Loading...
HRA Minutes 08-06-1997 . . . MINUTES MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, August 6,1997 - 7:00 p.m. City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brad Barger, Vice Chair Steve Andrews, Darrin Lahr, and Dan Frie. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Murray. COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Roger Carlson. STAFF PRESENT: Rick Wolfsteller and Ollie Koropchak. STAFF ABSENT: Jeff O'Neill. GUESTS: Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group Rita Ulrich, MCP Director Barb and Bob Esse, MCP Board Member and member respectively. 1. Call to order. Chair Barger called the HRA meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve the July 8. 1997 HRA minutes. Darrin Lahr made a motion to approve the July 8, 1997 HRA minutes. Steve Andrews seconded the motion and with no corrections or additions, the minutes were approved as written. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. No items were added to the agenda. 4. Consideration to adopt the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan for submittal to the Planning Commission. Rita Ulrich, MCP Director, informed HRA members of the MCP Board of Directors approval of the Revitalization Plan on July 30, 1997, subject to certain changes. Additionally, the Planning Commission has called for a public hearing date of September 2, 1997. 1 . . . HRA MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1997 Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group, reviewed the submitted copy ofthe MCP Board of Directors , comments to be incorporated into the Plan. He noted most of the discussion at the board level centered around Sections 4 and 5 of the Design Guidelines. The two concerns: The guidelines overly restrictive for businesses in town and those coming into town. Secondly, the Advisory Team creates another level oflegislation imposed on businesses. Schroeder explained the need for some level of guidance for developers and for future development of parcels controlled by the HRA. The Design Guidelines are to enhance the goals ofthe Plan said Schroeder. Developers coming into a city are looking to see what the community wants. The guidelines have no statutory requirements under this plan, the city ordinances and codes apply. The guidelines are not fast rules but is a guide for development. It was noted that ECFE is still an option or potential user of space in the community center under consideration. Steve Andrews, HRA and MCP Board member, felt the plan or guidelines were inconsistent. Noting page 3 of the MCP comments: Only EDA funds must comply with the guidelines. Schroeder noted again the guidelines are to encourage and no rules for enforcement exist currently. When the Revitalization Plan is adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan by the Council, the city ordinances are amended accordingly. As some of the design guidelines might be codified, not all will be hard and fast rules. An example: Not define but encourage the use of a certain type of material. Helpful hints for developers: Not yes or no, but try this. Andrews questioned the full intent of the Plan - no one knows the intent of the Plan. Does Michael Schroeder come back as a resource? Rita understands the Plan better than anyone and is an excellent resource responded Michael. Schroeder said he was also available as a resource and added developers recognize that no city has expertise in the area of redevelopment as this is new to most. Barger commented that the HRA hired the firm of Hoisington for their expertise and experience in other revitalization projects. Dan Frie saw the plan as anti-regulatory: Business versus developer. Some HRA members were scared that the Plan is a guide now and may become the rule later. Schroeder stated some ofthe city ordinances need to be changed but need to allow for the creativity of developers, flexibility is important. Rita noted Monticello is a distinct town and the primary focus of the plan is the overall vision of the community and the secondary focus being a good place to do business. Noting the historical purpose of properties, Schroeder noted and recognized Monticello has no historical architectural gems; however, there is a certain pattern of design and character to downtown Monticello. Those patterns of height, width, and design are unlike those of strip malls. It is those patterns and characters one hopes to preserve. 2 . . . HRA MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1997 Lahr felt it very important that the Planning eommission have these same discussions. Schroeder noted of the 30-page Plymouth guidelines, their codes consist of four pages. HRA members recognized their need to pay attention to the guidelines and Schroeder noted the responsibility of the MCP in watching over the Revitalization Plan. Brad Barger made a motion to approval the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan as recommended by the MCP for submittal to the Planning Commission for consideration as an amendment to the eomprehensive Plan. Darrin Lahr seconded the motion. HRA minutes to be submitted to the Planning Commission. With no further discussion, the motion passed 3-1. Yeas: Barger, Lahr, and Frie. Nay: Andrews. Absent: Murray. 