HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [08] Aug 21
~
I itg of St. Joseph
.iegeAVenU~ NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph,MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342
St. Joseph Economic Development Authority
CLERK! ' Meet.ng Notice
ADMINISTRATOR VVednesday,August21,2002
Judy Weyrens 4:00 p.m. City Hall
MAYOR
Larry J. Hosch
1. Call to Order
COUNCILORS
Bob Lciso 2. Approval of Agenda
Cory Ehlert
Kyle'Schneider 3. Approval of Minutes
Alan Rassier A. July 17, 2002
B. July 25, 2002 (Special meeting)
4. Approval of Accounts Payable
5. Business
a. Tax Increment Financing GuidelineslReport Card
. b. Businéss Subsidy Policy 'Revision.
c. Commerdal and Industrial Zoning Ordinance
d. 2003 EDA Budget
e. Lot split, site and building plan approval -north 3 acres of Lot 1, Block 2
Buettner Business Park (a.k.a. St. Joseph Business Park)
f. Commercial Redevelopment Update
6. Director Report
a. Prospect List! Activity Report
b.Comprehensive Plan - Business Meeting Report
7. Board Mernber Announcements
8. Adjournment
,
.
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Meeting Minutes - VVednesday, July 17th, 2002
Present: EDA Chairman Bruce Gohman, EDA Board Members Ross Rieke, Larry Hosch, Bob Loso and
Mike Deutz.
Also present: Cynthia Smith-Strack of Municipal Development Group. Mike Gohman, representing St.
Joe Development, LLC.
Chairman Gohman called the meeting of the St. Joseph EDA to order at 4:12 p.m,
Agenda:
Requested addition: Budget Amendment TIF 1-4. Recommended re-organization: item 5(c) - Site Plan
review for St. Joe Development, LLC moved up to first item under "Business."
Moved with proposed changes by Deutz, seconded by Rieke. The agenda was approved 5:0.
Minutes:
Moved by Duetz seconded by Rieke to approve the minutes of the June 19, 2002 EDA meeting as
presented. Minutes were approved 3:0, with Hosch and Loso abstaining.
Accounts Payable:
The EDA discussed accounts payable and a quarterly income statement
. Moved by Loso, seconded by Duetz to approve the June Accounts Payable. Accounts payable were
approved 5-0.
Chairman Gohman recused himself and vacated the premises. EDA Vice Chairman, Hosch assumed
control of the meeting.
Proposed Budget Amendment: TIF 1-4; St. Joe Development, LLC
Strack provided an overview of the proposed amendment indicating the addition of 'site improvements' as
eligible uses of tax increments. St. Joe Development, LLC representative, Mike Gohman further
explained that although the amount of land purchased was reduced from ten to eight acres, the cost of
the construction had increased so market values stayed the same, Since less acreage was purchased,
remaining tax increments could be used for site improvement, however, site improvements were not
included in the TIF 1-4 budget. Strack added that site improvements are eligible expenses in economic
development TIF districts. The proposed budget amendment would add site improvements to the eligible
expenses listed in the plan for TIF District 1-4.
Duetz made a motion to recommend the City Council approve a resolution modifying the tax increment
financing plan for tax increment financing district 1-4. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Motion
approved 4:0.
Proposed Budget Amendment: TIF 1-4; St. Joe Development, LLC
Strack provided an overview of the site pan and requirements of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for the St. Joseph Industrial Park where potential inconsistencies existed. Discussion
centered around the park owner's failure to record revised covenants which were approved in late 2001.
Failure to record said revised covenants resulted in the ambiguous portions of the original set of
covenants failing to allow pre-finished steel as an approved exterior building material. Consensus was to
allow pre-finished steel as an exterior material as defined in the revised covenants contingent upon the
park owner's recording of the covenants prior to commencing of construction,
1
.
Motion Rieke, second Los to approve resolution 02-02, recommending approval of the St. Joe .
Development, LLC building plans based on compliance with restrictive covenants for the St. Joseph
Business Park, conditioned upon:
1. The exterior building façade containing a pre-finished steel with a 20-year manufacturer
colorfast guarantee, and, as illustrated on the plan over 25% of the exterior adjacent to 1 Sh
Avenue and Elm Street containing materials noted in Section 3,06 and 3.07 ofthe covenants;
and that the revised covenants proposed by the Developer and EDA with this language be
filed with the County prior to the issuance of the building permit,
2, Installation of an acceptable ground cover on areas not specified for landscaping, building or
parking.
Motion approved 4:0, with the developer (Mike Gohman) indicating the ground cover would be of a
bluegrasslrye mixture.
Bruce Gohman re-entered the meeting room and re-assumed his position as EDA Chairman,
TIF Report Card
Strack indicated at its May, 2002 meeting the EDA requested MDG review and make suggestions relative
to the update of the City's TIF Report Card. Review of suggested changes was initiated. The first
change contemplated was to adjust the report card to provide for retaining jobs as well as creating jobs,
Retaining of jObs was thought to be an acceptable use of TIF provided it was in conjunction with the
creation of new jobs and that both the retained and newly created positions were accounted for in the
developmenUbusiness subsidy agreement.
Discussion moved to consideration of wage levels and their relationship to the appropriateness of the use
of TIF. MDG had suggested the deletion of the 'Pay Level of Jobs' evaluation point because minimum .
wage floors for created jobs is a mandatory modification to the City's Business Subsidy Policy,
Furthermore, the existing criteria requires an average wage of $45,OOO/year to qualify as an 'excellent'
use of TIF, $35,000 - $44,9991 year to qualify as a 'very good' use of TIF, or, $30,000 - $34,999/year to
qualify as a 'good' use of TIF. Jobs created paying less than $30,000 ($14.42/hour) are 'below average'
or 'poor' uses of TIF according to the current standard.
After further discussion, it was suggested wages in central Minnesota be further studied to determine
what realistic wages are in Central Minnesota. Work on the updating of the City's business subsidy
criteria was suggested to be incorporated in the updating of the TIF report card,
Due to time constraints the item was tabled to the next meeting of the EDA.
Commercial/lndustrial Zoning Standards.
A special EDA meeting was called for Thursday, July 25th at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall to review proposed
updates to the commercial and industrial zoning classes,
Mayor Hosch left the meeting at 5:30 p,m.
Commercial Redevelopment
Strack provided an update on the commercial redevelopment project. Follow up calls to the owners of the
flower shop have been unsuccessful. MDG toured potential redevelopment sites with a prospect.
St. Joseph Beautification Project
EDA Board Member Deutz provided a brief update on the campaign for financing the project.
2
.
,
. MCCF Participation
A summary of a presentation by Mr. Scott Martin, representing the Minnesota Community Capital Fund
(MCCF), was included in the EDA packet. EDA members questioned the number of entities pledging
support to the fund and the current capitalized amount. A phone call to Mr. Martin by Rieke revealed 37
entities have filed letters of intent to join the MCCF and $700,000 of the $2.5 million required for the fund
to become operational have been submitted.
The EDA recommended Mr. Martin address the City Council at its first meeting in August to answer
questions and provide a brief overview of the MCCF.
Board Member Announcements:
None.
Next Meeting
The next official meeting of the EDA was scheduled for August 21,2002.
Adjournment
Moved by Loso, seconded by Rieke to adjourn. AI/ present voted in favor of adjournment, the EDA
meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
.
3
.
.
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 25, 2002
Present: EDA Chairman Bruce Gohman, EDA Board Members Ross Rieke, Larry Hosch (exit 7:20 p,m"
return 8:45 p.m.), Bob Loso and Mike Deutz (6:55 p.m.),
Also present: Cynthia Smith-Strack of Municipal Development Group.
Chairman Gohman called a special meeting of the St. Joseph EDA to order at 6:45 p.m.
Agenda:
Requested addition: Consideration of use of redevelopment TIF or tax abatement for project in downtown
area.
Moved by Loso to approve the agenda with the addition of "Consideration of use of T/F or tax abatement
for project in the downtown': seconded by Rieke. The agenda was approved 4:0.
Use of Redevelopment TIF or Tax Abatement for Project in Downtown Area.
Strack indicated the EDA office had received an informal request from a prospective developer as to the
use of redevelopment TIF or tax abatement assistance in conjunction with the development of a 3,000 to
3,400 s.f. facility on the Kresbach property at East Minnesota Street.
Following discussion the EDA indicated the project as such would not be a productive use of
. redevelopment TIF or tax abatement. The EDA requested MDG communicate to the proposed developer
the project may warrant assistance if a larger or more unique structure/development was proposed,
Commercial/Industrial Zoning Standards.
The special EDA meeting was called to review proposed updates to the commercial and industrial zoning
classifications, The EDA proceeded with a class by class review of revised commercial/industrial zoning
district requirements, commenting as the discussion continued.
Proposed Central Business District Revisions:
. EDA consensus favored the creation of a zoning class specifically for the downtown/original
town site area which focuses on commercial uses which are typically dependent on high
volumes of pedestrian traffic.
. Permitted uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested:
1. Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'permitted uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development
and includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision or
ambiance of the downtown, design standards, types of establishments not favored
and elements sought.
2. Retain existing itemized listing as proposed, but,
a. Further define 'neighborhood' grocery, drug and hardware stores (Section
52.21, Subd. 2 subsections q) and r) to reflect stores with 10,000 s.f, or less.
b. Add subsection ff) Small goods repair and service.
c. Add subsection gg) postal facilities.
d, Consider addition of blanket language to the effect of "other uses as
- determined by the City Council to be similar to those listed above",
1
t5
· Special uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested, .
1, Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'special uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development and
includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision or ambiance
of the downtown, design standards, types of establishments not favored and
elements sought.
2, Retain existing itemized listing, (Section 52.21, Subd. 3 as proposed) but,
a. Allow via special permit Auto Service and Repair shops,
b. Consider revising the zoning map to include a smaller CBD area,
· Section 52,21, Subd. 4, subsection a). Consensus of the EDA recommended accessory
uses do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the square footage of the principal structure.
· Maximum Height Requirements were discussed. Consensus of EDA recommended height
limitation raised to three (3) stories or 40 feet in height (Section 52,21, Subd 6.).
· Consensus of EDA to recommend zero outdoor storage in the downtown area.
Proposed B-2, Highway 75 Business District Revisions:
· EDA consensus favored the maintaining a zoning class specifically for the CSAH 75 area
which focuses on commercial uses which are typically dependent on high volumes of
vehicular traffic commercial in nature.
· Permitted uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested,
1. Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'permitted uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development .
and includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision of the
CSAH 75 corridor (to be similar to Division Street in St. Cloud), design standards,
types of establishments not favored and elements sought.
2. Retain existing itemized listing as proposed, but:
a. Notate in Section 52.22, Subdivision 2, subsection b )iii that drive thru
restaurants are special uses.
b. Remove postal stations (Section 52.22, Subd. 2, subsection a)iii as a special
use (moved to CBD).
c. Add theaters as permitted uses,
d. Consider addition of blanket language to the effect of "other uses as
determined by the City Council to be similar to those listed above".
· Special uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested.
1, Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'special uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development and
includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision of the CSAH
75 corridor (similar to Division Street), design standards, types of establishments not
favored and elements sought.
