 I (35-40~"o)
from 2001-2010 (20.25%)
TABLJ:::
DEMAND FOR RE
MONTICELl.O D
(Dest inationJS pecialt)-.
612 830 9019
AfL SPACE
W AREA D
OOds!SCTV1C~ .f~A /">..
" UR r/"/~ .
Djt"... _. C""'\'~,
1996 I ....'e aQ~."'-V
o ~~..:..~
34.300 I v...../
53,480
$92,1
$119,364,000
$18,4 2.000
S23,872,800
$95.491,200
3 0,000
474,000
$140
SI40
S42,0 0,000
S66,360,000
$31,7 8,000
$29.131,200
$140
$]40
26,629
208,080
79,300 90,6S0
41,600.52,020
.
Notes: Leakage is equal tn the estimated amlJunt nfretail ollars leaving th! draw area.
Snllrce: Urb....n Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Retail h<'lpping Centc:rs, 1995
Thomp!'ion, John S. Site Selection. New York: I ebhar-Friedman. 1982.
Maxfield Research Group
P.os
i
.
.'
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
f
.
.
.
'--''- ....
j
j
J
>.
)
)
>>
)
>>
.
.
.
)
.
)
)
>>
.
)
)
).
)
>>
)
)
>>
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
J
>>
.
. .
)
)
,
,
.
~II"""'\'''''' I,-I,,--I"'t I
~~I--'\I"'\.,-r.l
Q.L'::' b..::iU !:::lU.l!:::l
P.04
TABLE (
REPLACEMF,NT RE~ AIL DEMAND
DOWNTOWN MCNTICEU.O
Total Competitive Retail Space
in the Draw Area
Estimated Amount of Space located
Downtown in Buildings Built Prior to 1950
Times: Amount to be replaced (20%)
Equals: Potential Replacement Demand
SOurce: Maxfield Research Group
"""""'" ~.,.,..., ~
.~ . .
, ."' ,,-
r
199 '*20011
510.000
0,000
20%
0,000
~ ,.
!'~ "'\
-..~ . - ,': .
~ ., 1."-'. ( ~,. 7-
/-0", ./. .-' '. -
~ Ji. J'.~
i D . .......: t,1j.
\ I S' '., ..- -... ..,
.,., .. r I'
.....If 'r.. I
}II \.,. t"'.
vv.....'O
-...Ii lV
2001-201O!
650.000
150,000
X 20%
" ~" ,. p~_..
30.000
.w, ':.
Oct-30-96 04:53P APARTMENT SEARCH
.
TADLl::: 0
DEMAND FOR 0 :fleE ~PACE
}y{ON T1CELI.O ItA W A REA
1990-2000:
DI.::MAND
Projected Employment Growlh, Sherhurne and Wright C
(times) Proportion of job growth in Mcmticello
(equals) Projected employment growth, Monticello
(times) Proportion of job growth that will be onke jobs
(lo::quals) Projected growth in office employment, Montice 10
(times) estimated amount of office space per worker
(equals) Projected tOlal demand for office space
(limt:s) Percent cllpturable by Downtown Monticello
(equals) Projecled demand for office space in dwntn. Mo ticello
(less) new office built/converted dwntwn. since 1990
(equals) remaining demand for new office space
.
(plus) Demand from existing offiee users tn expand/upgra e space
Existing: downtown office space
(times) proportion huilt prior to 1950
(equals) existing square footage upgradable
(times) amount replaceable per year
(equals) replacement demand. 1990-2000
(equals) 'roml demand for onice !lpace downtown, new Ii d replacement
2000.20 I 0:
DEMAND
Projected employment growth, Wright and Sherburne Co ntie!;
(limes) Proportion of job growth in Monticello area
(equals) Projected employment growth in Monticello
(times) Proportion of job growth that will he office jobs
(equals) Projected growth in office eml'lo>,mcnt, Montiee 10
(time!;) F:stimated amount of office space per worker
(equals) Projected total demand for office space
(times) Percent capmrable by Downto.....n Monticello
(equal!;) Projected demand for office space in Dwntwn.
.
(plus) Demand trom existing office w:;ers to expandiupg
Ex.isting dmvntown office space
(times) ~roponion built prior to 1960
(equ.ils) Existing square footage upgradable
(times) ^mount replace~lble per YC:!.r
(equals) Rlo::pJacement demand
(equal~) Total uemand for office spClce downtown, new.' d replacement
Source: Maxfield Research Group
612 830 9019
c
.
C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
t
.
,
,
,
,
..
.
t
t
.
,
<<
.
4
(
.
C
f
.
f
.
.
<<
.
f
.
l
.
P.OS
D"A
hO \~'iF"""
'R /'J I ('r..,).,
L 1990-~'CIJ-'~":':' .. }
. - ')~/C.l'^. J
14,730 jobs I '"
X 6%
880jobs
X30'%
~64 jobs
X 250 sq. ft.
66.000 sq. ft. '
X 50 - 60~'o
29,700-33,000 sq. n.
- 5,000 sq. n.
24,700.28,000 sq, fl.
75,000
X20%
15,000 sq. ft,
X 10-15%,
1,500.2.250 sq. f1.
26,200-30,250 sq. ft,
10,400 jobs
X6%
625 jobs
X 40%
250 jobs
X 200 sq. ft.
50,000 sq. n.
X 35 . 40%
17,500':W.OOO sq, ft. .
83,650
X 20%
16.730
X 10-15%
J ,673,2,514 sq. ft.
19.200-::2.500 sq, ft,
.
.
.
Draf~
MONTICELLO COMMERCI L MARKET ANALYSIS
AN
DEVELOPMENT POTE TIAL EVALUATION
Prepare for
Monticello Chambe of Commerce
August 6, 2001
. BACKGROUND
Monticello is a rapidly growing community exp riencing commercial development pressure
resulting from increased residential development. Monticello has two commercial nodes: the
traditional downtown area and an auto-oriented stri extending along TH 25, either side of 1-94.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking information n the community's growth potential in order
to facilitate orderly commercial development expa sion. The Chamber would also like to know
what types of uses are best suited to downtown and hich are best suited for a freeway location.
OBJECTIVES
McComb Group, Ltd. has prepared a work progr m to conduct market analysis to determine
future space demand in Monticello with specific foc s on downtown. Phase 2 of the engagement
would involve development consulting related to pportunities identified in Phase I, including
financial feasibility and public/private financial r quirements needs. The objectives of this
engagement are to:
.
. Evaluate downtown Monticello and identify its commercial potential.
. Identify commercial development potential or Monticello in general that will capitalize
on future residential growth.
. Delineate the trade area for downtown Mon icello and the highway-oriented commercial
area.
. Identify locations that are likely to develop a competition to Monticello.
. Estimate the pace of trade area residential development and growth in population and
households through 2020.
. Estimate the demand for retail, service, an office uses in Monticello for 2005, 2010,
2015 and 2020.
. Identify the uses suitable for downtown a d those that are likely to desire a freeway
location.
. Identify commercial developments that coul occur in downtown Monticello to capitalize
on retail, service, and office demand.
. Provide development consulting for a ew development in downtown including
development costs, cash flow analysis, and 'dentify public/private cooperation that could
stimulate development.
The work program outlined below is designed to ful1l1 the above objectives.
.
1
tt WORK PROGRAM
The work program described below is designed t evaluate market potential for commercial
development in Monticello and provide impleme tation consulting. Specific work tasks are
described below.
. Study Area Evaluation
The downtown area and the TH 25 comm rcial strip will be evaluated. Factors to be
evaluated include, but are not limited to: ccess, visibility, current and future traffic
counts, and relationship to adjacent uses. Businesses will be categorized by type of
establishment including, but not limited t : retail, services, and offices. Downtown
Monticello will be evaluated to determine its suitability for commercial development.
Other areas in Monticello that could acco odate future growth will be identified.
. Competitive Shopping Areas
Shopping areas likely to compete with M nticello will be identified and evaluated to
determine competitive impacts on each s dy area. Principal competitors will be
identified and evaluated for tenant mix, ret il concentration, and anchor stores. Future
retail developments that will affect either owntown Monticello or its retail trade area
will be identified. To the extent possi Ie, the impact of new competitive retail
developments will be identified.
