HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA
February 25, 1999
7:30 A.M.
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL - "BACK" CONFERENCE ROOM
I. CALL TO ORDER 1 136 A.M.
2. ROLL CALL (Present = P, Absent = A)
arlsonMarty/
L1/4/off L/ Thomason (EDA Liaison)
ieId a Dorgan (Staff)
V Kahn (/ Jopke (Staff)
(/Olsen t/ Carroll (Staff)
i"Walther
3. APPROVE EDC MINUTES
January 28, 1999 and February 17, 1999(1-i-:‘ Action: Motion (7tii1
"yi .49 Second (-i L�2 if-eS �/�'� s l
�, ti Vote ,71,I> `
'. �,.. 4. SPECIAL BUSINESS f�G ) II vvA4,,ti 4_
t A. Election of Officers--- �` (^
► B. Adoption of Meeting Schedule '\ /V' '
C. Review of Bylaws
5. EDC BUSINESS / k( ,
A. Mermaid Hotel/Banquet Center (Update)
B. Comprehensive Guide Plan (Economic Development section)
6. Report of Commissioners, Staff and EDA Liaison
7. ADJOURN -, 3 ' P.M.
Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: March 25, 1999
III
N:\DATA\GROUPS\E C O N D EV\EDA-EDC\E D C\AG E N DA99\AG E N 0225.E D C
i To: Economic Development Commission Members
From: Kevin Carroll, Economic Development Coordinator MEMORANDUM
Subject: Election of Officers;Adoption of Meeting Schedule;
Review of Bylaws
Date: February 22, 1999
Election of Officers
City Code Chapter 408, subd. 1 provides that the EDC shall annually appoint a chair, a
vice-chair and"such other [officers] as"needed, subject to EDA approval. The Chair and
- Vice-Chair,respectively, are currently Cindy Carlson and Rosemary Goff. Chapter 408
provides that no member may serve as Chair for more than two consecutive terms. It is
my understanding that 1998 was Ms. Carlson's first year as Chair, so she would be
eligible to serve as Chair again if re-elected. Commissioners Carlson and Goff have each
expressed a willingness to continue serving in their current capacities.
The EDC members can collectively decide what level of formality will be used to elect
officers. At the"low end" [of formality] would be a motion to reappoint the current
• officers "by acclamation" (unanimous consent). The"high end"would involve opening
the floor for nominations for Chair, followed by a motion to close nominations and a vote
of that motion, followed by the actual voting for Chair(ordinarily by voice vote or, in the
event that there are multiple nominations, by written ballot). The same process would
then be followed for the election of the Vice-Chair.
Adoption of Meeting Schedule
Chapter 408, subd. 2 requires that EDC meetings be held at times "which the [EDC] shall
fix by resolution."I have previously indicated my belief that this is a somewhat useless
formality, given thefactthat-the-Bylaws already-specify-that-the--meetings-are-to-beheld
on the fourth Thursday of each month, and given the additional fact that special meetings
have to be scheduled from time to time anyway. However,there seems to be a"tradition"
of doing this, so a proposed EDC resolution has been attached for your review. Given the
fact that the EDC now has two new(and two other"relatively new")members, this may
be an appropriate time for the EDC to determine whether a majority of the EDC wants to
continue meeting at the current day and time.
•
Bylaws
Chapter 408, subd. 6 requires that the EDC Bylaws be reviewed on an annual basis at the
first regular meeting in February. I believe that I have previously provided all of you
• with copies of the current Bylaws, but if you need an additional copy,please call me at
717-4029 at your earliest convenience. No proposed changes to the Bylaws have been
■
• suggested to date, so I have taken the liberty of preparing a Resolution that mirrors those
that have been adopted in past years. This does not, of course, preclude anyone from
suggesting Bylaw revisions at the upcoming meeting.
.AAL ILi
K-yinCarroll .12-717-4029)
Economic Development Coordinator
1111
•
•
N:\DATAGROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\EDC\STAFF99\022599A.MEM
■
•
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDC-26
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CALENDAR OF MEETING DATES FOR 1999
WHEREAS, The Mounds View Economic Development Commission plans to hold one business
meeting per month throughout 1999, with the exception of Special Meetings; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a list of meeting dates provides an orderly system of advance
notification for the benefit of the EDC, City staff and the general public;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Economic Development Commission hereby
0 adopts the calendar of 1999 meeting dates attached hereto.
Adopted this 25th day of February, 1999.
ATTEST: ti �-. I
hair
(SEAL)
City Administrator
• N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\EDC\RES98\RES99-26.EDC
• CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTCOMMISSION
1999 MEETING DATES
January 28, .1999
February 17, 1999
(Special Meeting, 6:00 p.m.)
February 25, 1999
March 25, 1999
April 22, 1999
May 27, 1999
• June 24, 1999
July 22, 1999
August 26, 1999
September 23, 1999
October 28, 1999
Ok
Novemb 24, 1999 v`'i
(Tentative-- regu meeting date
of 11-25-99 falls on Thankgiving)
Decemb23, 1999
(All meetings will be held at Mounds View City Hall at 7:30 a.m. unless otherwise noted)
•
N.\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\99EDCMT.DOC
S
MOUNDS VIEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-EDC-27
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BYLAWS
WHEREAS, Chapter 408 of the Municipal Code specifies that the Economic Development
Commission review its Bylaws on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission has conducted a review of its Bylaws;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Economic Development Commission of the
City of Mounds View hereby approves the current Bylaws for use during 1999.
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Economic Development Commission directs staff to
forward this Resolution to the Economic Development Authority.
Adopted this 25th day of February, 1999.
ATTEST: (-144,1
49r1,‘:-.- W--- (>
- hair
(SEAL)
City Administrator
•
N:\DATA\G ROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\EDC\RES98\RES99-27.EDC
4
To: Economic Development Commission Members
• From: Kevin Carroll, Economic Development Coordinator MEMORANDUM
Subject: Mermaid Hotel/Banquet Center
[Development Agreement]
Date: February 22, 1999
The EDC's thoughts and recommendations [summary attached for your review] regarding the
proposed Mermaid project were discussed at a City Council work session on February I,
1999. Dan Hall and his attorney, Chris Berndt, were in attendance. At the conclusion of that
meeting, and also during a subsequent City Council meeting on February 16th, the Council
members commented on the type(s) of additional information that they would like to obtain in
order to be in a better position to make a decision regarding the working draft of the
proposed Development Agreement. Mr. Hall and Mr. Berndt are now in the process of
assembling the information in question, and they tentatively plan to make it available to the
Council at or before its work session on March I st or at or before its regular meeting on
March 8th.
