Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 [06] Jun 25. ~ CITY OF ST. OS~PH 1 W Ww. cityof stjoseph.com St. Joseph Economic Development Authority Meeting Notice Administrator Wednesday June 25, 2008 lady ~Ueyrens 3:00 p.m. City H2111 Mayor 1. Call to Order. AI Rassier 2. Approval of Agenda. Councilors Steve Frank 3. Approval of Minutes. Rick Schultz a. May 28, 2008 Renee Symanietz Dale wick 4. Accounts Payable and Financial Report. a. Approval of Accounts Payable b. Approval of Financial Reports i. April/May 2008 ii. May/June 2008 c. 2007 Audit 5. Business. a. 2009 EDA Preliminary Budget b. 2009 - 2013 Capital Improvement Requests c. Fees. d. Downtown Project e. CPU -Future Land Use Maps 6. Board Member Announcements. 7. Adjournment. zs College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.7zoi Fax 3zo 363 0342 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AURTHORITY Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Present: EDA Board Members Carolyn Yaggie-Heinen, Ken Jacobson (arrived at 3:05), AI Rassier, Tom Skahen and Dale Wick. Absent: None. Also present: EDA Consultant Cynthia Smith -Strack of Municipal Development Group. Chairperson Wick called the May 28, 2008 regular meeting of the St. Joseph EDA to order at 3:00 p. m. Agenda. Chairperson Wick introduced the agenda. No changes were requested. Moved by Skahen, seconded by Heinen to approve the agenda as presented. 4-0. Approval of Minutes. Chairperson Wick introduced the minutes from the April 23, 2008 regular meetings. Motion by Heinen, second by Skahen to approve the minutes from the April 23, 2008 regular meeting. Motion carried 3-0 with Rassier abstaining due to absence at previous meeting. EDA Accounts Payable. Wick introduced the topic. Wick noted accounts payable for the month totaled $2,424.36 in the memo but the MDG invoice was $2,349.96 and not $2,302.74 bringing the total to $2,471.58. Motion by Heinen, second by Skahen to approve the EDA accounts payable for the month of May 2008 in the amount of $2,471.58. Motion carried 5-0. Financial Report. Wick introduced the agenda item. Wick noted the adjustment in budgeted revenue from previous meetings was exhibited in the expenditure report but not the revenue report. Rassier questioned why interest balances in the revenue report were negative. Strack explained that while interest is included the 2008 annual budget as anticipated revenue for Fund 150 but not the TIF funds. Interest revenue from 2007 is illustrated in the current revenue report as presented. The negative does not mean a negative balance but a departure from what interest revenue was anticipated. Strack noted she would ask the Finance Director to attend the next EDA meeting to comment on revenue report and audit findings. Motion by Rassier, second by Wick to postpone approval of the May Financial Reports pending information from the Finance Director. Motion carried 5-0. Comprehensive Plan Update -Future Land Use Map. Wick introduced the agenda item stating that the CPU process was continuing. Strack referenced the map contained in the packet and noted an alternative version illustrating the Planning Commission's recommended changes will also be produced. Wick stated major differences between the Planning Commission's ideas and the map included in the packet were: (1) the presence of additional highway commercial use adjacent to major 3 arterials and collectors, (2) additional moderate density residential adjacent to CR 121, and (3) reflecting what's existing (industrial) north of CSAH 75 and east of 20~h Avenue. Rassier stated he did not support treating all arterial and/or collector streets alike in terms of greenways/transportation overlays since each roadway in each area was different. Additional discussion about implementation of the transportation overlay and density transfers under planned unit development occurred. Considerable discussion regarding the volume of commercial areas needed to accommodate future development occurred. Additional material contained in the information packet relating to reinventing strip development was reviewed. The concept of clustering commercial nodes adjacent to high functioning intersections was preferred. The EDA will revisit this issue at the June meeting when the alternative future land use plan is available. Downtown Revitalization Priority Survey Results EDA Chair Wick introduced the agenda item and referred to the memo included in the packet. Strack noted a downtown project work plan prioritization survey was mailed to all revitalization work group participants. Survey results were included in the packet. The top short term priority for those surveyed is to install benches, planters, and new banners in the downtown. The long term priority for those responding to the survey is to work on the addition of a water feature/kiosk within the Downtown. Strack noted authorization to pursue funding and approval for the installation of planters and secure new banners for street lights adjacent to College Avenue and Minnesota Street was kindly requested. Jacobson asked if the downtown business owners were involved in the project. Strack stated some were, the majority were not. Jacobson stated business owners should commit to the project and not just benefit from others' activities. Discussion regarding the focus of the downtown corridor was held. Strack reported the Planning Commission, through the comprehensive plan update, indicated a preference for focusing beautification/streetscape efforts adjacent to College Avenue North between Minnesota Street and the Wobegon Trail Center. In addition, the Planning Commission envisioned the entire central business district as comprising the downtown. This change would lead to additional discussion regarding parking within the downtown. The Board focused on the concept of meeting with representatives from the Church of St. Joseph to discuss the possibility of developing a modest visual amenity such as a water feature, urban park amenity area, a paver area filled with donated bricks, or something similar. The area could be used for community activities, taking pictures, etc. The EDA directed Strack to reach out to Church representatives. Discussion then turned to the project's guiding document -the redevelopment plan created in 2005. Strack noted the project was lagging and it may be time to change course from the four work groups to a singular entity charged with accomplishing work list items. The EDA renewed their support for the revitalization project and directed Strack to continue with the project. Advertisement in St. Joseph Visitor's Guide Wick introduced the agenda item and noted the EDA had been notified of publication of the annual visitor's guide by The Newsleaders. The EDA was invited to renew placement of an EDA Minutes -May 28, 2008 advertisement in the guide. Strack noted she had not been told the advertisement generated any contacts and that the EDA as an advertiser did not receive a copy of the visitor's guide. Motion Jacobson, second Heinen to decline renewal of advertisement in the St. Joseph Visitor's Guide. Motion carried 5-0. Business Subsidy Reports Wick introduced the agenda item and noted required business subsidy reports were completed and filed with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Strack noted a copy of the report was included in the packet and that the only applicable reporting required was for TIF 2-1. Strack noted the 'benefit date' had been established in conjunction with issuance of a certificate of occupancy in March of 2008. This means jobs required under the business subsidy agreement must be created by March of 2010. Board Member Reports Wick requested a monthly report regarding contacts and outreach efforts be filed with the EDA Strack distributed a monthly report for Board review. Wick requested a discussion item be added for the to EDA meeting. Wick wishes to discuss St. Joseph fees as compared to fees from Avon, Albany, and Cold Spring. Wick stated Well's Concrete decided to locate in Albany due to lower fees, especially storm water fees. Wick noted the Partnership has developed a list of items that business prospects are seeking; Wick suggested the EDA create a similar list. Adjournment. Meeting adjourned by consensus at 4:2027 PM. EDA Minutes -May 28, 2008 ~ 3 ~. CITY OF ST. OS~PH 1 Www. cityof stjoseph.com DATE: June 18, 2008 Administrator ~udy ~Ueyrens MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group Mayor RE: Accounts Payable -May 2008 & June 2008 (mid-month) AI Rassier May/June Financial Reports 2007 EDA Audit Councilors Steve Frank A. Accounts Payable: Rick Schultz Following are Accounts Payable for the EDA's Consideration. Renee Symanietz Dale DUick PAYABLE TO Hasler Mailing Systems Stamp Fulfillment Svs MDG Qwest Telephone Total Fund 150 FOR AMOUNT Postage 20.00 Letters with postage 24.13 Contract Service -May 2,255.52 June Phone Service/May L.D. 87.91 2,387.56 Action: A MOTION is in order to approve the Accounts Payable. B. Financial Report: Mid May/June financial reports for the EDA are following. The reports consist of: 1. EDA revenue to date. 2. EDA expenditures to date. 3. Check Register. 4. Fund Balances (Econ Dev. 150, TIF 1-3 155, TIF 1-4 156 and RLF 250). Action: A MOTION is in order to approve the financial reports. C. 2007 Audit Statement: Included in your packet are the following items from the 2007 Audit: 1. Balance Sheet for Non-Major Government Funds. 2. Revenue/Expenditure Statement for Non-Major Government Funds. zs College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.7zoi Fax 3zo.363.o34z MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 25562 WILLOW LANE NEW PRAGUE, MN 56071 952-758-7399 FAX: 952-758-3711 staff@mun icipaldevelopmentgroup.com INVOICE City of St. Joseph Attn: Judy Weyrens City Administrator PO 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Invoice Date 06-10-08 Payment Terms: 30 days Customer ID #: STJ08ED Project May Economic Development Services See attached detail Amount: $1,925.00 Monthly contract fee 330.52 654.5 miles x .505 $2,255.52 Code to: 150-46500-300 for general EDA Remit To: Municipal Development Group, Inc. 25562 Willow Lane New Prague, MN 56071 Dates-EDA May 7, 2008 EDA Office Hours 8.00 hrs. C. Strack May 14, 2008 EDA Office Hours 7.50 hrs. C. Strack May 21, 2008 EDA Office Hours 7.50 hrs. C. Strack May 28, 2008 EDA Office Hours 8.00 hrs. C. Strack Total May, 2008 31.00 hours Total MDG, Inc. 2008 Hours through May, 2008 = 173.75 hours Thank you! We appreciated the opportunity to work with you! Check No. Date: Principal ~ r a ~, M 1Q r. a 0 a 1n 0 C m Ot0 aD 00 O fO ODO ~ O OO~ON~ O MMOt0' O NMON O C ONOO- o o O o 4»0 : i o O o N Off. vo O o ~OOON' co v O o rf~OaO O ~ l on r o v n ri l cgo~~ o ~ 10 NOON: OG M r O fA 10 t0 Vlr 07 EH O ! fH 1010 tAO N M c0 t9 On10N O to Op lh - fH 0 CD V N eA Vm 7~ . ~ Od9 ~: ~ fi : IA f N N ~ 10>. d! ~ ~ ~. r fA ~d9 O 10 10 '? G :. 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0' 0 r 0 0 0 10 0 0 aD M N O O N I ~ a nOOr O) NOOO 1o c+>OO0 M nOOO' n MOOM (O ~ ~ O)OO10: ~ CDCCeF ' N nOOn: ~ Q)OO10 1n 0000 C V N(HHn: O t0 fH tR~ _ er fA fH 10 O 0t9 fH ' 0tH V-t0: 10 0 n l n ER _ n p fR to : N b9 1t! EH n . 0 M ~ ~ '. M O f0 ~ ~ r N !A f9 fH fA fA iH fA f9 D = NOOO 0000:: 0 OOOr o0O 010` M NOON' ~7 r ~ rOOn', ~ 00010 ~. 10 OOOM:-- CO OOOn' n 070007 10 m T Q 100 CO:. n d9 fH N er O 0000: 9 ~ N n OOn: 1 o et ' ~ O 10000' eH t9 0 10 0000 10 4f eH 0 G 10 : n 01 r f0 : Yi fl v- N 0 fH t 10' r M ~` C? Y 10 r Vf ^ ~ fH V! fA : tH ~:. ~ r. 69 N fH d9 to V! b9 fH fA 4~! I Qi' 0000'. O OOOO O 0000 O 0000 O 0000' O ra oooo 0 oooo 0 oooo. o oooo 0 oooo 0 ~ ' OOCG'. O CCOO G OCOC O 0000' O LOCO C U fA fH M 1A : M fA fA fA fA to d9 fH f9 Vl - f9 d9 fH fA fH: fA to d9 fq fA d9 2 ++ a m w m = (n ' A N Q ~ 0000' 00 0; O 0 0000. O 0000` O 0000. 0 0 O 0 00001 0000 O 0 O Fa 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 0 : ~C ~~~u°' ~ ~ous~~' ~ °9o~oeA: °vs ~ °~°~~~ uO9 ~~~ov~' ~ ~ u N O ~ ' ' ~ nt0ooln 87 N O f O O nmO1n 01 ~ O O O O~O M 0 t ' 10 O O OMOM N 4D 0 0 O O NMO1o r I O a0 O O . C ~ Ohm' C a f~OOaD C r ~ MaOn C OD 10G1Ci' O ~ e~tOOn G ` 1"' Q ~. aDOOn: fA nmeA M. fA X10 Vl O to nn1n O-: - t9 NOfHN ~ 1 N 0 M r r CD 69 0 (O M 0 n Hi a0 O r 0 ~ O W m OWN 0 v ~ 0~ 0 O a f0- O O. M ~ N:: fA to f9 to M M M ~ ' tR~. fH 47 10 :.. fA d~ :. N ~ N N U1 ~ > U > U C C C C C C C C C C 16 l0 lO l0 10 O m O m O m O m O m a?> c a o c a d c a d c a d c m a w 10 `s 3 m o o m .c o m a o > ~ LL >_ l0 LL > O LL > O LL > N LL yy U fT6 'O yy U A L ~ N 'O ~ A~ y y U y 'O ~ .C y d' N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ d r . W C d N C n N C n 41 C d N~ n 7 L O O 7 t O O L y p 0 O L N 3 O L~ p o t/J y U a N .- ff~~ n p p N y 1„) d m .- UU n tl1 y U 0. m w- CC11 n p o 1q N !l O_ 1a -- (« 111 n ~ N y n m .- o n ~ v U ~ Q Q U 5 Q Q U ~ Q Q . U~ Q Q U S Z Q m oooo oooo oooo oooo oooo C o In o M o u~ o o vl o M ' 0 10 0 < N M 0 10 0 r~ 0 M _ Y N O O N ~ N M O O V N O O N N O O N N O O ~ N C N N N oooo uiuilhui <bmm~d ~r~~ oooo ~ 1010101n 1001010 x10101010 10101010 10101010 V r r r r r r r r C r r r r C r r r r N N N N Q C9 C9 C7(~ C9 C9 (7 C7 ~'(7C9C7C7 C7 C7 (7 C9 C7 C7 C7 C9 C °1 ~ oci 2 G ~ c c c c ~ o a . Z a ~ a l d d a> c o ~ o N ~ panaa °' E E a i ~ccc mal m al ~.~,-.,-..., o o o o ~ A m c t m m E E E E > m2 Z Z Z r m m m m m d ~ m 1a a-o a s c ~ O n n n a d n of Y Y Y Y ~ ~ a>i a>i a>i a>i -oi ~ H J 7~ 3 7 0 U 0 0 0 0 ~to~to In O wOQ QO a ~ ~ E E _ ~LLLLLLLL ~ N N N N >>>> m r r 1~ r m . (/~ N N N N VJ 0 1 0 f f 0 f 0 ~ d d N N ~ C C C C C C 1. O y y y y E g N N N N M O O O O Y' ~ N N N N r l0 N l6 10 0 0 0 0 M C Q O O Q C r OI Of~OI r 7~~~ N~_'~____ N O JJJJ O p1 Q v U U U U ~ ~ ~ V LLmmmm LL LL(n (/J (n (A LL LL~~~~ LL > Ol OfOO ~ > E w E E E o o o o W FMMMM f- F=~q~v H F=rr-rr F- 0 '. 5 5 5 5 ~ p Z O C C C C O <~~~ b ~ ~rrrr <O 1 1 1 nNNN N n p O O O O O Q N p O r ~~ U U to r 10 r LL LL LL LL 10 r 10 LL LL ~- LL LL 10 r 10 r LL LL LL LL 10 r N N N N N N LL pW W W W p pHF-HH p _ pF-HF-H p pF-F-HH p p~~~~ p LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O O C N9 W O N p p tb O k N fH O 0 G O O (A O ' O iH CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Expenditure Report May 2008 2008 2008 YTD May 2008 °~ of Account Descr Budget 2008 Amt YTD Amt Balance Budget FUND 150 Economic Development E 1506500-103 Legislative Bodies $1,260.