. . Business Interviews
Business owners and/or managers of bu inesses in downtown Monticello will be
interviewed to determine strengths and wea esses of downtown and concerns about the
future.
. Customer Survey
Selected businesses in Monticello will be asked to partIcIpate in a survey of their
customers to determine where their custom rs live and work. This information will be
used to identify the trade area for Monticell . The survey is designed to be executed by
employees of each firm as customers pay for their goods or services. The budget
assumes 15 to 20 business participants.
tt
. Residential Growth Potential
Monticello is included in the 1-94 growth c rridor, which is stimulating new residential
development. Residential growth in the M nticello trade area will be estimated taking
into consideration, historic market share of residential development within 1-94
communities and future growth potential a residential land is consumed within these
communities. Residential growth potential f the TH 10 corridor will also be evaluated.
Based on this analysis, household growth rojections will be prepared for 2005, 2010,
2015 and 2020. This will become the basis or estimating retail and service development
potential for each of the above target years.
2
. . Full Build-Out Potential
Trade area households will be estimated D r full build-out conditions in the trade area.
This will be accompanied by an estimat of full build-out commercial development
potential. Appropriate locations for retail d service uses will be identified.
. Trade Area Analysis
Based on management and tenant intervi ws, customer survey results, and McComb
Group experience, the trade area for Mon icello and its downtown will be delineated.
Comprehensive plans for adjacent communi ies located in the trade area will be evaluated
to determine residential and commercial d velopment potential. Based on preliminary
review, portions of Albertville, Ostego, Mo ticello Township, Big Lake, and Becker are
included in the trade area. The economy of he trade area will be analyzed to identify and
quantified those factors that generate su port for retail and service establishments.
Factors to be evaluated include, but ar not limited to: employment, population,
households, building permits, household inc me, and retail sales.
Monticello retail and services sales reporte in the 1992 and 1997 Census of Business
will be reviewed and sales will be estimat d for 2000. Retail and service purchasing
power of trade area households will be e timated. Trade area growth trends will be
evaluated to determine residential growth p tential for target years of 2005, 2010, 2015
and 2020.
.
. Rent Survey
Brokers and leasing agents active in the m rket will be contacted to determine current
rent levels for various types of retail space.
. Development Potential
Future commercial development potential or Monticello will be estimated taking into
consideration, competitive impacts, trade ea demographics, and trade area purchasing
power and estimated market share. Based n analysis of purchasing power, competitive
shopping centers and current retail trends, ture retail and service sales for Monticello
and its downtown will be estimated by b siness type and converted to square feet of
space by business type. Proper location for those businesses with sufficient sales
potential for profitable operation will be ide tified. Some will be suitable for downtown
while other may be better suited to TH 25. It is possible that this analysis may identify
the need for a third commercial area. Estim tes of retail, service, and professional office
space supported by sales potential will be p epared for target years 2005, 2010, 2015 and
2020.
.
3
. . Development Feasibility (Phase 2)
Financial feasibility analysis will be conduc ed based on sales and rent estimates for the
proposed development. Proforma financial easibility analysis will include the following
components:
a. Development Costs: The developm nt costs for the proposed development will
be estimated including construction c sts, soft costs, and financing.
b. Cash Flow: A cash flow profo a, including operating expenses and debt
service, is developed for the develo ment. The proforma is based on forecasted
rental rates and absorption assumptio s.
c. PubliclPrivate Financial Packaging: Development feasibility will be analyzed to
determine the type and amount of pu lie sector assistance that may be required.
. Development Consulting (Phase 2)
McComb Group personnel will be availa Ie to provide development consulting and
financial analysis, as needed.
The results of our work will be documented in a fin I report designed to meet client needs. The
report will contain appropriate graphics and explan tions of principal findings, conclusions, and
reconunendations.
.
MEETINGS
Five meetings are planned during the course of this valuation to keep the client informed of our
progress and findings. These meetings include the fi llowing:
Phase 1
. Start-Up Meeting will be held at the begi ing of the engagement to finalize research
objectives and obtain client-provided inform tion.
. Work Session with client to review resul s of all market analysis tasks, preliminary
recommendations and development potential
. Report Meeting with client to review mar et analysis and financial feasibility analysis.
This meeting will cover all aspects of the res arch program.
Phase 2
. Work Session to review financial feasibility of potential development in downtown
Monticello.
. Report Meeting to review final financ al feasibility analysis and public/private
partnership assistance.
.
The budget provides for five client meetings as des ribed above. The budget includes 11 hours
for meetings in Phase 1 and 8 hours in Phase 2. Ad itional meetings will be billed at our normal
hourly rates plus expenses.
4
.
.
.
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
McComb Group, Ltd. is a full-service retail and rea estate consulting firm specializing in market
research and financial feasibility. The firm has e tensive experience in the retail industry and
has conducted market research for retail stores nd shopping centers of all types including
regional malls, community centers and specialty ce ters.
McComb Group, Ltd. has a team that is qualifi d to conduct the research described in this
proposal. McComb Group's professional staff a sociated with this engagement include the
following:
. James B. McComb, President, founded e predecessor of McComb Group in 1974
following six years as a member of the co orate staff with Dayton Hudson Corporation.
His experiences at Dayton Hudson and da ly association with merchants and shopping
center developers provided the impetus r McComb Group's approach to shopping
center and retail market research and financ al feasibility, which includes strong elements
of design and merchandise sensitivities. T firm's approach to shopping center research
and marketing has undergone continuous evelopment and refinement over the past 20
years.
. Garrett S. Trapnell, Associate, conducts de ographic and consumer research, trade area
studies, and evaluates competitive develop ents. He also manages and is responsible for
updating the firm's databases and digital i formation systems. Mr. Trapnell directs and
analyzes McComb Group consumer surv y engagements. This process includes the
creation of survey instruments, data inp t, data aggregation as well as final cross-
tabulations and output.
Mr. Trapnell holds a B.A. degree from the niversity of Minnesota in Geography. He is
a skilled cartographer, producing McCom Group's digital and hard copy maps. Mr.
Trapnell has planning and zoning consultin experience in the public and private sectors.
His knowledge and experience contribute t our demographic and spatial analyses using
the McComb Group's national demogr hic database and geographic information
system.
Mr. McComb will be responsible for managing a d directing the overall research program and
will participate directly in findings and conclusio s. Individual work tasks will be assigned to
personnel within the firm based on qualifications a d experience.
5
. BUDGET
The budget for the work program and work product described in this proposal is shown below.
Professional Services
Bud~et
Phase 1
Study Area Evaluation
Competitive Shopping Areas
Business Interviews
Customer Survey
Residential Growth Potential
Full Build-Out Potential
Trade Area Analysis
Rent Survey
Development Potential
Report Preparation
Meetings
Total Professional Services
$ 1,700
2,400
1,200
3,200
3,100
1,600
3,000
900
2,700
1,500
3.1 00
$ 24,400
.
Expenses (Estimated)
Travel
Demographics
Computer
Report Production
Reproduction
Miscellaneous
Total Expenses
TOTAL PHASE 1
$ 200
450
300
1,200
50
100
$ 2.300
$ 26,700
Professional Services
Budeet
Phase 2
Development Feasibility
Implementation Consulting
Total Professional Services
$ 6,400
5.000
$ 11,400
Expenses (Estimated)
Travel
Computer
Report Production
Miscellaneous
Total Expenses
TOTAL PHASE 2
$ 75
200
500
---2Q
$
825
$ 12,225
.
6
.
.
.
Professional fees for services outlined in this pro osal for Phase 1 total $24,400 and will be
performed at a price not-to-exceed that amount. P ase 1 expenses are estimated at $2,300 and
are to be reimbursed based on actual cost. Profi ssional fees for development feasibility are
$11,400 and will be performed at a price not-to-e ceed that amount. Expenses, estimated at
$825 are to be reimbursed based on actual costs. The budget is based on the amount of time
required to perform the work tasks and our norm hourly billing rates of $220 for principals,
$110 for senior associates, $90 for associates, and $ 0-$85 for consultants.