2, Retain existing itemized listing, (Section 52.22, Subd. 4, as proposed) but,
a. Further define specific proposed standards for control/reduction of noise,
allowable parking lot surfacing, drainage systems i.e. internal or external
drainage, types of drainage treated or untreated, what areas are included
and calculable run-off rates that are easy to apply. {Proposed section 52.22,
Subd, 4 a) 9,10 and 11; Proposed section 52.22, Subd, 4 e) 1, 2 and 3;
Proposed section 52.22, Subd. 4 k) 4, 5 and 6; Proposed section 52.22,
-
2
Lo
. Subd. 4 I) 5, 6 and 8; and Proposed section 52.22, Subd. 4 m) 11, 12 and
13}.
· Section 52.22, Subd. 5, proposed subsection a). Consensus of the EDA is to not enforce a
minimum lot size within the CSAH 75 corridor.
· Consensus of the EDA to recommend all outdoor storage in the Highway 75 Business District
be completely screened from view.
· Maximum Height Requirements were discussed. Consensus of EDA recommended height
limitation raised to three (3) stories or 40 feet in height (Section 52.22, Subd 6.).
· Section 52.22, proposed Subd, 7 (site coverage). Consensus of the EDA is to enforce
,maximum site coverage of sixty (60) percent if structures only include those items with roofs,
or maximum site coverage of ninety (90) percent if all non-porous surfaces are included in the
calculation.
· Section 52.22, existing Subdivision 7c). EDA consensus to recommend striking the final
sentence (Le. 'Any building undergoing renovation, repair or an addition, so as to require the
issuance of a building permit, shall be brought into conformance with this subsection at the
time the repairs, renovations or additions are completed'.) EDA thought this would preclude
needed repairs and have a blighting affect on the CSAH 75 district.
· Existing 52.22, subdivision 7 f) entitled Stops and Curbs. Suggestion to redefine concrete
curb standards as B-612 specifications for all auto stops and drive/parking areas have
inherent incompatibilities with Minnesota's weather conditions and shifting occurs,
. Proposed B-3, General Business District:
· EDA consensus favored the creation of a zoning class specifically for general business
purposes, including the CSAH 2/1-94 area. This new district would focus on commercial uses
while allowing very light industrial uses via special use providing the industrial use included a
minimum of 30% of s.f. for commercial space.
· Permitted uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested.
1. Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'permitted uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development
and includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision of the
CSAH 2/1-94 corridor (specialized commercial/industrial uses), design standards,
types of establishments not favored and elements sought.
2. Retain itemized listing as proposed.
· Special uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested,
1. Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'special uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development and
includes a discussion of the type of community St. Joseph is, the vision of the CSAH
2/1-94 corridor (specialized commercial/industrial uses), design standards, types of
establishments not favored and elements sought.
2, Retain existing itemized listing, (Section 52.23, Subd. 3, as proposed) but, further
define specific proposed standards for control/reduction of noise, allowable parking
lot surfacing, drainage systems Le, internal or external drainage, types of drainage
- treated or untreated, what areas are included and calculable run-off rates that are
easy to apply. {Proposed section 52.23, Subd, 3 c) 1, 2 and 3; Proposed section
~
3
7
52.23, Subd. 3 g) 4, 5 and 6; Proposed section 52.23, Subd. 3 h) 5, 6 and 8; and, .
Proposed section 52.23, Subd, 3 i) 11,12 and 13},
· Consensus of the EDA to recommend all outdoor storage in the proposed B-3 General
Business District be completely screened from view.
· Maximum Height Requirements were discussed. Consensus of EDA recommended height
limitation raised to three (3) stories or 40 feet in height (Section 52.23, Subd 6,).
· Section 52,23, proposed Subd, 7 (site coverage). Consensus of the EDA is to enforce
maximum site coverage of sixty (60) percent if structures only include those items with roofs,
or maximum site coverage of ninety (90) percent if all non-porous surfaces are included in the
calculation.
· Proposed 52.23, subdivision 7 f) entitled Stops and Curbs. Suggestion to redefine concrete
curb standards as B-612 specifications for all auto stops and drive/parking areas have
inherent incompatibilities with Minnesota's weather conditions and shifting occurs.
EDA Board Member Hosch returned at 8:45 p.m.
Proposed changes to LI, Light Industrial District:
· Permitted uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested,
1. Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'permitted uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development
and includes a discussion of the type of community S1. Joseph is, the vision of the
industrial classification (specialized light industrial uses), design standards, types of
establishments not favored and elements sought.
2. Retain itemized listing as proposed. .
· Special uses were discussed, two alternative re-drafts by the City Attorney were requested,
1, Create new language for the EDA to review which replaces the itemized listing of
'special uses' based on performance-type criteria which welcomes development and
includes a discussion of the type of community S1. Joseph is, the vision of the
industrial classification (specialized light industrial uses), design standards, types of
establishments not favored and elements sought.
2. Retain existing itemized listing.
· Consensus of the EDA to recommend all outdoor storage in the proposed B-3 General
Business District be completely screened from view.
· Proposed 52.23, subdivision 7 f) entitled Stops and Curbs, Suggestion to redefine concrete
curb standards as B-612 specifications for all auto stops and drive/parking areas have
inherent incompatibilities with Minnesota's weather conditions and shifting occurs,
MCCF Participation
Strack indicated MCCF Representative Scott Martin is not able to appear at City Council meetings in
August or September as recommended by the EDA at their July 17, 2002 regular session, MDG
requested to re-contact Mr. Martin to discuss alternatives.
Adjournment
Moved by Hosch, seconded by Deutz to adjourn. AI/ present voted in favor of adjournment, the EDA
meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m, -
-
4
<6
· itg of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue NW
P.O, Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201 DATE: August 13, 2002
Fax: 363-0342
MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Deæment Authority ,
CLERK!
ADMINISTRATOR ,FROM: Joa~t & Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Gro~
Judy,Weyrens
RE: EDA Accounts Payable- July, 2002
MAYOR
Larry J. Hosch Background
COUNCILORS Attached are copies of the accounts payable for the Economic Development Authority for July,
Bob Loso 2002.
Cory Ehlert
Kyle Schneider Action:
Alan Rassier Following review a MOTION is in order to approve the Accounts Payable.
·
·
9
./'- -,
.---
-------~
-~~
y
Ss. INVOICE
MUNICIPAL DevnOPMI!NT GROUP, INC. ·
25562 WILLOW LANE
NEW PRAGUE, MN 56071
952-758-7399
FAX: 952-758-3711
mdg@bevcomm.net City of St. Joseph
Attn: Judy Weyrens
City Administrator
PO 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Invoice Date 08-01-02 I Payment Tenns: 30 days I Customer ID #: ST J02
Project July Economic Development Services, Zoning Ordinance
Review and Vicwest Project - See attached detail
EDA =$1,522.72 \ 'S 0 - LJ ",5 ùD- ':'0._-:'
Vicwest Project = $655.85 I Sc> - q \-0 "'j,0- 'bL ì
Zoning Ordinance Review =$510 it) { ,Lj k\-,.,o _'2....>"='
Amount: $1,100.00 Monthly contract fee-28 hrs
$1,080.00 16.0 hrs at $60 per hour
$ 352.23 Mileage: 965 miles x ,365
$ 30.49 Long Distance phone charges (June & July)
$ 105.00 UCC-11 & 12 search & Judgement search-Vicwest
$ 20.85 Postage - TIF 1-3 reports, MIF App-Vicwest ·
$2,688,57 Total
-
Remit To: Municipal Development Group, Inc,
25562 Willow Lane
New Prague, MN 56071
Dates
July 2, 2002 Office hours 7.0 hrs. C. Strack
July 9, 2002 Office hours, Vicwest 9.0 hrs. J, Foust
Zoning ordinance review 3,0 hrs, C. Strack
July 17, 2002 Office hours 9.5 hrs. C, Strack
July 23, 2002 Office hours 9.0 hrs. J. Foust (7) C. Strack (2)
July 25, 2002 Mtg with business & EDA 3.0 hrs. C. Strack
July 26, 2002 Vicwest project 2,0 hrs. J. Foust
July 30, 2002 EDA zoning minutes info. to attorney 3.5 hrs. C. Strack
Thank youl We appreciated the opportunity to work with youl
Cjtr~;:~ ·
I Check No, I
Date:
¡o
· Jur;&MdY
A DIVISION OF MILLER JOHNSON STEICHEN KINNA!W
INVOICE
July 29,2002
Ms; Judy Weyrens
City Administer.;.Clerk
P.O. Box 668
25 College Avenue
St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374-0668
RE: 2001 OSA TIF Reporting
Dear Ms. Weyrens:
· For services rendered for the City of St. Joseph:
. ... ... ............. ......... .............. ....... ........... ....... ... ... ...$500.00
This relates to work performed relevant to the completion ofthe 2001 OSA TIP reports
completed in July. Please contact me ifI can be of further assistance, I declare under penalty of
law that this account, claim or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid.
Very truly yours,
JURAN & MOODY
/rf 'Î L
-.
Nick M, Skarich
Vice President
· ,
Sccond /\\'enUf South Sfpc
e. ì4(}O (c:!2) )7C 27\\1
~iáJ -_""
jne;-lJ~:_,¡Ii.:;, lvfl'J ))402 11 (kÜG) \ì~(ì ~ 46Ú6
. ity of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue NW
P.Q, Box 668,
St, Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342 DATE: August 6, 2002
CLERK! MEMO TO: S1. Joseph Economic Development Authority
ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ;¡\'V\ ~. ~L, >
Judy Weyrens Jo ne Foust & Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
RE: Tax Increment Finance Guidelines/Report Card
MAYOR
Larry J, Hosch Background
COUNCn.ORS At its May, 2002 meeting the EDA requested MDG review and make suggestions relative to the
Bob Loso revision of the City's TIF Guidelines/Report Card.
Cory Ehlert The EDA began reviewing proposed modifications at its July 17, 2002 meeting. The review will
Kyle Schneider continue at the August 21, 2002 meeting.
Alan Rassier
Attached is a summary of wages and jobs within the S1. Cloud Metropolitan Statistical Area
(includes all of Stearns County and a portion of Benton County). The summary is provided for
your review prior to addressing wage issues in both the TIF Report Card and the Business
Subsidy Policy.
Attached is a revised copy of the ''TIF Proposal Rating Policy". Please note strikethrough text
. indicates proposed deletions, italicized text provides information to you while reviewing and
double underlined text indicates proposed new language.
Action:
Input is requested, No formal action is required at this time.
.
L:'
en
..c
0
....,
¡¡¡ ::,g
- ::,g ::,g '#. ::,g ::,g ::,g ::,g ::,g ::,g '#. ::,g '#. ::,g '#. ::,g '#. ::,g ::,g '* ::,g ~ ::,g Q
0 Q Q CO
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I.{') tD Q Q 0 Q
I- eo C'? r- tD CO CO ~ r- tD tD r- ..- I.{') V 0') 0') CO I.{') I'- tD C'? U') CO .
- eo 0 N r- N U') tD 0') 0 C'? 0 V C'? I.{') C'-Ì cO ..- 0') 0 c0 0') d
0 c0 c0 .,...; 0 0 .,...; 0 ..0 0 ..0 C'-Ì .,...; cO c0 .,...; 0 c0 ...t r....: CO
- ..- ..- ..- .....
