HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [04] Apr 28 {Book 30}
CIT¥ Of ST. JOSEPH
· www.cityofstjoseph.com
Joint St. Joseph City Council and Economic Development Authority Meeting
I Wednesday, April 28, 2004 I
4:30 PM
St. Joseph City Hall Conference Room
Administròtor
ludy Weyrens
Mõyor
Lõrry ). Hosch
1. 4:30 PM Call to Order
Councilors
AI R.õssier 2. Discussion on proposed Industrial Park
R.oss Rieke 3. Discussion on potential highway commercial development and alternative
Gôry Utsch transportation routes.
Oôlc Wick
4. Adjourn
·
Note: Please note time change and Council Members should bring their maps from the
April 15, 2004 meeting.
·
2.)' College Avenue North' PO Box 66ß . Sõint, Joseph. Minnesotõ 'Í6'74
Phone )2.0,,6"72.01 ICõ x ,2.0,,6,.0'42.
.
I
¡
i
DATE: April 22, 2004
I
MEMO TO: I~t. Joseph City Council
1St. Joseph Economic Development Authority
City Administrator Weyrens
FROM: IJoanne Foust & Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
!
RE: ! Future . Industrial Park
Background DIscussions:, ", '
The Economic ¡Development Authority has been researching the development of an additional
industrial park ip St. Joseph. MDG, Inc. has been in contact with representatives of the "Feld
Property" for ,the past several months. The" entire property includes six parcels and
approximately 320 acres. At the February 18, 2004 EDAmeeting Board Members indicated
they wished to f pursue further investigation of costs/issues associated with the purchase of a
portion of the property for development as an industrial park. MDG was asked to research cost
of utility installa~ion, placement of future roadway corridors and land price for the next meeting.
I
. Acquisition/lniprovements Estimates:
MDG, Inc. reprksentatives met with representa~ives of the trust on March 3, 2004 to discuss the
availability of apreage for sale to the. City/EDA, sales price and timeline for sale of the property.
Representativ s of the trust indicated an Interest in selling the property to the City as well as a
need to resea ch sales pricing structûrewith other members of the trust. They have since
indicated a ve reliminar priceof$25,000 per acre, but are currently refining the price.
r
I
MDG .also met with the City Engineer to discuss utility and right-of-way, installation to the
westernmost parcel adjacent to. CSAH 133, or the westernmost % to Y:z of said 80-acre parcel.
The City Engi~eer' illustrated a preferred route for the extension of a northern collector through
the property and the eventual need for the extension of aathAvenue to the north. S.E.H has
examined a droject area which includes approximately 120 acres. Cost of improvementsi is
estimated at $2.614 million, excluding site grading or approximately $22,000 per improved acre.
I
City/EDA Finéncing:
Representativès from the trust also indicated, a desire to. investigate a contract for deed versus
conventional sale. According to, the City Attorney the City/EDA is able to enter into, a contract
for deed proyiding the maximum. term is for five years. If the contracted amount exceeds
.24177% of t~e City's assessed market value (in this case $237,185.46) special rules apply
including the publishing of a notice of intent to purchase and the right of the public to request a
vote on the iSfue.
MDG phoned the City Financial Consultant to determine whether or not improvement bonds
could be issued for a project that includes land subject .to a contract for deed and to discuss
other financir;¡g options for the purchase of property. The Financial Consultant suggested
discussing iMprovement bond/contract for deed issue with bond counsel. , The City Financial
. Consultant al.so indicated that if a TIF bond was to be issued for the purchase of real estate a
. maximum of] ten percent of the property within an economic development district could be
owned by th~ Authority issuing said TIF bonds.
!
i
. Publicvs Private Industrial Park:
The property oWner and st~ff have identified possible persons interested in purchasing a porti°rl
of the property fpr the development of an industrial park. Given the aforementioned information
it appears the EDA would likely be unable to develop a public industrial park independently
and/or without drant assistance. Consensus of the EDA at its April 21$t meeting was to respond
to requests fro~ prospective industrial park developers as warranted relative to a strictly private
development versus some form of a public/private partnership. .
I
I
Interim Plan: I .
Given the likelyi scope of project it would appear the actual development of salable lots at the
Feld site is probably not achievable in a condensed timeframe. As of the date of this memo it is
estimated only tWo three-acre lots remain available within Buettner Business Park.
As you may b+ aware S~NlBorgert Properties owns approximately 11.36 acres of industrial
property south of Elm street adjacent to 19th Avenue. MDG"met with Ms. Sue Borgert on April
14, 2004 to disbuss the status of the property, re-subdivision and possible interest in marketing
the property. .
!
.
1.35 acre lots
I, ' ' . I
Several issu~s pertaining to the possible re-subdivision were addressed including: future
extension of Elm Street and/or what in previous plats was referred to as "305th Street"; status of
utilities for the three southeasterly lots; and, facilitation of the platting process. MDG met with
the City Engineer prior to discuss the status of "305th Street" and utility extension to the
southeasterly lots. In addition MDG met with Ms. Borgert's Project Representative regarding
the subdivision process.
I
. I