Company policy requires a retainer of approxim ely one-third the estimated budget for the
project or $12,975. The retainer will be applied the final invoice as a credit for billing of
professional services and expenses. Invoices for professional services and expenses will be
rendered at mid-month and month-end as our work rogresses.
Standard billing terms are net ten days. A finance charge of 1.5 percent will be charged on all
unpaid balances outstanding more than 30 days.
7
~ REPORT PURPOSE
This proposal was prepared with the understanding hat the results of our work will be used by
the client to evaluate commercial potential in Monti ello and financial feasibility of a downtown
development, and may be shared with tenants, de elopers, lenders and other investors. Our
report will be prepared for that purpose and will be s bject to the following qualifications:
. Our analysis will not ascertain the legal an regulatory requirements applicable to this
project, including zoning, other state and ocal government regulations, permits and
licenses. No effort will be made to determin the possible effect on the proposed project
of present or future federal, state or local leg slation, or any environmental or ecological
matters.
. Our report and analysis will be based on es imates, assumptions and other information
developed from research of the market, kno ledge of the industry and discussions with
the client. Some assumptions inevitably wi I not materialize and unanticipated events
and circumstances may occur; therefore, a tual results achieved will vary from the
analysis.
. Our analysis will not evaluate management' effectiveness or be responsible for future
marketing efforts and other management acti ns upon which actual results are dependent.
. Our report will be intended solely for the pose described above and should not be used
for any other purpose without our prior writt n permission. Permission for other use of
~ the report will be granted only upon meeting ompany standards for the proposed use.
These qualifications will be included in our final rep rt. If the report is used for purposes other
than specified above, we reserve the right to review e materials for proper use of our work.
ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURES
To indicate acceptance of the proposal, please sign a copy of the proposal and return it to us
together with your check for the retainer as authorizaion to proceed with this engagement.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this propo al and look forward to hearing from you
soon. If you have any questions concerning the prop sal, please call me at (612) 339-7000.
Accepted By:
cComb Group, Ltd.
Company:
Title:
Date:
J mes B. McComb
resident
~
8
.
.
.
6.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
A.
Reference and background:
unt of TIF and reduction of initial de osit
eonee t for establishment of a Housin
At the IIRA meeting of September 5.2001. the commissioners approved the preliminary
concept for establishment of a Housing TI District with the finding that this is a unique
request in that there is currently a house in place that would need to be purchased and
demolished; forwarding the concept to the :ouncil for approval; and subject to Council
approval, authorization to enter into a Preli 1inary Development Agreement. The
preliminary concept approved for establish llent of a Housing District by the HRA and
Council was for the construction of 30 tow lhouse units at a selling price of $160.000.
On October 22. the Council has approved t le PUD concept subject to the applicant
complying with the requirements of the P repol1 of October 2.2001. Reduction of
townhouse units to 26 because of design. nd the Council also approved vacation of a
portion of Vine Street and 7 Street with SOl e contingencies. The Council will address
the issue of compensation for the vacated treets at the Councilmceting of November
13.
The applicant is requesting the up-front '1'[' assistance in the amount of $104.950 and a
reduction is the initial deposit from $5,000 to $500. Attachment A is the October 15
letter to the [IRA commissioners from the pplieant requesting funding. The letter notes
a selling price 01'$169,900 per unit. As yo 1 recall, the I[RA commissioners received a
copy of my estimates at the liRA meeting in September based on 30 units at a selling
price of $160,000. Attachment B is a resp nse to the letter. Attachment C is a letter to
the City Administrator. A proicH'lna was at ached. The proicH'lna included the T1F
assistance. no compensation f()f the vacate street. and a reduction of the selling price to
$151.000 per unit. lhe estimated rate of re urn of 8.4(% is an acceptable return for
housing developments according to Mark uff.
One question: Why the inconsistency in tie selling price from $160.000 to $169,900 to
$151.000'1 Is there a reduction in square f otage of the unit? This will effect the TIF
and the rate of return. The comparison of stimated tax increment using the $169.900
and the $151,000 selling price assuming a i 38% local tax rate less 20% over 15 years
with all units built-out in year one. Projec ions by Ollie.
$169.900 selling price (8 units)
Guarantee EMV of $152,900 per unit
$ 188.235 or $94.116 NPV
$151.000 sellin~ price (8 units)
Guarantee EMV of $135,900 per unit
$165.720 or $82,860 NPV
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
10 units - $236,640 or $118,320 NPV
12 units - $287,280 or $143,640 NPV
26 units - $633,480 or $316,740 NPV
11.1%
10 units ~ $208,500 or $104250 NPV
12 units - $253,500 or $126,750 NPV
26 units - $558,780 or $279,390 NPV
8.4%
To qualify for a $151,000 mortgage, 30 yc rs @ 6.50;;1 assuming no debt would require an
annual income of $48J)OO-$50,OOO. For tl e purpose of a Housing District, the Wright
County Inedian income is $74,000.
B. Alternative Action:
1. A motion to approve up-front 'fIF a'sistance in the amount of $
units at an EMV of$ _______ per unit, tax increment
guarantee and initial deposit of $ Subject to execution of a Private
Redevelopment Contract by , 2002.
2.
A motion to approve pay-as-you-go TIF assistance in the amount of
$_________ units at an 1.:MV of$ per
unit and initial deposit of $ I nterest rate (Yo. Subject to
execution of a Private Redevclopm nt Contract by ,2002.
.
3. ^ motion to deny the use ofTIF.
4. A motion to table any action.
C Recommendation:
Given the uncertainty ofTIF, the HRA sho lid consider alternative no. 2 and not to extend
the offer longer than one year. Hased on tl e letter to the HRA from the applicant, the
selling price is $169,900. I [owever, remellber the T1F cash flows have not been ran by
Ehlers and Ollie's numbers assume a one y ar build out. Based on the proforma, there is
no compensation fl.)!" the vacated street. R i k may wish to repay the city through TI F.
D. Supporting Data.
Lelters to HRA and City, from HRA, and 1 ojee! design map.
.
2
.
Front Porch Associates, Ltd. - Michael Cyr
722 West 5th Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: 763.295.0717 Fax: 763.295.3227
15 October 2001
HRA Board
Ollie Koropchak
505 Walnut Street South
Monticello, Minnesota, 55362
Re: Request for T. t. F. funding
Project:
I
West Village courtyards - present w rking name
Market rate town home development n 6th Street West at Vine Street.
Greetings,
At the September HRA board meeting, our request for funding was approved in concept.
Additional pieces of the project puzzle have fallen nto place since that time. One of the next
puzzle pieces that needs to fit is the level of funding that will be authorized by the HRA for
purchase and demolition of the Grubbs property. his particular piece of information is vital in
. order for us to continue to pursue this project.
Since we were last before you, we have had the d velopment officially approved in concept by the
Planning Commission. We were also before the ity Council to receive feedback. The Council
members were receptive, but because we were no in the proper process timeline, declined to
make any decisions. We will again be before the ouncil on October 22, at which time they will
be asked to approve the concept as recommende by the planning commission and also to decide
how to manage the city owned right of way issues on the property.
We have closed on a portion of the property. Thi i consists of two developed lots that front on 6th
Street adjacent to the undeveloped Vine Street r. .w. The purchase of these lots was necessary
to maintain our purchase position and keep the d or open for the total project. We also now have
a solid purchase agreement on the balance of the property needed for the project. If the HRA is
not able to fund the level of assistance needed, t e project will be halted at this point, and the two
lots owned dispensed of in some other manner. I
I
We are requesting the following level of assistan e.
.
1. We request the assistance to be up front moni, s.
a. Our purchase price for the Grubbs pro erty is $120,000.00 plus costs of approximately
$5000.00(realtor, title work, closing costs).
b. Our cost of demolition and cleanup is e pected to be $7,500.00.
c. Total purchase, demolition and cleanu costs, $132,500.00.
d. Our final cost for the two lots adjacent t this one was $27,550.00 each, including costs.
e. Subtracting $27,550.00 from the costs ssociated with the Grubbs property leaves a
total requested in upfront monies of $104, 50.00.