I::
Q
~
Q
c..
't:I
Q
>- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO
0 0 0 0 0 0 I.{') 0') 0 tD CO
Q. r- C'? 0 0 C'? 0 tD V 0 eo N.- tD U') C'? U') ..- 0')
C'? tD ..- tD V C'? tD 0') C'? V 0 eo C'? 0') C'? C'? V U') 0')
E C'?- N- tD N C'? V- eo V- Ñ eo r-- Ñ ..- ..- LÒ ..- c-? C'?- ..- <D (þ"
..- ..- ..- ..- ..- CO
UJ
~
.... eo r- N U') V r- C'? N N 0 0') V V 0 eo N 0 C'? CO 0 U') 0') CO
~ eo
M C'? 0 ..- U') ..- 0') C'? I.{') eo v tD U') I.{') 0') 0 0') 0 U') I.{') r- C'? M
Q N_ C'? U') V N U') 0') C'? N- eo tD C'? C'? V tD C'? eo V V V ..- CO
C) N- N N- O')- a5 ci N- I.{')- V- I.{')- V- C'?- LÒ V- V- <D a5 CO- a5 U')- 1'-- ci
I:: N C'? N N N C'? ..- ..... N ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..... ..- N ..- ..- ..- N
ftI , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
~ N
C'? 0 C'? eo C'? 0 eo eo eo C'? ..- V tD N 0 I.{') N U') ..- r- eo v CO
( V v r- C'? C'? tD tD C'? V C'? N ..- r- I.{') eo 0 I.{') 0') 0 tD l{) C'? .....
C) eo tD eo N eo tD cq, 0 N r-- C'? 0 I'- r- 0 tD ..- I'- ..- N U') v_ ~
ftI cr> LÒ N- O')- ;n N- O; V- 0" C'?- CO- N- r-- a5 ;n LÒ C'?- v- V- ~ ..- .....
:¡: 0') l{) l{) l{) V l{) V ..- C'? l{) N C'? N C'? N l{) l{) V It")
..-
..... ..... ..... ..... ::; ..... ..... '- '- '- ..... '- '- ..... ..... '- '- '- '- '- ..... '-
.... :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) :;)
0 0 0 0 0 :;) 0 :;) :;) 0 :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) :;) 0 :;) :;) :;)
:r: ..c: ==: ..c: ..c: ..c: 0 ..c: 0 0 ==: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M
Q; M M Õ5 Cõ ..c: ¡::::: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ¡§ ~ ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: ..c: (þ
..- Ñ <D Õ 0 Ñ ¡¡:; Ñ Cõ Cõ ~ ¡::::: ~ ~
C C) r- N l{) ..- tD tD ~ I'- cri
I:: r- tD 0') tD 0 '<:t C'? 0') 0 eo 0 eo v N
0 ftI 0 0 ..0 ...t c0 0-> ..0 r....: <Ó ..- r....: r....: <Ó r....: <Ó r....: r....: 0-> C'-Ì cO r....: cO .
~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..... ..- .....
~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CO
('\j Q 0 l{) N eo N ;n tD eo U') ~ N C'? l{) l{) 0 ..- 0 V C; 0') CO N ..,¡
C) 0 t>- V V 0') C'? 0') C'? 0 0') 0') ..- l{) eo 0') v 0 0') 0') N
::¡ ftI cO <Ó ..0 cO ...t 0 0-> ..0 0-> <Ó <Ó <Ó 0 cO c0 -q: <Ó .,...; <Ó <Ó 0-> 0-> -
('\j :¡: V N N N N N C'? N Z; l{) ..- N ..- Z; ..- N Z; ..- N N ..- ..-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
W
(]) ¡¡¡
:::J .
0) I:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It")
N C'! tD 0 tD C'! eo eo eo v N «=! N «=! v C'! N N V V CO 0 0')
('\j I:: r....: 0-> C'-Ì c0 cO ..,¡ "<i c.D r....: 0-> "<i c0 ..0 cO C'-Ì cO C'-Ì N
<C cr; cr; <õ ~ cr;
$: 0 N cr; C'? V tD 0 V N l{) C; V 0') ..... 0 N l{) It")
I:: C'? tD 0') N V_ r- 0') N N 0 r-_ 0 N V V r- C'? C'? tD r-- N.
ftI LÒ <D ~ tD- N- -.:f eo- N- l{)- a5 ,...: eo- N- C'?- l{)- N- ~ -.:f
'ë ~ M ~ M .....
..c l{) C'? V C'? l{) C'? N N ..- Z; ..- Z; N N C'? C'? N N M
Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Q. :E -
(])
(/')
0 ...:
J :r:
Q;
.... C) 0') '<:t N l{) N V tD ..- tD C'? 0') r-- v eo 0') 0') '<:t eo C'? tD 0 M
CI) ftI l{) tD ..- ..- V ..... C'? eo l{) eo l{) N r-- r-- ~ 0') l{) C'? ~ CO 5'
:¡: c.D r....: 0 r....: ..0 ..0 c.D c0 0-> 0 ..0 N r- ..- eo 0 <Ó ..0 .0
N r....: cO cO cO ..... ..- ..- 0
N ..- N ..- ..- N ..- ..- ..- ..... Z; ..- ..... ..... ..- ..... ..- ..... 0
I:: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N
ftI 19
'ë ro
Q '0
:E c:
'"
E
>-
0
<J) ëi
I:: E
<J) ,Q '"
c: ro N
0 0
= a. c:>
CO :;) N
a. ü (;;
:;) <J) ü
ü <J) 0 t
Ü c: c: ro
.Q 0 Q <J) ::>
0 <J) C'
ro ~ ü c: c: û)
CO CO c: <J) CO
<J) <J) 0. a. CO c: '(3 0 ~
c: <J) 'C
c: 0 c: <J) ::I ::I c: ,Q 'ë ro <n
0 c: Q ü ü $ <J) .2J
ro <J) en ro 0 0 :2 ü ü ro I:: ..c: a. ro
c: ~ ~ 0 0 c: a. .Q <J) ü ::I E
a. c: ,Q a. 't:I ëõ <J) c: Q) ü
0 ::I a. ro c: ::I ro ü ~
::I ro a. c: "0 Ü 0 I-
ü ~ Ü ::I ::I CO ü 2 :2 0 ü a. ro ..... 0 Q)
ü a. ü 8 ü 'ë ~ 0 ::I Q)
0 a. ::I 0 Ü <J) CO "0 CO Ü 0. ëõ 0> 0>
::I Ü 0 0 t ..c: ã) c: a. t ü ::I a. c: ro
<J) Ü Ü ( 0 ü <J) <J) a::: CO ::I 0 0 8 Q) ';:; ;;:
c: ü 0 ü <J) ~ a. Q) c: c: 0> ü <J) a::: 0 -
,Q 0 c: Q) C/) I- .Q 0 0> c: Ü c: a. ~ 0 ::2 (;;
0> Q Ü CO 0 0 a. "0
T§ ro c: '(3 '2: .ð 'Ê "0 ro ro c: 'ë ::I 1i) c: E
c: '2: ro C/) c: ro Q)
<J) ü .~ C/) :.:J a. a. CO Q) Q ,Q CO
c: Q) ~ Q) Q CO ::I ::I Q) Q ü a. Q) 0 .~ ü
a. CO ro C/) E ü '2: 't5 Q) Q)
0 Q) "0 ~ Ü Ü C/) ::I > Ü <J)
0 E LL ê6 u
ro c: '(3 ro c: c: Q) ü ü Q) ü T§ CO c: c: C/) .2
'5> 0 0 "0 <J) ü '-
en ro Q) 0 CO .(õ c: C/) "0 X CO 0 :2
a. '(3 c: "0 0 ...J II
en £ c: C/) t ~ t 1i) c: c: ê6
ftI ::I '(3 UJ 0 <J) 0> <J) CO c: 't:I CO W Q) "0 <C
ü CO C/) c: Q) 0 Q) ::I "0
U c: "0 c: c: c: Q) 'ë ê:: 0. c: I-
(J co ::2 "0 c: 0 'ë ê:: 't5 0. ü 0 e CO ro 'Ë 0> "0 ::I CO 0
0 c: c: CO "0 rð '(õ w co a. '2: C.9 c: t:: '(õ Ü
¡¡¡ "0 CO c: ð: ::I ê6 Q) ã) :ë CO ü c: I:: 0
ê:: ü: c: ro co ~ C/) Q) æ ~ ::2 0 0 <n
I:: Q) a. ¿ C/) ..... "0 a::: <J) t:: (J) Q)
0 Q) oð CO ..... ü Þ ::I 0> 1!! 1!! co c: Ü ü: 0 c:- c: 19 UJ c:
E ..... ::I ëñ (J c:- ~ a. "0 "0 c:
+:; 'ë '¡¡; 1!! co 't5 0 0 (!j
<J) Q) 't5 >. ü 0 CO co ro c: c: c) 0 ~
CO Q) <J) '5 ..c: ::I 0 Q) ü ü 0> CO co 2 ro 't5 ~
0. 0> Q) Q) E ro 0 ..c: ..c: 't5 CL c: c: c: a.
:::J co c: a. ~ CL ro ü ~ Q) "0 'C 0 <J) Q) 'Ë 1i) ro ::I <J) (¡j
ü c: '¡¡; E :ë ,æ" E -ê ro ro "2 <J) Q) (J c: "0 c: UJ <è
ü CO Ü 0> ::I 0 '5 ID ro !i: æ Ci5 e CO ~ ::>
::I 0 ~ 0 Q) "0 Q) Q) 0 0 ~ 0
0 ::2 CC Ü :.:J Ü ...J W « :r: :r: CL LL CC CL C/) 0 LL Ü E CL U)
i4
. Attachment B
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROPOSAL
Rating Analysis
Gradin~ and Report Card
1. Ratio of Private to Public Investment in the Project: Grade Score:
Private Funds/TIF
$ Private Investment $5:1 A 5
$ TIF/Public Investment 4:1 B 4
$ Ratio of Private/Public Financing 3:1 C 3
2:1 D 2
Below 2:1 F 1
2. New jobs created and retained in the City: Grade: Score
New employees in 8t. Joseph as a result of the project. 50+ A 26+ = 5
- 25+ B 11-25 = 4
- Jobs retained in 8t. Joseph as a result of the proiect. 15+ C 6-10 = 3
<15+ D 1-5 =2
- Total number of iobs created and retained. Non@ F None = 1
. 3. Ratio of City Financing to new jobs created: Grade:
$ TIP assistanc@ r@qH@s1@d $8,000 or less per job A
N@'l.' jobs created $1 0,000 ør less per job B
$ TIFf Job $12,000 or less per job C
$15,000 ør h~ss p@rjob D
Mor@ than $15,000 F
This standard is proposed for deletion because it does not appear to be functional in a community the size
ofSt, Joseph. If a project generates $550,000 in tax increments, according to this standard, the project
would need to create 70 jobs to receive an "A - Excellent" rating; 55 jobs to receive a "B - Very good"
rating; 45 jobs to receive a "C - average" rating or 36 jobs to receive a "D - below average" rating. This
is a very difficult standard to implement in a community of 5,000 population, in close proximity to an
urban growth center (St, Cloud) with significant development costs,
4. Pay Level of Jobs: Grade:
Pay Range if of Employee!; in Range Total Wages Grade
$15, OOOfY!' or more ^
......
