Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-1996 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA • NOVEMBER 21, 1996 7:30 A.M. MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM C 1. CALL TO ORDER 1 . 9b P.M. 2. ROLL CALL (Present = P, Absent = A) Carlson i Schmidt ✓ Goff (13,DPLAc. Welsch s 'r Nelson Terhark ✓ Sjoberg Hankner (EDA Liaison) I Bennett (Staff) 3. APPROVE EDC MINUTES IIII September 26, 1996 Action: Motion S Second 1 Vote s October 24, 1996 ji L) Action: Motion Second Vote October 29, 1996 _ SPe :)-hi' Action: Motion Second Vote \c 4. SPECIAL BUSINESS JV , 7 No Special Business h�J 9?\? EDC BUSINESS �' • c IT.: $ A. Update on Contract for Professional Services for the Study of \O' , , Highway 10 , Section 9 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. B. Discussion of Sample Tax Increment Financing Application/Guidelines for Analysis of Tax Increment Assistance • Comments: C. Discussion of Planning Commission and EDA's Comments Regarding EDC's Recommendations for Improved Communication Between the EDC and EDA. Comments: 6. Report of Commissioners, Staff and EDA Liaison 7. ADJOURN 1 . gt< P.M. Next Meeting TBA • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA • NOVEMBER 21 , 1996 7:30 A.M. MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM C 1. CALL TO ORDER P.M. 2. ROLL CALL (Present = P, Absent = A) Carlson Schmidt Goff Welsch Nelson Terhark Sjoberg Hankner (EDA Liaison) Bennett (Staff) 3. APPROVE EDC MINUTES September 26, 1996 Action: Motion Second Vote October 24, 1996 Action: Motion Second Vote October 29, 1996 Action: Motion Second Vote 4. SPECIAL BUSINESS No Special Business • 5. EDC BUSINESS A. Update on Contract for Professional Services for the Study of Highway 10 , Section 9 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. B. Discussion of Sample Tax Increment Financing Application/Guidelines for Analysis of Tax Increment Assistance Comments: I C. Discussion of Planning Commission and EDA's Comments Regarding EDC's Recommendations for Improved Communication Between the EDC and EDA. Comments: 6. Report of Commissioners, Staff and EDA Liaison 7. ADJOURN P.M. Next Meeting TBA i 1110 Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View • Ramsey County, Minnesota Special Meetingqs October 29, 1996 P � tl,> z; City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m. by Chairperson, Dan Nelson. 2. Roll Call: Members present were as follows: Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Dan Nelson, Brian Sjoberg, Ron Schmidt and Delane Welsch. Member Bev Terhark, EDA Liaison Sue Hankner and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent. Economic Development Coordinator Cathy Bennett was present. 3. Approval Of Minutes: No Minutes for Approval • 4. Special Business Continue Interview Process for Highway 10, Section 9 Corridor Study The remaining consulting firms gave a 30-40 minute presentation in response to the RFP that was approved at the September 26, 1996 regular meeting. 1. SRF Consulting Group teaming with Towle Real Estate and Springstead Financial Consultants 2. Sanders, Wacker, Wehrman, Bergly, Inc. teaming with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. and Resolution, Inc. After each presentation commissioners asked several questions regarding each companies background and the proposed scope of work. 5. EDC BUSINESS A. Consideration of Recommendation to EDA for a Professional Service Firm to Conduct the Study of Highway 10 Corridor, Section 9. Commissioners discussed the proposals that were interviewed today and felt that SRF was more qualified. They noted that SWWB's proposal was difficult to follow but commented on • the consensus building and market analysis expertise of Donn Wriski with Resolution Inc. 1 Another concern with SWWB was the lack of Highway corridor background. Most of the work that they have done were small downtown corridor projects. Commissioner Nelson noted that from the proposals presented on October 24th he favored i BRW since they were very familiar with Mounds View and the Corridor but that their proposal was weak in consensus building. Commissioner Nelson also noted that SRF's proposal was very easy to understand and he liked the fact that they were open with regards to what was expected of staff in the process. Coordinator Bennett felt there are areas of SRF's proposal that are not needed such as Springstead Financial Analysis since this is the City's consulting firm anyway. In addition, there are other areas that could be negotiated in price. Coordinator Bennett recommended a price not to exceed $25,000 would be sufficient