1 of 2
. 2. If for some reason, up front monies are not an ption, then in addition to the $104,950.00, we
will request an additional amount of $25,000.00. his is for financing the principal amount for five
years, during which time we will payoff the princip I with our own funds while waiting for the tax
increment to pay us back.
I believe that when we were last before the board discussed the possibility of one of two
possible projects. The first possibility would consi t of six to eight dwelling units, the second up to
thirty units. Since that time we have determined th t the six or eight unit option is not
economically feasible. It will have to be the up to t irty units option in order to efficiently utilize the
property and return enough profit to make the level of risk acceptable.
,
In my recent discussions with Ollie, I have attempt d to find out the level of T.I.F. that will be
available. Ollie is unwilling to estimate what that ight be without the involvement of an outside
consultant. Herein lies a dilemma.
We are being asked to deposit $5000.00 for the sqle purpose of determining the level of funding.
This seems unreasonable for two reasons. 1: The timing. Before we can move forward with the
other steps in the development process, we must ri ve a commitment from the HRA for an
amount, because the project will not move forward 'thout it. Requiring $5000.00 before we are
reasonably sure that the concept will make it throu h the approval process is untimely and unfair.
Up to a $500.00 deposit, if there are a couple of h urs of work to do just to find out what the
. numbers are, would seem reasonable. Then, whe the project actually is approved and the T.I.F.
district needs to be created, payment of the balan of the actual costs needed to perform this
work is warranted. 2: The amount. $5000.00 see s excessive. I've heard that opinion
expressed by others at past HRA meetings and wo Id like to know more about where the money
goes.
There will be plenty of taxable valuation in the com leted project. Our target sale price is
$169,900.00 each for up to 30 townhomes. Taxabl valuation is approximately 90% of that
amount, or $152,900.00. Taxes historically have b en generated at about a 1 % rate, or $1,529.00
per unit.
We do not want to include the entire project in the .I.F. district because that restricts the income
level of buyers. We want to include only the numb r of units in a first phase that we need to
produce the increment needed. Restricting more t an a minimum number of units increases the
risk of the project because it may eliminate some b yers.
All staff, city council members, planning commissio members and HRA members have agreed
that this is a desirable project for the city. We ask his group: 1. To approve the level of funding
that we have requested and 2. To reduce the initi I deposit from $5000.00 to $500.00.
Sincerely,
· f0'~ V
Michael Cyr
20f2
.
.
.
October 1 , 2001
Hi Mike:
Thanks for your letter of October 16,200 I. The Ie ter will be submitted along with the I-IRA
agenda of November 7,200 I. I've attached a cop of the HRA September 5, 200 I minutes and
the Council September 10,2001 minutes, relative to the proposed project. Also attached is the
Preliminary Development Agreement which the commissioners authorized entering into subject
to the Council's approval of the preliminary conce t for establ ishmcnt of a Housing TIF District.
I believe the content of the agreement helps to exp ain the process ancluse of the deposit. At the
HRA meeting in September, the commissioners di receive preliminary TIF estimates fromlTle.
Couple of things which would be helpful for now (re an updated map showing the proposed
number of units, completed TIF form (attached), a d copy of the purchase agreements.
It's a great project, Mike. Give me a call if you ha e questions.
Ollie fr\
U~
.~.
.
Front Porch Associates, Ltd. - Michael Cyr
722 West 5th Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Phone: 763.295.0717 Fax: 763.295.3227
1 November 2001
Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street South
Monticello, Minnesota, 55362
Re: Vacation of street right of ways
Project:
West Village Courtyards - present w rking name
Market rate townhome development n 6th Street West at Vine Street.
Rick,
At the October 22nd meeting, the City Council appr ved vacation of portions of Vine, 7th, and
Minnesota Streets as part of the concept stage ap roval for this project.
Prior to the approvals, I had informal conversation with planning staff regarding compensation.
Our position at the time was and still is that the va ted areas are a trade..off. Our project will be
allowed to build on the vacated areas. In return w move the Vine Street right of way and build a
private street and sewer and water services, but in a location other than the existing street right of
way. The th Street right of way is not vacated butmoved, with the project building the public
street and sewer and water services. Planning st neither agreed nor disagreed with our
position.
. We asked for and received this approval without a y discussion of compensation for the vacated
areas.
The Minnesota Street portion is a small unused re nant of property left over when Minnesota
Street was built with a curve. Vacating this remna t allows us to build enough dwelling units to
achieve the density we need to achieve our financ al objectives.
When we began planning this project, we hoped t achieve a density of 30 dwelling units. While
we have improved the concept with input from city planning staff, we have also reduced the
density to no more than 26 dwelling units. Becau e of our estimated rate of return relative to the
risk involved in pursuing this project, we are precl ded from expending any additional funds for
land purchase.
.
We are requesting exchange of the vacated areas for the legal and administrative costs
associated with the transfer only. Our attorney wil prepare the documents for your review. We
will need your approval in the very near future in rder to keep the project on our current
schedule. Please let me know what you need in t rms of information or documentation to facilitate
a quick turnaround on this matter.
10f2
.
The present taxes collected on the properties in th development area total approximately
$2800.00 per year. After completion of the project if all of the new properties are being taxed at
the full homestead rate, the taxes collected should be in the range of $36000.00 per year.
We have prepared a financial statement for the pr ~ect, which is attached for your review. I ask
that this be treated as a confidential document an shared only with those that are in need of this
information. As you can see, our rate of return is pproximately 8.4%. This is on the very low end
of what we consider an acceptable return for the I vel of risk that we will undertake, and we are
looking for ways to reduce our costs in order to m ke sure we achieve at least this rate.
Sincerely,
;UJ,fl!~
Michael Cyr
.
.
2of2
.
"-
~
,J~gj
J
~""~'b
~
1':,.
"f.
~,
~<g
~-
~~
~ ~
.> _..1
!JurI ~l~,..J(!I<1
Z <f-----C3:
HH
~
il~
'"
~:
~~
Z~
~::;
"
",
Ilj
It.
.
(:~
fil
"
:!W llr:~' JI
11_ rl lll\.t.l ~.M
\
~.-
~
<,.
(j
U)
\
f\l Q)
~, '"
~"
{O ffl
?
I
..
oj) f:i
;i~ 111 .s
'~] ~
,~ ~ .~ ~~
.
.
.
liRA Agenda - 11/14/01
7.
Consideration to award demolition and leanu a rcement for 8 Locust 220 Front
218 Front, and 3 Walnut Street.
A. Reference and background:
At the September HRA meeting, the comn issioners rejected the sole bid for cleanup of
the g Locust, 220 Front, and 3 Walnut Stre t propeliies and upon possession of the 218
Walnut Street property, authorized resubm tting a request for proposal for demolition and
cleanup of the entire four parcels.
The commissioners understand the Prelimi mry Development Agreement with llans
Hagen Homes expired October 2001. Mr. [agen had requested a finished pad site at 95-
I O()lyo compaction. The commissioners su gested to resume discussion with Mr. I [agen
over the winter months.
The HRA gained possession of the 21 g FfL nt Street property on October 25,2001. The
five appointed commissioners have viewed the property and the liRA appraisal has been
updated per the direction of the liRA attorl ey. Appraisal must be within six months of
the quick take deposit date and remains COI fidential. On November 2, 2001, a order was
filed to release the deposit ($92200) less tl e existing mortgage and a delinquent 2000
water/sewer bill. The BRA attorney was a so advised on the 2001 third-quarter
water/sewer bill plus a forthcoming bill for services October 1 through October 26,2001.
December 20 and 21 have been set as the d ltes for the appointed commissioners to hold
hearings concerning the value of the prope ty. This will be held at the City I [all.
The request f<Jr proposal for demolition an cleanup of the four parcels was mailed to
three contractors on October 29,200 I. Th bids are due November 13, 200 I, and
completion of the demolition and cleanup "'cheduled for no later than December 7, 2001.
All utilities were ordered to be capped and "emoved by November 9, 2001. For your
inrormation, a rough total orproressiona] e'penses from May through end or September
arc approximately $13,500 relating to the ( 'Connor property.