1111 The role that the EDC will play in reviewing and/or commenting upon any new information
provided by the Developer may need some clarification. The EDC's next regularly scheduled
meeting will not take place until 3-25-99, which is more than two weeks after the last of the
two dates on which the Developer intends to present its new information to the City Council.
Given the significance of this particular project, the EDC may want to consider another special
meeting(or two) in order to perform its advisory function. In any event, I intend to provide
you with relevant portions of any new submissions from the Developer as I receive them, so
that you will be "up to speed" and therefore better able to advise the Council/EDA should the
opportunity arise.
In this regard, I have enclosed excerpts from a recently received Supplemental Update to a
Marketing Analysis & Economic Feasibility Study that was originally conducted at the Halls'
request in December of 1995. The entire Supplement(which I have been told cost about
$7000) is about 50 pages, and the original Study(which cost about$15,000) is roughly I 'h
inches thick or at least 300 pages long, by my estimation. If you'd like to examine either of the
originals, please call me and let me know. The Supplement is short enough for me to copy
for you, upon request. However, the original Study has so many maps, photos and other
graphics that it would be very difficult to copy or replace, 30 Dan Hall has asked that it be
reviewed at City Hall rather than being "loaned out."
The City Council has indicated that it would appreciate the EDC's opinion regarding an issue
that the EDC has not had sufficient time to consider thus far: the question of whether the
Developer's principals [presumably Charlie Hall and Dan Hall] should be required to provide
the City with personal guarantees as a prerequisite to any tax increment financing that the City
might provide. The related questions include the following:
■
I. How often are personal guarantees required in connection with projects of this type? •
2. Under what circumstances would a personal guarantee be potentially needed or
useful?
3. As a practical matter, what steps would have to be taken to enforce a personal
guarantee, what types of costs (if any)would the City incur in doing so, and what is the
likelihood that the City would realize a"net recovery"from such action(s)?
4. To what extent is a "personal guarantee requirement" inconsistent with or contrary to
the business considerations that often prompt developers to use "limited liability" legal
entities (partnerships and corporations)?
In order to provide you with some objective information regarding this issue, I intend to discuss it with
Dave Maroney of Community Partners. Mr. Maroney is a consultant who has advised the City with
respect to certain other aspects of the Mermaid project. I will convey his comments to you at the
meeting on Thursday. Ultimately, the EDC's options with respect to this issue would seem to
include:
I. Recommending in favor of mandatory personal guarantees.
2. Recommending against mandatory personal guarantees.
3. Agreeing to take no position with respect to the issue in question.
4. Deferring a decision of the issue until a future date and/or until more information
becomes available.
As always, please feel free to call me between now and Thursday if you'd like to discuss any of these
items.
K- '• Carroll (6 I - 17-4029)
Economic Development Coordinator
•
N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\EDC\STAFF99\02259B.MEM
■
. �I
Item No.
• Meeting Date: 2-01-99
Staff Report No.
Type of Business:HE
WK Work Session;PH:Public Hearing;
CA:Consent Agenda;EDAB:EDA Business
Mounds View City Council
Work Session Staff Report
To: Mounds View City Council
From: Kevin Carroll,Economic Development Coordinator
Item Title/Subject: Mermaid HotelBanquet Center (Development Agreement)
Date of Report: January 29, 1999
•
The latest draft of the Development Agreement regarding the Mermaid project was discussed by the
members of the EDC at a meeting that was held on January 28, 1999. The meeting was also attended by
EDA liaison Lynne Thomason, city staff members Chuck Whiting,Rick Jopke and Kevin Carroll,Dan
Hall[on behalf of the Developer], and Mr.Hall's attorney,Mr. Chris Berndt
• At the conclusion of the discussion,the EDC members authorized me to prepare a written summary of
their comments for the benefit of the City Council and/or EDA. My summary has been reviewed and
unanimously approved by all of the EDC members.It is followed by copies of the material that was
distributed to the EDC members in advance of the 1-28-99 meeting. The EDC comments that appear
below are being provided to the City Council/EDA pursuant to Municipal Code Sec. 408.02, which
provides (in part)that
The[Economic Development] Commission shall serve as an advisory commission to the
Economic Development Authority...on matters relating to fostering a positive economic climate,
encouraging economic development and enhancing the tax base of the City. The Commission
shall also make recommendations to the Authority regarding retention and expansion of existing
businesses...[and]redevelopment..:opportunities:...
Summary of EDC Comments/Recommendations:
1. The EDC's interest in and support of the proposed redevelopment project has been favorably
affected by the information that the Developer recently provided regarding the anticipated
ownership/management structure. The original plans seemed to envision multiple"outside"
investors, separate ownership of various real estate parcels, and separate management of the hotel,
banquet center and restaurant components of the completed project The current plans seem to
unify ownership/management of the affected real estate and the various business operations, which
will presumably make it easier to evaluate the overall financial aspects of the proposal and to
predict the project's ultimate market value,taxable valuation and property taxes.
2: The EDC has concluded that the proposed Mermaid Hotel/Banquet Center project would provide
a variety of benefits to the City of Mounds View including,but not limited to: lodging of a type
and on a scale not presently available in Mounds View;banquet facilities that would accommodate
pPPir, Council Memo
January 29, 1999
Page 2
•
more(and larger)groups than can presently be handled by the City's other privately and publicly
owned facilities; 75-80 new jobs;"spin off'business from hotel and banquet center patrons; a
significantly enhanced commercial tax base;visual and other aesthetic improvements to the
"Gateway to Mounds View;"and new opportunities to improve the Highway 10 corridor and
stormwater drainage/treatment in the vicinity of the redevelopment project
3. The EDC has concluded that the benefits listed above, and other actual or potential benefits,justify
some level of City financial assistance if the project cannot or will not move forward in the
absence of such assistance.