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,260.00 0.00°k E 150-46500-122 FICA Contributions $80.00 $0.00 $0.00 $80.00 0.00°~ E 1506500-125 Medicare Contributions $20.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20.00 0.00°k E 150-46500-151 Workers Comp. Insur. Prem. $150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 0.00°~ E 150-46500-200 Office Supplies $500.00 $0.00 $4.22 $495.78 0.84% E 1506500-300 Professional Services $28,000.00 $0.00 $9,058.08 $18,941.92 32.35% E 1506500-303 Engineering Fee $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 0.00°~ E 150-46500-304 Legal Fees $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% E 150~t6500-321 Telephone $1,200.00 $0.00 $370.46 $829.54 30.87% E 150-46500-322 Postage $250.00 $0.00 $50.39 $199.61 20.16% E 150-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $500.00 $0.00 $7.26 $492.74 1.45°~ E 150-46500-340 Advertising $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 0.00% E 150-46500-410 Rentals $0.00 $0.00 $25.63 -$25.63 0.00°h E 1506500-433 Dues 8 Subscriptions $8,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 100.00°k E 150-46500-582 Computer Software $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 0.00% FUND 150 Economic Development $46,260.00 $0.00 $17,516.04 $28,743.96 37.86°k FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) E 1556500-101 Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 1556500-121 PERA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 1556500-122 FICA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 155-46500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 155-46500-124 Wellness Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 155-46500-125 Medicare Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 1556500-130 Health Ins-Deductible $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1556500-131 Health Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 155~t6500-132 Dental Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 155-46500-133 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 155-46500-134 Disabitty Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 155-46500-300 Professional Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 155-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 155-46500-340 Advertising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 155-46500-600 Debt Service -Principal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 155-46500-611 Bond Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 155-46500-622 Tax Increment Payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development E 156-46500-101 Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-121 PERA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-122 FICA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 156-46500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1 56-465 00-1 24 Wellness Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1566500-125 Medicare Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-130 Health Ins-Deductible $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 15636500-131 Health Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-132 Dental Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 156-46500-133 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 156-46500-134 Disabitty Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-300 Professional Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 156-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-340 Advertising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-600 Debt Service -Principal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-611 Bond Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-622 Tax Increment Payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k 05/14!08 8:14 AM Page 1 13 CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Expenditure Report May 2008 2008 2008 YTD May 2008 °k of Account Descr Budget 2008 Amt YTD Amt Balance Budget FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream E 1576500-101 Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-121 PERA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-122 FICA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 157-46500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-124 Wellness Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-125 Medicare Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0:00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-130 Health Ins-Deductible $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 157-46500-131 Heath Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 157-46500-132 Dental Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-133 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-134 Disabilty Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 157-46500-300 Professional Services $0.00 $0.00 $4,850.00 -$4,850.00 0.00°k E 157-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1576500-340 Advertising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream $0.00 $0.00 $4,850.00 -$4,850.00 0.00°~ $46,260.00 $0.00 $22,366.04 $23,893.96 48.35°k 05/14/08 8:14 AM Page 2 ~~ CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Revenue Report Current Period: May 2008 YTD SOURCE SOURCE Descr Budget Rev Revenue Balance of Budget FUND 150 Economic Development 36210 Interest Earnings $3,000.00 $361.37 $2,638.63 12.05% 36300 Reimbursement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 39201 Transfers from Other Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 150 Economic Development $3,000.00 $361.37 $2,638.63 12.05% FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) 31050 Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $75.59 -$75.59 0.00% FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) $0.00 $75.59 -$75.59 0.00% FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development 31050 Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $609.69 -$609.69 0.00% FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development $0.00 $609.69 -$609.69 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream 34150 TIF/MIF Deposit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $166.23 -$166.23 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream $0.00 $166.23 -$166.23 0.00% FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $770.00 -$770.00 0.00% 36212 CDAP Loan Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 39312 CDAP Loan Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund $0.00 $770.00 -$770.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $1,982.88 $1,017.12 66.10% 05/14!08 8:13 AM Page 1 tS CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Check Register CHECK # Search Name 040163 BRIGGS AND MORGAN 040184 MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORP 040191 OWEST-TELEPHON E 040220 HASLER MAILING SYSTEMS 8 SOLU 040232 QWEST-TELEPHONE 040271 QWEST-LONG DISTANCE Comments TIF District 2-1 March services Telephone Service-April Postage Rental telephone service-April Long distance service FUND DEPART Amount 157 46500 $4,850.00 150 46500 $2,302.74 150 46500 $89.81 150 46500 $25.63 150 46500 $5.41 150 46500 $0.77 $7,274.36 05/14/08 8:15 AM Page 1 l~ a ~ ~ ~ .. a rn 0 m 0 p C 6 1 = NOON O ~ W N O O N M fA f9 : O fii M t1D W V m ~ ~ O ~ O 'p N I 1 N O V ~ f`07 ~ N M O ~ M a N fH N fii en ~ O tb W M a o o n o ~O n~rn~ : n r) r N ~ N O' ~ fH fH N ': N f9: fH ~"' MOOO r) ~'p fD000. fD r O O O n V O fH fH f9 O f9 to T i a W ~ t N ~ 000(0 ' t0 O ~ fA fH O ~ ~ ~ nfDNN 10NOn O O Q c : of~v' o H' ~ ~ rn r0i ~ ~ ~ ~ /• V W m O NO1 M fA N '. to f9 f N f0 C C ffJ C ~p O m a~ ~ ° c > m ~ LL l~'0 'O m a:; ~ y . .. C t d ~ O v1 d f~, a u U 5 Q Q m °o 1°no°O ~ ~ N M C O O N N ~' O f3 O O Ci r r r Q l c fu a c fU E O d y C C C C ~ d E E E E ~ G a G d 0_ ~ V 0 0 0 0 E ' ~ ~ ~ ~E ~ ia a 1a ia i e ~ 0 0 0 ~ m O U U V V O ~ _ _ _ W E E E E w p 0 0 0 0 0 ~ pp pp p '' U U U V ~ LL p W W W W p 2 Z LL LL MOO M O N O O Ili O O O O f0 ' -- O 100010 O ~ 00~ O 0000 O ~00~` O NOON: O 100010 C ~ y~ , fA ~ ff> fH M M- r fA fA ~ fH ~ ~ O fAOfD ~ ~ 0~: N NMOM 10 ~ O O> O M O fD n N O fD N NOOO: Q r~ O1C n 01 rDO[O' M 1O ~N N Vi N N ~ fH fA. 0 N ~fI 9 i M 1 fH 0 fH fA fit fA N et N O ~ ` fH fi1 fil d4 fOOOtp nOON. N MOOtD 0000 ~ ~00~. to 100010 N 8J 0 0 t0 d' f0 0 0 n t0 O O O'-. M LL) fA fi)N N f9 f9 ~ . < ~ ~~ O N .. : ... N : fA fH f/) f9 nj ~ .Q N - O : ~ fH fi! fA fH 0 0 0 0' O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0: O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0° O 0000> O 0000' 0 OOOOi O fA f9 fA fH EA F9 fA fA H - fA f/) E9 EA fil f9 0000 0 0000''. 0 0000 0 0000 : O 0000 O 0000 O 0000 O C C 00' C O 00 C- O fA f9 f9 fA '.' fA !A fA fH ffl f9 fA fA fA H EA nOO10: O rnv,ov, o no0fo 0 ~~~rn ~ O) ~ O M: O 1r>~or o rigor' o f~cwrNiuirn, ~ f9 O M O M O N fD00 O co cC o ui o nnNO fn n f9 O o'° O ~~ V1 lU C ~ C ~y O m d ~ m > 7. I1 .~ O fU da ~ N H ~ a y O ~~~a O O O O O eF N M O ~ N{ N 1C1 N 1l7 1n N N 10 N Y Z fA Y m Z Z Z Z r ~~~~~ ~ p ~. ~. ~.._. p mrrrr m M fU N N N M 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r 0 0 0 0 LLmmmm u- ~'MMMM ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ LL LL LL LL r p F F H H p > j LL LL Y H C G ff1 C jp O tY1 ?~ y v ~ LL Z ~ ~ O d da ~ « m L N ~ W N (~ Q U S ¢ Q O ~t N M O O N N fb fD tD tD C ~ ~ ~ ~ f D a a -°cccc ° p n n n a ° O O O O ~ ~ d N d d ~ r;~~~0 N 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {L (~ (n (n (n LL ~ LL LL LL W_ r pFFFI- p LL LL N N C CO C ~p O m d ~ fu > ~LL .~ O N ~, a a' « W w~a N ~ t p N y f~ O. U ~ CCQ71 Q O ~ N M O O N N ~ n n n 1l) lf1 N 10 A E d =~EEEE H l0 l0 ff1 W ~ d ~ d N y N N _M N LL ~ ~ ~ ~ LL H r H ~ N N N N ~ LL LL LL LL Q H F H H p LL LL v o o a o tDOOt>7 O M O O M O O fH V- O fA O O N 10 fA fA N M O a ' 01 M n O O O O f0 O M O f0 ~ ~ 1 ~ (O fA fH N fA ? fA V 0 010 to O O O O O M O O n C 10 ~ ~ O f0 fH fi! .< ~ 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 01 O C O C C' O H fA fH f9 ~ fA 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O fH f9 f9 fH - fA N M O I0 O .-noao 0 'f~0~1o °a~1Na ~ ~ ~ f/! N~ N N G ~ C ~p O m afu~ ~ a ~ > > LL '~ ~ m ° ~ ~ m a N fA O fU fyf7 r O d U ~ Z Q °o~QOO1~ O O ~ N O O O O N 10 1f7 Ill N N N N 3 LL A 'O 9 ~ 'O C O C C C C 1f1 ~ LL II LL II J C C C C C 0 ~ m m m m ° O J J J J p m C C C C fU ~ > '~ > '> ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O N > > > > 10 N fU N N N N p ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ LL LL 0 O O fH 0 0 M r r 01 M f9 01 01 N M n 0 M I ~ M f0 O fA M f0 O V! O 0 u9 CITY OF ST JOSEPH AccountDescr FUND 150 Economic Development E 150-46500-103 Legislative Bodies E 150-46500-122 FICA Contributions E 150-46500-125 Medicare Contributions E 150-46500-151 Workers Comp. Insur. Prem. E 150-46500-200 Office Supplies E 1506500-300 Professional Services E 150-46500-303 Engineering Fee E 1506500-304 legal Fees E 150-46500-321 Telephone E 150-46500-322 Postage E 150-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens E 150.46500-340 Advertising E 150~t6500-410 Rentals E 150-46500-420 Depreciation E 150-4650033 Dues 8 Subscriptions E 150-46500-582 Computer Software FUND 150 Economic Development FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) E 155-46500-101 Salaries E 155-46500-121 PERA Contributions E 155-46500-122 FICA Contributions E 155-46500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer E 155-46500-124 Wellness Benefit E 155-46500-125 Medicare Contributions E 1556500-130 Heath Ins-Deductible E 155-46500-131 Health Insurance E 155-46500-132 Dental Insurance E 155-46500-133 Life Insurance E 155-46500-134 Disabilty Insurance E 155-46500-300 Professional Services E 155-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens E 15546500-340 Advertising E 1556500-600 Debt Service -Principal E 155-46500-611 Bond Interest E 1556500-622 Tax Increment Payments FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) EDA Expenditure Report June 2008 2008 YTD June 2008 Budget 2008 Amt YTD Amt $1,260.00 $80.00 $20.00 $150.00 $500.00 $28,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $87.63 $20.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.22 $8,672.34 $0.00 $0.00 $546.00 $94.52 $7.26 $0.00 $25.63 $0.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 $46,260.00 $107.63 Balance $1,260.00 $80.00 $20.00 $150.00 $495.78 $19,327.66 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $654.00 $155.48 $492.74 $1,000.00 -$25.63 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $17,349.97 $28,910.03 2008 of Budget 0.00% 0.00°k 0.00% 0.00% 0.84°k 30.97% 0.00% 0.00°k 45.50°k 37.81 °k 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00°~ 37.51 % $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ___ 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development E 156~t6500-101 Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1566500-121 PERA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-122 FICA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1566500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-124 Wellness Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 1566500-125 Medicare Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-130 Health Ins-Deductible $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 156-46500-131 Health Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°h E 156-46500-132 Dental Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1566500-133 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°h E 156-46500-134 Disabilty Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-300 Professional Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-340 Advertising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°h E 1566500-600 Debt Service -Principal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 156-46500-611 Bond Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 156-46500-622 Tax Increment Payments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 06/18/08 9:54 AM Page 1 ~~ CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Expenditure Report June 2008 06/18/08 9:54 AM Page 2 2008 2008 YTD June 2008 % of Account Descr Budget 2008 Amt YTD Amt Balance Budget FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream E 157-46500-101 Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1576500-121 PERA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°h E 157-46500-122 