B. Alternative Action:
I. A motion to accept a bid of $ from
fl1r demolition and cleanup of g Locust
Street, 220 Front, 218 Front, and 3 alnut Street properties.
2. A motion to deny accepting any of he bids for demolition and cleanup of g
Locust Street, 220 Front, 218 Front and 3 Walnut Street properties.
.
..,
.).
c.
A rnotion to table any action.
Recommendation:
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
No recommendation is given at time of pre aring agenda since the RFPs are due
November 13.
D. Supporting Data:
None.
.
.
2
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
8.
A. Reference and baekl!round:
Based on the suggestion of the HRA to COI tinue discussion with Hans Hagen over the
winter months, estimated costs for site pre aration have been prepared. The costs
associated with the replacement of Front S reet and the water/sewer line was estimated at
$147,136 by WSB, Inc. of which $11,461. 2 was for stubs to the 10 lots. The
replacement policy for the City is propose at 25% assessed and 750;;, city. The Building
Official estimated the costs WAC/SAC, pa k dedication, and trail/pathway for 10 units at
$47,600. The cost to prepare an RFP and tle cost to complete the clean site to a finished
pad site at 95-100% compaction and from its existing state to a finished pad site at 95-
100% is heing estimated by WSI1, Inc.
Given those estimates, the liRA should dis 'uss and suggest a selling price for the entire
area or per lot. Are the commissioners in a 'reement that the selling price of the new
homes/lots must be at least $200,000 eaeh? This gives Mark and myself a range to further
negotiate with Mr. Hagen.
As you recall, the I-IRA purchased the Katz llarek property in Prairie West f(H $145,000,
sold it to John Komerak flwa $1 with the a 'reement one-half of the parcel would be
platted as green space in lieu of park dedic tion. This scenario may apply to the Carlson
property. The liRA purchased the Carlson parcel for $275,000 from the TIF District 1-22
tax increment revenues. The raw land was ppraised at $78,000, the City and HRA will
reimburse the TIF District 1-22 fund accor ingly: $35,000 from the City and $43,000
from the liRA General Fund. The raw land to be recorded as park land or green space.
Additionally, credit is generally given for e isting water/service services (hook-up
charges.)
Based on the infi:mnation provided and the iiscussions, please consider the following
alternati ves.
B. Alternative Actions:
1. A recommendation to determine a s lling price of $ for the entire
nOliherly one-half of Block 54 and t approve extending the effective date of the
Preliminary Development Agreeme t with Hans Hagen Homes through April
2002.
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
2.
A recommendation to determine a elling price of $ for the
entire northerly one-half of Block 54 and to solicit request for proposals.
.,
-, .
A motion to table any action or dir ction.
c.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is alternative no. 1. The selling price to be determined at the meeting
based on cost analysis by Mark Ruff. Sev ralloea1 people have encouraged the liRA to
proceed with Hans Hagen if economical pr ce can be agreed upon.
D. Supporting Data:
Cost estimates.
.
.
2
.
Hans Hagen Development
10 Units
WAC
SAC
Park Dedication
Trail & Pathway
ost Per Unit
625.00
3,12500
800.00
210.00
Total for 10 Unit Developme
$ 6,250.00
$ 31,250.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 2,100.00
rand Total
$
47,600.00
.
.
7635411700 ~.~~/~~
WSB & RSSOCIATES INC.
JAN-16-2001 11:33
A
~
..t ..oCl4ia. bJt;.
January 16, 2001
Ms. Ollie Koropchak
City of Monticello
505 Walnut St, Suite 1
Monticello. MN 55362.8831
Re: Front Street ReconstrUCtion Cost Estimate
WSB Project No. 1160-46
. Dear Ms. Koropchak:
As requested, we have onalyzed the costs assoeiat with the reconstruction of Front Street
between Walnut Street and Locust Street. The pro osed improvements include the removal
and replacement to the existing sanitarY sewer, wal ., stonn sewer and street. along with
the extenSion of sanitarY sewer and water services the proposed eleven lots. We have not
completed the proposed cbanges to the City's asses ent pol icy, so we have not proposed any
.....sments at this time. It is likely that this SIIIall P 1eet may be slightly more expensive than
if it were larger 'in scope.
.' ....,' .
The estimated cost associated with these improv ents is summarized below:
'. :~~~.:~~l: :,.'.r
$42.500
$37,000
$21,000
$4,000
$104,500
S 1 0,450
$114,950
$32,186
$147,136
.
A. Surface Improvements
B. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
C. Water Improvements
D. Storm Sewer Improvements
Subtotal
10 Yo Contingency
Subtotal
28% Indirect
Total
.. "
Should you have any questions. please do not he itate to contact me at (763) 287 -719 L
Sincerely.
,:,
~'~:..
,.f'.,'
.:.~:..r
.~,;.j\' '. ';.:. ..
;r L,"~"i,:t
'.' . ::1
ii4";~:
< 'wiH'aIh\w:
ii:~i\,~~~j :' II
; , ,:~:,:\, '
" :e~~(,:'
llJIln~:':',':
,;. :" '.
" I. ,I
55422. .:; ';", ~',
'. }.. ;'
763.S4\~;, .
763 .,S4,,:~!AO ;~Nc
Andrew J. BrattIer, P:
Project Engineer
c: Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
tun
F:\WP\V\N\II60.oI6\o11601 ck..wp4
Minneapolis ,St. loud. Equal opportunity Employer
TOTAL P.02
APR-04-2001 10:17
WSB & ASSOCIATES IN .
.
.
,.
I
I
'!
.,
"
i
;
;
'!
, ,i
i
'j
. l ~
;
J..r.r..w fc,..Jt, "t W....,-u:... ~,~
i:
/ e,., ':. 1/" ,PV'f, WOyt,..
JI" I'~", ~I'e. ~~ S,,z,,'Ze.
/.. t.I?&P-'?fZ1~rJQ// :!rnJ1'
I"~ .". ~dJ ~I' y ~J('
I" IY ff. K C/J/lu.. Nt..
!I
o.j
:1
II
.i
,
I
:l
:\
:1
;i
;r
i
~ j
~ r
;\
I
'j
;,
.!
i ~ .
'T"'
1.0-... ...
7635411700 P.02/02
/ I (,tJ - .lI"
~ III/OJ
Jl}rlJ
UrS r FG fZ, Ff/.i;AYr OS ,.
$/(&-0, -
I; 'Z.Z<:1O. ~
.. ~,C!:f}
<tV // &1fJ, etl
.A' Z" ~f).. <22
.$ 8/'!-0, ~
. . ~. .
/D~ .~. .H $/tI. qfZ
~6 '1?J71tt- ,_A. (j '1st.!. !!1E
e.~~ t:/tIrJ-s:eu.r .,,~ZS07~ 1,3
.
-r; PI"7..- ., ., ~ (1/".1"1.. IJ--.
TOTAL P.12I2
.
.
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
9. Consideration of authorizin a ment 0 Se tember and October HRA bills.
ReC0l11l11cndation is to authorize payment f the September and October HRA bills.
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Six h Street
Suite 4.0
Minneapolis, M 55402
(612) 337- 300
.
October 12 2001
Statement N . 39750
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Through September 30, 2001
MN190-00041 Redevelopment - General
MN190-00080 Midwest Graphics Amendment
MN 190-00089 Acquisition of 218 Front Street/O'Connor
MN190-00095 Masters Fifth Avenue TIF
.
Expenses
I declare, under penalty of law, that this
account, claim or demand is just and correct
and that no part of it has bee .
Signature of Claimant
~.!"'
9"
\~
.... c;.'
'- 't-' /'
y-...... ~
0~
.
c....a~ .
Total Current Billing:
146.75
38.75
7,184.50
27.00
693.56
8,090.56
.
.
.
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Six h Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, N 55402
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
?-\3. L\c..~ot. ~oL.\O
M N 190-00041
Redevelopment - General
Through September 30, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
9/4/2001 DJG Review 1983 development agreement and phone call with
o Koropchak re same
9/24/2001 SJB Phone call with 0 Koropch k re knock down rules
T tal Services :
Hours
0.80
0.25
$
T tal Services and Disbursements: $
Amount
108.00
38.75
146.75
146.75
.