4. The EDC believes that the type and amount of any financial assistance provided by the City should
be based upon several factors, including(but not limited to)the Developer's need for such
assistance,the City's ability to provide the requested financing,the amount of risk involved(from
the City's perspective), and the extent to which the language of the proposed Development
Agreement eliminates or minimizes any such risks.
5. Based upon(among other things)the preliminary financial information provided by the Developer
and the fact that no hotel or banquet facility construction has been initiated at the Mermaid to date
(despite the fact that such improvements have been contemplated and discussed for several years),
it appears to the EDC that the Developer needs city financial assistance to complete the
redevelopment in question.
6. However,inasmuch as some of the assumptions underlying the Developer's original written
Banquet Center/Hotel"Investment Analysis"have changed,the EDC recommends that at some
point(to be determined by the EDA)in this process the Developer should be required to revise or
update that Analysis to reflect more current facts,circumstances and assumptions. The EDC
believes that the revisions and/or updates should include substantially more information and
supporting documentation than has been received to date. The operating income/expense
projections should be specific enough to enable a qualified financial consultant to conduct a
meaningful investment return analysis.
7. The information initiallyprovidedby the Developer characterizedownerequity as"cash." The
Developer has now clarified that reference by indicating that the Developer will be pledging its
equity in the existingfacility as equity for the redevelopment project,rather than investing
additional cash. The contributed equity will be pledged as collateral for the Developer's other
financing, and will provide assurance to the Developer's lender(s)and to the EDA that the
Developer has a significant investment at risk. Accordingly,the EDC recommends that the
Development Agreement be revised by deleting the provisions requiring the Developer to invest
"cash equity"as a prerequisite to receiving reimbursement from the City for project-related costs.
8. The Developer has estimated that the current owners' equity in the Mermaid facility is
approximately$4 million(after deducting existing indebtedness of approximately$750,000.00).
The Developer has indicated that a new appraisal is now underway,which will provide more
specific information regarding the value of the existing facility. The EDC believes that said value,
along with the value created by the new construction(having projected construction costs of
approximately$7.5 million), should provide a new market value in an amount significantly greater
than the$5.9 million valuation that was previously used to calculate anticipated tax receipts and,
rillir
Council Memo
January 29, 1999
Page 2
more(and larger)groups than can presently be handled by the City's other privately and publicly
owned facilities; 75-80 new jobs;"spin off'business from hotel and banquet center patrons; a
significantly enhanced commercial tax base;visual and other aesthetic improvements to the
"Gateway to Mounds View;"and new opportunities to improve the Highway 10 corridor and
stormwater drainage/treatment in the vicinity of the redevelopment project
3. The EDC has concluded that the benefits listed above, and other actual or potential benefits,justify
some level of City financial assistance if the project cannot or will not move forward in the
absence of such assistance.
4. The IDC believes that the type and amount of any financial assistance provided by the City should
be based upon several factors,including(but not limited to)the Developer's need for such
assistance,the City's ability to provide the requested financing,the amount of risk involved(from
the City's perspective), and the extent to which the language of the proposed Development
Agreement eliminates or minimizes any such risks.
5. Based upon(among other things)the preliminary financial information provided by the Developer
and the fact that no hotel or banquet facility construction has been initiated at the Mermaid to date
(despite the fact that such improvements have been contemplated and discussed for several years),
it appears to the EDC that the Developer needs city financial assistance to complete the
redevelopment in question.
6. However,inasmuch as some of the assumptions underlying the Deveinper's original written
Banquet Center/Hotel"Investment Analysis"have changed,the EDC recommends that at some
point(to be determined by the EDA)in this process the Developer should be required to revise or
update that Analysis to reflect more current facts,circumstances and assumptions. The EDC
believes that the revisions and/or updates should include substantially more information and
supporting documentation than has been received to date. The operating income/expense
projections should be specific enough to enable a qualified financial consultant to conduct a
meaningful investment return analysis.
7. The information initially provided by the Developer characterized owner equity as"cash. The
Developer has now clarified that reference by indicating that the Developer will be pledging its
equity in the existingfacility as equity for the redevelopment project,rather than investing
additional cash. The contributed equity will be pledged as collateral for the Developer's other
financing, and will provide assurance to the DeveIoper's lender(s)and to the EDA that the
Developer has a significant investment at risk. Accordingly,the EDC recommends that the
Development Agreement be revised by deleting the provisions requiring the Developer to invest
"cash equity"as a prerequisite to receiving reimbursement from the City for project-related costs.
8. The Developer has estimated that the current owners' equity in the Mermaid facility is
approximately$4 million(after deducting existing indebtedness of approximately$750,000.00).
The Developer has indicated that a new appraisal is now underway,which will provide more
• specific information regarding the value of the existing facility. The EDC believes that said value,
along with the value created by the new construction(having projected construction costs of
approximately$7.5 million), should provide a new market value in an amount significantly greater
than the$5.9 million valuation that was previously used to calculate anticipated tax receipts and,
MMI
/.^
therefore,the amount of bonding that the redevelopment project can support
, 40 9. The EDC's collective belief is that the market value of the completed Mermaid project will
generate"captured"property tax receipts of at least$271,819.00 per year,which will be sufficient
to cover the required payments on a bond issuance that will provide the Developer with$2.25
million in project cost reimbursement(s)-- thereby eliminating the need to use any funds from the
"pooled TIF account" In short,the EDC believes that the redevelopment of the Mermaid can be
a"self-supporting"pay-as-you-go TIF project,in the sense that no funds other than the increased
property taxes on the redeveloped property would be needed to pay off the bonds that would be
used to provide the Developer with the financial assistance that has been requested.
10. The EDC therefore recommends that the EDA set a"ceiling"of$2.25 million on the amount of
project cost reimbursement to which the Developer may be entitled,with the understanding that
the actual amount of such reimbursement shall be ultimately dependent upon further analysis
regarding the Developer's financial need. The EDC anticipates that such analysis shall be
conducted(at the EDA's discretion)by city staff and/or by consultants retained by the city and/or
by whatever lender may be providing the Developer's permanent financing. For example,in the
event that the Developer is able to establish,to the EDA's satisfaction,that the Developer would
not undertake the redevelopment project in the reasonably foreseeable future without the use of
pay-as-you-go tax increment financing in the"net"amount of$2.25 million,the EDA would then
agree to provide the Developer with project cost reimbursement(s)in that total amount
11. One of the EDC members indicated a preference for conservatively assuming that the market
value of the completed project would not exceed$5.9 million. That member was willing to
Ili commit up to$50,500.00 a year from the pooled TIF account if doing so would enable the city to
provide the Developer with the$2.25 million in project cost reimbursment that the Developer had
requested. At least a few of the other EDC members were willing to commit some(unspecified)
portion of the pooled TIF account funds to the project on an annual basis,but only if it became
apparent that the market value of the redeveloped property would be lower than the figure that
would be needed to generate property taxes sufficient to handle the annual payments on a bond
issuance that would provide the Developer with$2.25 million in project cost reimbursement The
EDC members in question considered that possibility to be extremely remote.