FICA Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-123 Deferred Comp-Employer $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°k E 157-46500-124 Wellness Benefit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-125 Medicare Contributions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1576500-130 Health Ins-Deductible $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-131 Health Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-132 Dental Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-133 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-134 Disabilty Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 157-46500-300 Professional Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ E 157-46500-331 Travel & Conference Expens $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% E 1576500-340 Advertising $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund E 250-46500-455 Revolving Loan Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°~ FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $46,260.00 $107.63 $17,349.97 $28,910.03 37.51% ~/ CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Revenue Report Current Period: June 2008 06118/08 9:53 AM Page 1 YTD SOURCE SOURCE Descr Budget Rev Revenue Balance of Budget FUND 150 Economic Development 36210 Interest Earnings $3,000.00 $7.44 $2,992.56 0.25% 36300 Reimbursement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 39201 Transfers from Other Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00°h FUND 150 Economic Development $3,000.00 $7.44 $2,992.56 0.25% FUND 155 TIF 1-3 i3orgert (SKN) 31050 Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $26.08 -$26.08 0.00% FUND 155 TIF 1-3 Borgert (SKN) $0.00 $26.08 -$26.08 0.00% FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development 31050 Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $344.72 -$344.72 0.00% FUND 156 TIF 1-4 St. Joe Development $0.00 $344.72 -$344.72 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream 34150 TIF/MIF Deposit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $110.05 -$110.05 0.00% FUND 157 TIF 2-1 Millstream $0.00 $110.05 -$110.05 0.00% FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund 36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $475.99 -$475.99 0.00% 36212 CDAP Loan Interest $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% 39312 CDAP Loan Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FUND 250 Revolving Loan Fund $0.00 $475.99 -$475.99 0.00% $3,000.00 $964.28 $2,035.72 32.14% ~~ CITY OF ST JOSEPH EDA Check Register CHECK 040333 040351 040355 040376 040397 040426 040433 Search Name OWEST-TELEPHONE OWEST-TELEPHONE STAMP FULFILLMENT SERVICES MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORP OWEST-LONG DISTANCE OWEST-TELEPHONE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE(HASLER) Comments FUND DEPART telephone service 150 46500 May Service 229 numbers 150 46500 #10 Envelopes w/stamp 150 46500 April Services 150 46500 Long Distance 150 46500 telephone service-June 150 46500 Metered Postage Acct 0000227 150 46500 Amount $82.50 ~ ~ P1Pw"'t~ $5.41 K $24.131r $2,317.06 ([gpp-^O~co~ $5.13 ( ' ~ $82.501 $20.0o x $2,536.73 06/18/08 9:53 AM Page 1 Ia~F w-ev- f~k~ Iac~ wpN1~ ~~ ~~ as CITY OF ST. JOSEPH Stearns Coun#y, Minnesota COMBINING BALANCE SHEET - NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2007 Special Revenue Econc nic ~ TIF 1'-4 TIF'2-1 Sta Development TIF 1-3 St. Joseph Millstream Co ected Authority Borgert Development Shops and Sat Tax (1S0) 15S (1S6) Lofts (157) 20 ASSETS: Cash and Investments (Including Cash Equivalents) $ 30,982 $ 4,878 $ 39,644 $ 10,778 $ 39 ,283 Taxes Receivable -Delinquent - - - - - Special Assessments Receivable: Delinquent - - - - Deferred - - - - - Accounts Receivable - - - - - Interest Receivable 390 60 354 77 ,100 Due from Other Funds - - - - - Due from Other Governments - - - - 66, 7 Total Assets $ 31,372 $ 4,938 $ 39,998 $ 10,8SS $ 46 , 80 LIABII.,ITIES AND FUND BALANCES: Liabilities: Accounts Payable $ 2,197 $ - $ - $ 4,850 $ - Contracts Payable - - - - - Due to Other Funds - - - - - Deferred Revenue - - - - - Total Liabilities 2,197 - - 4,850 - Fund Balances: Unreserved, Reported in: Special Revenue - Undesigaated 29,175 4,938 39,998 6,OOS 467, 80 Debt Service -Designated - - - - - Debt Service - Undesignated - - - - - Capital Projects -Designated - - - - - Total Fund Balances 29,175 4,938 39,998 6,OOS 467, 0 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 31,372 $ 4,938 $ 39,998 $ ~, 10,8SS ®~ $ 467, 58 _ a~ _ _ Special Revenue Debt S Certif D Lak Ci ~ o Rec~tion Pr m Wo gon Beau ficatio Revolving Inde i Center (210) 225) T 230) n ( Loan (250) To of 2 Q< $ 45,914 374 $ 3 $ 9 $ 50,121 $ 1,454 $ %~ ~ . - 12,500 - 12,5 0 x'373 - - 407 4, 65 - - - , - - - 66, 97 , $ 61'322 $ 46, 7 $ 374 $ 3 $ 12,5 9 $ 50,528 $ 725,41 $ 1 $ 3,069 $ - $ - $ 3„069 - - r T 58,25 45,87 374 i - ~ - / - I 8,253 4 ,287 374 _ 1 $ 61, 2 $ 46287 $ 374 $ ~~ 19 55 18 - $ - $ - $ 10, 16 $ 10 59, 0 - 6 ,010 - 2,50 - ,500 _ 10 61,500 - 8 626 (1 007} - , 3 $ 41) 50,528 L - 41) 50,528 S9 $ 50,528 643, 0 725,16 $ 1 r - ,274 59 ~~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH Stearns County, Minnesota COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For the Year Ended December 31, 2007 Special Revenue Economic ~ TIF~-4 TIF -1 Development TIF 1-3 St. Joseph Millstream State Co cted Authority Borgert Development Shops and Sal Tax (154) (155 (156) Lofts{157) (00 REVENUES: Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ Tax Increments - 23,970 59,433 - Sales Taxes - - - - 237, 7 Special Assessments - - - - _ Intergovernmental - - - - _ Charges for Services - - - - _ Miscellaneous: Investment Income 3,904 126 903 241 ,081 Contributions and Donations - _ _ _ _ Other - - - 11,000 - Total Revenues 3,904 24,096 60,336 11,241 25 ,008 EXPENDITURES: Current: Public Works - - - - - Culture and Recreation - - - - _ Economic Development 38,070 23,414 54,]32 5,236 - Debt Service: Principal - - - - - Interest and Other Charges - - - - Capital Outlay: General Govenvnent - - - - _ Public Safety - - - - Public Works - - - - _ Culture and Recreation - - - - _ Total Expenditures 38,070 23,414 54,132 5,236 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (34,166) 682 6,204 6,005 250,00 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES {USES): Bonds Issued - - - _ _ Refunding Bond Payment - - - - _ Transfers In - - - - 24, Transfers Out - - - - Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - - - 24 0 Net Change in Fund Balances (34,166) 682 6,204 6,005 274 12 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of Year 63,341 4,256 33,794 - 193,1 8 End of Year 29175 $ 4,938 $ 39,998 $ 6,005 $ 46 80 2S Special Revenue Rec ion D Ci Park ication ter Pr gram Lake egon Beau 'fication Revolvrog Loan (205) (210} 225) Trai (230) 232 (250) Tot _ _ - - - 403 _ _ - - - 237, 7 4, l 2,107 - - - 2,303 26, 76 _ _ - 10, - 10 _ _ - - - 1 000 4 ll ,107 - ]0 0 2,303 3 ,806 ,396 - - - - 4,396 _ _ _ _ - 12,52 ,680 - - - - 77,6 0 8 , 76 - - - 202 28 {77,26) 2 07 - - 10, 2,303 16 878 _ - - - 4,004 _ - - - 2 ,004 (77 65) 2, 07 - - 10,00 2,303 89,882 1 18 44, 0 37 ,007 (58 1) 48,225 4 ,908 $ 58,2 $ 4 ,287 $ 74 $ 1 ,007 $ (48,9 1 $ 50,528 $ 43,790 65 z~ ~. CITY OF ST. OSFPH 1 WWW.CItyOf St)OSepil.COm DATE: June 18, 2008 MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority Administrator ~udy Weyrens FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group RE: EDA Budget - 2009 Mayor Background AI Rassier The City's Finance Director, Lori Bartlett has convened the 2009 budget process. The EDA must submit a preliminary budget to the City Council for consideration at budget workshop(s) in August. A Councilors preliminary budget will be adopted and certified to the County in September and a final budget to be Steve Frank adopted in December, 2008. Rick Schultz Attached is a worksheet illustrating preliminary budgets for the following funds: Renee Symanietz Dale Wick 1. The EDA is a separate entity with a separate Fund (Fund 150). 2. Tax Increment revenues and expenditures for TIF 1-3 (Borgert Products) -Fund 155 3. Tax Increment revenues and expenditures for TIF 1-4 (Vicwest Steel/St. Joe Dev. LLC) Fund 156 4. Revolving Loan Fund -Fund 250. Since there are no expenditures relative to this Fund, it is not included on the worksheet. Please note the following: Fund 150: Operating Fund for the EDA: The 2009 budget is slightly less than the actual 2008 budget. The proposed budget assumes a contract extension with the EDA Director versus a staff level Community Development Director. The proposed budget includes $8,000 for membership dues to the St. Cloud Area Economic Development Partnership. Fund 155: TIF Fund for 1-3: The anticipated revenues and expenses reflect TIF revenue received in 2007. Fund 156: TIF Fund 1-4: The anticipated revenues and expenditures are based on estimates. Actual numbers are dependent on assessed market value. The TIF beneficiary did not enter into an assessed market value agreement, therefore, the actual proceeds of the pay-as-you-go issue is less than included in the TIF budget included in the plan for 1-4. Fund 157: TIF Fund 2-1: The forecast revenue and expenditures are based on projections included in the TIF Plan for 2-1. The accuracy of the forecasts is dependent upon the accuracy of the projected estimated market value contained in the TIF plan. Fund 250: Revolving Loan Fund. The 2006 audited fund balance is $50,528. The balance is available for loan to business establishments which create jobs at livable wages. Action: The EDA is asked to recommend a preliminary budget for 2009 for City Council consideration. A motion is in order. ~7 zS College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.7zo1 Fax 3zo.363.o34z > > r r~ 2 LL N N f- C O C O C O ~ N p~p~~ f7l ~ N cO m (O m 16 m d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O O O O O O O O O v o00 0 010 ~ riri 1o roo n o00 0 ~ Of m o f» 10 O N 1o N n _N O o1 O M o st tT M M ~ o to N o ~ o fA tH M o M O~ M N t0 M~ ~ m~ 0 :M ~ f0 N N N fA R ~ N N ~[) O N N fA fA ~ U) fA fA fA fA fA H! fA O a 0 a , o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 1a 1a o 1» V1 to vi fA f9 fA_ E9 to 1H ~ fA fA fH o m 0 rS 0 i N ~ f!~ r f9 C d E a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m u- v~ ° o u1 1» 1H fA fA fA ~ EA 1A f» fA fA to fH ao o o N m ~ ~ a 0 'o Q « R O O D O OD 00 O N N 0 0~ ~ O1 O O T ~ v,oo v, o0 0 on n o00 o rnoo rn noo n 0~ co 0~ v 000 0 1r;00 ~i O fA fA fA EA fA N N fA V M 63. V) ~ ~ fA fA n ° fA f9 1 7 u~ u1 » u> ~ v ~ o a 1 N G O O O O V O V M N O O O O O N O O N O O O O 10 N n In O O O O N N O O O O C M O O M m n f0 N M O QQ. O O - O M O O M A 7 O H M m O W t0 ~ O O O M O Q O M M FA O V O N R N O to fA M O M O (A fA 0 ~ 69 ~ N E en f9 N N ~ 1 0 ~ ~ Q EA EA 69 EA fA fA m O O W O 0 O a O ~ O. O O O CD u7 O M _ 0 _ OD O OD O O O O V n O N C O O O O O O O O O O W O O D 0 7 to O EA ~ n O M fA M 01 E9 01 1fl ffl ffl fA O n fA a0 ' O O N E n fA N N N N N N f0 10 ~ ~ u 1 ~ 19 ~ Q 69 fA fA to fA fA fA y C ~ O j r a LL rn r . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to m m ~ c a, `~ E v1 rn ~ ~ ` ~ c ~ m E c ~ ~ ac c o w ~ S a ~ ~ E m m~ _ Z~ m ~ m E m E d c m m m 3 W ~ W W m ° W W O ~ ~ a i N N u N m~ N E~ LL N J J li i d (A ,~ y m > O ~ ~ c O Q O c y 1p O c y n c G. 4. ~ m o1 ~ m x u1 O x~ x~ m o m Q Q m ~ m N ~ c C d d o ~'? ~ ~ > W ~ d V~ 0 0 LL ~ ~ LL h O LL a h~ ~ ~ ~ t O 11 r 41 ' a~ N W N M N 0 H O N H O N f 0~ N Q N N M d d t +1 1'07 M M eO+f e+1 10+1 M ea+1 M e07 1'07 t07 ' ~ ~ ~ N ~ O Z Z Z Z Z = ~ N LL LL l L LL LL ~y n 0 0 N C O a d y ES CD m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 o O ei O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 ~ m ao N n o 0 0 0 0 ~ vi o w w~ o m m N w w r w Ip w N O O N M w r w 1A w N M w N o O m w w N w w y N E~ O a 0 a ~ W O ~O N m 'O C m Q OD O O N C 7 O o £ N Q T n C o ° O N Q O C O ~ O N Q °0 0 0 0 0 °o °o °o °0 0 0 °o °o o °o °o °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ao N ~n o 0 0 0 o u~ a o is ~» o o m N fA EA rw ~ O O O N NtA ~ O O MEA N w Nf9 ESA fA (A E9 tR ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C C C O C C C G O O O t0 O N O O w O O O O O O fA w 0 0 CO N w E9 M O O N N 1C) O O M N w fA .~ w fA ~ w ~ w fA w b9 EA w O O O O N ~ O O O N f0 O M O O O n O O O O N M O O O O N O t0 O O O O O O O O ~ N O O O ~ n O O O O O O fA fA EA fA 69 ~ to w ~ ~ w w NfA fA C vi ~ ao w ao n w to w 0 0 0 ao o~ o o rn o o ~n o 0 0 o n O O O n 0 EO O O O r O N 0 0 0 0 0 1n O O N O O O O 1~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N fA w N EA n w to to W tH O w w O w n N EA f0 ~ V! w EO ED fA N4A w ~ t0 O O O O O O O n O n O 0 0 0 0 n O O O N n O O ~ M n O O O O O N M O O n m Ep O N ~O M 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ w ~ ~ N a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O w V7 EA ~ fA ffl EA a0 ~ EA N EA M ~ ~ N H C ~ y 4. O .~ N d X a o pp~~ wyy V > E) ~ W U U p d Q ~ ° a c '~ °~ aci '° m .y ° .c u m o~ o~~~ LL c c uvi o +N. m a d ~S U ~j a c c H y ° m °~~ ~ O ~ ~ ° ~ ~ U) N N O O N otS y y •O ~ 'O-' Y D~ U '~ Y`o ~ o ~ rn a-ni w~ j c n a~ E •- ° ~ w~~ 0 a w ~~ a i- Q~ O ~ U 3 ~ ~ £ ++ Q O C O N N h O O O O N N M V ~ N M ENO ~ O W r r r r N M M M M M M M ~ ~ t} Ip 7 m 0 ~ g ~ W 'C c a a a ~ ° W H X ~ W r O 2 ~N LL 31 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i o cv,~ f» ~» v~ ~» w rn u~ w w fn o0 w ~ v~ w M M w ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w vs v> w E» w f» v~ w w u9 Eta w w w w w w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ d09 ~ ~ d09 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O C C O O O O C C O C C O w fA fA EA fA w fA w w w fA t/9 w fA fA fA to EA [O O ~ M O N O O M N O ED O O O O f0 O O M (O M 0 0 0 0 ~O N O N O O O O O O O~ aD M O N O O M O O t'7 M O) 0 0 a _O E9 w fA w w fA ffl EA fA w ~ N_ MEA w w ~ a w w w N M ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o .n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O r O ~ n O O N 69 fA w ffl w w fA fA to fA w~ w~ N w w w r ~ ~ O o '~ a o 0 Q o a ~ a ~ ~ .y ~ c m = ~ o ~ o ~ Es ~ ~ U m U ° O O O -° y `7 C C m ~ U U ~ ~ m m ~ Q w ~ D m w ~? d ~ ~i a°i a10i E N N C N K r N W G y c ~ ~ t~ w ~ ~ c ~ m o a ,c~ ~ °~ C O ~` '~ EtS M N C t`S m c '.o w > ~ ~ .