for a study of this size. Commissioner Sjoberg suggested that we even try to reduce the cost closer to $20,000 since most of the cost in based on time spent by those that have an hourly rate. He noted that this is always negotiable. Coordinator Bennett noted that she would strive between $20,000 and $25,000 but that we would not want to recommend a low amount and have to go back to the EDA and request more funds to complete the project. Motion/Second: Nelson/Carlson moved to recommend SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to the EDA and recommend them to allow staff to negotiate and award a contract for the study of Highway 10, Section 9 for an amount not to exceed $25,000 from available tax increment funds. Motion Carried 6 ayes 0 nays 6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff: • 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 9:05 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, , t i� Economic II-velopment Coordinator • , „ , . _ u 1.i. ' y : d ,_ • 2 Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View 111 Ramsey County, Minnesota! UR I n n • Regular Meeting -" a s I i ' ; ,f October 24, 1996 a City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m. by Vice Chairperson, Cindy Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Members present were as follows: Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Brian Sjoberg, Ron Schmidt, Delane Welsch and Bev Terhark. Member Dan Nelson and EDA Liaison Sue Hankner and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent. Economic Development Coordinator Cathy Bennett was present. 3. Approval Of Minutes: No Minutes for Approval 4. Special Business Interviews for Highway 10, Section 9 Corridor Study The following consulting firms gave a 30-40 minute presentation in response to the RFP that was approved at the September 26, 1996 regular meeting. 1. BRW, Inc teaming with the McComb Group and Evensen Dodge, Inc. 2. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. teaming with Maxfield Research Group and Benshoof and Associates 3. Minnesota Department of Administration After each presentation commissioners asked several questions regarding each companies background and the proposed scope of work. After the last presentation, Commissioner Welsch suggested that the Minnesota Department of Administration was not exactly qualified and had more of a city administrative strategic planning and conflict resolution focus. Both of the other presentations were very competitive in their presentations, price and expertise. Commissioner Carlson suggested that the Town Planning Collaborative not be interviewed since they were much more expensive than all the other firms that responded and that they were not well know for projects in the Metropolitan area. Commissioner Welsch shared an article regarding the Town Planning Collaborative's work in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Terhark suggested that the EDC could give them an • opportunity to revise their plan to be more competitive. Commissioner Sjoberg suggested that 1 there was an adequate number of proposals to choose from and moved not to interview Town Planning Collaborative. Motion/Second: Sjoberg/Carlson moved not to interview Town Planning Collaborative since • there was an adequate number of qualified proposals submitted Motion Carried 6 ayes 0 nays 5. EDC BUSINESS No EDC Business 6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff: Coordinator Bennett noted the special meeting to interview the remaining proposals is scheduled for Tuesday, October 29, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, 0 . Economic Development Coordinator Yui' w M �*�+� a i 3 ...4.: „ > a "s' Li: f c if.;7- , ,. , 4 ,L k7 • ,1a] "O'er' :•r� • 2 Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View • Ramsey County, Minnesota Regular Meeting A, " r 1 n September 26, 1996 a= City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:37 a.m. by Chairperson, Dan Nelson. 2. Roll Call: Members present were as follows: Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Dan Nelson, Brian Sjoberg, Ron Schmidt. Members Delane Welsch and Bev Terhark and EDA Liaison Sue Hankner and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent. Economic Development Coordinator Cathy Bennett was present. 