12. The initial discussions/negotiations regarding the Mermaid project included the City's [potential]
acquisition of the Rent All site at a cost not to exceed$550,000.00,said amount to be paid from
the pooled TIF account If the"net"amount of the bond proceeds is increased from the original
$1.7 million to a new figure of$2.25 million,the$550,000.00 difference-would be paid to the
Developer in the same fashion as the original$1.7 million--as project cost reimbursement In
order to get reimbursed for the cost of the Rent All site,the Developer would have to pay that
cost Accordingly,the EDC recommends that responsibility for the acquisition of the Rent All site
be assumed by the Developer.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
Fob.•' cussion only. 0 i ection will be sought regarding whether a"final"version of the Development
• = ement should •e placed on ' a•enda for the 2-8-99 City Council meeting.
• • e'er Carroll(61--71 -4029)
conomic Development Coordinator
N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\COUNCIL\01-0I-99.REV
Mounds View, Minnesota
105 Room Americlnn •
•I
Supplemental Update
to the
Market Analysis &
Economic Feasibility Study
(Conducted in December 1995)
r
Produced for •
I
Mr. Daniel Hall
Mounds ,
I Vista Inc.
2200 US Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
Conducted by
Morgan Nederhiser
February 1999
mDAMarketing Development& Develo Associates
• � � Y3 rn } t d ;,,,1!; . "F - WAt3,44.t' -! r. h� .g ,Au f :. :. sst' h t 3 _ �Fe-. t c :`- l kr
M
I iii Ott - _
1 Feasibility Studies
Loan Packaging
1 iv-LDA
Development Consulting
Asset Management
Operational Audits
erketing & Development Associates Accounting Services
IMarketing
1 February 10, 1999
I Mr. Daniel Hall
Mounds Vista, Inc.
2200 US Highway 10
IMounds View, Minnesota 55112
I RE: Supplemental Financial Update to the
hotel Market Analysis & Economic Feasibility Study
IDear Mr. Hall,
IMarketing & Development Associates, an independent hospitality consulting firm, was
engaged to perform an update to the original Market Analysis & Economic Feasibility
. Study that was performed in December of 1995.
I The original report focused on the viabilityof a hotel beingincorporated into the
g P P
existing facilities at your site. When the report was commissioned, JLC Marketing
Iconducted extensive interviews with the management and owners of the hotels
located throughout the north metro region of the Twin Cities. Major corporations,
travel agents, Convention Bureaus, industry professionals and numerous others were
interviewed to identify the demand generators that will effect the proposed hotel.
Ultimately, the knowledge that was obtained was outlined and summarized in the
aforementioned report.
Lodging Supply
IThere have been a number of changes within the market area lodging supply since
the 1995 report. While some hotels have been repositioned, others have been built.
One mid-priced hotel was refranchised as a Hilton (Upscale) and one economy priced
I hotel was repositioned as a Holiday Inn (Mid Priced). New construction in 1996 added
a Super 8, a Comfort Inn and a Holiday Inn Express to the secondary supply.
lrosse Office: Minneapolis Office: St.Paul Office:
I ng Pines 5151 Edina Industrial Blvd. Suite 550
unty Road 12 Suite 225 8636 Seasons Court
Dakota,Minnesota 55925-9709 Edina,Minnesota 55439 Woodbury,Minnesota 55125
Phone 507.643.6982 E-Mail Jstenslan@isd.net
Fax 507.643.5115
E-Mail ProfitMore@aol.com
C
S
In 1997 the Residence Inn and Fairfield Inn opened in Roseville. The most recent
change to the supply will be seen with the opening of the Hilton Garden Inn - •
Shoreview. This hotel is under construction and scheduled to open in the spring of
this year. The hotel will have approximately 100 guest rooms, is limited service and
will be creating the most immediate impact on the Holiday Inn Arden Hills and the
Hampton Inn Shoreview. While other limited service hotels may feel the impact
created by this property, we feel that the hotel will have nominal impact on the
proposed property in Mounds View. However, in our Supply & Demand forecast we
I have factored in half of the guest rooms to simulate the future occupancy forecast of
the PRIMARY COMPETITOR hotels that the Americlnn Mounds View will be positioned
against.
Lodging Demand
Our interviews found that the quantified demand that is identified in the original report
is still present in the market place. Some demand generators have softened while
others have increased. Overall, the market is still presenting numerous opportunities
for a new hotel in Mounds View to succeed.
Supply & Demand Trends
After updating the positioning of the lodging supply we ppurchase
d two historic trends •
reports from Smith Travel Research. The data in the report is gathered directly from
the individual hotel franchise reports and can be considered extremely accurate.
We reviewed the operational trends that have been achieved by a larger group of 18
hotels surrounding the Mounds View site and then reviewed the PRIMARY
COMPETITOR hotels.
Our decision to take this approach in our update of the market performance was to
discover all of the changes in the larger supply base as well as the direct competition
of the Americlnn.
We.discovered that the new additions to the supply did create impact on the larger
market, causing occupancy to soften. In turn we also discovered that demand slowed
down during the same period. .
Demand has begun to increase and room rates are very stable. Overall, the shows
every indication of prosperity.
•
•I
IForecast of Future Performance
i
I Our review of the original 10 year forecast of revenues and expenses found some
areas that were modified or updated. The most significant issue is seen in the
separation of the hotel revenues/expenses from the existing business. The previous
I direction had been to simulate the financial expectations of the project as a hybrid full
service hotel with rooms, food, beverage, bowling and other income. At the request of
Mr. Hall was have treated the hotel as an independent entity (limited service hotel) in
Iour financial forecast. . .