° c w ~ o m o ~ o a~ Q o m° ~ C r r N M ~ O O r N M ~ 0 M V O r N Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r r r r r M M M tO t0 t0 N W O O F, CD ~ M r a LL G F- N n O Z U (0 O O N C O L N H fb m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f`7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O eM ~ ffl ffl ffl Vj ffl V~ fA V) ffl fA ~ ffl ~ fi9 fA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to fA fA fA Vi fA f9 Vj Vi fA EiA V> EA EA ffl EA N N9 C f6 Q. ll. H C O L N h f4 ©m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fD n N U3 EA d9 ffl ffl ffl (fl ff! ffl fH N ffl ~. M ~ f~'! O fA G9 ~_. NN9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fA fA fH fA ffl fA fA ff> f9 fA M fA fA fA tA:. ff! O O O Vj O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O b9 fA (H EA H fA EA to Vi ffl EA H EA fA to fA b9 V! EA H EA b9 to 59 to fA b9 N ffl fA ffl ffl to 69 EA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O to fA fA H Vj fA V! fA fA fA fA d9 ffl d3 fA V- V? Ef! b9 fig N fA fA H f9 fA b9 f9 ffl d9 ff) fA fA ffl fA O O ~ M O N O O M N O O O O O O n O O W ~ M O N O O M N O O fD O O fD O O M f0 M O 0 0 0 to N O N O O O O N M O M tD M O O O O O N O 0 0 ~ O N O O O tb M O N O O M O O M M O O O O N O fA W M O N O O M O O O M 'V' O ~ O l() ff) (ff ffl fA fA EA EH fA ff! ffl ~ N ~ fA fA ~ M O ffl fA b9 fA 59 69 M f9 fA fA ~ N ~ f9 N fA fH ~ _ ~ M ar ~ _ ~ ~f _ ~ !C! ll) H fH ffl H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O O O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O f0 O O !~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'p N 0 0 r to to b9 fA fA VT ffl EA fA ff> fA ~ ffl NE!) _N fig to ~ ~ O O ~ ~ N N C ~+ ~ d w L O C ~ N w U E o. o a~ m Q o c E ~~ °~ c c m .. ~ o w w ~ ~ ~ ~ c y ~ a ~ c S a y 'o c c ~ w ~ ~ ~ o~~ ~~~ ~ vii m o v y °~ a c c U m U fb vim, f'n ~ c c U c~ E 00 N V V O ~ N C C C ~~ N oZS .y N C U m t0 Q w C O N N C d y O N >~ C X ~ 0 m w U m °~ o a~ d m w ~ a~ o fo m o cn a~ o~~ x= o ~ o a~ Qom ~ O' O r r N M 'd' fO O r N C1 a O r O O r N ~ C O N N N N N M M M M M O M ~ O r N m ~ r r r r r r r r r r r M M M f0 fD EO m W G 0 m O O O ~ t0 a N ~ ~ a LL 0 1- N r D Z LL 3z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d9 fA fA fA fA fA ffl fA fA fA fA fA EA fA to EA fA (U N C y 4 N ~+ 'C O p c W y •O N t 3 rn a o~ c~ ~ E ~ o Q o c W ~ ~ c~ 'Z y m Q a m .n ~~ c c a~i m m °~ ~ m c ~ m o •c ~ E c m o E ~ ~j m U~~ 3 c rn o H (~$ m f0 d' Q ,4? 'O N l0 C y N O ff7 > X m > o to a~ 0 3~= i o ~ o a~ Q~ ~~ E E O r r N M a N O r N M a O r O N O H C O N N N N N M M f'7 M M O M ~} N 'O C ~ ~ r r r r r r r r r r r M M f+1 f0 ~ V E w a w ~ o e o V! O J m a a r Q ~ d o ~ o h O O N r N D D Z Z > > W LL . ~ CITY OF ST. OS~PH www.cityof stjoseph.com DATE: June 18, 2008 Administrator MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority Judy DUeyrens FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group RE: Capital Improvement Plan - 2009 Mayor AI Rassier Background In conjunction with preparation of the 2009 budget, the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan is also being reviewed. Councilors Steve Frank The CIP includes budget priorities for capital purchases, improvements, etc. over the next five years. Rick Schultz Last year the EDA requested capital improvement allocation in the amount of $7,500 for commercial Renee Symanietz redevelopment and rehabilitation and $7,500 for a proposed architectural/design services matching grant program. At least $5,000 was included in the 2008 CIP for pilot projects under the BFA Dale DUick matching grant. Attached is a form for capital improvement requests which when complete will be contained in the budget review. Action: The EDA is asked to recommend items to be included in the 2009-2013 CIP. A motion is in order. 3~ ZS College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.72oi Fax 320.363.o34z EDA-9001. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2009 - 2013 PROJECT TITLE: TOTAL COST: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT CATEGORY: DESCRIPTION: JUSTIFICATION: Account Code: PROJECT COSTS AN D FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS: Project Funding Source Prior Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total EDA 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: 2009 Preliminaries Land Acquisition PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 2009 Construction Equipment and Other NEIGHBORHOOD: Total $0.00 Presented to the EDA on Presented to the City Council on Comments Approved Denied Tabled Approved Denied Tabled Approval to Purchase Date Authorizing Initials Date ~~ ~. CITY OF ST. OSFPH l WWW.CICyOf S[~OSepil.COm Administrator ~udy ~eyrens Mayor AI Rassier ~.ouncilors Steve Frank Rick SChrlhZ Renee Symanietz Dale DUick DATE: June 18, 2008 MEMO TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack Municipal Development Group RE: Fees and Comparative Communities Background: At the previous EDA meeting Chairperson Wick requested a discussion item be added to the June EDA meeting. Wick requested discussion on St. Joseph fees as compared to fees from Avon, Albany, and Cold Spring. Especially concerning were storm water fees. For your discussion please find attached: 1. Comparative fees for Albany, Avon, Cold Spring, and St. Joseph. 2. Two development scenarios with fees from each of the four communities applied. The first scenario is a net 40 acre residential subdivision averaging two dwellings per acre. The second scenario is a 10 acre industrial development. 3. Real Estate Tax comparisons for the four cities based on (a) a $175,000 homestead residential parcel and (b) a $200,000 commercial parcel. 4. Comparison of fees for several other communities and St. Joseph completed in 2004 along with areal-world scenario. 5. Information regarding the storm water utility including: a. Frequently asked questions regarding storm water utility. b. Basic storm utility information. c. St. Joseph Ordinance 45 establishing a storm water utility. d. The implementation chapter of the St. Joseph Storm Water Management Plan. This chapter provides an overview of costs typically associated with storm water issues in the City of St. Joseph. Without the utility such costs would likely be paid for from the general levy. Action This item is offered for discussion as requested. 3~ z5 College Avenue North PO Box 66g Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3ao.363.~zol Fax 3zo.363.o34z City of Albany Item Classification AMT. Parameter Trunk Sanitary Industrial $ 1,125 per acre Commercial $ 1,125 per acre Residential $ 1,125 per acre Trunk Water Industrial $ 1,125 per acre Commercial $ 1,125 per acre Residential $ 1,125 per acre sac Industrial $ 1,406 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 1,406 per unit -Met. Council Residential $ 1,406 per unit -Met. Council WAC Industrial $ 1,406 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 1,406 per unit- Met. Council Residential $ 1,406 per unit -Met. Council Utility Sanitary Base rate $ 5.00 per month Usage $ 2.25 1,000 gallons Utility Water Base rate $ 14.00 per month Usage $ 3.25 1,000 gallons Storm Water Utility not established -each development incurs cost for MPCA regs 3~ City of Avon Item Classification AMT. Parameter Trunk Sanitary Industrial $ 3,000 per acre Commercial $ 2,000 per acre Residential $ 1,500 per acre Trunk Water Industrial $ 3,000 per acre Commercial $ 2,000 per acre Residential $ 1, 500 per acre 5AC Industrial $ 4,160 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 4,160 per unit -Met. Council Residential $ 4,160 pec unit -Met. Council WAC Industrial $ 1,560 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 1,560 per unit -Met. Council Residential $ 1,010 per unit -Met. Council Utility Sanitary Base rate $ 9.70 per month Usage $ 3.95 1,000 gallons Utility Water Base rate $ 5.78 per month Usage $ 1.93 1,000 gallons Storm Water Utitity not established -each development incurs cost for MPCA regs ~~ City of Cold Spring Item Classification AMT. Parameter Trunk Sanitary Industrial $ - per acre Commercial $ - per acre Residential $ - per acre Trunk Water Industrial $ - per acre Commercial $ - per acre Residential $ - per acre SAC SF Res, C & I $ 3,300 per dweNing/business MF $ 2,310 per unit WAC SF Res, C & ! $ 1,100 per dwellinglbusiness MF $ 770 per unit Utility Sanitary Base rate $ 18.00 per month Usage $ 3.50 1,000 gallons Utility Water Base rate -first 4K gal. $ 8.00 per month Usage $ 1.40 1,000 gallons over 4,000 Storm Water Utility not established -each development incurs cost for MPCA regs City of St. Joseph Item Classification AMT. Parameter Trunk Sanitary If applicable CSAH 121 lift station $ 150 per acre Northalnd lift station -only serves SF $ 600 per acre Industrial park lift station $ 350 per acre Trunk Water If applicable CSAH 121 lift station $ 150 per acre Northalnd lift station -only serves SF $ - per acre Industrial park lift station $ - per acre SAC Industrial $ 2,000 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 2,000 per unit -Met. Council Residential $ 2,000 per unit -Met. Council WAC Industrial $ 3,900 per unit -Met. Council Commercial $ 3,900 per unit -Met. Council Residential $ 3,900 per unit -Met. Council Utility Sanitary *(Adjusted to illustrate gallmonth) Base rate $ 4.00 per unit Usage (City bases on cu. ft.)* $ 2.14 per 1,000 gallons Utility Water *(Adjusted to illustrate gallmonth) Base rate $ 4.00 per unit Usage (City bases on cu. ft.)* $ 2.14 per 1,000 gallons Storm Utility (Adjusted to illustrate per month) SF Dwelling $ 2.25 per unit/month MF Dwelling $ 20.40 per billable acrelmonth Duplex $ 2.25 per unit/month Commercial $ 31.74 per billable acrelmonth Industrial $ 24.77 per billable acrelmonth Institutional $ 24.77 per billable acre/month Agricultural $ - no charge Public Facility $ - no charge Storm Area Development fee $ 0.25 per sf minus expenses related to stormwater included with development NOTES: stormwater fee for school reduced due to living classroom preservation; Coborns delayed until 2nd blc d V N O .I.+ Q 1 '~ ~+ C G3 .N d L d L V tQ ~+ C 0 ~O I.L. Z V 1 1 O N O O p N O ~ ~ ~ N am 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ d ' r ~ 0 0 N M N N 0) .` ~ ~ m ~ H EA fA ffl Efl > d'1 L ~ EA lfl EA L.. d9 EA EA fA o ~ o E ~ ~ m N ~ CA O O O O ~ ~ t` II ti II ~ 3 ` °= u~i cv 3 ~ a? R ~ m ~ 3 c U Q ~ Q F- 3 ~ m m m o a~ m Q ~ ~ N ' ~ N m ~ ' m ~ H - S Cq S ~ O C a N 'O O V O O O O O O M M OD 00 CO 00 O O 0 O 0 ~ c0 c~ ti ~ N N 0 0 O O t 0~ O ° 0 O O M ~ M N i ~ N I A c0 C O M LA N ~ 0) . ~ ~ tC ` ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .L... C ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ffl ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ (Q C7 ~ N O O O O ~ ~ ti II ti 11 3 ~ _ ._ N is 3 J _ = ~ R :a ~ a; (` J ~ ~ C.1 Q p ~a' 3 O c~ ~ i m ~ F ~ '' ~ ~ v i m u ~ v i m ~ ~ H ~ rn ~ C O Q Il O O O O O 0 0 O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O r ~ CO N ~7 t0 r r O ~ ~ N ~ ( D ~- N et to O N ~ 'L ~ N m 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vi o ~ o a~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U •~ ~p U ~ S - N C2 ~ ~ p ~ - :'" II ~ II 3 °= u~i m 3 ,J w O d R O d m J Y c ~L c U U ~ Q ~ 3 N a~ m ~. ~ ~- ° a~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ o ~ y y m ~ v i m c ~ ~ F F - LA [A ~ t a d N O ..S N O O O O O O a0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 ~ ~ O 00 Op O M M N 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N N M ~ . - r r M N N N . ~ ~ R ` ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ O O p f` ti II 11 3 °= vii cv 3 J O ci m ~ cr m J c ~ U Q ~` ~ 3 ai ~ m ~ vii ~ m ~ ~ N ~ ~ o ~ a ' m ~ m ~ O O c n ~ C Co ~ _ Q G t... O r ~.+ C d O d ~L ~+ N ._ L V 0 r N _0 Q Z LIJ o 0 0 0 1n 1n o 0 0 10 O O p O N N O O O ~ ~ N ~ O a r M ~ !r 1p M ~ er ~ N N N ~ Ip ~ L (A N fA 69 d9 69 ~ EA ~ C ffl d9 EA ~ C ER b9 ~ fA O O ' ~ ~ ~ ~ c0 N ~ In O O p O ~ ~ ti II ~ II 3 vOi m 3 J O d lu ~ a~ m ,J Y ~ 1 V Q ~ Q ~ d 3 y > O> m G, O O 1a Q -- i a o u ~ cn ~ H- v i ~ cry ~ cn m ~ ~ m ~ O c .` a 0 U O O O O O O M M 00 00 (O 00 O O N ~ Cfl M t~ ~ N 1n c0 (D O O O ~ '~7 O 01 M M ~ ~ N M ~ N tp ~ r N N N N . 1p ~ j tf3 G9 EA rfl > tri ~ ~ 69 to to ~ EA to EA v>? o _ ~ o ' E ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ O 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ n ti 11 3 °~ N 3 J O N ~ N J Y > Y V Q ~ Q F'- N 3 N N O d N N O] ca Q 1- ` > ~ ¢ ~ o N ~ n u, m m ~ ~ ~ rn m ~ I v i c c O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ise -n o in 1n o ~ ~ 0 0 p O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ '~t (O Op M M ~ N N t~ N M (p O d N m 7 N Efl EA (A EA > iR w C 69 EA EH ,= C 69 !fl Efl M O ~ O N ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ p ~ ~ N ~ ~ U V O O ( 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ • : "- II 11 . 3 ~ ai co 3 °: ~ _ °? ` ~ ~ V Q o Q ~'- a`~ 3 N °~ m ~ O °~ ~ Q E-' H ` a ~ ~ m ~ v i m ~ O - F c n ~ to ~ t a m 0 ~: N O O O O O O 00 00 O 0p 00 Ip N O O ~ O 00 CO O M M N N ~ ~ ~ O ~'- r ~-' ~-- ~ r ~! r O 119 N N M t D (p N N ~ ' ~ l0 C > rn ~ rn 69 EA 69 69 tip ~ ~ 69 tfT 69 L Efl 69 EA ER o ~ o E ~ ~ ~ io ~ R N 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ u u 3 °r voi N 3 d m j „N., ~ U Q Q ~ a`~ 3 p °> cv ~ o °> o Q f- ~ o ~ o ~ v i u i c H ~- ~ in ~ m ~ ~ m ~ ~ C eo _~ Q Page Title Page 1 of 1 S ~ ` 5~ca r~ /G~e ~ ! ~ 5 i Oc~~ City Year Value City Tax City Tax Total Tax Total Tax \ w/ Credit w/ Credit Albany 2007 175,000 683 609 2,150 1,935 City Year Value City Tax City Tax Total Tax Total Tax w/ Credit w/ Credk Avon 2007 175,000 1,129 1,029 2,593 2,379 City Year Value City Tax City Tax Total Tax Total Tax w/ Credk w/ Credit Cold Spring 2007 175,000 554 483 1,775 1,560 City Year Value City Tax Cky Tax Total Tax Total Tax w/ Credk w/ Credit St. Joseph 2007 175,000 865 771 2,178 1,963 ~~k~ °`~k°~~ http://web.lmc.org/cros/proptax/proptax~rocess.cfm 6/ 11 /2008 Yage Title Page 1 of 1 ~ FYI • /~1/l~ . V L' ~ ~ ~~ llU1~ r City Year Value City Tax Total Tax Albany 2007 200,000 1,268 5,432 Cky Year Value City Tax I Total Tax Avon 2007 200,000 2,097 6,255 City Year Value City Tax otalTax Cold SDring 2007 200,000 1,029 4,792 City Year Value City Tax Total Tax St.3oseph 2007 200,000 1,606 5,463 ~kd~ ~~ http://web.lmc.org/cros/proptax/proptax~rocess.cfm 6/11 /2008 _Y LL Y C H 9 L m W O N a m m vy Q~ m C U 3~ c m V 3 O m Z O O ~ON S O r N N ~ ~ M 7 ~ N ~ a a ~ a oo ~ ~ N W r M 4 ~ r M h 9~ O A N p O 4 ~ O t g g 06 J ~ l N N 1 (1 ~l1 J h 8 gj d d l N 8 a N p p O S ~ 8S O O a m ~~ 'Q~. N N ~o ¢ a"c ~ ~ .