3. Approval Of Minutes: Motion/Second: Goff/Sjoberg moved approval of Minutes of August 22, 1996 Meeting as amended. • Motion Carried 4 ayes 0 nays 4. Special Business No Special Business • 5. A. Consideration of Draft Recommendations for Improved Communication Between the EDC and EDA Coordinator Bennett presented recommendations for improved communications between the EDC and EDA that are a compilation of what was discussed at the August EDC meeting. Commissioners made minor revisions to both documents and requested that these recommendations be discussed with the EDA at the September work session for comment. Motion/Second: Goff/Sjoberg moved to approve recommendations for improved communication between the EDA and EDC as amended and forwarded to the EDA for comment. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays • 1 B. Consideration of Draft Request for Proposal for Professional Services Coordinator Bennett noted that on September 9th, the EDA approved Resolution no. 96- EDA51 Authorizing the Economic Development Commission to work on a request for proposal and solicit bids for the development of a vision and schematic plan for highway 10 redevelopment area, section 9. With the ideas that were generated by the EDC at the August meeting, Coordinator Bennett presented a draft RFP and a list of consultants that are located in the Twin.Cities. Coordinator Bennett noted that if approved she would mail the RFP's to consultants the first week in October with a submission deadline of October 16. Commissioners made minor revisions to the background section and scope of the study. Motion/Second: Carlson/Goff moved to approve the request for proposal as amended Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays C. Consideration of Loan Request from Addie Lane Floral Commissioner Carlson provided an overview of a request from Carol and Dean Johnson DBA Addie Lane Floral for a loan in the total amount of$33,145. The loan request is to expand the current floral business, located in Silver View Plaza, to include the serving of Espresso, Brewed Coffee and Danish. The loan would be used to purchase espresso equipment, espresso cart, plumbing, electrical and remodeling work,wire racks and beginning inventory. Mounds View's participation would include $16,750 at 2%interest for 8 years. The basic strategy for the loan • includes goals of increasing floral sales and profit margin and increase the customer base by offering another product and service not currently offered in the immediate area. Commissioner Carlson reviewed the company and personal financial statements and noted a bank risk rating of 4 "watch" due to several factors such as the tight margin to repay debt with heavy reliance on projections rather than strong collateral. The commission discussed the business loan program's purpose for interior and exterior improvement and were concerned that this request did not technically fit into the current criteria. In addition, the commission was concerned that the request was for 100% financing with no existing business or personal equity and were unsure regarding the market to support the projections which has a direct impact on the repayment ability of the loan. The current collateral would be enough to repay bank loan but due to the City's second position there would be limited to no funds to pay back the City's half. The commission noted that Addie Lane Floral and the owners Carol and Dean Johnson have been a great asset to the community both in their floral service business and volunteer activities with Festival in the Park, Marketing Task Force and Chamber. The Commission would like to assist the company but it may not be in the best interest of the City at this time. One suggestion included reconsidering the loan package if the Johnson's could identify an additional guarantor who could inject and pledge at least $10,000 of additional collateral. Motion/Second: Nelson/Goff moved to deny the current request for $16,500 City loan based upon historical repayment ability and lack of strong secondary repayment source. The 2 -1,v a 4.0 r , , t commission would reconsider the loan package if there was the addition of a guarantor who has adequate financial strength and would pledge additional collateral in the amount of at least S $10,000. Motion Carried 4 ayes 0 nays 1 abstain D. Discussion of Sample Tax Increment Financing Application and Review of Guidelines for the Analysis of the Sample Application Motion/Second: Schmidt/Sjoberg moved to table this item due to time constraints. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff: Commissioner Schmidt mentioned that he had talked with the Owner of Win Insurance Agency located on the corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10 and that he was actively trying to market his property. Coordinator Bennett mentioned that she received a call from him and updated him on the proposed study of this area of Highway 10. Chairperson Nelson noted that the next meeting would be on October 24, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment • There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 8:50 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, i ------- . Economic Development Coordinator II r. _-i ... r r' , j 7 , 7-� `_ . a a 3 • Staff Memo To: Economic Development Commission Members • From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development Date: November 15, 1996 Agenda Item: Update on Contract for Professional Services for the (5.A.) Study of Highway 10, Section 9 with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The EDA unanimously approved the negotiation and execution of a contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the study of Highway 10, Section 9. The approved amount • is not to exceed $25,000 per Resolution No. 96-EDA56 as attached. I met with Barry Warner and Patrick Peters on Wednesday to go over desired portions of their proposed scope of work. They will be preparing a revised scope of work, timeline and contract and deliver copies to me on Monday or Tuesday. I will bring copies of the revised scope of work and timeline to the EDC meeting for discussion and comment. SRF is interested in having the EDC play a major role in the process and would like to schedule one meeting per month to focus on the study. S MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY • RESOLUTION NO. 96-EDA56 COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHWAY 10, SECTION 9 It is hereby resolved by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board") of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority (the "Authority") as follows: 1. RECITALS: (a) the Authority has the powers provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.124 and 469.090 to 469.108 (collectively the "Act"). (b) Pursuant to and in furtherance of the objectives of the Act, the Authority has • undertaken a program to promote development and redevelopment of certain land within the City of Mounds View and in this connection is engaged in carrying out the Mounds View Economic Development Project (the "Project") within the City. (c) There has been approved pursuant to the Act a Project Plan for the Project. (d) The redevelopment and development of property within the Project are stated objectives of the Project Plan. (e) In order to achieve the objectives of the Project Plan, the Authority has determined the need to contract with urban design, planning, transportation, engineering, land use and environmental professional service companies to aid and assist in the redevelopment and development of property within the Project. (f) The Authority desires to study approximately 33 acres of land located in the City along Highway 10 between County Road I and Spring Lake Road (the "Section 9 Study Area") which has been identified as a priority area for redevelopment within the City. (g) It has been recommended by the Mounds View Economic Development Commission (the "Commission"), an advisory group to the Authority, to enter into a contract for professional services (the "Contract") with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to complete a • study of the Section 9 Study Area for an amount not to exceed $25,000. EDA RESOLUTION NO. 96-EDA56 PAGE TWO OF TWO 2. The Board hereby determines that the Authority's negotiation and execution of a Contract would be in furtherance of the Project Plan and hereby approves and authorizes said actions, including the negotiation and execution of the Contract by the officers of the Authority in their discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate. 3. Upon final negotiation, execution and delivery of the Contract, the officers and employees of the Authority (including members of the City staff and Commission, acting in their capacity as staff to the Authority as well) are hereby authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be appropriate or necessary on behalf of the Authority to implement the Contract which is being accomplished for redevelopment purposes. 4. The Board hereby determines that the negotiation, execution and performance of the Contract will help realize the public purposes of the Act and are in furtherance of the Plan. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Mounds View Economic Development Authority on November 12, 1996. Al-FEST: /.41WP° 1 President (SEAL) I Executive Director I • Staff Memo To: Economic Development Commission Members From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development Date: November 15, 1996 Agenda Item: Discussion of Sample Tax Increment Financing (5.B.) Application/Guidelines for Analysis of Tax Increment Assistance This item was tabled at the September 26th regular meeting due to a lack of time. Therefore, I am bringing the item back for discussion. • Included is an application for a new commercial development. I have completed the application and perhaps we can, as a group, go through and assign points through the Guidelines for Analysis of TIF Assistance Form. Each member may want to complete the form prior to the meeting so that we can discuss different interpretations of the points and information on the application. The easiest test is a project of this sort. If this is successful, then we can proceed with more difficult projects such as housing and redevelopment. • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW DRAFT APPLICATION FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING s PROJECT: 1. Business Name: X y z Address: X y z Telephone #: x Z - 5 5-55 Contact: L-114 K, X 2. Brief Description of the Business. (Please provide# of years in business under current ownership and # of years in Mounds View) . , xyz etontp - ha6 b—.. ati lot )yuLoA six P . � y • Ll, 4 & Alla • [. 46 ALA t _ _ i - J LLX�) • 3. Present Ownership of the Site: ill410_,Lia At Z '� of " w t L '1 D LL(chi l/ 3 cwtL. e.91 C�-,-��^V i n� "YV`�rat.( n C� L1 r e.Li. (iv fir. 4. Present Project: Building square footage, location of project, size of property, description of buildings - materials, etc. Attach site plan, if available . 010()0 5•t. rAk g oC -- Li..-LL wt+�1 t v�` ( lax) a 'Y A - tr , , i , � ;s / A T.. LI _Z _*YR , C t.rt 4ae Q_ VO Lt s 1x2 '1 circ t rind ' Nc CLL. ak(U Lj ni .ch o V btr 5. If Property is to be Subdivided, Show Division Planned. U Sta�o c i kts t C� �� S DRAFT - September 4, 1996 (Attachment "A" Cont.) 4. Estimated Project Costs: (please enclose construction performa, if available.) a. Land Acquisition $ , ( 000 0 b. Site Development G S .0 .t�r c> 7+$ f� I g C) c. Building Cost <1�e U cs4 >$ OO U d. Equipment $ r) e. Architectural & Engineering Fees $ , [} 06 CD , f. Legal Fees --/ $ 6 g. Financing Cost $ IJO66 C) h. Broker Costs $ ,di (C.G U I. Contingencies $ c. v OO 0 j. Other(please specify) A1C $ 9'/; 7)0 U Total $ i 6 3 Q) D 0 1 I 7. Total Estimate Market Value at Completion $ /.'7 m1Liiyu 8. Submit an Itemized List of Eligible Costs Qualifying for Assistance (see page 1 of Tax Increment Policy). 9. Sources of FinancingIIII �l a. Equity V$ 1 �i 3 b. Bank Loan $ 5?"( ' ,-.5Z) c. Tax Increment Assistance $ d. Industrial Revenue Bonds $ e. Other (please specify source) 5"i3'3 (cx t v $ le 5-2-4, S_GC) 10. Form of Tax Increment Financing Assistance Requested. .X Pay As You Go Bond Issuance Excess Increment 11. Name & Address of Architect, Engineer, and General Contractor. • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 (Attachment"A" Cont.) 12. Estimated Real Estate Taxes on Project Site upon Completion of Project. (please show calculations.) `9.,Doo � �.nx A c .^ 13. Project Construction Schedule: rr^ a. Construction start date l�'1 HA2 rt" b. Construction completion date (Cf17 c. If phased project: Year % Complete Year % Complete 14. Estimated Number of Jobs: Created /0 (within 2 yrs) Retained /O 15. Average Annual Wage Level of Jobs Created (pCO J (within 2 yrs) Retained ,_?5; a)a • 16. Is Job Training Assistance Needed? /Uc3 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REQUEST: 1. Describe amount, term and purpose for which tax increment financing is required and how the project fits into the City's economic development and redevelopment goals and objectives_ �. wt C u.V t C'►� Q 0 ,330 1 pum e.vo-- t_ca i7K.01 crit A. _ ./ I .IL / L _ ' lac .A _ A. L : C, ! S tj1 :t�j1 .0 .Q CQ,� - �yt 1 L4r) i :537 a;UG 4-y? Y i c CUL Le Gu l 1 LtiaLC,a'�'Iefti tri t.t_.t-t- X1,1,_ 2. Staterfient oiP necessity for use of tax increment financing for project. 1 0 M.06 1 h trA./24i a a I C /O /LQ --LILAAri ems( b\_Q_ ( tc,. C U 6Lt :t f z t- rc An"4,OAIA -t_.tAx\ t-ez DRAFT - September 4, 1996 3. Describe the Potential for Growth. - . 0, • Z L _♦ • ' f`. �k 11K-LNLZ i -A L' I 4 n (%co) ) r O 1,+,L-) I p.