While the forecast of revenues and expenses show only the hotel, we remind the
J reader of this update that the existing Mermaid business base will add to the
attractiveness of the project.
I The other change that will effect our forecast is seen in the number of guest rooms of
the Americlnn. The hotel currently is planned with 105 guest rooms, not the original
135. This reduction in guest rooms called for a change in the customer. mix . The two
I group segments will not be expected to capture the higher percentages of annual
business that they were originally forecast with.
i With our knowledge of the market, the project and lodging situation we prepared a five
year forecast of revenues and expenses for the subject project. Our update includes a
review of the hotels ability to achieve market penetration and room rates by segment.
•
IWith all of the conclusions combined we estimate that the new Americlnn will achieve
the following financial results:
i
IUPDATED FINANCIAL FORECAST-105 GUEST ROOMS
Occupancy ADR Room Revenue Total Revenue - Net Operating
Income
Year 1 - 64.0% $58.80 $ 1,437,341 $ 1,535,453 $396,620
Year 2 67.0 % $61.50 $ 1,579,102 $ 1,687,028 $457,361
Year 3 69.0 % . $64.00 . $ 1,692,432 $ 1,808,787 .$518,652
1 Year 4 71.0 %
Year 5 72.0 % $66.00 $ 1,795,910 $ 1,918,358 $557,380
$67.00 $ 1,848,798 $ 1,975,730 $575,859
Prepared by: Marketing & Development Associates
IThis supplement to the original report represents our best judgment and professional
opinion based on the assignment. Our report may be regarded as objective and
iI ndependent by any prospective investors or lenders who read this report. The
content of this report will focus on the changes that occurred regarding the lodging
trends of the market area. We have based our conclusions on the sum of the data
I • that we have reviewed, not just on the data that is included in this report.
I
This report nor any of its contents nor any reference to the consulting firm, Marketing & •
Development Associates may be included or quoted in any document,: offering circular
or registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, appraisal or other agreement
111 without MDA's prior written approval of the form and context in which it appears. Such
permission will not be unreasonably withheld.
it Information furnished by others is presumed to be reliable, and where so specified in
the report, has been verified; but no responsibility, whether legal or otherwise, is
assumed for its accuracy, and. it cannot be guaranteed as being certain. No single
41 item of information was completely relied upon to the exclusion of other information.
It is recommended that the reader should rely upon only authorized copies of this
report. Authorized copies are printed on recycled ash linen paper containing
Marketing & Development Associates original letterhead. Our letterhead is printed
with forest green ink. All original signatures are in blue ink. Any copy that does not
have the aforementioned elements should be considered unauthorized and may have
been altered.
When the original Market Analysis & Economic Feasibility Study that JLC Marketing
Associates was retained to complete in the fall of 1995 lists Morgan Nederhiser as
1111 one of the team members who conducted the report. Marketing& Development
Associates served as a sub-contractor to JLC to are re the report dated December
p p
4, 1995. Our firm conducted the original interviews and jointly preparedthe original
report for presentation. Thus, we feel we.can confidently comment on each section of
_ the aforementioned report in summary form, due to our intimate knowledge of the
entire project, from its inception to the present date.
If the reader has any questions about the content of this report,,please contact
Marketing & Development Associates at 1.507.643.6982.
114
Respectfully submitted, •
111 Market' g e elopment Associates
i a •
ill Morgan Nederhiser •
President
MPN/klc
2 ,
111
•
1. Chapter 1 Nature of the Assignment
i
IMr. Daniel Hall engaged Marketing & Development Associates, an independent
hospitality consulting firm, to review the hotel Market Analysis & Economic Feasibility
I Study that was prepared in December 1995. We were asked to review the original
report, the lodging supply and the lodging demand in the market area.
I Since the completion of the original report Mr. Hall has indicated that numerous steps
have been taken regarding the planning of their project. The development has been
analyzed in detail, franchises have been reviewed and it has been confirmed that the
Dhotel would be professionally managed by an experienced management company.
In short, Mr. Hall has asked that we discover any significant changes to the market
Isituation --- changes that would influence the viability of a new hotel in Mounds View
To make our final determinations we have revisited the hotels that were included in
. the original report, conducted interviews with area townships, city offices, hotel
franchise development representatives and numerous hotel developers. We have
also contacted representatives from various demand generators that are reviewed in
I . the December 1995 report.
I
We have addressed each section of the report in the following pages.
I .
I
I
t
I
1
. x
• 4
Chapter 2 General Market Trends
The overall market trends have not seen any significant changes. Suburban
populations are still increasing while downtown populations are softening. Incomes,
new business and industry are prospering in the same communities as seen in
1995. While the City of Lino Lakes, St. Anthony and New Brighton had no new
businesses to report Coon Rapids expressed the most optimism regarding new
companies that they are trying to attract to their community.
We did find that neighboring Brooklyn Park reported over 4,000 new jobs are expected
to enter their area. Although Brooklyn Park is not in the original report we have
included this information as the lodging situation has seen changes driven by
-Brooklyn Parks prosperity.
.
1 2
Chapter 5 Lodging Supply Analysis Competitors •
The lodging supply that was originally reviewed included 19 hotels. There were 1,799
rooms available in the full service supply and 772 rooms available in the limited
service supply. We have interviewed representatives-with each of the hotels and have
prepared Exhibit 1 with the indicated 1996 year ending performance data of each
hotel. Our main concern in this update was to review the performance of the full
service hotels as the Mounds View development would most accurately reflect the full
service performance.
We repositioned two hotels into the secondary. competitors grouping. Those hotels
are the Best Western Maplewood Mall and the Country Inn White Bear Lake: Our
review of the area and the demand showed us that the main lodging opportunities
that are found closer to the Mounds View site leave these two properties as secondary
threats. At the same time, new additions to the supply are being added in Roseville
and will effectively eliminate a majority of the Mounds View hotel's ability to capture
- demand away from these two hotels._ It will simply be a case of too many competitor
hotels being located between the prospects and the Mounds View site.
•
Rs
We also updated the room counts from each full service hotel and applied the proper
40 names to each.
The former Holiday Inn Brooklyn Park was repositioned, upgraded, refranchised and
Iis now the Hilton Hotel (176 rooms).