- ~~ r ; ~o uZ u'i ` v~ ~ N m ~ ~ o 3 g ~ a ~ U ag U a a g U g a ~ U 1° ~ a ~ U g a c U a N ~ ~ ~ - N ~ N O Or t~ ~ S N n ,3 O N N Y t C LL ~~ ~ M p S S ~ ~ ~ = N ~ N $m 2 ¢g ~ ` n ~ r aY ~ ~s '~ $~ m M 3 8 ~ ' "' U v' U a g 8 U c o $ m Q ~ c n a ^ M ~ w X m ~ ~ i d rr U a U a_ U g U a U a O b 8 ~ ~ N ~ ' m ~ o N N ~ r n ~ O g ~ c5 ~ Q Q N ~ g p c~ g N Q S a N O o o O8 N Q U ~ U _ U yy S N3 ~ 3 U a N ~ i5 g ~ ~ g ~ a W '0 N W :..« V N ~ V ~ a ~ a N ~ ~ ~S g C .-. V a Q a U a Q ~ ~ fn ~ f/1 V) ~ N ~ W C ~ O Nb ¢¢ ~ ~ NU ~ai U 3 j d U m ~ p V C t lO 'C > W 'C > a N a ~ 3 = ~~O77 iz ~ O ~ fJl c f/I c (/1 c .0.. f// c E (A '~ ~ > c > » c 2 m ( LL LL A fA LL ~ LL C Ta U C U 9 W O W _l J o b v 6 > a > a m a m a 2 i- 2 r 2 r- 2 ~ 2 +- 2 r 2 F- ~ $ 3 e ~s ~ rU S ~ E p ~xy ~33 b m~ ~~ ~~ ~ E ~~ _• a H „ ~ ~ '~ ~, m ~. m ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ 9 ~~~ ~p~ti ~~ ~~~ ~~ 8~~ ~ !rte ~~ ~~~ ~~ i ~$~ ~ ~ y ~»~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ay$$w~g~ Ys° ~ s. °a E$Rg $~~E~~g& ~~ ~~' N~~a M~~ e s~ ~a a B~F: U ~ ~a 3m~s 3xo_' ~/J C' N ~Iw Q y V m °c = w ~ c w O m d m a ~ ~ Yg .~ W ~~ C C N C~ F ~_ Y C ~ 2 a~i ~ _ " E D 2•2 O C C m m Y Y ~ N U z E ~ N O ~ ~ y 9 N N Y N _ ~ O O {c o~ 34 ° s~ <~ ED u 0 8 ~ ~ .• a "GG' s N O Jt w Q rNO1pQ~ ~ IItyNmap O_y MMMN~NNNNNN q~H a i UUUUUU w3uai;vai3 ~~~N~y m m N ~ Yy1 r ~ m L ro 3 av N 3 m y rn~ ~ LL LL aQ==J~ W H E t to .~ x 9 C L 0 z O O O O M O O O O M O O O O O M O O O O M ~f1 ~ N~ N N n O O f 0 ~ a r O 1 N O h h h r h 0 r r r r r N M O O 0 0 O 0 rn O O 0 1 r h O M M fD .- .- r fV O O O O O O O M N N r N tV O cooo ooo ohh! o00 N N 1(1 O O O O M M O O ~A ' ohl~ aoo locv coorn ohhao vvvr oi o uloorn 0 f0 OD M ~t O M M N r O O r ~ ~ r ~ ~ r V~ 0 O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O o ui ui o o v v vi ui ui Ni O O N M ~ Ov N N~ ~ ~ ~ N r r .- (0 O p O O O O rfOioO'1 °ooo ~ ~ 00 00 O O N N r r N O O O O O O O O O N o~~ o0 0 000 0 ~~ ~o M N f0 O ~ ~ .. N O O C C ~C 'C ~C E 7 ~ 3 ~ 3 7 V N M .-. N N O O O O O 0 0 0~~ O°r~- °o°o °o oo°OO°o a~'i m 0 01 In 0 t0 r' r r LL IL M N 7 ~ f6 l~tl F- F N O O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~ L~ L y y N ~~ UUUU~~~ p,o N N W N N H U ,,N„ ~~ N N y d C C C~~ O) ` a a N fCp Q a Q Q I-^ F H C C -~ 3 ~ 3 3 u~aa 3~~rnincn33cn3 O O O O O O iA t0 O O O ~- N ~ '~ O rn ~ O O N W O M r O cp 00 V M N O O O O ~ O O r t 0 01 O m o o rn ti o v iti O h 10 0 t0 O v1 hrrno rn co r ro 0 ~ N O 0 0 p t oro uioioi o oMO nhao oo 0 N r ~ O h 0 0 0 h tD O N h /~ N O r O N O) ~ 0 r 00 S oS~°o ~~~~ o N N LL .~ O ~ o tL o rn o c E9 m lp O ~ t O 3 ~ m 3 > m li a1 m € E E > ~ 3 a m ~ ~~ 3 ~ 0) ~p d 0 N N N~ C C c c ~~~ m a v~ ~ c~ ~ E m'¢~ac'n~a O ~ 0 0 0 h O h O O O I~ ~ M 0 0 0 M ~ O O M 1 a 0 n ~ N ~ t0 N 0 O O O O O O O O O O O ~ t 0 t f1 (O h u1 m 0 o u1 m N ' ' 00 O N h M O d' O O tO O M m u1 r 0 v r l~1 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O~ ~l1 O O (V O O h N N ~~o ulvhmrn o h o 0 o h cn o v1 v1 h V O O N O O N I~ O ~ O h h v •- q 0 oo~~g °~~~ g d lit ~E O N o d 0 rn o c o :o fA m C C N f0 ~ 7 L_ N ~~ r a~ 3 > ~ N N ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rna E a1>ti° 3= d tL m _~ a1 ~ Ol M N d ~ ~C C c~~O~~ m~ ~~ ~ c ~ ~ E 9 v ~ m ~ d ~ m¢~n.cn~a O M O M O M O M N N N to r N .- In O O O O O O M M 001 O O h r f0 N O r N r to O O O ' N N O W 0 117 .- O N u) ~ fU 0 o rn rn to O 0 0 ~ ro ~ ° meoaov r V r 00 O O O O O O O ~ to fh C 00 ohao~ O R V 0 ~ ~ ~ O O h h 0 o h h aMD N aND 0 N r ~ 0000 ~~o° 0 rIO ~ ~ N ~ a~i LL LL ~~a d ~ LL C d~v o~m' O O O O O N N O ~ O r 0Oi ~ M r to O O O O O O M M ~ O ~ 000 h (O Q1 M N tl' O p O ' N O N M r 0 r h 00 ~ N U1 N M M no ~ o ~ m o M o ~ V ~ I~ O O O O N CM fV O o v rn v r ~p aD O S N h 0 O O t0 M iA h lA O N d' 0 N ~ ~f ooolo ~°~~ °~~~~~ t0 IO O O Q Q F H 0 N a ~ LL LL E m a N ~ LL C d~v > .._ o~m ui 0 z '"'1 K/ Frequently Asked Questions KWhy should I pay if I don't drain into a (drainage) system? I am being taxed by the City of St. Joseph now for services I do not receive!" There are two principles fundamental to the storm water management program: 1. All real property within adrainage -basin will benefit from installation of an adequate storm drainage system. 2. The cost of installing an adequate drainage system should be the responsibility of all the developed property in a basin. These principles may not be easy for property owners to understand at first, but they are key to the storm water management concept. It is difficult for a property owner who lives on a hill to understand how the construction of a storm drain in a Iow-lying area benefits him. But storm drainage includes much more than just flood control. Keeping streets open to emergency vehicles, maintaining ponds and open channel so they do not become health and safety hazards, and promoting use of drainage facilities for recreation alI contribute to enhancing the quality of life. It is important to recognize that development adds to existing drainage problems. The property owner on a hill has, by converting the natural ground cover into streets, concrete and rooftops, increased the storm water runoff. This contributes to the drainage problem of neighbors in tow-1yvng areas. To some extent then, the property owner should contribute to the cost of correcting that problem. "Don't create a separate government agency! Why are the present city departments not capable of handling this need?" The utility is basically a service charge based on a property's contribution of water to a drainage system. The utility is a financing method, not an agency. The utility will be the primary responsibility of the public works and engineering departments. %~ ~~ "Is the utility really necessary?" Rainfall causes the need for an adequate drainage system. Development increases the volumes of runoff and associated pollutant loads. The utility is necessary to finance the cost of the programs to address state and federal regulations, water quantity (flooding) and water quality issues. "Why do we pond storm water runoff today instead of just letting water runoff as fast as possible into ditches, storm sewers, rivers, and lakes like we did for years?" Ponding of storm water runoff allows St. Joseph to take a proactive rather than reactive approach to managing storm water runoff. As development increases, runoff increases as well. The use of ponding not only provides for the protection of property (flood control), but the reduction of peak flow rates also reduces the cost of installing storm sewer systems and ditch/culvert systems to carry the runoff from point A to point B. Additional benefits of storm water ponding include environmental protection and ground water protection. The use of storm water ponds can prevent pollutants associated with storm water from being carried downstream to lakes and wetlands thereby enhancing downstream water quality. Additionally, by keeping water on the land rather than letting it drain away, infiltration of storm water can help to recharge the surficial ground water levels. "What if there is no runoff from my property?" The credit policy statement prepared with the proposed storm water management utility ordinance provides an exemption up to 25°lo for the portion of an individual property which retains all its runoff. As determined by the St. Joseph City Council, individuals would have to demonstrate what percent of runoff does not leave the property in order to receive this credit. "Will there be a charge on vacant land?" Vacant and Agricultural land will not be chazged under the current utility formula. 4~ "Will there be a different charge on large lots?" To keep the utility formula as simple as possible, a flat rate charge was developed for all single-family residential households in St. Joseph regardless of the size of the individual Iot. The basis for this decision is that although the overall lot size may vary, the amount of impervious surface for an individual single-family residence is very similar. Since the amount of impervious surface is similar for most of these lots, they are all charged the same amount. "Can we assess the State and/or County for their roads?" While it is true that State and County roadways and rights-of--way, as well as St. Joseph's own roadways and rights-of--way, produce significant runoff, roadways have not been included in the utility formula. Although there is no specific reference in Chapter 444 of Minnesota State Statutes prohibiting communities from charging publicly-owned rights-of--way, such a charge is only taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Other communities in the St. Cloud area have not considered a charge for public roadways under their utility formulas. "I understand that the utility fund is trying to generate revenue. What are we receiving that we are not already being given?" The utility fund finances St. Joseph's storm water management program. Issues to be addressed include: • Flood reduction and protection • Water quality improvements • Wetland protection and enhancement • Erosion and sediment control • Drainage system construction and maintenance • Community education; and • Improved fish, wildlife, and recreational opportunities Although activities such as addressing localized drainage problems and street sweeping are services currently provided by St. Joseph, the utility provides the means to take a proactive management approach rather than reacting to problems after they have occurred. ~~ "Why can't persons police themselves in regard to storm water runoff, especially involving pollutants, etc.?" People can certainly police themselves. Another aspect of the water quality management program is to raise public awareness through public education efforts. Past history has shown that a lack of public awareness regarding lawn care, for example, can result in water quality impacts to lakes, streams and wetlands. As the general public becomes more informed about water quality issues, self-policing, as is suggested in the question, can become a reality. "Can we expect better service and less taxes if the with this new utility fee?" Residents can expect new services, as well as better services. Much of the focus of the City of St. Joseph's water management program is centered around the drainage system. The drainage system of a community is usually the last of the public utilities to be addressed and for that reason; it is almost always the most costly. St. Joseph's plan provides for an equitable approach for handling storm water runoff and its associated pollutants from St. Joseph in its fully developed state allowing St. Joseph to react to problems before they develop. Improved services in areas such as street sweeping, ditch and culvert maintenance can be expected. New services such as wetland protection and water quality. management will also be a result of this program. The existence of the utility fund will provide for a reallocation of St. Joseph funds to areas other than storm water management. However, in past budgets, only small amounts of dollars have been spent in the area of storm water management. Therefore, it is unlikely that any significant reduction in taxes will be realized by implementing the utility. "Will this fund help piping ditches in St. Joseph?" Where there are existing problems today with ditches in St. Joseph, public improvements may be undertaken. In some cases, those improvements may include the installation of pipe to replace the existing ditches. However, channels and ditches have benefits for not only conveying storm water, but also for allowing infiltration to the surface ground water, and by trapping sediment and associated pollutants prior to discharge into a lake or wetland. ~U "Will there be a sales taz on the Storm Water Utility charges?" No sales tax is considered with the utility charge. "What are the benefits of a Storm Water Utility?" This question will be addressed in two parts. First, the benefits of the storm water management program will be discussed, and second, the advantages of the Storm Water Utility as a financing method will be addressed. Many of the benefits and services to be provided through St. Joseph's water management program have already been described. St. Joseph's storm water management program will address wetland protection through regulation (ordinances) and through capital improvements. Such efforts will help to protect the natural amenities that are so important to residents of St. Joseph. Second, flooding problems can be reduced significantly by planning for proper ponding areas and storm water conveyance systems addressing the increase in runoff from continuing development in St. Joseph, in a cost effective manner. The benefits of using a Storm Water Utility to finance storm water management programs are numerous. First of all, a utility is funded by a service charge on all developed parcels. Charges are based on the amount of water that drains. away or runs off from a particular parcel. Second, since there is a direct correlation between water runoff and the impact it creates, the greater the runoff the greater the impact on storm waters and, therefore, the greater the charge. Charges are not based on property value as are property taxes. Third, tax exempt properties pay their fair share under the utility plan. The utility is favored because (1) it is considered favr; charges are based on runoff rather than property value as is the case with general taxes, (2) it is dependable; the utility is self-financing it does not compete with other governmental services for revenues and it provides consistent funding which is kept in separate dedicated funds, (3) it is simple and flexible; utility charges are similar to water and sewer charges the fee system is adaptable to local situations and credits and exemptions can be built in, and (4) it is acceptable; no increase in property tax is required and a regular small service charge is typically more acceptable to residents than a large one-time assessment. ~) n b.A .r., V ~" C~ ...~ -I~i 4~ G~ GA i~ O .,.y s .~ .-. ... .~ .~ ~~ ~'~ ~J J ~^ O ~~ .~ .~~ •~ L... cu L -E-~ 4- .O CnC'~ W L U ^~ W `~ 0 ._ -~~-+ U .L t~ i O +~ ^^~ L.J. G m i -~-+ C~ 4) O E ~` a~ O -~ .._ +-+ .~ .~ ^~ G V Ca ._ 0 U W n~ W a~ 0 '~ C~ ~ ~ ~ _ Q. ~ C!) ~ W ~ Q ^ w n i~i~ z L~ . . c ~ nL W 0 L ~+-- CCf . V -F-+ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ <v 4) ~ N ~ ^~ ~~ ~~~ ^• ..... ~W ~~ i~ .