$35,OOOfyr or more B
$30,000/yr or more C
$20,OOO/yr or more D
L@ss than $20,000 F
Total 'Nag@s I if of employees (ITE) _- .^.v@rag@ wage $
. This evaluation point is proposed for deletion because job creation and minimum wage floors are
mandatory in the City's Business Subsidy Policy which is required by state law, Per statute, we will soon
\5
be implementing minimum wage floors for subsidy which include an actual dol/ar amount or a calculation .
which arrives at an actual dol/ar amountfor the minimum wage requirement, This evaluation point also
appears to be non-functional in a community the size of St, Joseph, According to this standard cUlTently,
the neH'jobs created must average $21, 63/hr. to achieve an "A -Excel/ent" rating," $16.83/hr to achieve a
"B - VelY Good" rating," $14,42/hr. to achieve a "C - Average" rating or $9, 61/hr, to achieve a "D-
Poor" rating.
5. Increase in Real Estate Estimated Market Value: Grade: ~
$ Estimate market value of site after development Before/After Development
1 :5 A 5
$ Estimated market value of site before development 1:4 B 4
1 :3 C 3
Ratio of value before/after development 1:2 D 2
1:1 F 1
Bonus Points
- Th@ proj@ct ad࣠value to the neighborhood and/or byr>iness community 2 points
and adh@ns to the Compr@Ð@nsiy@ Plan.
. The d@y@lop@r agrees to the Pay as you go fmancing, 1 point
. The proposed project will redevelop a previously contaminated or 2 points
environmentally challenged site,
- Mix@d use proj@ct bonus 2 points
.
Total Bonus Points Available 2 points
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL STANDARDS:
1. The Droposed development is consistent with the City's long term development and
redevelopment guidelines as contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
YES ( 5 points) NO (0 points)
2. The Developer agrees to pay-as-YOU-gO financing?
YES (5 points) NO (0 points)
3. There is a demonstrated need for the commercial/industrial development within the
City of St. Joseph.
YES (5 points) NO (0 points)
Total Points Scored / 6 = average score.
S = Excellent. 4= Very Good, 3 = Average, 4 = Below Average, 5 = Fail It
110
·
·
·
\<6'
ity of St. Joseph.
25 College Avenue!\'W
P,O, Box 668.
St. Joseph. MN 56374
(320) 363-7201 DATE: August 13,2002
Fax: 363-0342
MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Deve~,ment Authority
CLERK!
AmUNlsTRATOR FROM: JO~%ust & Cynthia S~it~-Strack, Municipal Development Group
Judy Weyrens
RE: Business Assistance (Subsidy) Policy Update
MAYOR
Larry J, Hosch Background
The EDA began reviewing proposed modifications to the TIF Grading and Report Card at its
COUNCILORS July 17, 2002 meeting, Since the Grading and Report Card is closely tied to the Business
Bob Loso Assistance (Subsidy) Policy which is required to be updated per State Statute, it was
Cory Ehlert recommended the EDA review a revised Business Subsidy Policy at its next meeting.
Kyle Schneider
Alan Rassier The review of the revised assistance policy will occur in conjunction with the review of the report
card at the August 21, 2002 meeting.
A survey of area communities indicates wage floors of:
Avon: No wage floor or business assistance guidelines
Cold Spring: Each project is evaluated on a case-by·case basis
Rockville: No wage floor or business assistance guidelines .
Sauk Rapids: Wage floor $12.25/hour, excluding benefits
Sartell: Wage floor $13.25/hour, including benefits (adopted July, 2002)
Waite Park: No response
The state of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development requires a minimum
of $9 per hour, excluding benefits, for eligibility for the Minnesota Investment Fund. Additional
funds are available if the employer pays over $11 per hour, excluding benefits. This is a state-
wide wage guideline.
Attached is a proposed business assistance policy and a copy of the City's current policy.
Comments from the City Attorney have been incorporated.
Action:
Input is requested, No formal action is required at this time, however formal adoption will be
requested at a future meeting,
e
\or
·
BUSINESS ASSISTANCE POLICY
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA
Section 1: Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish the City's standards with regard to business
assistance. The City supports the concept of publiclprivate partnerships as a means
of: encouraging continued economic diversity; maintaining a viable tax base;
expanding existing business and industry; attracting quality and compatible business
and industry; enhancing and retaining employment opportunities; and, maximizing the
return on municipal investments such as infrastructure, utilities and services. The
standards herein are required by and in compliance with Minnesota Statutes 116J.993-
995 as amended.
Section 2: Definitions
For the purposes of this policy, terms herein not specifically defined shall have the
meanings given to them in MN St. 116J993.
A. Benefit Date means the date that the recipient receives the business assistance
(e.g. when equipment put into service) (e.g. when improvements are finished
or a business occupies the property).
· B. Business Assistance means a state or local government agency grant,
contribution or personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal
- amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient,
any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, any financial guarantees or any
preferential use of government facilities given to a business. Exceptions to this
standard include those identified in MN. Stat. 116J.993, Subd. 3 items 1-18.
Section 3: Eliqible Business Assistance Uses
The City may consider business assistance to support private development in
circumstances where the proposed project meets a minimum of one of the following
uses and new and retained full-tirne equivalent positions are paid no less than 90% of
the median wage in the St. Cloud Metropolitan Statistical Area for the applicable job
classification or $11.00 per hour (excluding benefits) whichever is higher.
A. To redevelop blighted or under-utilized areas of the community.
B. To encourage redevelopment in the City's commercial and industrial areas to
stimulate high levels of property maintenance and private reinvestment in those
areas.
C. In conjunction with another business assistance use as provided for in this
· section to increase the tax base.
'?JJ
C. If a business assistance benefits more than one recipient, the grantor must .
assign a proportion of the business assistance to each recipient that signs a
assistance agreement.
D. All grantors and recipients must be authorized to execute the assistance
agreement and the agreement must be executed.
Section 5: Process
A. As soon as possible development prospects seeking a business assistance
should meet with EDA staff members to discuss the project, the public purpose
for the assistance, proposed uses of the assistance, why the assistance is
needed, goals for the assistance issuance and, materials required to process
the request for assistance (e.g. historical and projected financial reports,
proposed project financing including a demonstrable gap, evidence of
ownership of property where applicable, appraisals, site information, the ability
of the recipient to repay the assistance if goals are not achieved and other
information deemed necessary to process the request).
B. The EDA shall consider evaluate and make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding a request for business assistance.
C. If the amount of the requested assistance exceeds $100,000 the City shall hold
a public hearing before granting or denying the request. .
D. The City and the recipient shall enter into a Business Assistance Agreement.
Section 6: Reports
A. Reports by Recipients to Grantors. A recipient shall report information
regarding goals and results for two years after the benefit date or until the goals
are met, whichever is later. If goals are not met, the recipient must continue to
provide information on the assistance until the assistance is repaid, The
information must be filed on forms provided by the grantor and filed with the
grantor no later than March first of each year and within 30 days after the
deadline for meeting job and wage goals. If the recipient does not submit its
report, the local government unit shall mail the recipient a warning within one
week of the required filing date. If within 14 days a report is not provided, the
recipient shall pay the grantor a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day the
report is not filed to a maximum of $1,000.
B. Reports by the Grantor to the State. The City shall file a report by April first of
each year with the State Department of Trade and Economic Development
regardless of whether or not the City has awarded any business subsidies.
e
l1-
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ~
~1 First Avenue NW Business Subsidy PÐficy
'.0. Box 668. City of St. Joseph, Minnesota
,t. Joseph. MN 56374
320) 363-7201 This Poiicy is adopted for purposes of the Business Subsidies Act (the "Act"), which is
'ax: 363-0342
Minnesota statutes, Section 116J.993 to 116J.995. Terms used in this Policy are
Ilk intended to have the same meaning as used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only
with respect to subsidies granted under the Act if and to the extent required thereby.
:l1li íi!=.ri
While it is recognized that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal that
vlAYOR benefits the community, it must also be recognized that not all projects assisted with
~enneth J. Hiemenz subsidies derive their pubríc purpose and importance solely through job creation. In
addition, the imposition of high job creation requirements and high wage level may be
unrealistic and counter-productive in the face of larger economic forces and the financial
:::LERK! and competitive circumstances of an individual business.
,IJMINISTRAT<)R
~ari Schmidt With respect to subsidies, the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the
wage level thereof shall be guided by the following principals and criteria:
:::OUNClLORS 1) Each project shall be evaluated in a case-by-case, recognizing its importance
~ob Loso and benefit to the community from aU perspectives, including created and
:::ory Ehlert retained employment positions.
.it
iedenfuer 2} if a particular prOject dOes not involve the creation of Jobs, but is nonetheless
found to be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any
specific job or wage goals, as may be permitted by applicable law. -
3) in cases were the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of
the subsidy shall be required to provide reasonable demonstrable evidence
that the loss of those jobs is imminent.
4) The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates,
local economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the
grantor nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial
resources of the recipient and the competitive environment in which the
recipient's business exists.
5} Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may In its
context and time present desirable community buílding or preserVation goals
and objectives, the governing body must retain the right in its discretion to
approve projects and subsidies which may vary from the principles and
criteria of this Policy.
Adopted bY~'~~ ~~ù~
. Date of Adoption: \ 0 - ~ \ - ~ C\
Date of Public Hearing: \ 0 - cd- \ - <\ ~
'Z3
ity of St. Joseph.
25 College Avenue NW
P,O, Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201 DATE: August 13, 2002
Fax: 363-0342
MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic De~ent Authority
CLERK!
AD~UNIsrRATOR FROM: JO~~~'st & Cynthia S~ith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
Judy Weyrens
RE: Commercial and Industrial Zoning Ordinance
MAYOR
Larry J, Hosch
Background
COUNCILORS
Bob Loso At the July EDA meetings, the Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance
Cory Ehlert relating to the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Comments from the EDA were forwarded
Kyle Schneider to the City Attorney's office.
Alan Rassier
The City Attorney's office has not yet completed their review and incorporation of comments. Once
completed a copy will be forwarded to the EDA for your information,
Action:
No action is required.
.
tit
~.
"j} .
~ '
.
. ltg of St. Joseph
25 CoJlege Avenue NW
P.O, Box 668,
St, Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I DATE: August13,2002
Fax: 363-0342
MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Develop.ment Authority
CLERK! JO~t & Cynthia ~-StraCk. Municipal Development Group
ADMINISTRATOR FROM:
Judy Weyrens
RE: EDA Budget - 2003
MAYOR
Larry 1. Hosch
Background
COUNCILORS The City is in the process of reviewing the budget for 2002 with a preliminary budget to be adopted
Bob Loso and certified to the County in September and a final budget to be adopted in December, 2002.
Cory Ehlert
Kyle Schneider In the past EDA expenses have been a part of the General Fund. Since the EDA is a separate
Alan Rassier entity and it is easier to track expenditures, a separate Fund (Fund 150) is being created for 2002.