The hotel formerly referred to as the Northtown Mall property is now labeled as the
Fairfield Inn. At the time of the original report the franchise had not been selected.
The original report reviews a number of projects that were rumored or planned for
Idevelopment in the north metro area. Of the seven projects three have materialized
and impacted the lodging supply. These three hotels are all limited service and
located to the northwest of the Mounds View site. :They are the Super, the Comfort Inn
j. and the Holiday Inn Express: All three of these hotels would be secondary.
competitors to the proposed Mounds View project..
We also discovered that new projects are being planned for or are under development
in the market area.. Current the Marriot Inn and the Fairfield Inn opened in the
Roseville are and the Hilton Garden Inn will be opening in Shoreview.
While the supply has evolved during the past years, there.are no new full service
hotels that are known or planned that will impact the new Americlnn in Mounds View.
;41)
5 . ,
Chapter 6 Lodging Demand Analysis10
When we interviewed the hotels in the market area we also inquired as to the demand
E for lodging and what each property was seeing inasmuch as the strengths or
weaknesses or the market. We did not encounter any new demand generators that
will directly effect the market area except the Anoka County -Blaine Airport. The
I lodging demand that can be expected to be generated by this facility is estimated at
approximately 100 rooms annually. We have not included this as new demand due to
rr the number of hotels that will be competing for this business.
We also contacted a number of companies that we interviewed when we performed
thework for JLC Marketing in 1995. What we found was straightforward. Business is
-strong and the companies are using the same amount of rooms as they were before.
The only significant change we discovered concerned the repositioning of the two
p _ Brooklyn Center hotels.
The companies that were using Upscale hotels like the Sheraton Metrodome or the
Northland Inn now have the Hilton (former Holiday Inn Brooklyn Center). The corporate
demand appears to be stable yet the facility/s capturing that demand has shifted. At
the same time, the Midpriced hotels in market area now have a new and powerful
competitor with the reopening of the Holiday Inn Brooklyn.Center (former Days Inn).
Overall, what we discovered was that the lodging demand thatwe could quantify
appears strong and stable. This includes the demand for the Individual Corporate,
Group Corporate and Group Leisure segments.
..
I . .
No Lodging Forecast
To date, occupancy has stabilized with the continued increases in the lodging supply.
I The major contributor to the lodging supply has been in the limited service segment.
Overall financial performance is still increasing due to the continued growth in
II . average rates. New construction is still on the rise ---especially in secondary and
tertiary markets --- however these two segments are seeing their supply growth slow
with caution. Mortgage money has been more accessible and interest rates are
4 relatively stable.
The long term forecast for the overall hotel US hotel performance concludes that hotel
0 profitability-will continue to reach record levels in.all segments. Some markets will
see the strain of too many hotel rooms being added before the demand has had a
• chance to increase occupancies. The extended stay segment is the segment to
I , watch as demand is increasing more rapidly than the supply.
Even if the hotel industry sees another decline or should another recession occur, the
Nindustry itself is not expected to have much negative impact. This is due to operators
understanding how to run their facilities more efficiently. At the same time, the
number of hotels that are now owned by major corporations and REITs (Real Estate
NoInvestment Trusts) isso significant that capital will be available to maintain both the
product quality.and debt service demands.
4 Finally, over the years operators have learned how to improve profitability. In 1997, the.
industry profits were 6x higher than the last combined years! 1998 is expected to
Ishow a similar trend.
Unfortunately, should the industry slow down in the next few years, smaller under-
4 capitalized properties may be hurt. Like any business, customer expectations need to
be met or exceeded --- hotels that can not continue to do so will suffer.
11 What does this mean? In the shortest terms, the hotel industry is doing very well.
"II. .. While there are more rooms to fill in most markets, room revenues areincreasing
along with profits. Money for new construction is available and the industry has
1 become a very solid investment tool. In 1997 the mergers of hotels companies and
acquisitions of individual hotel portfolios.exceeded $50 billion. Wallstreet, investors
and banks have become very fond of the industry with returns being ashigh as 30% in
4 the first year a newhotel is built.
Even with a strong industry we are seeing mistakes being made. We have seen our
0 fair share of small companies or individuals propose tobuild hotels, motels and -
resorts in markets that simply can not support the new supply.
0 .
Is this the case in Mounds.View? No it is not. In the towns where new construction
isn't warranted, there is typically one vital ingredient missing --- the demand for
,t . lodging. The Mounds View market area has adequate demand for a new hotel.
17
. .
111 .
Primary Competitors
After reviewing the changes in the larger lodging market area, we have refs
historical review to look at only the hotels that the newsd rhe
Amenclnn will have
competitors. as primary
There are 9 hotels within n the.group of primary competitors with a total of 1,600 guest
rooms available for occupancy. Thesecond research group includes the following
111
g
PRIMARY COMPETITORS
Hotel Name Location
Holiday Inn Brooklyn Center : Rooms
Ramada Inn Roseville 217
Northwest Inn Brooklyn Park. 255
Hampton Inn Shoreview 215
Sheraton Hotel Minneapolis 120
Holiday Inn Arden Hills 252
Best Western Kelly Inn Fridley 156
CountrykonInn &Inn Suites Coon Rapids 95ill
Hi
Brooklyn Center 114
176
Prepared by: Marketing & Development Associates
Ida Forecast of Future Changes
Occupancy
r •
With the known changes to the lodging demand and the anticipated changes to the
lodging supply, we prepared a model of the PRIMARY COMPETITOR lodging situation
to reflect our forecast of future changes.
When we prepare a forecast of supply and demand changes, our goal is to establish
I a knowledgeable view of the market trends to make future assumptions based on this
knowledge.
I For the purpose of this update, we have established that the demand for lodging in with.
9 9
the PRIMARY COMPETITORS was quite strong in its growth in 1998. However, we .
feel it is both conservative and prudent not"to anticipate the same growth strength in
r future years.
In 1998 the demand for lodging had increased by 5.9% to generate an additional
'. 20,604 occupied guest rooms. We anticipate thatgrow
.the demand will continue to
but in a more conservative fashion. For the purpose of this presentation we have
forecast the demand to show the following changes.
iz-: Percent Increase New Occupied Rooms Primary P Com petitor
Average Occupancy
1999 4.5 16,727" 65.5 %
2000 3.0 11,653 64.4
2001 2.5 10,002 64.0 %
2002 2.0 8,202 65.3 %
,,f,: During our update we have factored two changes into the lodging supply. One•is the
`' new Hilton Garden Inn that is due to open in the spring of this year in Shoreview. This
100 room hotel is being position as a limited service hotel in the Upscale price tier.