5. Consideration to establish the 1998 budget for the BRA General Fund and TIF Surplus Eund. Administrator Wolfsteller informed HRA members that due to our population growth and increased housing, the effect of the imposed levy limit is not a bad as first anticipated. Maximizing the levy limits allows an additional $300,000. Debt requirement on the waster water treatment plant is $550,000 and is exempt or outside the levy limit. Estimates are a levy increase from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 in 1998 and perhaps to $4.5 million in 1999. Historically, the City has levied for the operational budget of the HRA and it is doubtful the Council would do otherwise. The HRA operational budget amounts to approximately $15,000. Koropchak noted through previous agreements and commitments, the HRA has accounted for the loss of revenues to the city due to the HACA Penalty through year ending 1998. Lahr noted Jeff O'Neill supports an HRA tax levy to do projects. Barger sees the role of the HRA as facilitator and not as landowner. Members estimated the a maximum HRA levy would increase a resident's tax bill by about $4. Lahr sees the HRA levy as it's ace- in-the-hole. Carlson felt an HRA levy may not be very receptive to some Council members. Noting projected revenues of$50,000 and a surplus of$150,000 for the HRA General Fund and TIF Surplus Fund in 1998, Dan Frie made a motion requesting the City Council levy for the HRA operational costs as outlined, the HRA not exercise its right of a HRA levy, earmarked $75,000 toward an Industrial Development Reserve Fund requesting a match by the Council, and the remaining balance to pursue the four remaining urgent priorities ofthe City Council. Barger seconded the motion and noted the need for the city to develop a market strategy for recruitment of businesses. Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. 3 . . . HRA MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1997 6. Consideration of an offer to purchase the property located at 3 Walnut Street. lIRA members received a copy ofthe July 10 HRA letter drafted to Mr. Schleif, the cover letter to the March HRA appraisal of the said property, and the response letter from Mr. Schleifwith a purchase price of$92,500. As discussed previously, HRA members agreed the appraisal appeared high at $86,000. Andrews felt a response of thank you, not interested at this time, was appropriate. Lahr would like input from Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty Services. Andrews asked do lVe need the property at this time? Barger suggested two options: Purchase now, as is, for $55,000. Or a purchase option in the amount of $70,000, offer expires in 60-days, $1,000 option money, option agreement expires in three years. Lahr again requested input from Johnson. The HRA should consider the elimination of relocation costs with a willing seller. Another member remembered Johnson's advise to target the larger parcels first. Brad Barger made a motion to offer an option to purchase the property located at 3 Walnut Street in the amount of$70,000. Option money of$I,OOO and the option agreement to expire in three years. Offer to expire in 60-days. The motion su~ect to additional input from Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty Services, relating to purchase option versus purchase offer and obligations of an HRA for relocation/replacement costs. Seconded by Steve Andrews and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. 7. Consideration to utilize Brad Johnson for preparation of a preliminary design concept and to authorize dollars to Homestead Center to move forward with further evaluation. With no costs to the HRA, Darrin Lahr made a motion to utilize the services of Brad Johnson for preparation of a preliminary design concept for redevelopment of the riverfront or north anchor area. Brad Barger seconded the motion and with no discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The HRA remains interested in the concept of a Homestead Center project; however, they felt it premature to authorize the expenditure of$6,000 which allows Homestead to proceed with pre-development plans and to access the funds from Cooperative Development Foundation. Brad Barger made a motion to table any action relating to expenditure of the $6,000 or entering into the Homestead Cooperative Sponsorship Agreement. Dan Frie seconded the motion and with no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. 4 . . . HRA MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1997 8. Consideration to authorize payment of monthly HRA bills. Brad Barger made a motion authorizing payment ofthe monthly HRA bills. Steve Andrews seconded the motion and with no discussion, the motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of project updates or director's report. HRA members accepted the written project update and supporting data. Responding to Council Member Bruce Thielen's request for HRA input relating to the City's option to utilize the new tax abatement program for Midwest Graphics, the following comments were made. Lahr and Andrews felt to receive public fmancial assistance, the hourly wage per job should be higher to encourage better standards and a return-of-the investment. Barger said you can't get workers for $7.50 ph. Dan Frie informed HRA members that the cheapest home built in Monticello today is approximately $95,000. To purchase a $70,000 home, it takes an annual income or combined income of$28,000 which is about $13.50 ph. Generally, young couples have the most difficult time coming up with the down payment. In Albertville, a lot sells for about $22,000 and the home cost is about $110,000. Prie will provide the HRA with an income/mortgage qualifying table. The HRA felt the comprehensive plan or council policies should address the wage level requirement for public assistance. 10. Other Business: None. 11. AQjournment. The HRA meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ~~\<d\~!J~ Ollie Koropchak, HRA Executive Director 5