Tax Increment revenues and expenditures were also included in the general fund in the past. MDG
recommends establishing a separate fund for each TIF District and segregating TIF revenues and
expenditures for each district. This will assist in ensuring compliance with TIF Reporting and the TIF
plans,
The Attached 2003 Proposed EDA budget include revenues for 2002 - $33,280 from property taxes,
. $17,000 - the Vicwest TIF/project deposit and tax increment revenues. The tax increment revenue
amount is illustrated as a negative amount as a tax settlement for $17, 154 was received from the
County in 2002 for 2001. The revenue was coded to 2001 however the expenditure (TIF to Borgert)
was coded as a 2Q02 expense, The TIF fund detail/history is included.
Pages 2 and 3 of the budget include historical expenditures when included in the General Fund
(Fund 101) and expenditures to date (through August 13, 2002) and balance remaining (New Fund
150). Primary line item expenditures include:
· Professional services which average $1,713 per month or $20,563 per year,
include MDG contractual services and expenses for mileage/phone/faxletc. The
current contract is $1,100 per month plus $60 per hour for services beyond 28
hours. MDG requests consideration of an increase to $1,200 per month plus $60
per hour for additional hours which may result in an average $1,800 per month or
$21,600 per year (includes MDG services and expenses),
· Tax increment certification (Department 327) which is detailed on the attached
history includes $8,496,73 in expenditures for the Vicwest project. This includes the
establishment of the TIF district and the MIF grant application and overall project
coordination, This was not a budgeted expenditure however a $17,000 deposit was
made (not a budgeted revenue) to offset the expense. As a resu It it appears the
EDA only has $4,021 remaining for the expenditures for 2002. In reality an
additional $8,496 is available as that expenditure is covered by an outside source,
It is recommended that this not be budgeted for in 2003 as it the expenses will be
project based and covered by applicant fees.
· Dues and subscriptions include $7550 payable to the St. Cloud Economic
Development Partnership and the Chamber of Commerce. It is recommended the
EDA include $8000 for 2003.
. Action:
The EDA is asked to prepare a proposed budget for 2003 to present to the City Council for
consideration. A motion is in order.
¿5
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 08/13/02 10:34 ÁM
Page 1
Audit Revenue
.
SOURCE 2002
SOURCE Descr Budget Rev YTD Amt
FUND 150 Economic Development
31000 General Property T $0,00 $0.00
31010 Current Ad Valore $33,280.00 $33,280,00
31050 Tax Increment $0,00 -$12,228,32
34150 TIF DEPOSIT $0.00 $17,000.00
34151 MIF DEPOSIT $0.00 $0,00
36210 Interest Earnings $0.00 $0,00
- -- ~ - -
FUND 150 Economic Development $33,280,00 $38,051,68
.
.
'2-\0
:2 .....
<C Q)
0)
..... ro
;: D-
O')
N
Q
<')
.
ep
I:
~ 0
~ 0
~ ~
I: >
;:)
III 0000000000000000000 0 0 OOOj'<l'OOI'-<OC')OOOO
g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~'<I:":~~Lf1~":~~~~
III 0000000000000000000 0 0 OOOOOON.....<OO<')OO
- ~~~~~~U;HI7~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ O~.....O')OONO')O')OI/)I/)O
III I'- C')NOO<O.....'<I'I/)'<I'O')I/)
~ ~ ~~Ñ~~~~~~~~
U7U769- f:I{
- NË 0000000000000000000 0 0 OON<OOOM'<I'C')OOOO
(1) g<C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~Lf1"!~~'<I:'"":":~~~~
- N 0000000000000000000 0 0 OOO')O')OOI'-Oj<OOI'-OO
~' Q ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~MOjO~~I'-~O')~'<I'I/)O
I w ~ ~.....I'- I/) '<I' ~I/)I/)
D- :;:, >- ~ M ~ ~ ~~
IY\ ..... (R- (R-
W ~ ~
U) c:(
o c
.. w
. " N 0000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000
u. (1) g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W en N ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g g g g g g g -~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
u.. 0 ~ ~â~~~~~~ ri ri
o C. N ~(R- ~ C')- M
, 0 ~ ~ ~
>- ~
!::: D-
U C"')
g -E OO..........MNOO'<l'N'<I''<I'ONONNOM 0 0 0000000000000
N <C ~â~:ri~~:;¡ci~~;;ââ:;¡~:;::d~~:;¡:;¡ âââââââââââââ
<0 '<I' C') 1/)..... <0..... '<I' C') N I'- N ~M C') 0') I/) N M <0 <0 ~~~~~~~~~~~(R-~
o OJ_~'''''_M_~I'-_~~u;.~~I'-_ ~~M_~I/)_~ CX!. CX!.
o T- ~~ ('I') eX) ~....... co co
N N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '<I' '<I'
~ ~ ~
Ë ~g~¡::Nf?j~~~g:gg~c;;g~g~~ ~ ~ ggggggggggggg
<C ci ci C\Ï ...: ci ,...: LÒ oi ..t ci ci C\Ï C\Ï C\Ï ci oi LÒ C\Ï cD C\Ï C\Ï ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
o 0') OJ N OJ ..... OJ 0 I/) <0 ~ M 0 ..... I'- 0 <0 M OJ OJ 0') 0') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
o .....I/)Oj.....I/)'<I'Oj~N .....I'-NNNOj(R-I'-..... N N
o 1Õ(R-~Ñ(R-IÕ~ (R- (R-~~.....-(R-~ ~~ IÕ IÕ
N M ~<17 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 <0
~ ~ <17
~ ~
o .~
= 2
~ ~
<C <C <C
...... Q) ........ Q)
áj ~ áj áj E ~
E Q) E E ~ 5Q)
g- u¡ ~ g- g- a. :¡:¡~
4> c E u¡ W rJ) 4> _4>': rJ) rsw rJ)
> rJ) ° Q) Q) C > I: > ~ Q) ~ 0> C
Q) cu¡:¡::¡ Q)~ 0 0 00> Q) epQ) ~ 0 1::0 OQ)
° g¡ ,2 c ß Q) Q) 0 ï~'~ áj:¡:¡ ffi ° E ° g¡ -'~ Q) ffi :;:; ffi
o ,- - ° -- 0 0 C Q) Q) .... c.:;: 0 c. 0 ,-' 0> Q) ü.... c. 1:
'Ë "8 ß '5 -E æ æ Q) ~ c:: g¡ (I) .æ '5 ¢:: 'Ë ° -Ë "8 ~ g¡ (I) æ 1:: .æ '5 õ
.... ° cc:s=ê°........grJ).c'5.ro § 2° ° 4>Occo'5.roC) Q)§ 2(1)
t) § Q)§ë:Ü~~roE~c.cg¡Q) üg'~~ § ~§Q)Üc.ccg¡o> Eüg':J....
. :ß Wo rJ) 1; ü ° ~. E E 5 ~ Ü ~ ,~ Q) § Q) oð ïi5 C/) 2 0 Q 0 1; .rJ) ~ -~ '~ 0> § Q) ~ oð '¡¡j (I) 2
o Q) co ü B..c- rJ)=..c u¡LJ....c C)-'Eoð ~ W W ro.... rJ) Q)LJ....c C)O_'Eoð ~
Oï::(i5 __~.!9E.a:!: Q) Q)- c.ro Q) Q) rJ) c. 0 '~0(i5~ Q) Q) c- c.roE 0> Q) VJ C.
~ ¡¡¡ ~ ~ '5> ~w t§ ã: co c Q) rn ro .g '6 ~.J!1 ûí ~ > Q) E 0 - E 0 '5> Õ .g Õ '5> ~.J!1 ûí x ~ > 0> E
.... ~, co Q) _ 0> Q) .... __ Q) "'" .... Q) Q) ° .... "C ~ 0 I/) ro ° I/) Q) > "- .... c 0> Q) ° ro .... "C ~ °
o Q)~CI)-,a.LJ..:2:Z:0::¡O:Z:Oa.-,~a.~<cOü ~ (¡¡ 1:~-'>Oa.w-'I-a...I-I-<Coü
5; I- I- ffi 8 I-
CHI:: a::: ø wa:::
.., ....<C <C ..... 0<C
~ ~fbogN~~M~~;:1;~gg~N~M~~~ fb ~ ~fbg~ggg~N~~M~~~
o oO..................................................NMMMMMM'<I'1/) ° ° OO..........NC')!'?MMC')C')<')<')'<I'I!)
Z Z Z ,.
;:) ~ ;:)
LJ.. LJ.. LJ..
2/
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 08/13/02 10:36 AM
Page 1
History
.
Dr/Cr Check/Receipt CHECK
Search Name Amt Date Nbr Invoice Act Code Comments
BORGERT PRODUCTS, INC/SKN $15,438.97 3/6/02 030942 150-31050 TIF Payment
CHECK Nbr 030942 BORGERT PRO $15,438.97
BORGERT PRODUCTS, INC/SKN $14,114,79 5/15/02 031245 150-31050 TIF Payment
CHECK Nbr 031245 BORGERT PRO $14,114,79
STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR -$14,114.79 150-31050 borgert products tif
STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR -$8,006,50 150-31050 tax settlement
CHECK Nbr Steams County Auditor -$22,121.29
STEARNS COUNTY AUDITOR-TREAS $4,795,85 4/19/02 031163 150-31050 refund of TIF allocation
" ,-
CHECK Nbr 031163 STEARNS COUN $4,795,85
$12,228,32
.
.
2-1
.
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 08/13/029:47 AM
Page 1
· -rl~' ee('-\1~ccJì"1v\History 62-7
Dr/Cr Check/Receipt CHECK
Search Name Amt Date Nbr Invoice Act Code Comments
JURAN & MOODY $5,800.00 8/8/02 031651 150-46500-327 TIF Financing
~~_='~'~_~~"~~'A~~
CHECK Nbr 031651 JURAN & MOOD $5,800,00
v1UNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORP $1,560.75 7/19/02 031571 150-46500-327 eda services-vicwest
Åw-"__._~^_~_Å__7'·=_~,··..~',wm'_m.__._=
CHECK Nbr031571 MUNICIPAL DEV $1,560,75
v1UNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORP $655,85 8/2102 031626 150-46500-327 EDA services-Vie West
CHECK Nbr 031626 MUNICIPAL DEV $655,85
~AJKOWSKI HANSMEIER L TO $50,00 7/19/02 031575 150-46500-327 legal-viewest
,~,~.~~~.~~.~~"__~~~'_'m,~
CHECK Nbr 031575 RAJKOWSKI HA $50,00
3T, JOSEPH NEWSLEADER $77,70 6/21/02 031436 150-46500-327 legals-viewest
3T, JOSEPH NEWSLEADER $277,50 6/21/02 031436 150-46500-327 legals-TIF
'>T, JOSEPH NEWSLEADER $74,93 6/21/02 031436 150-46500-327 legals-viewest
CHECK Nbr 031436 ST, JOSEPH NE $430,13
$8,496.73
·
·
3Ó
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 08/1310210:39 ÂM
Page 1
UlJ.D ~ SlJj~seì~: History .
Dr/Cr Check/Receipt CHECK
Search Name Amt Date Nbr Invoice Act Code Comments
ST, CLOUD ECON DEV PARTNERSHIP $7,500,00 5/17102 031274 150-46500-433 dues, 2002
CHECK Nbr 031274 ST, CLOUD ECO $7,500.00
ST, JOSEPH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $50.00 1/28/02 030794 150-46500-433 membership renewal·EDA
CHECK Nbr 030794 ST, JOSEPH CH $50.00
$7,550.00
.
e
31
.