As a limited service hotel the Hilton Garden Inn will not be a primary competitor to the
new Americlnn in Mounds View.but it will impact the primary supply. It will do so due
<," - to its price tier positioning as an Upscale hotel. While the most immediate effect will
be on the other limited service hotels throughout the demographic area, there will be . -
some impact on the Hampton Inn Shoreview and the Holiday Inn Arden Hills.
For the purpose of this presentation we have used half of the hotel, or 50 guest
r, rooms, as future supply impact to the PRIMARY COMPETITOR supply group. The new
i supply is divided into 1999 and the year 2000 when the new rooms impact the
existing supply. "
s
i
To show the potential impact of the Hilton Garden Inn we have factored 50 new
being added to the supply in 1999. This would generate 9,250 additional rooms
to
r
In turn, in the year 2000 there would be anotheroms i
inventory. 9,000 additional rooms added to the
Wehave then added the Americlnn to the market in the spring of 2000 with 105 new
guest rooms.
k ` ' - ' If the proposed hotel enters
the market in 2000 with 105 new rooms, the supply would
be increased by approximately 18,900 new rooms to fill. In the year 2001, the su l
would increase again with another 19,425 new rooms to fill. pP y
FORECAST OF PRIMARY COMPETITOR OCCUPANCY
Year Supply New °
/o Demand % Additional Area Occ
Rooms Change Change - Occ
, : Rooms
1992 584,000
0.0 385,671 5.6 66.0 %
1993 584,000
1994 584 0.0 390,229 1.2 4,558 66.8
000 0.0 378,832 . -2.9
1995 584,000 0.0 367,655 -3.0 -11,397 63.0 %
-11,177 63.0 %
1996 584,000 0.0 .355,301
1997 ' 584,000 . "3.4 -12,354 60:8.%
1998 584 000 0.0 351,105 -1.2 =4,196 60.10
0.0 371 709 5.9
1999 593,250 , 9,250 • 1.6 .388,436 20,604263.655 %
2000 621,150 27,900 4.5 16,727 65.5
2001 640,57521, 4.7 400,089 3.0 11,653 64.4%
v 19,425 3:1 410,091 2.5 10,002 64.0%
2002 640,575 0.0 418,293 2.0 °
8,202 65.3 /o
,( Hotel Change 1999 2000 ,
2001 2002
Hilton Garden Inn 50 Rooms 9,2.50 9,250
Americlnn 105 Rooms 18,900
"t 1,-.• 19,425
Prepared`by: Marketing & Development Associates9,250 27 900 19 425
,,,,.., .
fs',
Summary
�
�
r ,.:---
What this is showing us is that the new Hilton Garden Inn.will have some impact on
the area occupancy--- but not much. While the hotel will add to the supply, t e
demand strength is large enough to offset this and still maintain a solidarea����;' occupancy. Even when the Amer'
iclnn is opened and generating.the largest number
of new rooms to the market (the year 2000) the area occupancy can still be expected to
V=
average 64.4%. p y
rte �
talk. We feel that the new Americlnn can be forecast to achieve a first
rthat will reach the areayearoccupancy
: average and will achieve 100% overall penetration in the
market.
J
32
I
PIPWith 105 guest rooms, or 30 less than originally planned, the hotel will be capturing
guests in each segment in a slightly different way. With fewer rooms we know that the
Ihotel will have fewer groups and more individuals. Having said that we have adjusted
the segmentation as follows:
Segment Mix, Percent
Group Meetings 7%
Group Leisure 7%
I Individual Business 40%
Individual Leisure 46% _
I We feel that the new hotelwill capture the most9 uests from the Individual Leisure '
segment or 46% of its annual business. The second largest segment is expected to
be the IndividualBusiness Segment which is expected to capture 40% of the annual
I guest room sales. Both group segments are expected to capture 7% of the annual
sales.
'u:''
•
iv - '
ea:
ill
1 ,
•
$ ;
iii•. . 33
.• ,
1111
Chapter 9 Forecast of Future Performance
IRoom Rates
To determine what the market will support, in terms of guest room rates, we surveyed
all of the hotels in the large r demographic market area.
Each hotel was contacted on
three separate occasions. We spoke with staff and/or employees from each shift
0 (7:OOAM-3:OOPM, 3:00PM-1 1:00PM &-1 1:OOPM-7:OOAM) determine what room rates were
being used at each hotel.
it
While some hotels handled their reservation traffic better than others, it was very clear
that only a few hotelshave commendable training programs in place. The main issue
we were confronted with was speaking with someone who actually knew the current
0- room rates.
The poorest performer was the Sheraton Inn, followedclosely by the Hilton Hotel. At
the Country. Inn & Suites (Coon Rapids) we were transferred to a sale person --- simple
to get a room rate quote. Even then, that individual struggled with their computer to
look of the room rates for that very day. Both of the Comfort Inns were very excellent in
explaining features and room types and were noticeable superior (in terms of selling
- skills) over hotels like the larger Sheraton and Hilton.
41111
Our survey also found another indicator of poor training. While we made a total of over
57 telephone calls-to the various hotels, we were not asked for our name a single
time! The issue of being able to talk with one and two people at each hotel and being
0 able to shop room rates without being asked for a name is beyond belief. How can• these hotels expect to reserve rooms if they are not even able to begin qualifying their
`'
prospects'? Even when we were transferred to the sales person at the Country Inn we
were not asked to give our name.
While each of the hotels were able to quote room rates as we made reservations we
found that 50% of the hotels were quoting the lowest room rates first while the other
properties were quoting their highest rates first. The Holiday Inn Express offer us only
one room rate which was $72.50. At one point the Sheraton offered us a rate of$69
for a single when the average quoted rate for the same room is $1.19.00.
The Ramada Inn Roseville and the Hampton Inn - Shoreview both offered their
lowest room rates first. Rather than offering a higher room rate and reducing it if there
was resistance they both offered their cheapest rate and only their cheapest one. •
Getting either hotel to discuss the "regular" room rates was not easy --- to say the
least.