-/C.)1 A 1 , - 1 `�j � 4��G�-C2�J j��. , 1 CJs 4. What is the Return on Equity Invested that you need to make the project feasible, u-uya j) 1b70 5. If Rental Space, What is the Range of Tar:eted Rental Rates: X vi 9,{tx_LD i i CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION GUIDELINE IN THE ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE FOR NAME OF APPLICANT 111 Note: The EDC acts as an advistory to the Economic Development Authority who is the governing body, legal and political, for all Date Reviewed disbusements and approvals of tax increment funds. This document serves as a guideline to asstist the EDC in making judgements for the Total Score use of tax increment funds. There may be projects that do not financially score high but meet or exceed the economic development Result of Analysis and redevelopment goals and objectives for the City of Mounds View. There may also be projects that financially score high but do not meet or are not compatable with the goals and objectives. • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 1. PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE INVESTMENT • Private Investment TIF/Public Investment Total Investment Ratio of public vs. private investment Point Private Public Value + 1 Less than $3 to $1 + 2 Over$3 to $1 + 3 Over$4 to $1 +4 Over$6 to $1 + 5 Over$8 to $1 2. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (Computed as full time equivalent positions) • Point Number Value + 1 > 1 - 15 + 2 > 16 - 30 + 3 > 31 - 45 +4 > 46 - 75 + 5 > 75 - plus Current Number of Employees Estimated Number of New Employees (within the next 2 years) Total Number of Current and Estimated New Employees • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 3. PUBLIC INVESTMENT PER CURRENT EMPLOYEE Point • Value INVESTMENT 0 $12,500 + + 1 $10,000 - $12,500 + 2 $7,500 - $10,000 + 3 $5,000 - $7,500 + 4 $2,500 - $5,000 + 5 $ 0 - $2,500 TIF/Public Investment $ Current Number of Employees Investment per Employee = $ 4. ANNUAL PAY LEVEL OF POSITIONS Point Annual Dollar Total # of Weighted Value Salary Weighting Employees Dollar Amt. 0 $ 0 - 14,999 $10,000 + 1 $15,000 - 24,999 $20,000 + 2 $25,000 - 29,999 $27,500 + 3 $30,000 - 44,999 $37,500 + 4 $45,000- 59,999 $52,000 + 5 $60,000 and Over $60,000 Total Full Time Equivalent Weighted Average • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 5. REAL ESTATE/PROPERTY TAXES GENERATED (projected tax revenues should be bases on the existing property tax system and rates plus legislative . future changes if subject to estimation.) Point Total Projected Value Annual Taxes + 1 Below$25,000 +2 $25,000 - $49,000 + 3 $50,000 - $99,999 +4 $100,000 - $249,999 + 5 $250,000 and Over 6. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MULTIPLIER Point * Provide Comments regarding Value Type of Development subjective public benefits of project. + 0 Retail • +2 Office + 3 Office/ Service (50/50) + 3 Value Added (retail with significant service component) + 4 Industrial -2 Activity Not Contributing to Tax Base +1 Company/Corporate Headquarters - location of upper management where decisions are made (add 1 pt to above) +1 Target Business +1 - +3 Elimination of Blight (add points to above value) Total Point Value * SERVICE IMPACT DRAFT - September 4, 1996 Point Value Type of Development • - 4.0 Retail - 3.5 Office/Warehouse Service - 3.0 Hi Tech - 2.0 Office 8. FORM OF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED (within TIF District 1, 2, and 3) Point Value - 2 Up-Front + 5 Pay-As-You-Go 9. FORM OF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED (within City but outside of TIF Districts) • Point Value - 2 One-Time Payment + 1 3 Annual Payments + 2 4 Annual Payments + 3 5 Annual Payments • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 10. WORKSHEET SUMMARY • POINT VALUE Public versus Private Staff Pt.Value Number of Employees EDC Pt. Value Public Investment per Employee Pay Level of Positions Comments: Real Estate/Property Taxes Generated • Significant Impact Multiplier Service Impact Form of TIF Assistance Required Total Points 11. RATING FOR PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN TIF DISTRICTS 1, 2, AND 3 • Point Value Term of Assistance 0-10 0 Years 11 - 13 3 Years - or- Remaining life of TIF District, whichever is less 14 - 16 5 Years - or- Remaining life of TIF District, whichever is less 17 - 20 7 Years - or- Remaining life of TIF District, whichever is less 21 and Over 10 Years - or- Remaining life of TIF District, whichever is less • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 12. RATING FOR PROJECTS IN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OUTSIDE OF TIF DISTRICT) (1) Building Size: Square Foot Cost of Project: (Land & Building) Project (2 ) Per S.F. Cost Per S.F. Allowance $20.00 - $30.00 $3.00 $30.01 - $40.00 $4.00 $40.01 - $50.00 $5.00 OVER $50.01 $6.00 Points (3) Percent of Accumulated Assistance 11 - 13 30% 14 - 16 50% 17 - 20 70% 21 & OVER 100% S.F. of Bldg: (1) $ X S.F. Allowance (2) $ X % of Assistance: (3) Equals Amount Of Ac