.
.
32-
ity of St. Joseph
25 CollegeAvenueNW DATE: August 132002 .
EO, Box 668,
St, Joseph, MN 56374 MEMO TO: Econo~~Development Auth~
(320) 363·7201
Fax: 363-0342 FROM: J~ Foust & Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
CLERK! RE: Site Plan, Building Exterior Plan, and Landscaping Plan.
ADMINISTRATOR
Judy Weyrens Background
MAYOR Herttwer Realty has requested EDA review and approval of (1) the lot split of the north 6.343
Larry J, Hosch acres of Lot 1, Block 2, Buettner Business Park and (2) a site and building plan as it relates to the
Protective Covenants for the construction of a one-story slab on grade 8,600 square foot facility
COUNCILORS on a 6.343 acre portion of Lot 1, Block 2 in the S1. Joseph Industrial Park (adjacent to Co, Rd 133
and 15th Avenue). The facility will be utilized for a trucking company consisting of 24 bays and
Bob Loso office space.
Cory Ehlert
Kyle Schneider Review
Alan Rassier As of August 13, 2002, the site plan drawings have not been submitted. It is anticipated they will
be by Friday, August 15th. A separate packet will be sent to EDA members with complete
information. Following are the areas which will be reviewed:
Section 3.01 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the 81. Joseph
Industrial Park (a.k.a. Buettner Business Park) requires EDA prior review and approval of all
plans and specifications. Following are excerpts of items relating to the plan review from the
revised covenants which have recently been filed. Items to reviewed relating to the covenants .
include:
· Horizontal floor plan including exterior elevations in relation to finished proposed
grades.
· Full description of exterior building materials.
· Landscaping plan.
· Other reasonable details that may be requested.
Additional requirements are contained in Section III, IV and V of the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions.
The following table will be completed upon receipt of drawings to summarize standard
requirements, what is being proposed and the correlation of the two. Information received thus
far has been inserted,
REQUIREMENT PROPOSED MET/NOT MET
Covenants: Section 3.01 : The site plan, floor plan and building elevations
Prior approval of structures. for an 8,600 square foot building have been
Subd. 1. requires submitted to the EDA for review, Elevation
submission of a horizontal drawings are depicted on Plan _
floor plan and the exterior Topography/elevation drawings are...
elevations in relation to
finished proposed grade.
Covenants: Section 3:01: A description of proposed exterior building
Prior approval of structures. materials has been submitted to the EDA for
Subd. 2, Requires review. Proposed exterior building materials
submission of a full include: Architectural metal walls, As required
description of exterior by the covenants 25% of the exterior walls facing .
building materials. streets (15th Avenue and County Road 133) will
1
.--,-:;>
:J~
.
· consist of:
Sections 3.05, 3.06 and 3.07
define acceptable exterior
building materials. These
include: face brick, natural
stone, glass, vinyl, stucco,
aluminum lapsiding, cut
block, concrete block and
other approved decorative
siding.
Pre-finished architectural
metal panels are acceptable
provided they contain a 20
year manufacturers color
fast warranty. Post frame
buildings must contain
concrete block or poured
concrete complete
perimeter foundation with
frost footings extending a
minimum of eight inches
above final grade.
Covenants: Section 3.02, The plans submitted illustrate plantings on Plan
paragraph one requires: Sheet _This includes
open areas, excluding
parking, driveway and Proposed plantings include
storage areas be landscaped
with trees, shrubs or planted
· ground cover.
Covenants: Section 3.02, parking spaces are illustrated
paragraph two requires: along 15tn Avenue.
par.king lots adjacent to
public R-O-W's include a six The parking areas adjacent to the street right-of-
foot strip of landscaping with ways are screened with the required landscape b
a minimum three-foot drop in berm.. .
grade (from the R-O-W to
the parking lot) with a
minimum of one shade tree
and five shrubs for every 35
linear feet for screening.
Covenants: Section 3.03.
Requires a landscaped
greenway adjacent to C/R
133.
Covenants: Section 5:01 Trash area are illustrated..,
requires refuse containers to
be kept in three sided
enclosures a minimum of
five feet in height
constructed of brick, stone,
decorative concrete material
or durable material (Le.
screen chain link with a
latched gate for the forth
side,
Covenants: Section 5.03:
· states, "Outdoor storage of Outdoor storage will include trailer parking....
equipment and materials
directly related to the use of
the principal building
2
'~~
.:.)
provided the storage area The plan illustrates _ loading dock on the .
does not exceed seven _ side of the property.,.
times the gross floor area of
the principal building and the
area is contained within and
screened with an eight foot
high chain link lathe fence.
Covenants: Section 5,02
requires "Loading docks and
garage entrances and exits
shall be screened to
minimize visibility form any
public street and/or any
adjacent building structures
front or side yard viewing
point.
The Planning Commission and Council have and will review the proposed project as it relates to
the Zoning Ordinance for the L-I, Light Industrial District. The following comments are for EDA
consideration and information:
· Warehousing within the structure is a permitted uses within the LI - Light Industrial
District. (Section 52.23 Subd, 2, i).
· Proposed building setbacks exceed the required 30' front yard per side abutting a
corner and 10' sideyard not adjacent to a street and 20' rear yard.
· The proposed building height of _ feet conforms with zoning requirements
which limits the height to 55 feet (Section 52.24, Subd. 7) .
· Section 52.23, Subd. 8, c requires all buildings to have exterior finish design and
materials approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building
permit.
· Section 56.4 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the installation of non-rust material
chain link fences up to 8' in height. - is proposed.
· Section 52.14 Subd. 5,b. of the Zoning Ordinance, requires, "Such parking lots shall
be constructed and maintained in a useable condition, with a hard suriace consisting
of concrete, bituminous, pavement or paver stone designed to drain and dispose of
suriace water. Recycled bituminous or concrete shall be prohibited except as
permitted in an industrial area by special use permit or variance." Subd, 5, d and e
state, "Necessary curbs or other protections against damages to adjoining properties,
streets and sidewalks shall be provided and maintained," and, "Plans for construction
of any such parking lot must be approved by the Planning Commission before
construction is started. No such land shall be used for parking until approved by the
Planning Commission", respectively. The site plan identifies proposed parking lot
construction Section 52.14 also identifies a requirement of one parking
space for 250 square feel of office and at least 8 spaces, plus one space for each 2
employees on each shift or a minimum of 1 space fore each 500 square feet of floor
area. This would result in a requirement of spaces. spaces are
depicted. The parking lot is set back _ feet from property lines. Each parking
spaces measures _ x _ . The ordinance requires spaces to be a minimum of g' x
18' with handicap spaces measuring no less than 20' x 15'.
· Subdivision 6 requires one loading berth for a 5,000 to 16,000 square foot building.
_ are proposed.
It is noted the EDA review of the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the St. Joseph
Business Park (a.k,a, Buettner Industrial Park) does not constitute a review of the requirements of .
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of St. Joseph.
3
~
.(:.~'" ··1 ..' .......:
..'
. . .f ..'
':. .: .'
..... ,.' ..,...,
" ......
."
. C.) l
~
--- - N 89'49'05"E
--
- --
-- -
-- -
---
lO,?:>L 3 - -
--
\ -- --
3~ \\.o~ - -
--
. ¿
~
- -
~B,1.:.9 --
- -
I --
f')
~ O!
1 f'vr ~ I _~
~ I --
(). ... --
rv I "f
I 5i
0
.....~?:.:::.:. I -o~
en b ---
I "!I en
.:~.:~;~?:~.... Lf{O ~¡
-
I - --
-
2 I
!
-- ¡ - -
--
".0 ¡
~ I
I - -
--
)
. ~ I
2 "!I - -
- -
"- \PI
. - ~I
('t) I
(\ :ril
b - - -
-
7 (0) I
.__J "?- I ~
12.. l' ~ en
-- - -- ,~ :tl Q)
-- 101 .s:::
--- .f') ~
0) ¡": "
.... ~ I - .
80 ~ :...: :..
'? - - -
:31 0
CD
.
,
,
.
. ity of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue NW
P.O, Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374 DATE: August 13,2002
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342 MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority
CLERK! FROM: Joanne Foust & Cynthia Smit~ack, Municipal Development Group
ADMINISTRATOR CO~~I Redevelopment Opportunities
Judy Weyrens RE:
MAYOR Background
Larry J, Hosch Over the past few months the EDA has been reviewing various sites in the downtown area and
identifying areas which may be potential redevelopment priorities. The EDA has also been
COUNCILORS identifying funding sources to assist with future projects.
Bob Loso Owners of the various sites were contacted via mail and follow-up phone calls. Following is a
Cory Ehlert summary of property owners responses:
Kyle Schneider
Alan Rassier 1. Laundromat property - Dan and Margaret Kippley: MDG has left several messages for the
owners, but have not received any responses.
2. American Legion garage: The Legion is interested in selling the parcel. MDG met with a
business on July 9th that inquired about the availability of the garage and existing Legion
building. The Legion will discuss this. They are planning to demolish the garage in August to
provide additional parking for their existing facility.
. 3. Floral Shop/James and Theresa Kacures: The home and business would need to be sold
together, but they are interested in selling and are comfortable with 'the EDA presenting it as
a redeve~opment project site. MDG has called the owners of the Floral Arts. There are 5
sisters that own the building together and lease the space from their parents, They requested
time to discuss this,
4, Vacant lot at 25 East MN. Street: Kresbach Properties & Mary Ann Kresbach. The are not
interested in developing the parcel, but may be interested in selling the site for a new
development project. They indicated it is alright for the EDA to present the site to potential
developers. A business looked at this site for a 3,000 to 3,400 square foot facility but decided
to pursue the purchase of a lot on the east side of the community.
5. Metal building at 123 1st Avenue NW - U.S. Bank contacted the current owners/estate
contacts. They are not interested in selling or redeveloping the site at this time.
6. Lot north of Super America: It is okay to list two of the three parcels as available for
commercial development.
Other: MDG also contacted Knight Builders regarding plans for their facility and potential
expansion. They are in the 'infant' stages of planning and will have more information later this
summer.
Action:
MDG requests direction from the EDA on proceeding with redevelopment opportunities,
.
3ì
.ollege Avenue NW itgof St. Joseph
p,o, Box 668,
St, Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342 DATE: August 13,2002
CLERK! MEMO TO: Economic Development Auth~
ADMINISTRATOR J~~~~t & Cynthia Smittì-- track, Municipal Development Group
Judy Weyrens FROM:
MAYOR RE: Economic Development Activity Report - July/August, 2002
Larry J. Hosch
COUNCILORS Municipal Development Group has been interacting with a number of prospects throughout the
Bob Loso past month. Following is a summary of activities that have transpired, If you have any
Cory Ehlert questions on any of these or other projects, please do not hesitate to contact us at 952-758-
Kyle Schneider 7399.
Alan Rassier
Business Prospects have been identified by a project number to protect the confidentiality of the
businesses.
Project 01-A:
The company plans to lease a newly constructed 67,000 square foot building in St. Joseph
Business Park. The EDA and Planning Commission reviewed and approved the site and
. building plans on July 1th with Council approval on July 18th. The company broke ground on
August 1st. Project financing is being finalized.
Project 01-E:
This organization is considering the relocation of a facflity to another location in the City.