.
.
Page:
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Six h Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Monticello
September 30,2001
?-\
MN190-00080 Midwest Graphics Amendment
. 41, S ') ~ . '60 '10
Through September 30, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
9/24/2001 SJB Phone call with 0 Koropch k re status of developer and
jobs
T tal Services :
Hours
0.25
$
T tal Services and Disbursements: $
Amount
38.75
38.75
38.75
.
Page: 3
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Si th Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, N 55402
September 30, 2001
?-.\ :,. l{ L,
City of Monticello
MN190-00089 Acquisition of 218 Front Street/O'Connor
Through September 30, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows: Hours Amount
9/4/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re p eparation for hearing 0.10 16.50
9/5/2001 BDS File review of pleadings in preparation for my involvment 0.50 42.50
9/6/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re p eparation for trial; research; 0040 66.00
phone call with O. Korope ak
9/6/2001 BDS File review & meeting with Bob Lindall in preparation for 0.50 42.50
. memo of law
9/7/2001 BOS File review/Document revi w for public purpose court 2.10 178.50
memorandum
9/9/2001 BDS Prepare Memorandum of aw in support of Public Purpose 3.00 255.00
and Necessity.
9/10/2001 BDS Prepare Memo of law on ublic purpose. 4.70 399.50
9/11/2001 BOS Prepare Affidavit of Ollie oropchak and Memo of Law on 3.60 306.00
public purpose.
9/12/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re reparation for hearing; review 3.40 561.00
and adjust draft affidavit a d memo; phone calls with
Koropchak (2)
9/12/2001 BDS Prepare affidavit of Ollie oropchak; conference call with 6.10 518.50
Bob and Ollie; strategy meting with Bob.
9/13/2001 RJL Review file; interoffice co ferences to prepare for hearing; 2.50 412.50
phone call with O. Koropc ak; review and adjust affidavit
and memo
9/13/2001 BDS Revise Ollie Koropchak's ffidavit for the hearing; meeting 5.10 433.50
with B Lindall and phone ails with Ollie Koropchak to
determine whether every rocedural step has been
accomplished by the city.
9/14/2001 RJL Review and adjust draft a Idavit and memorandum; 1.80 297.00
interoffice conference re reparation for hearing
. 9/14/2001 BOS Revising the Affidavit of lIie Koropchak by adding entries 5040 459.00
for documents we recentl received from her. Discussions
with Ollie Koropchak and B lindaU regarding the file.
Gathering materials for p oduction to opposing counsel via
messenger and drafting letter to reflect it. Adding
.
Page:
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Sixt Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis, M 55402
City of Monticello
September 30,2001
section on "Quick Take" to emorandum of Law.
9/17/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re a Idavit and brief 0.20 33.00
9/17/2001 BDS Adding a section on the Wiser case to the memorandum 3.80 323.00
of law for hearing ; Making Inal changes to affidavit per
Oliie Koropchak's suggesti ns; drafted 3 letters to Judge,
Court Administrator and 0 posing Counsel.
9/18/2001 PEB Draft letters to Judge Moss y and J. Peterson re quick 0.20 18.00
take order and commission rs appointment
9/18/2001 RJL Revise proposed quick tak order; review and finalize 1.00 165.00
letters and affidavit
. 9/18/2001 BDS Draft and revise Findings 0 Fact, Conclusions of Law; 2.00 170.00
Drafted letters to opposing counsel, and Court
Administrator and Judge M ssey; Created exhibit.
9/19/2001 JML Intraoffice conference with B Lindall, B Shirley re status, 0.50 82.50
strategy for hearing and or er for possession of property
9/19/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re tri I; prepare for and attend trial; 6.40 1,056.00
conference with O. Koropc ak; phone calls with Messner,
Koropchak and Peterson
9/19/2001 BDS Hearing on Public Purpos ; Preparation of witness Ollie 5.90 501.50
Koropchak with B Lindall. eeting with opposing counsel;
travel back and forth.
9/20/2001 PEB Draft notice of filing quick ke and commissioners 0.40 36.00
appointment; draft letter to J. Peterson serving notice of
filing quick take and comm'ssioners appointment
9/20/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re p eparation of motion to compel 2.10 346.50
delivery of possession; re iew and finalize notice of filing;
review file; revise letter to lIie Koropchak; revise and
finalize motion to compel elivery of possession
9/21/2001 PEB Draft notice of motion to c mpel, memo of law, affidavit of 2.40 216.00
B Lindall, proposed order, affidavit of mailing; draft letters
to Judge Meyer re amend d quick take; draft letter to
Wri!;lht County District Co rt Administrator filing notice of
motion, memo of law, affid vit. proposed order and affidavit
of mailing; draft letter to J. Peterson serving notice of
motion, memo of law, affid vit, proposed order and affidavit
. of mailing
9/21/2001 RJL Review and finalize letter nd motion to compel delivery of 0.20 33.00
possession
9/24/2001 RJL Phone call with Koropcha ; intraoffice conference re 0.30 49.50
.
.
.
Page:
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Six h Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, MN 55402
City of Monticello
September 30, 2001
hearing
9/25/2001 PES Draft notice of deposit and eceipt of deposit; draft letter to 0.75 67.50
Metro Legal requesting fHin of receipt of deposit and
obtaining amended quick t e order
9/25/2001 RJL Revise and finalize receipt ndletter 0.30 49.50
9/28/2001 RJL Dictate and revise letters t Peterson, Court Administrator 0.30 49.50
and supplemental affidavit n support of motion
T tal Services : $ 7,184.50
For All Disbursements As Follows:
Photocopies
Postage
Fax
Long Distance Phone Ch rge
Lightning Express Courie - Courier Service
9/14/2001
476.80
29.27
27.00
0.01
53.24
53.24
40.00
$ 679.56
9/14/2001
9/28/2001
Lightning Express Courie - Courier Service
Wright County Recorder - Filing Receipt of Deposit
T tal Disbursements:
T tal Services and Disbursements: $
7,864.06
.
Page:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixt Street
Suite 47
Minneapolis, M 55402
City of Monticello
September 30, 2001
?\ ~.
\ta S ~ S. 3 c "---/'0
MN190-00095 Masters Fifth Avenue TIF
Through September 30, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
9/17/2001 DJG Revise TIF contract per tele hone call with 0 Koropchak
To 1 Services:
For All Disbursements As Follows:
.
8/15/2001
Parking expense
To al Disbursements:
Hours
0.20
$
$
Amount
27.00
27.00
14.00
14.00
To al Services and Disbursements: $ 41.00
.
.
NORTHLAND EXPRESS
(612) 991-6564
18890 Twin Lakes Rd.
Elk River, MN 55330
N
Bill To:
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street Suite #1
Monticello, MN 55362
SERVICE DATE
9/18/2001
~l
. LI L S K> "> I Y ~ q I
Billing Date:
101l/2001
City of Monticello to Kennedy & Graven
a' c.
~ lr'-....
.~
'"
d~~
-
Thank you for using Northland Express. Please remit payment to address hove by the 15th.
~ : 1..\'"tr'" -. =.... . ~
Total
AMOUNT
20.00
$20.00
.
.
.
CASSIDY REALTY
& APPRAiSAL SERVICES, INC.
i 78/ 11;'JI"",iJcl'. !c\'('l"lue /'JE
~<T. f\1/ ell!',! I M "'H~ '- :;0,- !J. ~) :j:J 7 6
ct;{.m 497.3444
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN .55362
.
e,~) ,[ItJ c:?-l il} (tX~ r-(')~(')-'l(~j )T) I 'if'
(~~)__((,~_.'J"'~~Ji.. _ \.2.:::J_ J'J
I
I
,
I
I
r'~~to~-~-~'17, 2001.
17,t;(;(l[)'~'1 iJm,~hrr,' - _m.___._.____.._..._..