ot-nce. • DRAFT - September 4, 1996 • Staff Memo To: Economic Development Commission Members From: Cathy Bennett, Director of Economic Development Date: November 15, 1996 Agenda Item: Discussion of Planning Commission and EDA's (5.C.) Comments Regarding EDC's Recommendation for Improved Communication Between the EDC and EDA Chairman Dan Nelson discussed the EDC's recommendations for improve communication with the EDA at the September 30, 1996 work session. Generally, the ideas of the EDC were well received. There was some discussion regarding strong EDA liaison attendance at meetings and an alternate suggestion was presented. Dan and I will summarize the comments of the EDA at the upcoming meeting. The EDC recommendations were shared with the Planning Commission and they responded with a similar memo to the Council. I have attached a copy of the memo that was distributed to the Council by the Planning Commission for your review. In addition, the two commissions will begin sharing agendas and minutes on a regular basis. Possibly a joint meeting in December and/or January would also be helpful. • air f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section LO STAFF REPORT Report Number: 7P- I 45* ag:;CZ; Report Date: 10/10/96 WORKSESSION MEETING DATE • November 4, 1996 Item Description: Discussion of feedback from Planning Commission on City Council liaison role and improving communication. Administrator's Review/Recommendation: -No Comments to supplement this report -Comments attached. Explanation/Summary(attach supplement sheets as necessary) Summary: At the City Council study session on September 30, the subject of Council-Commission relations and the role of the Council liaisons was discussed. The chairman of the Economic Development Commission was at the meeting and expressed a desire for closer communication between the City Council and the EDC. Several ideas for improving communication between the Council and all the Commissions were discussed. The City Council requested that feedback be obtained from the various commissions on the ideas presented by the Economic Development Commission and any other suggestions Commission members might want to make. he Planning Commission discussed this issue on October 2, and has prepared a memorandum to City Council. This memorandum is attached. Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director O PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View City Council From: Mounds View Planning Commission Subject: Improving Communications Between City Council and the Commissions Date: October 10, 1996 We understand that the City Council is interested in feedback on how communication could be improved between the City Council and City Commissions, prompted by discussions with Dan Nelson, chairman of the Economic Development Commission, at your September 30 work session. Part of this discussion concerned the role and responsibilities of the liaison who is appointed by City Council to each Commission. There was also a list of suggestions made by the Economic Development Commission on other ways to improve communications. • We have discussed this issue at our October 2 meeting and would like to offer the following comments and recommendations. Role of the Liaison: The Planning Commission feels it is very important that the liaison appointed to the Planning Commission attend our meetings. If it is a question of time, we would recommend that the liaison give first priority to attending the agenda or discussion meetings which occur on the third Wednesday of the month. The work of the Planning Commission is concerned with the future fabric of the community, and we invest considerable time and thoughtful deliberation on each case presented to us. We feel it is very important that a Council member be present to be aware of the issues explored and points of view expressed, so this information can be conveyed to the remainder of the City Council when a case is before you for decision. Without a Council liaison, we feel the Council may not fully appreciate all aspects of a case and that this understanding is important in making decisions on these matters. At the very Ieast, we want each of the Commissions to be treated the same in the level of commitment given by the liaison to coming to Commission meetings. This commitment has been somewhat uneven, depending on who was serving.as the liaison. • Mounds Yew City Council Communication between Council and Commissions October 10, 1996 Page 2 Other Ideas for Improving Communication: 1. We think that it would be advantageous for a Planning Commissioner to be present at those City Council meetings where the more complicated or controversial planning cases or variance appeals will be heard, at the discretion of the Planning Commission The reasons for this suggestion are similar to those discussed above. Our ability to present the Commission's basis for our recommendation would assist the Council in.your decision making role, and we would be present to answer questions from City Council about how we arrived at this recommendation. We have been concerned in the past that applicants have sometimes misrepresented what happened at the Planning Commission meeting in • their comments to the City Council. 