Negotiations on the site were occurring in March. MDG followed up with the company with a
phone message on July 28th and invited the company to attend the business meeting on August
1, 2002.
Project 01-F
This project involves the locating of a fast food restaurant in the City of St. Joseph. MDG left a
message for the contact regarding an update on their site selection and any assistance needed
on July 23, 2002.
Project 01-1
This company is considering the purchase of approximately 5 acres in St. Joseph Business
Park for a 12,000 square foot facility, The company has an option on the lot but is waiting to
proceed with the closing on the property until they sell real-estate they own in another
community,
Project 01-N:
This commercial business is considering the construction of a 3,000 square foot office facility in
St. Joseph (not in the St. Joseph Business Park), MDG spoke to the company representative
on July 2nd, 9th, 12th, 25th and 26th. The EDA discussed the use of TIF or tax abatement for the
project at their July 15th meeting and noted the building would be required to have special
architectural features or a downtown park to justify the use of TIF or tax abatement. The Board
was to meet the first week of August to discuss sites (2 in St. Joseph, one in Sauk Rapids),
. MDG called regarding the board meeting outcome on August, 13, 2002 and left a message,
~,(
Project 02-C: ·
This company contacted the city in January regarding potential sites for a 5,000 sq, foot
manufacturing building and possible financial assistance programs. MDG sent a follow-up
letter on August 6, 2002.
Project 02-E
This commercial business is looking to expand in City of St. Joseph. They are looking for small
amount of acreage for the construction of a 5,000 square foot facility, MDG placed a follow-up
call to the company on July 2nd and discussed property along Co. Road 75, MDG followed up
on July 17, 2002. The business owner indicated the purchase of land for his business is
planned for the spring of 2003.
Project 02-F
This company has been reviewing sites for a 40,000 square foot facility., with 40 new
anticipated jobs. MDG met with the compan~ on July 25th and supplied preliminary financial
assistance information (TIF & MIF) on July 26. The company met with Mr. Buettner regarding
the purchase of 10 acres in St. Joseph Business Park. MDG placed a follow-up call to the
company representatives on August 15t, On August 6th the company e-mailed MDG noting they
could not arrive at an agreeable price for the lot and were planning to locate in another
community, MDG responded and offered to assist in the process and noted potential financial
incentives to assist in lowering land costs.
Project 02-G
This company contacted the city on March 13th requesting information for a possible project in
St. Joseph Township. They inquired about annexation and utility extensions. MDG
corresponded with the company on July 2nd, 9th and 22nd and August 13th, The Planning
Commission will be conducting a public hearing for a special use permit for the company on
August 26, 2002, as well as reviewing their site plan at that time. The council will take action at ·
their first September meeting.
Project 02.J
This business inquired about the availability of approximately 1,500-2,000 square feet for light
industrial purposes on April 9th, The business is currently located in the community in a 800
square foot space and is in need of additional room for expansion. MDG had follow-up
conversations with the business on July 23rd, August 6th and August 13th regarding the Frieler
Accounting building and potential low interest loan programs (Stearns Co. HRA - RLF and
Initiative Foundation).
Project 02-K
This company contacted the city in April and requested demographic information for a
professional office/business, MDG sent additional census data on June 4th and followed up with
a call on June 28th,
Project 02·L
This company contacted the city April 29th regarding potential space for the construction of a
5,000-6,000 square foot office/warehouse and office facility. MDG Followed up with the
company on July 1th. The company may be interested in constructing a quality, multi-tenant
building in St. Joseph business park. The contact is working on the financing and finding
tenants.
Project 02-0
This company contacted the city on May 6th and requested more information on St. Joseph
Business Park and the city, They are considering a 20,000 square foot facility (16,000 sq, ft.
manufacturing, 4,000 sq. ft, office). MDG followed up with a phone call on July 1 th and e-mail
on August 6th. ·
42-
.
.
·
·
·
4-~
25 College Avenue NW ity of St. Joseph.
p,o, Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201 DATE: August 13,2002
Fax: 363-0342
MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority
CLERK! Joan~~st & Cynthia ~th-Strack, Municipal Development Group
Am.UNISTRATOR FROM:
Judy Weyrens
RE: Comprehensive Plan - Economic Development Chapter
MAYOR
Larry J, Hosch Background
The City is in the process of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. As a part of the plan, a
COUNCILORS chapter will be dedicated to economic development. In addition, the land use chapter will
Bob Loso illustrate current and proposed future commercial and industrial land uses,
Cory Ehlert A draft of the Economic Development Chapter will be distributed with the September EDA
Kyle Schneider packet for review and input. Enclosed at this time are notes from the August 1, 2002 Business
Alan Rassier Meeting, for EDA members information.
No action is required at this time.
.
.
Lf5
.
"
. Business Meeting
St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan
Attendance: 19 persons: representation from industrial, downtown and highway commercial
segments.
Positive Attributes:
· Small town atmosphere.
· Friendly place to do business.
· Location.
· Educational facilities.
· City government works well with developers.
Challenges:
· Limited acreage available.
· Increasing costs of land.
· Securing skilled laborers (unskilled easy to find).
· Discrepancy in residential & business tax classification rates.
Business Assistance:
· Felt the score for use of incentives should be based on more than jobs created. Thought
consideration should be given to automating the workplace, improving working conditions
and remodeling.
· Thought okay to give assistance to jobs created starting at $10 - $12.
· Very interested in low interest loans for small business expansion and technology
upgrades. Supportive of the concept the MCCF stands for.
. Impact of College on the Community:
· Majority very supportive of the diversity, culture and educational atmosphere the colleges
bring to St. Joseph.
· Majority agree college/students do add to retail sales.
· Few concerned about college & monastery owning and holding land that is generating
revenue but not being taxed.
Downtown Commercial (re)Development:
· Downtown merchants believe parking is a barrier to development in the downtown area,
Thought zoning standards for number of parking stalls limited development. Thought
people not willing to walk from City lot to establishments on Minnesota Street. Also felt
apartment tenants took up valuable parking spaces.
· Favored the development of a park in the downtown, providing available parking was not
diminished or further compromised.
· Favored redevelopment/revitalization of downtown to enhance ambiance and distinctive
nature of the area, Some expressed an interest in not a themed development but
redevelopment more along the lines of rediscovering the historical architecture of existing
structures,
Highway Commercial:
· Favored larger lot sizes, façade requirements, greenspace requirements and landscaping
standards as a means of promoting the nature of the community. Many remarked the
reason they do business in St. Joseph is because of personal relationships with
customers. Did not want CSAH 75 to be built up like Division Street in St. Cloud.
· Favored the development of commercial and combination commercial/light industrial
. establishments adjacent to CSAH 2.
· Favored frontage roads to optimize visibility and maximize access to business
establishments.
4lo
· Interested in low interest loans to assist in expansion, reconstruction and technology .
updates.
Industrial:
· Indicated CSAH 133 needs to be updated to a ten ton roadway or exempted from weight
restrictions.
· Indicated current truck route through the City is not properly designed, difficult to make
turns and to access CSAH 75.
· Favored façade, landscaping, outdoor storage and building material standards,
· Favored combination commercial/very light industrial uses adjacent to CSAH 2,
· Favored continued industrial development adjacent to current industrial areas.
Technolgoy:
· Felt the technology available was top notch, mostly due to the presence of the College in
the community.
· Many were interested in technology updates being assisted via low interest loans,
· Remote distance learning, high speed internet access and digital technology utilized by
some of the businesses.
.
.
41
~N àj
1\105
"Ou
IC N ~ JS
IT- = 0
_ftQJrI'.J
"'" ~ QJ
... "'" QJ =
.., I ~,..
C ~ = +-4
.~ o·~
C\1 .. u~
~~'
~CÞ ~
1\1.a]š
-a E d3!,
en ,,, =~.
.. w 0
::s i ~
.c v ;:s
I-Z~
.
II ~"'''''2;
~ ~o~~
. Q) ~ æ~;; ~ ci; ~ c¡)!i u5~"'@ ~N ~~ 1§''g ]~~'~Æ
u (1) [/) ItS 0 b.O (1) 0 :>..... (1) (1) 0.... c QJ ¡¡¡ w ttJ '"
CÞ,.- 0.. [/) ~ (1) [/) - .......0 [/) S N Eo-! 0 ItS ¡;¡ S ¡¡¡::i 'Po. '¡¡5
f-( 0.. (1).... ..... ;j O"......þ. [/). '2 :;.,,( N a.. cl 0:
. ~ ] .~ .~ .S.ê ~ ~ ~ x .S ~ ~ ;::: crJ ] ~ -ß:B. '"
C Q) ;j æ ..... [/) ...... [/) (1) [/)...0 I-< ... I " .... 0 > .~ ~
'-+-I ::- ~ "'" ¡:: ..... ¡:¡:::: 5:J -;j 0 ¡;¡;¡ I::' ~ ~ ð '0
1- $:;0 ~ æ ~J~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ §'~ 22] , ~ ~ '§ ~ ~
,,, 0 >< ..... 0.. 0.. (1) [/) 0...... ItS _ L' ~ [/) Cf) 0 i!J ~
VI U "'C J9 a:i..9..9 'E ~. (1)s [/) ~ l :;: ¡;¡;¡ ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~
....... ' >. 6 ~ (1) 0 ~ .[/) "'C [/) ~ :>: :> "1j \D ~ ~ a.. ..a
.. $:; g. 11 o..~ ~ ~ S ;j ~ î ItS ¡:¡ ~Zo §<¿ ~ >O-ß ~
II Q) .!:! ..9 .Q "'C ¡:: .[/) ..c [/) ¡:: ¡:: tr.J g Q) -5 [; -<
, [/) ~[/)u (1);jItS~I-<(1)(1) (1)......... "Coo"C .....
& ß ~ ~ .~ .~ ê.: § ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,§ ~ ~
o c[/)ItS[/)¡:: ..901-<,.¡;;1tS(1)0 (1)0\ ~;Bæ ~
Õ ......c s.. (1) õ ;j 8 (1) ...... ,. 0.....0 U 'E oJ, 5 <a' òO 0
Q) o~[/)...o(1) ~~[/)o (1) 00\ Õ,S oo¡;
. :> Q)(1)S~(1)......>-.. QItS~~ê§-:5 uC";I ~ID¡g..... >-
Q) :> 0 1-<' U [/) ~ 0 .... I-< ...... a..~ 0 ¡:; II)
r"\ (1) '[/) , ~ J9 .~ ~...... ~ ~ 0 ~ ~'::: ~ ¡:¡ oor
¡....¡ '1j;j ¡:¡(1) o~ (1)OõJc ........... 0 ¡:¡ U t'"
m ~ ¡:: ...... [/) .~ ..... ~ ..... I-< ¡;¡ {/) - J!! ¡;:; a.. "¡:: 1:'"'1
ct1 .¡s. ~. ItS 0 J(1);Q a:i m [/) t; ~ ~ iií ~ 'õ S.Q = = \0
..... ¡::ttJ........t;(1) ItSc 2:1U.... gU "'¡:;<a Q) 00....,
....- 0 ~..g ~ 0 ~ . f' s.. ft<:~ 8 . s t; ,§ S 'g ~ ~ g :z¡
- CJ) 5 .~ ¡::¡ o..'s... 0 ci; .... "E (1) ';B ,$ Q ..... ¡,;a U 00 ;E
ca Q) uïa~61-< iií¡::0Q)¡::21tS>........ ~ci;u5 Q)~JË u~ u¡.:z;:¡~ ..
