The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 [06] Jun 05 {Book 14} ·- CITY/EDA Joint Meeting June 5, 1998 AGENDA Call to Order - 3:00pm Reconstruction of CR #133 - Discussion of the proposed reconstruction of the road, centering around: 1) Why the road is proposed in this area 2) Implications to the development of the new Business Park 3) Other options - presentation oflocal residents ofthe Township within the five year annexation plan. 4) Conversation with Mitch Anderson, Stearns County Highway Dept. a) Connection with Minnesota Street b) St. Joseph Street c) Other alignments Righ t-of- W ay Acquisition - Discussion on the time line and process involved with the acquisition of the .' .... propertyforC~#13~: . .. -. 1) Contract wIth Mike Amo, St. Cloud AppraIsals 2) Time line and fmancial commitment Business Park Development - Discussion ofthe new Business Park development 1) Presentation from Joe Bettendorf; options for development of the park and associated costs 2) Possible fmancing options for the Business Park and prospect assistance 3) Agreements with the landowner Summary There needs to be some direction for the Business Park and ifthe City is committed to moving forward with business development is this area. The CityÆDA needs to leave this meeting with a decision to locate and/or apply to funding sources and get the project started, or not move forward with the project and look at other locations. Adjourn - 5:00pm EDA Board Members, please stay for an additional 15 minutes to take care of a few business items. This meeting will serve as the June meeting, the next regularly . scheduled meeting is July 13, 1998. .~, "'SeJ MEMORANDUM [] Sf PAUL. MN [] MINNEAPOLIS. MN := Sf CLOUD. MN [] CHIPPEWA FALLS. WI o MADISON. WI St. Joseph Business Park A-STJOE 9410.00 June 5, 1998 Street & Utilities to Koenig Site Sanitary Sewer $154,000 2695' $ 57.00/fi Water Main $163,000 3055' $ 54,OO/fi Street $ 46.000 400' $115.00/ft Total $363,000 Highway & Utilities to CR 133 Site v· ."~ Sanitary Sewer $134,000 2280' $ 59.00/fi - Water Main $130,000 $ 86.00/fi 1510' Street (City Share) $96,00 4700' $ 20.00/fi ~ '(f& Storm Sewer (City Share) $ 55,QOO 1000' $ 50.00/fi .t-~ Holding Pond (City Share) 35 000 c), Total $450,000 t . 7r,òDL/ ;:!- --- Right of Way :s~\5,OOD Allowance for Acquisition, Appraisals, Legal: $75,000 . . ~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH :1 First Avenue NW '.0. Box 668, ;1. Joseph, MN 56374 320) 363-7201 'ax: 363-0342 ,. May 15, 1998 VIAYOR MEMORANDUM (enneth J. Hiemenz To: City Council í\tt From: Chad A. Carlson, EDA Director()\' 2LERK! ADMINISTRATOR RE: Appraisal Quote from S1. Cloud Appraisal regarding CR #133 ROW Rachel Stapleton ~- Due to the sale of the Duncan Property to Ron Molus and the necessary inclusion of the Buettner Property, :::OUNCILORS I have requested Mike Arno, St Cloud Appraisals to re-write his quote. With the addition of Buettner's Bob Loso Property to the process and coordination with the County, you will see a slight increase in the fee from Cory Ehlert $1,450 to $2,700. I'll be asking the CotU1cil to approve the revised quote. The revised quote was not ready Ken Twit for the packet on Friday. So, I will send out the document first thing next week. N.iedenfuer Finally, Mr. Arno will not be able to begin the appraisal work until the first week in August I immediately called Greg Cooley to see if this starting date created delays in the project time line, According to Mr. Cooley, the County projected time line will not be affected and that we should go ahead and contract with Mr. Arno. If you have any questions, please call my office at 363-8573, Thank you, . I i ST CLOUD ACOUSTIC - I } 0.05 acres -- I ¡ TAMARACK MATERIALS INC ! 0.20 acres ! -- - I L -BUETTNER 1 I 0.50 acres -----1 r _ I , :. 1 1 - .------.-~-.."' I '" I 1 . ---.-- .-- w --------, 1 .. I I " '.'...- - -.-----. x I I;-~_ _~~-~_-- il----~-~~i : LEO BUETTNER __ _ _ : I 4,33 acres ---- ¡ la-::- ", ~: --=___ ..--~=~-i )HMAN CONSTRUCTION ___ _ __...1_ . . ¡ I I.flt 0.12 acres ] ! I -- . ..--- - ---..-----. ,...- .. '--1 1 , ~--------~I ',~_. !PJ ~e~. l 8°1: =6-~ t .: i---~--I ò- R "'15' ,¡'. 2 " : J r . . ¡g.,' t \£1;.- - -- -~_..-- " ~_' 521- I. t:.4 ..,. --.._ 1D_c~oo '. J ... ~-----___ ---~l~t-- .010' -~ IO.S A t ~ ----------~____: ----:---~____ ~ t -~ -~-----.- 6úRlitfC:ïÜÑ ~-- 1.(6-' "'" . i --------~~~~---~-----~--____ : r---... -,------- ---___ 1-- -~-::-::---}---------- -'. ~ , I 'r--- I, . __ ! :! . I" ------1 , ! ¡ --1....,1 - --- -,,~ª~~.