~ ,~..~ .. 4~ ~ ~ s"' V ~ .. .~ ~ _ ~ C6 ~-' ~ ~ ,~ V ~ .... ~ ~ p . ,.~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ a~ .~ 0. - to t!~ O..~ ._ .._ ,~ ~ - L - -~ V ~ ..~ Q. L ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~.-~ C!1 i- tC~ `~' ca ~ V CU .~-~ ~ ~ ~ i ;~ ~ L ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ -~--+ -- -~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ N V .U C6 O ~ 0- . _ ,{,., ~ -- s.. ~ o a~ U ^~ •W v• ~_ c~ O -~ ._ -_ RS N 0 N m c~ .~ N L V '~ O C~ 0 ~s ~ ~ O ~ ~ a ~ ~" .~" ~ ~ ~~. ~1 ~," ~, O .~_ U ~ ~ ~ •~ ~a 0 L .~..r ~+ ~ 'a ~ Q ~. J .r. .-~~ d LL ~1 ~+ 0 .~ ^~ f.1 5~ 0 L O -F-+ :~ o ~ o ~ •- O cn ._ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a~ W OC tY n ~ -~ •~ p ~ ~- ~ ~ ~- ~ •_ •_ ~ ~ ~ ~ x X•~ a~z o~~c~ ~~? ~~~ L ~-L V LL' ca ~ •ca a~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ Q c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! a~ ~ o to .,.r L ~ 00 •• II II II ~ O ~.. 4 i) V~ V A I I + .~ ~ N` C1 ~ 4. ~ ~ 0 Z U 0 O O r-- 5~ F~ "~ F~ O ~g 2 ~~ S~ ~'aU ~~`,~~ ~ ~ s /q~~ 0' $ ~~~ ~ i~ ~ '~~s ~,o G~ s '~°iA ~ ~, ~y~ T,~ ~% yob ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~~s C ~s ~ ,r~ ?%i ~S ~S 4S~ s y~~~Gs 1~s ~~~ a~ ~~ ~4 o~~ ~o J ~`~'~,O` ~J0`'7 aj ~s~ ~`o d s~,~ y yJ~ J'~s d O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 Cfl d: N O 00 CO mot' N O N ~ ~- r- ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 .~.1 ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ .~J ~r \ V ^~ L L ±~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ V v ~ ._ N ~ ~ p ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- u- ~.. O ~ ~ ~ O ... L• ~ . .~. ~ ^ • • ~ ~= LL ~ ~ W -- • c~• ~ ~. - ~ a~ -~ cu c~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ , ~ D ~( Cn ti. • . • • 5I ORDINANCE 4~ ~ STORM WATER UTILITY Section 44.1: PURPOSE. This Ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for the establishment of a Storm Water Utility. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for the following services: a) The administration, planning, implementation, and maintenance of storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the introduction of sediment and other pollutants into local water resources. b) The installation, operation, maintenance and replacement of public drainage systems. c) Activities necessary to maintain compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE5) Permit requirements established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including preparation, implementation and management of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address the following control measures: 1) Public education and outreach on storm water impacts. 2) Public involvement/participation. 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination. 4) Construction site storm water runoff control. 5) Post-construction runoff control in new development and redevelopment. 6) Pollution prevention for municipal operations. d) Other education, engineering, inspection, monitoring, testing and enforcement activities as necessary to maintain compliance with local, state and federal storm water requirements. Section 44.2: ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM WATER UTILITY. There is hereby established a public utility to be known as the Storm Water Utility for the City of St. Joseph. The Storm Water Utility shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to the City Code of Ordinances and applicable Minnesota Statutes. The revenues derived therefrom shall be subject to provisions of this Section and Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075. The Storm Water Utility shall be part of the Public Works Department and shall be administered by the Public Works Director. This Ordinance shall apply to the entire City of St. Joseph. Section 44.3: DEFINITIONS. Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the following terms, as used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings hereinafter designed. Adopted 4/15/04 ~~ Subd. 1: Surface Area. "Surface Area", referred to herein as "SA", shall be the area of the parcel in acres, subject to any standardization, adjustments or exceptions outlined in this ordinance. Subd. 2: Land Use. The "Land Use" for a given parcel shall be the "tax classification" for that parcel on record at the Stearns County Recorder's Office. Subd. 3: Residential Equivalency Factor. "Residential Equivalency Factor", referred to herein as "REF", is the ratio of the volume of runoff generated by the Surface Area of a particular land use to the Surface Area of a detached single-family land use. Runoff determination shall be based on a 2-inch rainfall and Natural Resources Conservation Services (MRCS) "Type B" soil conditions. The REF for various land uses within the City shall be as set forth in the table below. LAND USE ~ REF Single-Family 1.OQ Multi-Family 2.72 Apartments/Condos/Townhomes 2.72 Commercial 4.23 Industrial/Institutional/Educational 3.30 Public/Quasi Public EXEMPT Parks/Open Space/Cemeteries EXEMPT Road Right-of-way EXEMPT Lakes/Streams/Wetlands EXEMPT Agricultural, Vacant EXEMPT The REF for Land Uses not listed above shall be determined by the City Engineer based on probable hydrologic response. Subd. 4: nit Rate. "Unit Rate", referred to herein as "UR", is the rate in dollars per acre to be chazged per one (1) REF. Section 44.4: RATES AND CHARGES: Subd. 1: Establishing_Unit Rates: The City Council shall from time to time, by resolution, establish the Unit Rate. The Unit Rate so established shall be on file with the City Clerk/Administrator and shall be used to compute the charges for a given parcel of land based on the following formula. Storm Water Chazges = (UR) x (REF) x (SA) Subd. 2: Standardized Chaz~. The following rules shall apply for the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges: Adopted 4/15/04 ~! 1) A standard. Surface Area of 0.30 acres shall be used for detached single-family homes and for patio homes. 2) A REF of 1 and a standard Surface Area of 0.30 acres for each unit shall be used in computing storm water chazges for the following multi-family dwellings: duplexes, twin homes, townhouses, and detached townhouses. (For example, a parcel that contains four townhouse units shall have a Surface Area computed as follows: 4 units x 0.30 acres/unit = 1.20 acres). Parcels subject to these standardized charges shall not be eligible for Adjustments to Chazges or Adjustments to Area as set forth elsewhere herein Subd. 3: Adjustments to Charges. The City Council may by resolution adopt policies providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels based upon hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels. Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the City Engineer, and shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing the REF for all or substantially all of the land uses in a particular classification, such adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in Section 44.3, Subd. 3 of this Ordinance. Subd. 4: Adjustment to Area: The total parcel area as shown in the City Assessor's records will be used to calculate the Surface Area for a given parcel, except that apparent errors in the recorded values maybe subject to recalculation by the City. It is the responsibility of the owner or manager of any parcel to provide the City with necessary surveys, and other information as the City may reasonably request, to determine if a pazcel, or portion of a parcel, qualifies for an exception or area adjustment. Requests for exceptions and/or area adjustments will be reviewed after receipt of all requested information. Exceptions and/or adjustments must be approved by the City Engineer and Public Works Director, and shall become effective the beginning of the next billing cycle following approval. Subd. 5: Exceptions. The following land uses are exempt from the Storm Water Utility Fees established herein: 1) public street right-of--way, 2) wetlands and public waters as defined by state law, 3) ponds designated and used exclusively for storm water retention or treatment purposes up to the 100-year flood elevation, 4) undeveloped parcels, 5) publicly-owned park lands, natural areas, and recreational fields, 6) railroad right-of--way, 7) cemeteries, 8) unsewered parcels situated within the AG (Agricultural) zoning district of the City, and 9) City-owned land. Subd. 6: Falsification of Information. Willful failure to provide information that the City may reasonably request related to the use, development and area of a premise, or falsification of such information, shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance. Subd. 7: Estimated Charges. If, for any reason, precise information related to the use, development or area of a premises is not available, then Storm Water Utility Charges for such premise shall be estimated, and billed, based upon information then available to the City. Adopted 4/15/04 ~Z Subd. 8: Billing Method. Storm Water Utility Fees will be computed and collected by the City together with other City utility fees, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 41 of this Code. Subd. 9: Delinquent Accounts. Storm Water Utility Fees past due on October 1 of any year maybe certified to the County Auditor for collection with real estate taxes during the following yeaz or any yeaz thereafter in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of this Code, pursuant: to Minnesota Statute 444.075, Subdivision 3. Subd. 10: Avueal If a property owner believes that the fee charged a particulaz property is incorrect, s/he may request review and re-computation of said fee. Adopted 4/15104 ~3 City of St. Joseph Storm Water Utility Credit Policy Background On April 15, 2004 the St. Joseph City Council approved a Storm Water Utility (Ordinance No. 4,lZto finance the City's Storm Water Management Program. The Utility provides for the implementation of a credit policy adopted by the City Council for the use of Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) or for area adjustments. Credits may be applied for at any time and will be applied in the next billing cycle following approval. City Staff or the City Engineer will approve all credit applications. It is the responsibility of the property owner to apply for the credit. Policy Statement All properties within the City of St. Joseph shall contribute to the Storm Water Utility in an amount proportional to the runoff contributed by each particular parcel. Exemptions Exemptions are listed in the Storm Water Utility Ordinance. Fee Basis Land Use -Land use for determining Storm Water Utility fees shall be the existing land use at the date of enactment of the Storm Water Utility Ordinance. As land is developed, or redeveloped, the fees will be re-computed based on the revised land use. Soils -Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) - Type B soils shall be assumed for determining the runoff index (CN) in the revenue equation. Rainfall (P) - A 2-inch rainfall will be used in the revenue equation. Runoff Indices (CN) -The runoff indices for the property classifications are as follows: Classification Land Use Runoff Index (CN) 1 Single Family Residential 72 2 Multi-family Residential 85 3 Apartments/Condos/Townhomes 85 4 Commercial 92 5 IndustriaU Institutional /Educational 88 8 Public/Government EXEMPT 9 Parks/Open SpacelCemeteries EXEMPT 10 Road Right-of-Way EXEMPT 11 I.akes/Streams/Wetlands EXEMPT 12 Agricultu~alNacant EXEMPT ~~ Revenue Equation -The revenue equation for computing the runoff volume (Q) shall be based on the runoff equation in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) National Engineering Handbook Section 4 -Hydrology. The equation is as follows: Q = P-0.2S 2 where S = (1000/CN) - 10 P+0.8S andP=2" Commercial, Industrial, Institutional and Multi-Family Landuse Categories: Best Management Practice Credits A credit may be granted to a Commercial, Industrial, Institutional or Multi-Family parcel that can demonstrate a reduction of the rate or volume of storm water leaving the parcel via the use of an approved Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP). Credits can be combined to account for a total reduction of up to 75% of the Storm Water Utility Fee. Documentation must be provided to the City of St. Joseph's Public Works Department for evaluation of the claim. It is suggested that the documentation be prepared by a licensed professional engineer of the State of Minnesota and provide the necessary drawings and calculations to support the claim. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove the claim. Wetland areas shall be excluded from the total parcel area when calculating -the Utility Fee. Wetland areas that are shown on the Stearns Co. National Wetlands Inventory have already been subtracted from the parcel area assessed for the Utility Fee. A 50% credit shall be given to a parcel with a storm water pond that detains storm water runoff to less than or equal to the predevelopment rate, for the 10- and 100-year runoff event. A 25% credit shall be given to a parcel that detains or retains storm water runoff through the use of approved BMPs. Examples of Best Management Practices (BMPs) Storm water ponds (eligible for only one of the 2 above credits) Wet or dry swales; Filter Strips Raingardens Infiltration trenches or ponds Pervious Pavers Underground Storage or Filters Dry Wells Sand Filters; Soak Away Pits Green Roof ~s Land Use Credits Green Space Credit Green Space areas meeting the following criteria can be excluded from the area used to calculate the monthly charge. The credit will be given in a percentage equal to the percent of eligible vacant land, up to a 75% reduction from the total parcel eligible. 1. Vegetated Green Space azeas are eligible for a credit. The property must comply with other City of St. Joseph ordinances, such as mowing and nuisance or noxious weed ordinances. 2. Green Spaces shall be pervious, vegetated areas incorporated into the developed parcel. Green Space shall not have more than 25% impacted, compacted soils. Examples of impacted spaces are trails and compacted trail azeas. 