(1) U ........ 2 :> 0 ¡;¡ t:..J:: [/) ¡:: JS.9:{;j £í . .J:I ..... .J:I
-.). ,.§ .-:::..9 8 Jj a:i ~ ci; ~ .¡z 6 8.. ~ S S "?;;::; $',~] ~ ~ "i ff ~ ff
..-1 ..... 2~"'" U <1: ~ æ 8 s Jj (1) 0.. bfJ "'@ § s "C 1j :m § ¡¡¡ 'ð Q ¡:¡:¡ Q
::E ;j ItS 6,.¡;;, ~ [/).~ [/) I-< .... -:5 o.S .:5 t: c¡) 5 E Z ~ 15:: . .... O· ....
- 0~00:¡:¡..J:: 6;;0 1tS¡:: ,Q) ~ ·0..... ~a..~ r-' ,;¡.... .....
......c -:5 U - 0 ClJ t::: gp 0 0 - Jj "0 :... :> 0 ~ 0.. JS 0 ..9 -::: 11 R ;2i 1;1.t p.¡ ø
l1li: $ .~ æ l t ;:::; ~ 0 § ~ ~..... ¡:: ê o:r: ~. §-< ® &} ~.1: ~ .-<
,... [/) ..... :>. - [/) U (1) ItS ,.. ItS ¡::¡ >. ~, ~...... ,¡a r. .J!! Q) N
~ .. [/) ClJ..... (1) .... I-< (1) bfJ"':::; ¡:: Q) ...... '\j .-< .-<
~ Q) 2 0.2:1 >. "1j I-< ~ 0 >.;:! U 0...0 ..... .9< 0 u u g. oj '0
:52, ,.Š .g ~ ~ ] ~ õ g ~] b.O'~.2 -8 Õ -E ~ :] ~ ~ .~ ~ t:ª ìB
" [/) ;j bJ:) ~ [/) (1)1::: !?P...... .S § "'C ~..§ 0 ~ ;j 0"1j ~ § 0 0 C" Z
'.' ;j ~ .... u ~..J:: 0'" tf) 0 U "'"' {/). 0 ID .... U)
",:S "'" .6(1) ~ ]:; g.] ç g 0 ~ ~. ~ < æ :ø& ] ~ ~ .s ~ g ~
'v t--.. ... ~ ~ U E-< ItS .!:! E-< ~ ~ U ItS .... > tf}"1j ¡:: -::: ;B 1:: ~ ;:!
~ "'" oj
_ a..o p..
J1g Q)o~
'---Y~ Q l!') U)
.ollege Avenue NW itg of St. Joseph
p,o, Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374 DATE: August 16, 2002
(320) 363-7201 MEMO TO:
Fax: 363-0342 Economic Development Authority
CLERK! FROM: Joanne Foust & Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group Inc.
ADMINISTRATOR RE: Site Plan, Building Exterior Plan and Landscape Plan
Judy Weyrens
MAYOR Background
Larry J, Hosch On behalf of a trucking company, Herttwer Realty has submitted a request for approval of a
COUNCILORS site and building plan as it relates to the Protective Covenants for Buettner Business Park.
Bob Loso The company is proposing an 8,600 square foot facility consisting of 24 bays and office
space on the north 6,34 acres of Lot 1, Block 2 Buettner Business Park (intersection of 15th
Cory Ehlert Avenue and Co, Rd 133).
Kyle Schneider
Alan Rassier Review
Section 3,01 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Buettner
Business Park requires EDA review and approval of plans and specifications. Following are
excerpts from the Covenants which relate to EDA review and approval:
REQUIREMENT PROPOSED MET/NOT MET
Covenants: Section 3.01: Prior Plan sheet A2 includes a site Site and building plan submittal
. approval of structures. Subd. 1 plan, floor plan and building requirement met.
requires the submission of a elevations for an 8,600 square
horizontal floor plan and the foot building. Topography Topo/storm water approval
exterior elevations in relation to drawings are being submitted to contingent upon City Engineer
finished proposed grade. S.E.H. for review as it relates to review and approval.
storm water drainaae.
Covenants: Section 3.01: Prior Proposed building materials Information has been submitted
approval of structures. Subd. 2 include architectural metal panels as required.
requires submission of a full with the west side containing
description of exterior building stucco, Building colors have not
materials, vet been determined,
Sections 3.05 defines acceptable Architectural metal panels are Metal panels are acceptable
construction materials, Pre- proposed. Information provided provided they have the 2O-year
finished architectural metal panels does not indicate if it has the 20- manufacturer color-fast warranty.
are acceptable construction year manufacturer color-fast Approval should be contingent
materials provided they have 20- warranty. upon this requirement being met
year manufacturer color-fast as well as with frost footings
warranty and provided Section Plan A-2 illustrates an 8" extending a minimum of eight
3,06 is adhered to, A post construction channel. inches above final grade,
frame/steel frame with a concrete
block or poured concrete
complete perimeter foundation
with frost footings extending a
minimum of eight inches above
final arade.
Section 3,06 requires that a The west side of the building, Condition 3.06 relating to required
minimum of 25% of the exterior where the office is located, exterior building finish on sides
building finish facing a street contains stucco, No stucco or facing a street is not met.
consist of : face brick; natural other acceptable building material
stone or cultured rock, glass, is proposed for the north side
. vinyl, stucco, aluminum lapsiding, adjacent to Co, Rd 133,
cut block, concrete block or other
aooroved decorative sidina.
. Section 3.02, paragraph one A landscape plan is illustrated on Proposed landscaping meets the
requires open areas, excluding Plan sheet A 1, This includes one requirement.
parking, driveway and storage shade tree and 5 shrubs every 35
areas to be landscaped with feet along County Road 133 and
trees, shrubs or planted with 15th Avenue NE and one
ground cover evergreen every 20 feet along the
south property line.
Section 3.02 paragraph two Plan Sheet A 1 illustrates a 3 foot Proposed landscaping meets the
requires parking lots adjacent to high landscape strip along the requirement.
public R-O-Ws to include a six right-of-ways. This includes one
foot strip of landscaping with a shade tree and 5 shrubs every 35
minimum three-foot drop in grade feet along County Road 133 and
from the ROW to the parking lot, 15th Avenue NE and one
with a minimum of one shade tree evergreen every 20 feet along the
for every 35 lineal feet for south property line,
screenina.
Section 3,03 requires a Plan Sheet A 1 illustrates a 3 foot Proposed landscaping meets the
landscaped greenway adjacent to high landscape strip along the requirement.
Co. Rd 133 right-of-ways. This includes one
shade tree and 5 shrubs every 35
feet along County Road 133,
Section 5.01 requires refuse One refuse container is illustrated Condition is met provided the
containers to be kept in a three on the south side of the property screening for the refuse container
sided enclosure a minimum of five with a notation that screening will is a minimum of five feet in height
feet in height constructed of brick, comply with Section 5.01, constructed of brick, stone,
stone, decorative concrete decorative concrete material or
material or durable material (ie. durable material (ie. Screen chain
Screen chain link with a latched link with a latched gate for the
. aate for the forth side) forth side).
Section 5.03 states, "Outdoor The only outdoor storage The EDA should discuss whether
storage of equipment and proposed is truck trailers that are or not they interpret the temporary
materials directly related to the "temporary". The storage of staging of truck trailers to be
sue of the principal building materials or other equipment is "outdoor storage". If it is, the
provided the storage area does not proposed, height of the fence and
not exceed seven times the gross requirement for lathe would be
floor area of the principal building A 7 foot high chain link fence with applicable. If not, the condition is
and the area is contained within 3 strands of barbed wire is met.
and screened with an eight foot proposed. No lathe is proposed
high chain link lathe fence. since only truck trailers are
temporarily staç¡ed outdoors,
Section 5,02 requires, "Loading There are 12 bays on the north This condition appears to be met.
docks and garage entrances and side and 12 bays on the south
exits shall be screened to side of the property, One tree
minimize visibility from any public and 5 shrubs are proposed every
street and/or any adjacent 35 feet on the north side. One
building structures front or side evergreen per 20 feet is proposed
yard viewinç¡ point. on the south side.
The Planning Commission and Council will review the proposed project as it relates to the Zoning
Ordinance for the L-I Light Industrial Distirct. The following comments are for the EDA's
information:
· Warehousing with the structure is a permitted use within the LI District (Section 52.23,
Subd. 2 I)
· Proposed building setbacks exceed the required 30' front yard abutting both
corners/streets and the 10' side yard and 20' year yard.
· The proposed building height of 20' conforms with the zoning requirement which limits
. a building to 55' in height.
· Section 52.33, Subd, 8 C. requires all building to have exterior finish, design and
materials approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit.
. · Section 56.4 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the installation of non-rust material
chain link fences up to 8' in height. A 7' high fence with 3 strands of barbed wire is
proposed,
· Section 52.14, Subd. 5 b of the Zoning Ordinance requires, "Such parking lots shall be
constructed and maintained in a useable condition with a hard surface consisting of
concrete, bituminous, pavement or paver stone, designed to drain and dispose of
surface water. Recycled bituminous or concrete shall be prohibited except as a
permitted in an industrial area by special use permit or variance." Subd. 5 d and e
state, "Necessary curb or other protections against damages to adjoining properties,
streets and sidewalks shall be provided and maintained" and "Plans for construction of
any such parking lot must be approved by the Planning Commission before
construction is started. No such land shall be used for a parking until approved by the
Planning Commission." The site plan identifies proposed parking lot construction with
light duty asphalt.
· Section 52.14 also identifies the requirement for the number of spaces with at least 8
spaces, plus one space for each 2 employees on each shift based on a maximum
planed employment or at a minimum 1 space for each 500 square feet. This would
result in a requirement of 25 spaces. 25 spaces are illustrated. The parking lot is set
back 86 feet from the property lines. Each parking space measures 9 feet x 20 feet.
The ordinance requires spaces to be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet with handicap
spaces measuring no less than 20 feet by 15 feet.
· Subdivision 6 requires one loading berth for a 5,000 to 16,000 square foot building, 24
are proposed.
It is noted the EDA review of the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the Buettner Business
. Park does not constitute a review of the requirements of the Zoning ordinance.
EDA Action:
The EDA will take action on the approval, conditions and restrictions for the Park as it relates to this
project. MDG recommends approval conditioned upon:
1. Submittal of topography drawings with storm water plan review and approval by the City
Engineer,
2. Evidence that the architectural metal have the 20-year manufacturer color-fast warranty,
3. Frost footings extend a minimum of eight inches above final grade.
4. Condition 3,06 relating to required exterior building finish on sides facing a street be met.
5. Screening for the refuse container be a minimum of five feet in height and constructed of brick,
stone, decorative concrete material or durable material (ie. Screen chain link with a latched gate
for the forth side).
6. Outdoor storage be screened with an 8 foot high chain link lathe fence. (depending on
EDA interpretation.)
A MOTION is in order.
Recommendations from the August 26th Planning Commission meeting and the EDA meeting will
be forwarded to the City Council at their first September meeting.
.