11135
1
l . The Baymont Inn (formerly the Exel Inn) was consistently the swiftest hotel in quoting
rates and making reservations. Again, the Hilton was the worst. Every time we
or contacted the Hilton Hotel we were put to a voice mail system and kept on hold. The
longest_duration was 13 minutes and the shortest time on hold was 6.5 minutes. We
were transferred, on average to two different people and still placed on hold again.
When we finally did get to speak with someone we were quoted their room rates. We
ill did inquire about the problems surrounding our efforts to book a room there and were
given host of excuses that ranged from the hotel being "very busy" or "mornings are
111 like this". Our favorite excuse was that "two people had just quit and we would just '
have to be patient".
rig_. The Extended StayAmerica had an interesting idea of selling. They quoted room
rates for one night but only after telling us about the advantages of staying there with
: ` their weekly rates. We were repeatedly clear that we were only looking for a room for
one night but this did not seem tomatter with their selling strategy. '
With all of the evidence of poor training, we feel that the Sheraton was the worst.
performer in their rate selling strategies. During the course of our telephone
,�.. interviews we were,quote no less than 14 different room rates, all for the same room
, types!
. Ouroverall conclusions about the selling effort in the market area is that improvement
is definitely needed. We know that during a conversation, the person who is asking
the questions is controlling the conversation. Rather than simply quoting room rates
, when asked, questions to further qualify that prospect should be asked to aid the
selling effort.
R ,._ . _ -
t
:1'4
- 36
a1..114;;;,... - -
This practice does not exist in any of the market area hotels and presents a powerful
opportunity to a new facility. •
ROOM RATE SURVEY-MARKET AREA
tiHotel Name Rooms Single Double Corp. Suite
Holiday 21489.00 89.00
H y Inn 79.00 149.00
Ramada Roseville 255 69.00 79.00 69.00 N/A
Northwest Inn 214 79.00 79.00 68.00 129.00
Hampton Inn 120 79.99 89.99 79.99 N/A
`'S Sheraton Inn 254 119.00 129.00 99.00 121.50
Holiday Inn 156 69.00 79.00 69.00 141.50
Kelly Inn 95 72.00 82.00 67.00 195.00
Country Suites 114 77.95 83.95 69.95 125.00
x ? Hilton 176 109.00 129.00 109.00 175.00
Comfort Inn - 56 60.00 63.00 54.00 72.50
11,„'' Super 8 48 49.00 54.00 44.00 94.25 ,
. : Fairfield Inn 59 61.00 61.00' 56.00 . 71.00
Holiday Inn Express 73 72.50 72.50 72.50 90.00
Comfort Inn 60 69.00 74.00' 59.00 N/A
Americlnn 83 69.00 79.00 59.00 99.00
Extended Stay America 104 54.00 59.00 N/A 79.00
Baymont Inn 99 59.00 64.00 54.00 85.00
Sleep Inn 150 79.00 89.00 72.00 N/�
Average Rate $ 74.25 .$ 80.86 $ 69.44 $ 116.20
V, Prepared by: Marketing & Development Associates
Our overall conclusions about the selling effort in the market area is that improvement
is definitely needed.. We know that during a conversation, the person who is asking
the questions is controlling the conversation. Rather than simplyquoting room rates
• when asked, questions to further qualifythat prospect should be asked to aid the
selling effort.
i,
This practice does not exist in any of the market area hotels and presents a powerful
opportunitytoa new.facility.
With our overall understanding of the market area hotels and the room rates that they•
are selling, we can easily understand how the PRIMARY COMPETITORS are
achieving an average daily rate of$71.13 (see Smith Travel Research - Primary
Competitors). _ Keep in mind that the room rates listed above were quoted in.February
j..' and not in the peak summer season.
sir ' With our understanding of the market trends and knowing that the newhotel will have
fewer guest rooms, we have forecast the property with room rates, by segment, that.
Aft
have been inflated from the original level by 6.5% What this means is that the room
rates of the subject hotel have been increased by less than half the amount that the Ilr
r37
• To: Economic Development Commission Members
From: Kevin Carroll, Economic Development Coordinator
Subject: Comprehensive Guide Plan update
(Economic Development Section)
Date: February 22, 1999 MEMORANDUM
At our regular meeting on February 25, 1999, we should have sufficient time to continue our
discussion regarding the Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Guide Plan
update. I am now in the process of revising the initial draft to reflect your preliminary thoughts
and the initial direction that you provided last Wednesday night, and I will have the revised
draft available for your review on Thursday.
For whatever"historical perspective" it might provide, this Memo will be accompanied by a
copy of the 1986 "Economic Development Plan." As you will note, it is over 100 pages long,
and it deals with a wide variety of topics that we will not be required to address in the
Economic Development section of the Comp Guide Plan update. Bear in mind that when the
1986 Plan was being prepared, Mounds View had not yet created any Tax Increment
• Financing districts, nor had development of any of the existing business parks begun. Roughly
1/3 of the 1986 Plan consists of a copy of a very detailed 1983 "Fiscal Impact Analysis"that
may have been prepared by an outside consultant. Other portions of the 1986 Plan include
"inventories" of various kinds(transportation system, parks, schools, utilities, etc.)that are
either not required for our current Comp Guide Plan update or are already included in
sections other than the proposed Economic development section.
There was some discussion at the last EDC meeting regarding Comp Guide Plan updates
prepared by neighboring communities. To date, we have received such documents from only
Arden Hills and Blaine. Arden Hills did not include an Economic Development section in its
Comp Guide Plan update. Blaine did not specifically identify any portion of its Plan update as
an Economic Development section, but its Community Development section did include a
few pages devoted to the topic of"Redevelopment." I have enclosed copies of those pages
for your review.
I anticipate that this Thursday's meeting will include a discussion of particular parcels or sites in
Mounds View that are not currently developed to their"highest and best use." Accordingly,
between now and then you might want to take a closer look at any buildings or sites (single
parcel or multi-parcel)that you consider to be candidates for redevelopment, now or in the
nea re.
Kevin Carroll (6 -717-4029)
Economic Development Coordinator
N:\DATA\GROUPS\ECONDEV\EDA-EDC\EDC\STAFF99\022599C.MEM
■