I
F1E'i URN IHIS F'ORTION WI 'H FI'.YMrchIT
N.,~OlJr"T [chiC! USED SO
DATE:... . :.GfIMt}93'~-;?"~q;;@.!E-]3rtS......... ... ... .... .:J~_fM~~:~t~:_.,,;
-l~~~~-i-:-W i~9-~;--;:oP~~~~a:=- :~~- ~~o~-t I
Street, Monticello, MN 1$250.00
I
,
Mileage to Buffalo Courthouse and returnl
19 mi les @ .29 I
Mileage to St. Michael(to pick up Paul i
Ederer), Monticello and return;36 miles!
@ .29. Mileage total: 5 miles @ .29 1$ 15.95
I
1$265.95
I
I
I
!
--,,-_.,-.,~-_._~---,_._-, ,-.- ~- _....,'.no_."_~~_, __,~~,~~"u."._.",.,,"__~,.
Total due .
. ----_.".,---....,~'~-.__.,,~--_..~---_..,,~_._~--
(Payment duo upon receipt, add ]% service
per mo~t~ after 30 da,_'s)
CASSIDY REALTY
& APPRAISAL SERVIl.l="<:; INf'
..
clla .1'ge
Ff.Y u-.S1 ,L.I.J.OU/JT
I"..) Tt-jIS COLUI.1hl
TJ-JANK YOU
IJ ~('l"f~\ PIA'V? 6 CL : b 7
~ ~i. ~ V "" .
Cl'C C : ? \ -:? \.It.. S ~ :3 , '3 \ q ~
E ' ./J . I
Ii 'i [~a
~
. ~"'. ,10. Mlk. UCUNI~t.Il.. ....'.'I...I.u. Mik~UCUNNtH._t:ag,#b
INVOICE
.
t~ - .. ~'RY ~, -=:---=-----=-- ---=---JEM;ke OCON~~
21683 !16th STREET
BIG LAke, MN 553011
_..--~ ~ ._~ ,.--------
~~--~- --~
HRA-C1ty of Monticello
505~"SC -~ =
HRA
"-'
Purchaser/Borrower .CIlent:I::IBA-~
'~---==---=r=~-==
. ~ LD S<6 '3 ~ \ ~ 9
:":_...__.__~-.=--.~- _n.__'__
10-23.01 Mike OCONNER
._,'-~.,~ -,' ..--------------,~ ~'.....----'.,.~
?,\
Property Address
.211lEron~.
Unll_._
CIIV .MootIg!lIo
County ~rlght
Subd sion ~,___-_.__.,_
Slale Mn. Zip Code .55362....,__._
Legal Description ,~---
Map Reference Kings 31
Appraisal Fee Amount
.......................................... ..................
$ _250.00
Mail or Handling Fee
_..$
--..--" $
.
Additional Charge NO.1, .
Additional Charge No.2. .
$-
Addilional Charge No, 3 ..
Sales Tax
,................................................,
$
$
Tolal Amounl of Invoice
$ 250.,90
Comments:
rr_r____~~___"~_____~______________~____~~~___r___-~-~-- ------~--------~-~-~----~----
.~ E--
AMOUNT
DUE
. 250.00
AMOUNT
ENCLOSED
.
.-
?
CITY OF MON TICELLO
VOUCH ER
.
Check No.: D R cumng D Needs CC Approval
Vendor No.: D M anual Pay by:
[XJ 0 sb. Ck. Batch
Payee: ~ e\ '\Y\~ ~ Q 0
a
0::,0$ \.;)~ ~~'\ c:: )~ \
~ Statement/
Invoice No:
DISTRIBUTION ( F EXPENSE
Project
Acct. No. Amount Description Code
L.Ho S ~ 3 ..L.\ ~'\ '\
~t1 ^ ~~ .00, e: '-~~
" ?-\~ ~" <t- ' , +--
7-C-" (] ,
\9..;:). ~ M ~ L ':) (!)O \
" '$ \ D "\ . l...\ --0
TOTAL: ,4fT. 50 11 \Df\.l.\~
"""\0 ~ .Nl.~ ~ ~~ ~~
voucher.xls
.- ..,...--..--.-------
~
.
Relocation
Conworth, Inc.
4725 Excelsior Boulevard
Suite #200
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
Monticello Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Monticello City Hall
505 Walnut St., Suite 1
Monticello, :MN 55326-8831
AUGUST SERVICES - MONTICELLO PROJECT
September 5,2001
INVOICE
Phone (952) 929-0044
Fax (952) 929-0568
Toll Free 1-877-805-1575
.
Talk with O'Connor r garding referrals and comparables.
Research referrals.
Write letter to O'Co or forwarding referrals.
"
O'Connor
'};\ 1>;,
?J\'\'\
'b ':J .
u..\.JS
TOT AI.. HOURS EXP NDED
AT $70.00 PER HO
.
ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
2.25
$157.50
Kennedy & Gra en, Chartered
200 South Si th Street
Suite 70
Minneapolis, N 55402
(612) 3379300
.
September 1, 2001
Statement N . 39264
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Through August 31,2001
MN190-00088 Acquisition of 8 Locust Street/Bostic
MN190-00089 Acquisition of 218 Front Street/O'Connor
MN190-00095 Masters Fifth Avenue TIF ~V"l\.&C. D
Expenses
.
I declare, under penalty of law, that this
account, claim or demand is just and correct
and that no part of it has b .
.
.\-u.~s~~ ..~040
\ '0 _ '4. ~ ~'g. ~ "'"1J c "-t<)
~..~\~S&S. ~oYo
Total Current Billing:
22.50
1,062.00
837.00
207.49
2,128.99
lto.oo
ff~, \ ~?,9'1
.
.
.
City of Monticello
Accounts Payable
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Kennedy & Gra en, Chartered
200 South S xth Street
Suite 70
Minneapolis, N 55402
September 1, 2001
Invoice # 39264
?'~
MN190-00088 Acquisition of 8 Locust StreeUBostic
Through August 31, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
8/8/2001 NKE Phone call to court admini trator. Letter to court
administrator requesting c rtified copy of judgment
T tal Services :
For All Disbursements As Follows:
7/10/2001
8/9/2001
c;<6?
L\~
Hours
0.25
$
~ ,,^o-t ~.~
Court Administrator - Fee to Obtain Certified Copy of
Judgement
--
$
T al Services and Disbursements: $
o 30 Lf'L
Amount
22.50
22.50
26.00
48.50
\lD ,-
Y 3:2 .Sn
.
Page: 2
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Si th Street
Suite 70
Minneapolis, N 55402
3oLfO
L\~ S ~,
City of Monticello
"?~
August31,2001
MN190-00089 Acquisition of218 Front StreeUO'Connor
Through August 31, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
8/1/2001 RJL Prepare for hearing
Hours
8/2/2001
RJL Phone calls with Koropcha and district court clerk;
intraoffice conference to pr pare for hearing; research
PEB Draft order appointing com issioners and quick take
order
RJL Go to district court; confere ce with O. Koropchak; phone 4.80
call with J. Peterson; dictat letter to Peterson; arrange
for copying of documents; hone call with J. Peterson
0.10
0.50
Amount
16.50
82.50
8/3/2001
0.50
0.00
.
8/3/2001
792.00
8/6/2001 RJL Revise amended notice of earing and letters 0.40 66.00
8/7/2001 NKE Phone call from Sandy Bos ic regarding escrow being 0.25 22.50
held
8/7/2001 RJL Revise letter to Peterson 0.20 33.00
8/10/2001 RJL Intraoffice conference re pr paration for hearing 0.20 33.00
8/20/2001 RJL Dictate letter to GMAC 0.10 16.50
To al Services: $ 1,062.00
For All Disbursements As Follows:
Postage 31.59
Photocopies 124.60
Fax 1.50
8/3/2001 Robert J. Lindall - Mileage Expense 23.80
To al Disbursements: $ 181.49
.
.
.
.
Page: 3
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Si th Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, N 55402
City of Monticello
August 31,2001
T tal Services and Disbursements: $
1,243.49
.