3. The Green Space areas must represent at least 25% of the upland parcel area. Adjustment of Fees Storm Water Utility Fees will be adjusted under the following conditions: Revision of Unit Rate -The estimated expenditures for the management of stonmwater shall be reviewed by City Council. The Unit Rate will be adjusted accordingly and will follow established procedures for adjustment of utility rates. Minimum or Maximum Fees -The City Council may establish a minimum or a maximum monthly fee for parcels. The minimum fee shall be equal to the Single Family Residential standardized fee. Application for Credit -The City shall establish and utilize a credit application form for consideration of fee reduction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to apply for a credit. Change in Developed Condition of Pazcel - In the case of residential property, the revised utility rate will take effect immediately following occupancy of the dwelling. With all other development, the revised utility rate will be applied as soon as, drainage/water quality features are developed. ~b City of St. Joseph. Storm Water Utility Application for Utility BMP Credits: Property Owner: Street Address: Parcel I.D. # (If unknown, leave blank) Contact Name: Phone Number: Email Address: How should we contact you? Phone or Email? When can we contact you with any questions? Brief Description of the BMP or Land Use Credit: For commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family parcels: Estimated reduction in storm water rate or volume: Please attach documentation supporting this application including: - maps or sketch showing the parcel location, - parcel layout showing the dimensions of the credit eligible area(s) - location and description of BMPs - calculations supporting area and runoff rate reduction amounts It is the applicant's responsibility to prove the claim. ~~ 5.0 Section 5 -Implementation .1 Introduction The Implementation Section is intended to provide guidance in carrying out the plan objectives. The implementation program summarizes a schedule and cost of recommended actions. Lastly, procedures for amending the plan are discussed. Table 13 summarizes the implementation schedule for:: the St. Joseph Storm Water Management Plan. Table 13 St. Joseph SWMP Implementation Summary N N N N N N Adopt St. Joseph SWMP X Assessment of Problem Areas X X Pond Design Standards and Developer Guidelines X X X X X X Administer Land Use Controls X X X X X X Capital Improvements X X X X X X Storm Water Utility or Other Financing Methods X X X X X X Information and Education X X X X X X 5.2 Implementation Priorities The implementation plan includes the identification and prioritization of capital improvements, administration, permitting, plan amendments, public education, and operation and maintenance. Prioritization of improvements will be based on a review of all recommended actions. The current estimate of storm water related expenditures have been made. The activities have been distributed throughout a S-year implementation plan extending though 2008. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is summarized in Table 14. Storm Water Management Plan St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE0315 Page 37 ~D Table 14 Capital Improvement Plan Preliminary Project Cost Date(s) of Project Project Description Estimate Implementation Water Quality Evaluation and construction of water $100,000 2004-2008 Improvement quality treatment for subwatersheds Projects _ __ _. _. _. GIS System Setup Update GIS database for SW Mgmt $10,000 2004-2005 for SW Mgmt needs Property Easements Purchase easements or property for $90,000 200S-2008 and Aquisitions storm water management NPDES Permit MS4 and Construction permit $Sb,000 2004-2008 Program compliance activities NPDES Reporting Annual permit reports; Evaluation of $35,000 2004-2008 and Evaluation program Best Management Update storm sewer outfalls to $50,000 20042008 Practices Outfall improve water quality Pgm. Total $341,000 The CIP plan anticipates storm water management activity throughout the City. Future projects related to the storm sewer and ponding improvements have also been estimated. These costs are not included in the CIP above,: however Tables 17 and 18 show a summary of the estimated costs for these improvements. These estimates should not be interpreted as a commitment by the City to build all of these ponds in-the short term, however over the long term these improvements will serve the purpose of storm water routing as land development progresses. The storm sewer and ponds are a suggested course of action that will accomplish the major goal of this. plan, to accommodate growth and redevelopment in the community while protecting the environment and water resources. The cost estimate for the construction of the proposed ponds does not include land acquisition or easement acquisition. The cost also does not take into account if a feasible study will be completed or engineering design costs. The cost does include the larger construction items such as excavation and restoration. The final project cost may change based on the determination of scope of work. The Plan anticipates some kind of storm water activities at all locations. The Plan has identified storm water ponds for the purpose of developing cost estimates and budgeting purposes only. This should not be interpreted as a commitment by the City to build a pond at all of these locations, especially where private property is involved. Table 1 S includes annual operating and maintenance costs, which are separate from capital expenditures. Storm Water Management Plan A-STJOE0315 St. Joseph, Minnesota p Page 38 -I Table 15 Operating Costs Project Project Location Description Public Education Updating and managing and Outreach web page, and distribution of newsletter Storm Sewer and Cleaning and maintenance Pond Maintenance of storm sewer and ponds Street Sweeping Sweeping the streets twice a year Total Preliminary Date(s) of Project Cost Implementation Estimate - - $19,000 2004-2008 $100,000 2004-2008 $50,000 $169,000 Comments 2004-2008 Assumes City labor and equipment, no contract sweeping. The Implementation Plan should be reviewed on an annual basis: At that time, each proposed improvement is to be reconsidered, City budgets adjusted, and additional improvements added to the program. 5.3 CostlBenef;t for Pollutant Removal Storm water BMPs as described in this Report are the primary tool to improve the quality of urban streams and meet future NPDES Phase II requirements. The BMPs include both structural and non-structural alternatives. Resources and references on BMPs can be found in Appendix M. The SWMP suggests the construction of detention ponds as the BMP for future urban stormwater pollution control. The term `structural BMP' refers to a physical. facility designed and constructed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff, potentially reduce downstream erosion, provide flood control, and promote ground water recharge. Typical structural BMPs include: ^ Detention basins ^ Retention basins ^ Constructed wetlands ^ Infiltration practices ^ Filters ^ Biofilters (swales and filter strips) ^ .Precast or cast-in-place treatment devices The typical capital costs for BMPs were evaluated based upon a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency document entitled: Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices, (Office of Water, Washington, D.C. August 1999, EPA-821-R-99-012). Table 16 has been adapted from the USEPA document (Table 6-1, page 6-3) to show typical capital construction costs. While detention ponds have an initial high cost for construction, their annual operation and maintenance cost is among the lowest of alternatives. Storm Water Management Plan St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE0315 Page 39 ~~ Table 16 Capital and Maintenance Costs for BMP's BMP Type Typical Cost* Notes Annual Maintenance Cost ($/cf) (% of Construction Cost) Retention and 0.55 - 1.11 Cost range reflects economies of scale in 3% - 6% Detention designing this BMP. The lowest unit cost Basins represents approx. 150,000 CF of storage, while the highest is approx. 15,000 CF. Constructed 0.66 - 1.38 Little data available to assess cost. It is < 1% Wetland assumed they are approx. 25% more expensive due to plant selection and sediment forebay requirements than detention basins. Infiltration 1.44 Represents typical cost fora 0.25-acre 5% - 10% Basin infiltration basin. Sand Filter 3.32 - 6.65 Range in costs largely due to different 11% -13% designs. Of the three most common, perimeter sand filters are moderate cost while surface and underground sand filters are the most expensive. Bioretention 5.87 Bioretention is relatively constant in cost 5% - 7% because it is usually designed as a constant fraction of the total drainage cost. Grass Swale 0.55 Based oncost per square foot, assuming 6 5% - 7% inches of storage in filter. Filter Strip 0 - 1.44 Based on cost per square foot, assuming 6 $320/acre (maintained) inches of storage in the filter strip. The lowest cost assumes that the buffer uses existing vegetation, while highest cost assumes that sod was used to establish the filter strip. * Typical capital cost on a volume basis: August 2001 Table 17 shows the construction cost estimate for the developed conditions treatment ponds. The total cost construction cost for the 96 storm water treatment ponds is $4.86 million. This equals an average of $50,600 for each pond. Of that amount, 55 percent is for the earthmoving costs and 32 percent covers restoration costs with a mix of native and domestic seed mixes. These estimates may be high, assuming that the developer will be able to balance the earthwork quantities to economize on the projects. The unit cost assumptions are included on the table for comparison with other costs. Table 18 shows the construction cost estimate for the developed conditions regional storm sewer lines. The storm sewers were routed together in 14 regional systems, shown in Figure I9. These regional systems were used for grouping the storm sewer cost estimates. The total cost for the developed Storm Water Management Plan St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE0315 Page 40 ~~ conditions storm sewer construction is $9.59 million. This equals an average cost of $685,000 for each of the systems. The storm sewer pipe sizes range from 18 to 78 inches. The larger pipes would be for large trunk storm sewer lines that serve large areas. The unit cost assumptions are included on the table for comparison with other costs. The economic benefit is difficult to quantify from "balance sheet" perspective for BMPs. The ideal approach would specify a chain of events: pollutant loading reductions from construction of the ponds; the physical- chemical properties of the receiving streams and consequent linkages to biologic/ecological responses in the aquatic environment; and -human responses and values associated with these changes. The necessary data does not exist to conduct such analysis. Instead, the benefits can be outlined in terms of: 1. Effectiveness of reducing pollutant loads; 2. Direct water quality impacts; and 3. Economic benefits or costs. The primary function of the proposed detention ponds is to reduce pollutants. They are very effective at removing total suspended solids (often 90 percent + efficiency), total phosphorus (up to 60 percent removal) and other associated pollutants (heavy metals and hydrocarbons). Thus, their track record and performance has been documented in various studies, but must be constructed properly and maintained. 5.4 Amendment Procedures The St. Joseph Storm Water Management Plan is intended to extend through the year 2010. For the plan to remain dynamic, an avenue must be available to implement new information, ideas, methods, standards and management practices. Persons either residing or having business within the City shall be able to request amendment proposals at any time. 5.5 Request for Amendments Written requests for plan amendment are submitted to the City staff. The request shall outline the need for the amendment as well as additional materials that the City will need to consider before making its decision. 5.6 Staff Review A decision is made to the validity of the request. Three options exist;; 1. Reject the amendment 2. Accept the amendment as a minor issue, with minor issues collectively added to the plan at a later date 3. Accept the amendment as a major issue, with major issues requiring an immediate amendment. In acting on an amendment request, staff shall recommend to City Council whether or not a public hearing is warranted. Storm Water Management Plan A-$TJOE0315 St. Joseph, Minnesota ^1 7 Page 41 5.7 Council Consideration The amendment and the need for a public hearing shall be considered at a regular or special Council meeting. Staff recommendations should also be considered before decisions on appropriate action(s) are made. 5.8 Public Hearing and Council Approval This step allows the public input based on the public sentiment. Council shall determine when the public hearing should occur in the process. Based on the public hearing, Council could approve the amendment, and, if necessary, refer the amendments to the Watershed District Board for comment and approval. 5.9 Council Adoption Final action on an amendment following approval by the RCWD is Council adoption. However, prior to the adoption, an additional public hearing could be held to review the plan changes and to notify the appropriate stakeholders. 5.10 Annual Report to Council A brief annual report should be made by City staff summarizing development changes, capital improvements, and other water management-related issues that have occurred over the past year. The review should also include an update on available funding sources for water resource issues. Grant programs are especially important to review since they may change annually. These changes do not necessarily require individual amendments. The reports can, however, be considered when the plan is brought up to date. The report should be completed by Tune 1st of each year to allow implementation items to be considered in the normal budget process. Copies of the report should be filed with the RCWD. The annual update can also serve as an important public information tool. A summary could be published in the City's newsletter. 