--- acres -El-/ '. 1°' ' ¡---JII _~¡ _- . ! "'-----71---'·: s;Q/AU. ~'~'-. I I r '~. -----...- TI~--~ ~,-- --14---, ". I... <" 1.,;\· I II I ! I t ---.,. ,--:' '..' (L-..l.......-J. f t (- ¡""II _: '. ---"~~ Sffì:££T _ ~-_.. t....~N«-~O í ..J .~ ~!:: ___I i 1 ¡ ~ aAJ.t~ 50 -'. ¡.::~ . 1~----J :::fj "~1\, '. ---(:1--' J! ¡ ! , ,~,__...__..,-- \0) ~ "-,,,.___,. ¡ ~. ---___ -, >'. _.~ ",' I 1997 t. I ST. JOSEPH CITY COUNCIL - May 17, 1998 RE: NEW DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF CO. RD, 133 Dear Council Members, It has been brought to our attention that our discussions with Chad have had no impact on the decisions you have concretely made with the county in regards to where you are realigning Co. Rd. 133. We would like to have an opportunity to offer the Council another look at this project through our unbiased eyes. Granted, you have had these current plans drawn up for over three years, we are hopeful that you will be in a position to set aside your convictions for a few moments and admit that maybe they need to be amended for the betterment of the whole community, and not for just one land investor/owner. Our main concern is that if you are altering the direction of Co. Rd. 133, why are you not taking full advantage of County and Federal funds for this project? If you are to procede with a project, shouldn't you know the full ramifications of the decision? Weare not against the realignment of Co. Rd 133, but we would like to discuss our ideas openly with the council and help redesign a safer and more logical . roadway to the future industrial tax base for our city. Sincerely, ~~ yIt\)\ A~.. Vern Boos Tom Herzog Mark A. Levandowski . HOME OWNERS ON COUNTY ROAD 133 - r FUNDING OPTIONS June 5, 1998 '.'l'1:' ~ .: t i ¡ ~ "J , ..:-. . : ·.d.'\ . i\;'j¡, :-." . -It, ,hlH ". \. .. , - . SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR UTILITIES: ~ ; \ ~ ~: U USDA RUS Loan - the City is eligible to apply for $400,000 from Rural Development. If the application is accepted and approved, the money is funneled into the Steams County Electric Cooperative revolving loan fund. The City then receives the fund through Stearns Electric at 0% for a term to be negotiated. The application is competitive and must receive approval ITom Washington. Note: These funds are only accessible if the Community has security for the loan, In our situation, a company must be secured and revenue earmarked for payback. In our case TIF dollars can be used for payment on the loan. Example: $400,000 RUS Loan City secures Company A 60,000 square foot building: Total TIF dollars available $40,000/yr for 9 years = $360,000 (In 9 years the community would have paid off over 80% of the project, after land write down, with just one company) Also, an assessment schedule could be completed where assessments are deferred over the . entire business park area, This could cover the cost of the remaining 20%. The remaining portion of the project costs could be deferred over the entire park area. In this example, the City basically has 9 years to locate additional businesses to help with the cost of the loan. This scenario has very little risk for the City, Bonding/Assessment Scenario - When it comes to the development ofindustrial parks, state and federal governments have very little funding assistance. Thus, it leaves a community with two options: Option #1: The community places the utilities in the business park and assess the landowner for the improvements. This scenario will usually require the assessment to be deferred until benefit can be seen (i.e. property is sold), Funds to payoff the bonds would come through assessments or the use of TIF dollars if appropriate. This scenario also requires the City to carry the costs for an unknown period of time, Option #2: The landowner develop and sell the property on his/her own. Thus, leaving the City out of the picture for them to develop the park anyway they see fit, without utilities, Similar to our existing industrial park. Basically, it comes down does the city want to partner with this development understanding the potential gain in tax base and revenue. Or, does the City sit back and wait for the landowner to develop the property in the future, never knowing if it will happen. One thing has become painfully clear of the last 12 months, if City facilities and services are not . available, we as a community are out of the running for business growth.