2. We agree that an annual or biannual joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council would aid in the communication of goals and objectives. One of these meetings could include a tour of the city, during which significant development sites could be viewed as well as the physical results of previous Commission and Council decisions. The tour may not be necessary every year and could be planned as development dictates. It has been the Council's practice in the past to hold a discussion of goals and issues each year with the Commissions, and we would urge that this be continued. 3. We see a lot of potential in the idea of joint meetings between the Planning Commission and the Economic Development Commission when a project needs to be reviewed by both bodies. We would like to meet with the I-DC to develop this idea further. 4. We would appreciate receiving the minutes from the EDC as a way to stay informed about potential development projects. Sincerely, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION Jerry Peterson, Chairman • Minutes of the Economic Development Commission City of Mounds View • Ramsey County, Minnesota Regular Meeting November 21, 1996 City of Mounds View, Council Chambers 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m. by Vice Chairperson, Cindy Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Members present were as follows: Cindy Carlson, Rosemary Goff, Brian Sjoberg and Ron Schmidt. Members Dan Nelson, Delane Welsch and Bev Terhark and EDA Liaison Sue Hankner and Alternate Liaison Gary Quick were absent. Economic Development Coordinator Cathy Bennett was present. 3. Approval Of Minutes: Motion/Second: Goff/Sjoberg moved approval of Minutes of September 26, 1996 and October 24, 1996 Regular Meetings and October 29, 1996 Special Meeting. • Motion Carried 4 ayes 0 nays 4. Special Business No Special Business 5. EDC BUSINESS A. Update on Contract for Professional Services for the Study of Highway 10, Section with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Director Bennett noted that she met with representatives of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. To establish a scope of services within the approved $25,000 budget. The contract, revised scope of services and time line as handed out to EDC members for review. Bennett mentioned the importance of EDC participation throughout this process and wanted to make a note of the proposed dates for meetings to discuss the progress of the study process. Motion/Second: Carlson/Schmidt moved to approve the contract for services with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. and the revised time line for the Highway 10, Section 9 Study. Motion Carried 4 ayes 0 nays • B. Discussion of Sample Tax Increment Financing Application/Guidelines for Analysis of Tax Increment Assistance. • Vice Chair Carlson suggested that the EDC take more time to review the Application/Guideline form but that it would be worthwhile to bring the draft policy and deposit agreement back for approval without incorporating the Application/Guideline form at the December or January meeting. Director Bennett mentioned that if there was not going to be a December meeting if we could try and bring the information back at the January or February meeting. C. Discussion of Planning Commission and EDA's Comments Regarding EDC's Recommendations for Improved Communication Between the EDC and EDA. Director Bennett explained that this item was once again discussed at the Council since the Planning Commission also made comments regarding Communication between Commissions and the Council. It was decided that this would be a topic of discussion with the new Council at the goal setting retreat sometime in early 1997. 6. Reports From Chair, Commissioners and Staff: No Reports 7. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, this meeting of the Economic Development Commission adjourned at 9:25 a.m. • Respectfully Submitter l Director of Econ is Development • 1