5.11 NPDES, Phase It 5.11.1 Construction Permit Currently, an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity [#MNR100001] is required to be obtained by any person disturbing one or more acres of land within the city of St. Joseph. This permit application is submitted to the MPCA. 5.11.2 MS4 Permit On March 10, 2003, MPCA issued final Phase II storm water regulations that apply to the City of St. Joseph [#MNR580000]. The regulations require compliance with the following six minimum measures under the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit: 1. Public Education and Outreach on Storm water Impacts, 2. Public InvolvementlParticipation, 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, 4. Construction Site Storm water Runoff Control, 5. Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment, and Storm Water Management Plan St. Joseph, Minnesota A-STJOE0315 Page 42 ~3 . ~ CITY OF ST. OS~PH 1 WWW. Cltyof stjoseph.com DATE: June 18, 2008 MEMO TO: Economic Development Authority Administrator ~udy ~1Ueyrens FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack Municipal Development Group RE: Downtown Project Mayor AI Rassier Background: Discussion occurred at the previous EDA meeting regarding the focus of the downtown corridor. As you may recall the Planning Commission, through the comprehensive plan update, indicated Councilors a preference for focusing beautificationlstreetscape efforts adjacent to College Avenue North Steve Frank between Minnesota Street and the Wobegon Trail Center. Rick Schultz Renee Symanietz The EDA also reviewed results from a downtown project work plan prioritization survey that was Dale ~Uick mailed to all "Let's Go Downtown" work group participants. Survey results indicated a short term priority should be to install benches, planters, and new banners in the downtown; the priority long-term project identified was the addition of a water feature/kiosk within the Downtown. Following discussion, the EDA members focused on the concept of meeting with representatives from the Church of St. Joseph to discuss the possibility of developing a modest visual amenity such as a water feature, urban park amenity area, a paver area filled with donated bricks, or something similar. The area could be used for community activities, taking pictures, etc. The EDA authorized/directed MDG to reach out to Church representatives. On June 11th the attached letter was mailed to Father Joseph Feders, OSB. As of the drafting of this memo a response has not yet been received. An update will be provided at the June 25th meeting. Additionally, following the previous EDA meeting Board Member Jacobson proposed the EDA review the possibility of gaining 'buy in' from property owners via an interesting approach. Jacobson noted many draftpersons and architects are actively looking for projects during this period of slow growth. Jacobson suggests calling on businesses in the downtown with such professionals. The purpose of the visit would be to address potential (moderate) facade improvements for each building. The idea is quite intriguing. Your thoughts and comments are kindly requested. Action: This item is for information. Comment of Board Member Jacobson's idea is kindly requested. ~~ zS College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3ZO.363.7zoi Fax 3zo.363.o34z. Fr. Joseph Feders, OSB Church of St. Joseph 12 West Minnesota Street St. Joseph, MN 56374 Dear Fr. Feders, In 2005 the St. Joseph Economic Development Authority, the City Council, and several volunteers commenced a downtown revitalization effort entitled "Let's Go Downtown". The effort is framed in the context of a national renaissance in downtowns and the re-emergence of traditional neighborhood designs driven by a desire to reconnect with the building blocks of community including: shared history, hometown pride, and small town atmosphere. The effort has included the establishment of design guidelines and short and long term goals. A primary goal is to address a 'linger deficit' within the core downtown area near the intersection of College Avenue and Minnesota Street. At this time very limited public gathering space exists within the downtown. As such people are not enticed to remain in the area for an extended period of time and, therefore, opportunities for community-building are diminished. In addition, the lack of public gathering space hinders the downtown's function as the 'heart of the City' district -the place image conjured up in one's mind when thinking of "St. Joseph". Those participating in the "Let's Go Downtown„ effort would like to define a small public space possibly incorporating a fountain, an information kiosk, benches, small gathering space, and plantings to address the 'linger' deficit. Such an area could provide a respite for shoppers, an area for picture-taking for weddings, public space for 4th of July festivities/performances, and an area for holiday displays. The "Let's Go Downtown" team is seeking a partner in the development of such a public space. As the major property owner in the vicinity, representatives from the revitalization effort would like to meet with you and/or the Parish Council to further discuss the idea and receive feedback to the concept. To those ends and on behalf of revitalization project participants, I respectfully request a response to this letter at your convenience. I may be reached at St. Joseph City Hall on Wednesdays by calling 363-7201. Alternately, I may be reached toll-free at my office at 888- 763-4462. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration. Best Regards, Cynthia Smith-Strack St. Joseph EDA Consultant `~ 5 . ~. CITY OF ST. OSFPH 1 WWW. CICYOf stjose ph.com DATE: June 18, 2008 MEMO TO: Economic Development Authority Administrator FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack Municipal Development Group ~udy ~eyrens RE: Comprehensive Plan Update: Future Land Use Maps Mayor Background: AI Rassier Two alternative draft future land use maps are attached to this memo. The EDA is asked to review and comment on the enclosed maps. Councilors Steve Frank Central to the EDA's review is the extent Ivolumel of areas guided toward commercial and Rick Schultz industrial use and the proposed location of such uses. Renee Symanietz Dale DUick ACtIOn This item is for information and comment. tv zs College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 Phone 3zo.363.7zo1 Fax 3zo.363.o34z ~ T~ Cd 1 ~- ~ ~ o .~ a's , 1. ~ ',. wtw~a ~. ~ - R4 ~ ,~ ~,~~ Q, ~'' ~Sp j y~~ ~ ~,~ ~ ]11 - ~T ~ ~. t ~~. -~ - ~ ~4, ~ k '.tea ' ~'~ ~S ~:. N N r..~~ ~ ~ _. r _: }~~~ L'h t f 1. - ...: Sy .._ S _ . . ., ~. 1 ~ -. ~ - ! '~ ^ - ~ x , _. _ _, :~ ~ ~ _ _ _ i ~ ~. s' -- -- - ._. c t ` ..~. ~ . .,.r ~ -ice _ is ~ x ". • '- a, \ ~i ~'~ S Y1 ~_ ~,. c .. :~. - y11 ~ _ '$ 2 ~a ...__ .. ~__ ._ _. tv .:. ~ ~1ar ~`',~°~' r ~t° o 1~"/~r~~~/i~a~,s~ ,~,r",0 ~~yy~:. ~ „~i_ , j s ' .` ~ ,,~ ~ ~fa ~~ . s f ~ •~~',c+~v r ~' ~ `e'c ~~ q ti ~ ~ ~~ :z ~ ~SS ,~; CyC ti t 3 f ~ ~_ _ ~ 'l ~" ~ ~ 'fa ~ ..iF,C~ F ~r ~N -6 3 Sa! ~ ~' ~~ ~ \H ~ t ~ ~ 1 ~:~ ~A `.N _~~ ` %r_ ~t. ~ ~ `< ~ '' v ~ ~ C prj rt L ~ IV "C ~ Q ~ ~ TI O "~ ~ O ~ 03 o~ ;z ~n 1 ~_ o ~ z D n r :~.. '1~~ ~+ ~, ~ a~ 4 ~ `'~A ~`~~ 7'S. 11r~. t ~~,~il y~'" y '.i i'..~' "y~ ~~ ~j ~ri 0~~.-,~ M ~["S "'t >~ye` '~ ~ x~m~4 ~.'~ •~ yr~ea , 4 r~ ~ ~ ~ "~ "uul J~/~" ~, .c^'~,,,//~ ,' ~ ~ , ,ns„~,r~ ~i'~ ~'~ I ~ ~ da*~~.~. 1. 3 0 ~ 1 .,~ .... . ~~ ~~'!~.a ~ -~ ~"' 'W';?+~?~ ~ *1,~ .` a 76 Ll. ~ r v ~ ~ o'er ~~,~ ' ~' ""~J+, ~.r+"~' F ~~"' f '~y~ ~ _ ,~ ,~ 1J S i V r ... ~ ~4 ~IUm R~ ~ 9; ~P,p ~,jy~F~T i ~ J%,y/ //~~+41 1~.9 ~ ../ /~ ~` iw r ~~ +k'. ~ +~ e ~ u r~' ~~ ~ ~~I,•r • SOP s~ ~,',~ ~ 9 ~~° ~ `ill ~ ~'~m ~ 'G~x. ~~~,,, r ~,~' ~ ~ ' ~ - / s° '~.. u~M.~S ~r,/l ~''~''"~ x`€25 '~ . ~'-.~ ~ ~5j `~ ? ~ , , r°iA P.<' l ~1. '~ J ~~!/_/f0,/std~~fl - --. ~, ~ i ~ .r~ -- _ - ~ ~ . . `. '' ~ _. ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ n ~~ ~ N ~ ~ =h i ~, - ~ .,~, ,. ~ _ _ -, ~- ~ir` -- - -_- R - ~ ~=. N '_' i ~. ~ w _ ~.- ~{ - ~ <s- Q ,, ~~-- ~~t /~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _~ S ~ ~ ~ ~- dd rY..~... III . - ~ ~R' ~ ~ I4 .,J' _. T //x.11 i ~ ~ ~. '~ . ' .. ~ .~ ~.. .. .~ (' . v -- .+Y...... - ..' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..rte ~ ... ~ ~ ~ 'i ~ . `,~. ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~~ ` ~ j f ,-.. _ ... _ N ~ YY i ' ~ ,, ' a`' -.. ?~J ~ `n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fJ t k ;~ n ~J __ i ~. ~° '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 'y ! f ~:~ ~ ~ _+:: z ,~ ~ ~. ~~ .r 2 ecru •__ - `~. - ~ ..:..... N 7iS SL i ~-.. 4 _ i~ ~ 4 ~ ~ `~ U - „~ Ci ca 7~CS S ~ 5n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :a ~ ~' 2', . ~ -s. ~ ~1f~ -~ ~ 91 ' $ fi ~ I ' w«wwaw ~" A "' '"rq~C ~~ ~ Y era ,~, I ~i i° ' iii. ~i ~=1- t i , m~ ~~ ~ '"~ _ c. .. T .,, -~ _; a ~ ,. Irv, ~ ~ ~ o ~` r, ,'~r~ ~ .... tr ~ IIi ca ~ -.~ -~ ~ _, w _ k ~: _ ~/- _ ~ - ~. ~' .. -, ~ .~, t ~ 1..~ L C V) ~ ~ '~' v ~ _ ~ C ~ ~ C ~ O O 3 00 O O C ~Z m 2 A Q z D n r ~~~ MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. DATE: June 18, 2008 MEMO TO: EDA Board Members City Administrator Weyrens FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group RE: Economic Development Activity Report Municipal Development Group, Inc. has been interacting with a number of prospects throughout the past several years. Following is a summary of activities that have transpired. If you have any questions on any of these or other projects, please do not hesitate to contact us at 888-763-4462. A project number has been assigned to protect the confidentiality of the businesses prospects. Proiect 01-E: This project involves the expansion of a service within the community. MDG has been keeping in touch with the project contact since 2001. Construction of a new facility at the intersection of CR 133 and CSAH 75 is to commence this summer. Construction announcement posted in St. Cloud Times on 06.11.08. Proiect 03-A: This group of developers are contemplating a large highway commercial development in an area not yet annexed into the City. The development representatives have been consistently in touch with MDG since 2002. Most recently information regarding the 2008 Comp. Plan Update has been exchanged on June 18 when electronic copies of proposed future land use alternatives were emailed. The Developers remain committed to the project. Project 04-H: This project involves an underutilized commercial mixed use in the Downtown. MDG recently spoke with the Building Official (5-7-08), met with the building owner's financial representative (5- 21-08), and passed information along to a business prospect (5-28-08). Follow up email to project's financial advisor on June 18tH Proiect 04-N: The project representative purchased property within Buettner Business Park in 2006. The project involves the relocation of a sole proprietorship from a dwelling to a dedicated industrial parcel. MDG remains in contact with this project representative on an occasional basis. Proiect 04-S: This project involves a large phased development. A preliminary plat for the initial phase has been accepted, however, the final plat has not been reviewed by the City. MDG met with the property owner's financial consultants regarding the development on 5-21-08. MDG exchanged correspondence with the Developer's Engineer who has indicated project is to move forward this year with private financing. EDA Report -June 2008 '~ ,~ Page 1 Project 05-F: This project involves construction of a supermarket in the City. The property owner is a party to a PUD agreement with Project 01-E. Construction of the supermarket is planned for 2009. Proiect 06-B: This project involves investment in commercial property within the City of St. Joseph. MDG has met with the prospect on two occasions and forwarded information as requested. MDG maintains occasional correspondence with this prospect. Project 06-G: This project involves the subdivision of a 32-acre parcel for industrial use. MDG continues to remain in contact with the project representative including most recently by meeting with the property owner's financial consultant on 5-21-08 to discuss a specific project and marketing study. Emailed finance officer for update on June 18tH Project 06-H: This project involves a closely confidential industrial lead. The project contact is the owner of the property. The project representative has been advised of meetings regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. Project 06-I: This project involves the marketing of a 32-acre parcel adjacent to 20t" Avenue. The property owner and his real estate managers continue to occasionally discuss the project. The property remains on the market and guided toward commercial use. Project 07-C: This project involves a property owner's desire to establish a presence in the City of St. Joseph somewhere in the vicinity of downtown. This project was extremely active one year ago but has since cooled. Strack mailed a notice to the development representative on May 28, 2008 regarding available site within the Downtown. Project 07-G: This project involves a development representative's desire to relocate from the township to the corporate limits. The company has not yet secured property within the corporate limits. MDG continues to follow up on this lead. Project 08-A: This project involves a development in close proximity to the downtown. The developer continues to refine development plans. Strack recently discussed the project with other staff members. Proiect 08-B: This project involves the construction of a new service facility within the corporate limits. Strack remains in routine contact with the project representative including most recently on June 11"' via email. Project 08-C: This local business owner contacted the City after learning of the BFA grant opportunity. Strack continues to discuss a potential downtown project with the business owner. Most recently Strack mailed a letter to the business owner on May 28tH Project 08-D: This project involves facade and landscaping enhancement at a commercial structure located in the B-2 Highway Business District. BFA assistance has been requested and approved by the EDA. EDA Report -June 2008 Page 2 ~y Project 08-E: This project involves facade of a commercial structure located in the B-2 Highway Business District. BFA assistance has been requested and approved by the EDA. Strack most recently sent a letter to this business owner on June 4th regarding the issue. EDA Report -June 2008 Page 3 ~~