Laserfiche WebLink
CM OF REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section 2- <br /> ' STAFF REPORT Report Number: till- 1773W5 <br /> ®A(IJV DS Report Date: 7/2/96 <br /> WORK SESSION MEETING DATE <br /> ilk- iiW July 8. 1996 <br /> °d'es,-Partner'" <br /> • <br /> Item Description: Discussion of TIF Proposal for the Development of Building"N" & "K", Mounds View <br /> Business Park <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> -No Comments to supplement this report <br /> -Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) <br /> Summary: <br /> Chuck and I have been working with Everest on proposals for the development of buildings "N" and"K" <br /> since April. I have attached all of the written correspondences between Everest and the City since April 5, <br /> 1996 when we were first approached by Everest to develop a strategy on the final development of the park <br /> and a retention program. <br /> What followed was a proposal for the development of Building "N" in addition to a request for a$200,000 <br /> grant tied to the this development(proposal dated May 21, 1996). The proposal requested$1.3 pay-as-you- <br /> evenue bond over 15 tax increment years with an interest rate of 7% and a 90/10 split. This proposal <br /> is approximately $4.28 per sq.ft. of assistance. After reviewing the proposal with Chuck and bond <br /> orney Jim O'Meara a counter proposal was submitted offering an 8-year pay-as-you-go agreement at 7% <br /> interest which equaled approximately $2.75 per sq. ft. of assistance plus the willingness to negotiation on a <br /> low interest loan with the company that was tied to the agreement rather than a grant (letter dated June 3, <br /> 1996). <br /> Everest responded that the project would not proceed under the City's counter proposal and suggested that we <br /> provide them with approximately $435,000 from excess tax increment up front plus a pay-as-you-go note that <br /> would equal $850,000 (letter dated June 3, 1996). Staff and O'Meara met with Everest to discuss this <br /> proposal and it was recommended that Everest make a proposal that would tie in the Building "K" <br /> development as a package. <br /> On June 24, 1996 staff again met with Everest to discuss a combined proposal for Building "N" and"K". <br /> The combined proposal requested a 13-year pay-as-you-go revenue note at 7% interest for a total request of <br /> $1.8 million in assistance. This proposal equals $3.36 per sq.ft. of assistance plus the City's cost in acquiring <br /> the additional three properties which we estimated to cost $350,000. In response, the City ran some of our <br /> own numbers through Springstead and came up with an alternate proposal for separate Building "N" and <br /> "K"developments and combined developments. These figures are outlined in the City's letter dated July 1, <br /> 1996. Chuck will be meeting with verest later this week to further discuss the most recent offer. <br /> 0 4,14-- <br /> Cathy <br /> Bennett con. Dev. Coordinator\EDA Director <br />