City of Monticello
August 31, 2001
Page:
Kennedy & Grav n, Chartered
200 South Six Street
Suite 4 0
Minneapolis, M 55402
~i ~-.
q. , 'T....u
,
MN190-00095 Masters Fifth Avenue TIF
R-VV'.
Through August 31, 2001
For All Legal Services As Follows:
8/15/2001 DJG Meeting regarding propose development.
8/20/2001
8/30/2001
.
.
DJG Revise contract for private evelopment.
DJG Telephone conference with Koropchek and revise
contract regarding same.
1 Services :
~oLfV
4(, S~ s
Hours
3.80
1.80
0.60
$
To al Services and Disbursements: $
Amount
513.00
243.00
81.00
837.00
837.00
.
HRA Agenda - 11/14/01
10. Consideration of Executive Director's e ort.
.
a) Grassl property - As you recall Bill Gra sl appeared before the HRA in October.
However, with a lack of quorum no action was taken relative to the commissioner's
intercst to purchase the West Broadway pa cel. Mr. Grassl indicated he had an interested
buyer. I contacted Mr. Grassl to see if he . gain wanted to appear bef()re the HRA in
November. lIe was not interested and said he may develop the lot.
b) Amoco site - I talked with Brad JohnsOl on November 7 and he informed all was
going welL costs are in-line, lease to be signed with restaurant this week or next, and
scheduled meeting with property owners f r agreement on parking development. Was
very positive and thought the building wo Id be demolished prior to the March 31,200 I
deadline.
c) Right Choice - I laving not heard a resp nse from the owner, Emmet Hanratty, I
contacted LandCor, Inc., Chad Weeks, on ovember 5 fl)f an update and data to assist
with marketing the 63.000 sq ft building, 4 acres. Asking price about $3.4 million.
OlTers encouraged. The company leases 3 .000 sq ft in Maple Grove and its
headquarters occupy the first-Hoor of a office building in Osseo. Very few cmployees
remain at the Monticello facility. Landcor 1as had one inquiry.
d) 11- Window - Company from Plymouth s ill interested in the building. Taking a wait
and see approach. Can utilize 30,000 sq n )fthe total 62,000 sq ft. Looking for other
tcnants. Inquired as to DSL providers in onticello. Secondly, I will be f()llowing up
with the company II:00n Ilamel the first oft1e year as their decision to re-Iocate is subject
to the willingness of the existing communit to provide necessary inll:astructure.
e) Fay-Mar building - No update from Ron Musich.
f) The EDMA and IRTI buildings are unde construction in the industrial park.
g) BRE update: Wiha Tools is expanding y 16,000 sq ft. Xcel Energy Service f~lCility
along Dundas Road is expanding by 5,800 'q ft. Another manufacturing company has
taken a wait and see approach to expand.
h) Fullillment Systems, Inc. (fSI) - Jack Peach is building a 62,000 sq ft warehouse and
processing center in Oassel. Tn conversati01 with Mr. Peach. he advised me he would not
expand in Wright County or Monticello ag, in due to regulations. Oasscl is in Meeker
County. He also inf(mned me that when th y out-grow their headquarter facility in
Monticello, they will leave Monticello.
i) Red Wing Foods - I talked with Gene Ch se this week, they arc leasing the f~lcility
vacated by FSI in l1ig Lake for assembling heir gin baskets for l1yerly's, etc. If the City
and Mr. Peach can come to an agreement, I ed Wing Foods is interested in purchasing the
building.
I) In conversation with the businesses in the industrial park, the economic down-slide is
being felt by most businesses causing reduc ion of production hours and some lay-offs.
h) 200.000-250,000 sq ft building, 40 to 50 . cres - Looking f()[ location between St.
Cloud and 'fwin Cities. Manulacturer/whol saler. 150 jobs at average wages of $11 per
.
.
H RA Agenda - 11/14/0)
.
hour within 2 years. 250 additional johs tl ree to five years. October 22 lead from Wright
County.
i) Four-year knock-down rule - I did meet ith County Auditor Doug Gruber and Denise
to submit documentation (evidence of aeti ity) within 'I'll-' District No. 1-22. The parcels
with qualifying activity will continue to co lect tax increment revenues. The four-year
knock-down rule is effective for taxes pay' ble 2003.
j) Scattered Housing Project - In the most ecent conversation with Shari Harris, eMI JP,
she has written letters to the four property wners informing them of the plans and
inquired as to their interest to sale. She ha heard from one property owner who was very
interested. The fifth parcel is raw land and owned by the City.
k) Paul Ammerman, Xcel Energy - Met wi h Paul on November 6 and we toured
Monticello and had lunch. Paul is in the E onomic Development Department at 414
Nieollet Mall.
I) Marketing Brochure - In print. Anticipat $4,000 fi"Oll1 Xccl Energy as partner in
marketing Monticello for industrial develo ment.
m) Chamber Business Expo - Marketing C mmittee has booth. Will display products
manufactured in Monticello. About 10-12 'ndustries participating. November J I.
n) Attended Minnesota Economic Develo ment Conference Oct 25 and 26. Very good
conference, great speakers. An entertainin speaker was Glenn Dorfman, Minnesota
Realtors Association, topic "Docs everyon have to be a homeowner?" May be a
candidate for Industrial Banquet program. e is a lobbyist. Programs center around
workforce development technology, affordable housing, and finance.
0) The City of Monticello is in the process. l' developing and managing their own web
site. The Economic link will market the cit of Monticello for industrial deveJopn1ent.
Staff's e-mail addresses will be changing.
p) The Monticello I lousing Study prepared by the Central Minnesota Housing
Partnership is complete and be distributed : ery soon. It is my intent to invite Lisa and
Shari to Monticello for a presentation. The: information should be of value to the council,
planning commission, and HRA.
.
2
~
,(' " J "
) .
Octobcr 3 ,200 I
--
MONTICELLO
Doug Gruber
Wright County Auditor
Wright County Government Center
10 Northwest 2 Street
BulTalo. MN 55313
Re: Four year "Knock Down" Rule Documentatio 1
Dear Mr. Gruber:
.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HR ) in and for the City of Monticello, Minnesota,
hereby submits a list of parcels and documentatiOl as proof of qualifying activities within Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-22. 'flF Distri .t No. 1-22 was certilled on June 30; 1997;
theref(He. the four year "knock down'. rule commenced July I, 1997 and ended June 30, 2001.
Documentation:
*
Attachment I ~ The ( riginallist of TIF District No. 1-22 parcels
with market value a d tax capacity as certified June 30, 1997. The
parcel numbers high ighted in yellow are those parcels in which
qualifying activities lave occurred and will continue to collect tax
increment revenue.
· Attachment II - This list identifies the same parcel numbers
highlighted in Attac ment r along with the applicable addresses,
the year the permit as issued by the City of Monticello Building
Official, a definition of the permit activity, and the value of the
permit. All permits Ire on record at the Monticello City IlalL 505
Walnut Street.
· Attachments III - W Inut Street Improvement Resolutions adopted
by the City Council f Monticello.
.
Attachment IV - A 11 ap defining the boundaries of TIF District No.
1-22. The parccls hi -Thlighted in blue are the parcels in which
demolition, rehabilit tion, renovation, or other qualifying activities
have occurred or are parcels in which site preparation including
strcet improvements (highlighted in yellow) have occurred.
Parcels highlightcd i 1 pink indicate city-owned parcels.
.
Monti<:ello City Hall, 50S Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 . (763) 295-2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticell , MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170. Fax: (763) 27] -3272
.
.
.
Mr. Gruber
October 31, 2001
Page 2
It is my understanding the fi)llr year "knock down" rule is effectivc for Property Taxes Payable
2003. Thc following documcntation complies witl Minnesota Statutory 469.176, Subd.6. It is
my intent prior to June 30, 2002, to request reinst, tcmcnt of some parcels that were knocked
down, this would be effective li)r Property Taxes ayable 2004. Should you have any questions
or require further documentation, please call me a 763-271-3208.
Sincerely,
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHO ITY
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, M NNESOTA
Ollie Koropchak
Executive Director
Attachments
c: TIF District No. 1-22 File
Roger Helsaas, Mayor
Rick Wolfstcllcr, Administrator